£ddie

You might want to rethink that. My firm is defending several major telecoms in suits claiming that cell phones cause cancer because of excessive electromagnetic radiation emanating from the handset, While I have every reason to believe that the plaintiffs will fail miserably, you never know, we could be talking about cell phone makers being sued regularly in a few years. Cell phones are a relatively new thing. It will be decades before we know how they can affect us. It doesn't take much electromagnetic radiation to damage DNA. Hey, then we might have to ban them too if there's evidence they cause cancer. While we're at it, we know car makers can make zero emission vehicles and cars that run on alternative fuels such as propane, so let's ban every car with an internal combustion engine. Those cars just cause heavy smog, and a big fat hole in the ozone that will lead to increased skin cancer rates and the melting of polar ice caps.

Isn't the discussion here about smoking in New York? I thought so. Frankly, people suing their employers in great Britain, the Netherlands and Australia is dandy and all, but has little significance to us here. We have different laws. With that being said . . . "The Omnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act (Chapter 635 Laws of 1996 NY State) prohibits any party from suing the employer unless the employee sustained a "grave injury." This is some relief for the employer since it reduces exposure except in serious cases. The primary statute involved defines grave injury as: "only one or more of the following: death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand or foot, loss of multiple fingers, loss of multiple toes, paraplegia or quadriplegia, total and permanent blindness, total and permanent deafness, loss of nose, loss of ear, permanent and severe facial disfigurement, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability." If you think 'death' might apply in ETS cases, think again, 'death' means sudden on the job death (same goes for amputations). I don't know, and never claimed to know, what the law is in every state, but in the vast majority of states the law is similar, which means, ya can't sue your employer. As for the New Jersey case, it was a Superior Court case and not a New Jersey Supreme Court case, which means you shouldn'tassume it's the law of New Jersey. You'd have to track its history before you could say it's a valid cite. In any case, Jersey may have different Worker's Comp laws than New York does. Of course you can go ahead and sue Philip Morris for work place smoke if you think you've got a case, but I never said you couldn't--you can sue for whatever the hell you want in this country as long as a lawsuit is in good faith and not prohibited by law. But your original point was something to the effect that this NYC ban would be good, because liability would be minimized for bar/restaurant owners here. That point is still invalid because it wouldn't apply here (that is, unless you arguing for a national ban, which is (a) a pipe dream, and ( not the issue here). This is a discussion about how a smoking ban would affect us here, not in South Dakota or Great Britain, or Australia. By the way, Edward Sweda is a member of an anti-smoking propaganda group (read the footnote and run some searches on his organization). I wouldn't take his opinions and conclusions at face value (and I wouldn't take evidence from ANY propaganda group on either side at face value)--there are very very few unbiased sources in this debate.

No intent to get off topic, just stating the facts.

I spent two months studying Worker's Comp for the bar exam. I'm sure.

That won't happen. Worker's comp laws all over the country prohibit lawsuits against employers in 99% of circumstances. Smoking related injuries would not be one of the exceptions to the rule.

There is not one, not ONE reliable study that bolsters the position that limited exposure to second hand smoke results in a statistically significant risk of cancer or other problems. And when I say reliable I mean consistent with accepted statistical and research methodologies. The ONLY study that is remotely reliable is a study from 1988 that shows a potential increase of 15% or so in any risk. However, that was in the margin of error, so in sum, there is NO significant evidence that justifies the characterization of second hand smoke as a public health hazard. I'm not really a smoker, but if the government is going to indirectly cause economic harm to the hospitality industry, it should be based on something more than JUNK science.

Clinton's highlights were his foreign policy. As far as the economy he was the beneficiary of a stock market bubble, it's not that he was good for the economy per se. The President has very little to do with the direction of the economy; good economy or bad economy, the President is a mere bystander---most economists agree. All the surpluses and tax revenues that were generated were due to capital gains taxes from the sale of overpriced stocks and had much less to do with the tax increases of 1993. Being intelligent is only one component of being a good president, but it's not by any means the most important. It's about leadership. Many successful CEOs are not geniuses; they are successful because they are excellent leaders and can create a consensus. Clinton was extremely divisive and partisan. At least Bush has made an effort to work with democrats on SOME issues--that's what a leader does. Clinton only worked with the Republicans after he had no choice but to after they took over congress.

Yeah I meant all other things being equal, if you take a look at a very successful corporate lawyer, and you take a look at a very successful personal injury litigator (provided s/he's not in the big firm oligarchy), the personal injury litigator will probably make more money. The most successful (in terms of dollars) corporate lawyers are at Cravath and Wachtell making anywhere from 2 million, to 4.5 million a year. The most successful peronal injury litigators can make much more that.

If you ask me, the real money is in personal injury, toxic torts, medical malpractice etc. Ambulance chasers in private practice can make potentially millions a year. I know a personal injury attorney that plays golf most of the year, and earns his income by taking on a few cases, most of which settle. His last case he earned a $400,000 dollar fee suing a scaffolding company whose scaffold collapsed causing injury to pedestrians below. Not bad at all.

Yeah I agree. A lot of people end up in law school because they "have nothing better to do." If that's you, I would skip it. Most that go to law school with the attitude will want to slit their wrists when they actually start practicing in a firm, which involves a lot of drudgery, a lot of hours, and a lot of stress. And the job market is bad right now. It's still probably better than for business school grads though. I personally don't know many people that graduated without jobs because my recruting class was the last one before the recession hit hard. Now it's tougher to get good jobs. Government jobs generally are still less competitive than big firm jobs, but even there it's tight. In 4 years hopefully things will be looking up. Just keep in mind that that your job prospects are determined primarily by the reputation of the school you go to and the grades you get. I'm fairly happy only because I worked at my firm for a year before starting full time, so I knew exactly what to expect. I can't complain about never being home before 9PM etc. cause I knew what the deal was beforehand. Do your homework, or you will be miserable if it's not what you want to do. It's a tough way to make a living.

Happy B-day grandma.

This is just a sample of fields. Each field has subspecialties. For example, litigation includes personal injury, constitutional litigation, criminal defense work, etc. I do corporate finance work. Administrative Law Admiralty Agriculture Law Antitrust & Trade Regulation Banking Law Bankruptcy Law Civil Rights Commercial Law Communications Law Constitutional Law Construction Law Contracts Corporation & Enterprise Law Criminal Law Cyberspace Law Dispute Resolution & Arbitration Education Law Energy Law Entertainment & Sports Law Environmental Law Ethics & Professional Responsibility Family Law Gaming Law Government Benefits Government Contracts Health Law Immigration Law Indian and Native Peoples Law Injury and Tort Law Insurance Law Intellectual Property International Law International Trade Judges and the Judiciary Labor & Employment Law Law & Economics Legal Theory Litigation Military Law Probate, Trusts & Estates Property Law & Real Estate Securities Law Tax Law Transportation Law

I'm an attorney (I can't believe it either ). There are so many fields of law it's ridiculous. It's just as specialized if not more specialized than medicine. For the best schools, check U.S. News and World Report. I think their rankings are a crock of shyt, but employers DO pay attention to them. I know this doesn't answer all your questions, so PM me with anything else you wanna know and I'll get back to you. Overall, it's not a bad gig, if you're in it for the money, the money can be awesome, if you're a tree hugger, you can change the world for the better. I don't have any regrets.

I'm an independent. I think both parties suck. Dems have an affinity for race baiting, taxing me to death, and creating all these nifty socialist like programs that increase the size of government, resulting in utter waste. Republicans on the other hand are often prisoners of the Christian right, feel compelled to wage a fruitless "War on Drugs," and have too much of an interest in what people do with their own bodies or in the privacy of their home. I am an independent. I am a free thinker.

I guess you prefer Al Gore, a man, who along with Bill Clinton sold us out to China by allowing them access to missile technology they never had (which is a FACT, not an accusation). As a result, China has missile and satellite capabilities that it never had before and could potentially strike every inch of American soil with an nuclear ICBM. Ronald Reagan was almost impeached for shipping anti-tank weapons to Iran, while Clinton and Gore gets a pass for rescuing companies that gave the greatest tyranny on Earth an improved capacity to burn to ashes the cities of their own country. Hmmm, a guy who can't eat a pretzel, or a couple of traitors, one of whom was getting head from an intern while he was commanding members of my family in Kosovo? I think I know who I'd go with. The Bush is stupid line is kinda old already; they said the same thing about Reagan and he was one of the greatest Presidents ever. Ironically, Jimmy Carter was one of the smartest Presidents we've ever had, and he was a total failure as the President. Even though I didn't vote for him, I think Bush is doing a great job. You think Bush makes a mockery of this country? Do you know what a laughing stock this country was when the Lewinsky scandal broke? In Russia they were even making Clinton and Lewinsky dolls and cartoons. Now that's a mockery. By the way, I'm not a republican.

There was actually no mistake made during the Gulf War by not removing Saddam from power. Removing Saddam from power would have exceeded the scope of mandate behind the security council resolution that culminated with the Gulf War. The scope of mandate was to liberate Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. If we had gone in to extract Saddam, then we would have been violating international law, the same international law we wanted Saddam to comply with.

If you aren't working you can get a hardship deferral after your grace period is over. However, interest will accrue in the meantime. Just a thought.

Dude you have your facts wrong. The Stafford loan does NOT have a 9% interest rate. It's indexed to the 90 day T-Bill, which is still at historical lows. So what you're saying is just wrong. I just consolidated my federal loans including Stafford loans and my interest rate is 4.57%. By the way, I pay 800 a month, and I know others that pay over a thousand a month. So quit your bitchin folks. It could be worse.

Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, even though the intervening years have witnessed substantial U.S. military involvement overseas. While in "theory" Congress declares war, it rarely happens. Currently our present threat of force is within the UN framework, i.e., if Hussein doesn't comply with a new U.N. resolution, we have the right to use force. If we engage in unilateral action outside the UN framwork, ONLY THEN does it have to be justified by a self defense theory.

Saeed & Palash: Tide Edit 7 If you like Pappa, you'll like this. Dark and dirty beats.

And there folks is one of the best the University of Miami has to offer. Call me, dork.

And on one final note, the tree hugging Mandela was also opposed to the war in Kosovo on the same grounds as he's opposed to this war. I guess we should have listened to him there too, huh?

Exactly, you have your right to spew your liberal agenda, and I have the right to break down your arguments to show they stand with the strength of a house of cards.

As usual, you're wrong. Let's see, did Milosevic know we were coming during the Bosnian War? YES. Did Saddam know we were coming during the Gulf War? YES. Did the Viet Cong know we were coming? YES. It happens ALL the time. The threat of force is often sufficient to achieve our political ends. Because special forces are intended for SMALL SCALE operations, they don't exist to topple regimes or taking on entire armies, but rather, for rescue missions, capture missions etc. They are heavily armed infantry with the occasional Blackhawks used for air cover and transport. As far as stealth bombers, they're stealth capabilities are limited insofar conducting a full scale war. We NEVER have used stealth bombers exclusively in conducting any war. Writing about your opinions (especially when you resort to hackneyed ad hominem attacks on the President and the articles you post don't support your opinions as I've shown) on a daily basis to predominantly teeny bopper, flaming liberal clubbers does not give you more credibility than you deserve. Sorry.

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue. 2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons. 3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war? 4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief. 5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike. 6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes. 7. See number 1. 8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics. 9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS. 10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike? 11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary. 12. This supports military action. Your argument looks weak. Try again.