OS X is PROOF linux that sucks! 17109

begin KillFileMe.vbs

I took that to be understood. But I suppose I shouldn't have buttumed such a thing.

Anyway, that was *why* I mentioned it was a Democratic Congress. Otherwise some might buttume it all took place bakc in the days after Republicans started controlling Congress. (In one link, I don't recall if I included that one or not, Newt Gingrich was specifically mentioned. He's the left's old 'favorite man to hate' for everything imaginable, before GW and Cheney came along.)

As I said elsewhere, I don't know (and didn't want to bother checking at the time) which were settled, which were thrown out or which were successful in court. My main concern was-is-will be that the language of the law made harrbuttment lawsuits a forgone conclusion. In fact, prior to pbuttage of the "act" it was referred to by some as the "Lawyer Full Employment Act of 1990". The mbuttive increase (and continuing high level of such) in what can best be termed stupid or ridiculous suits showed there wa a lot of truth in that label.

I'm not claiming the "act" didn't have some good effects. I'm pointing out that a number of suits were enabled specifically because of the way the law was written. That effect was predicted by some of the detractors before the thing was ever voted on. Many offered better wording, alterations in language, amendments and the like. Most were called names in the newspapers and on TV, and they subsequently pulled back on their opposition and proposed changes.

Politicians are, after all, chickens first. (They're usually criminals second, followed by other things, such as being beholden to interests that can buy them off, kowtowing to one or another interest group to get lots of money and to buy votes, etc. Being responsive to the desires and needs of consbreastuents usually falls about 8th, or even later. Working for the good of the country is way down at the bottom of priorities.)

See above.

See above.

Look at what I wrote up higher.

I didn't look it up.

I can't say. See above.

I never wanted to make the case that the ADA is bad. I was making the case that the language of the ADA is bad enough to make expensive suits a forgone conclusion. The authors were too caught up in making themselves look good to listen to the detrators tell them what they could expect if the language wasn't changed. So, they got the result they were told they'd get.

In many cases, having a suit is a guaranteed settlement. Why? Because there's no concept of 'loser pays'. So there's no disincentive to making things up. You can lie, threaten, invent junk and it won't cost you if you lose. Some lawyers will agree only to be paid once a judgement is reached or when a Debt Settlement happens (usually getting huge parts of whatever is determined), so there's not even a disincentive of having to pay the lawyer off if one loses. Add in the many busy-body criminal enterprises, who are willing to spend a lot of cash on legal things, provide advertising and fund raising, have enough attention paid to them to get on the news and-or the talking head shows, and one doens't even have to do much to get nationwide notice if they happen to be taking up the cause du jour.

This all conspires to ensure that any defense *against* many of these suits is going to be expensive, often far more expensive than settling them out of court.

Personally, I think they should all take the approach Wal-Mart takes to such things. Right or wrong, they have a habit of not settling anything. They claim (rightly) that settlements invite more suits. More suits that are settled is far more expensive than a few that have to be challenged to the end. Instead, statehouses, other government bodies, companies and individuals like to get off cheap and hope it never happens again. They're many times their own worst enemies.

Anyway, the result was predicted. It happened. I don't care which were settled and which weren't. Many are, sometimes at huge costs to taxpayers because they're brought against a city hall or courthouse or some other body that will have to spend a lot of money to rectify something that may not even be a problem except in a coutroom.

As I said, the notion was a good idea, as such notions often are. The implementaton wasn't all bad. It could have been better. But I doubt there's much stomach among enough legislators to make the needed changes. After all, people might go on TV and talk bad about them.

As usual, the people who wanted everybody to think they were wonderful took a steamroller over many who told them what would go wrong. They could have altered the languge some and had the same *good* result while reducing the effect of the predicted bad. The detractors were shouted down, and the proponents got what they wanted.

Now that it's happening as they were told it would, the people with their names attached aren't there any longer to have to deal with the consequences. Typically.

Most who voted against the bill did so because of the expected outcome, because of the specific language, not because they thought the whole idea of the ADA was bad. As it turns out, they were right, as were a good number of the chickens who started against the language and were scared into thinking people wouldn't like them if they didn't vote for it.

BTW, the *biggest* proponent of it, George H. W. Bush, was defeated that same year. You'd think politicians would learn to start believing in things and acting on those beliefs instead of just trying to buy votes. These kinds of results aren't uncommon.

-- Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale to krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed against its giant tongue until every last drop of money is released. -- Rupert Goodwins, ZDNet(UK)