October 17 roundup

by Walter Olson on October 17, 2011

  • “Convicted King of Class Actions Builds Aviary, Regrets Nothing” [Lerach, Bloomberg profile]
  • Teva/Baxter suits: Latest Nevada you-made-the-vials-too-big propofol verdict makes no more sense than first [Glenn Lammi, Forbes; Ted at PoL]
  • EPA malicious prosecution in Hubert Vidrine case won’t be “isolated” unless we change our thinking [Ken at Popehat]
  • Title IX coordinator training: “How federal regulations are making college ‘risk management’ lawyers rich” [Robert Shibley, Daily Caller] A lawyer spots more problems with Department of Education regulations on campus sexual assault [Robert Smith, RCP]
  • Time to admit: on consequences of protecting big banks from capitalism, “Occupy” has a point [Nicole Gelinas, City Journal]
  • Lawsuits accuse Boeing of engine-air-in-cabin “fume events” [MSNBC]
  • About those “Topeka decriminalizes domestic violence” stories [Lowering the Bar]

{ 4 comments }

1 Jay Markowitz 10.18.11 at 2:00 am

An aviary is very apropos for Lerach, for just like a bird, he sh*t all over everybody and couldn’t care less.

2 William Nuesslein 10.19.11 at 5:17 am

I hope that somebody watches carefully the decriminalization of domestic violence in Topeka (last item above). The observation that women often drop charges against men was attributed to male dominance, and policy was changed so that police make the charge. But that gave power to political people such as Jeanine Pirro in Westchester County, New York. We continue to be cursed with domestic violence zealotry that plays well to the thoughtless residents in our county. I remember the case of a woman, a complete stranger to me, pleading to the judge to stop the proceedings against her husband. She claimed that she acted like a nut and that her marriage meant a lot to her.

People are not always in complete control of their emotions and 911 is a handy weapon. But police interventions in domestic dust-ups, beyond getting couples to cool down, puts tremendous strains on families. I understand that there is some evidence that the new policy saves lives, but that would not rule out the probability that a less extreme policy would work.

3 Jim Collins 10.19.11 at 3:36 pm

I’m trying to figure out the “fumes in cabin air” bit. Why would Boeing settle? The engines are made by either GE or Pratt & Whitney. Cabin air is bled from the compression stages of the engine, before combustion can take place. The air in an airliner’s cabin is constantly changing. The fuselage is never air tight, there is just more air bled in from the engines than leaks out of the seams. There is a dump valve in the rear of the fuselage that controls the cabin pressure. The only place where I can even think of fumes getting into the cabin would be when the aircraft is sitting at the gate attached to a Ground Power Unit.

4 Walter Olson 10.19.11 at 3:56 pm

Funny how the MSNBC article left out the “pre-combustion air” angle, thus leaving many readers with the impression that exhaust fumes are vented into cabins. It did sound like a curious way for aircraft to be designed.

Comments on this entry are closed.