Figure Skating Is Not A Sport

It is ridiculous that ice skating is in the Olympics. It is not a sport and should not be given any credibility by receiving the international stamp of approval. Ice skating is nothing more than performing on ice, which does not constitute a sport. It should be removed from the Olympics, so we do not have to continue listening to the soap opera dramas that are associated with it.

A sport is very simple. There must be a objective method to determine who the winner and loser are. In many sports a person is racing against the clock - an unforgiving force and something that cannot be manipulated. In other sports, the athlete is competing with another to score more points. That’s it.

Any activity where there is a “judge” who will provide some subjective score to determine which performer is the winner falls outside the definition of a sport. The Olympics is designed to have athletes compete with one another in sports, not performances - leave those awards up to the Tonies or the Academy.

The debacle in the 2002 Olympics is a case in point. The French judge was on the take so she sandbagged one of the ice skating competitors and gave them a score that was way out of range with the other judges. Then this big turmoil arose as to how a judge could be on the take in the “prestigious” Olympics - which was already marred by the call girl scandal (much more interesting than a French ice skating judge). If ice skating had an objective perspective that could not be tampered with this brew haha would never had occurred. The reality is that the event is completely subjective, which prevents it from receiving any credibility.

There are a number of performances that the Olympics appear to hang on to. Diving, synchronized swimming, freestyle aerials, etc. This is not to say that these and other performance based events are not difficult, they are just not sports. Ballet dancing is difficult. So is rock climbing. Neither of these are in the Olympics, because the world is content to rank these as activities and not sports. There is no difference between ballet dancing and ice skating in terms of how they should be evaluated for a place in the Olympics. Neither should be there.

There will always be some form of human error in sports. A baseball umpire can call balls and strikes differently for different teams, which will result in a different result for the ultimate score. Many sports have sought to eliminate the subjective aspect. American football has instituted the instant replay so under certain circumstances the referees can review the tv camera to determine if the call made on the field was accurate. Horse racing has had the photo finish for many many years, so an unbiased viewpoint can be used to determine the winner. These kind of checks cannot be implemented for the subjective activities.

It is time to take the soap opera out of the Olympics and stick to serious sports drama such as the Miracle on Ice and other great moments in sports history.

Faux Science

The former Governor of New Jersey, Christie Whitman, who left office to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2000 was recently interviewed. One of the commentators asked her a question about global warming and she was emphatic that it is not "global warming" but rather "global climate change." The reason for this distinction, according to Governor/Secretary Whitman, is that not everywhere in the world is going to warm up; rather the climate will change. It is true that scientific predictions show that due to human activity not everywhere in the world will get warmer. For instance, the predictions are that Western Europe will become much colder and possible even similar to a tundra.

Contrary to Governor Whitman’s statement, it is "Global Warming" and not "Global Climate Change." The issue is not that Global Warming is going to cause everyplace in the world to become warmer, the point is that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing causing the climates of the world to change. If Governor Whitman, who was recently the former head of the EPA, does not understand what "Global Warming" refers to, then it is apparent that this entire administration does not understand the term or the issue. This may, in part, explain why the Bush Administration refused to reduce the amount of arsenic in drinking water, pulled out of the Kyoto Climate Treaty, seeks to drill oil in ANWAR, and walked out of the Montreal Climate Summit - they did not understand the environmental issues with which they were presented.

The Administration, with backing from corporations like Exxon-Mobile, maintains that Global Warming is not actually occurring. It is argued that the Earth goes through cycles of warm and cold and scientists cannot show a causal link because carbon emissions and global warming. Some Republicans, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), argue that Global Warming is the "greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." They even stand on the Senate floor and point to the novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton as support for the notion that Global Warming is not occurring.

Michael Crichton also wrote a book about an island full of dinosaurs that was going to be used as an amusement park. Do the people that use State of Fear as support for their argument regarding Global Warming also believe that Jurassic Park is based in fact? If Jurassic Park is not based in fact, then what makes them think that State of Fear is? If they do think there is a dinosaur park on some remote island somewhere, do we really think these people are credible to speak about issues of science such as Global Warming, and do we really want these people running our country? Many of these same people are also attacking the teaching of evolution in schools. Are these the people we want deciding what our science curriculum should be?

Despite their objections to the science supporting "Global Warming," the consensus is that it is occurring. It is also the scientific consensus that human activity is a significant contributor to the Global Warming. Since we have a government that is antagonistic and obviously misinformed on this as well as other sound scientific theories, what is the incentive to believe anything the Administration or the Republican Party says on any scientific matter? There is none, and it is time that the people force the Administration and the Republican Party to acknowledge that they are and traditionally have been wrong on these issues to the detriment of the Country.

The American Rule

One idea for tort reform is to have the loser of a lawsuit pay the costs and attorneys fees for the prevailing party. It is believed that this rule, if implemented, would prevent "frivolous" lawsuits from being filed. While a rule requiring losers to pay in all situations would likely reduce the number of lawsuits from being filed, it would not serve the ends of justice we seek to have our court system achieve.

The rule discussed is commonly referred to as the "English Rule" because in Great Britain, the loser of a lawsuit is required to pay the costs and fees of the prevailing party. The "American Rule" has traditionally been that each party pays for their own representation. There are some exceptions to the American Rule. For instance, in federal civil rights cases, if the plaintiff wins, he/she can require that the government pay the costs and attorneys fees expended to vindicate the person’s rights. There are also specific statutes on the federal and state levels that provide for a prevailing party to be awarded attorneys fees. For the most part, however, every party is responsible for their own attorney’s costs.

For over ten years people were suing the tobacco companies alleging that the product that they put on the market was dangerous as designed and the tobacco companies should have been held liable for the harm caused by their product. For over ten years, the tobacco companies took a hard line stance on the issue and required that each and every case go to trial. This strategy served several purposes. First, the tobacco companies did not want to set a precedence of paying damage awards to anyone who died of lung cancer. Second, they figured they could win number of the cases through a war of attrition, which is to say the tobacco companies knew they could out spend the plaintiffs, inundate that plaintiffs with hoards of paper, and a number of the cases would go away simply because the plaintiffs could not afford to continue fighting the legal battles. This strategy worked for a long time.

In the late 1990s the first cases against the tobacco companies was won. A jury, for the first time, awarded a plaintiff with a stunning victory against one of the largest corporations in the nation. This seemingly anomalous result came about when it was learned that the tobacco companies had lied about knowing just how addictive their product was and their work to manipulate the addictive nature of the product. Now the tobacco companies are settling or consistently losing the cases that are brought against them.

During the years they were winning cases, the tobacco companies were able to pay for extensive legal representation. They paid the top firms huge sums of money to have numerous attorneys work on each case throughout the country. The attorneys’ fees were likely in the millions for each and every case that went to trial.

For ten years, plaintiffs lost their cases, but were they frivolous cases? At the time, they probably seemed to have been, but in retrospect, it is clear that they were appropriate. Additionally, it was in large part the ground work laid by the early cases that have allowed the later cases to succeed. Under the English Rule, however, each of the plaintiffs who lost the early cases would have been required to pay millions of dollars to the tobacco companies for their attorneys’ fees. This would have bankrupted even the most prosperous of plaintiffs.

The plaintiff has no control over the type of legal representation that corporations retain. Some corporations will retain the largest most expensive firms. Some corporations, like the tobacco companies, will not only retain these large expensive firms, but they will also seek to have numerous attorneys from those firms work on each and every case. It is not appropriate for the corporations to become immune from lawsuit simply because they are able to scare people out of bringing suit, even legitimate suits, based upon the fear of having to pay millions of dollars in the corporation’s attorneys’ fees in the event the plaintiff loses.

The English rule would have prevented the tobacco companies from ever getting sued for the hazards they created. It would have probably prevented Ford from being sued over the Pinto or the SUV rollovers, and it would have prevented a number of other cases which are meritorious from being brought simply because everyone knows that these corporations can outspend any individual that might consider suing a large conglomerate. This type of tort reform is bad policy and should be avoided and resisted by everyone who looks to the courts to assist people to vindicate their rights.