[jdonn]

I found a double whammy! An awesome chance to mock and shake my head at lawyers (I love you Mike and Ken), and a nice example that following the 'written rules' when they are in contradiction with accepted social norms does not always endear you to your fellow man. Er, person.
Enjoy

[Phil]

The people that think psyching against rookies is OK read this story and think, "WTP"?

[kenrexford]

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here.

I happened to have worked years ago for the ACLU. The ACLU does a lot of good things to promote "civil liberties" in the U.S. However, sometimes the best battle to defend rights is the ugliest. Representing the Klan protesting. Representing the Pedifile Internet Porn guy on free speech grounds. Whatever.

Now, obviously this one sounds ridiculous. But, I'm sure you would agree that a promotion offering some gift to the first 100 white men who came to the game might sound a little suspicious. Or, what about a bar that charges ridiculous prices for drinks (which one doesn't?) granting a Gentile Night Discount to all non-Jews?

Society has evolved into an illogical set of inconsistent norms and mores and rules that simply make no sense at times. We want to pursue gender equality, and yet "women and children" is an often-repeated phrase during war, and women don't sign up for the draft (I don't think yet). We want to pursue race equality, but we cannot even agree as to what is supposed to be equal, as you cannot accomplish "equality" from one perspective unless you come up with unequal remedies for past inequality.

I mean, take breast cancer. I have no fadcts as to what the funding is for breast cancer research as opposed to prostate cancer research (seems to be 2X as much for breast cancer, but not sure which is more common either), but unless those dangling balls off of truck hitches count, I don't ever see patches for sleeves or bumper stickers supporting prostate research. That seems somewhat unfair.

So, maybe this guy is taking advantage of the law to make a buck. Maybe he is purely motivated by principle. Maybe he's tickled that his principles pay dividends. Maybe he has taken the money goals, the principle goals, or both too far.

But, I think there's perhaps more to the story than just what this author suggested, maybe. The author points out that this man's mother had breast cancer, which should apparently make him ashamed. Well, using that sort of logic, should the A's be ashamed because of all the older baseball-watching men, their primary supporters I'm sure, who develop prostate cancer, never have a day recognizing them or making their ailment known to the public, but instead have to endure yet another intrusion of the breast cancer marketing blitz into their baseball game, a slap in their face reminding them that no one cares if a man dies?

Again, though -- I AM PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

Well, using that sort of logic, should the A's be ashamed because of all the older baseball-watching men, their primary supporters I'm sure, who develop prostate cancer, never have a day recognizing them or making their ailment known to the public, but instead have to endure yet another intrusion of the breast cancer marketing blitz into their baseball game, a slap in their face reminding them that no one cares if a man dies?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[USViking]

This Rava guy stinks.

So does the judge who approved the settlement.

And their story isn't even the tip of the tip of the tip
of the claimant racket iceberg, which might subtract
more than $100 worth of value per person per year
in this country.

[inquiry]

omg.

[jdonn]

kfay, on Jun 11 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

Well, using that sort of logic, should the A's be ashamed because of all the older baseball-watching men, their primary supporters I'm sure, who develop prostate cancer, never have a day recognizing them or making their ailment known to the public, but instead have to endure yet another intrusion of the breast cancer marketing blitz into their baseball game, a slap in their face reminding them that no one cares if a man dies?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Oh snap.

[Trinidad]

I think that Ken is making a good point here. Whereas the actual case may be ridiculous, it is easy to see that it opens the door to genuine discrimination.

Having said that, there are other ways to deal with this than suing. A law suit blows this thing out of proportion. And it is one of those unwritten rules that your reaction should be in proportion.

If you are of the opinion that it is fundamentally wrong to give a present to the first N mothers, voice your opinion. Write a letter to the Oakland A's management, write a letter to the editor of your newspaper, or whatever. Do not waste enormous amounts of everybody's money over getting a fishing/sun hat as a present.

But I think the Oakland A's could have handled this better too. If I would have been the Oakland A organisation, I would have given Mr. Rava a hat rightaway when he started to make trouble. I would have a news reporter take a picture of Mr. Rava getting his well deserved hat and the Macey's coupon, with the compliments of the Breast Cancer Association and I would let the reporter do the rest of the work. That is how unwritten rules work.

Rik

[USViking]

Here's another claimant racket gig for you:

http://www.weirdspot...weblog/2004/12/

(from link):

Quote

A Florida phone sex operator has won a workers’ compensation settlement claiming she was injured after regularly masturbating at work, her lawyer said.

The lawyer ... was not sure whether the Fort Lauderdale woman’s claim was the first of its kind, but it certainly was out of the ordinary.

He said his client agreed to a “minimal settlement” earlier this month. He declined to disclose the amount.

During the course of her claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the now 40-year-old employee of Fort Lauderdale’s CFP Enterprises, Inc. said she developed carpal tunnel syndrome... in both hands from masturbating as many as seven times a day while speaking with callers, said the attorney, who spoke about the case this week on the condition that his client’s name not be revealed.

“She was told to do whatever it takes to keep the person on the phone as long as possible,” he said.

The woman used one hand to answer the telephone and the other to note customer’s names and fetishes and to give herself an orgasm during the verbal exchanges. 

Peachy system we got, just peachy, huh?

[Hanoi5]

I'm surprised he didn't want his free mammogram, too.

That was funny.

Quote

Society has evolved into an illogical set of inconsistent norms and mores and rules that simply make no sense at times.

And they'll just keep coming. There's an unwritten rule in the women are equal thing: it is not true.

Quote

I mean, take breast cancer. I have no fadcts as to what the funding is for breast cancer research as opposed to prostate cancer research (seems to be 2X as much for breast cancer, but not sure which is more common either)

As a bridge player you should be aware that there's twice the chance of a woman having breast cancer than a man having prostate cancer.

[helene_t]

Hanoi5, on Jun 12 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

As a bridge player you should be aware that there's twice the chance of a woman having breast cancer than a man having prostate cancer.

In the UK, incidence and mortality figures are similar (122.5 new cases and 27.7 deaths of breast cancer per year per 100,000 women, for prostate cancer in men the figures are 95.0 and 24.8).

However, the number of survivors is much higher for breast cancer than prostate cancer because breast cancer patients survive longer than prostate cancer patients do. 550,000 vs 215,000 in the UK. Presumable a substantial part of those 550,000 can be considered cured (now 80% of new cases are still alive five years later, but I can't find any statistics on how many become cancer-free) so the number of women that actually have breast cancer must be much less.

As for the "as a bridge player" thing, I think prostate cancer must be quite common among bridge players considering the age profile.

Source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancersta...eyfacts/?a=5441

[kenrexford]

kfay, on Jun 11 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

Well, using that sort of logic, should the A's be ashamed because of all the older baseball-watching men, their primary supporters I'm sure, who develop prostate cancer, never have a day recognizing them or making their ailment known to the public, but instead have to endure yet another intrusion of the breast cancer marketing blitz into their baseball game, a slap in their face reminding them that no one cares if a man dies?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Well, that sure shoots down one of this guy's possible arguments!

[TimG]

In the United States, male breast cancer accounts for 1% of cases of breast cancer, and it represents about 0.2% of all malignancies in men.

[Quoted from some apparently credible website.]

[helene_t]

Agree with Rik.

If it were about males (or whites, or whatever) who got denied promotion at their government job, or denied a government-funded scholarship, because of some affirmative action policy, then it may be worthwhile having a judge looking into it.

But taking this issue to court is ridiculous. I can see Ken's point that it could be a slippery slope, but I don't believe in slippery slopes. The line must be drawn somewhere and yeah, it's hard to say exactly where. But it's not hard to say on which side of the line this sun-hat issue is.

[luke warm]

i'm sure there are decent lawyers somewhere... hell, even the bible mentions one - one

[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Jun 12 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

Agree with Rik.

If it were about males (or whites, or whatever) who got denied promotion at their government job, or denied a government-funded scholarship, because of some affirmative action policy, then it may be worthwhile having a judge looking into it.

You neocon!