Larry Silverstein, president and CEO of Silverstein Properties, the developer of the World Trade Center in New York is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from the airlines and other companies for damages related to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The defendants include American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines and Boeing.
Of the $12.3 Billion, $8.4 billion is sought to replace buildings and $3.9 billion would pay for lost income and expenses.
This could be a fascinating case and could lead to some interesting discovery, particularly the failure of the airlines to heed repeated warning in prior years to reinforce cockpit doors and spend more money on security. It will also make for some interesting questions of the superseding intervening acts of the terrorists. While crime will often cut off liability in tort, some crime is foreseeable and actionable. The process of defending against such allegation could prove quite embarrassing for the airlines, who have been relatively quite about their failures leading up to the attacks.
For the full story, click here.
deeply worried,
Funny, starting a post with the salutation above reminds me of the song “Dear Abby” by John Prine…
“Bob, esq. I am abashed.”
Wow, that might be the first time I’ve ever seen that word used in a sentence; as opposed to unabashed. Makes ya wonder if there’s such a word as “gruntled.”
“It wasn’t meant as a taunt, more as a hopeful call for a fellow philosophy major (at one time) to appear!”
Physics major>>Philosophy — metaphysics, epistemology, Plato, Kant with a strong independent interest in C.G. Jung. This might interest you, as opposed to anyone else, but it was while reading Derida’s essay on “Difference v. Differance” that got me so pissed off I made up my mind to run away to law school. Deconstructivism annoyed me so much, my entrance essay was on the topic of “Cardinality” — namely a desire to see a one to one correspondence between thought and reality….but I digress…
“Odo and Occam were not contemporaries but were on opposite sides of the great Medieval tussle between the realists and the nominalists.”
Ockham was like Xeno for me; a philosopher usually mentioned during an example by the professor in discussing something else I was more focused on; e.g. Kant’s “Critique.” Still stands as the Mt. Everest of Philosophy works for me; helped me analyze the Ninth Amendment.
But getting back to Ockham, it was out of sheer frustration of people bringing up the razor as a shield for their own intellectual laziness that I finally analyzed the hell out of it and realized the common interpretation (the easiest answer is usually the correct one) is completely wrong. Lisa Simpson gets an F.
Wow, it’s 3am.
Gotta jump.
Regards,
Bob
Vincent Caminiti,
“Data Venia – I’ll take an F for failing to express myself well.”
You speak english goodly enough for I.
“However, you are mistaken about my position on the ‘official’ story.”
Would love to hear it sometime.
Regards,
Bob
Bob, esq. I am abashed. It wasn’t meant as a taunt, more as a hopeful call for a fellow philosophy major (at one time) to appear! Odo and Occam were not contemporaries but were on opposite sides of the great Medieval tussle between the realists and the nominalists.
That’s all I can with Google’s kind assistance remember from my one Medieval Philosophy course taught by the great Professor Francis Kovach (in memory ever green).
Bob:
Data Venia – I’ll take an F for failing to express myself well. However, you are mistaken about my position on the ‘official’ story.
VC
niblet: “wackos, wackos, wackos galore here. I found the mother lode.”
“It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover [sterilization]. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. [One generation] of imbeciles [is] enough.”
BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200
Quick, run; it’s still good law!
“Did you notice my spelling got corrected? Probably a philosophy major!”
Actually, I’m still not sure if it’s spelled with a lower case or upper case K.
“Hey Bob, esq., who was Odo of Tournai?”
I have no idea; but I’m sure you’ll tell me.
“You say Po-tah-toe,…”
I say misprision of treason.
Regards,
Bob
Vincent Caminiti,
Thanks, but you sound apologetic for your unwillingness to accept the ‘official’ story.
Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio — The Burden Of Proof Is Upon Him Who Affirms – Not On Him Who Denies.
Arguing is reason giving.
When people argue, they make claims.
1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. — One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.
Part of my reason for raising the treason of Arnold by analogy is to recall the firm conviction of Washington to put Andre to death by the felon’s noose instead of an officer’s firing squad; as many of his most loyal officers wept &/or plead for–including Talmadge & Hamilton.
At that moment in time, Washington was The Categorical Imperative Incarnate.
The closest cinematic version of that form of resolve I’ve ever seen was in the film “Unforgiven.”
No apologies; no accepting absurdities in lieu of argument because someone feels the object of analysis doesn’t ‘deserve’ it.
“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Regards,
Bob