Thursday, March 19, 2009
Repug Blame-Game on AIG Bonuses set to Explode in their Faces -- Again!
The AIG recipients of $165 million of taxpayers’ largesse, er … protection pay for not driving our economy entirely to its knees – a million here, a billion there, and a trillion everywhere, after a while it’s real money – have inflamed the torch-and-pitchfork brigades to the boiling point with a little help from Stephen Colbert (below) and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Corner Time
The Tribune, in part, supported President Obama's expansion of embryonic stem-cell research with the argument that unused fertility clinic embryos are usually destroyed—so why not use them for research. With this reasoning you could justify harvesting the organs of irreversibly comatose individuals. They will never recover; why let their organs waste away?Just curious Curt--let's take those comatose patients you mention. How many of them will be incinerated unless implanted in a uterus? While you try to figure that one out:

On AIG, redux
Given that they are AN INSURANCE COMPANY, I am sure they have paid EVERY legal claim without objection or delay.
Right.
Memo to AIG Law Department
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am assuming that since your title is "Law Department" that you must actually employ or retain "lawyers" who went to "law school." Given that assumption, I am writing about your company's statements that they are "legally obligated" to pay outrageous amounts used for hookers, greens fees, love nest hideaway apartments, whites-only club memberships, spa getaways and other boondoggles "retention bonuses."
I am also a "lawyer" who went to "law school." Like most "lawyers" who went to "law school," I took a first-year "law class" called "Contracts." Did you? If so, did you learn in said class that there are several colorable (albeit not necessarily successful) arguments that the company could make with regard to these agreements? Either in Contracts, or in a "law class" called "Remedies?" If so, you would learned that in such cases that money damages are the only remedy? After the greedy bastards claimants have carried the burden of proof as to both enforceability and damages?
In closing, esteemed colleagues, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THESE BONUSES. Make the greedy bastards valued employees sue you for it. It may make them angry, and cost some legal money, but you look better and if you lose the nitwits who drove your bus off the cliff your loss is?
Take it to a jury!