Yes, it's time to gripe about stupid lawsuits again. A family in Lousiana, the Martins, is suing Nintendo because their epileptic kid had a seizure playing video games. I may be misremembering, but all video games since the N16 (SuperNintendo), and maybe even including the old NES8, have had warnings, suggesting parents keep epileptic kids away from the games. Apparently, this family can't read, and also lack the common sense to keep their kid away from that kind of stimuli (should be obvious). Of course, the idiot family smells money, and also wants Nintendo to do some stupid things like having all video games warn about risks of seizure continually while the game is in use. I'm sorry, but if you happen to be unfortunate enough to have the mental defect, you can deal with the hassle. Not Nintendo's problem. Hell, what if there were some people who, because of some horrible torture, on seeing a violin would enter a homicidal rage? Perhaps we'd expect "Warning, Violins" on any TV show or product that might depect a violin. So, Eric and Michael Martin, sod off.

From the other side, apparently in Texas, good old-fashioned blacklists have found a new use -- doctors are using them to fight malpractice lawsuits. The basic idea is, if you sue, doctors can look you up, and presumbly will refuse to treat you. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? It's pretty complex. One argument for is that the lawsuits have become a carnival of greed for people who suffer from slipups from people trying to help them. The settlements, facilitated by insurance, have often become much larger than the injured party's earning power for the rest of their life (millions). An argument against is that the existence of such blacklists does cut off a class of people from medical care, and encourages doctors in a sad practice -- the systematic grouping of people into those they will treat versus those they won't.. (please don't start on how money already creates such a divide -- different discussion for some other day). Is it free association? Should it be? For some resources in society, free association isn't so hot an idea -- utilities, and other essential services when these services are sufficiently sparse or controlled as to be inaccessible for excluded groups. Imagine, for example, if the local grocery store were to refuse to sell to asians, or your local electric company refuse to provide power to muslims. Such a control over an essential resource threatens to unbalance society by allowing some to inconvenience others to the extent that living is difficult in affected areas, and encourages factionalism that introduces a harmful competition reminiscent of people from different nations. Any thoughts on the blacklist versus malpractice lawsuit issue?

I'm still chewing on the Gibson film's possible antisemiticism... will write more later.