Today's thoughts aren't on technology in particular. But, considering this is my soap box, I can choose to vary my course if and when I see fit. After reading the below story, I couldn't help but post a thought or two about it.
School bans tag, other chase games
ATTLEBORO, Massachusetts (AP) -- Tag, you're out!
Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.
Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.
While there is no district wide ban on contact sports during recess, local rules have been cropping up. Several school administrators around Attleboro, a city of about 45,000 residents, took aim at dodgeball a few years ago, saying it was exclusionary and dangerous.
Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Spokane, Washington, also recently banned tag during recess. A suburban Charleston, South Carolina, school outlawed all unsupervised contact sports.
"I think that it's unfortunate that kids' lives are micromanaged and there are social skills they'll never develop on their own," said Debbie Laferriere, who has two children at Willett, about 40 miles south of Boston. "Playing tag is just part of being a kid."
Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I've witnessed enough near collisions," she said.I'm dumbfounded. No, scratch that: I think my head is going to explode.
We've all heard news stories, water cooler gossip and urban myths based in truth about preposterous and infuriating lawsuits filed in our already overbooked court docket. Unscrupulous, bottom dwelling lawyers (also known as "sharks") who defile the nobility of their trade by attacking fast food corporations for serving hot coffee without warning patrons strongly enough, food that's unhealthy and fattening to unsuspecting, innocent patrons, and drive through meals that contained no warning to not eat while driving (see below). Let's take a look at some actual suits that have been filed (but thankfully NOT awarded to the plaintiff) against a variety of entities in recent memory:
* In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something than can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.
* A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.
* In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.

* In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.
This is not even the tip of the iceberg. The list goes
on and on.
I guess what upsets me the most about this sort of litigation or fear of litigation is the greedy, narcissistic "professionals" that are pouring gasoline on the fire: lawyers. I'm taking this to heart for a lot of reasons -- the greatest being my utmost respect and admiration of
real lawyers like my brother, Jim. He's a man who chose law as his profession to reach out and help others who need it. Law is an infinitely complex and at times even elegant reality that demands professionals who can navigate its intricacies and pitfalls for clients that would otherwise inadvertently expose themselves to great danger (legally speaking) without the wisdom, experience and guidance of a true expert. This is precisely why lawyers go to law school, spending a fortune on tuition and books, studying case law until their eyes threaten to pop out of their heads, and that's all just a warm up for the hell to come that is
STUDYING FOR THE BAR EXAM.
Through my frustration, anger and dumbfoundedness I also feel profound sadness. It's because of the lawsuit happy bottom dwellers who twist the arms of and bully others purely for undeserving financial gain for both their clients and themselves that the honest, good hearted and brilliant lawyers have the work that's cut out for them doubled.
But because of the honesty, integrity and professionalism of true lawyers (like my brother!) I have hope that people who legitimately need guidance and representation through the challenging terrain of law will have the option to select a lawyer who will preserve and protect the Constitution and the rights of America's citizens.