Productivity in the Age of Over the Counter Medicine

As I pulled out of an allergy produced fog this morning and started to really crank some work out, I was struck by a thought. I took for granted that all I had to do was take a relatively cheap little 10 mg loratadine tab and be able to concentrate on work for the rest of the day.

How much less productive were folks before easy and available minor medications were common?

It is more dramatic to think of people dying from inferctions or tetanus and having an easy cure via antibiotics or immunizations, etc., these days. But what about all the more minor things that would make a day, a week, a month a struggle to concentrate?

These are great days that we live in, with such things available.

An Afghan who knows how to take care of a sticky wicket

I wonder if CSM Bones could use this fellow to train the ANA in grenade throwing? Heh heh.

A Glimmer of Justice?

Could it be that Illinois may actual be stumbling toward basic rule of law in it's widely decried tort system?

I am going to go read the Nolan opinion and see...

UPDATE: OK, for background's sake - Illinois Law under the old Lipke standard forbid a defendant in an asbestos injury case from making any mention of any other exposure outside of those defendants standing at trial. You can see what happens if someone sued/accused 120 companies and ended up taking settlement money from or dismissing all but one company. They stand alone and nobody on a jury gets to hear anything about the 35 years the plaintiff worked with 56 other asbestos containing products - just the three times he may have used brake shoes from defendant company X (aka The Merchant of Death!!!!). This rather bad and unique restriction has now been dumped by the Illinois Supreme Court.

What will the effect of this opinion be? As my old mentor used to say in the face of any decision or fact being brought to light ... "so what?" It is not enough to simply point to the decision without knowing what its real effect on the tort system in Illinois [ie. how the heck do you reconcile the Nolan decision with this]. I think it will reduce the number of peripheral defendants that get dragged in and have some money extorted from them by fear of being left alone to face the music at trial. Conversely, the main targets of a lawsuit will now have to bleed more to satisfy the contingency fee plaintiff bar's appetite. It will be difficult for the plaintiff's bar to spin this as some evil ring kissing Court bowing to corporate power - the Opinion was drafted by one of the more liberal members of the Court, and joined by others. The only dissenter agrees with the main point of the decision, just not the order for a new trial.

So, after reading the opinion, I think it is a step in the right direction - but not overly much more than that.

Somewhere near Pakistan

Pouring a cup of coffee and I heard the distinct sound of incoming 107mm rockets. Couple in the FOB. Nobody hurt. Missed me again.

Taliban Door Bell

I

was walking into an ECP of one of our very small unit locations and I looked up into a not so friendly welcome sign. "Front Towards Enemy".

I had my guys do a little camo on it, and then got behind the killzone.