Message: My correspondence w/ Sharon Begley the Wall Street Journal writer:
6/29/03
Dear Ms. Begley:
I usually do not read your Science Journal column, because I have never once seen you write about science, as such, nor have I learned anything about science, as such, by reading it. You have written about the politics of scientists from your extreme left wing viewpoint ad nauseum, but this past Friday you exceeded yourself.
I assume that you were responding to a talking points memo from Party headquarters when you mounted your attack on Daubert, instead of being bought like most of the plaintiffs' lawyers Democratic shills. But, the management of trials is a core function of the law and has bloody little to do with science, which you never write about anyway.
Is your column a first salvo in a plaintiffs' lawyers' campaign to overturn Daubert legislatively?
Ironically, your column confirmed the wisdom of Daubert. By beginning with the story of poor Mrs.Soldo you attempted to create an emotional bias against Daubert. This only confirms the original argument of the opponents of junk science, that juries were being exposed to it in the highly emotional context of personal injury trials and were using it to find liability on the basis of emotion not science.
I am sending this letter to your editors not in the hope that it will be published, but in the hope that they will find you a more suitable role at the Journal such as editing dividend announcements.
------
6/30/03
I'm sorry that you missed my columns on cosmology, astrophysics, neuroscience, genetics, evolutionary biology and others, so if you like I'd
be happy to send them. I actually write fairly infrequently about policy
issues, so I'm surprised by the top of your note. As for the rest, I was unable to find any evidence that I got anything wrong in discussing the
substantive science that has been barred by Daubert hearings, but I would be happy to know if I did. Allbest,
Sharon Begley
Science columnist
The Wall Street Journal
-------
6/30/03
Dear Ms. Begley:
It's so much fun when they take the bait.
I read some of your columns and missed others. None of them said anything new or interesting about science. If you want to write about science you should apprentice yourself to Dennis Overbye for a couple of years. He cleans your clock.
As for Daubert, your plaintiff lawyer buddies spun you like a top. One thing I have learned in 30 years as a lawyer is that, until you have heard all of the evidence that a Judge has heard, you are not in a position to second guess his judgment. Appellate courts know this and that is why they commit these matters to the trial judge's sound discretion and they do not overturn trial courts on these issues unless the trial judge has abused his discretion.
Now it would be a poor (financially and professionally) plaintiffs' lawyer who could not convince you that you had 7 fingers. Do not confuse this with science or law.
As I said before, you proved that the Supreme Court was right when you opened the article with an appeal to the sad fate of the poor young mother. If that got you going, imagine what it does to a jury. That is why the Supreme Court thought that determinations about expert wittinesses should be made by Judges. Now you may not like that, and I am sure that your puppet masters hate it. But it is not a scientific issue; it is a quintessentially legal issue and you walked right into the trap.
If you want some more information about how bad the plaintiffs' lawyers really are, you should read your own newspaper, there were 2 good articles on the editorial page today. (I don't know why I said that, your hero Maureen Dowd never does, read her own paper that is.)
TTFN
RSS
Slashdot Mirror
sauve qui peut!
I have been married for 23 years, we have 3 children, 21,18 and 16 and now you tell me!
Message: My correspondence w/ Sharon Begley the Wall Street Journal writer: 6/29/03 Dear Ms. Begley: I usually do not read your Science Journal column, because I have never once seen you write about science, as such, nor have I learned anything about science, as such, by reading it. You have written about the politics of scientists from your extreme left wing viewpoint ad nauseum, but this past Friday you exceeded yourself. I assume that you were responding to a talking points memo from Party headquarters when you mounted your attack on Daubert, instead of being bought like most of the plaintiffs' lawyers Democratic shills. But, the management of trials is a core function of the law and has bloody little to do with science, which you never write about anyway. Is your column a first salvo in a plaintiffs' lawyers' campaign to overturn Daubert legislatively? Ironically, your column confirmed the wisdom of Daubert. By beginning with the story of poor Mrs.Soldo you attempted to create an emotional bias against Daubert. This only confirms the original argument of the opponents of junk science, that juries were being exposed to it in the highly emotional context of personal injury trials and were using it to find liability on the basis of emotion not science. I am sending this letter to your editors not in the hope that it will be published, but in the hope that they will find you a more suitable role at the Journal such as editing dividend announcements. ------ 6/30/03 I'm sorry that you missed my columns on cosmology, astrophysics, neuroscience, genetics, evolutionary biology and others, so if you like I'd be happy to send them. I actually write fairly infrequently about policy issues, so I'm surprised by the top of your note. As for the rest, I was unable to find any evidence that I got anything wrong in discussing the substantive science that has been barred by Daubert hearings, but I would be happy to know if I did. Allbest, Sharon Begley Science columnist The Wall Street Journal ------- 6/30/03 Dear Ms. Begley: It's so much fun when they take the bait. I read some of your columns and missed others. None of them said anything new or interesting about science. If you want to write about science you should apprentice yourself to Dennis Overbye for a couple of years. He cleans your clock. As for Daubert, your plaintiff lawyer buddies spun you like a top. One thing I have learned in 30 years as a lawyer is that, until you have heard all of the evidence that a Judge has heard, you are not in a position to second guess his judgment. Appellate courts know this and that is why they commit these matters to the trial judge's sound discretion and they do not overturn trial courts on these issues unless the trial judge has abused his discretion. Now it would be a poor (financially and professionally) plaintiffs' lawyer who could not convince you that you had 7 fingers. Do not confuse this with science or law. As I said before, you proved that the Supreme Court was right when you opened the article with an appeal to the sad fate of the poor young mother. If that got you going, imagine what it does to a jury. That is why the Supreme Court thought that determinations about expert wittinesses should be made by Judges. Now you may not like that, and I am sure that your puppet masters hate it. But it is not a scientific issue; it is a quintessentially legal issue and you walked right into the trap. If you want some more information about how bad the plaintiffs' lawyers really are, you should read your own newspaper, there were 2 good articles on the editorial page today. (I don't know why I said that, your hero Maureen Dowd never does, read her own paper that is.) TTFN RSS