Close cover before striking

Silly advice surrounds us. Like the warning I've been told about that's found on a certain brand's baby buggy: "Remove child before folding." (My personal favorite from an informal competition run by New Scientist magazine.) And then there were some of the things our parents told us, like "Be sure to wear clean underwear in case you get in an accident." Which, unfortunately, served only to give many children the idea that if they never changed their underwear, they'd never get in an accident.

But then again, some advice is worth heeding - like "Read all the way to the end before you make up your mind." Case in point:

Washington (Reuters, February 1) - A group of asbestos defendant companies and insurers has declared its opposition to a Senate proposal curbing asbestos claims, and warned that industry groups working on the plan do not necessarily represent them.

The group sent a letter dated Jan. 28 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, complaining the latest draft of his plan for a compensation fund to replace asbestos suits "raises serious concerns."

Faced with literally hundreds of thousands of injury claimed related to asbestos, two industry alliances have been negotiating with Congress to set up a $140 billion fund for claimants with the proviso that the industry would be shielded from further liability.

So wait - this fund would limit the companies' liability and yet this group of defendants is opposing it? What gives?

Rather than set up [the] fund, as Specter's plan suggests, it was time to consider other solutions, the group said - such as legislation setting medical criteria for asbestos victims to bring claims against companies.

Ah. So the idea here is that the limitation on corporate liability is actually too good a deal for victims of asbestos-related conditions and what we should do is make it harder for anyone to make a claim in the first place.

Whew. Balance is restored.