It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts.

Klayman is a lawyer. A remarkably inept one (he gets an astonishing number of cases thrown out on grounds that most non-lawyers spot immediately.) You can look up one of his other cases recently in the news where he is representing Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a (dismissed, standing) case against President Obama's executive orders on immigration.

A SCOTUS ruling can have very broad and sometimes unexpected impact and the court seems to follow the medical credo... "First, do no harm".

Your high-school civics book is out of date. Two words: "Ciizens United."

You can't just randomly jail people.

Perhaps not in theory, but in practice? Happens all the time.

The original red-light camera trial was in Scottsdale Arizona. The city farmed out the study to a university research group, and the cameras were installed at a random selection of the worst red-light-accident [1] intersections. The trial was publicized and ran for several years. The timing of the lights was not changed.

The conclusion of the trial was that the cameras reduced both accidents and injuries. Scottsdale then ran the cameras for years with general public approval, in part because the city has some pretty rational traffic ordinances (like raising the speed limit if most people are going faster anyway) and an open set of books on the program.

The cities that treat red-light violations as a revenue source and especially those that cut yellow times to increase red violations have only themselves to blame for poisoning public opinion. If anything, cameras should be paired with longer yellow times.

Scottsdale is strange that way. They also did studies that showed that traffic flows better and reduces accidents by having left turn after green rather than before. Those results have been mostly ignored by other cities.

PS: I've seen some of the footage from the cameras, by the way -- one truly amazing one of a guy who totally spaced and drove right through an intersection well after cross-traffic was flowing but amazingly managed to miss all of it. Hard to believe.

[1] Skip the joke. It's ancient.

The brain repairs itself by routing around damage. Although this can restore pre-injury function, it does so by using up "spare" capacity that would otherwise reduce losses due to aging or other insults.

Repeated brain injuries (like multiple subacute impacts per game) go through that reserve capacity quickly. That's what we see in middle-aged professional athletes such as boxers and more recently football players.

As for my age, yup. Retired. But I'm a volunteer emergency medic and we have to stay current, including annual refreshers that cover the state of the art. That includes the findings regarding repetitive subacute brain injuries.

Unless it's a serious concussion, I think most still go unreported.

Aside from the "all concussions are serious" aspect, in a team sport someone being disoriented should be reported by the other team members, if only in the interest of not losing the game.

However, what we're discussing here in particular is the common case where a player is clearly concussed (as in, disoriented or briefly unresponsive) and instead of being sent to hospital is kept on the bench and frequently sent back into the game after a short rest. At best, they're out for the game but back in practice the following school day and playing the following week.

Give them something better than football, and convince them that it really is better, and the world will change.

You mean like election engineering? That does seem to be right up there with football, and remarkably (given that it happens at the same time of year) the two don't seem to be exclusive.

As long as the school budget cuts don't impact the sports program, it's all good. Keeps the kids from getting funny ideas.

And the schools don't dare inform parents of all the risks - parents would say "What, are you crazy? I'm going to risk my kids future so you can get a stupid trophy for your office? DIAF."

I wish you were right, but experience with the parents of brain-damaged young athletes indicates otherwise.

There is some promising work concerning hormone therapy for TBI patients by a Dr. Mark L. Gordon

He's regenerating CNS tissue? How does that work in animal spinal models?

risk-avoisive bullshit just because people fear being fucked for life over a moderate injury;

Ummm -- do you have even the faintest glimmer of a clue as to the consequences of repetitive concussions?

Why, yes, that was a rhetorical question.

I'm an emergency medic and unfortuntately meet a lot of kids who have been concussed -- and when they come in saying, "I think I have a concussion, it feels like the ones I get playing football" it's all I can do to not lose my shit right there. The story is always the same: kid gets his bell rung, is either unconscious or maybe A&Ox2 on the field, and if he's more or less functional by the end of the game, he's back on the field.

Those brain cells are gone for good -- and we're talking about minors who are acting under the care of an adult in authority.