Hot Coffee and Frivolous Lawsuits

I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR about an upcoming documentary called “Hot Coffee.” It documents the facts surrounding a certain “frivolous lawsuit” that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. I’m sure you “know” what I’m talking about: Some lady was driving along, spilled her coffee, got some burns, sued McDonalds and was awarded Millions in a case of “jackpot justice.” There’s only one problem with that:

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT

Some of the FACTS about the case include:

1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.

2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)

3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause  a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.

4)  From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)

5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.

6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.

And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):

7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)

Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…

WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?

Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?

They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from.  Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.

Hmmmmm….

Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?

Behold: Your LIBERAL media!

And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!

Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?

The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…

Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!

The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?

It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:

1) They pick the venue for the court.

2) They pick the judge.

3) They PAY for the judge.

4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)

5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.

And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.

But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.

…or access to the internet.

…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.

…or the ability to rent a car.

…or the ability to build a credit history.

Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?

I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!

And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!

It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…

…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.

And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.

So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.

Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.

WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!

So I was reading Cracked earlier and I saw this ad (just an ad, not one of Cracked's things):

 

And so I clicked it (as you should ALWAYS do when some bullshit ad pops up on a site you like, thereby taking say... some crack-pot's money and redistributing it to a common-sense blogger.) (Hint, hint.)  And the ad linked this THIS SITE.  I just perusde it, I didn't read much of it, and I couldn't help but wonder...

WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?

WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!

Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices.  (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)

And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!

The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush!  Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama.  That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist.  Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP.  And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.

How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!

Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article.  There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one.  The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)

The outrage meter still works apparently...

Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter.  Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.

Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...

"That's what you do with a mob."

Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)

On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War.  Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves. 

Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at  them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds.  When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:

Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20

I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.

Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder.  (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.")  Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.

But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified. 
"That's what you do with a mob."


We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops."  Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.

(Deep breath...)

Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.)  There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice.  That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...

"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"

Reagan Jokes (not what you think...)

He may have been the most over-rated President of All-Time, but I have to admit: The man could certainly deliver a joke. And boy did he during his eight years in office...



In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"

Speaking of which, here's another classic...



I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Four things...

The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.

(See what I did there?)

The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs.  There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!)  They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market.  But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound:  They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks.  Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.

Now... they were hardly praising this move.  In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here.  Which got me thinking:

Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?

Well... They certainly TALK a good game there.  But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...)  Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all.  It only comes into play when  it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights.  In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.

The second thing, was this.  In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."

I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.

I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!

The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions.  Like...

"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."

Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking? 

Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?

Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?

Teaching evolution in the classroom?  Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children?  We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!

Global Warming?!  Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them?  This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!

Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM?  If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]? 

Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still... 

They're usually better about hiding it!

Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?

And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)

Joke of the Day (not political)

OK, so I've used this one before, but here you go, in case you missed it...