We Wouldn't Need "Activist Judges" if We Had Decent Politicans

THIS is very good news.

But, as usual the media gets it wrong regarding Obama.  To a Conservative it may seem like they were covering for him, but this Liberal knows better.  They got it wrong in the this paragraph:

The decision was cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Barack Obama and Washington politics could not.

This should read:

The decision was cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Barack Obama and Washington politics WOULD not.

He had his chance, and he chose to further delay and dither and obstruct for no reason other than political cover.  And if Joe Biden and Bob Gibbs think I'm being a whiny little Liberal here, they can go fuck themselves.

And they needn't worry about it, either: I won't ask, and I won't tell because I don't fucking CARE.  And niether should they. And neither should the Miliraty Brass. And neither should any soldier. Because that would go against everything they're actually out there fighting for!

Welcome to the 20th Century, America.  A little more progress and we might almost reach the 21st.

Some people just make me sick...

I wrote something on Friday, posted it, and then took it down a few minutes later. I’m going to repost it here, as it was originally written, but I want to talk about some of the things that were driving it, other than me just being in a foul, pissed-off mood. Which I was, but… there’s more to it. And remember that all this came, at the time, on the heels of that fucking Phelps piece that I wrote, that I ‘m over NOW (mainly because of what I had writtenTHIS, even though I took it down), but which I was still bitter about come Friday morning when I woke up to THIS, on the radio.

“Petrol Bombs.” Sweet Jumpin’ Jesus Christ! I realize that these are the same people who started WWI and were so vicious in WWII that even the Nazi’s had to tell them to take it easy (not to oversimplify or generalize, mind you, LOL) but come fucking on! If your manhood is so threatened by homosexuality that you feel the need to throw flaming gasoline at people, then either you have some serious problems, or you’re gay yourself and well aware that your "FRIENDS" have some serious problems.

And that was followed up by a story about the same neanderthalism going on in New York. And later that day I caught wind of the remarks made by Carl Paladino, the closest thing we have to an outright thug in politics, now that Kwame Kilpatrick’s no longer in office. And the final tipping point, for me anyway, came when he had the audacity to suggest that someone owed HIM an apology over the remarks!

(I got your apology right here, Carl. And just to show you what a decent guy I am, I’ll let you know: It’ll be coming in high, from the right.)

Oh. My. God. We owe HIM an apology. Apparently because the folks at the church suggested he make the remarks. (1) I doubt that. If they DID suggest anything, I’m sure that what he SAID was not the precise wording they had in mind. (2) Even if they DID, does he repeat EVERYTHING some idiot suggests you do? That would certainly explain a lot, but it doesn’t strike me as being in his character. And I am completely fed up with the Conservative lie that teaching children TOLERANCE somehow serves to “brainwash” them or (infinitely more absurd) “recruit” them. Especially coming from an asshole that just got finished saying “I have nothing against homosexuals.” Yeah… except that you can’t abide spreading a message of TOLERANCE. Which means that you’re just fine continuing to let the LGBT community suffer ostracism, isolation, discrimination, abuse and outright violence. It's very simple folks: We’re all HUMAN. The LGBT community asks nothing more than to be treated LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. (At this point, I might remind them how utterly shitty most human beings actually treat each other; and that they may want to aim a BIT higher…) But a refusal to teach tolerance, and refusal to actually DO something to reverse the trends of abuse and violence, is an indication of nothing more than your feelings that these people are somehow LESS THAN human.  "Governor for all people." That's eay when you consider some people to be less than that.

You know who I think are sub-human? People who think that way.

So while the original post was just inspired by this one asshole, it seems like each passing day I’d get another reminder just how shitty we really do treat each other.
So with that in mind, I’ve decided to repost what I did in Friday. Here it is, as it was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You know, some people just make me sick. But go ahead and sign it, for all the good it'll do.



I usually get a pretty good response to my "Person A , Person B" / "Liberal vs. Conservative Resoning" analogies, so here's a pretty blunt one for you:


Person A is homosexual, or does not live their life according to the gender they were assigned at birth.


Person B feels threatened by this person's mere existance in some way and kicks the ever-loving shit out of them over it.


The Conservative sees this reaction as evidence that something therefore must be wrong with person A.


The Liberal sees this reaction as proof that there is something seriously wrong with person B.




Now... If you're Conservative, and you have a problem with this analogy? Look around you. Becuase the anti-LGBT discrimination, biggotry and violence sure as hell ain't coming from Liberals! Those white-trash, fire-and-brimstone, charlatanical pious frauds and the thousands of fainting sheep they're brainwahsing? That's your voting block. If you don't like that reality? Then CHANGE it. (Yeah, only problem is... CHANGE really isn't in a Conservative's nature, is it?)


And if you're Conservative and you DON'T have a problem with this analogy? Then my friend, YOU have some some serious problems.


.
.
.

(exhale)

There. I've used my powers for good and have made ammends for that hideous Phelps piece from the other day.

This house...
...is clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
LOL. A little bit over the top at the end, but what can I say? At the time it felt cathartic. LOL
But there it is. And should any of the regular Conservative commenters take issue with this (okie, I’m thinking of you), the sad fact is that THIS is why “Conservatism” has become. This is what it means now. I didn’t DO THAT, and nobody asked your opinon about it either, but THAT’S the reality as I see it. One Political School of Thought seeks to move us out of the darkness, out of the jungle. The other? The only other one that has a voice at the moment? Seeks to move us back in. 

(But... I’m going to use that email of yours in a future post, so we debate the details then, if you’d like to.)

Either way. ;)

How to make ANY group appear sympathetic: Religious opposition

Let me start off by saying that I am unequivocally for gay rights, and what so many on the Right view with such revulsion, I am simply inclined to view with a feeling of supreme indifference. Although I am not gay myself there is simply nothing in there whole "insidious agenda" that would elicit more than a shoulder shrug from me. Marriage? Are we seriously still talking about this? LET 'EM MARRY ALREADY! That's a no-brainer. Hate Crimes Protection? DUH! They're VICTIMS of HATE CRIME, so again... ARE WE SERIOUSLY STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS? Protection form discrimination in jobs, education, child raising, etc... Seriously? WTF? Someone asking that they be treated like everybody else will simply never be viewed as a radical agenda by your truly. About the only issue I'd stop short on is that I'd still allow private adoption services (church based, or otherwise) to favor heterosexual couples in granting adoptions. And the ONLY REASON I even go that far has nothing at all to do with religion or with any 'damage' that would be done to the child; which has been shown to be bunk anyway! It's simply a question of fairness: The hetero couple generally had no idea that they are infertile when they got together. The homosexual couples OTOH DID know from the start that they could not conceive. SO, from that perspective, one is making an informed choice while the other is a victim of unknown circumstances. And again: I do support striking down the general prohibition of gays adopting children.

So... why am I tooting my horn about teh gay here? Well... I wanted to buff up my liberal cred a little before expressing some reservations about another sexual minority facing the same treatment, and basically asking for the same thing: TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE.

Now again, right off the bat, let me say unequivocally that I don't personally have any misgivings about this particular group. I've never known a transgendered person personally, but have had some online friends over the years who were. Why I differentiate my feelings between the two groups is two-fold. First off all: I can absolutely relate the the idea of homosexuality simply by recognizing that you just can't account for taste, or for who you fall in love with. Your only 'choice' in the matter is whether to embrace it or deny yourself. And while I've never had the difficult personal choice of whether or not to pursue a same-sex relationship, I CAN tell you that my life WOULD be a whole lot easier if I didn't have a thing for RED-HEADS. Nothin' but trouble those auburn dames! But whatever... as long as you're not in love with the same person as I am? I really couldn't care less WHO it is.

But it is infinitely harder form me to reconcile, within my own mind, the idea that I could only be happy if my gender were different. I DO recognize that there are many people who feel this way! But it's not a paradigm that I can really understand, from my own perspective. The closest I can come is to understanding this, is from the POV of rejecting traditional gender ROLES. Which both me and the red-haired tomboy I married both most definitely do. But that's a problematic and incomplete perspective to view this from, because transgenderism HAS to be about more that just the ROLE expected by a given gender, otherwise it wouldn't be just becoming a mainstream issue at a time in history when traditional gender roles are pretty much going by the wayside faster than ever before. No matter how I look at it, I know that there's something there that I just don't understand. And that makes it hard for me to really form an opinion or a position on these issues: When I try to put myself in each person's shoes, I can only really personally relate to (or understand) those standing in their way.

Some examples:

1) Dressing for work / the office. OK... YOU can tell me that, for example, "male" is not "your identity" and I'll believe you. But I can't accept employment law that compels an employer to let you come to work that way. THEY'RE JUST CLOTHES! I don't like wearing ties - that's definitely not my identity, a tie-wearing guy! But I still had to wear one (or quit) on each of my first two "real jobs" out of college! "Golfer" is about as far as you can from my identity as you can get while still remaining a white male, and yet I still have to dress like one to go to work. Or... I can quit. (Not in this job market!)

2) Non-Discrimination for Employment: (continued from above) Let's say I own a company. And I need to hire a salesman. Now, an otherwise qualified applicant that pings my admittedly weak 'gadar' a little, has no reason to expect this to be counted against them. Most people in this country have come to accept that gays are here, and no different form anyone else, and it is a precious few customers indeed that would walk away from a sale, simply because they were talking to a seemingly gay salesman. But... how can I have any idea how my customers will react to a man in a dress, or a woman who has gone beyond simply wearing a man's suit, but is trying to pass herself off as a man? I have to believe that most customers would be rather put of by that. (OK, maybe not if the illusion is perfect, but let's face it: it usually ain't!) And seeing as how my family, and my other employers depend on my company's revenue for their livelihoods how can I be reasonably expected to jeopardize that?

3) Identity: (continued from above) How you want to live on your own time is your own business. But EVERYONE is expected to behave a certain way at work. You are far from the only people that can't "be themselves." Do you think can be my liberal self, telling off all of my Hard-Right, Conservative, Republican bosses every time I hear them bitching about "Socialism," or whatever, under Obama? HELLS NO. Now I could win the argument - but I'd be sabotaging my career. That might not be right but it IS the world we ALL live in. Who I am at home, or online, is NOT who I am at work. At work, I'm a GOOD ENGINEER. Period. That is my identity AT WORK. It merely one aspect of who I am outside of work. (Those of you who know a few engineers probably already know that we never stop being engineers entirely!)

4) Bathrooms: I laugh a bit about this, because this is an issue that I could personally care less about. And lets face it: The controversey is not realy about Women going into the Mens room. Most men could care less. This is about MEN going into the LADIES room. Women are just all-around neurotic when it comes to the bathroom. I'm not judgin', BTW. I mean, whatever. Not really my place to say one way of the other, but this kind of thing FREAKS A LOT OF THEM OUT. And I'd love to say "just go in the men's room forfucksake!" Except that I know that in some places, they're at great risk of getting personally assaulted doing that. And I don't condone, or even understand, THAT kind of behavior at all, so I can sympathize with the TG's here, but I don't really have any good ideas to offer... At least none that come close to satisfying anyone.

Now... What I HOPE I conveying here is the impression that I am sympathetic to the individuals, but that it is an issue that I just have a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about. I don't think they're doing any harm at all, but at the same time, I think that the opposition from, say, employers or the other occupants of the ladies room, are also PERFECTLY REASONABLE, even if I don't necessarily share those same feelings myself. I may not agree wit them, but I do UNDERSTAND. And, as I said when I started, transgenderism is NOT something I truly understand.

There is one other thing... Homosexuality is no longer recognised as a mental disorder by any legitimate psychiatrist/psychologist, and hasn't been for ove 35 years now. "Gender Dismorphic Disorder" however (I believe that's the official term) IS still on the books. And the treatments prescribed are amazingly dichotic: Some advise "therapy to get the person to accept their natural/birth gender" while others focus on "therapy (and drugs, etc...) to help them embrace and transition to their chosen gender identity." Obviously either is about helping the person accept themselves, deal with depression, self-esteem, etc... but there's still an obvious split about WHICH 'self' it is the better one for them to accept. And yeah... that can depend on the individual, of course, but it could also depend, rightly or wrongly, on the political, religious or philosophical biases of the psych! So, I would say that I'm far from the only one who's 100% settled on homosexuality and yet still very much confused about transgenderism.

But when I come across stuff like THIS, or [the original article that inspired this that I now cannot find!] I am confronted with so much ignorance, hatred and bigotry (all tied to "traditional values" which is thinlky veiled code for "evangelical Christianity" and/or "Christian fundamentalism") that I am almost immediately inclined to give the transgendered community ANYTHING they want legislatively, just to stick it to those abominable bible-humpers.

As I said before: It is not an issue I understand very well. I'm man enough to admit that. (Pun intended.) But I know this for sure: These people are HUMAN BEINGS. And no human being deserves to be judged, or discriminated against on the basis of who they are, or how they appear. And I'm REALLY getting sick and tired of the argument that accepting homosexuality and/or transgenderism is somehow akin to condoning pedophilia. Remember: There's no crime without a victim. Pedophilia has a VICTIM - someone who has been denied their choice. But these people have never hurt anyone. And there is NEVER ANYTHING WRONG with teaching children not to hate or fear or (for Christ's sake) physically attack people that are not exactly like them or that the don't understand. That's called: COMMON SENSE, BASIC DECENCY AND THE ONLY ROAD TO PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE. So they can cram this "protect the children" bullshit. The only children being harmed here are the transgendered ones being attacked by schoolyard bullies who learned bigotry, fear and loathing from their parents as some kind of "family value."

Bottom line: The conservatives don't even want to understand this, either as a population of human beings or as a medical phenomenon. All they want to do is to justify their desperate clinging to medieval superstition. And THAT'S not an agenda I can EVER support.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the record? You can add Chris Crocker to my list of 10 Liberals that I hate. (Give him Alan Colmes' spot!) Far from being a fitting spokesman for transgendered youth or the LGBT community, I find him to be an obnoxious, vulgar, drama-queen and little more than a whiny, publicity whore. In short, he makes the list for the same reason as anyone else on it: He does far more harm than good when it comes to fostering the public's understanding of these issues.

On a different note...
Here's a somewhat amusing web-comic with a largely transgendered cast. I'm not using it as a source of information or anything, but it IS an interesting story never-the-less.

Final thing: Should any transgendered people stumble accross this, and would be interested in educating a relatively open minded person, please contact me. My understanding may be lacking, but my desire to understand is genuine!

10 Liberals or Liberal Groups I don't like.

LOL. Yeah, you read it right. First I give credit to all of the CONSERVATIVE posters over at MMFA, and now I'm bashing liberals?!

Nah, not really... But I am defining where my limits are. The thing is that no political ideology in and of itself is a virtue. There is nothing inherently bad about trending conservative or inherently good about trending liberal. And I would be a hypocrite if I were to bash the Right and the Conservatives and the Republicans for using their ideology to justify their position, or essentially thinking that being conservtaive MAKES one or one's positions right, if I weren't willing to call out some liberals. Or... put differently if I'm going to say that it's not the ideology but rather the extremes that we're seeing lately, then I've got to determine where I draw the line on our side. At what point does liberal extremism become dysfuntional?

So here my list of liberals, or at a minumum people or groups that the conservatives associate with liberals, that I REALLY DON'T LIKE!

10. P.E.T.A.(Vegans, Militant Vegitarians, etc…)

Let me say right of the bat that I have no problem with the idea that causing animals unecessary harm is wrong. I’m a dog lover myself, and hearing about cruelty to dogs (Michael Vick, etc...) often makes me more angry than hearing about all the horrible stuff humans do to one another. The reason I don't like these people is that they take this basically good idea and take it WAAAY too far. The minute you tell me that I am bad because I eat meat, or wear leather – the minute you start telling ME about how I should live MY life - you have adopted the worst behavior of religion.

If YOU don’t want to eat meat FOR WHATEVER REASON (you think it’s unhealthy, immoral, bad luck… Whatever! I don't care!) I promise you I will never ridicule that belief, and will never try to talk you to into doing otherwise. I WILL RESPECT YOUR BELIEFS. But the minute you try to push it on me, you are going to get the same SMACK-DOWN that I give to anyone trying to shove religion down my throat. I like steak. I like pork. I like Chicken, Fish, Duck, Lamb, Goat, Snake, Pheasant, Deer, Boar, and Ostrich. And if we’re going to cook steaks, the very idea that we should THROW AWAY THE SKIN, as opposed to making leather out of it is UTTERLY INSANE!!! (Didn’t you people learn anything form the American Indians?!)

Now… Fur? I’ll agree with you. It’s ugly, gaudy, and if we aren’t willing to eat it (I’ve never eaten Fox, Racoon or Mink, and I’m guessing I won’t anytime soon) we probably shouldn’t be wearing it. That being said, (and I realize that I'm going beyond strictly PETA here...)THROWING PAINT ON PEOPLE’S COATS IS UTTERLY INSANE, AND YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR IT AS WELL AS PAY DAMAGES! First of all – if it’s a really good synthetic you may not be able to tell. Second of all, THE ANIMAL IS ALREADY DEAD!!! If you want to prevent the killing, do what LAW ABIDING liberals do: Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws!

Now granted, a lot of the behaviors I'm describing here are not officially PETA actions. I get that. I'm lumping in some rather beligerant individuals into this one along with them. And the naked protests? Yeah, I totally dig that! And yes, I realize that they DO, in fact "Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws." But that sums up why I feel they've gone off the deep end, and have ended up urting their cause: By worrying about minute stuff, or by dabbling in the extreme - and trying to turn the entire world into herbivores is extreme - they lose a lot of credability that could be used to meanigfully address serious problems, like Dogfighting, Ear Cropping/Tail Docking, Pet Adoption... or many of the very issues they're trying to focus on. The "shock and awe" stuff makes for good posters and PSA's, but it's poison for a politician.

(And seriously: If you expected to belive that we shouldn't eat HONEY, because it EXPLOITS THE BEES?! You're fucking insane!)

9. Gay Pride Parades

I'm sure this one surprises most people, as I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals, am an ardent supporter of equal rights, including gay marriage, and for the anti-discrimination laws protecting them. So this is NOT about the idea that people should march, or be public about their political demands. Not at all. It's not about the idea of having a parade...

My beef is with the half-naked, leather studded, S&M, Villaige People looking whack-jobs that seem to make up the majority of the marchers in the gay pride parades these days, particularly in big cities. (New York, San Fran, etc...) By making yourself into a public spectacle of the very stereotype that the Religious Right wants mainstream America to perceive the gay communtiy as, you destroy all the progress made by the other 99.999% of the homosexual community that is otherwise indistinguishable from everybody else. By dressing up like a bunch of weirdoes you help the religious right portray the entire gay community as a bunch of weirdoes. Now: I still happen to think that weirdoes deserve equal rights. But, sadly, the majority of Americans do not. I don’t care if you want to wear that stuff, doing whatever with whomever (limited to consenting adults, of course) but when it’s on such a public, in-your-face display for political purposes it makes any real political progress that much harder.

And besides: these people are NOT representative of the gay community! I've been friends with and have worked with MANY homosexuals in my life and NONE OF THEM EVER HAD PEACOCK FEATHERS STICKING OUT OF THEIR ASS! It’s great theatre, but it’s helping the Right make the argument to mainstream America that homosexuals are “the other” and thus don’t deserve the same rights and protections as 'normal americans.'

You want to march? Please do. Carry your rainbow flags, and your ♀/♂ signs, chant your slogans… You know: Do what EVERYBODY does when they protest or march. All I ask is the you dress the way that you would normally dress... to go to work, or the movies or the market. Millions of people in your own community are suffering because you want to march looking like an lavish Las Vegas Drag Act!!!

Again: By going to far, you harm a very important cause!

8. Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton

I got in deep trouble with a poster named "Barry Bonds" on MMFA for arguing this one!

Let me say this right up front: There IS still racism in this country. It's been out in force since 1/20/09. But, just as President Obama said, we need to get beyond the idea that EVERYTHING is about race. President Obama gets it. These clowns do not. The pre-1960's brand of Institutional racism is GONE. Being racist these days is considered a BAD THING. So... WE’VE MADE PROGRESS!!! A LOT! Kids being raised today are being brought up in the most diverse classrooms anywhere in the world at anytime in human history. My (white-christian) son’s two best friends in school last year were Ahmed (arab-muslim) and Sohaum (Indian-hindu). You think these guys have even a fraction of the racism in them that even my generation did? And as it was we had but a fraction of that of our parents… Who had but a fraction of that of their parents… So while there IS still racism, the problem has evolved. And yet these guys act like people are still getting fire-hoses and attack dogs turned on them.

When I hear either of these men speak, I can't help but wonder what the hell they would DO with themselves if racism truly DID disappear. Seriously, what woud they DO?! IMHO, they have made a living and a life off of this problem, and I seriously don't think they really want it to truly go away! They achieved too much fame and fortune fighting it! Personally? I think if they could wave a magic wand and either (1) make us all the same color or (2) Elighten us all, so that we can all understand and appreciate our mutual differences, I truly believe that either of them would instead (3) Snap that wand over their knee.

No progress on racial issues will be made with these two involved.

7. Greenpeace

Man is causing global warming. That’s a fact. Look it up. Species are disappearing at an alarming rate, due to our actions and we should stop it. Deforrestaion? Big problem. Habitat destruction? Yep, that too. Whaling… yeah, that should be banned immediately. No-brainer that one. As should using shark-fins without eating the rest of the shark.

That being said, the outrageous actions taken by Greenpeace and other, even more extreme, eco-terrorist groups end up dragging down the image of the seious, law-abiding, academic, scientists that study climate change and other ecological issues. Your efforts are counter-productive. My advice for you is the same as that for PETA: Organize Boycotts, stage protests and LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT(S)! That's the only way any prgress can be made on these problems. A bunch of guys floating in the antartic ocean on a raft? Looks like piracy to me. Open fire.

6. Michael Moore

I won't call him the "Rush Limbaugh of the left" - that's as disingenuous as describing MSNBC as "just the liberal verison of Fox" - but I honestly can't think of a BETTER way to describe him. He starts with good ideas and then goes WAAAAAY off the deep end with them. During the Auto-Bailout talks, he’s actually suggested nationalizing the auto industry! Communism anyone? He does make some interesting films, that ask some really important questions. But I don’t think he has any more idea than Rush Limbaugh does what it really takes to run a country, or an economy, or a company.

The thing is... 10-20 minutes into any one of his movies, I'm thinkninng, "GOOD POINT! Go get 'em, Mikey!" The problem is that by 90-110 minutes, I'm so numb from propaganda overload that I can't wait to hit the Conservtive blogs to get their refutation of it! It's overkill! And what's more - he's pretty famous at this point for deceptively cropping his interview clips and deceptively editing his films. And while he can make his point anyway he wants... by doing things this way, he actually WEAKENS the whole argument! If you ask a question, LET ME HEAR THE WHOLE ANSWER! And if the answer refutes your argument, use some time to debunk ot thoroughly! By obviously cutting it short, and then not dealing with it, I'm left with the impression that you wouldn;t have been able to respond to his point! I had the same complaint about Bill Maher in Religilous, so you could include him in this one as well. I use Moore because he's more well know, but all this applies to Maher as well.

Moore is great at getting liberals upset about issues and conservtaives upset about Michael Moore, and liberals in general but again: IMHO, it's counter productive politically.

5. Partisan Political Celebrity Commentary (Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, etc…)

Mister Robbins? Shawshank Redepmtion was one of the greatest movies ever made. But your lot did NOTHING to help John Kerry's ’04 campaign. I’ve never met a single person that voted ‘Kerry’ because Susan Sarandon told them to. But there's probably no shortage of people who voted ‘Bush’ in 2004, just because Susan Sarandon told them to vote for John Kerry.

Celebrities, please understand: I have no problem with you getting involved in social causes. In fact, it’s my belief that every celebrity should lend their voice and support to a cause they believe in. Your celebrity can do a LOT of good to raise money for medical research, or bring attention to an issue that’s not getting enough attention. But when you become so politically vocal on matters of partisan policy, during the election cycle, you do great harm to your own candidate. The only reason you didn’t sink Obama was that he didn’t need your help to win. I don’t think you cost John Kerry the election in ’04 – he had an uphill climb as it was, and (I think) ran a milquetoast campaign – but I seriosuly don’t think you helped any.

4. Product Liability Industry

It’s not that I think that companies that knowingly put out unsafe products, or pollute the environment or are guilty of gross negligence shouldn't pay up. They should. And we need lawyers to make them. No problems there. And, BTW, we don’t need tort reform. That’s a bunch of nonsense spewed by right-wing industry-whores to confuse people who don’t really understand the law, or what 'tort' even means. BUT – I have a serious problem with the INDUSTRY that has grown up around product liability.

The biggest problem is that SCIENCE holds almost no sway in the court room. You see… a lawer doen’t have to PROOVE, SCIENTIFICALLY that a given product caused a given problem. Occasionally they get it right (Tobacco’s link to cancer.) But they’re never let lack of evidence get in the way of a “good case.” Silicone Breast Implants? Perfectly safe. Vaccines? DON’T CAUSE AUTISM (the court’s have finally gotten that right, but it really never should have even been heard because the anti-vaccine crowd didn’t have a scrap of valid evidence!) And the list of companies that have been successfully sued, because some lawyer confused 12 relatively uneducated jurors with a bunch of hooey and junk science, and been forced to pay out MILLIONS, costing jobs and sometimes sinking the company, only later to have scienctist finally determine that the product wasn’t causing any problems at all... is a lengthy one. Frivolous lawsuits will NEVER stand up to scientific reasoning. Unfortunately court rooms are largely allergic to science.

3. Cindy Sheehan

I'm against the Iraq War. Was from the beginning. Never supported it. Closest I came was for about 20 minutes following Colin Powell's UN speech, and even then WAR still didn't seem like the right option, especailly the way we were gooing about it. So why is Cindy Sheehan on this list? Well... as hard as it was to seperate out all the Right Wing's lies and distortions about her (and MMFA was very helpful with that) I was still left with the impression that, after awhile, it was really about about publicity. Hey: Maybe I'm worng. But it seems to me that she had her chance, had her 15 minutes, it passed and she just didn't want to let it go. It not her fault that Fox slandered her as much as they did - and there;s no love lost between me and Fox - but she was setting herself up as the spokeperson for the anti-war movement, and she just wasn't the right person for that job. Again, like so many others, I feel she ended up doing more harm than good to a very important cause.

2. Rod Blagojevick, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, James Trafficant etc…

Not really liberals per se, but... Corrupt Democrats give liberals a bad name. These guys should be ousted form the party, and blacklisted from politics, legal practice and media commentary. There is no place in any issue for a disgraced politician. And BTW – I’ll give Bill Clinton a pass, even though I never voted for the man: He cheated on his wife, he DID NOT abuse his office! His impeachment was a shameful power-grab by the Republicans and it forever lowered the standard of what is an impeachable offense to something the ALMOST EVERY POLITICAN could meet. You do not overthrow an elected government over a blow-job. To think otherwise is to be a moron! But these clowns? They hurt the Deomcratic party and the Liberal movement more that than any republican or conservtive ever could. Even if there are 10 crooked republicans for evey crooked democrat, corruption is something I'd gladly let THEM have a monopoly on!

1. Alan Colmes

Number ONE?! YES. Number ONE. The spineless, ineffectual sellout who gave percieved credability to Hannity and Colmes all those years, yet never ONCE really nailed Sean Hannity in a debate on ANY ISSUE! That HAD to be in his contract - let Sean win - because beating Sean Hannity in a debate is about as difficult as putting on a hat! Whether his nightly wuss-routine was due to genetics or 30 pieces of silver matters little to me. Hannity makes conservatives look bad. So does Beck, Savage, O'Rielly, Limabugh... But Alan Comles made LIBERALS look bad. And I cannot forgive him for that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now... If anyone out there feels I'm way off the mark here, or that I'm just buying into all the Right Wing media propaganda? PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'm not the kind who can't admit he's mistaken. But like I said - If I'm going to bash conservatives for thinking that extremisim in their ideology is a virtue, then I've got to make an intellectually honest attempt to draw the line somewhere on our side. So there you go.

(Bracing for liberal backlash) Now LET ME HAVE IT! LOL.