What part of “illegal” don’t we understand?

Much ado about nothing has been made concerning the current debate over illegal immigration.
I just don’t get why there is any debate at all. An illegal alien, or immigrant more softly put, is just what the term says—illegal. This means that a law has been subverted, broken or ignored. When we drive over the posted speed limit, we are ignoring and breaking the law. When we fail to report income to the IRS, we are breaking the law. And when we move to another country without reporting to the immigration authorities, we are breaking the law.
What part of “illegal” don’t we understand? When we break the law, we can expect there to be consequences. Many of us drive over the posted speed limit every day without getting pulled over and cited. But when we eventually do, we become angry and upset because we finally got caught; not because we felt picked on.
Illegal aliens probably feel picked on with all the attention on immigration these days. But the reality is that they are not being picked on. They have just gotten caught breaking the law, and “We the People” of the United States are demanding that the law be enforced. It is just that simple.
Now, I realize that deporting illegals back to their home countries threatens to break up families. After all, millions of illegals have crossed our borders over the years to have their babies in the United States. A child of an illegal born on American soil is considered a naturalized U.S. citizen. The buzz-word for these children is “anchor-baby,” the practice of which has created quite a dilemma for lawmakers, who are supposed to defend and enforce the U.S. Constitution, which applies to anyone with legal United States citizenship. Many illegals know about this loophole. Thus, the “anchor-baby” practice has grown exponentially over the years.
However, the blame for breaking up families of illegal aliens is misplaced on U.S. laws and the American people who demand enforcement. Those responsible for breaking up families are the illegals themselves. They knowingly put their families in jeopardy by crossing our borders illegally, and taking no steps to protect their families by becoming legal residents.
Lawmakers are also partially to blame for failing to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. Because of the inaction of authorities, illegal aliens have crossed our borders by the millions without any fear of consequences, simply because they believed there would be none.
Frankly, the children of illegals should go with them—whether or not they are naturalized U.S. citizens—to avoid the break up of families. When they become legal adults, they can return here and present their birth certificates as proof of citizenship. Either that or they can be placed in temporary foster care or live with legal relatives until their parents can obtain legal status.
A third and far less advisable option is to amend the Constitution to specify that “naturalized” means those born in the United States to legal citizens. (Personally, I think this should be a last resort. I don’t like the idea of changing the language of the Constitution, because it has the potential of opening a can of worms.)
The bottom line here is that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter and live in the United States. Millions of people have done it the right and legal way before. There is no reason why they can’t continue to do so.
Relaxing immigration laws to accommodate illegals is an insult to the many immigrants who are trying and waiting to enter the United States legally. Essentially, illegals are being given a free pass to avoid the lines of immigrants lawfully seeking citizenship. This only makes those doing the right thing look like suckers.
In the rudimentary sense, allowing illegals to remain here rewards cheaters and punishes the honest. If our country is willing to look the other way on immigration laws, then what is the point of having laws in the first place? A dog without any teeth can only bark. A homeowner without any defense can only scream and yell. And a nation without enforcement of its laws is weak and vulnerable to exploitation. By ignoring immigration laws, the United States of America continues to open itself up to be undermined from within by those who wish to destroy our nation and its infrastructure—be them terrorists or other groups with agendas and ulterior motives.
How many more terrorist attacks must we suffer before immigration laws and our borders are enforced? When will our country wake up to the reality that America’s sovereignty is being dissolved by the acid rain of apathy, complacency and indifference? A war has been waged on America’s culture, language and heritage by those who only have their own self interests in mind. And the self-interested, knowingly or not, have diluted the meaning and importance of being a citizen of the United States of America.
The only way to restore America’s legacy of being that shining city on a hill, full of hope and opportunity for the world’s tired and huddled masses, is not to continue down the path of open borders and government freebies for lawbreakers. This only encourages future lawlessness and brings people to our country for the wrong reasons.
The way back is to restore the value of legal immigration, making the decision of coming to America one of hope for a new life, prosperity and the opportunity to pursue dreams. Doing so may just restrain the cancer of mass ignorance of law and order that currently exists in our country.
Laws are broken everyday, but only those not enforced grow into bigger, uncontrolled problems. We best repair the leaks in the dam before it bursts, because when that happens, all that shall remain will be the aftermath. Frankly, I’d rather clean up the mess left by a few obnoxious leaks now than build the dam all over again when it is too late. Water is much harder to contain once it has spilled.

Madam President

Some say America isn’t ready yet for a woman president. Others say we are long overdue. Frankly, I do not have reservations about a woman in the Oval Office; as long as she is the right woman. I do not believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is she.
Besides her left-wing politics, I am disturbed by her apparent motive.
Is it any wonder to the thinking person why Hillary and Bill set up residence in New York State, rather than return to the latter’s home state of Arkansas? I think Hillary knew she would not get elected to anything back in Arkansas, and her political ambitions would fade faster than a New York minute.
Furthermore, Arkansas is not exactly the nucleus of socio-political power in Washington, D.C., much less the entire country. To someone like Hillary, the state of Arkansas is akin to a backwater rest-stop on her road trip to the Beltway. She tolerated it long enough to help get her hubby elected President. Then, she was on to bigger and better things. Other than the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Bill’s library, I'm not sure Hillary has been back to Arkansas since she left there in January 1993.
But here is the real reason why Hillary packed her carpetbags for New York: She knew that she could win the Senate seat there. Her political insider friends assured her that the voters of that district would support her. She also understood that if one wants to get on the fast-track to political power in the United States of America, you have to do so either in New York, California or Texas. …Well, she wasn’t going to set foot in Bush country. And California was the territory of her good friends Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. I guess New York was a no-brainer, then.
Hillary Clinton, I believe, does not have the best interests of the American voter at heart. I think she has her own interests at heart. Why else would she move to New York? Not because she liked the people, but rather she liked what the people there could do for her. That just goes to show how smart the folks in New York State are. They vote in an obvious carpet-bagger whose only interest is to grab a Senate seat so she could further her own political ambitions for the White House. She has totally taken advantage of the people of her district, duping them into thinking that she really wanted to be their Senator. While all along, what she really wanted was to just get her foot in the door.
Hillary timed her move perfectly, too—right after she and Bill left the White House in January 2001. By the time of the 2008 elections, she will have a term and a half of experience in the Senate to rest on her laurels.
So, buyer beware! If you vote for Hillary, just remember that you’ll be feeding the appetite of another power-hungry politician, and giving her what she covets most: More power.

Do as I say, not as I do

When former Vice President and current celebrity Al Gore strode up the steps of the U.S. Capitol earlier this year to testify on behalf of Mother Earth, the halls of Congress hushed to hear the propaganda—er, message—that turned this once-failed presidential candidate into an overnight celebrity expert on global climate change.
The funny thing is, not even the traditionally “progressive” (read that “liberal”) news media seemed to take Gore seriously enough until Hollywood threw its weight, money and influence behind a documentary starring the former U.S. vice president. Suddenly, global climate change became a major issue deserving of attention and in need of action.
Why is it that whenever Hollywood opens its mouth and pocketbook, our popular culture decides to take on the issue as though it was some great, big crisis or problem? How is it that one drab movie about how man is destroying the earth can suddenly demand the attention of the public? The phenomenon is called “propaganda,” a tool as old as time used to persuade the masses to conform to the will and wishes of those pushing the message. But the liberal elitists smartly disguise their propaganda messages as “compassion” and “science.”
We, the subjects, are expected to conform or else face the ire of the powerful elite and risk being painted as uncompassionate, cold-hearted, uncaring slobs. This is classic peer pressure. Remember as kids how we were lectured by our parents and teachers about the dangers of peer pressure? Oddly enough, nobody seems willing to make the link between environmental propaganda and peer pressure, which is advanced through fear, guilt and threats of being ostracized. Pushers of the global warming agenda are intent on scaring people into submission by announcing that the earth will be destroyed and us along with it if we continue on our current consumption course; instilling a deep sense of guilt for driving our cars and using energy to power our lives; and placing skeptics and critics on the spot by labeling them as ignorant, stupid, greedy and selfish.
Do you know about the Weather Channel weather woman who has stated that any meteorologist who does not agree with global warming should have his or her American Meteorological Society (AMS) certification revoked? A number of weather men and women have been placed on the spot to conform to global warming theory or face losing their membership in the AMS. Can you say, “ostracize”?
Meanwhile, Al Gore and his fellow Hollywood elite are on their soapboxes preaching about the need to be “green,” and alter our lifestyles, because if we don’t then the earth will burn up and we are all going to die. Yet, Gore and his celebrity supporters are traveling around the country in their private jets, luxury motorcoaches and limousines, wining and dining on the environmentalist dollar while on the speech circuit. In fact, Gore’s 10,000 square-foot home and its gluttonous energy usage is a direct example of the very problem he is preaching about. His home, while large by most peoples’ standards, is a microcosm of the multiple mansions and luxury vacation homes owned by his Hollywood allies.
I wonder, do the stars make sure they are using fluorescent light bulbs in all of their residences? Are they careful to transport themselves only in electric hybrids or bicycles wherever they go? Do they carpool in their limos to and from studios, galas and parties? Yeah, I know Leo DiCaprio says he owns a hybrid; but does he actually use it? There’s a huge difference between owning something that sits in a garage collecting dust and actually using it.
The hypocrisy of the left—especially in Hollywood and other elite circles of liberalism, such as academia—is ripe. As I see it, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If changing our lifestyle to balance out our “carbon footprints” is necessary, then it is also needed among the elite who are preaching it. But that is not the way liberal elitists like Gore think. To them, just bringing the issue to the table is enough to make them “carbon neutral.” They are doing their part simply through discourse and activism. Therefore, they are exempt from the proposals that apply to the rest of us.
When Sen. James Imhoff, R-OK, questioned Gore during testimony about whether or not he is doing his part in this global warming problem, the former VP side-stepped the issue by saying that he is carbon neutral, because he makes up for some deficiencies by doing other green things. He rationalized the need to continue flying from place to place delivering his message of doom and destruction.
Uh, sorry, Al, that doesn't cut the mustard. First, you should down-size from a 10,000 square-foot house that sucks at least three times as much energy out of the environment than your typical American’s home. Second, trade in your SUVs, town cars and limousines for the tiny little hybrid that the rest of us are urged to drive. Third, stop flying around on jets, using up jet fuel and expelling contaminants into the air. Instead, use the Internet, which you claim to have invented, to conduct virtual conferences.
If you do need to be somewhere in person, then drive your hybrid or ride your bicycle. But you might want to give yourself a few days or weeks to get to where you are going. Hybrids don’t fly as fast as planes do.
The whole global climate change craze doesn't just smell of hypocrisy to me; it stinks to high heavens. Frankly, if the left wants to become “carbon neutral,” maybe it should clean up its stench of hypocrisy first.

Nazism has a new face

Sixty years ago, fascism had a well-known face. Nazi Germany, its leader, Adolf Hitler, and the swastika symbol were much maligned at the time. Since then, groups have surfaced adopting the swastika and its association with Nazi ideology. We have come to know them as “Neo Nazis” and “Skinheads,” among other names.
But these groups are more or less fringe elements in the world today, and really don’t pose much of a threat. Most of them seem content to just keep to themselves and hole up in compounds located in isolated areas of the world.
Nazism today, though, has a new face. Instead of a swastika, the newest Nazis embrace the crescent moon. And rather than social fascism, these Nazis espouse militant Islam. Just as Hitler’s Nazi Party (a.k.a. National Socialist Party) set out to prove the dominance of the “master race,” Islamic Nazis have declared a holy war on the non-Muslim world in an effort to cleanse the earth of all infidels. And like the German Nazis, these new Nazis of Islam have aggressively taken their fight to all who stand in their way; simply leaving them alone will only hasten the spread of their extremist doctrine and fanatical agenda. What we do or don’t do in response to militant Islamic attacks has no bearing on their end goals. But how we respond can have a significant impact on whether or not this frightening movement achieves its objectives.
I’ve read blogs claiming that the Jews or George W. Bush and the republicans are responsible for 9/11; not Islamic terrorists. The movie “Fahrenheit 911” and its fat slob producer Michael Moore make this very assertion. I’ve also heard the leader of Iran state that the Holocaust was exaggerated. I’ve read other statements claiming that it didn’t happen at all.
Can you see what’s happening? There’s a movement afoot to undermine the efforts of the free world to combat and ultimately defeat militant Islam. There is also a movement intent on placing blame of 9/11 on the Jews.
Coincidentally, Adolf Hitler did the same thing when he took power in the early 1930s. Hitler assumed the helm of Germany on the heels of an economic depression the nation suffered following its debts from World War I. In order for the Nazis to take complete control of the government and its military, enough hysteria and hatred had to be created to convince the German public that a military takeover was necessary. Hitler’s efforts succeeded, and once in power, he proceeded to identify a scapegoat who would shoulder the blame for any problems that would come up during his dictatorship. That scapegoat was the Jews. They were blamed for everything from the 1920s depression to civil unrest in the streets.
History is well-documented with factual information pertaining to the concentration camps, death camps and the millions of people who were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis.
I have no doubt that if militant Islam ever had access to the same means Hitler had, millions of “infidels” would either be gassed or burned to death. There is an ethnic cleansing being planned by this regime; make no mistake about it.
Noted European philosopher George Santayana once expressed, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
If we do not wake up to the anti-Semitic and, quite frankly, pro-Islamic propaganda being generated these days over the Internet, in the newspaper, magazines, and on television, then we are doomed to witness a repeat of the Holocaust.
Perhaps most frightening about efforts to undermine the War on Terror is its appeal right here at home. To know that there are people like Michael Moore who buy into the convoluted theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy masterminded by President Bush is scary. That is about as absurd as suggesting FDR, not the Japanese, had his own navy bombed at Pearl Harbor in order to justify going to war against Hitler’s Germany. But those who believe this conspiracy theory are apt to believe even the Jews were responsible.
If you are one of these people who are gullible enough to believe that simply leaving Afghanistan and Iraq will end terrorism against the United States, or that “Fahrenheit 911” is fact and not propaganda, then I know of a bridge you can buy.
Fact: The terrorists have been attacking us on our soil since 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. They attacked us without provocation on 9/11/01 and succeeded in murdering more than 3,000 innocent people. Our embassies overseas were also bombed multiple times pre-9/11. And don’t forget the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which also occurred prior to the attacks of 9/11/01. Interesting, isn’t it, that these attacks occurred following the Gulf War of 1991, when we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad. Still don’t believe Hussein and his Baath Party in Iraq had anything to do with militant Islamic terrorism? Just stop hating George Bush for a moment and think about it. You might surprise yourself.
Fact: Militant Islam has stated its objectives of destroying all non-Muslim people in the name of its god.
Fact: Militant Islam has even killed fellow Muslims who do not share its fanatical view or support its goals.
Fact: Militant Islam attacks its enemies regardless of whether the response is forceful or peaceful. As I said before, the end goals of Islamic Nazis are not affected by the action or inaction of its targets. We are merely a means to an end: Paradise and 72 virgins. They clearly do not care if their targets are men, women or children; old or young; rich or poor; sick or healthy; guilty or innocent. In their convoluted minds, all who do not believe as they do are guilty and condemned to death.
Given these facts, if we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to die fighting than begging for mercy at the hands of the merciless?
By the way, did you know that the German Nazi Party was originally called the National Socialist Party? I guess fascism and socialism have more in common than we were told.

Shallow brooks for Hillary

There’s an old proverb that goes, “shallow brooks are noisy,” meaning that those who often talk too much also think too little about which they are speaking. It is a warning against those who speak before they think.
No offense to Hillary-backers with a brain, but a lot of the people I have heard speak out in support of Hillary Clinton for President seem pretty shallow to me.
During the Sean Hannity Show’s “Man on the Street” segment, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, I heard multiple people being interviewed at random say that they support Hillary because she’s a woman. No one gave any other reason for their support other than because Hillary is a woman. When asked if they’d support Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is a woman, if she were running for President, those same people hem and hawed before finally saying they’d support Hillary; but they were unable to come up with a reason why. When asked to name one specific thing Hillary has done as a U.S. Senator from New York, nobody was able to cite an example.
Furthermore, the same people were asked to answer the following questions: “What do we celebrate on July 4, and why do we celebrate it?” “What war did we fight to win our independence?” “From whom did we win our independence?” and “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?”
Answers varied from the Civil War to World War I, John Hancock, George Washington, France, “some place overseas,” and a lot of “I-don’t-knows.” To their credit, a few got some of the answers right; but this is basic elementary and junior high school history. Every one of these respondents said they support Hillary for President.
I feel bad for Hillary supporters who actually buy into her ideas, because these are not the people being heard in support of their candidate. Rather, it is the uninformed voter.
But perhaps that is how Hillary wants it. Maybe she would rather have a majority of uninformed voters elect her than be defeated at the polls with an informed electorate.
Who in their right mind would vote for a person solely because of physical appearance? Hillary’s gender may occupy the oval office, but it won’t govern. Would you rather have a White House occupant or somebody who actually governs from it? I put my money on the person, not their outer skin.
The same presumptions can be made about some of Barack Obama’s supporters, too. I wonder how many of them are voting for him simply because of his skin color?
I thought we were supposed to look beyond a person’s gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion and sexual preference, and instead measure his/her worth on the merits of his/her ideas?
Isn’t that what people like Hillary, Barack, the NAACP and the gals at NOW have been trying to hammer into our skulls since the 1960s? If so, then why are so many of Hillary and Barack supporters failing to do so? Why are they choosing to support a candidate on such trivial matters as gender and skin color?
If I, as a white guy, were to say that I am casting my vote for a white male candidate because he is white and male, then I am automatically branded a racist, sexist bigot.
But apparently it is okay for women to say they are voting for Hillary just because of her gender; or for a black American to say he/she is voting for Barack because he is black.
I don’t get the shallowness or the double standard. Do you?

Fairness Doctrine for sore losers

The people have spoken...this time. But make no mistake: the Fairness Doctrine is not dead. It is not going away. Those who have been trying to push this legislation through will try again; and again and again, if necessary.
Supporters of the legislation claim that the Fairness Doctrine does not prevent free speech, but rather allows for the expansion of speech by requiring that opposing views be heard on the air waves.
However, Article I of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the First Amendment, forbids Congress from making any law “abridging” the freedom of speech. To abridge, according to Merriam-Webster online, is to “reduce in scope,” “diminish” and “condense,” or shorten by omission. So, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is not allowed to make any law editing the freedom of speech.
Whether the Fairness Doctrine limits or expands the freedom of speech is up for debate. But the legislation proposed to change, edit or manipulate this right is unconstitutional, per the very language within the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is not really about fairness at all. Rather, it’s little more than a temper tantrum thrown by the political left, which has not been able to compete very well with conservative talk radio. Proponents of the doctrine claim that it levels the playing field in an arena dominated by right-wing talk shows and their big business partner radio stations. What that really means in layman’s terms is that the left is trying to force its views on the public through government coercion.
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine also claim that airwaves are public, and therefore, should be controlled by the government. Well, the air waves may indeed feature public access, but what travels through them is not. Much of what the air waves contain is private, copyrighted and ultimately protected by the Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to privacy and the right to feel secure in our persons and property. The content of the Rush Limbaugh Show is private property; it is copyrighted. So are MTV, HBO, Howard Stern and even the now-defunct liberal Air America programs.
It is illegal to record these programs and re-broadcast without permission. That would be like dubbing a DVD and trying to re-sell it.
You might liken the air waves with air space. Although this is a public domain, the airlines that fly the friendly skies are private. If you aren’t happy with one airline, then you don’t fly with them anymore and you choose another airline. The government does not step in and require that all airlines be the same and please every customer. Each may offer something unique to attract and satisfy customers.
The same applies to our roads and highways. The surfaces are public, but the vehicles that use them are private. So it is with radio shows and programs using the air waves.
All private property is deeded from municipal, county, state and federal government as well. You wouldn’t want the government telling you what you can and cannot do on your own property, would you?
Lest we forget, the United States of America is a free-enterprise democracy, whose decisions are ultimately made by the people; either through petitions to the government (another Constitutional right), at the voting booth, or in the marketplace. If the people did not want conservative talk radio, then they would not tune in.
However, Rush Limbaugh consistently has 20 million or so listeners to his radio program. Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and other nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show hosts have impressive numbers that reach into the millions as well.
If the market weren’t strong for these shows, then they would not be carried by the radio stations, which are first and foremost, for-profit businesses that provide a product to the consumer in much the same way a retail store does. If a product is not selling, then the store will pull it from its shelves. But if a product is selling, then the store will continue to stock and sell it.
Conservative talk radio sells, so radio stations are stocking their shelves with it. Liberal talk radio does not sell very well, so radio stations are not stocking their shelves with it. If circumstances were reversed, then radio stations would be broadcasting liberal talk shows instead of conservative ones.
The marketplace is as much open to left-wing products as it is for the right-wing. Air America is an example of liberal efforts to try to sell its ideas. Unfortunately, much fewer people are buying this product as conservative ideas. That is why Air America sunk and conservative radio programs continue to float and thrive. It is really just as simple as that.
Besides, I really don’t see what the left has to complain about: You don’t see conservative talk shows on the major alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) or on NPR/PBS. In fact, there has been plenty of effort made by these networks over the last three or four decades to appeal to liberal, left-wing viewers and listeners. And NPR/PBS is PUBLIC broadcasting; meaning you and I pay for it whether we agree with its content or not. How fair is that?
In addition, the liberal left also has an iron grip in Hollywood, and a virtual monopoly on political expression in academia. The ranks of the entertainment industry and a vast majority of public universities and colleges are dominated with left-wing liberals, who are given free, tenured reign to express and advance their ideas/agendas on an impressionable crowd of fans, consumers and students. If this is not power, then I don’t know what is.
The bottom line here is that the liberal left does not want any competition whatsoever in the arena of ideas. It feels threatened by conservative points of view and the medium of talk radio as a forum for people to express themselves in opposition to left-wing concepts.
This sounds frighteningly reminiscent of current and past totalitarian-authoritarian efforts to suppress opposing political views through government intervention.
What the Fairness Doctrine would do is force a product on the marketplace that retailers are reluctant to sell, because they know that most consumers will not buy it. It is nothing more than left-wing propaganda being forced onto the people.
After all, why should the left compete when it can simply change the rules so it does not have to?

Common Sense or Common Currency?

The other morning I heard a news report on the radio of an 81-year-old man who is filing a lawsuit against Brut, the maker of men’s fragrance and shaving products.
The lawsuit alleges that the aftershave the man put on had ignited while on a camping trip. Consequently, the man suffered second and third-degree burns. The suit argues that the Brut aftershave the man was using did not have proper safety labels, warning that the product was flammable when exposed to heat and flame.
Since I have a bottle of Brut cologne in my medicine cabinet, I decided to check it out. I read the ingredients, among the first of which was alcohol. Furthermore, I could smell the alcohol contained in the cologne. It was pretty obvious. I looked at my aftershave, too, which was a brand other than Brut. This also contained an obvious amount of alcohol.
Frankly, I’ve known for years that men’s cologne and shaving products contain flammable ingredients, namely alcohol. Why, you ask? For the same reason we apply rubbing alcohol to the skin after we cut ourselves shaving. It stops the bleeding and helps to protect the skin against inflammation and irritation.
Now, I learned at an early age that alcohol was flammable. I used to watch my dad barbecue out on the back patio, pouring beer onto the meat. This caused the flames to get big. I asked my dad about it once. He said that the alcohol in beer is what makes fire grow bigger. I learned this fact, too, in elementary school science class. It is pretty rudimentary knowledge for those of us who passed the fifth grade.
Okay, maybe this 81-year-old man did not learn anything beyond the fourth grade or was asleep during science class; but I doubt it. Most of us don’t learn in school that alcohol is flammable. We either learn from experience, observation or just through common knowledge passed down to us from our folks and others.
The bottom line here is that knowing alcohol is flammable is common knowledge, and not exposing it to heat or an open flame is common sense.
Evidently, this guy had neither common knowledge nor common sense enough to stay away from his camp fire after applying his alcohol-based aftershave.
So, for lack of a better term, the burning question in my mind is, why should the Brut Company and the general public have to suffer for one man’s stupidity? Why should I have to pay a higher price for my Brut product because one man is suing the company for damages caused by his own ineptness?
I asked this same question of myself years ago after the infamous McDonald’s coffee fiasco, from which a woman sued the fast-food giant for selling hot coffee to her. The clumsy woman spilled the hot coffee on herself and suffered second-degree burns. Hello?! Hot coffee is supposed to be “hot.” That’s why it is called “hot coffee.” Why did McDonald’s have to pay for this woman’s clumsiness? Further, why did the rest of us, the consumers, have to pay for it with higher prices at the order window?
Remember the Ford truck incident, in which a man sued the domestic automaker for having faulty doors on its pickup trucks? Evidently, the man had been driving drunk. He failed to fasten his seat belt. When he lost control of his truck and it rolled, he was ejected out the driver’s side door and suffered grievous bodily injuries. Because of him, Ford and other automakers had to raise the cost of production, while the rest of us--again, the consumer--paid higher prices for the cars and trucks we wanted to buy.
After so many other ludicrous and asinine lawsuits, it isn’t any wonder that their only purpose is not to seek justice, but rather to net large cash rewards for the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Therein lies the rub: Lawyers.
Once a well-respected field, the legal profession has turned into a sideshow of sorts in recent decades. Two centuries ago, lawyers helped to forge a new nation by drafting our U.S. Constitution. One hundred and forty years ago, lawyers helped to set other men free by emphasizing equality in our nation’s laws.
However, somewhere along the line, lawyers were awarded the dubious moniker of “ambulance chaser.” I’m not sure where this expression came from, but I know why: When lawyers discovered the lucrative business of torts, they found a source of untapped and seemingly infinite wealth from which to draw; not unlike a mosquito that taps into a blood bank.
Take democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, for example. The guy just put the finishing touches on a 24,000-square-foot mansion on his South Carolina estate property. He didn’t cash in on a 401(k) for that. The funds for this lavish monument to himself came from his winnings as a trial lawyer.
Ever wonder why so many lawsuits are for astronomical amounts, into the tens and hundreds of millions? It is not so much the plaintiff as it is his lawyer, who convinces his client that his pain and suffering is really worth that amount. Make no mistake: It is not for the client’s gain as much as it is for the lawyer’s. Attorneys routinely collect 20 percent as a standard fee for their services. So, that’s 20 percent of $100K, which is about the price of a new car. Or, maybe 20 percent of $10 million, which is much more than the vast majority of people will ever see in their lifetimes.
Now, I did not intend to turn this into a lawyer roast. I recognize they do have their place in our society. And there are good, honest lawyers in practice. Yet, with so many frivolous, self-aggrandizing lawsuits out there, and so many companies paying out millions of dollars in settlements and/or damages to individuals and their lawyers, one cannot help but wonder where the priorities of the legal profession are. Is it really about justice, or the dollar bill? Evidence strongly suggests the latter.
What I really intended to write about was idiots and those of us who are forced to pay for them. But there really isn’t much more I can say on the subject, except that there are idiots born every minute. Lawyers know this, and flock to them like flies to a pile of dung. The sooner we can restore common sense and the idea of personal responsibility, the sooner lawyers will find that with fewer idiots, the pursuit of a fool’s errand is not worth their time or efforts. Then, perhaps they will return to the practice of real, substantive law instead of the sideshow known as torts.
Besides, I thought torts were something we ate for dessert. Wait a minute: to a lawyer, a tort is dessert.
Nonetheless, in today’s legal profession as in business, money talks and common sense walks.