--- by Micheal
A recent article in the Union Leader titled "Suit dropped over defective deer stand" (11/22, p B1) raises the critical question of Who Is Responsible? In the article, we learned that a man fell from a "defective" tree stand and was "permanently injured."
Tragic, right? Someone's got to pay for this injustice. Right? So, whether on his own gumption or pursued by lawyers eager to become the 1%, the land owner was sued. How dare he have defective personal property? How irresponsible. Make him pay!
Trouble was, the man who gave the hunter permission was not the property owner. In fact, the real property owner never installed tree stands. Oops. Sorry. Suit dropped. Nevermind.
But wait. If the land owner isn't responsible, who is? Someone has to be responsible, don't they? Whenever anything goes wrong (or at least not the way we wanted it to), someone (else) must be responsible and so should pay big-time. That's what's made America what it is today!
Problem is, Mr. Jasmin is still "permanently injured" (whatever that means). Whose fault is it? By dropping the suit, the lawyers seem to be admitting that it might just be Jasmin's own fault. He climbed the tree. He sat in the stand. Did he check it out to see if it was sturdy enough first? Does Jasmin have a legal right to go hunting and never get hurt? What if he tripped and hit his head on a rock? Who do you sue then?
Admittedly, I don't have all the background facts, but simply dropping the suit is evidence enough. Mr. Jasmin was responsible for himself. His "permanent injury" is his own problem, no one else's.
This is a legal decision that needs to be applied all over our litigious quagmire of a culture. You are NOT a ward of the state. You are an adult, responsible for your own actions -- and the results of them. If you put hot coffee between your legs and get scaled, that's your problem. If you use your lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off your finger, that's your problem. If you are too obese to fit into a fast-food booth, that's your problem.
Want to stimulate the economy? Stop accepting the stifling culture of frivolous litigation. The law can protect us from swindlers and malice, but it should never be used as a substitute for our responsibility for ourselves.
11.26.2011
11.16.2011
Seeking Non-Romney
-- by Micheal
What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?
First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too. Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney) Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.
After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.
The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?
It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself. The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin. Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.
Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.
But the other captain picked Miller over me. The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.
I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did. The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?
If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.
What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?
First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too. Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney) Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.
After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.
The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?
It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself. The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin. Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.
Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.
But the other captain picked Miller over me. The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.
I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did. The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?
If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.
11.11.2011
Where are the atheists?
--- by Micheal
They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't. Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.
It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.
A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."
Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.
Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion? Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.
Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.
Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.
The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian. The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.
They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't. Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.
It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.
A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."
Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.
Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion? Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.
Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.
Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.
The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian. The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)