AND THEREFORE, THE LEAST INCLINED TO ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The following is a BIG part of the problem...
From today's news - "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A lawsuit that seeks to stop McDonald's from selling Happy Meals must be dismissed because parents can always prohibit their children from eating them, the hamburger giant said in a court filing.
The lawsuit claims McDonald's unfairly uses toys to lure children into its restaurants. The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a Sacramento, Calif. mother of two, claims the company's advertising violates California consumer protection laws."
The article goes on to mention names and Mickey D's position on the lawsuit (if I was on the jury hearing the case, this woman wouldn't stand a chance, and I would never change my position). Here's how I see it...
If you don't want the kids to hassle you for the Happy Meal, don't take the little bastards to McDonald's! Take them somewhere else for lunch or dinner. Or, here's a really unique idea - fix their meals at home! DON'T blame the seller if you buy something for your kids that you don't want your children to have. But, I suppose that suing somebody else for your personal inability to parent your kids, is better than being forced to admit that you can't accept your parental responsibilities and simply say, "No. You can't have that because it's not good for you. It may taste good, but it's not good for the rest of your body."
Then the situation is compounded by courts that will actually hear such ridiculous cases... which simply encourages more idiots to file suit to protect their self-image. It seems that most people would prefer to pin the blame on somebody else - especially if that somebody else has a very "deep pocket" - rather than exhibit self-discipline in matters of child rearing. And, they will do so every time, rather than examine their own fragile ego for flaws.
The legal profession has been guilty of "looking out for their own" for centuries. Judges today are the end-product of practicing lawyers, and they are keeping other lawyers cash flow positive with every lawsuit heard, no matter how groundless it may be. That explains why baseless lawsuits, that 50 years ago would have been dismissed as "frivolous" and a waste of the court's time, are allowed to go forward today. Inasmuch as 90% of our law makers are lawyers, that explains why our laws have become so complicated that the common man can no longer understand his rights, and why common sense has been effectively banned from our court system. The lawmakers feather their own nest, and the nests of their legal brethren, by insuring that Joe Average cannot understand the laws that govern his daily behavior. Should Joe find himself afoul of the law, he is defenseless without the expensive services of an attorney.
Citizens today will be greatly disappointed if they go to court expecting justice. With all the technicalities now built into the system, the main purpose of which is to protect legal practitioners, justice is an extremely rare commodity. What the plaintiff or defendant will get is a king-size helping of law, which is frequently lacking even a side order of "justice". To correct that we need panels of at least three judges, two of whom have common sense and have never practiced "law". It would then be incumbent upon the trained judge to convince the majority which party should be the victor in any case - civil or criminal.
But, that's just how I view systemic stupidity in our country. Stupidity, along with corruption, is rampant in all branches of our government... from municipal government to the federal government, what we have is the best government money can buy. We should all have that kind of money... or perhaps, less expensive lawyers.
