AMERICA - WE ARE THE MOST LITIGIOUS SOCIETY IN THE WORLD!

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.

An Objective, Unemotional Look At "Hate Crimes"

Another attempt was made today, by our Congress, to expand protections for a specific minority group. A bill was presented to extend these "special protections" to include PEDOPHILES. Now, of all the categories of persons gaining the "special protections" of hate crimes legislation, pedophiles are probably the least deserving. But, that's not really my point tonight.

As I have said before, there are already laws in place for the identification, apprehension, prosecution, and punishment for all crimes against persons, property, and humanity. And these are the true crimes. Crimes in which something physically palpable occurred. There is a provable fact involved in all those crimes and, usually, an identifiable loss of some kind.

"Hate Crimes", in most cases are currently connected to another provable crime, but they try to punish the miscreants state of mind, or attitude toward a specific minority group to which the victim may belong. Crimes involving physical aggression against persons are seldom committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The criminals thoughts regarding the victim's race, religion, sexual preference, how he parts his hair, or what color shoes she was wearing are now punishable.

Inasmuch as our government seems determined to codify "hate crimes", I would suggest the term "hate crime" be restricted to actions which cause neither physical injury nor loss of/damage to private or public property. Those are crimes for which we already have remedies at law.

"Hate crimes" would be actions, which because of their intensity, are readily perceived as designed to cause severe emotional distress or fear of injury or death. These types of "hate crimes" could be classified into three progressively punitive categories (i.e. - infraction, misdemeanor, or felony) to identify the severity of the violation. For example:

1. First offense racial/ethnic slurs would be considered infractions, with minimal sentences (public service, fines and/or work release confinement [spending all hours other than employment hours in jail] not to exceed 5 days). Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier (infraction to misdemeanor, or misdemeanor to felony). Records would be expunged after 5 years if there were no subsequent arrests for any "hate crime".

2. First offense spitting upon or throwing of non-injurious matter (tomatoes, marshmallows, Nerf balls, etc.), without direct physical contact, or racial, ethnic, religious or sexual graffiti could be classified as a misdemeanor "hate crime", if combined with qualifying epithets. (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.) Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier.

3. First offense cross burning, effigy hanging, burning of the AMERICAN FLAG, etc. would be classified as a felony "hate crime". Subsequent offenses would increase punishments.

Also, anyone assaulted during the commission of any "hate crime" should have no legal recourse against the intended "victim". If ones goal is to anger or install fear in other people, and it works to the extent they come after him/her, the hater brought it upon himself. At the worst it should be classified as "mutual combat", which is generally punished by a severe butt-chewing form the judge, with the admonition of "Don't do that again!"

These are just examples of how I think "hate crimes" should be managed by law enforcement and the judiciary, since it appears that we are being forced to have laws against "hate crimes", and providing special protections (as opposed to equal protection) under the law. But, let's not piggyback a "hate crime" onto a real crime! (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.)

I suppose I could be wrong about this... or I could be wrong in that supposition!

(Hate) Crime and Punishment - Do The Math

The Associated Press headline reads: "Trial set to begin in slaying of transgender woman". The murder took place recently in Denver, Colorado and the article goes on to say that the victim was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Then the potential seriousness of punishment for the crime is explained - "Andrade, 32, of Thorton, is scheduled to go on trial Tuesday on charges including first-degree murder and a bias-motivated crime, which could add three years to his prison sentence if convicted."

As I recall, the punishment for first-degree murder is either death or life in prison... exactly how does the court add three years to either of those punishments? Do they hold a semi-execution and then pause for three years before finishing the job? Or perhaps, after the prisoner dies of old age, they hold onto the body for an additional three years? Sound silly to you? It's no sillier than adding time to a capital crime based on the fact that you didn't particularly like something about that person. The crime is that the act of murder was committed, not the thought of committing murder! If we were to be imprisoned for our thoughts of doing something against the law, there would be few people walking around our streets. The second crime was committed by the government... in that they created such a stupid law.

I could be wrong about this... and the Constitution could be wrong about "equal protection under the law". Our government, in their infinite wisdom, has created a class that now receives special protection under the law, which is itself a violation of the Constitution.