BottleOfBlog

Out Of Control Rootin', Tootin', Prosecutin' Lawyers Force Anutha Good Doc Outta Bidness Just For Practicing His Love

"We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.  See, I don't think you can be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-hospital and pro-trial lawyer at the same time."   George W. Monkeymouth, September 6, 2004

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A gynecologist was sentenced Monday to 20 years in prison for raping and fondling women who came to his clinics for treatment…

Prosecutors said that Momah performed gynecological exams without wearing gloves, sexually touched patients, probed them unnecessarily with a vaginal ultrasound wand and flirted with them inappropriately.

Fucking lawyers. It's amazing we can get anything done in this country with 'em constantly mucking up the bidness.

Hell, after the out of control prosecutors and judges are done with the guy, he'll probably get hit with a bunch of frivolous lawsuits!

Maybe the Preznit will pardon him.  Who knows?  His dad let Cap Weinberger walk.  And 5 other guys who were dealing arms to terrorists.  Course, his dad was in on the deal.  And no one ever accused the Bushes of having a heart without a reason.

Guess we're just out one more doc.

Oh, And Just In Case You're Keeping Score At Home

Christmas 2003?  Going into an election year?

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- A newly boosted terror threat level was prompting heavier security Monday at buildings ranging from nuclear plants to shopping malls. Checkpoints for trucks were heightened at bridges including the Golden Gate Bridge and spans into New York City.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned Sunday of possible terrorist strikes more devastating than the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. He raised the alert on the nation's five-color code from "elevated" (yellow) to "high" (orange.)

Christmas 2004, after the election?  Christmas 2005?

Amazing, isn't it?  Even though world wide terrorism actually increased in that time period, even though bin Laden was still at large, even though Iraq was, rather than drawing terrorists, training and exporting them, the terror threat in America miraculously decreased!

After the election.

Another Christmas miracle!  Praise Jesus! 

No wonder Howard Dean was denounced as insane, outrageous, and cynical for even suggesting that George "Jesus Christ Almighty" Bush might do something as awful as manipulate Homeland Security terror alerts for political purposes.

Meanwhile, former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean suggested a political motivation for the terror alert -- an allegation denounced as "outrageous" by Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of Dean's early rivals in the race for the Democratic nomination.

There you go, Democrats!  America's Worst Senator looking out for you!

Dean's comments generated sharp rebukes on the same program from Lieberman, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and from Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate majority whip.

"I think that's the most cynical view," McConnell said. "The president, after all, is the president, even if he's running for re-election…

"And I don't think the American people believe that George W. Bush, the man who's led us so effectively on the war on terror, would politicize something like this."

Yes, he's been pretty effective.  New York was exploded on his watch.  He let bin Laden get away.  He declined to go after Zarqawi.  And, he's received nearly as many F's from the September 11th Commission as he got from Yale! 

That doesn't really sound all that effective to me.  I mean, really, it sounds like a total miserable failure.  And I'd like to say so, though, I don't have much voice in government.  Luckily, as a Democrat, I have excellent representation from my Democratic Senators!

Lieberman said he thought McConnell was "absolutely right."

Asshole.

"I don't think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think the president or the secretary of homeland security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons," Lieberman said. "That's outrageous."

Well, explain it to us, Joe.  In 2003, when you were busy spewing GOP talking points during the Democratic primaries to help fuel your awful, sorry Jomentum, the federal government, under Bush, was warning us that shopping malls, apartment buildings, schools, airlines, and Time's Square were about to be exploded.   

In 2004, when you were calling Howard Dean "outrageous" and out of his "right mind", the federal government, under Bush, was telling us that terrorists were going to actually disrupt the presidential elections.  In America.

And after the election?

Fucking all clear!

Christmas?  New Year's?  The Super Bowl?  Who cares!  Safe!  Totally worry fucking terrorist free!

Fly, shop, party, publicly gather in the thousands!  No worries!  Thinking about a vacation?  Ever considered the mideast?  Fly El Al! Wear a Star Spangled yarmulka! Hand out Bibles with little George W. Bush bookmarks in them!  It's that freaking safe!

Truly remarkable.

Your government spent literally billions of your dollars scaring you for cheap political purposes.  And they were as incompetent and lazy and as half assed doing it as they are with everything else that it is even more obvious now than it blatantly was at the time.

I mean, come on!  Assholes!  If you're going to fuck around with Homeland Security, don't be so goddammed stupid as to stop, on a dime, once the election is over.  Jerk us around for a year or two more, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more.  That the Bush administration actually did what it did.  That our "liberal" media, which witnessed this appalling abuse of public money and trust, gives more credence to people calling Howard Dean insane than to Howard Dean's incredibly reasonable suspicions. That forty percent of my fellow Americans are so damn dumb that they wet their pants and stock up on bottled water and canned food over this kind of crap.  That dickheads like Joe Lieberman will go out of their way to malign some of the few people who are courageous enough to say, publicly, what everyone who's anyone knows privately.

Or, that the Bush administration, even in its awful successes, is as hamhanded and obvious and incompetent in everything that it does. 

Think about it.  If this is how sloppy and obvious these clowns are trying to manipulate the American people, people they understand, just imagine what kind of laughable stupidity these assholes are throwing our money away on overseas.

Progress

(CNN) -- As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory…

The poll conducted Wednesday does not directly reflect how Americans are reacting to Bush's speech, because only 10 percent of the 606 adult Americans polled had seen it live and two-thirds had not even heard or read news coverage about it…

Among poll respondents, 55 percent said they did not believe Bush has a plan that will achieve victory for the United States in Iraq; 41 percent thought he did.

This is real progress. During the election, people actually had to see Bush stutter and sweat and gibber away to not trust him.  Now?  People don't even have to see him to not trust him.

And the funniest thing is, again, that these political "geniuses" keep thinking that if people just saw Bush, if they just heard Bush, they'd trust him.

Hey, morons, people don't like Bush.  They never have.  Every time people see him, they like him less--his debates with Kerry, his Titanic Social Security tour, his bi-monthly Iraq speeches.  People don't like him.  And they don't trust him.  And the more they see of him, the worse they feel about him.

Ginny Brown-Waite No Longer America's Stupidest Congresswoman

Jesus, can you believe the good people of Ohio sent this wet bag of stupid to the United States Congress instead of Paul Hackett?

You remember Paul Hackett, right?  He's the next great Senator from Ohio.  He's also a Major in the United States Marine reserves and an attorney who left his private practice to go to Iraq, where he served his beloved Corps in Fallujah.

When he returned from Iraq, Paul Hackett ran against this idiot Jean Schmidt in a special election for a seat in the Peoples' House.  She ran a delightful campaign where she routinely accused Hackett of lying about his service, where she stupidly asserted that Hackett, as a Marine serving in Fallujah was actually getting his opinions about Iraq from Teddy Kennedy, and where her horrid Republican surgogates did things like call Hackett a "staff puke" on her behalf.

In a district that went about 70% for Bush in 2004, she then "won" by a razor thin margin.

I just find it hilarious that this idiot woman is once again--this time on the floor of the House of Representatives--insulting another Marine, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has served his country in combat.

She lectured the dude, a Bronze Star winner, on courage.

On behalf of Bush, the World's Worst Air National Guardsman.  A guy who only ever showed up in uniform for the free dental work.  Though, he skipped the free physical.  Cut and ran from that one.

But that's par for the course for the "Supportin' the troops" Republican party, isn't it?  McCain collaborated with the enemy, John Kerry shot himself, Max Cleland blew himself up on a beer run.

And John Murtha is a coward who cuts and runs.

I have never in my life seen people disparage the service of combat veterans like the modern Republican party.  Republicans never shut up about a couple of stoned teenage nobodies who, thirty years ago, spit on Vietnam vets at airports.  And, yet, today, their party leaders, their Congressmen and women, their president, and their voice of modern conservatism don't hesitate to spit on those same vets on TV, on the radio, and on the floor of the House and Senate.

And they spit on Iraqi War vets and on their mothers, and on their friends and on their family members.

It's like the only soldiers Republicans really get a hard-on for are dead ones.  Since they seem to make so many of them.  And dead soldiers, of course, can't criticize the Gee Oh Pee.

(after I posted this, I read this, which was obviously stolen from me--don't be confused about the time.  He's on the West Coast.  Three hours behind normal person time.  I have no hard feelings about his shameless theft.  After all, a little known and rarely read blogger like him has to do what he can to boost his readership.  And, hell, I admire him for stealing from the best since, as you know, there's only one thing worse than a thief, and it's a petty thief.

Course, on the other hand, maybe some truths really are self evident...)

The Very Worst People In The World, Part Whatever

An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart…

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.

Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011.

Wow!  If Wal-Mart can even further screw it's employees, one half of which have children who are uninsured or on Medicaid--that's right!  The children of Wal-Mart employees are relying on taxpayers to pay for their meager health care--Wal-Mart can save one billion dollars by 2011!

And Wal-Mart can pass those savings--at the expense of American taxpayers--onto its shareholders!  Who are mostly the Walton family.  And we all know how much the Walton family needs a few extra dollars at the expense of their employees and the American taxpayer.

After all, of the richest Americans who have ever lived only five of them are Waltons:

NAME                               NET WORTH($mil)  AGE    
1     Gates, William Henry III             51,000     49   
2     Buffett, Warren Edward             40,000     75   
3     Allen, Paul Gardner                   22,500     52    
4     Dell, Michael                             18,000     40    
5     Ellison, Lawrence Joseph           17,000     61    
6     Walton, Christy                         15,700     50    
6     Walton, Jim C                           15,700     57    
8     Walton, S Robson                      15,600     61    
9     Walton, Alice L                         15,500     56    
10   Walton, Helen R                        15,400     86   

Gee, I wonder how many crumby group rate family health insurance policies you could buy with about seventy nine billion dollars.  Don't bother adding it up.  It's a waste of time.

But you have to wonder why five people who have nearly a hundred billion dollars, who are all over the age of fifty, need to screw thousands of working men and women, with young children, out of their health care to save their shareholders a billion dollars in the next six years.

Christ, Helen Walton is eighty six years old.  She could write a check for a billion dollars tomorrow, and I doubt it would much cramp her Golden Years style.  In fact, Christy, Jim, S Robson, Alice and Helen could all write a check to Wal-Mart employees for a billion dollars each and not one of the precious powdered wigged, God blessed, sun kissed, leisure graced, test cheating Walton offspring would even notice any of it was even gone.

They'd still have seventy billion dollars to scrape by with.

There's a special place in hell for people who have more money than they can ever spend, than their children, or their grandchildren, or their grandchildren's grandchildren can ever, ever spend, and rather than be generous or grateful, spend their considerable resources on thinking of ways to make themselves even richer at the expense of their fellow men and women.

Good Christians all.  Tell me how pleased Christ would be.

Nothing Cures The Monkey Pox

Like a cat up your butt...

My good friend, Elisson, going right to the good Doktor hisself on my behalf.

I'm touched.  And thankful.  Though, also...I don't want a dead cat up my butt.

Also, Ellison, I gotta say--those are fucking saaaaaweet jackets!  Where are your beanies?

Nuns! Dare Call It Treason...

WASHINGTON - Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward antiwar demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after a massive protest against the war in Iraq…

About 400 people gathered near a stage on an eastern segment of the mall, a large photo of an American flag serving as a backdrop. Amid banners and signs proclaiming support for U.S. troops, several speakers hailed the effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and denounced those who protest it…

“The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty and spreading that around the world,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, told the crowd. “I frankly don’t know what they represent, other than blaming America first.”

One sign on the mall read “Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for me” and another “Arrest the traitors”; it listed Sheehan’s name first among several people who have spoken against the war.

Wow, a United States Senator denounced 100,000 Americans who exercised their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition their government--a right so important to the American ideals of freedom and liberty that the very authors of the Constitution put it at the top of the list of enumerated rights—as not representing anything other than blaming America.

While four hundred of our nation’s most patriotic called for the arrest of traitors, like Cindy Sheehan and other fifth columnists who undermine our freedoms by actually daring to use them.

And just what kind of loathsome scum, who desire nothing more than the enslavement and degradation of freedom loving peoples everywhere, do these true patriots want to see rounded up and shot as traitors?

WASHINGTON - Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House on Saturday, shouting “Peace now” in the largest anti-war protest in the nation’s capital since the U.S. invasion.

The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, “I think they probably hit that.”

In the crowd: young activists, nuns whose anti-war activism dates to Vietnam, parents mourning their children in uniform lost in Iraq, and uncountable families motivated for the first time to protest.

Connie McCroskey, 58, came from Des Moines, Iowa, with two of her daughters, both in their 20s, for the family’s first demonstration. McCroskey, whose father fought in World War II, said she never would have dared protest during the Vietnam War.

“Today, I had some courage,” she said…

While united against the war, political beliefs varied. Paul Rutherford, 60, of Vandalia, Mich., said he is a Republican who supported Bush in the last election and still does — except for the war.

“President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let’s move on,” Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein “a noble mission” but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.

“We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily,” she said…

Yep, young idealistic Americans, nuns, the families of dead American soldiers, and, yes, Republicans.

One hundred thousand of them.

Traitors all.

Just blaming America. 

Betraying the very ideals of freedom and democracy and rooting for enemies of America.

Because they hate America.  Even though they live here.  Even though their families have given soldiers to American wars.  Even though they have children and grandchildren, who will grow up and have their own children and grandchildren in America.

These people hate America.  Nothing would make them happier than seeing it destroyed.  Along with their families, their ancestral homes, and any hope for their children's and grandchildren's future.  They don't even have a reason for it.

Fifty years ago, these people were pro-communist.  Today?  They're objectively pro-terrorist.  If big pink and blue party balloons attack America tomorrow?  These people will be balloonists.

They don't care. They come from long lines of American hating Americans who came here from countries all around the world, who fought America's wars, who built America's highways and industries, who settled America's lands, just to achieve their ancient and ultimate goal:  destroying America.

Whatever serves their purposes, they celebrate.  Today, many are objectively pro-hurricane.

And one hundred thousand of these American hating Americans traveled from all over the country to make their voices heard.  And, as United States Senator Sessions says, those people don't represent America, as he addressed a gigantic patriotic crowd of 400, who clearly do--that's just the 400, by the way, who bothered to show up out of the "expected 20,000".

We can't discount the missing 19,600.

After all, the Steelers were playing New England, today.  I mean, freedom and democracy and the war in Iraq will still be there tomorrow, but we may not see these two teams play again until the playoffs.  You can only ask for so much sacrifice for the true American loving crowd.

And even though 400--hell, even though the "expected 20,000"--is a heck of a lot less than the one hundred thousand that showed up the day before, we should not for a second be fooled by the biased media that these traitors represent America in any way.

War supporters said the scale of the anti-war march didn't take away from their cause.

"It's the silent majority," said 22-year-old Stephanie Grgurich of Leesburg, Virginia, who has a brother serving in Iraq.

The silent majority, that ol' unassailable Nixon gem--like secret plans for victory in Vietnam.  You don't know a majority of Americans support the war in Iraq because they're silent.  You don't know about our plans for victory in Vietnam because they're secret. 

It's fitting that the silent majority should once again, silently, speak up for Bush.  After all, he's another President, like Nixon, who's approval rating has dipped into the thirties.

As for the vocal majority, the ones who don't represent freedom or America?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's vow to rebuild the Gulf Coast did little to help his standing with the public, only 40 percent of whom now approve of his performance in office, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday…

Fifty-nine percent said they considered the 2003 invasion of Iraq a mistake. That figure is the highest recorded in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Only 39 percent said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Sixty-three percent said they wanted to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn from that country. 

Only in Bush's America can a United States Senator stand up in front of 400 right wing kooks and say that sixty three percent of Americans don't represent America.  Only in Bush's America can the "liberal" media give equal time and equal credence to 400 right wing kooks calling for fifty nine percent of Americans to be arrested as traitors.

Only in George W. Bush's America can thirty something percent of the public be considered the silent majority, who represent the ideals of freedom and democracy and fully support any sacrifice necessary to bring democracy to Iraq.

Any sacrifice, except, of course, serving themselves.   Or paying taxes to cover the unbelievable expense.  And, also, missing that Steelers game.

My Alma Mater Admits Idiots; Provides Them With Internet Access

You know, sometimes things happen and I just don’t blog about it. Everyday, things happen in the world—there are news stories about politics, sports, people, war, the weather.  Sometimes I blog about it.  Sometimes I don’t.  Sometimes, these things are huge events and I don’t blog about it.  Sometimes I have very strong opinions about things and I still don’t blog about it.  Sometimes, these things are incredibly important events.  And I don’t type a word.

And you know why?

Every Day Americans Battle Their "Free" Press, Which Hates Them

It is thoroughly amazing that nearly all the people who dominate our public discourse regarding the law, science,  or politics, or economics have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  Reading the "pundits" in our "liberal" media, about nearly any given issue, is like reading a Road And Track Magazine edited by a bunch of Amish guys:

In extremely complex and emotional cases, certain juries can sometimes do the rest of us a disservice.  The latest example: a $253-million verdict out of Texas against pharmaceutical giant Merck.  It was the first case to go to trial over the drug Vioxx.  It sets a dangerous precedent.  Not because Merck has clean hands and not because the plaintiff isn’t sympathetic, but it seems the evidence just doesn’t warrant this kind of payout and the jurors’ own comments prove the point...

It seems clear Merck should have to pay.  They ignored potential risks, should have studied the drug more thoroughly and should not be permitted to simply rely on the small print on a label.  Maybe a fine is appropriate.  And anyone who can demonstrate the drug caused harm should be compensated.  But if this jury couldn’t say that the drug was a cause in Mr. Ernst’s death and the FDA can’t even definitively say it should be taken off the market, then how does that translate into a $253-million verdict for one family?

And this guy is apparently a "legal" expert for MSNBC.

He's all over the place.  What exactly is he saying?  He's saying Merck was clearly negligent and put a product on the market that was unsafe for it's intended use.  He's saying the Plaintiff proved this.  But he's saying the Plaintiff didn't prove that Merck's negligence caused the death of the Plaintiff.

And so far, he's fine.  Though I can't for the life of me figure out what that garbage about a fine is all about.  Juries don't hand down fines.  Regulatory agencies hand down fines.  Maybe he's just being lazy and not taking the time to argue that this issue should have been decided by a regulatory agency rather than a jury.

Though, that's pretty stupid, because the fact that Merck sidestepped a regulatory agency, the FDA, to put an unsafe product on the market is the reason that this case was before a jury.  The fine idea is goofy.  The FDA failed to prevent Vioxx from reaching the market.  And the FDA hasn't done a damn thing since people started dropping dead from it.

If it weren't for private litigants bringing suits, none of Merck's negligent behavior would have ever come to light.

Is this joker really saying that its the duty of private litigants to spend their own time and money to prove regulatory violations so that the regulatory agencies which have either ignored or completely failed to notice those violations can impose fines?  It's up to private citizens to investigate federal regulatory violations?

And then not receive any money for it?  Not even a reward to cover their legal costs.  Gee, that's a system that would work well.

Goofy.

But the goofiest thing he says is: "how does that translate into a $253-million verdict for one family?"  Again, the causation point is valid.  If you can't prove causation, you don't get any money.  But this last line is the hallmark of the at least twenty five year corporately sponsored, Republican assault on product liability cases.

We move away from causation--we forget causation altogether--and we appeal to your basest instinct:  envy.  You don't have $253 million.  Why does this one family get $253 million?  Does this one family deserve $253 million?  Doesn't that make you mad?

Which is just stupid.  And it's dishonest.  And, from a "liberal" new organization owned by giant multi-national corporations like GE and Microsoft, it's like taking out a billboard saying, "What You Are About To Read Is Corporately Approved Propaganda.  Please Proceed."

Do you know why that family got $253 million?  Was it to compensate them for their loss? 

No!

The jury awarded more than $250 million in total damages -- $24 million to Carol Ernst for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages. Ernst's Houston-based lawyer, Mark Lanier, said the punitive-damages figure was based on "the money Merck made and saved by putting off their product label changes."

The jury awarded $24 million to compensate this one family for their loss--and that is something you can debate whether they deserved or not.  Then, the jury handed down a $229 million dollar award in punitive damages.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that the jury, just like MSNBC's legal "expert", determined that Merck clearly should have to pay.  It means that the jury, just like MSNBC's legal "expert", determined that Merck "ignored potential risks, should have studied the drug more thoroughly and should not be permitted to simply rely on the small print on a label."

The jury, just like MSNBC's legal "expert", determined that Merck negligently put an unsafe product on the market.  And should pay for it.

Did the jury think that one family deserved $253 million dollars?  No!

The jury awarded $229 million in punitive damages.  Which are, by definition, to punish Merck.  Punitive damages are the civil litigation equivalent of a regulatory fine, which this clown already says Merck deserves.

Okay.  But why was it so much?  Why does Merck have to pay so darn much money to one family?

Well, it "was based on 'the money Merck made and saved by putting off their product label changes.'"

In other words, the jury basically took away the money Merck made by avoiding making their product safer.

And that sends a message to corporations:  "You aren't going to save money by putting people's lives at risk."  It tells corporations that spending a relatively small amount of money to save people's lives is no more expensive that killing a consumer and then standing before a jury.  With the legal costs.  And the bad publicity.

It tells corporations that it's cheaper to spend the money and put incredibly safe products on the market than it is to kill a few consumers now and then and face their families in court.

Is that the job of courts?  Absolutely!  That's the whole point of punitive damages.  To perform a regulatory function that regulatory agencies either can't or will not do.  And if punitive damages aren't obscenely large, with regard to giant corporations, like McDonald's or like Merck, then they won't work.

If punitive damages aren't huge, then, sorry, bidnesses will just continue to write off your death or the death of your loved ones as the cost of doing bidness.

Let's not forget:

The FDA approved Vioxx for sale in May 1999. By 2004, 20 million Americans had taken the painkiller and its annual sales exceeded $2.5 billion.

Merck had gross sales of $2.5 billion dollars on Vioxx alone.  I have no idea what the profit margin is for Vioxx.  But if it's even a lousy, thin 20%, which is less than retail, then Merck was making $500 million net profit off this drug a year.

How are you going to convince a company that's making $500 million a year in profit on a single product to take reasonable steps so that their product doesn't every now and then kill one its customers?

You're going to fine them?  You're what, going to pass down some $10,000 regulatory fine?  And that will discourage these corporations from unsafe bidness practices that are netting them $500 million a year???

Please.

Five hundred million dollars a year?  These corporations would pay $10,000 a month, plus the occassional successful wrongful death suit, to kill you and yours and not think twice about it.  They'd write it off as the cost of doing bidness.

You don't believe me?  We have nearly two hundred years of history of corporations killing Americans for profit or rendering the land on which Americans live absolutely poisonous.

It's punitive damages, it's "excessive" jury awards to one family that stop Love Canals, and thalidomide, and small exploding automobiles, and cribs that strangle babies.

Punitive damages are supposed to be excessive, expensive, shocking.  And it is not for one family.  It's for all our families.

The Love Of The Game

I've been watching the Little League World Series almost all day on ESPN2 and ESPN4.  And I love it.  I watch it every year.

The kids aren't that great--some of them are.  Every year, there's one or two kids who are really fun to follow--for instance, I just watched some magnificent bastard from California smack a Grand Slam and he was the same kid who struck out eighteen kids, in six innings, the day before.

How much fun is that?

But most of them are, well, twelve year olds.  They drop pop ups, ground balls go through their legs, they miss tags, they get caught in stupid run downs, sometimes they get distracted and entire bases are left uncovered by everyone.

Everyone forgets to cover second.

But as far as sports goes, aside from Penn State football, it's as good as it gets.

When the kids hit home runs, they try to jog the bases with somber, professional faces, like they're just doing their job, just like their overpaid heroes do. 

But they never make it. 

At some point, without fail, big, shit-eating grins break out on their faces.  At some point, in their trot, they giggle, they grin, they fucking burst out laughing.  At some point, no matter how hard they try to act like the lame ass, boring professionals they adore, sheer joy just overwhelms them.

And it's a fucking hoot to see it.

And when the kids fuck up--when some little kid gives up a homerun in the bottom of the sixth, or strikes out to end the game, they do their very best to walk off the field like a professional, like their heroes. 

But they never make it.

They burst into tears.  They fall down on the ground and cry.  Their moms come out of the stands and hug them.

You can have that surly, emotionless, overpaid prick, Barry Bonds.  You keep can keep all those bastards who show more emotion during their contract negotiations than their entire careers.

I'll take the Little League World Series, warts and all, over that every day of the week and double headers on Sunday.

It's that much fun to see people play a game just because they love it.