OUR ENEMY THE BANKS

Lets talk about banks. Nationally and internationally.

 

They have become too big. Too big to control. Eventually they will totally dominate and/or destroy society as we know it. Unless reigned in.

 

Recall the mortgage foreclosure crisis of 2008-9. People put out of their homes.

 

The crisis in the first instance was caused by the banks themselves.They got greedy. The banks were loaning money without credit checks. They were loaning money at more than the value of the property. The banks wanted to get as many homes on their mortgage books as they could and then turn them over to another entity almost immediately who in turn bundled them and started trading them. Just like stocks. A major insurance company even insured the transactions. Everyone was eating big!

 

Most banks lied and cheated about many aspects of the mortgaging and foreclosure process. The insurance aspect following foreclosure was fraught with fraud. Involved also were improper file reviews and kick backs. In addition to other machinations.

 

If the entity who loans the money is not paid, that entity goes under as well as the person who borrowed the money. That is the normal way. Not with the banks, however.

 

We were told the banks were too big to fail. The national and international economies would fall if the major banks took a hit.

 

So the United States bailed the banks out. Big bailout dollars. Taxpayer dollars.  As a result thereof, the banks survived. They invested the bailout dollars rather than loan the monies to the American public. The banks made tons of profit. Bank CEOs began to receive any where from $10 million to $40 million in bonus'. At the same time that the American people were experiencing the worst depression since 1929.

 

No bank or banking official was ever arrested, indicted, charged, or brought to trial, for any of the criminal misdeeds involved.

 

From too big to fail to too big to prosecute. Then and now.

 

Recall the very recent HSBC scandal. HSBC is a British bank. One of the largest in the world. The bank has many offices in the United States. The U.S. bank got itself involved in money laundering. Primarily drug cartel dollars from Mexico and Columbia. Illegal. Nevertheless, HSBC did it. Involved was $200 trillion. Many times more than our national debt. HSBC received a monthly profit in the area of $1.9 billion.

 

The United States government caught them. HSBC was investigated upside down and inside out for its involvement. The investigation was conducted at the highest level of government. Attorney General Holderfield spearheaded the investigation.

 

A deferred prosecution agreement was entered into between HSBC and the United States. HSBC admitted its wrongdoing. Agreed to pay one month's profit of $1.9 billion as a penalty. And promised to sin no more.

 

Attorney General Holderfield took the position that the national and international ramifications of criminal charges would hurt the world economy. He suggested the matter was too complicated because of the size of the banks to proceed beyond the deferred prosecution agreement. In effect, HSBC was too big to prosecute.

 

Now comes Cyprus. Cyprus has been front page news the past two weeks.

 

The problem confronting Cyprus has to do with the euro, the euro bank, the European Central Bank, and many other banks. Cyprus owes money to the euro nation bank. It cannot meet its payments. The euro bank says pay up. The alternative for Cyprus is bankruptcy. Imagine, a country going bankrupt!

 

Involved is some $12 billion. Cyprus says help. We need a bailout. The euro bank says ok. BUT Cyprus must come up with the first $7.5 billion.

 

Cyprus did not have the money and could not come up with it. The euro nation and bank arrived at a solution. They wanted Cyprus to levy/tax all bank deposits in Cyprus a certain percentage. Cyprus was told just take the money out. In effect, screw the depositors.

 

This insane idea by the euro bank was subject to Cyprus' legislature approving it. Good luck! The people were in the streets immediately protesting! The legislature voted no with not one positive vote being registered.

 

The problem still exists. Cyprus banks have been closed a week already. They are scheduled to open next Tuesday (this past Tuesday) assuming some arrangement is made regarding grabbing the money from depositors' bank accounts. The percentage is being discussed. The only banking service available to Cypriots presently are the ATM machines.They are still being loaded with cash. People are standing in long lines to take their money out at the rate of 500 euros a day.

 

Grabbing the bank accounts is the euro nation and euro bank's way to get paid. Perhaps the only way.

 

Bankers in the last 20 years have become bad people. They have acquired too much power. They have become a world unto themselves. More powerful in many instances than even the United States.

 

Banks have historically been frowned upon. Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. Shakespeare wrote of Shylock.

 

If, and it is a huge if, the banks have their way with Cyprus and depositors' accounts, the calamity will spread. If permitted in one place, it can be done every where. It would not surprise me in due course to see American banks do it to their depositors for one reason or another.

 

Therein lies the danger. Taking money from a depositor's account will become a spreading cancer. American banks are saying never in the United States. I do not believe them. 

 

Let me share the thoughts of some famous persons regarding banks. The quotes speak for themselves.

 

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless." Jefferson also said, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

 

John Adams was of the opinion that "...banks have done more injury to religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they have done or ever will do good."

 

Finally, Lord Action crystallized that which faces us: "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."

 

Be vigilant, my friends.

TOO MANY GUNS

A woman's vagina is more regulated than assault weapons!

 

Food for thought. Think about it.

 

The line has been drawn in the sand. Both sides are prepared for the war of words to follow.

 

Lets look at some statistical items.

 

More guns were sold in November and December last year in the United States than all the guns in the Chinese and Indian armies combined.

 

You say I do not believe it. Believe it. What follows makes the statement very believable. It is all in the numbers.

 

Since Obama's election in 2008, 67 million guns have been sold in the United States. A very big number. Makes it easy to understand how last year's November and December sales could exceed the total number of guns in the two armies mentioned.

 

Which brings me to the salient points of this article. The first already mentioned is that too many guns are sold in the United States. The second has to do with who actually is behind the NRA and all the noise about Second Amendment rights, the need for guns to protect the home from governmental invasion, etc. 

 

The NRA unquestionably has many members. Since New Town, it is claimed 100,000 persons have become new members of the NRA. Members pay nominal dues. The NRA has an appropriate cash flow. However, more and bigger dollars support the NRA. The source of these dollars is the question.

 

With 67 million guns being sold in one year, the answer is obvious. The gun manufacturers and retailers. There has to be a great deal of profit in making and selling guns. 67 million in and of itself is an astronomical number.

 

I do not blame the manufacturers and retailers for waging this behind the scenes war. Each is in business to make money. It is the American way.

 

The problem I have is that the manufacturers and retailers are blinded to the damage being done by guns. Especially assault weapons. It is an intentional blindness born of greed.

 

There is no argument made which convinces me that a person needs a military type assault weapon to protect him self. Nor that a hunter requires an assault weapon to kill game.

 

Such are some of my thoughts and observations regarding the gun problem. I hope for some a bit of an eye opener. There is food for consideration here. 

PRESIDENTIAL HANDSHAKES

Thomas Jefferson danced to a different tune with regard to many socially acceptable activities of his time. Examples included liking the ladies and drinking a bit. He was a man  amongst men. Common men as well as aristocratic.

 

Equality was his passion. He penned the Declaration of Independence. He was one of our most revered Presidents.

 

Jefferson was the third President of the United States.The first two were George Washington and John Adams. Initial ruling colonists, they were not sure how to conduct themselves when greeting guests at official functions. Washington and Adams ended up conducting themselves in a regal fashion. They would bow stiffly from the waist. The other person would bow in a similar fashion in return.

 

Jefferson was uncomfortable with the bowing. At an official function on July 4, 1801, he shocked guests by not bowing. Instead and to the surprise of those present, he shook the hands of his guests. Every guest was treated in the same way, regardless of position. Foreign diplomats uncomfortable though they were, were required to greet Jefferson with the handshake rather than bowing.

 

From that Fourth of July to present date, all U.S. Presidents have used the handshake. Not only at official events, but at all activities including campaigning.

 

Which brings us to Abraham Lincoln. He shook hands before making history.

 

It was January 1, 1863. Per custom, the White House was open to visitors. It was a New Year tradition. The President would meet and greet each visitor by shaking hands. That January 1, Lincoln shook thousands of hands.

 

Afterwards, Lincoln and his Secretary of State William Seward were alone in a room. Lincoln had an official duty to perform. Sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

His right hand was swollen. He complained to Seward how much it hurt. Lincoln questioned whether he would be able to sign the document. He feared his signature would look weak.

 

Some time later, Lincoln made the following statement: "The signature looks a little tremulous, as my hand was tired, but my resolution was firm."

 

Since Jefferson, every President has shaken hands rather than bowing. How strange it would appear today if we were to see a Presidnet bow.

 

THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION

I just finished listening to the NRA's first comments regarding the Newtown tragedy. NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre spoke on behalf of his organization at a televised press conference.

 

A more arrogant and off base presentation I have never heard. And I have listened to many as a trial lawyer of almost fifty years.

 

La Pierre suggests that easy accessibility to firearms is not the problem. Nor are our laws. Rather he blamed everyone els and everything else for the shootings. The NRA was not responsible in any fashion. His solution to preclude any further Newtowns was to have guns in schools. Armed guards and/or armed teachers. His position that what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

I believe La Pierre's comments did much to injure the cause of the NRA. He set them back a number of years. It will be difficult for those elected officials who dance to the NRA's tune to continue to do so. Let me phrase it differently. It should be. We never know with today's politicians.

 

This is a wake up time for America. The time for words is past. Action is required .Dictated. Demanded. Significant laws to restrict gun activity. Anything less is to invite another Newtown.

 

The United States Supreme Court bears responsibility for Newtown, also. The Court came down with two decisions in 2008 and 2010 which aggravated/expanded the problem. The end result of the decisions was that a person is allowed to carry a gun inside and outside the home for purposes of protection. In my opinion, the Second Amendment does not say this.

 

The Second Amendment word for word reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Why did James Madison write the Second Amendment as he did back in the 1780s? The answer is simple. The United States at the time had no standing army. If an army was required to defend the new Nation, citizens would be called. From the farms and the cities. And they were to bring their guns with them because the government had no guns to give them.

 

What does the reading of the Second Amendment have to do with the right to keep a gun in the home or carry one on the street for purposes of defense? Nothing.

 

I have to smile. We have heard for years that the Suprme Court should be made up of strict constructionists. Persons who would  interpret the Constitution as written. Not those liberal type judges who stretch the law and in effect make law. The Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 was controlled by a strict constructionist majority. However, they did philosophically what they were opposed to. The Court liberally construed the Second Amendment. Stretched it in my opinion.

 

I ask this question of all die hard NRA/Second Amendment supporters. What is more important, the purported right to bear arms or a child's right to grow up? That is the issue as framed by Newtown.

 

America is at a cross roads regarding guns. I am hopefull immediate appropriate steps will be taken to alleviate the problem. Otherwise, Newtown will not be the last time our children will be a shooting gallery.

 

 

 

TOYS 'R US AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Sweden is a bit different. Dances to its own tune occasionally. Its approach to sex is one example.

There is another.

Gender neutrality. Sweden's position is that male and female are to be treated alike. No preferential treatment one over the other. Described by the Swedes themselves as equality. Equality in the work place and society. A Swedish obsession.

One example of the obsessive ends Swedes go to achieve gender neutrality is how teachers refer to students. Not as him or her, he or she. Rather as friends.

In 2008, a sixth grade class in Sweden was studying gender discrimination. The Toys 'R Us catalogue drew their attention. The six graders decided the catalogue was discriminating and not gender equal. For example, boys generally were shown wearing blue and girls pink. Girls wore princess dresses. The boys never. Guns for boys, not for girls. Dolls for girls, not for boys. Girls pushing baby carriages, boys playing with miniature soldiers. Girls with tiny kitchens cooking, boys with sporting equipment. Girls alone playing with Barbie dolls. No boys doing the same.

The sixth graders felt everything in the catalogue should be for both sexes.No stereotyping. I have to ask at this point: A princess dress for a boy?

Sweden has a State Agency to hear gender discrimination complaints. The sixth graders filed a formal complaint. Justice is slow moving in Sweden. The State Agency decision came out this year. The State Agency agreed with the sixth graders. The decision included phrases such as outdated gender roles, narrow mindedness, and degrading to both genders.

Toy 'R Us took heed. Out went the old catalogue. In came a new. Just in time for Christmas.

The new catalogue is under scrutiny .It did not go so far as to put a boy in a princess dress. However, it did dress the girls in blue and boys in pink in some instances. It has boys playing with beauty instruments. Hair blowers and the like. Doing a doll's hair.The boys are also shown doing housework like ironing and vacuuming. The girls were portrayed holding all types and sizes of guns and playing battle games. The girls were on the sport pages advertising gloves, bats, basketballs, footballs, and the like.

Will the new Toys 'R Us pass muster? Time will tell. I suspect it will, even though no boy was portrayed wearing a princess dress.

Is this right? I don't know. I never really thought about gender equality in this fashion. Sweden may be at the forefront,  the wave of the future. Thirty years from now as male and female roles and responsibilities in society will have changed, persons of that era may look back at Sweden 2012 and ask.....What was the big deal? Why all the fuss?

HONOR KILLING

Recently in the Pakistani administered town of Kotli, 15 year old Anusha was murdered by her parents. Anusha and her parents were Pakistani. They also were Muslims.

 

Anusha's perceived wrongdoing was she would turn her head to look at boys. Such conduct was viewed by her parents as bringing shame upon the family. Dishonor.

 

Her parents were 53 and 42. Anusha had six brothers and sisters, all under the age of 10.

 

Anusha's mother threw acid on her. The intent was that the acid would result in Anusha's death. It did. Two days later.

 

The reports were unclear as to whether Anusha received  medical attention. Most suggest none. She was left on a cot or the floor in her home to die. A slow agonizing death over forty eight hours. The reports indicate the parerts had no money to pay a doctor. I came across one report that indicated  Anusha received  medical attention after 24 hours.

 

In the Muslim world, such deaths are known as honor killings. A daughter's death upholds  family honor. Family honor is viewed as more important than the life of the daughter.

 

Some areas of Pakistan have begun frowning on honor killings. Anusha's home town is one of them. Her parents have been arrested for murder.

 

Anusha's case is not an isolated one. In the year 2011, there were 943 honor killings in Pakistan. Only 20 of the 943 young women killed received medical attention. Even worse, in many situations the daughter was subjected to rape and gang rape before being murdered.

 

Why do these killings occur? Why do Muslim parents feel compelled to murder for honor's sake a young daughter?

 

I thought it might be required by the dictates of the Quran. Turns out, honor killings are not. Honor killings are the result of man made law. Muslims are a male dominated society. Women are considered possessions. Over the years, the custom of honor killings has developed.

 

The Quran is to the Muslim what the Bible is to the Christian. In both instances, man made law has developed which is not to be found in the written word of each religion. Difficult interpretations have arisen. Honor killings being one.

 

Do not think that honor killings are limited to Pakistan or a Muslim nation. Muslims are immigrating to European nations and  North America. Honor killings have been documented in Europe and Canada. I am not aware of any honor killings in the United States.

 

I have written this piece for awareness purposes. Muslims are immigrating in effect to the four corners of the earth. They bring with them their old world customs and religion. Neither should be a problem. But where the Muslim is concerned, they are.

 

The Muslim comes to a new country and wants to live by the old country's rules. They want the new country to enforce  criminal and civil law based on the Quran and what they believe the Quran says. Besides honor killings, that would include stoning a woman to death for adultery, cutting a person's hand off for stealing, making it easy for a man to divorce, making it difficult for a woman to divorce. And so on.

 

Such is called Sharia law. I have written and spoken of the dangers of Sharia law for several years. Generally, my words fall on deaf ears. Americans do not want to believe that any one coming to this country would want to live under the old laws. But, they do.

 

The message is beware! Be vigilant. Be concerned.

IS A FERTILIZED EGG A PERSON?????

When does life begin? At the moment of conception when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm?

 

There is a clamor for answers to the questions. Not so much  from society as a whole. Rather from a small minority who seek to impose their religious beliefs  on the majority. The battle waged by this small group is ongoing. Their beliefs are rooted so deeply that resolution appears impossible. Anti-abortionists are now into their second and third generation of supporters.

 

The issue of when life begins was raised recently from a legal perspective in the case of Person hood Oklahoma v. Barber. Last week on October 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal on the issue from a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled against an anti-abortion group. The anti-abortion group had had placed on next week's election ballot in Oklahoma an amendment to the State Constitution. The amendment would define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception. Which as a practical matter is the moment the female egg is fertilized.

 

I am interested in the issue strictly from a legal perspective.

 

A walk back in legal history is required to understand what is going on.

 

When I graduated from law school in 1960, a fetus was not considered life. There was no life unless the fetus was born live. Which meant that the baby had to be delivered and breath. Breathing was the most important part of the concept. It meant the baby was alive. Then and only then did rights accrue to the baby as a person, as a human being.

 

Abortion in 1960 was a criminal offense. It had nothing to do with the abortion issue as we understand it today. The law was only concerned with back room deliveries with a bent metal hanger.

 

Years later abortion became the fanatical issue it is today. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the issue some fifty odd years ago in Roe v. Wade. A woman was free to decide if she wanted to abort a pregnancy. If so, it was legal and proper for the woman to have the abortion and the medical profession to provide the assistance.

 

Via Roe v. Wade, abortion was considered a woman's right. The right to choose, to control her own body.

 

A small but vocal group could not accept Roe v. Wade. The battle to overturn the decision or minimize its application has been ongoing for more than five decades.

 

In the 2012 Presidential election, abortion is in the forefront of issues being discussed. A supreme effort primarily by the Republican right has been initiated. The approach is to deny to women many of the personal freedoms they won 50-60 years ago. Things like the right to contraception, as well as the right to abortion. The battle has a male/female component. It is primarily  men attempting to dictate to women what they can and cannot do, especially as regards their bodies. It makes me wonder what century we are living in.

 

The newest gimmick by the anti-abortionists is to seek to redefine when life begins. It is called parenthood. Attempts are ongoing to change federal and state laws so as to define a person/human life as beginning at the time of conception. If successful, it would mean that the fertilized egg has all  rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

 

If the redefinition took hold, it would be a crime for a woman or anyone to assist her not only with abortion, but also contraceptive use and in-vitro fertilization. There are probably further ramifications I cannot think of at the moment.

 

Anti-abortionists in Oklahoma thought they saw the road home regarding the issue. They had the question put on this November's ballot as a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. Groups disagreeing with the anti abortionists went to court to have the proposed amendment declared unconstitutional and thrown off the ballot.

The group was successful. The Oklahoma Supreme Court said the amendment was unconstitutional and struck it from the ballot.

 

The anti-abortionist were not dissuaded. They appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

 

The United States Supreme Court decides cases two ways. The Court actually hears oral argument and decides a case. Another way is for the Court to refuse to hear a case. In such instance, the decision of the court below from which the matter is being appealed is considered the last word. It is the law regarding the issue raised.

 

By refusing to hear the case and making that refusal known on October 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court said in effect that it agreed with the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Inherent in the actions of both Courts, was the fact that there are years of precedent supporting abortion. From Roe v. Wade to today. The Oklahoma Court said Roe v. Wade was still good law. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Court by refusing to entertain the appeal.

 

Quite frankly, I was surprised by the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. The Court is basically conservative by a 5-4 majority. Is the conservative Supreme Court moving away from its previous hard line conservative positions? I do not know. The decision in the Parenthood case might lead one to think so. In any event, it is clear  that the United States Supreme Court has no intention of hearing a parenthood case. At least at this time.

PET CAT EUTHANIZED BY MISTAKE

This scenario recently occurred.

Coleen Conlon lives in Gardner, Massachusetts. She had a pet cat. Lady. Eight years old.

Lady had fleas. Coleen had her son take Lady to the vet for a flea bath. Lady had previously been cared for by the veterinarian. The veterinarian was the Broadway Animal Hospital. The Hospital was owned and operated by Dr. Michael Sheridan. A respected veterinarian in the area with thirty years experience.

Dr. Sheridan's Hospital provided forms to be signed by anyone requiring pet services. There was a form for flea services. There was a form for euthanasia. There was a form for every type service.

The son was mistakenly given the wrong form. He did not read it. He signed and returned it. Much like most of us humans do when we are being admitted to a hospital.

The form the son signed was for euthanasia. Not a flea bath.

When the son returned, he was informed Lady had been euthanized. The form mistake was discovered.

Coleen, her son and the rest of the family are distraught. Dr. Sheridan is sympathetic, but says the son should have read the form before signing.

The facts have the making of a law suit.

The question is what is the monetary value of a pet cat negligently killed. The answer depends on the State where the pet resided and the negligent act took place. In this instance, Massachusetts.

Let's begin at the beginning.

The law initially and for centuries was that a pet was property. Not human. As property, it could only be valued based on far market value less depreciation. Simply stated, Lady in this instance would be worth whatever the cost of buying a new cat, depreciated by the number of years Lady had already lived.

What is the dollar value of a pet cat under the fair market rule. Most cats are adopted. Taken in. I am unfamiliar with the price range of an ordinary cat. However, I cannot believe it would be much in dollars. $20-40 perhaps? Now subtract from that amount the fact that Lady had already lived half her anticipated life time. Subtract 50 per cent from the estimated fair market figure of $20-40.

That number represents the value of Lady in this day and age under the fair market approach.

Most States follow the fair market value rule. Pets are worth next to nothing in those States. The feelings of the pet owner are not taken into consideration.

Pets have increasingly become a member of the family, so to speak. Pets are loved as one's own offspring.

A new approach to pet valuation has developed and is developing. Though presently the law in only a few States. The developing legal concept is known as companion law. Companion law does not limit recovery for a dead pet to fair market value. It takes into consideration the same things that the law considers when a human is negligently killed. Emotional distress and uniqueness of the relationship.  Even the pet's pain and suffering.

Where does Florida stand? Where does Massachusetts stand?

The cases are split in Florida. Some courts recognize the progressive companion theory. Others, the fair market value of the pet.

Lady and her owner Coleen lived in Massachusetts. Massachusetts offers no help at all. I even question if a claim can be made under the fair market value theory.

Massachusetts has a statute that defines who and how recovery can be had in a death case. The statute applies to "...persons closely related."  Massachusetts courts have consistently held that a pet is neither a person nor is it legally able to be closely related. Ergo, Coleen would get nothing.

Only one State has dealt with the problem legislatively. Massachusetts makes its decision based on a statute. However, the statute is written for humans, even though applied in pet situations.

Tennessee has met the issue head on. Tennessee's law directly deals with companion pets. Legislatively and signed into law by the Governor. The statute permits lawsuits. With limitations. Top recovery is limited to $4,000. Better than nothing. The statute is limited to dogs and cats.

The law generally has many problems/issues with which to deal. Pet recovery is not near the top. However in a creeping fashion, the States are beginning to deal with the problem. The law is moving in the direction of companion statutes. At some point in the next 25 years, most States will be on the side of valuing the pet and permitting recovery. In 50 years, the issue will no longer be a problem. Companion recovery will be the law in every State. The law of the land.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The adage different strokes for different folks applies to countries, also.
Greece, Italy, and China are perfect examples.

U.S. citizens must pay taxes. Every one. Even the rich. Unless of course
they legally have secreted funds in a Swiss bank account or off shore in
the Cayman Islands. There is legal tax avoidance. If the avoidance however
is illegal, such persons will be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. Tax avoidance is not tolerated in the United States.

Greece tolerates tax avoidance. That is one reason why Greece is in trouble
economically. It is considered perfectly proper to avoid taxes in Greece.
Greece's tax delinquency is in the billions of euros.

Occasionally Greeks will be pursued for back taxes. Rarely, however.
Especially in the two years immediately preceding an election.

For the  the few arrested, there is no fear. Greek tax courts take 7-10
years to bring a tax avoidance case to trial.

Greek ship owners are a separate breed when it comes to paying taxes. They
are treated well by the government. Receive favored treatment. Much like
the fabled 2 per cent in the United States. That is why Greek ship owners
have tons of money while Greece itself is broke.

Italy has Silvio Berlusconi. A perfect example of the ineffectiveness of
the Italian court system. An example also that a people will tolerate
anything from a favored elected official.

Berlusconi was once Italy's Prime Minister. Was is the operative word. When
no longer the number one politician in Italy, he was arrested for four
years of tax fraud. His trial concluded last week. Berlusconi was found
guilty. He was sentenced to four years in jail. The sentence was
automatically reduced to one year because of an amnesty law. The amnesty
law recognizes that Italian jails are overcrowded. The law reduces
dramatically a criminal sentence.

Such does not bother  me. 

POPCORN LUNG LAWSUIT

Wayne Watson of Denver, Colorado, enjoyed popcorn. He enjoyed it so much that for a period of ten years he would eat two bags of microwaved popcorn each evening.

 

Watson developed what is known as microwave popcorn lung. A condition similar to lung cancer caused by smoking and mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Watson is suffering. He cannot work. He soon will die. His suffering and death caused by the fumes arising from the artificial butter in microwave popcorn.

 

A jury agreed such was the case. The jury recently awarded Watson $7.2 million.

 

Turns out microwave popcorn, prior to this lawsuit of course, contained a chemical called diacetyl. A toxic substance known to cause  an illness similar to lung cancer. An individual develops popcorn lungs when fumes from the heated popcorn containing diacetyl are inhaled.

 

Watson is going to die. Life has a court room value. However, $7.2 million on its face appears excessive. Not in Watson's case.

 

The manufacturer of the microwave popcorn had known for several years of the dangerous implications of inhaling the butter flavorer containing diacetyl. The knowledge was obtained from the numerous Worker Compensation cases brought by their employees who had inhaled diacetyl fumes while working to make the microwave popcorn.

 

Once a manufacturer has knowledge of the dangerous propensities of its product, it is obligated under law to cease and desist in its manufacture. The manufacturer is also required, if he is stupid enough to continue to knowingly produce the product, to place a warning on  the label of its product of the product's dangerous  propensities. Similar to the warning on a pack of cigarettes.

 

In this instance, the manufacturer did neither. It knowingly continued to manufacture the microwave popcorn containing the diacetyl and at the same time failed to provide the consumer with any warning.

 

The $7.2 million verdict was divided into two parts.

 

Watson received $2.2 million for his pain, suffering and and all direct ramifications of the inhalation. This is known as compensatory damages. The law allows a wronged person to collect money for all damages directly flowing from the wrong doing of the manufacturer.

 

The remaining $5 million was awarded Watson as punitive damages. When a manufacturer does something so bad as to shock the conscience of the community, the manufacturer must pay an additional amount by way of penalty. It is a warning to the manufacturer that it should not have done what it did. In Watson's case, (1) knowingly continuing to manufacture the microwave popcorn with knowledge it was dangerous and (2) further failing to warn it's inherent danger stretches matters beyond credulity.

 

The manufacturer was penalized for its egregious wrongdoing. The huge punitive award is punishment to the wrongdoer and warning to the rest of the world not to do things such as occurred in the instant case.

 

A lot of good the $7.2 million is going to do Watson.The manufacturer has the case on appeal. By the time the appeals process is exhausted, Watson will be long dead.

 

 

CIVIL WAR ONGOING

The Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. The slaves were freed. Persons of color were held to be equal to their white brothers and sisters.

 

Sounded good in theory. Black people continue to be treated poorly, however.

 

In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in the Civil Rights Law being passed. The law was all encompassing. Abuse of blacks was supposedly at an end.

 

2008 saw the election of our first black President. Many thought Obama's election symbolized the race problem had been put to rest. It had not. I suspect the reason many today dislike Obama is because of his color.

 

Something occurred in Crystal Springs, Mississippi recently which supports my premise the Civil War is still with us.

 

Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson reside in Crystal Springs. Both are black. They attend the First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs. They are not formal members. However, they  attend the Church on a regular basis.

 

First Baptist Church is predominately white.

 

Charles and Te'Andrea wanted to get married. They visited the Pastor of what they considered their Church. The marriage date was July 21, 2012. The Pastor booked the Church for them for that date. He also made arrangements for the Church portion of the ceremony. Charles and Te'Andrea sent out invitations inviting friends to their wedding at the First Baptist Church.

 

The day before the wedding, the Pastor spoke with Charles and Te'Andrea. He told them they could not be married in the First Baptist Church the next day. He blamed the congregation. He told Charles and Te'Andrea that the congregation had decided blacks could not be married in the First Baptist church. No blacks. The Pastor further stated that the congregation had told him that if he did marry Charles and Te'Andea In the Church, he would be voted out. A nice way of saying fired. Apparently Baptist ministers serve at the will of the congregation.

 

Would you believe it? in 2012! In a House of God. By people of faith.

 

I have said for years that we continue to fight the Civil War. Blacks have come a long way. A trip they should not have had to make in the first place.

 

The problem of race relations festers. It will not go away.

 

A shame.

 

A shame on the predominately white congregation of the First Baptist Church. A shame on the Pastor who did not stand and do the right thing.. A shame on the South generally that never  forgets nor wants to move on. A shame on us all that the issue of race relations is still with us.