You tell me who you trust to represent the public more, a doctor or a lawyer?

In case you picked lawyer, here's an example of why punitive damages should be limited:

"A consumer who was oppressively required to buy a full season of NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV satellite service (instead of being offered a cheaper weekly rate) gets back $9 to $21, according to a class-action settlement announced in May, but the lawyers would receive $3.7 million. And a consumer who was oppressively charged daily late fees by Blockbuster Video (without realizing how much they could amount to) gets back a few discount coupons, according to a class-action settlement announced in June, but the lawyers would get $9.25 million." [Detroit News-AP, 6-1-01] [Forbes, 6-6-01]

You guys know that when it comes to politics, I'm as loyal as anyone out there. But I'm sorry to report that I fully understand why President Bush is hovering at 50% in approval ratings (though his personal numbers are ten points higher, double those of his predecessor).

W. has fallen into the wishy-washy habits that were the downfall of his father, and if he doesn't put on those cowboy boots and get tough with his policies, then the son will also end up a one-termer.

Still, thought I can't say that I agree with everything the administration has done, with the force of the media grabbing hold of anything the Left has to disagree with, then I feel the need to join the circle of wagons protecting Bush.

Here's a real knee-slapper for you: Anyone familiar with Minor League Baseball knows that teams will do some crazy things to get fans to the stadium. The Jacksonville Suns, AA affiliate of the Dodgers, went far and beyond their duty in this area on June 29, giving fans a miniature bat. Not so unusual, until you realize that the guest of honor that night was Tonya "whack-a-knee" Harding. I should also point out that the evening's local sponsor was Dave Valentine's Bail Bonds.

The issue of federal funding for stem cell research is in the news again, if only because the Left has the Senate again and is looking for a good fight with President Bush. So you ask what I think about the issue? I thought you might.

I'm against it. Not because I hope people with diabetes and Parkinson's never find a cure (although the Left will paint Pres. Bush with that label). Instead I put my faith in other ways to cure without using embryos, the essence of life's beginnings. If I truly believe that life begins at conception, then I feel obligated to take it to the start, and object to a process that would cheapen life.

Strange as it may seem, I especially worry about what happens if scientists do find a manner of healing using these formerly frozen embryos (and using aborted fetuses is an even bigger no-no for me). If they use 1,000 in their research, how then do we determine how millions of people will receive treatment using a finite supply of embryos? Do pro-life couples get a voice in making sure their embryos are not eliminated for science? Will millions more be needed to be mass-produced in test tubes to make antidotes?

Now, however, it may not even be entirely necessary to use embryos. As usual, there's always another way: A research team from UCLA and the University of Pittsburgh (writing in an April issue of the journal Tissue Engineering) and another from Duke University recently reported success at collecting valuable human stem cells from ordinary liposuctioned fat, potentially ending the need to collect such cells through controversial fetal-tissue procedures and painful bone-marrow extraction. Stem cells can make replacement muscle, bone and cartilage, and if they come from one's own fat, will not be rejected by the body. Also, as the researchers pointed out, Americans' fat cells are an abundant resource. [New York Times, 4-10-01]

On the heels of Europe condemning the U.S. for using the death penalty, more evidence comes forth that their priorities are misplaced. It turns out that many in England are not just anti-death penalty but almost pro-criminal!

The Law Commission has actually proposed measures that would make it easier for criminals to sue members of the public who injure them while defending their homes. While in jail, these crooks could actually get a hold of the pocketbooks of their intended victims when they couldn't do so before.

These people think personal possession of guns is wrong, and after this law could someone explain to me exactly why we should deter people from becoming criminals as a lifestyle? Seems an easy way of life. Maybe the Law Commission will just cut through the red tape and just open up stores for giveaways once a month, or make it mandatory for members of the public to hand over their wallets to any crook that knocks on the door.

I have plenty of friends and family who have problems in the their lives, and don't get along with their parents. I completely feel for them and see what affect it has on their lives. Still, I resent the thought that Hollywood presents constantly, that anyone who has a good relationship with family - parents, especially - is somehow living a fake life. I just don't appreciate that I have to be painted as delusional and not being "real" by not having these problems. Tolerance runs both ways, and if you want to have a self-defeating attitude and lifestyle, don't try to drag me down to your level to make yourself feel better and justified.

According to the Honolulu Weekly, Justice Clarence Thomas had been invited to Hawaii to debate national ACLU president Nadine Strossen at the annual David Levin First Amendment Conference. The invitation was rescinded, however, when a local chapter member called Thomas "an anti-Christ," and "a Hitler," and said that having Thomas speak was "like having a serial murderer debate the value of life." Another was quoted as saying: "Bringing Clarence Thomas sends a message that the Hawaii ACLU promotes and honors black Uncle Toms who turn their back on civil rights."

As Norah Vincent stated in National Review, the mindset of these African-American members of the ACLU is that "if you are not one of us, then you are the devil. There is no debate. There is no exchange. There is only conformity and heresy, impunity and name-calling..."

This, while in the same week Justice Thomas was omitted from the list of the 100 most influential black Americans, according to Ebony magazine. Since Thomas is a conservative African-American, he is somehow less worthy than Al Sharpton, any Democrat in Congress or Franklyn Scott, president of the National Dental Association.

Ebony and other liberal black groups can deny Thomas his due now, but the future will see him in a different light, that of a thoughtful, admirable and honorable man who has and will leave a significantly positive mark on the community.

China's Xinmin Evening News reported that a woman from the city of Chongqing has filed for divorce based on words and phrases her pet mynah bird began saying after she returned from a month-long visit to her parents.

She told her lawyers that the bird was saying such things as "divorce," "I love you" and "be patient." She believes the mynah overheard those words and phrases from listening to her husband's telephone calls to his lover because the bird utters them more frequently when the phone rings. Attorney Du Wi was quoted as telling his client that, "the judges are unlikely to rule against your husband based only on the mynah's words." (Earthweek, Steve Newman)

Never one to shy away from tough issues and willing to take heat as the sole libertarian in the media, ABC reporter John Stossel's getting flack from environmentalists for taking on global warming myths.

Actually, his new show, "Tampering with Nature" is about global warming, cloning and genetic engineering.

When Stossel was preparing the piece he asked the parents of some children from the Pacific Palisades section of Los Angeles if their children could be a part of the program. They said yes. Now the parents are upset, and they don't want their children included in the special. And why? Because they say that Stossel's questioning of their children was unfair and that Stossel was dishonest. OK .. so what's the real problem here? Evidently it centers around one particular question that Stossel asked the kids.

Stossel asked the children for a show of hands on how many of them believed scientists were unanimous on the dangers of global warming. Good question. We've known for ages that the media presents a virtual one-sided view on global warming. We're always being told about all of the scientists who believe that global warming is real and caused by humans. The other side with real scientific data is left out of the picture.

Stossel wanted to know if the children were getting the same one-sided presentation. A simple un-biased question showed that these children were, indeed, being given only one side of the issue. Stossel suggests the children are being indoctrinated by environmental activists and not educated.

Despite that ABC, in a statement, backed Stossel's work and concluded the interviews were done "in a professional and responsible manner according to the highest journalistic standards," they're going to edit the program.

The network noted that none of the parents complained until two months after the interviews were done, and not until after some of them had spoken to environmental activists.

Behind all of this is a crowd of eco-leftist-radicals called The Environmental Working Group. They don't like Stossel one little bit. When they got wind of the program they started contacting the parents of these kids. One parent said that it was this group that finally convinced him to make a complaint to ABC. Other parents are actually threatening lawsuits if their children are shown when the piece is aired. Some info from the Associated Press and Neal Boortz.

Homer quote: "Trying is the first step towards failure."

Bart's chalkboard: There are plenty of businesses like show business.

Random site: Movie Clichés -- Find out what to expect from that next brainless summer action flick.
     

Jeff's Editorial Page | Column Archives   | Home