He who praises everybody praises nobody.
Samuel Johnson
Lawsuit Abuse: Most Ridiculous Lawsuit: My Vote
August's poll of the most ridiculous lawsuits includes a 50-year-old woman suing her former Facebook boyfriend whom dumped her a week before her planned first in-person meeting/visit, claiming that he met a special someone at a bar; then there's a Michigan inmate suing state restrictions on pornography in prisons (i.e., limited to magazines like Playboy, but not allowing other materials depicting bestiality or simulated rape) on the constitutional grounds that they constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". There are other stories as well: a woman suing after a puppy chase incident and a class action suit against a company reselling in-demand tickets at a profit.
But my vote focuses an unconscionable fatal auto accident involving a woman, Diane Schuler, driving at twice the legal drinking limit and detectable amount of THC (marijuana) whom ignored a "do not enter" sign and headed into one-way traffic heading towards her, driving 85 mph and eventually into an SUV, killing all 3 occupants. Schuler, driving her brother's minivan, her 2-year-old daughter, and 3 young nieces all died in the crash, leaving only the driver's 5-year-old son as the sole survivor:
[The widower] Daniel Schuler, contends it was the state's "negligence, carelessness and recklessness" in its design and maintenance of the highway that "solely" caused fatal injuries to his daughter, Erin, 2.Putting the cherry on the sundae is the report that Schuler is suing his brother-in-law Warren Hance, as if losing the precious lives of his 3 elementary school age daughters, beautiful gifts from God, at the hand of his late sister wasn't hard enough, insisting that Hance share the liability for the accident because Diane was driving his minivan.
I don't care how many angels dance on the end of a pin that trial lawyers self-righteously use to rationalize the necessity of their existence: these lawsuits are a perversion and unconscionable abuse of our justice system. There must be accountability both for the plaintiff and his parasitic lawyers. In my opinion, any lawyer involved in these crackpot nuisance suits is in violation of professional ethics.
What I do think should be investigated is whether Hance, his wife or anyone else knowingly let someone who was legally drunk and stoned operate his vehicle, period, never mind a priceless load of 5 beautiful young children, 4 of whom died far too soon, and the 3 victims.
Stock Market Meltdown, Obama, "The Five" and
Scapegoating Attacks on the Credit Bureaus
S&P Downgrade: A Contrarian Thumbs UP!
I am not a fan of FNC's replacement show to Glenn Beck. I watch it occasionally, like I did today, but mostly because of the breathtaking series of events over the weekend, including the S&P downgrade, the massive European bailout involving the latest sickly debt-laden economies, Spain and Italy, today's S&P downgrade of the twin GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and, of course, one of the biggest one day drops in stock market history, down nearly 635 points on the Dow.
President Obama had a bizarre statement earlier today where he made reference to S&P's downgrade, doing a cheerleader-like "we are a AAA" nation, and making reference to Warren Buffett by saying if there was a AAAA-rated debt, it's US debt. Once again, Obama goes through the Democratic game of political spin referring to a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction: this is jargon which means "class warfare tax hike". This, of course, is ideological, not pragmatic in nature. The projected income from Obama's tax hikes doesn't even begin to close $1.3T-plus deficits. Even now we see, once again, Obama calling for a "jobs bill" which consists of ongoing partial payroll tax holidays and 2 years of morally corrupt supersized unemployment compensation checks.
There are few FNC "analysts" I despise more than former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino (there are few female commentators on Fox News worth listening to, in any event). She suggested that Democrats and Republican join forces against a common enamy, S&P. Then Bob Beckel, perhaps FNC's most ubiquitous resident liberal, seemed to create a new variation of the "Hi, Bob" drinking game whereby he tried to say "S&P" and "fraud" in the same sentence as often as possible.
Let us be clear: S&P has been rating sovereign debt for decades. Other rating agencies (Moody's, Fitch, etc.) have raised similar warnings. S&P had repeatedly told the US government over the past year that it was flirting with its AAA rating. Treasury Department Secretary Geithner is talking about a $1T to $2T error in S&P figures. (There was no math error--there is a difference of assumptions on the level of growth of discretionary spending: S&P assumed a higher 5% vs. 2.5% unrealistically assumed by Treasury. Obviously higher spending results in a higher deficit. This appears to be a case where an original draft's figures were included while accompanying text paid lip service to Treasury's late lobbying for the 2.5% figure; the figures weren't accordingly adjusted. You might argue that the S&P report was inconsistent but not "wrong": you could just as easily argue that the accompanying text was wrong.)
Barack Obama, you really are going to use Warren Buffett, an EQUITIES INVESTOR, as an expert on bonds? Really, Barack; really? Really? How about Bill Gross of PIMCO, the fund manager of the world's largest mutual fund, involving debt securities, whom was out of Treasuries 2 months ago? Let me just quote from an investment post 2 months ago:
“U.S. government bonds are not a safe haven,” Jim Rogers, the global investor who predicted the 2007-2009 housing-market crash... “I cannot conceive of lending money to the U.S. government for 30 years.” Pacific Investment Management Co. said yesterday that Gross, who runs the $237 billion Pimco Total Return Fund, eliminated government-related debt from his flagship fund last month as the U.S. projected record budget deficits. Gross, who has overseen the expansion of Pimco into a $1.2 trillion bond shop over four decades, predicted a year ago that “bonds have seen their best days.”What S&P is seeing is that 60% of the federal budget in mandatory spending (social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) is untouchable. The Republicans have essentially been unable to get the Democrats to concede to more than pocket change in cuts to any short-term discretionary spending.
We need a reality check: Obama's strategy of talking about maybe phasing in higher age eligibility YEARS FROM NOW doesn't do squat towards closing trillion dollar-plus deficits in the near future. We have to limit aggregate spending by things like fewer benefit mandates, means-testing, higher payroll taxes, and higher deductibles.Be clear: at $14.5T, we are ALREADY approaching the size of GDP, a fiscal sustainability heuristic. Whether we are talking $2T or $4T in saving over the coming decade, that doesn't mean much when we are looking at $10T or more in additional deficits going straight to national debt. We need to address the $10T--plus make a serious dent into the Democratic national debt accumulated since the Democratic takeover in 2007, nearly two-thirds of the entire accumulated debt at that point.
S&P is simply noticing that Emperor Obama is wearing no clothes. The issue, contrary to Obama, is not gridlock--it's more the fact that Democrats refuse to meaningful spending cuts in any way. This is a long-overdue wake-up call.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Eagles, "Heartache Tonight" Among my top 3 favorite Eagles' songs, including "Desperado" and "New Kid in Town".
