Sorry, Bill, but I have to stop you there. Taking things personally more often engenders a skewed perspective than a proper one. You know full well the problems with letting emotion color your perceptions too much.
Thank you, Justin, for that segue. Your check is in the mail.
Emphasis in red
is my own.
A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift suggests that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. This satirical hyperbole mocks heartless attitudes towards the poor, as well as Irish policy in general.
In English writing, the phrase "a modest proposal" is now conventionally an allusion to this style of straight-faced satire.
Honest... I didn't ask Justin to set me up so nicely like that.
Yes, Justin, it *is* personal - and for good reason. And with proper mindset, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To be completely impersonal is to set someone up for satirical abuse per Jonathan Swift's classic essay.
Jonathan Swift wrote:
A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
What type of wine do you serve with stewed Irish child?
I think you should also reconsider your picture of who sues. It's not just the people you call "trailer trash".
Until there is massive tort reform, then the abuse is warranted.
My vaccine example is the perfect reason why legislation like this is needed.
Who gets sued and for what can be quite arbitrary. We let people put themselves at massive risk by allowing them to purchase/use a knife or a car. But God forbid some high tech entity be out there and someone hurt themselves. The whole f(cost,benefit,risk,awareness) equation goes out the window. We continue to allow a situation per the cerebral palsy babies scenario where lawyers (such as John Edwards) can make a fortune fleecing innocent obstetricians before science is able to catch up with the truth. And it isn't just the fleecing of innocents that's the problem, Justin. The trial attorneys and their clients were not obliged to give back all their ill-gotten gains when they were proven in the court of scientific evidence to be dead wrong. Please tell me where there is justice in that. Are we to shrug our shoulders and chalk it up to justifiable wealth redistribution? Tell that to women in rural areas now who can't get OB care because doctors there can no longer break even.
All I can say about the cerebral palsy baby situation is that karma finally caught up with one of the major lawyer scumbags.
Finally, don't kid yourself; Obama is in the pocket of big business just like the rest of them, he's just in different pockets than Romney. Okay, maybe he's slightly further towards the lip of the pocket than the average politician.
So Obama suks too, but just a little? Perhaps he didn't inhale?