TSA: All Touchy, Feely These Days

 [Post Note: This has been a crazy week for me, as you can tell from my missing the post deadline on Wednesday. In times of busy schedules and opening up new ideas on the blog, I have asked a guest author to write an article to dip their toes, so to speak, into the blog pool. They are being a little bashful with their first post so they have asked that it is listed this one as being written Anonymously. I will respect their wishes but hopefully will be able to coax them into using their name on the byline for future post. Please welcome and enjoy my guest author with our Friday’s post and comment with your ideas to encourage their contribution in the future. ] 

Isn’t it worth a little discomfort to arrive safely?

 

Submitted by Anonymous

 What is all the fuss about increased security measures in airports?  “What a privacy invasion.”  “I don’t want anyone seeing me naked on the scanner.”  “Being patted down is disgusting, I don’t want someone else’s hands on me.”  The response to all of these statements is simple:  THEN DON’T FLY.    I have even heard people say such silly things as “I’m sure there are other ways to increase security.”  Really?  And what would those be? 

We practiced the honor system of security from the inception of air travel until September 1970, when Palestinians threatened to destroy four hijacked airplanes, two of them American.  In response to these events, President Nixon placed sky marshals on some flights to deter hijackers.  Sky marshals couldn’t be on every flight, though, and the hijackings didn’t end.  Clearly these hijackers and the generations of terrorists after them did not get the memo about honor.  Over the past 30 years, airport security has increased incrementally, including people and baggage searching, and even asking “Has anyone unknown to you asked you to carry an item on this flight?”  It occurs to me that if that question has to be asked, then that situation has presented itself before.  What person would accept something from a stranger?  I can’t even imagine how that might go.  “Excuse me ma’am, could you please carry on this child’s toy?  Pay no attention to the skull and crossbones on the vial of green liquid, or the wires connected to the timer that’s counting down to zero.” 

If you feel that your right to privacy is greater than someone else’s right to breathe, exist in one piece or live, that’s wonderful and I want to honor your right.  Please sit in your living room and enjoy complete and full privacy from the prying eyes and invasive hands of the TSA screeners while the rest of us comply with whatever measures will keep air travelers safe from harm. 

[Post Note revisited: If you would like to try sharing your ideas or want to experiment with your first blog, but you are undecided on creation of your own site, become a guest author on Trip Through My Mind. Contact me through the comment section and we can arrange for your post to be reviewed for submission. I encourage all readers to consider sharing their ideas. ] 

 

 

 

 

Until next time…

© 2010

  

 

The Good, The Bad, and The Lawsuit

I am a U.S. citizen. I have lived here, in the U.S. all my life. I have paid my taxes, taken care of my bills and have held a job. Does this entitle me to demand that someone pay me money without me putting in the time to earn it? Should I quit my job, sue whoever I can find as the object of my scorn? When did our society go from hard-working, get what you give, people to a country with those that have their hand out, wanting someone else to pay the bill.

News Flash: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or is there?

 

Caution: Lawsuits may follow. © j.benns 2010

 

Who knew: In 1994, Stella Liebeck rode with her grandson to get her morning coffee. After purchasing her morning fix of coffee, her grandson parked the car and she proceeded to open the beverage container to put in her sugar and cream, spilling the contents. At this point, she received third degree burns and McDonald’s was the proud owner of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Did the courts throw this out after hysterical laughter? No, in fact this case went to trial and Stella won the lawsuit.  How did a person who has lived for 79 years miss the lesson that coffee is hot and care is needed when handling? Was coffee cooler back in the day? This $.49 cup of coffee paid out $640,000. And I play the lotto for $2 a chance.  This was not the first frivolous lawsuit to be presented to the court but thanks to modern media, this was one of the first widely publicized. The ridiculous settlement not only gave Stella a windfall but also prompted a yearly award named in her honor, The Stella Awards. These awards are given to those that hijack our legal system for frivolous lawsuits. Does it end here? Not quite.

Where are my pants: Roy L. Pearson filed suit against his dry cleaner for losing his pants. Many have been upset at the mistakes that happen to our favorite appeal at the local dry cleaners but, Pearson felt that his mental anguish and loss was worth $67 million. Did I happen to mention that Pearson was an Administrative Law Judge? Thankfully, Pearson lost this lawsuit. It does remind me though, I would like to find and sue the young lady that still has my Bat Out of Hell: 2 concert t-shirt from the 90s. I still haven’t found it since she wore it. That has to be worth at least a few million bucks.

No good deed: In Durango, Colorado, two good-natured teenagers created a care package of yummy goodies for their neighbor.  They didn’t even want credit for it; they were delivering it anonymously. As they stepped on the porch, Wanita Young was started by their presence. So started, that the ungrateful resident sued the teens, even though they gave a written apology to Wanita. Was it because she didn’t like the cookies? No, she sued them for causing her undue distress; $3,000 worth of stress for stepping on her front porch.  Surprisingly, the court awarded her a sum of $900 from the neighborhood do-gooder. That will teach them to help someone.  I wonder how much I can get for the siding sale people who interrupt my Saturday afternoon television shows.

We can all appreciate legitimate legal action. However, our over-burdened courts are flooded daily with people trying to get a hand-out from those that have more. This only happens because of people like Stella, who are able to win unreasonable cases. As long as courts allow for such lawsuits to continue, we will have more people attacking otherwise hard-working individuals and companies. These s actions are causing higher insurance rates for businesses and higher costs to us.

S the next time you have too much to drink and run your car through the local auto parts store, just call your lawyer. You can sue the bar who sold you the alcohol, the auto manufacturer for not having a warning against driving while intoxicated, the police for not catching you and the auto parts store for being in your way. I see millions in your future.

Until next time…

© 2010

For more interesting Stella Awards, go to The Stella Awards

Unhappy Government Cheese…Burger?

Government is taking the fun out of the meal.

Ronald McDonald is not feeling the love in California as lawmakers attempt to change the happiness of the Happy Meal. The new ordinance in San Francisco will ban the burger giant from adding enticing toys in the long time successful kid’s meal. Requiring instead, that the heavy calorie meals to add fruits and vegetable to the box menu. What is the goal of the new regulations? It is an effort for the government to fight childhood obesity.

Americans in general have a love/hate relationship with food. We tend to like what is bad for us while disdaining what is good. Though, some of the population has started to buy into the marketing push that only organic food is healthy; while there is a growing vegetarian population that has garnered its spots on the local menus. For the moment, let’s wait on these small segment of the population and focus on the greasy food loving, processed meat-eating, good ole’ American dinner.

Even as a child, I remember going out to eat was a treat that was rarely given. It just wasn’t something that was done frequently because of the cost of feeding a family of six. Then somewhere in the mid-eighties, drive through restaurants started popping up at every corner of town. If you could think of a type of food, it probably had a five-minute, stay in the car menu serving high calories in a non-biodegradable container.  It became the norm in family outings for the lazy and ill-fated generation. Family dinners around a home cooked meal became a thing of the past as it was easier to dial-up delivery than to turn on the stove. This generation grew up and passed this unhealthy diet on to the next.

As bad as this all might seem, is this the cause of the growing weight issue in our country, probably not. Burgers don’t make you fat, eating those does. Just because these meals are served up in small, medium and “I can feed a family of four” extra large doesn’t mean that we have to consume them for every meal. However, to create legislation that prohibits the adding of cheap toys to a meal to entice children to become obese is like saying the scantily clad women at Hooters is causing alcoholism. Once again the question is posed as to who the parents are in this situation? I don’t know of many children under the age of twelve that has the money to sneak off to the local fast food burger barn to get their Happy Meal toy fix. We can only infer that it is the parents that are purchasing the food. And I am not sure if a ban on toys is going to stop that from happening. Once again it comes down to the just because you added some of your genes to the pool does not constitute being a parent. It is our jobs to police what our children eat, not the government.

In closing, let’s get back to the “organic” consumers out there. You are applauded for the being health conscious and selective in what goes in your body. You have your own section in the local grocery store, but do you really believe that mass-produced food that sits on a shelf for months on end is completely organic? If you are wanting to true organic food, then get your shovel and hoe out next spring and start your own garden.

Until next time…

© 2010

Pac-Man Made Me Do It

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether a ban on violent video games should be imposed that enacts fines to anyone who sells or rents violent video games to adolescents under the age of eighteen. Since when did a group of sixty-something have an idea on what a video game is?

I am not a gamer or one that partakes in the continuous playing of video games. I have to admit that I avoid them because I get addicted to the play and lose hours, or days, to the mindless screen. However, there obviously is a market for such things otherwise they would not be produced. That should say more about our society than it does about the designers of the games.

Since the advent of video games, we have had controversy on whether they are healthy for our younger generation.  The titles such as Grand Theft Auto, that caused commotion a little over five years ago, to the newer games, such as “Postal 2”, have brought dramatic debate as to what is safe for our children. The objectives of the games are to create as much mayhem as possible and even earning points for unprovoked abuse. Well, that seems like it is teaching the children a mixed lesson but who is to blame? Is it the creators of the games or the parents?

If we, the parents, feel that something is inappropriate for our children to play, then shouldn’t we be the censors? Why do we need the courts to impose legislation that would do the parenting for us? Is this meant to be helpful or to let the government become our de-facto guardians of our youths? Doesn’t this walk a fine line between freedoms of speech in the name of protecting our citizens from what they, the government, thinks is appropriate?

All this brings back the days of the PMRC, the Parents Music Resource Center, which formed to push the conservative agenda to censor music in the late 1980’s. This organization pushed for the government control of what musical content our children could listen to. As with the current issues, shouldn’t the parents be controlling the content?

The very people who want to regulate things that should be left to parents are a group of people who display greed, backstabbing agendas, and over expenditure of funds. How are they qualified to dictate what is right or wrong for each of us. How are they to decide, based on their own personal moral creed, what is good for us? This appears to be a slippery slope that once we start the slide down, our complacency will allow more sweeping laws to be in effect.

Are these games potentially vulgar renditions of violent acts that are inappropriate for adolescence? I can hope that we agree that they are. Could they be teaching our children that there is little consequences to their actions when it comes to violence? Yes, it is easy to shoot someone in a game without realizing the difference between a game and the real world.  However, isn’t that our job as parents to filter and explain what is appropriate? If we fail to do so, then we have only ourselves to blame. Pay attention to what your children do, what they play, and get your head out of the sand.  It is your responsibility to be a parent, not the government’s.

Until next time…

© 2010