Molehills and Mountains

You have heard of that old adage "making mountains out of molehills", right? I have noticed quite of few stories in the media over that last few weeks that seem to be "fight worthy" causes for some people (mountains) while being less than significant to others (molehills). It is an interesting time in our culture when people can take a random "cause" and elevate it to national bylines at least for a week or so before someone elses  perceived "wrongs" make the national news. 

Within the last few months, for example,  Starbucks was served with not one but two new lawsuits. Before we discuss these most recent suits, you have to recognize that Starbucks has a history of being sued. Much like a lot of big corporations, Starbucks has pretty much had a never-ending parade of lawsuits levied against them. The most popular being that their hot drinks are HOT.

Well..supposedly their hot drinks are TOO hot.  Sadly, for some of the litigants the strength of those  particular suits are disappearing into wisps of smoke (or dissolving hot froth) because one of the more notable cases was dismissed last year which set a precedent for the 1200+ pending suits that they may be left fighting an uphill battle. 


Anyway....Starbucks, undoubtedly, had some pretty experienced lawyers on speed dial for that suit as well as the bevy of other lawsuits that included being sued for discriminating against the deaf, against dwarfism, for spiking drinks with heroin, for copyright and trademark infringement, sexual harassment, unpaid overtime, for one man's penis being crushed, and a laundry list of other slights that have made their way into the court system. 

Poor Jeff Rossen...paid to create drama where none exists.

I am sure you will be happy to know that these hard working lawyers over at Starbucks have some additional job security thanks to two newer lawsuits.  The first was filed in mid-March by two Californians that are asking for a class action suit to be brought before the court for "unspecified damages" with the demand for a jury trial for what they deem as millions of people being short changed by under-filled lattes.

While they might actually have a case due to all the people that are now dumping their 16 ounce Grandes into calibrated beakers to determine how many ounces of brew they are being screwed out of...there is a lot of debate about the science of whip and foam. Not to be the devil's advocate, but what if 2 ounces of milk that is whipped doesn't always measure exactly the same due to humidity or air pressure.  Is "whip" by it's very nature always the same volume? 

Then when you think it can't more unjust in the world of $6.00 coffees, a Chicago woman has brought a $5 MILLION dollar suit to Federal court saying that Starbucks is filling her iced drinks with too much ice.  According to Stacy Pincus, iced drinks cost more than heated drinks but you only get half the product because the other half is replaced by ice.  Starbucks is countering her claims with the comment, "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage." (NOTE TO STACY: Heads up if you want to prove this in court...do it fast before the ice melts!)

I guess we have to assume that some of those lawsuits and complaints are legitimate. Yes, just given the law of averages,  in some cases there were probably "wrongs" that were committed against employees and customers...., but  couldn't we, also, assume that some people are overly sensitive and making something "bigger" than it needs to be.

The Internet has a way of taking an innocuous events and turning them into a cause.  Remember the Red Cup promotion at Christmas? 
Yes, the infamous RED CUP CONTROVERSY aka Red Cupgate and #itsjustacup became big news on the Internet.

Because Starbucks failed to  put a "Christmasy"  motif on the seasonal cups, the Internet went wild with accusations that Starbucks was anti-Christmas.There was a video made my an Arizona preacher, Joshua Feuerstein, that went viral claiming that Starbucks hates Jesus.  (Seriously?)

Another example, of a recent flare up on social media is related to a NOVEL with the title Meternity.  Meghann Foye, the author of Meternity writes a fictional story about a woman named Liz that is mistakenly thought to be pregnant by her coworkers. Liz takes advantage of the situation, starts wearing a fake baby bump with the end game of being able to take some "me time" off for renewal and reflection.  Somewhere between the "it's only a fictional story" and the ensuing sh** storm that is playing out in the media, was the fact, that Meghann said in interviews that the idea for her book was based on the fact she feels it's unfair that non-mothers don't get some time off.

Poor obtuse, Meghann.   Clearly she has lost her mind to link the phrase "time off" and "maternity leave" in the same sentence, then actually say it out loud and not expect some controversy.    Even way back when...when I was a young mommy, maternity rights were a hard-fought battle and it's a very sensitive issue. (NOTE:  Meghann, you poor naive thing...don't go there. You have no idea how cranky an overwhelmed, sleep deprived, hormonal, new mommy can be. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

BUT...back let's circle back to the concept of people latching onto some individual's agenda and either making it into a  fight or trying to elbow their way onto the soap box. Whether it's under-filled lattes, unadorned red cups or an author's cluelessness about what a maternity leave is,  should we expect that every opinion  has the potential of going viral?   Is there any thought that could be thought in today's Internet driven world that doesn't have the possibility to be so incendiary that it could spark hot debates over all the morning news, the daytime talk shows and Internet comment sections?

I am fairly certain that not only will the irritated moms get past caring about what Meghann thinks and go about their busy lives but another NEW cause will take it's place. Yes, indeedy...the idea of Meternity leaves has already spurred a new cause. If moms get maternity leaves and non-moms want time off, then pet owners need equal treatment. Can we hear a "Woof Woof?"  That idea  prompted  Lindsay Putnam of the New York Post to write an article last week asking for implementation of Paw-ternity leaves in the U.S.

Paw-ternity leaves are actually a thing in Britain.  Five percent of the employers (so it's not a BIG thing..just a thing) offer paid time off for pet owners that need to take care of their pets. Of course, it could be pointed out that in Britain, women get paid maternity leave for sometimes up to a year, so it would appear that they are a quite a bit more generous with their "time off" policies than the U.S.

Perhaps, I should take some "me time", move to Britain and buy some cats....
OR, I could just stay here and think of a cause that would benefit me in some wonderful way and make it into the next big national debate. 

That Needs to Come With Warnings

I am sure you all have seen the mugshots of the five inmates at the Idaho State Correctional Institution of south Boise that are suing a handful of major beer and wine companies.  They are contending that  alcohol led to their crimes and they should have been warned to the  addictive nature of booze.

I have done posts about lawsuits in which I talked about the one and only time I threatened to sue someone and I have done posts about  warning labels  in which I created the perfect drug that unfortunately came with some serious risks....but never have a done a post about a lawsuit that is a direct result of people wanting warning labels.

I am particularly interested in this lawsuit because it is coming out of  Boise.  My Kiddo #2  lives in Boise and keeps me abreast of the local scuttle concerning various Boise stories that don't always make their way to the Kansas City Star. Be forewarned that there are a couple of cases in Boise right now that are doozies.  I will catch you up on one of the more interesting news items in the next week or so. There is the additional fact that my kid is super smart and super funny which makes the stories extra entertaining.

Thought Number One:  They Didn't Realize that Alcohol Was Addictive

The five inmates; Keith Allen Brown, Steven Thompson, Woodrow Grant, Cory Baugh and Jeremy Brown have filed a lawsuit against Miller Brewing Co., Anheuser-Busch, Ernest and Julio Gallo Wineries,  Adolph Coors,  Brown-Furman Co., American Brands Inc., Pepsi-Cola, and  RJR Nabisco.  (What??? Pepsi and Nabisco are addictive???)

The five are asking for ONE BILLION DOLLARS...yes...with a B. They claim that all the companies should of had warning labels on their products that warned them of the addictive nature of alcohol...and while they don't spell it out....one could surmise that these guys are blaming alcohol for making them dumbasses.

Keith Brown told the Kansas City Star,  that he has spent almost 30 years in the prison system and that alcohol has played a major role in most of the situations that landed him in prison.  He went on to say that "at no time in my life, prior to me becoming an alcoholic, was I ever informed that alcohol was habit forming and addictive."  (Keith is being a bit redundant here.)

Jeremy Brown who is serving a 20-30 sentence for a 2001 shooting, claims he would of never started drinking had he known that alcohol was habit-forming.  According to him, he was drunk when he shot his victim.  He goes on to say that there wouldn't of been a shooting if he wasn't an alcoholic.  (I can hear it now...Your Honor, I submit that he is a liar, liar, pants on fire!!)

So far it doesn't appear that any lawyers are latching on to represent these five. (that can't be a good sign) They have filed the suit themselves with Boise's U.S. District Court.

None of the companies have yet responded to the suit.

Thought Number Two....Will We See Some More Warning Labels


I am not overly optimistic that these guys are going to get their BILLION dollars and really where would they spend it anyway?  (Do prison commissaries sell high-end merchandise?...perhaps I need to Google that.)

But...I wouldn't be surprised if we would start seeing warning labels on alcohol.  The labels on other products are the direct result of someone suing someone.

Who's going to pay the fine?

Surprise, there are peanuts in peanuts.

Learn something new everyday

It wouldn't tell you not to unless someone did.

Dry hair while sleeping..great idea for saving time.

In an effort to get a warning label into play for the alcohol manufacturers, here is a prototype just to get the ball rolling.

OK it might need some work...it's a start

What else, should we put in there, my fellow bloggers??? 





Come Join Top Sites Tuesday and be #1 on BlogDumps!
The purpose of this Meme is to encourage
Networking between bloggers and to have fun while doing it!
Make sure to visit all the other participants and leave comments

FBI Agent Lulled to Sleep

I should be sending a letter to the Missouri division of the FBI to apologize that one of their employees will be sleeping on the job today.  Yes, it is going to be my fault. 

Yesterday I sent in my paperwork to get a FBI background check, prior to me going in this morning to get fingerprinted.  Missouri has enacted some new rules regarding those of us with questionable sanity, questionable integrity and questionable intelligence that hold real estate licenses in their state.  While I can appreciate the fact that there are probably some low-life types that have licenses to buy and sell real estate, I am somewhat surprised at the the process to weed out the truly undeserving from the rest of us schlubs.

First of all, I went to a web site per the instructions of my broker to register.  This site is a 3rd party type of company that Missouri obviously uses for the purpose of doing background checks for a number of professions.

Soooo...already...I have a problem.   For the sake of not dissing the company by name I will call them KYSFIR (Keeping You Safe From Idiot Realtors).  I would call them by name but they might have the FBI logged into my blog.  From here on out I can't be too careful.

Anyway...I log in to this KYSFIR web site and through a maze of pick this and pick that type of questions, am pretty much asked "Why I am needing an FBI background check?

Well, crap...I say!!! Don't you know?  The state of Missouri hired your company to do this.   Why in the hell are you asking me? The quick answer is  because its the law, you morons.  If I want to keep my license, I have to have your company get all "up in my business" to make sure I am not a terrorist or a criminal. The long answer probably has to do with someone making some money by enacting this new rule.

  The big ole logo at the top says of KYSFIR's very  "user unfriendly" web site has a giant header that says:

With Trust and Confidence in individual identities provided by KYSFIR, governments and businesses around the world are protecting the public against terrorism, crime and theft fostered by fraudulent ID's.

Obviously, as a group we real estate agents are a shifty bunch and you as the public need to be protected from us. It probably should read terrorism, crime, theft and crooked real estate transactions.

So let me just assure you that I mean you no harm.  Here is what the FBI guy will discover while doing my background check.

• Female
• Married
• Two children
• Brown Hair  (well not really, but looks brown because of the dye)
• Hazel Eyes
• 5'4, 125 lbs.
• Never been in a jail cell (except on the Alcatraz tour)
• Never been in the back of a police car (wouldn't want to be arrested but might be fun for the experience)
• Don't have any outstanding warrants
• Have never needed bail money
• Haven't broken any laws that I am aware of...well..that's not entirely true.  There is a law on the books in Illinois that says if you aren't married you must call your date "Master".  I dated my husband 4 years prior to us getting married and not once did I call him "Master".  That might show up on today's report. Oh and in Moline there is a law that says you can't repetitively use 23rd St.  (guilty) and in Manteno you can't drop a used Kleenex, I don't think I did but I might have.
• Have only had 3 traffic accidents in my adult life (not counting the time I backed into Kiddo #1's car) 2 of those clearly weren't my fault, and the one that I got a ticket for was "allegedly"  following too closely was when I rear ended a guy that slammed on his breaks in front of me.  Dumb ass..meaning him..not me.  I wasn't following too close until he stopped. Then I definitely was too close.  In his backseat, pretty much.
• Have always followed the ethical rules of  the National Board of Realtors.  This has hurt my business considerably.  Playing fair and honest doesn't work in your favor in this business.

I don't know exactly what all the FBI wants to know about me but I am pretty sure the poor guy that gets my file is going to be finding it pretty dull.  YYYYAAAWWWN!!  Nappy nap time. 

I will get back with you and report if they have uncovered any smoking guns that won't allow me to renew my license. 



The Good for the Day...I will have this piece of bureaucratic nonsense behind me after today.

The Bad for the Day...This is one that has my sorta steaming ...This company won't take a charge card or a check from me.  I have to go get a cashier's check.  WHAT???? They have done a FBI background check on me but can't trust me to use a charge card???????

The Weird for the day...Snooki gets to ride in the back of another police car.  This isn't a new experience for her.  She ran into the back of a cop car and injured two Italian police officers.  Sorry to say they have let her off the hook after taking her to the police station.  I am worried that they might deport her back to the states.  Please keep her.  Pretty please???  




This is what the FBI guy will look like when my file comes across his desk.

Pardon me, sir, you are stepping on my rights

All of my regular readers know that you get whatever is hovering around in my brain on any given day and today it is the subject of our First Amendment Rights.  You know the ones I mean...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press,  Ratified 12/15/1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yep, there are our First Amendment Rights!!!

OK, here's my "back and forth" "which way" what way" dillema for the day. While I totally agree we all have the right to say WHATEVER we feel like saying, is there EVER a time that we should be held accountable?
Sometimes it isn't that I am conflicted as much as I am irritated that people are so nasty and rationalize their bad behavior by claiming their First Amendment Rights. Yeh, yeh, I know it is their right.

  I don't consider myself a moron (hey, be nice out there) but isn't there a line somewhere between the right to say whatever you want and the rights of the person/people that you are inflicting pain upon by opening your yap.  Is it always the case that we are relegated  to say "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"  

One of the more notable cases in the recent year has been about the hateful, repulsive, and feel free to fill in this [ blank  ]  with any other words of your choosing, members of the Westboro Baptist Church.  These vile reprobates have been in and out of the court system citing their right to free speech.  While the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, I can't help but wonder, how this can be considered a "peaceful assembly".  The members of this so-called church are anything but peaceful.  They are extremist and they hurt people by their actions.  The most notable is their regular anti-gay demonstrations  at the funeral services of fallen soldiers.  Really, how low can people stoop in their total disrespect of others.

They also, demonstrate against any number of ethnic groups, Roman Catholics, main stream Protestant churches, Jews and Blacks. They are equal opportunity hate-mongers.  Basically they hate everyone that isn't a member of the WBC.

Oh, I am off on a tangent here aren't I?  I could (and would) berate the WBC all day and not get anywhere. They are still going to do what they do.  I hate that they are here in the state I live. (then again I wouldn't wish them to move anywhere else and inflict their putrid selves on another state)

_____________________________________________

Well, the thing that got me started in this general direction is NOT JUST the WBC but overall, the people that invoke their right to the First Amendment without any regard for who's rights they are trampling on.

Here is a story that was in the local news here in Olathe, KS. not so long ago.  I guy taking his kids to school ran through a stop sign and was pulled over by an Olathe police officer.  The guy not only extended his finger but said to the cop twice " F*** You."   So he not only got a ticket for the stop violation but for disorderly conduct.  Seems fair enough to me but this is where the gray area comes in.  You have the right to voice your opinion even if its vile, disrespectful or whatever nature of trash talk spilling out of your mouth.

Turns out that this story isn't all that unusual.  When I pulled up the article there were pages of similar stories from other states that had  a common scenario .  According to the First Amendment you can be an ass to a cop (well...verbally...oh and the extended finger too, I guess).  Another case of "just because you have the right to do something" doesn't make it right to do it.

Here is a copy of one of the press releases:

OLATHE, Kan. -- The City of Olathe has settled a lawsuit with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri on behalf of a man filing a lawsuit for receiving a ticket for flipping an officer off and shouting "(expletive) you."
The suit came after Scott Schaper was pulled over by Olathe police officer Craig Lundgren for failing to yield at a stop sign. The ACLU said since Schaper's children started to cry during the stop, so as he pulled away from the stop, Schaper said "(expletive) you" and directed his middle finger at Lundgren "in an expressive way."

Lundgren pulled Schaper over again and issued him a ticket for disorderly conduct.

ACLU Legal Director Doug Bonney sent the Olathe city prosecutor a letter pointing out that the ticket was unconstitutional. In November, the city dismissed the disorderly conduct ticket, the ACLU said.

On Thursday, the City of Olathe said its insurance company agreed to settle Schaper's civil rights claims out of court in exchange for $4,000 to Schaper and $1,000 in attorney's fees to the ACLU. As part of settlement the City of Olathe's Police Department has agreed to provide department-wide refresher training on the proper use of the disorderly conduct ordinance, the ACLU said.

"Courts have interpreted Kansas disorderly conduct statutes and ordinances very narrowly to bar only speech and conduct that is truly obscene and thus outside of First Amendment protection," Doug Bonney, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said. "Many courts -- including the federal district court for Kansas -- have held that saying '(expletive) you' and using one's middle finger to express discontent or frustration is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.

So now our local officers are getting additional training how to take the bad behavior foisted on them in a professional manner.  Isn't that crap???? I wonder if Scott Schaper would have acted like the jerk he was, if he was needing an Olathe officer to protect him?  Of course, he wouldn't. Also, I have a problem with him behaving like that in front of the kids.  Great job of being a role model to his young ones.  Looking at the bright side, (if you can call this a bright side) Olathe got off better than Pittsburgh.  There a citizen was paid a  $50,000 settlement over the same type of exchange.

_____________________________________________




Here now is one last example of "right to say it" versus the "really you should have just kept your mouth shut".   Alexander Wallace made a video at UCLA talking smack about Asians.  Politically Incorrect, doesn't hardly begin to describe the inappropriateness of this as it coincided with the earthquake in Japan.  Alexander left UCLA after the video stirred up a lot of hostility.

The video under Alexander's rant is a song written and preformed by Jimmy Wong  as a kind of spoof based on the phrases that Alexander used in her rant. 





So before any of you feel the need to quit following me because you disagree, send me a comment or email me. It is your right to say anything you want. It is my right to have an opinion. Shouldn't adults have the ability to discuss things even things we don't see eye to eye on.

What are your thoughts on the Westboro bunch? Or what about the guy with the ticket?  Should both of those situations get a free pass to say anything they please?




The Good for the day...The Olathe police department says that this type of behavior is really rare.


The Bad for the Day....That there are so many instances where people justify hateful actions and try to rationalize it by saying it is their First Amendment Right.  Still makes them  jerks, though.



The Weird for the Day....That it is against the law to be vulgar to a judge in a courtroom but not illegal to be vulgar to a police officer enforcing a law. If Scott Schaper would have done this to a judge he would have most likely been found in contempt and hauled off to jail.

Castle Doctrine Laws: Make My Day

Last  week in Kansas City, MO, a homeowner was awakened during the middle of the night with someone dragging a go cart out of his back yard.  In his "less then alert" state of mind, he grabbed his shotgun and fired into the dark. Well, I probably don't have to tell you where this is headed.  The robber was shot and killed.  The homeowner called 911 and reported the incident and when the police arrived he was promptly arrested.  Lately, I have been noticing a rash of these arrests where a homeowner is being charged with shooting an intruder.  The difference with this one is the burglar was out in the yard.


There is no debate that the robber was robbing him.  In fact, this homeowner had been robbed 3 times in the recent  weeks.  The initial newspaper article said that the prosecutor was going to indict with Murder in the 2nd degree.  I was surprised by that.  I would have guessed that would only warrant an involuntary manslaughter count. Shows what I know??? Clearly the guy would have not been thinking clearly under these circumstances.  Probably shouldn't pick up a gun when you are half asleep, just a thought.


I suspect that in any state in the union, under these circumstances the  shooter would be  in a big heap of trouble.  The intruder was not in the house, was not armed and didn't threaten the homeowner.  He was just stealing stuff.


All of this got me thinking, of course....ya knew it would.


What are the laws in my current state??  Why I felt the need to know is any one's guess. As I don't own a gun and wouldn't know how to use it.  Just more trivial junk I need to stow in the nether regions of my brain.

 I looked up the laws in Kansas concerning the Castle Doctrine Laws.  Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or an other's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. 


 At the present time there are 31 states that have some version of the Castle Doctrine Laws. In recent years, a number of states have adopted or considered bills referred to as “castle doctrine” bills. These bills expand the circumstances where a person can use self-defense without retreating and contain other provisions, such as immunity for someone who legally uses force in self-defense.


Each state's laws vary in wording and intent. Turns out this is the tricky part.  Just in case you are planning on shooting an intruder anytime soon.  You better read your law clearly.

 Some states have added provisions such as the  "No Retreat Laws" which add the clause that you don't have to attempt to remove yourself from a threatening situation. Another version is some states is "Make My Day Laws".  (I am serious here).  These laws are based on the attitude that Dirty Harry had in the Clint Eastwood movies.  (in this version someone for sure is going to get hurt) and my personal favorite is the "No need to retreat anywhere" law.  This is the Texas version that says they don't expect you to retreat at all.  (it's nearly daring you to blow someone to bits) Here are a couple of web sites that break down the laws by states and do a pretty good job of clarifying the extent of the Castle Laws in that state.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm


http://redensign.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/castle-law-stand-your-ground-2/


Now some of you are jumping to the conclusion that I would want to shoot an intruder.  Not so fast on your jumping there folks.  First of all, I have already noted that hubby and I don't own a gun.  Hubby was in a branch of the military,  so I guess he could figure it out but we are pacifists (whooses if you will) so you can jump to the conclusion we will just be scared S***LESS  if we wake up to a robber.


With that being said, for you guys and gals that have legal weapons and someone is breaking in your place, I guess given the right circumstances I am ok with you shooting them. (not that you need my permission, so shoot away) 


 I hesitate to endorse shooting someone that is burglarizing your place but basically these dumb asses need to not be in your house messing with you and your things. Further more if they do break in, they need to take on the risk that they might get shot.  I don't want to hear them whining about their injuries (if they survive).  I especially don't want to hear about them suing you, which seems to happen from time to time.  If I am on your jury, I might be the tie breaker in your favor. (Well unless, you were doing something outrageous and mean spirited to your burglar. Let's assume he was asking for trouble.)


I liked the Texas attitude as far as home invasions go.  Back on the blog post where I  was talking about good neighbors, I failed to mention that my immediate next door neighbor in Texas was a Texas Ranger.  Roland  was a really good neighbor.  Neat guy. 


Shortly after we moved in and got to know each other a bit, he came over.  He asked me if I had a gun in the house and of course, I said no.  He said " I know your hubby travels a lot.  If he is out of town and you have any trouble you just call."  He proceeded to tell me about the "no need to retreat law".  Roland said he would be glad to shoot someone for me if they broke into my house.  How sweet is that???  Now there is a neighbor that has your back.


Anyway...Back to the fact that I now reside in Kansas.  Turns out Kansas does  have a version of a Castle Doctrine Law but it was updated in 2010 by a Castle Doctrine Bill.  I have read it and reread it and just don't get it. Doesn't it sound (see link below) like if you threaten your intruder, you had better carry through or you are breaking the law.  If you don't warn him you better not hurt him.  I am totally confused.  If you kill him, how is he going to tell anyone "Hey he didn't warn me."



https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1lW6hcx9GsZsUVI6US0pekrvTKHW4IEG_TMkzJ5cgYUU/edit?hl=en#



I can't help but think of the little old lady that was trying to get out of Cairo, that said she had an arsenal comprised of hot water, rolling pin, knife and a pan.  Perhaps that is the safest approach if you don't want to get charged with shooting someone.


The good for the day....Our homes are "Our Castles"


The bad for the day....There are idiots out there that have no respect for your castle. 




The WEIRD for the day ....speaking of gun rights (and wrongs) I always find Tom Lehrer's takes on subjects pretty funny.

Idiots Using Smart Phones

Recently in Kansas, a new bill has passed. You can't text and drive (simultaneously, anyway) within Kansas any longer.  There are several things that about these laws that continually puzzle me.  Are there so many people that are out there texting while driving that state legislatures have to reign it in?  How is it even possible?  If you are texting with both hands, driving with your knees (I guess), looking at the phone, how can it be that you are still alive??

Couple little facts to consider.  There are 30 states that have laws preventing texting while driving.  There are 8 additional states that don't let novice drivers or school bus drivers, text.  I would have liked to been privy to the state Congress/Senate sessions the day those laws passed to hear the discussion.  "Fellow lawmakers, let's enact some law that only experienced car drivers and truck drivers can text and drive at the same time.  Those 16 year olds should pay attention at least for a couple of years before being inattentive and killing someone.

Cellular phones and Smart phones, have changed how we all live.  How far we've come.

AND HERE WE ARE!!! 


Texting, as previously mentioned, seems to be the rage.  In or out of the car people are texting their fingers down to nubs.  I find a lot of conflicted viewpoints on the whole issue of texting.

• Why do people text things that would take much less time to just say? Wouldn't it be easier just to talk?
• You have to learn a whole new language. 

(angry girlfriend)
BF  SRSLY WTF    R U 2 BZ 2 Cm   U R PITA  Cm ASAP  >:-(

(happy girlfriend)
BF WUWH  UR2d4 ILU IMI :-x

Texting surely, is undoing a couple hundred years of teaching school children how to spell and use punctuation.

Really, by the time you figure out the appropriate symbols, wouldn't just pushing the programmed number on your phone to call the person be faster.  The worst that is going to happen is you speak your message to voice mail.

Filming:
Another new rule.  Yesterday on one of the talk shows, the ladies were hashing over the policies that hospitals are now imposing.  Fathers can no longer bring camera cell phones into the delivery rooms.  Don't want any mistakes on film, I guess.  Actually, I am on board with this one.  I don't give a crud about the liability to the hospital  if something goes wrong, but if I were the mommy-in-process I wouldn't want hubby's cell phone at the baby-in-process end of me.

The camera part of Smart Phones is always in the news.  Good and Bad.  Look at all the catastrophes we get to see now thanks to cell phones, earthquakes, hurricanes, landslides, and fires for example.  It's just not natural disasters though.  If you are acting badly you can bet someone is filming it for you.  Lawyers have just got to love these cell phone clips unless they are  representing the bad boy/ bad girl that is. 

Sexting
On past posts, I talked about the whole sexting debacle.  Seems that the act of actually making a phone call is somewhat incidental to why some people buy these phones. Being able to make X rated pictures and videos in the palm of your hand. How precious.

Talking
The people that do actually use cell phones for the sole purpose of making and receiving telephone calls have their own issues.  It is a common belief among cell phone users, I believe, that they think when they talk on the phone that no one around them can hear the conversation.  There perhaps is an invisible cone of silence that protects them from being heard.  This must be true!! This is perhaps why people talk so loud. You have to speak extra loud when you are in the cone. 

The one thing you might want to be conscious of, as you work up to a slow boil,   while listening to some highly intellectual type drone into their phone " Oh, my god.....like...for real....like....no way....SHUT UP!....really...no way...for real???" is right after you  complain about them being a  rude moron, your phone will ring and you will answer it.  But of course YOU ARE IN THE CONE!!!!

Also, let's make up a axiom for that: "The first to complain is the first to offend."  That should rank right up their with Peter's Principle and Murphy's Law but what should we call it?? Any suggestions??? Post a comment if you have some clever thought on what to call our new rule.
Ringers

To really liven up the place (and that can be any place including but not limited to, restaurants, offices, churches and meeting with the Pope). Be sure to turn the volume on your ringer full blast and find the most offensive song you can find as your ringtone.  That should get the heads a turnin'.

Not so long ago, I was at a dinner theatre with some friends, when someones phone started ringing during the performance.  The phone was ringing loudly with some kind of musical ringtone.  (nothing I recognized).  The person was continuing to ignore it when one of the actors on stage actually stopped and said something to the effect of " if you would like to answer that, we will wait".  The actor that stopped the show should have gotten a standing ovation right then.

Last but not least:
Wasting time while havin' fun with our portable little computers

Now this is one of those conflicted areas.  There are so many fun apps out there.  Who wouldn't want to load some games and other fun stuff on the phone. Tex Pal, who you may remember is a surgical nurse, said this is what all the people working at the hospital do in all their "spare" time.  I know I want my anaesthesiologist to be preoccupied with "Angry Birds". 

 It is hard not to succumb to the powers of the App Store. So to be fair, those near and dear to me (oh, yeah, and ME) are semi-addicted to some of this foolishness. I say semi as we are all still trying to be considerate of the people around us. No playing with phones in public places where people might be disturbed. 

Hubby loves some of those apps that you scan the bar code of anything in a store and it tells you where you can buy it cheaper.

Three year old grandson loves to do puzzles. (Scary that at three he knows how to open the apps)

And who doesn't want to Google things when you have some random thought while out and about?

OR read a book OR watch a TV show OR buy stuff OR log in, OR social network.....

  How did we ever manage without these little wonders??


The good for the day....our fun techy stuff

The bad for the Day...when we use it rudely, or dangerously, or inappropriately


The Weird for the Day...The fact that I can remember most of these phones and have owned more than a few. YIKES

Lawsuit Lottery: You, too, could be the winner!!!

On an earlier post, I mentioned the brand spankin' new semi-rigid dryer vent hose, that I received as part of a class action lawsuit with a big box store from which I bought my washer and dryer. Mind you, I didn't bring this legal action up against BIG BOX. I got a notice in the mail that I was one of many that had a dryer vent hose that might catch on fire and some nice lawyers were worried about the possibility of my house burning down. (if you didn't get the sarcasm please note: WARNING:BE AWARE OF SARCASM)

Yesterday alone I got two notices of upcoming litigation that we may participate in. Seems the Hertz Car Rental has been over charging some fees out in New Jersey. Evidently, hubby went through Newark's airport a couple years ago and got stuck paying a little too much. Now there is a throng, ( a herd? a gaggle? ah....) a team of lawyers working diligently to help us recoup the unfair charge. The other notice  is from some Bank that was part of a mutual fund that must of screwed us in some way but I haven't taken the time to read that one yet. Really, because I get these things all the time, it is nearly a full time job trying to figure out all the ways companies have abused us.

The thing about all this litigation that comes to us in a form that looks  like "a whole lot like junk mail" is that I never tend to do anything with it. I toss it in a file for future reference on the chance there was something that really did require some action on my part. Even with my "shove  it out of sight and ignore it" method of handling it, I usually get a settlement down the road in the form of an $8.00, $13.00 or the big money like $28.50.

I still occasionally get something related to ENRON. This one actually does fry my a**. Like everyone else we took a bath on this one. They really owe everyone way more than ten or fifteen dollars for the lying cheats that walked away rich and left us with little note cards saying we can try to recoup a couple of bucks.

Here is part of my point, everyone is suing everyone else in hopes of the big pay off. It is like going after the Powerball or Mega Millions but the odds might be slightly better because you are in a smaller pool of ticket holders. Who would of thought the day would come that suing and being sued would become so normal. For that matter, who would have thought it would turn out so lucrative for so many.

Which brings me to some points for today's little topic. Nearly everyone has a "lawsuit story".  We have several.  I will share one today. Some of the others might actually be more interesting but they are even longer than this one. We, however, have never sued for money. That fact takes some of the fun out of my examples.

When we moved to Texas, we had a new home built. It came up in the final inspection that the terraced slope of the back yard might be an issue in the event of a severe rain storm,  so we had it put into the contract that prior to closing that they would install French drains and bring those drains to the front of the property. For some ungodly reason, we were led to believe that the drains had been installed and we went to closing like lambs to a slaughter.

 At that time there were no homes built behind us.  During the first year, two more homes were built on the lots behind us.  The builder brought in a ton (figuratively speaking) of fill.  What was once flat land now sloped toward our slope. Visualize that our house is now sitting at the bottom of a very pretty terraced hill.

That first year we lived there it was a hot and dry.   Texas that year had record hot  temperatures and the drought conditions  lasted  all summer and into fall.  Unfortunately, when the rain started the following Spring our house was coming up on it's first birthday.  (ONE YEAR WARRANTY)
 On a particular  rainy day, I noticed the upper terraced area of the backyard had a waterfall coming off of it. I decided that might  NOT be a good thing so I set up a tripod with a camcorder looking out to the waterfall.  By the next day, there was a large waterfall and some movement of shrubs and trees.  Never a good sign. As luck would have it, hubby was out of town for an extended consulting gig, and got the privilege of listening to me tell him that I was really needing to build an ark. Mr. Optimism is sure I am exaggerating the whole thing and probably was watching TV and holding the phone away from his ear.

The rain continued into the next day and by this time I am going nuts.  (not a far distance for me) By day three we had a mud slide hitting the back of our house along with a LOT of water.  Enough to lift the ceramic tile right off the kitchen floor in fact, not to mention the vanishing act preformed by our back yard. Well, it didn't really vanish so much as come in the house to relax in my kitchen.

OK builder, where is that French drain that was supposed to be a helper here.  The builder was pretty secure in the "should have been taken care of before the year expiration of that warranty".  Seriously, you are talking to a crazy woman that has her garden growing next to her kitchen table and you are going THERE.

I went schlepping around to several lawyers.  The first lawyer was a coward.  It turns out that the developer of that community was a huge company with one of the owners being Ross Perot.  This guy didn't want to take on someone that had the lawyer power that this particular development  company had.  I wanted  the lawyer to make Ross and his buddies  come over and clean up the mess, put in a effective drainage system and replace all the crap that was damaged in my kitchen esp. the floor.

I continued my quest for a lawyer.  After 2 misses, I went to #3 and when he said.  "I can't think of anyone I would rather sue than Ross Perot".  Now we are talkin'! So he started by sending letters to the developer, builder, and the city government (for approving the additional fill sloping into my yard and not enforcing run off procedures mandated by the city).

After months of me and my lawyer going to meetings where the developer, city and builder all of which had dozens of lawyers that kept referring to me as "Little lady" and "maaaam"  (that is maam with a Texas drawl)  we were getting  NO  WHERE.

By this time I am thinking I need to be creative.  I took my camcorder video to a professional recording studio.  I asked them to enhance the sound track of the "wooshing" water and crunching branches and clean up the sequences so it looked nice. (I use the work "nice" loosely here).  It is really too bad, readers, that I can't put a VHS tape into this blog because that really was the piece de resistance. (see that 3 years of French continues to be useful).

We called one last meeting about 3 weeks before we were actually to go before a judge. My lawyer is still maintaining that no panel of Texans (I think the jury was to be 6 people???) would favor the builder, city and developer over me.    I wasn't prepared to take a chance.
So at the final meeting.  My lawyer puts in this glorious film that shows a great waterfall of muddy water complete with flowers and shrubs washing into my house. He then said it was going to be released to the local CBS affiliate.  (Big fan of the media when it works in my favor, not so much when it is going on and on about things like Paris Hilton etc)

The next day I get a call.  Out of the goodness of their hearts and certainly not because they did anything wrong, the developer and the builder were going halfies on  repairing my house, replanting my terraces and putting in the French drain. We didn't get completely off the hook as the amount of drainage they were willing to do seemed inadequate so we ended up doing some on our own.  But still not a bad outcome.  I said in retrospect, I should have added some punitive damages in the form of big moolah for the "little lady" condescending crap.

The good for the day....If you have a problem you can't resolve, it is great to find a really GREAT lawyer that will try to resolve the issue.  (not necessarily with buckets of money but if deserved not a bad thing)

The bad for the day... I can think of 3 families right off the top of my head that their only source of income is from suing people.  One of these families has been really successful at this.  Turns out you can sue someone for the most ridiculous reasons and get a decent amount of "GO AWAY NOW!" money. Hubby and I have been on the receiving end  (as in we were sued by some D****ss  for a ridiculous reason) of this once.  Luckily, it got kicked out because it was frivolous.  VERY STRESSFUL. I am sure that story will appear down the road for your reading pleasure.

The Weird...there are some fun and interesting cases that have been filed.(not necessarily won). Of course, everyone knows the Stella Liebeck suing McDonald's for the hot coffee that spilled on her crotch. (first judgement for 2.7 million and later reduced on appeal for a confidential amount.)
Most of the sources I looked up think the final settlement was less than $600,000. HOW MUCH LESS??? 500K would be a lot for a burn on one's lady parts.

Another example of an interesting lawsuit was the E trade baby commercial that Lindsey Lohan sued claiming that the baby was a take off of her. It does bring up some questions, I guess, the baby's name was Lindsey and she was a "holic". Kind of sad when you think people mean you because they reference an addition.