ParanoiA

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. I have always said we get the government we deserve and we are responsible for who is elected to office - but that's as a collective. We, as a society, get exactly what we ask for election after election. But that doesn't mean I, personally, got what I asked for, nor does it mean I personally share the blame for the decisions made by those I personally didn't elect. I also would never presume the same level of facts, evidence, information, intellectual support, and etc as our elected officials. It's their job to be experts in governing. So, no, I don't blame us directly either. But I have to accept the reality that politicians won't get elected if we don't elect them. We seem to like leaders that are more concerned about their careers than the nation, as we keep electing people that appear "perfect" and I believe only a con artist can be "perfect" to the american public. Not sure what you're refering to here. There's a lot of partisanship in the blame game, and I find both parties at fault to varying degrees. Republicans are wrong, in my opinion, philosophically. Democrats are wrong, in my opinion, by supporting tenuous philosophy more or less depending on the mood of the public and the election cycle. Obviously, I have a bigger problem with democrats here. Of course, that's all oversimplified generalizations.

Preaching to the choir here. We get exactly what we asked for, what we voted for. Personally, I didn't, so I've earned the right to rib those that did. How is he supposed to do that without any money? Yes, he could mount a pathetic little invasion without congress, and then nothing would come of it without support. Not even Bush is that stupid. Why, oh why are you trying so hard to protect men and women sworn to protect our constitution that shucked their responsibility? Particularly considering what it has cost us both in blood and moral integrity. Consider the money they make, the retirement they enjoy, the medical coverage they get, the prestige, the power - and for what? So they can stab the american people in the back and allow an idiot to wage war without sticking their necks out? No excuse for this.

Haha, that's awesome. Every bite I take out of my steak is revenge against the misquito. Hey, if they'll stop, then I'll stop.

It was unavoidable the moment the congress lost their backbone and gave him war powers. How can you possibly separate the two? I understand where Bush is coming from, but not these weiners you're defending. Bush thinks war and the whole superpower game is best for the business of america. That comes from a long line of idiots that idolize world power status and rationalize international authority. That's one dude. One. Congress is made up of lots and lots of dudes - about 535 total. 373 of those dudes voted to give Bush the power to INVADE. That's a grand total of 374 idiots. They had all the intellectual and legislative power at their disposal, and they chose to give war powers to the idiot. Congress seems to only be interested in protecting themselves, like true politicians. While Bush stands up and takes his licks from the public, your precious congress hides in the back row..or at least the democrat ones.

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would absolve congress of a thing, they're as guilty if not moreso. He wanted to invade another nation and they approved it. Those of us against the idea of the war even if the intelligence had been correct, can maintain that makes no difference to their responsibility. In one very important way, they are worse than Bush. Bush, straight up, believes and insists on war to fix our terror problem. The administration made no bones about it then, and still doesn't now. But congress? The slimy little bastards have flip flopped about the whole war, one day they're passing the buck to Bush junior, the next day they're acting like it's all wrong, then they're going to pull the troops and bring them home, then they admit they need to stay there...etc. I can't keep up with them anymore. Pangloss is right about savvy politicians. From a purely political standpoint, it was beautiful - none of the blame, all of the glory - depending on the outcome they were, and essentially are, covered.

Hey, that's cool. Now I'll reward Walmart with my business.

Yeah, what t.h.e. frak?

The use of manipulation in an attempt to influence someone's actions? Then all social animals are engaged in one continuous orgy of blackmail. As for threats, I blackmail my kids on a daily freaking basis then and it's working out well. If that's the definition we're to believe then I advise picking a better word for your argument.

I'm still agonizing over this. Tarnishing a business's image via a boycott because they followed the law does seem unfair. At the same time, consumers demand all kinds of unreasonable things from businesses with their wallets. The big difference seems to be organization and cooperation (boycott) vs. normal personal consumer preference. And I'm having a hard time with it philosophically. As to the specifics of the OP though, I'm with YT on this one. A refusal to support is not blackmail. I tried to think of it as "taking business away", but that would imply a right to a certain amount of patronage, when in reality, all of it is earned by market persuasion.

First of all, if you're proposing to ban them, then aren't you effectively promoting their extinction? Where are they going to live? What's humane and rational about that? Second, if the toxin is minimally dangerous, then yes I might very well throw a tantrum. Cigarettes are toxic, but they're still legal, rightly so. Oh yeah, you want to ban those too huh? Yeah, I don't know an argument for liberty that will be accepted by someone so committed to restricting it.

You're correct. Except the money she received was earmarked and restricted for her long term care. It's not like Walmart paid out X dollars, then she litigates for X dollars and keeps it while Walmart continues to pay her medical expense. As far as we know anyway, she has no medical coverage now that she can't work for the company and so that money was set aside to cover that. Is it Walmart's money? Absolutely. I'm simply choosing to see the difference between "party money" that one hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, and "survival money" that one hasn't earned, but deserves. Remember we're not talking legally (not saying you are, just being clear). The contract seals the deal and there are good reasons for the clause, and I'm not proposing that clause be removed either. Nothing about this situation should change except that lawyers should actually look out for their client, and billion dollar companies shouldn't rationalize wiping someone's long term care fund, leaving them broke. What did Walmart do wrong? Nothing, if they weren't a billion dollar company. The fact they are is what makes this sick. I want to shame corporate america into being better citizens and quit using "that's business" to excuse the obvious - rich entity uses its legal rights to squash the helpless. I'm not talking about putting someone out of business in the exercise of entrepreneurial discourse, I'm talking about taking someone's last dime being used for their healthcare for their ruined life. Consumers are the only possible conscience for capitalism. And like I said, perhaps a boycott isn't the right response, but rather a persuasive effort to do business with a more noble class of corporate business. Although, it's going to look pretty much the same. That may well be the case. Although it changes little since I doubt Walmart CAN'T step in and offer her medical coverage. That would be a noble move that maintains legal parity and still doesn't result in the taxpayers covering her healthcare now that she's broke and Walmart has their money. Hell, for all I know, they've done that. CNN isn't going to paint the best picture on this.

Good point. Your posts have certainly changed the direction of blame, but I still don't let Walmart off the hook here. I think the attorney's are certainly more to blame at this point. But I'm not excusing a billion dollar company from wiping their fund, no matter the consequences.

Why is the attorney to blame then? Their rates were fully understood before litigation began. How much work did they put into getting that settlement for them? Rates for lawyers have long been understood to be extremely high, and it's become a given - hell, that's why I missed it. What expenses does the attorney have? Is this his only case that he worked on exclusively, for years and years? How do you know he didn't earn every dime? We can do this all day. The point is, as a consumer I don't have to be rational or fair in what I ask for. Why should the bus staff clean up after you at the restaraunt? YOU made the mess. YOUR kids threw food on the floor. But you can bet your bottom dollar that I will not go to a restaraunt that makes me clean the table first, or sits me at a dirty one. They knew they were taking her last dollar. I don't care how you label it to make it easier to sleep at night, but they devastated her account and they know it.

Damn Phi, you're a freakin' natural at this.

Well I agree with your "profiling" here, but we don't need every possible demographic to participate. The bloggers alone would create enough impact to scare the shit out of them. All of us are trying to maximize their dollar, so that would be the toughest sale, that's for sure.

I simply disagree doG. I think they're plenty rich enough not to exercise their right to take her last dime. I do not believe that the dangers of setting this precedence are enough to justify this. I don't believe she has to be kicked around by a billion dollar company and a team of greedy lawyers for parity's sake. Anyone who tried to use this precedence, had Walmart and the Lawyers done the noble thing, would be on laughably tenuous ground unless they actually shared her scenario. Is that setting them up for more conflict? Maybe. As a consumer I can demand that of them with my wallet. Would it make you feel better if I didn't say "Boycott Walmart" but rather said, "Start shopping at Target"? I'm taking my business to a place of business that has the moral character I prefer. Why not? What's wrong with shaming folks into nobility? Isn't that what we do with our kids when we point out how they've treated someone wrong? If someone refuses to help the proverbial little ole lady cross the street, is it wrong to sneer or shame them? Not really sure. Blogosphere, as someone mentioned, sounds good. Your idea certainly sounds excellent. I've never actually done it outside of my own personal choices. It's a good question.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Phi on the long term effects of one successful boycott.

What is irrational about not letting you destroy a civil right that costs us about 3 lives per year? The freedom to take aspirin kills more people than that. It has been demonstrated that these animals have value, albeit not to you, and that shouldn't even be necessary to prove in the first place. You're the one being overly emotional here. You're allowing emotion to mislead your energies toward a cause that's way down on the list of things that kill people. Way down. What is rational about that? Where's the logic? You'd save more humans by persuading them not to drive, or eat cheese.

I'm so ashamed, I can't believe I missed this. They took more money than Walmart did, straight off the top. The only defense anyone could mount for them would be that they didn't take her last dime. Walmart is only worse in that regard. So, how do you shame a lawyer? Boycotting Walmart would be effective if it was organized and collaborated on a national level, but how do you effect a lawyer's bottom line? I'm at a loss on that one. I don't agree it's the wrong set, but it certainly isn't the sole set of greedy bastards.

Well, you bring up some good points for sure. I guess I would like to know why they litigated themselves, rather than let Walmart do it. We don't know that the Walmart health insurance plan covered her conditions, or will cover them long term, or even short term for that matter - since she can't even work there in order to receive benefits due to brain damage. In that case, it would appear they sued to get the money needed to care for her. As far as a precedence, I don't really care if some black guy wants to pull the race card and pretend as if this brain damaged employee scenario was legit or not. I do get your point, though, I just say grow some balls and explain it to people. I don't think it would be difficult for people to see the difference between robbing a brain dead woman's only resource for health care and spoiling the fun of a multi million dollar pay out to an employee trying to screw his employer. That said, your points are still well founded.

Yes I absolutely would. That's the whole point, really. The clause makes sense, in that they have a right to get their money back in the event of a settlement. Why should Walmart do without their money while the insured enjoys a multi-million dollar settlement? However, this is not the case here. Here, yes they got a settlement, and it barely covers what it's going to cost to care for her and that settlement is also responsibly set aside just for that purpose. Clearly this is not an employee enjoying a multi-million dollar settlement at Walmart's expense. Remember, I'm not speaking legally here. I would fight for Walmart's right to do this legally, honoring a contract. But I sure can hate them personally, and organize and lobby to destroy them. I will at least do my part to see that they never get another penny from me again. And I haven't even started on that disgusting clause in that contract to begin with. Lack of choice in our current Healthcare joke of a system can be partly blamed for our relative incapacity to shop and demand better terms through competition.

Walmart is on sound legal ground here, no doubt, but ethically this is wrong, period. I actually haven't been shopping there for years, with an occassional exception, but they've crossed the line here. It would be great to see them lose the $400,000 they insist on collecting from this devistated family, 10 fold, with a national boycott. I only wish I had the cunning, time and energy. Walmart's spokesman uses the good ole "that's business" excuse to abandon ethical behavior. That phrase is a copout used to cancel your moral compass. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html

The concept of liberty that I stand for is already a balance. A balance between self determinism and objective limitation. There is nothing extreme about liberty that is both empowered and restricted by the principle of rights that end where other's begin - the objective application of restricting harm to the person or property of another. Extremists that want to abandon principle will rationalize destroying liberty by using good intentions.

66 people in 20 years. I thought that was "the number" you guys were throwing around. Surely if another dog has killed more people, you would have mentioned it? Either way, I'll concede they are great for killing people. Good enough for me. It does add to the debate since my position is based on a principle over 200 years old, just in my country alone, that way more than 66 people have fought and died for over and over again and yours is on based on the same intellect used by those we fought. The principle of liberty is more important than cherry picking freedom. Again, your property is already not free to hurt others - it's already illegal and not protected by the constitution nor the principles I'm talking about. Exactly. Glad we agree. SkepticLance however made a generalization and this was my sarcastic reply. I realize that, however, dogs are property. Like or not, when a human keeps a pet, that human is responsible for that pet's behavior, whether he can control it or not. When humans are punished for not taking the proper steps to control their autonomous property, they will alter their behavior. When you start putting people in prison because their Pit Bull mangled some kid down the street, they'll think twice before leaving their man-eater within range of others. This also applies to all dogs, so we don't swap one murdering mutt for another. That's how you solve the problem, rather than treat the symptoms. You haven't proven owning a Pit Bull is pointless. And it wouldn't matter if you did anyway, since being point-full or point-less is entirely subjective. Laws should be an entirely objective, as possible, experience so we don't trample the rights of others simply because we dislike something they do. No sir, shame on you for dismissing the value of crime PREVENTION. Man-eating animals and guns from hell scare the crap out of low life bottom feeders looking to terrorize some family. A Pit Bull's name, alone, can disuade someone from breaking in your house. The same cannot be said of a lick happy Laborador. DOG particulars John - I don't know why you went pedophilia on me. Your rights end where mine begin. Pointing out really cool dog features is nice, but to use that as a basis to strip someone of a right is downright silly. Particularly when you consider the damage done from abandoning a principle. (Think Iraq, preemptive strike here...) No one has a right to hurt others. You don't dismiss a right to murder when rights, as they are defined, don't provide for murder in the first place. Of course, we may well being reinventing the chicken and the egg argument here. In any case, it still comes down to hurting the person or property of another. No one has a right to do that. Murder doesn't escape that qualifier, and neither does vicious property that attacks others. I've argued your points by accepting the aggressive nature you assign Pit Bulls. Partly because I agree with many of those particular points. Dangerous dogs attack children most often as they are the only members of the pack they feel like they can take. I personally, will never own a Pit Bull due to that danger. I don't trust them. If I did own one however, I would be damn sure I had a privacy fence, and a system for isolating the dog from visitors and innocents - because it's my responsibility. I prefer my two yellow labs - beautiful, kid friendly, nice animals that "seem" to enjoy attention and love from humans. That's my kind of dog. I've got a gun for intruders.

That's true. I don't know why that didn't register for me when I was posting, sorry.