Tell me different

What this means: Republicans want to replace Medicare with vouchers for private health insurance, vouchers whose purchasing power is planned to decrease over the years, vouchers to buy something that at some point in everyone senior's life will not be available at any price. If they succeed, bankruptcy and destitution with no possibility of ever recouping independence will be the lot of most people in their so-called golden years.

The simple objective of the Republican Party is to deny any existence to any of us in the 99% that's not as a captive market. I have a hard time seeing how that can be classified as anything short of evil.

Tort reform

Here's a laughable legal theory: Use of a video clip of the plaintiff in a movie with whom he disagrees constitutes defamation. First Amendment? Who cares about that?

Case history: Summary judgement entered before trial, no doubt because of the rank absurdity of the legal theory. Had I been the Federal District Court judge, I would have entertained a motion from the defense for costs. You need an example of a frivolous lawsuit? Look no further.

Now, the appeal - some idiots just don't recognize when they've been slapped hard enough to knock sense into nearly anyone else - the appeal has upheld by the First Circuit Court. And Donald J. Feerick, Jr., the author of this political stunt, says that his client may appeal to the Supreme Court. Even this Court, I think, has the sense to refuse a grant of certiorari to this whining.

What I want to know: Who is paying for all this substandard lawyering? The Rutherford Foundation? Richard Mellon Scaife? The ACLJ? (Can't the ACLU get those guys on trademark infringement?)

Note for trolls: None of my assessment of this ridiculous, anti-freedom lawsuit bears at all on my respect for the service of the plaintiff or my sympathy for the injuries he suffered in Iraq.

Why does everyone hate Michael Moore?

On KnoxViews:

I don't get it. Moore stands up for what he believes, and the Wolf Blitzers and Sanjay Guptas and Lou Dobbses of the world pillory him for it - even after time has proven him right.

Right-wingers totally get in their faces, but CNN invites them back to panel discussions, even though they manifestly have no facts and no expertise. This happens over and over again. They have even given Glenn Beck, a raving moron, his own show. Then, despite the fact that no one watches it, they let him guest host for Paula Zahn, replacing vapid with rabid.

Some liberal media.

Wolf promised Moore a correction if Gupta was proven wrong. This is as close as CNN will get. They restate a few issues, making it seem as though Gupta and Moore are in violent agreement, and Gupta and CNN never admit they got anything was wrong, though it's obvious by omission.

CNN does a non-correction correction, but they steer wide of any fact-by-fact comparison. Moore, on the other hand, sources his facts. Isn't that what journalists are supposed to do?

I haven't seen SiCKO, and I don't agree with everything Moore says about health care, but I do know this: You can't believe anything just because it is on TV. (Aside: I do agree with Moore that every second story on CNN looks like a product placement or a corporate tie-in.)

We're on our own, folks. The fourth estate has sold us out.