Miscellaneous Musings and Random Raciocinations

I. Once Again, Fox Admits It Lies

Fox is being sued by WASHLITE (Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics), which is claiming that Fox's coverage of the Coronavirus/Covid-19 pandemic is violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act by “falsely and deceptively disseminating ‘news’ via cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a ‘hoax’ and that it was otherwise not a danger to public health and safety," and specifically names host Sean insHannity and former host Trish Regan. Fox, in response, claims that the First Amendment protects "false" and "outrageous" speech, which is, unfortunately, true.

“It’s Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern,” Fox News Media general counsel Lily Fu Claffee [emphasis on F.U.] said in a statement. “If WASHLITE doesn’t like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can’t silence us with a lawsuit.”

Again, even accepting the Complaint’s characterization of the speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should be taken.” [emphasis added]

A number of years back, in a Canadian court, Fox also admitted it lied, and claimed not to be a news agency, but an "entertainment" outlet, and, as such, was not bound by the truth.


II. Nazis and Klukkers in Michigan 

The far-right, pro-gun, pro-militia, anti-government, pro-trump Nazis and Klukkers were out in force in Michigan, carrying an assortment of Confederate flags, nooses, and swastikas. The "very fine people," as preznit called them a few years back, were protesting the states "stay at home" and masks orders promulgated by the governor. A large number of them, carrying AR-15s, tried -- unsuccessfully -- to get into the legislative chambers.

As home to the Michigan Militia, and several active Klaverns, the state has an unfortunate expertise at dealing with these goobers, many of whom seem to believe they're just one step removed from Navy SEALS, but most of them couldn't fight their way out a pack of rampaging Brownies, even WITH the multiple firearms they all carry. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both involved in the Michigan Milita, which shows you where the group's sympathies are.


III. "God Wouldn't Wear a Mask, So I'm Not Going To, Either"

Ohio State Representative Nino Vitale (GOP, of course, since he's an idiot) says he's refusing to wear a mask in public, claiming, “This is the greatest nation on earth founded on Judeo-Christian Principles. One of those principles is that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. That image is seen the most by our face. I will not wear a mask.”

Vitale, who has that typical dull, vacant, deer-in-the-headlights look so common among goopers, says, “This is not based on logic, this is based on fear and propaganda and every statistical, data driven study done in the last 2 weeks says death counts are low, the models were wrong, and this is more like the flu," indicating that not only is he a blithering idiot, but that he's also slurped down a few gallons of trumpian Kool-Aid. Other than the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago, I can't think of any flu outbreak that has killed in excess of 60,000 people in two months.

The good people of Ohio need to retire this Bible-thumpin', hooker-humpin' sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup, duck f***in', toothless, chinless, mouth breathin', meth-cookin’, NASCAR-lovin’, redneck, slack-jawed, drooling-idiot, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, inbred moran. Although to be fair, I must point out that he does, in fact, have a chin.


IV. The Oath Keepers. Again.

The Oath Keepers, a far-right, anti-government extremist group, identifued as a hate group by both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which claims to be comprised of active and former law enforcement officers and military (and which claims to be the final arbiter on the Constitution), is now threatening American police officers, saying, "Police in the U.S. need to realize they stand at the precipice of losing the trust, support, and protection of millions of American patriots. They must reverse course and refuse unlawful orders, or risk being declared domestic enemies of the Constitution." Of course, what they deem unlawful are the executive orders issued by various governors, designed to keep the citizens safe and healthy. And while the cops may lose the trust, etc., of the Oath Keepers, they will continue to enjoy the respect of the 299,000,000 or so who aren't far-right-wing loons.

The Oath Keepers, by the way, are closely aligned with the various militia movements, the Sovereign Citizens, Christian Identity, the Klukkers, Aryan Nation/Aryan Brotherhood, and the various pro-Nazi parties. These people are NOT good Americans, no matter what they may claim. They're thugs, killers, and terrorists.


V. The Preznit Is Unraveling

In case there was any doubt, the past dozen days have proved we’re at the point in his presidency where Donald Trump has become his own caricature, a figure impossible to parody, a man whose words and actions are indistinguishable from an Alec Baldwin skit on Saturday Night Live.

These words, from an article in The Atlantic, paint a grim picture of the cascading failures of our Idiot-in-Chief. From his asinine comments about Nazis and Klukkers being "very fine people," and Mexicans being "drug dealers and rapists, but some very good people too" to his more recent moronic pronouncements about shining "just very powerful light" up your ass and "injecting disinfectant as a way to combat the effects of the virus “because you see it gets in the lungs and does a tremendous number on them, so it’d be interesting to check that[,]” it is becoming more and more obvious that not only is he completely and totally unfit for any job requiring intelligent thought, but that he is also rapidly losing what little grasp he may have had of reality.

He even lit into GWB, after Bush contributed a video to "The Call To Unite," going into a typical trumpian twittertantrum, which made -- if this is even possible -- Bush actually seem Presidential, intelligent, and decent.

He then went on to claim that he was being treated "worse" than Prsident Lincoln, who, if memory serves me correctly, WAS FREAKING ASSASSINATED. This, of course, was a warmed-over reprise of a previous complaint, that he was being treated worse than Jesus, who, if memory serves me correctly, WAS FREAKING CRUCIFIED.

What scares me is that his paranoia and megalomania (and his understandable desire to stay out of the clutched of the Southern District of New York and a few other United States Attorneys) is the growing possibility that he will whip up some sort of bogus "national emergency" that "I, alone" can solve, "requiring" him to "postpone" the election until the emergency is over... in other words, until the statute of limitations has run on all his crimes. But given his life-long proclivities, he will continue to commit as many crimes as he can, so the limitation statutes will just keep piling up.

This is what happens when you elect an insane, paranoid, megalomaniacal, egotistical, liar to high political office.


VI. We Can Declare Victory and Go Home

The Federal Coronavirus/Covid-19 task force will be wound down at the end of the month, allowing trump to claim -- falsely -- that "I, alone" defeated the virus, and it's now safe for everyone to go back to work, making money for the millionaires.

The second senior administration official told CNN that the White House is shifting its focus toward reopening the economy "and putting Americans back to work." That shift will take place over the next few weeks and doctors such as Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who have been prominent figures in the President's task force briefings with reporters, will still play "an important advisory role" in the process, the second senior administration official said.

Fauci, and to a lesser extent, Birx, would both be shuffled back off to their labs and insulated from the media, so they couldn't contradict trumps calims that everything is now hunky-dory. The article adds that one driver behind the wind-down is that Mikey pence wants to get out and travel and can't, partially because he's "leading" the task force, and partially because ISN'T FREAKING SAFE TO GO GALLIVANTING AROUND IN PUBLIC YET, even if Mikey does have "The Power of the Mythical Sky God" and the Sweet Baby Jesus on his side (just ask all the Evangelicals who have died from this damned virus).

Right-Wing Extremism in Law Enforcement, Pat IV

Another law enforcement officer has made it clear he is there "to protect and to serve" only white "christian" conservatards.

A cop (and I hope, soon-to-be-former cop) in Gretna, LA, one Charlie "Bubba" Rispoli, wrote on Facebook that "this vile idiot [Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,D-NY] needs a round." He went on to add, "[and] I don't mean the kind she used to serve," referring to AOC's prior bartending experience. Not that Bubba knows anything about bartending: he sounds more like a beer-anna-shot type of dude... a Lone Star (which tastes like what I would imiagine bison semen tastes like) and a shot of Jack.

Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson had this to say: "Whether you agree or disagree with the message of these elected officials and how frustrated you may or may not get, this certainly is not the type of thing that a public servant should be posting."

Just to further point out how amazing stupid -- and unsuited for a career requiring minimal knowledge -- Bubba he, he was referring to an article clearly martked as "SATIRE." I guess ole Bubba, who probably spent the four longest years of his life in third grade before dropping out to get a job, thought "Satire" was what came after "Flighty" on the calendar.

Like all the other conservatards, ole Bubba thunk Ocasio-Cortez, along with Reps Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) should "go back to where they came from." In saying that, by the way, trump and his barin-dead butt-buddies are openly and blatantly violating Federal anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT -- SPECIFICALLY CITED "GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM" AS PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATORY SPEECH:

Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, “Go back to where you came from, “ whether made by supervisors or by co-workers. 1

So once again, the Law-and-order party of law and order shows their collective ignorance of, and disdain for, the laws of the United States of America.

Of course, if the Goopers do manage to pass some sort of draconian anti-immigration bill and manage to force out Omar (she's the only one not born in the US), we could probably use the same law to get rid of Rafael Eduardo Hijo de Puta Cruz, immigration-hating immigrant and Canadian-born anchor baby spawn of cigar-sucking Cuban émigré, Castro supporter and Desi Arnaz wannabe Rafael Bienvenido Chinga tu Madre Cruz, who was born in Canada, which is not part of the United States. In fact, Canada has a large portion of the population who speak French, the language of France, which is also not part of the United States. Canada is also a socialist paradise, in that it has universal healthcare, which is creeping socialism. Plus, of course, Hijo de Puta Cruz’s father is from Cuba, which is not part of the United States, and has a population that almost exclusively speaks Spanish, the language of Spain, which is also not part of the United States, and is the language of Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. Cuba is a socialist paradise, ruled over by Fidel and Raul Castro (who did not make convertible beds, despite what they would have you think), both of whom are Godless Communist Commies. In addition, Hijo de Puta Cruz’s “padre” was an ardent supporter of the Castro boys, both of whom, as noted previously, are Godless Communist Commies. 

To get back to Bubba and his buddies, though, This is just one more case of what emergency services blogger Dave Statter refers to as SMACSS: Social Media Assisted Career Suicide Syndrome. I would hope that by exposing his intolerance and bigotry to one and all, ole Bubba "has done gived Chief Lawson a 'scuse to fahr his good ole boy dumb-ass se'f."

__________
1.  https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/immigrants-facts.pdf, emphasis added

Religious "Freedom"

Update: see below.

I came across an interesting piece in The World this morning (I stuck in the link, but you'll need a subscription to view it). The October 19 issue refers to a column in Canada's The Globe and Mail. In that column, Doug Saunders writes:

In country after country, whenever people assert their self-proclaimed religious freedoms, “terrible things tend to happen.” The concept has been invoked by Indian Hindus to justify killing Muslims, by Sri Lankan Buddhists to imprison Hindus, by Israeli Jews to deny Muslims’ citizenship, and by Egyptian Islamists to oppress Coptic Christians. In many places, religious freedom refers to the right to restrict women’s freedom. [emphasis added]

Hmmm, what are the far-right evangelicals demanding here? "Religious freedom." And how do they want to utilize this freedom? By banning all abortions (except those under the "sodomized virgin" rule), even for rape victims (“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. [. . .] I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”). By making it legal to pay women less than men. By eliminating access to birth control and cancer screenings.

Saunders uses examples from places like India and Sri Lanka. It's scary to realize that those same third-world situations apply here.

So, in effect, what they're asking for is the freedom to deny us our freedoms. In the name of religion, of course.

Update, 10-16-12, via Tengrain at Dependable Renegade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PjAYNl24E&feature=player_embedded; Bryan Fischer explaining how the Bible says women cannot be put in a position of authority over men.

"Bad Faith" Claims Against Insurance Companies

One of the countless magazines, journals, newsletters, and assorted other periodicals I slog through on a regular basis is Fire & Arson Investigator, a quarterly journal published by the International Association of Arson Investigators. The current issue contains two pieces that I found interesting.

The first article concerns the severing of "bad faith" claims against insurance companies. The article, by the way, discusses the Canadian courts' handing of the matter, but, by and large, the same arguments apply on this side of the border.

Generally, a "bad faith" claim is included in a suit against an insurer when the plaintiff (usually the owner of the damaged or destroyed property) feels that the company acted in bad faith in denying a claim under an existing policy. Such claims have been raised against many insurers in the Gulf Coast region after Hurricane Katrina.

Author Havelock Madill, Q.C.*, asserts that an insurance company faced with a "bad faith" claim connected to a suit involving the loss of insured property may want to sever the bad faith claim from the rest of the suit for several reasons:

• "[The] severing of the insurance contractual claim for initial determination will result in a judgment for or against the insured. If the determination on the contractual claim is against the insured, then the action ends there and there is no need to consider the bad faith claim. On the other hand, if the determination of the contractual claim is favourable to the insured, then the insured will have a judgment for the amount payable under the policy, and what remains is a determination of whether it is also entitled to punitive or exemplary damages arising from the insurer’s conduct in respect to the handling of the contractual claim."
• "[The] possibility that the insurer may be required to waive legal privilege in order to defend itself with respect to the bad faith claim. If the insurer would not have been required to waive legal privilege over communications but for the existence of the bad faith claim, then the insurer will have been prejudiced by the bad faith claim being conjoined with the contractual claim."
• "[The] insurer’s legal counsel may be required to be a witness in the proceedings in respect to the bad faith claims. In such circumstances, the Professional Codes of Conduct in most, if not all, of the Canadian provinces would require that the legal counsel step down from their representation of the insurer. This, too, can be the primary purpose of the insured’s bad faith allegations."

I am far from being an attorney, especially a Canadian attorney, but there are some points I feel Madill overlooked.

Perhaps Canadian insurance companies are more honest in dealing with their customers, but here in the US, I think it's a foregone conclusion that insurance companies view income (premiums received) as their God-given right, and disbursements (claims paid) as an insufferable burden.

We have all seen, heard, or read of instances where insurance companies in the Gulf region denied claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, claiming that the damage to the property was caused by floodwaters (not covered under a homeowners policy), despite clear evidence to the contrary (e.g., a roof blown off, or a tree through the house). We’ve seen medical insurers deny claims on the flimsiest of pretexts, often leaving a family with catastrophic medical expenses that they can’t possibly pay. We’ve seen adjustors for automobile insurance companies demand access for repeated inspections, and then using a simple missed appointment as a pretext for denying a claim.

Let’s look at Madill’s points in order.

"[The] severing of the insurance contractual claim for initial determination will result in a judgment for or against the insured. If the determination on the contractual claim is against the insured, then the action ends there and there is no need to consider the bad faith claim.”

Madill is absolutely correct in this assertion, and there is no valid reason I can think of for pursuing a bad faith claim under these circumstances.

“On the other hand, if the determination of the contractual claim is favourable to the insured, then the insured will have a judgment for the amount payable under the policy, and what remains is a determination of whether it is also entitled to punitive or exemplary damages arising from the insurer’s conduct in respect to the handling of the contractual claim."

This is also correct, but I believe Madill has glossed over the fact that a second action – for punitive or exemplary damages – also means additional costs for the plaintiff. Remember, the insurance company will almost invariably file an appeal to a judgment against its interests, leaving the plaintiff with no money and steadily rising legal bills (which the insurance company simply passes on to policyholders; the plaintiff doesn’t have that luxury). Also, depending on the nature of the original decision, the insurance company – if its actions have been particularly egregious – may see the writing on the wall and pressure the plaintiff to accept a settlement for a nominal amount, rather than risk a jury’s sympathy. Additionally, separating the claims enables the defense – the insurance company – to file additional requests for delays, dragging the case out until the plaintiff has no further resources with which to pursue his claim.

"[The] possibility that the insurer may be required to waive legal privilege in order to defend itself with respect to the bad faith claim.”

Madill explains, “the insurer will likely be required to di­vulge communications and/or work product in order to defend itself in respect to the allegations,” and that, “allegations allow the insured an opportu­nity to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the insurer’s position by becoming privy to legal opinions and other communica­tions that would be protected from required disclosure in the defence of the contractual claim but are relevant to the bad faith claim, and therefore open to examination by the insured.” This means that the insurance company, in attempting to show it did not act in bad faith, would have to reveal materials it would not otherwise be forced to disclose. While Madill has a valid point, the fact remains that bad faith claims continue to be filed because the insurance companies continue to shaft their policyholders. If they did actually conduct all their business in good faith, no one would want to see the notes of private meetings.

“If the insurer would not have been required to waive legal privilege over communications but for the existence of the bad faith claim, then the insurer will have been prejudiced by the bad faith claim being conjoined with the contractual claim."

At the risk of sounding like Malkin or Coulter, well, boo-frickin-hoo. If the insurance industry treated policyholders with respect, honesty, courtesy, and dignity, it wouldn’t have to worry about juries being prejudiced against it. The sanctimonious bastards brought it upon themselves.

"[The] insurer’s legal counsel may be required to be a witness in the proceedings in respect to the bad faith claims. In such circumstances, the Professional Codes of Conduct in most, if not all, of the Canadian provinces would require that the legal counsel step down from their representation of the insurer. This, too, can be the primary purpose of the insured’s bad faith allegations."

The reason the lawyer would be called, of course, would be to testify that all proceedings were handled in good faith, in a prompt manner, in accordance with generally accepted professional standards. This would not happen, if the insurance companies didn’t have such a track record.

Again, boo-frickin-hoo.

Madill notes that courts in Eastern Canada have been less willing to grant requests for severance than have those in Western Canada, and that it is a “basic right” to have all issues in a case tried at the same time.

Madill makes another interesting comment:

There must then be a compelling case made that the delay that will be experienced if the subsequent issue(s) needs to be determined is justified and is more than off-set by the expenses that may be avoided if it develops that the subsequent issue(s) does not need to proceed.

Madill fails to mention that the delay and expense work in favor of the insurance companies:

• Most individuals will not be able to devote the time to a case that an insurance company can. The individual must arrange housing, or transportation, or medical care, or whatever it is the companies have refused to pay. If nothing else, the plaintiff must continue to work, to earn an income, to pay for the necessities of life, rather than spending months or years in a courtroom. Additionally, witnesses may die, move away, or their memories of the incident may fade. The incentive here is for the company to extend the process as long as possible.
• Insurance companies have attorneys on staff on a permanent basis; they do not have to pay hourly the way the plaintiff must. The insurance company attorneys get paid whether or not they’re working on a particular case. Plaintiff’s attorneys, on the other hand, even those working on a contingency basis, cannot afford to put in countless hours without compensation. The advantage falls to the insurance companies.
• Furthermore, the insurance companies know that if they can drag out the proceedings long enough, the plaintiff will eventually drop the action, either through bankruptcy or frustration at the snail’s pace of litigation.

So, while Madill has some very valid points, the most important factor has been ignored:

It is the long history of the insurance industry’s abuses of its policyholders that has led to the increasing number of bad faith claims.

It is not the “poor helpless little monolithic insurance company” against the “big, evil policyholder,” as the article would have you believe.


* Queen's Counsel, are lawyers appointed by letters patent to be one of "Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the law"; the position exists in various Commonwealth countries around the world. They do not constitute a separate order or degree of lawyers. They are, however, more than merely a professional rank, as their status is conferred by the Crown and recognised by the courts. In order to become one of Her Majesty's Counsel one generally has to serve as a barrister or a Scottish advocate for at least 10 years. [Source: Wikipedia]