Stoos Views

 By William Kevin Stoos  Saturday, March 28, 2009

Satire

During her recent trip to Mexico to discuss the ban on Mexican truck traffic in the United States and the dangerous drug war that threatens to rip apart our neighbor to the south, a curiously incoherent Hillary Clinton blamed the United States for the current drug wars in Mexico, which threaten to spill over the border.  Munching on a bag of Tostitos and garlic dip, she grinned widely as she deplaned. The curious odor of burnt oregano emanating from her official jet, she climbed down the stairs to meet the Mexican press corps.

“I feel strongly that we in the United States bear co-responsibility for the current drug war in Mexico and we must stand shoulder to shoulder with you,” she said, slightly slurring her words and drifting off a bit during her first news conference. “ Man, if it was not –you know– for our insatiable demand for drugs in the United States, you would not have these problems,” she told Mexican reporters and Stoos Views’ ace reporter, Hugh Betcha after arriving in Mexico City for two days of meetings with Mexican officials. 

Asked by Stoos Views why the United States seems to be suffering from a general malaise, increased drug usage, and hopelessness during the past four months–which is fueling the demand from drugs in the Unites States– she replied, “Well, the answer is obvious.  We are all so bummed out by the fact that I did not get the Presidential nomination, Obama’s incompetence, the concentration of power by the central government and our slide toward socialism, the redistribution of wealth and the Obama administration’s war on capitalism, it is little wonder that the country is turning to drugs. At least, 70% of the population of the United States and half the cabinet is stoned at any given time since the Presidential election,” she continued.  “We are dropping out, man.  It seems that everyone wants to tune out; smoking dope and snorting blow is the best way to dampen the pain,” she told a stunned audience of Mexican reporters. “Yes,” she continued, “ the reason Congress stopped the pilot program allowing the Mexican trucks to operate in the States, was that they were bringing in pot and cocaine by the truckload—they just don’t admit it. The freaking wheels of the Mexican trucks were made from molded dope, man. It is true.”

Asked by Stoos Views about Obama’s promise to support the Mexican government in its efforts to stem the violence in Mexico and prevent smuggling into the States, Clinton giggled inappropriately, her eyes drifting toward the clouds as she tried to process the question. “What credibility does Obama have on this issue?  Hey, dude, he admitted that he was a pothead and a junkie during his high school and college years—maybe later. In fact, on the streets he was known as “Blowbama” and “Cocaine Hussein” because he used to snort the white stuff after school. So what kind of example does he set for our kids? For that matter, take my husband—please. No, all kidding aside, my own husband, the philandering ex-President, claimed he smoked dope but did not inhale. That is bogus, dude.  It is just the sort of thing you would expect from a dishonest scumbag—the same one who said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” after biting his lip and looking into the camera.  No, he smoked dope all right and he inhaled too let me tell you. Hell, he used to do a doobie or two between classes during college. Nope, Bill liked his pot too.  Isn’t it sad in a way that McCain was sitting in a North Vietnamese prison suffering for his country while Bill was smoking dope and protesting the military?  But then again, we do not vote for character do we?  Yes, I can say without reservation that when it comes to the Mexican drug problem, both President Clinton and President Obama did their part to finance the drug lords in Mexico and did as much to support the importation of drugs into the United States as anyone. In fact, they asked me to score some weed while I was down here. Whoops, just kidding, don’t print that!” she said, giggling once again uncontrollably.  “Ironic, isn’t it,” she continued, “every time Blowbama snorted nose candy on the corner or Bill bought a dime bag of weed, they were helping finance the drug cartel that they now condemn and which the President of Mexico is so bravely fighting?”

As she concluded the rather bizarre new conference, Clinton, increasingly detached from her surroundings, exhibiting more slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, asked the reporters “if anyone had a jumbo sausage pizza and a forty pound bag of Oreos,” [sic] at which time the conference was hastily concluded and she was whisked off by the Secret Service to an undisclosed location.

(Barney’s Fannie Mae Be Hanging Out  As Well)

By William Kevin Stoos  Saturday, March 21, 2009

-Satire-
In a rare moment of candor and self introspection, Senator Chris “Always Interested in Gifts” Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, called Stoos Views today to confess that he is a “hypocritical, duplicitous no- good scam artist “ [sic] who has shaken down Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, obtained preferential loans from Countrywide, and was the beneficiary of $103,000 in contributions from A.I.G., during his recent 2008 Presidential election campaign.  He used his interview with Stoos Views to announce his upcoming second offer of resignation.

“I think it is time for me to go. Even I cannot stand my own hypocrisy,” he told Stoos Views reporter Hugh Betcha, this week.  “Here I am, in a position of public trust, taking enormous contributions from entities that I am supposed to regulate, and hoping no one would notice. Well, the public has found me out once again and I feel ashamed to be in the limelight. Let’s face it, I am a crooked politician and there is no arguing that. After all, I was not only one of the biggest recipients of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—taking well over $100,000 from them– but I also shook down the big dollar execs at AIG for campaign donations as well. Boy is that a mess now. Since I have been caught at that as well, and since the country is in an uproar over AIG, I am going to give back all those contributions as a sign of my “good faith.” And, frankly, to cover my a** with the public. Oops, don’t print that please,” he said, sheepishly.

When asked why he originally denied any knowledge about the millions in bonuses paid to incompetent AIG execs and then, in an about face, admitted that he wrote a loophole into the bailout package that allowed his AIG buddies to received millions in bonuses from a company that managed to lose billions of dollars, Dodd replied: “Well, I am not only dishonest , but I am two faced as well. Funny, isn’t it,” he mused, “the AIG execs get paid millions to run the company into the ground and Barney Frank and I get hundreds of thousands for our inept performance as watchdogs of the federal banking system as well.  Perfectly consistent isn’t it? They get paid for their incompetence and so do we!” he laughed. “And the amazing thing is, that when I retire, I will get a huge federal pension with all the perks, as a reward for my years of living off the public dole. What a country, huh?”

“Frankly,” he continued, I think I should step down as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. That would only be right. Why should an incompetent , dishonest person like me remain in this important position of public trust? I know I told you last December that I was going to submit my own resignation—but I backed off, hoping that I would reform. But I did not. So, it is time for me to go. This time I really mean it!”

When asked about the fact that President Obama has also backed the payment of billions to AIG while talking nearly as much from AIG during the last campaign as Dodd—over $100,000 as well—Dodd was refreshingly honest: “ Yeah, fair’s fair. The President needs to step down as well. What sort of President takes over a hundred thousand bucks from this company, then presses for billions in aid to the company after he is President, and pretends to be outraged by the huge bonuses paid to his buddies and mine?  Hell, we are the ones who greased the skids! Yep, he needs to go too. Therefore, this date I have called upon him to resign as well.  It is only right.  As long as Nancy Pelosi is going to convene a witch hunt and investigate the former President and Vice President for war crimes, we can save the taxpayers a bunch of money and add Obama to the list of Defendants as well. War crime, graft, influence peddling—hey, they are all high crimes and misdemeanors, so let’s charge all of them and clean house.  As I told the Chairman of GM during my self-righteous tongue-lashing of him last fall—it is time for a change in leadership.”

When asked who else needs to go, Dodd was perfectly blunt: “Barney Frank! After all, he assured the American public that Freddie and Fannie were solvent and in good condition. But we sure discovered that was not the case. And he pretends to be outraged by the current financial debacle? He is a bigger hypocrite than I. I think Barney’s Fannie Mae be hanging out on this issue as well,” if you will pardon the pun.”

With that, Dodd concluded the interview to retire to his office in order to draft his upcoming resignation letter.

           By William Kevin Stoos  Sunday, March 15, 2009

In thirty-five years of defending lawsuits, one case sticks out more than the rest.  I have thought about this case a lot lately. Perhaps the “2009 Pass the Pork Bill” signed by Obama which mortgages our great great grandkids’ future reminded me of this case. Perhaps it is the all-pervasive attitude in America that leads so many to think that, because they are taking in air, the government, or their fellow citizens, owes them a living, or owes them protection against their own stupidity or poor judgment. 

I do not know which. However, The Case of the Spoiled Plaintiff got me thinking—about greed, laziness, and how a common sense jury of good, solid working folks did justice.

“Robbi” was a recent college graduate and professional student, who thought the world owed her a living.  Calling it quits after only ten years of college, she lived with her hard working mother in a trailer in a small town in Iowa. Her mother worked very hard as a nurse—sometimes as many as 12-14 hours a day. Robbi, on the other hand, spent her days loafing.  Somehow, she just could not seem to find a job. It was not that there were no jobs to be had; it was just that, well, she was waiting for the right one to come along, and not exactly busting her buns to find one. Her mother supported them both.  Mom even bought her highly educated loafer a sporty new Honda. Robbi’s typical day was occupied with watching TV, taking her dog for a walk, reading the paper and eating. Looking for work was somewhere near the bottom of her priority list. “Taking Care of Business,” was her theme song.  (“Look at me I’m self employed; I love to work at nothin’ all day.”)

One day Robbi pulled her fancy new Honda up to a stop sign on a busy street.  Another driver (my client) struck her from behind. The impact was not hard. In fact, the proof at trial would be that the sole extent of the repair to her brand new Honda was to touch up two scratches on the rear bumper with a two-dollar bottle of touch up paint that she purchased from a local Honda dealership. That was it. Of course, she was injured so badly in the accident that she saw four doctors, amassed a total of $13,000 in medical bills for treatment to her “sore neck and back,” and needed to purchase a $7,000 six-person hot tub which she installed adjacent to her mother’s home as a “therapeutic device.” [sic] Her doctor, a friend of her mother, prescribed the device to treat Robbi’s “chronic” neck and back condition.  I could not have constructed a better scenario for a defense attorney had the Court allowed me to make up the facts of the Plaintiff’s case.  But, as we will see below, it got better yet.

Put simply, Robbi–like so many Plaintiffs nowadays– saw a golden opportunity to play the Judicial Lotto, try to hoodwink a jury into paying them some serious money and make a few bucks off of the most minor of accidents. Unfortunately, we see a lot of this sort of case in the American judicial system.

Prior to trial, I deposed Robbi and grilled her about the accident, the facts of her case, and her alleged loss of the ability to earn income, which—by the way—she had never done.  To fully appreciate the context, you must know that the court reporter was a good friend of mine with whom I had worked for years. She and her husband were hard working reporters who supported nine—yes nine—children; seven of their own and two adopted. I too had worked since the age of eight—mowing lawns, working at a store, working on a moving van, working in a brickyard and on a construction crew during my younger years.  My mother told us that the best favor she and Dad did for us was “being poor.” While I never considered ourselves poor, my brother and I did fully understand the value of hard work. Nothing was ever given to us, by the government or anybody else. We, like most people I knew, earned our keep and worked for what we owned.

Fast forward to Robbi.  After she was sworn in, I spent a considerable amount of time covering her background, the fact that she was a professional student who had never worked a day in her life and was quite happy to have spent 10 years in college, mooching off her mother and living on college loans. After going over the facts of the accident, the improbability of any injuries and so forth, I moved to the subject of her life after the accident.  What did she do to occupy her time? Well, she sat around, watched TV, read the paper, and—when she felt energetic– dusted the house a little and walked the dog. Perhaps she would drive her car around a little, but that was it.  What was her mother doing all day?  Working as nurse.  “Well, of course,” I asked, “you certainly cook so your mother has a nice meal when she comes home at night right?” “No,” she replied, “I don’t really cook.” I asked what they did for dinner when mom got home. She said, without blushing:  “Well, when Mom gets home at night I tell her, ‘hey Mom you have been working hard tonight, why don’t we just go out to dinner?’” So, as if she were doing her mom a big favor, she agreed to just go out for dinner and save her mom the trouble of cooking. Who paid?  Mother, of course.

I asked Robbi whether she had any permanent impairment rating or whether any doctor had told her not to look for work. No, she replied.  “Well, had you considered doing light clerical work or cashiering since you admit you have no disability rating?  Certainly,” I suggested, “you could work at Casey’s gas station or Wal Mart or any number of stores in town who were hiring—just to earn some money and help support your mother who worked so hard to support you both?” Then came one of those priceless moments that causes a “Chris Mathews tingle” down the leg of any defense attorney—one of those moments which is the legal equivalent of the heavens parting and a dove descending from on high with angels singing:

Q: “Robbi, why is it that you do not simply go work at a Wal Mart or a Casey’s General Store and earn some money to help your mother rather that sit around all day doing nothing?”

Without looking left or right, or stopping to consider her answer even for a moment; without the slightest bit of shame, and with a look of piety, condescension, and disbelief at the sheer absurdity of my question, this 28-year-old professional college student looked at me straight faced and replied:

“Well, I do have two B.A.s, after all.”

For the first time in my life, I was nonplussed. The reporter stopped typing momentarily and an uncomfortable hush fell over the room.  I looked at the reporter; she looked at me. Nothing else needed to be said. We all understood. The case was over. Only the decorum of a deposition proceeding and the fact that we did not want a criminal conviction on our record prevented the reporter and me from reaching across the table and strangling her then and there. Of course, I should have known how stupid my question was.  Two B.A.s…I had simply forgotten that once you have that much education, you are too good for menial work and your family, and your country owe you a living. Since I did not have two B.A.s, but only one, how could I have known?  I maintained my composure, concluded the deposition and walked out with the reporter. “You just won the case,” my friend told me. “I know,” I replied.

I do not know whether it was the six- person hot tub bill that offended the jury or the “I do have two B.A.s” that killed her; however, the jury was out less than a half hour before finding for the defense. I did tell the Plaintiff’s attorney that if he succeeded in getting the hot tub bill into evidence at trial I would probably reach across the table and kiss him because it was going to sorely offend the jury. He did not see it that way. Perhaps it was the 4 foot by 5 foot chart I showed them in closing argument with nothing but the words “WELL, I DO HAVE TWO B.A.s” on it.  Or, the fact that I told the jury, “if you buy her a $7,000 hot tub ‘therapeutic device’ which has enough room for Robbi, her mother, and her four doctors who testified at trial, then they have a bridge in Brooklyn they would like to sell you as well.” Whatever if was, the jury, God bless them, gave her nothing.  The jury of hard working, tax paying commonsensical, middle class Americans from the Midwest saw the attitude of privilege and entitlement that pervaded this girl’s case and were offended by it. “Pay me because I have an education; pay me because I am a victim; pay me because you owe me a living; I am here, I am breathing—so give me what I want.”

The attitude among many Americans today just sounds so eerily reminiscent of Robbi’s attitude about life. I think about her case a lot lately. There are many Robbis out there, who believe that the world, their government, their fellow citizens, or their parents, owe them something because they are alive and living in the greatest country on earth. They have no idea as to how we got this way—how we built the strongest, most powerful and wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  The case reinforced my longstanding trust in the goodness and wisdom of hard working folks who do things right, play by the rules and not feel the world owes them a living. I still believe that most Americans are like the jurors who sat on this case, and pray that the Robbis of the world are still in the minority.  God help us if they are not.