Strange as it may seem, the country should follow the example of Lindsay Lohan and her mother.
Before I explain that, though, it occurs to me that this is a serious professional website with serious readers who probably shouldn't be reading this. That means that some of you may not know and have no reason to know who Lindsay Lohan is.
How do I explain Lindsay Lohan?
Oh, never mind. Just pretend you know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, Lindsay and her mom, Dinah, last sued week Fox News, talk show host/bully Sean Hannity and "commentator" Michelle Fields for defamation. According to the suit, Fields falsely said that mom was doing cocaine with her daughter.
There was no indication how Fields knew this or whether she was hanging out at some terrific parties.
Interestingly, the suit said that "Sean Hannity led off the segment with the comment or theme of 'Early Signs of Train Wrecks and Tragedy About to Happen.'"
I think one of those early signs is tackling a serious topic by discussing it with a "commentator" whose own website has only this one qualification on her resume (aka "about" page): "Upon graduating from Pepperdine University in 2011, she gained attention after having a confrontation with actor Matt Damon over teacher tenure reform."
And so a star was born.
(Note to Serious Readers: Matt Damon is an actor who once played a genius math student in a movie he co-wrote. So apparently you can learn a lot from him.)
Be that as it may, I fully and openly admit to my own lack of expertise regarding who's taken cocaine with whom. I have no idea whether this lawsuit has any merit or not.
What it does have, though, is the germ of a very good idea: If you can sue commentators for (allegedly) recklessly saying false things about people, why can't you sue them for saying false things about the country?
Corporations are people. Surely, the United States is a person too.
Citizens of this country (and this person) must be empowered to sue on the nation's behalf.
Wouldn't our politics be a lot more pleasant if everyone actually had to be careful about not fibbing or making up convenient "facts?"
If nothing else, science deserves some serious damage awards.
Every time a politician, or a Fox News or other "news" talker, or a cause crusader or paid campaigner opened his/her mouth, they'd have to pay some attention to actual facts.
Or get hit with a satisfying lawsuit.
Imagine how pleasantly quiet things would get.
Hire lawyers immediately to make this happen.
Discrimination: With every step forward in the battle for civil rights, there comes a step back.
We may be on the verge of a new, largely unforeseen (at least by me) historic struggle for equality.
I'm speaking of a newly created oppressed class: marijuana users.
Now that marijuana has become legal, at least medically, in a lot of places, we're beginning to see the ugly reality of drugism.
Case in point: the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling Daggett v. Sternick , in which a father was denied custody of his child because he uses marijuana.
Lots and lots of marijuana.
This, of course, is strictly medicinal and, said the dad, litigating his way (probably unsteadily) through the Maine judicial system, taking away his child violated his protections under Maine's Medical Use of Marijuana Act.
Clear discrimination. Clear violation of rights.
If you read the ruling (which I strongly recommend), you'll see that this man has a steady job earning $6,000 per year and works pro bono on the weekends at his friend's marijuana farm.
The man has responsibility and a work ethic.
But "(t)he court found that Sternick appeared slow in his thinking at trial, likely due to his regular ingestion of marijuana, and that his eyes were pink and bloodshot."
This attitude by the court is the very definition of disability discrimination.
If he's so slow, how was he able to get his case to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court?
It's going to be a while before the rights of the pink and bloodshot are recognized by society.
In the meantime, can someone tell me if there's a Maine Supreme Non-Judicial Court?