Tort reform and the Koch Brothers

The question on my mind so frequently is:  Why is it always the disenfranchised, uneducated, lower income people who seem to be waving the picket signs and screaming about things like health care, fighting programs that are so obviously in their own best interests?  Why do the Republicans, who in my mind represent corporate America, seem to find their most vocal allies among the Tea Party trailer trash fanatics?   Who mobilizes the people with the signs that say “Youth in Asia will Kill your Grandma”?   They obviously don’t have the education and intelligence to mobilize themselves.  

Youth in Asia are far more literate than these idiots, and know how to spell euthanasia.

Hooked on phonics maybe?

Sometimes everything seems to tie together, and I move one step closer to the conspiracy theory lunatic fringe.  The amazing Koch Brothers, big polluters, big oil, big money, billionaires, hire PR firms to create AstroTurf organizations to convince the disenfranchised that they are fighting the big corporations and the lobbyist in Washington.   The irony meter goes spoing again.  Suddenly all scientists do NOT agree about anthropogenic climate change.  The tactic is to create doubt, and to tell reassuring lies to the uninformed and scientifically illiterate.
     I love the names of the organizations these guys create:  FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and my favourite, an organization to fight windfarms which means alternative energy which means competition for big oil as represented by Koch Industries,  Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.  Don’t those just sound like names America should get behind?  Who could be against freedom, or working for that matter?  Who objects to prosperity?  Isn’t it good to be part of an alliance to protect something?  The pictures on the Nantucket Sound site would be enough to get me to join, if I didn’t know AstroTurf when I feel it underfoot.  Motherhood and apple pie anybody? 

Morons who want to give corporations a "Get out of Jail Free" card. 

I had an epiphany the other day about all those absurd legal settlements we hear about.  Like the woman who got a lump of cash from McDonalds because she burned her beaver with hot coffee.  Is it possible that the judges who grant those huge settlements do so in the full knowledge that the public will be outraged?  Is it possible that they’ve had instruction from their corporate masters?  Is it possible that it all fits in to the tort reform program underway in an attempt to make sure that you and I can’t sue a huge corporation that damages our health, destroys our view, pollutes our land, poisons our water, or kills all the fish in our ocean?  Welcome to the lunatic fringe.

1 Comment »

  1. Darwin Harmless Said,

    April 2, 2015 @ 5:06 am

    This came to me as an email, but I’m putting it here in the comments, with my response, to share it with everybody:

    Dear Darwin,

    I was trying to find out if the Youth in Asia sign was serious and that led me to your site.

    (Good on you for checking this out. It never occurred to me, because the signs fit in with my prejudices about the health care reform protesters. My bad. Of course we’ll probably never know whether those signs were a legitimate expressions of ignorance, or a joke. It does disturb me that I can be so easily sucked in to believing lies when they match with my opinions. -DH)

    I agree with you that those corporate maniacs the Kochs have achieved something, in manipulating poor and middle income people to be their buddies– I guess by making them enraged.

    I’d like to ask you to look up the the facts in the above lawsuit that you find so contemptible; then you’ll see that the judge wasn’t kidding.

    (I know the facts in that lawsuit.
    Most people where I live expect a hot coffee to be hot, and are willing to take responsibility for scalding themselves if they spill it on their genitals. I’m sorry for the poor woman who did such damage to herself, but if I were the judge I would hold her one hundred percent responsible.-DH)

    I don’t know why you spoke of the victim that way– that non-Darwin way.

    (Say what? By referring to her genitals as her “beaver”? Unless one is not allowed to use ANY euphemism for a woman’s genitals, which I think would rather diminish our language, I’ve always found “beaver” to be the most benign. Rather like referring to a man’s penis as his “dick”. -DH)

    (name redacted)

Leave a Comment