The retardness of CA's Judicial System

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6498405&page=1

Lisa Torti helped her friend, Alexandra Van Horn, out of a car wreck and allegedly the result was that Alexandra became paralyzed. Alexandra is now suing her friend because of her medical condition. The CA State Supreme Court had the chance to kill this lawsuit, but didn't. I would postulate that Republicans would argue that people should be shielded from these type of lawsuits. Democrats would argue that people have a right to recover damages due to accidents and would make slippery slope arguments to scare people from modifying laws that would prevent these type of lawsuits, and like I previously mentioned even if their logic was examined and criticized, they would call you a name and shame you from speaking. I postulate neither is correct, but that people successfully sue for monetary gain because we as a society are morally corrupt. This woman, Alexandra Van Horn, willfully neglects the fact her friend was helping her, and as stated in the article, Lisa believed she saw smoke coming from the car and pulled her friend to safety. Unfortunately for Lisa, doing the right thing supposedly resulted in her friend's injury, and with friends like Alexandra who needs enemies.

I can't understand the craziness of our Judicial system, from Judicial activism from the bench, to decisions that are contrary to the intention of the law, to creating rights that never existed like the Constitutional Right to Infanticide, err... Abortion, err... Woman's Right to Choose. I credit C.S. Lewis with the following thought. Our society has determined it's wrong to discriminate. At first, discrimination at the sound of the word, conjures negative thoughts. But yet we do it on a daily basis. We like Brand A over Brand B because of such and such reasons. We interview ten people for one position and select one person to extend a job offer. But this right of discrimination ends when it comes to describing a person's attribute. It would be nice to call Alexandra what she is, a wretched self-entitled wrench, but since she's disabled the first cry would be just that, that she's paralyzed you can't criticize her for wanting monetary compensation for her damages. But that's exactly the problem. She's not entitled to it or anything else unless she had a life insurance policy, be that she had one that covered disability, then that's what she's entitled to.

Our society is all about me. If I spill coffee on myself it's McDonald's fault for making it too hot that it caused skin damage, not because I'm a klutz. If I'm speeding in my SUV and it flips because I make a sudden lane change, it's the manufacturer's fault I'm paralyzed because they made the center of gravity too high, it's not my fault I chose to drive. Every ridiculous successful lawsuit can be boiled down to our societal fear of calling someone what they are otherwise we're judging them and who are we to judge anyways. Right? This inability to discriminate extends to other absurdities such as being unable to profile Muslims at airports despite the fact that white grandma's in their 80's don't commit acts of terrorism, it's Islamophobic to say otherwise. How about our public schools, it hurts little Johnny's feelings if he's held back so promote him to the next grade to preserve his ego and hopefully he'll catch up. Doesn't anyone wonder why spending more and more on public education hasn't worked, won't work, and will continue to punish this and future generations that suffer through it? At one point public education did work, but when our society determined it was bad to discriminate a downward spiral began, and until we recognize that and focus on the root of our problems, we'll never solve the disaster that public education is.

When we can safely call Alexandra's actions a proper adjective without fear of being maligned through a slew of pejoratives, we can begin to have honest debate about frivolous lawsuits. When we can safely discriminate between what's right and what's wrong, we can have an honest debate about public education, welfare elimination, immigration enforcement, effective security protocols at airports, abolish government mandated unscrupulous banking practices and create common sense monetary policies that prevent high risk loan making to sub-prime borrowers (try blaming the borrowers for this current economic debacle), etc. End the discrimination against discrimination!

For clarification's sake, I will say that my argument is not in favor of archaic nonfactual discrimination such as that of racial bigotry, etc. I am in favor of open debate starting with the facts and moving forth to a sound policy that reflects those facts. I think it's unhealthy when we can't have a debate about facts such as when the President of Harvard University, Larry Summers, discussed the differences between men and women's inherit intellectual differences to explain why more men than women study upper sciences, and following controversy surrounding his remarks eventually resigned.