Week in Review
If you were in the ‘in’ crowd in high school the most ‘in’ people were the quarterback of the football team and the head cheerleader. Typically the best looking guy and girl in high school. This is why girls want to be cheerleaders. Because only pretty and popular girls are cheerleaders. These girls don’t get paid. And that’s okay. Because they do it for the privilege of wearing that cheerleader uniform. And being part of the ‘in’ crowd.
There’s a fascination with cheerleaders. Men like them so much they made a porno movie about a girl trying to make a football cheerleader squad that wasn’t the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders but looked like it was. Debbie Does Dallas. A porn bestselling video. Because men like cheerleaders. For they are toned, fit and beautiful. And they wear revealing outfits. Which is why NFL cheerleaders are sexy.
Women try hard to become NFL cheerleaders. But only toned, fit and beautiful women get to be cheerleaders. Which is why women work so hard to be toned, fit and beautiful. So they can go to cheerleader tryouts and best the competition. To win that honor of wearing an NFL cheerleader uniform. At least, that’s how it has been until now (see String of Cheerleader Lawsuits the Next Headache for the NFL by Tierney Sneed posted 4/25/2014 on US News and World Report).
What will become of the Buffalo Jills, the cheerleaders that are on the sidelines for Buffalo Bills games? A lawsuit alleging lower than minimum wage earnings and other New York labor law violations filed by five former Buffalo Jills has caused the suspension of the squad, and taken with a pair of similar suits, is creating yet another public relations cloud over the National Football League.
Stephanie Mateczun – president of Stejon Productions Corp., the third-party production company that manages the Jills and was named in the suit alongside the team – confirmed the organization’s activities had ceased indefinitely as a result of the lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court Tuesday…
The Jills’ lawsuit is the third case to be brought up by an NFL team’s cheerleaders against their respective organization this year. Each case – the first, a class action suit filed in January against the Oakland Raiders, and the second, launched in February by a Ben-Gals cheerleader against the Cincinnati Bengals – is unique in its specifics…
The string of cases, as well as leaked copies of cheerleader handbooks from other teams, suggest the alleged mistreatment of cheerleaders is a league-wide problem. They are often paid per game, with hours spent practicing or at off-field events left uncompensated. They are also held to standards unthinkable in most workplaces: regular weigh-ins, costly requirements for certain hair and beauty treatments, and restrictions on who they date and what they post to social media…
Similar claims were made in the next suit to follow, filed by Ben-Gals’ cheerleader Alexa Brenneman against the Bengals in February. It suggests she made less than $2.85 an hour for her 300 hours of work during the season, well below Ohio’s $7.85 an hour minimum wage. The Jills suit likewise describes an alleged violation of New York minimum wage laws, and also details what it calls “demeaning and degrading treatment” at Jills events where the cheerleaders supposedly faced “lecherous stares,” “degrading sexual comments” and “inappropriate touching…”
“The issue here is … how we treat our workers in this country,” Dolce, of the Jills case, says – which is why he thinks the NFL should be paying attention as well. “I know it’s not a central issue for the NFL, but in terms of worker rights and human rights and gender politics, it shouldn’t just be ignored…”
The controversy isn’t sitting well with the NFL’s current marketing outreach to female fans. A Change.org petition launched before the lawsuits were filed demands teams across the league provide their cheerleaders with livable salaries – and it has more than 100,000 signatures.
Livable salaries? Cheerleading is not a job. It’s a thing to do for fun. That thing these women may enjoy unlike their day job. Which provides their livable salaries. Not their cheerleader earnings. I mean, who can work only 300 hours a year and expect to pay all of their bills?
Cheerleading can’t be that horrible. Because women go to cheerleader tryouts to make the squad. And abide by all the rules to remain a cheerleader. If it was so horrible they wouldn’t do this. But they do. And they’re not doing this for the money. For we know they don’t make any money being a cheerleader. No. They do this because they love it.
You know who’s happy now? Teams that don’t have cheerleaders. And if they were considering adding them you can bet they won’t now. In fact, those teams that do may consider dropping theirs. For here’s a startling fact. Cheerleaders don’t win games. The only time most people even see them is coming out of a commercial break. Then they’re gone. As the football game fills widescreen televisions across the country. They are trying to use cheerleaders to make the stadium experience special as a lot of people these days prefer watching football at home on their widescreen televisions. Making it harder to sell out some home games. But it is doubtful people are going to buy tickets for a game because they may be able to talk to a cheerleader. No matter how pretty or sexy they are. Because people love football more.
Teams may make some money with their cheerleaders. But it’s probably not enough to justify these legal headaches. So NFL cheerleaders may soon be a thing of the past. Something most football fans probably won’t even notice. For few in a big stadium can even see them. And those watching on television may catch a glimpse of them but that’s not why they’re tuning in. No, the people who will most notice the passing of the NFL cheerleader are the cheerleaders. And the women who wanted to try out to become a cheerleader. Something they may have dreamed about since high school.
Tags: beautiful, Buffalo Jills, cheerleader uniform, cheerleaders, Fit, football, lawsuits, livable salaries, NFL cheerleaders, toned
Lawyers make a lot of Money without Contributing anything Tangible to Society
An attorney was sitting in his office late one night when Satan appeared before him. Satan said, “I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, the souls of all your friends and law partners.” The lawyer thought about this for a moment then asked, “So, what’s the catch?”
That’s funny, isn’t it? Lawyers. Ambulance chasers. The butt of so many jokes. Why? Well, some will say they deserve it. Because they do chase ambulances. And will pass out their business cards if they’re on a sinking ship. Because sinking ships are good for lawsuits. And lawyers love to sue. For they can make a lot of money without contributing anything tangible to society. All they do is get between two parties when large sums of money change hands. And put a portion of that money into their pockets. That’s how they earn their living. Taking money away from others. They’re parasites. Just to get rich. And the big tort lawyers (those who sue people and businesses) get really rich. Allowing them to live very privileged lives.
Take a class action lawsuit. Where they bring a lot of wronged people together to sue a large corporation. The old David and Goliath thing. A little person can never take on a big corporation. But a whole class of them can. When represented by a tort lawyer. Who liken themselves as heroes of the little guy. Taking the big corporation on to make them pay for all the horrible things they’ve done to their clients. But who do they really help? Let’s say they win a judgment from a big corporation of $250,000,000. That’s a lot of money. From that sum they take their cut. Let’s say 50%. Leaving $125 million for the people the corporation wronged. That’s a lot of money. So the people won, too, right? Not really. For there are a lot of people represented in these class actions. Let’s say 5 million in our example. So if you divide the $125 million by 5 million that comes to $25 per person. So, again, who did the lawyers really help? The lawyers. Which is why there are so many lawyer jokes.
In the Private Sector if you want to spend Half of your Life Retired you have to Pay for It
Lawyers vote Democrat. Because they like being privileged people. They don’t want the laws changing that allow them to get so rich when money exchanges hands. Which is why they donate heavily to the Democrat Party. And don’t donate to the Republicans. Who complain about the high costs of frivolous lawsuits to businesses in an overly litigious society. It’s so bad that a footnote in the financial statements of a corporation about a lawsuit is not that big of a deal. Why? Because so many corporations are sued that investors are more surprised to see one that isn’t being sued. This is why Republicans want tort reform. And pass ‘loser-pays’ into law. Like many other countries have. Where the loser in court pays for the attorney fees for the side that wins. Which would greatly cut down on frivolous lawsuits. And cut the costs businesses incur from these frivolous lawsuits that they pass on to their customers. So the lawyers donate to Democrats. To prevent any tort reform that would change the easy way lawyers have of getting rich.
It’s the world’s oldest profession. Screwing people for money. But lawyers aren’t the only ones seeking privilege. There are a lot of others, too. Interestingly, they, too, support the Democrat Party. Such as the United Autoworkers. They donate heavily to the Democrat Party to keep labor laws favorable to unions. To make it more difficult for their nonunion competition. And to use the power of government to force people to pay may for a union-made car. Allowing their union members to live better lives than those outside of the UAW. And when even that doesn’t allow General Motors to pay its bills when selling a record number of cars the UAW goes to government for a bailout of their woefully underfunded pension fund. So their union members can continue to have a more generous retirement at an earlier age than those outside of the UAW.
Teacher unions seek privilege, too. You hear a lot about how the teachers don’t earn that much. But then again, they don’t work that much. Getting 3 months off in the summer. So you can’t compare their wages to people who don’t get the 3 summer months off. But for teachers it’s not so much about the paycheck. It’s the benefits. Very generous health insurance coverage. And pensions. Which have gone the way of the dodo in the private sector. Because people are just living too long into retirement. When they first set up these pensions people were dying in their sixties. The actuaries never saw people living into their eighties as common. So in the private sector if you want to spend half of your life retired you have to pay for it. And you work as long as necessary to fund the retirement you want. The union pensions just can’t work these days as they once did. Which is why teacher unions like the United Autoworkers and lawyers support the Democrat Party. They want to keep their privileged lives.
The Wealth Transfers of the Welfare State give Democrats Money and Privilege
Of course privilege is nothing new to the Democrat Party. They have long stood for privilege. Even now. As the Democrats provide themselves all kinds of exceptions from the Affordable Care Act. For more expensive and lower quality health insurance is good for the masses. But not for the privileged elite. Or their special friends who support them so generously with campaign donations. Congress has had a history of exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us. It took the Republican winning of the House in the 1994 midterm elections to change that. The first Republican-controlled House since 1952 required Congress to be held to the same laws as the rest of us. A bitter pill for Democrats to swallow. For their feelings of privilege go way back.
The Democrat Party can trace its pedigree back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. The party of the slave-owning planter elite. Who from day one fought for their privilege starting with the Three-Fifths Compromise. To give them a greater say in the new national government than their voting population allowed. The planter elite’s South turned into an Old World aristocracy. With great manors for the landed aristocracy. And vast lands worked by slaves. Very similar to feudalism in the Old World. And something they fought hard to keep. Their privilege. The Southern Democrats used the power of the national government (such as the Fugitive Slave Act) to interfere with state laws in the North. To protect their feudalism by keeping slavery legal as long as they could while the north was industrializing and modernizing. With paid laborers. When they lost control of the House due to the growing population in the North they turned to war. Saying that the national government was interfering with state laws in the South. And getting poor southern farmers who owned no slaves to fight and die so the southern aristocracy could live on.
When the Southern Democrats lost the American Civil War they scrambled to maintain their privilege. They unleashed a terror on the freed slaves and Republicans with the KKK. The Democrats then wrote Jim Crowe Laws. Separate but equal. Government-enforced racial segregation. During debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK Robert Byrd filibustered for 14 hours. To keep the South segregated. With power and privilege in a new aristocracy. Centered not on land but political power and cronyism. Even becoming the party for blacks as ironic as that is. Trading government programs for votes. And destroying the black family in the process. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced black fathers with government. And moved single mothers and their children into housing projects that became infested with drugs and crime. But this large (and failed) welfare state transferred a lot of wealth to the Democrats. Giving them money and privilege. That they can use to maintain their power. By taking care of those who take care of them. Lawyers, the UAW, teacher unions and other privilege seekers. For nothing has changed on the left. They have been and always will be an aristocratic-thinking, privilege-seeking people who want to live better than the rest of us. While we pay for their privileged lives.
Tags: aristocracy, aristocratic-thinking, attorney, class action lawsuit, Democrat, Democrat Party, far Left, feudalism, frivolous lawsuits, health insurance, lawsuits, lawyer, money, North, Old World, pension, planter elite, privilege, privilege seekers, privilege seeking, privileged elite, privileged lives, Republican, retirement, slaves, South, Southern Democrats, teacher unions, teachers, tort, tort lawyer, tort reform, UAW, union, unions, United Autoworkers, wealth, welfare state
Week in Review
Britain’s aging population is playing havoc with the National Health Service (NHS). More taxpayers are leaving the workforce than are entering it. Leaving less money to pay for a growing number of retirees who are living longer. Costs have grown so out of control that they are trying to find £20 billion ($30.54 billion) in efficiency savings over three years. Perhaps the best way for them to do that would be to just improve the quality of their care (see ‘Jaw-dropping’ rise in NHS claims after scandals by Laura Donnelly posted 7/19/2013 on The Telegraph).
A total of £22.7 billion – nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget – has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care…
In total, more than 16,000 patients lodged claims during 2012/13, compared with around 13,500 the previous year…
In December, 38 families were offered settlements from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals trust over a series of failings, including the case of a man who starved to death…
The highest individual pay outs are connected to NHS errors which have led to babies becoming brain damaged, with around 100 such cases occurring each year.
A man starved to death? In a hospital? How does that happen? The man must be in a bed. Nurses and doctors must look at the people occupying these beds. Is there no chart showing what this patient ate? And if nothing was written in under what the patient ate shouldn’t that have been a red flag that this patient didn’t eat?
I can understand trying to diagnose some diseases can be difficult. For some diseases can be devious bastards. Hiding deep with a patient’s myriad symptoms. But hunger?
“Hello, random patient. Bowels okay?”
“I haven’t had a BM in days because no one is feeding me.”
“Not feeding you, eh? Well, we’d better do something about that? Let me find your nurse. She can give me the form to address that. Then you’ll be right as rain, my good man. Take care. And do work on those bowel movements.”
The soothing warmth of red tape in a government bureaucracy. Just makes you wish Obamacare would hurry up and get here already.
Forms. Yes, forms. Beautiful forms. Filling in blanks. Filing in triplicate. The way health care was meant to be. And the way it will be under Obamacare.
“Hungry? Not to worry. I have just the form here. See? Here we fill in what you ate. And here we fill in what you passed. Beautiful, yes? And by studying the connection between the two we can fill another 1,000 positions in the health care authority. Isn’t that wonderful?”
Tags: Britain, claims, hospital, lawsuits, NHS, Obamacare, patient, poor care, settlements
Week in Review
Who is more evil? The pharmaceutical that has spent time and money to develop a new drug? And then further time and money going through a lengthy clinical testing process to guarantee (as best as possible) that the new drug is safe? When proven ‘safe’ by the regulators to sell it at a patent-protected price? To cover all of these costs. All the costs for the 20 new pills that failed along the way? And the inevitable lawsuits when a proven ‘safe’ drug proves NOT to be safe after all? Or is the health service using a cheaper drug that appears to give similar results? That hasn’t gone through that extensive clinical testing process? But they use the cheaper drug because they can treat more patients than they can with the more expensive but clinically tested drug?
Oh, it’s a perplexing and vexing question. For we want new super drugs to cure all that ails us. But we want those drugs to be cheap. And safe. But if they end up hurting us we’ll sue the bejesus out of everyone who allowed that drug to get into our system. Which brings us to a great catch-22. Drugs cannot be both cheap and safe. For even the expensive ones sometimes prove not to be safe. Especially if we rush them to market to save lives. Only to find that by rushing those drugs to market they’ve harmed the lives we were trying to save.
Sadly, they have to balance the quality of health care with the cost of that health care. Which is a never ending struggle in the NHS (see Using Avastin for eye condition wet AMD ‘could save NHS £84m’ by Branwen Jeffreys posted 5/6/2012 on BBC News Health).
The NHS could save £84m [about $135 million US] a year by using a cheaper drug to treat a leading cause of blindness, research suggests.
NHS-funded research says both Lucentis and Avastin have a similar effect in preventing loss of sight when used for wet age-related macular degeneration.
Lucentis costs about £700 an injection, and Avastin £60 – but Avastin is not officially approved for eye conditions.
Novartis, which markets Lucentis in the UK, is taking legal action against four NHS trusts for using the cheaper drug.
The company says the use of Avastin – developed to treat cancer – is undermining patient safety…
Lucentis is officially approved for use in eyes, and is the treatment recommended in England and Wales by the watchdog NICE.
Roche, which owns the rights to the similar, but cheaper, Avastin, has never sought to have it approved for use in eyes, which would involve further clinical trials.
But many doctors have been using Avastin at their clinical discretion…
As they both target blood vessels, the IVAN researchers particularly looked at whether there was an increased risk of heart attack or stroke…
Novartis argues that Lucentis has a safety profile proven in clinical trials and approved by the regulators.
It says the US research, which has just published data from the second year, highlights what it describes as “serious safety concerns” about the use of Avastin in this unlicensed treatment of eyes.
It points, for example, to a higher rate of stomach and gut disorders in patients given Avastin…
Cost pressures on the NHS have led to an increased use of Avastin…
The financial stakes are high both for the NHS and the pharmaceutical company.
Perhaps the question should be which is more evil? The pharmaceutical industry? Or a national health care system that has put cost considerations before patient care? For the use of the cheaper drug is driven by the cost of the drug. Not by the effectiveness of the treatment. They may determine that the cheaper drug may be as safe as the more expensive drug. The drug that was specifically clinically tested and approved by regulators for that specific use. But this points out another issue. Is the drug approval process not necessary for all drugs? And, if not, why have it? If it is only delaying bringing more life-saving drugs to market at affordable prices? And if this is all true then should there be a ban on all lawsuits against pharmaceuticals? Who were only doing what everyone demanded of them. Rushing new life-saving drugs to market.
Perplexing and vexing questions, indeed. And ones that we will hotly debate as Obamacare comes on line. For Obamacare will have greater cost constraints than the NHS. For Obamacare will treat far more people than the NHS. About 5 times as many as the UK based on population sizes. Which means the debate under Obamacare will not be about saving $135 million. But about $683 million. Over half a trillion dollars. Or about half of the 2011 budget deficit. So you know Obamacare will consider these cost savings. And use drugs that haven’t gone through the clinical testing process like they are in the UK. And actively search for other savings. And place incredible pressures on the pharmaceuticals. Making it very difficult for them to make a profit. Or to even cover their costs. And when that happens they will drop out of the business of finding new super drugs to cure all that ails us. Making what ails us really ail us. Reducing the quality of our lives. Perhaps even killing us.
Tags: cheaper drug, clinical testing, cost of that health care, costs, costs savings, drug, lawsuits, life saving drugs, new drug, new super drugs, NHS, Obamacare, patients, pharmaceutical, quality of health care, regulators, safe, super drugs