Saturday, October 29, 2011

Quick Hits: Volume XLII

-In a speech this past Wednesday in Denver, CO, President Obama spoke to college students regarding jobs and student loans. In the speech, the President lamented how he and wife Michelle accumulated $120,000 in student loans and how the monthly payments on said loans were ridiculously high.

Well enough is enough.

Hey kids!

Had it with those annoying student loans? Sick of those ridiculous monthly payments? Find yourself up against the wall? Or maybe just too busy, protesting "outside" broad and wall?

Well, good news!

How would you like to hear about a plan to take all that college debt and just...Swoooossshhhhh!

Blow it away! It's true. Because President Obama could be on the verge ...of making it law!!

You heard me right, the President is unveiling a student loan plan, where if you're in too deep ...not only is the government going to help you out...but stick the bill with all those capitalist swines you've been protesting while he's at it.

But wait, Neil, you're saying...he can't do that. He has to get Congress' approval.

Here's the good part. Three words.

No. He. Doesn't.

The big guy's planning a brilliant end-run around those pesky Republicans by way of executive order.

They don't like it, deal with it, and they can take it up with a judge like all their other endless legal challenges while they're at it.

So ... You in?

Closed circuit to those who shrieked "DICTATOR" during the George W. Bush administration: You have a problem with a sitting U.S. President making law via executive fiat???

-My Dad once riddled me this - "What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a bottom-feeding scum sucker and the other is a fish."

OK, I'm over-generalizing there, as not all lawyers are subhuman. But I can't say with certitude that a certain Los Angeles attorney doesn't validate my Dad's assertion.

An attorney representing the Dodgers and owner Frank McCourt filed a civil complaint against the two men charged in the Opening Day beating of San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, arguing that they should be held liable for the attack, not McCourt, the team or other parties named in the suit filed by Stow's family in May.

"One of the things the jury will be asked to do is to determine what percentage of fault various individuals have for this event," McCourt's attorney Jerome Jackson told

"You're saying to the jury, 'They (the Stow family) are saying we're 100 percent liable. But does that mean (Marvin) Norwood and (Louis) Sanchez, who beat this guy up, have no liability? And, does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?' "

Jackson said that if the case goes to a jury trial, he will ask jurors to assign percentages of liability to the Dodgers, McCourt, Norwood, Sanchez, Stow and the other entities named in the original suit. If financial damages are awarded, they would be paid out at those percentages.

"I've been doing these cases for 23 years and I have never seen one yet in which it didn't take at least two people to tango," he said, referring to the notion that jurors could decide Stow bears some liability in the attack. "So stay tuned and stand by."

Jackson compared the Stow case to a suit filed by a woman named Maria Para Helenius, who lost sight in one of her eyes after being involved in a fight in the Dodger Stadium parking lot in 2005. A jury found her assailant, Denise Ordaz, 85 percent liable for the attack, Helenius 15 percent liable and the Dodgers zero percent liable. She was awarded $500,420, according to court documents obtained by, 85 percent of which was to be paid by Ordaz.

Stow, who was in a coma for several months following the attack, remains in a Bay Area rehabilitation facility. His family has said that he is speaking again and has made great progress since the March 31 attack, but that he still needs around-the-clock care indefinitely.

What really galls me about this is how in the world can a man who was beaten until he was comatose even be considered to have some sort of liability? Did Stow's attackers suffer wrist injuries while beating him repeatedly? Did Stow not adequately clean up the blood he spilled in Dodger Stadium?

To me, this would appear to be case of Frank McCourt trying to cover his backside. With he and wife Jamie involved in a very contentious (and potentially expensive) divorce, the Dodgers franchise faced some perilous financial issues, including questions regarding the team making payroll at certain points of the season. As such, without a renewed TV deal and its accompanying revenue, the Dodgers looked to slash expenses. So what was rumored to be one of the cost-cutting measures? Ballpark security. Perhaps if Dodger Stadium had more security personnel, the attack on Stow might have been thwarted.

Regardless, the whole soap opera surrounding a once proud franchise is making some nasty headlines these days.

-Tomorrow afternoon will be a matchup of rookie quarterbacks in Charlotte, NC as the Carolina Panthers (and #1 overall selection, QB Cam Newton) will play host to my Minnesota Vikings, led by QB Christian Ponder.

In addition to the two young signal callers being first round draft picks and (barring serious injuries) the foundation for their respective franchises, they have something else in common. You see, both Cecil Newton and David Ponder (the fathers of the aforementioned rookie QBs) were training camp participants for the 1984 Dallas Cowboys.

Very cool!


No comments: