Does anyone besides me find it incongruous that the generation that made slicing and then stuffing a woman’s breasts with silicone as ubiquitous as male circumcision would dare condemn the current body piercing and tattooing rage as having attracted the full frontal wrath of God? Now that I mention it, where was that wrath when the Israelites introduced adult male circumcision?
Mind you, although in private I might admit to an occasional inkling that such things could be delightfully titillating in the right circumstances, I am generally not a fan of multiple body piercings and tattoos. That is my choice and preference. But why don’t our religious leaders find enhancing one’s breasts just as ungodly a practice as piercing or poking one’s skin? While the burgeoning breasts of their parishioners may have understandably escaped their notice, could it be that since breast "artists" have the sacrosanct title of doctor, wear a suit and live in a mansion that their laying on of hands is somehow less evocative than the tattoo artist's handiwork upon the same? Are sex-based Barbie values somehow more palatable than sex-based Tattoo Parlor values? And other than reconstruction after a mastectomy or some other disfiguring tragedy, don’t tell me that breast enlargements have nothing to do with sex or feeling and being seen as sexy. It certainly isn’t done to enhance their functionality for breast feeding or for some other utilitarian purpose like keeping the cows at bay come milking time; nor have I heard of them being marketed for use as auxiliary airbags or flotation devices.
Fact is, they have everything to do with sex. (Is this a surprise?) Moreover, unlike tattoos and piercings, most women who elect to have their otherwise perfect breasts enlarged do so because of our culture’s dictation of what is sexy. Let’s admit that before we claim that one particular body-mutilation art is somehow more evil or more damaging than another. As for me, and I hope other men, although nurture and nature may have inclined our eye toward the more visible of nature’s mammary organs, and although the occasional trinket or discreetly placed tattoo may momentarily intrigue--poise and knowing how to use what God has blessed you with will always trump as more sexy the body artist’s embellishments of breast and skin. Vivé la natural!
Loren M. Lambert
© November 4, 2002
Monday, November 4, 2002
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Utah and the Nations' Most Compelling Political Issue
If you care about all that we hold dear in this great nation of freedom and do not heed my words, I guarantee that the progress we have made as a nation in over two centuries will be squandered away in less than a decade. I’m talking about a scourge that is more dire than all the drugs, sex and unfettered-cartoon watching put together. Moreover, it’s spreading rapidly across the nation. If left unchecked and not completely reversed, this nation will soon be populated with a generation of pussy-footed, uninitiated men and vulgar, sweaty women. Have you guessed yet? That’s right, I was appalled to recently learn from my own baggy-pant-
wearing son, and confirmed this with several fellow parents with teens that kids don’t have to shower after gym. Hence, thousands of teens across the nation are leaving their gym classes sticky, sweaty and dripping with day-old pore-expressed pheromones. It should make you shudder in horror.
And why? Think for a moment. When you’re in an elevator, sitting in the sauna, taking the bus, or at a concert what do you care more about--that the person next to you knows how to breakdown a sentence or that he or she bathed. Moreover, how many memories do you have from your high school science, English and geography classes? Now, how many memories do you have from showering after your gym classes? See my point. While our children will quickly forget their ninth grade math class, they will never forget and always cherish the lick of that wet towel on their bare rear. Yes, there’s nothing quite like the fear, exhilaration, embarrassment, and growth they experience washing their morphing bodies in the company of their fellow classmates. Fact is, kids learn more about physiology, psychology, physics, etc. during the ten minutes of towel flipping, butt slapping, and youthful exuberance of showering after their gym classes than all the other time in school. But more important, they learn the proper use of water, soap and deodorant before entering the work force. Let’s not deprive them of this important adolescent ritual.
I therefore urge you, don’t vote for anyone that isn’t willing to make showering in our schools a legislative priority.
Loren M. Lambert
October 31, 2002
wearing son, and confirmed this with several fellow parents with teens that kids don’t have to shower after gym. Hence, thousands of teens across the nation are leaving their gym classes sticky, sweaty and dripping with day-old pore-expressed pheromones. It should make you shudder in horror.
And why? Think for a moment. When you’re in an elevator, sitting in the sauna, taking the bus, or at a concert what do you care more about--that the person next to you knows how to breakdown a sentence or that he or she bathed. Moreover, how many memories do you have from your high school science, English and geography classes? Now, how many memories do you have from showering after your gym classes? See my point. While our children will quickly forget their ninth grade math class, they will never forget and always cherish the lick of that wet towel on their bare rear. Yes, there’s nothing quite like the fear, exhilaration, embarrassment, and growth they experience washing their morphing bodies in the company of their fellow classmates. Fact is, kids learn more about physiology, psychology, physics, etc. during the ten minutes of towel flipping, butt slapping, and youthful exuberance of showering after their gym classes than all the other time in school. But more important, they learn the proper use of water, soap and deodorant before entering the work force. Let’s not deprive them of this important adolescent ritual.
I therefore urge you, don’t vote for anyone that isn’t willing to make showering in our schools a legislative priority.
Loren M. Lambert
October 31, 2002
Tuesday, September 3, 2002
Don't Sell Our Birthright!
Remember Esau? Because of lack-of-foresight-induced hunger, he sold his birthright for a bit of gruel. Similarly, our political leaders, because of lack-of-foresight-induced budget shortfalls and lack of vision, want to sell our birthright. It’s called the "Sage Brush Rebellion," and they trot it out every now and then every time there is a political or economic crisis so they can use the federal government--admittedly an easy target in Utah--to blame for their shortcomings and lack of leadership.
Their argument is as follows: Our schools lack funding, funding comes from property taxes, the federal government owns a large amount of land in Utah, therefore Utah's lack of funds for education is the federal government’s fault. Hence, if only the federal government would stop "robbing Utah’s schools" and hand over our public lands, all would be well. As an example, they argue, in the East, the federal government controls very little of the land and their schools are, well, perfect. It has nothing to do with our birthrate, our lack of political will, or our unwillingness to fund education.
Makes perfect sense you say, since we all know that, (1) the federal government is evil, (2) our public leaders are all infallible saints, and (3) we made this desert bloom like a rose so "we" should control it.
But it doesn’t make perfect sense. I lived in the East. There’s not a single scrap of land or a "Waldon Pond," there that you can lay hide or hair without paying a large fee or asking permission. I love the West and especially Utah because the refrain in much of our state still is "This land is your land, this land is my land. . ." and not, "This land is Novell’s land, this land is The Leavitt’s Family land, from the Bear Lake forest to the Grand Canyon’s waters. . ." Yes, I too disagree with much of the federal government’s interference in our state but it still is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Our local political leaders are not guileless, and if our federal lands are sold to the state, "we" will not be in charge of them and "we" nor our schools will, in the long run, be the beneficiaries--Novell, IBM, Sinclair Oil and the rich will be. Do you think they will pay the extra property taxes for our schools? No, "we" the middle class will pay the taxes, as we always do, and "we" the middle class and the poor will be excluded from our once public federal lands.
No, I say don’t privatize our public lands. If I wanted this to be the "East" I’d move there. "We" should beg our politicians not to sell our birthright because of their lack of vision and lack of political fortitude.
Loren M. Lambert © September 3, 2002
Their argument is as follows: Our schools lack funding, funding comes from property taxes, the federal government owns a large amount of land in Utah, therefore Utah's lack of funds for education is the federal government’s fault. Hence, if only the federal government would stop "robbing Utah’s schools" and hand over our public lands, all would be well. As an example, they argue, in the East, the federal government controls very little of the land and their schools are, well, perfect. It has nothing to do with our birthrate, our lack of political will, or our unwillingness to fund education.
Makes perfect sense you say, since we all know that, (1) the federal government is evil, (2) our public leaders are all infallible saints, and (3) we made this desert bloom like a rose so "we" should control it.
But it doesn’t make perfect sense. I lived in the East. There’s not a single scrap of land or a "Waldon Pond," there that you can lay hide or hair without paying a large fee or asking permission. I love the West and especially Utah because the refrain in much of our state still is "This land is your land, this land is my land. . ." and not, "This land is Novell’s land, this land is The Leavitt’s Family land, from the Bear Lake forest to the Grand Canyon’s waters. . ." Yes, I too disagree with much of the federal government’s interference in our state but it still is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Our local political leaders are not guileless, and if our federal lands are sold to the state, "we" will not be in charge of them and "we" nor our schools will, in the long run, be the beneficiaries--Novell, IBM, Sinclair Oil and the rich will be. Do you think they will pay the extra property taxes for our schools? No, "we" the middle class will pay the taxes, as we always do, and "we" the middle class and the poor will be excluded from our once public federal lands.
No, I say don’t privatize our public lands. If I wanted this to be the "East" I’d move there. "We" should beg our politicians not to sell our birthright because of their lack of vision and lack of political fortitude.
Loren M. Lambert © September 3, 2002
Sunday, June 23, 2002
The Worker's Compensation Morass
In the name of commerce, Governor Leavitt seeks to fully privatize the Worker’s Compensation Fund. At a recent luncheon, the Governor, with great insight, explained his position. Though his presentation was impressive and his desire to do good was undeniable, it is apparent that the Governor is blissfully oblivious to everything but the problems of the rich and powerful. I do not claim he bears any malice or guile in his political goals, it’s simply that the concerns of the downtrodden never attain his notice.
If they did, if he truly was the Governor for all, he would have learned of more serious problems with the Worker’s Compensation system than whether the Fund should be privatized. The current system rewards insurance carriers who frivolously deny claims, use incompetent medical providers and medical evaluators, and delay paying claims for any pretext. They do so because those challenging them have an almost insurmountable burden.
They know that desperate injured workers, forced to wait months and sometimes years to have their claims heard by the overwhelmed Industrial Commission, will either die, give up or drastically compromise their claims. They know that often the cost to fight them is greater than the benefits owed, so they deny thousands of dollars in medical bills. They know that even when they lose they win, suffering no penalty for their intransigence. And finally, since benefit rates have not kept pace with inflation, the injured become more impoverished while the carriers become richer.
In short, instead of the Fund’s TV propaganda of an alley mugging, the real scene is of an Armani-suited gang beating an already injured worker to death with their brief cases. The message to Governor Leavitt? Widen your vision to include "these the least of thy brethren," and not just the rich and influential. Then, being the honorable person you are, you will do the most good for the most people by making a comprehensive reformation of the Worker’s Compensation system.
Loren M. Lambert
June 23, 2002
If they did, if he truly was the Governor for all, he would have learned of more serious problems with the Worker’s Compensation system than whether the Fund should be privatized. The current system rewards insurance carriers who frivolously deny claims, use incompetent medical providers and medical evaluators, and delay paying claims for any pretext. They do so because those challenging them have an almost insurmountable burden.
They know that desperate injured workers, forced to wait months and sometimes years to have their claims heard by the overwhelmed Industrial Commission, will either die, give up or drastically compromise their claims. They know that often the cost to fight them is greater than the benefits owed, so they deny thousands of dollars in medical bills. They know that even when they lose they win, suffering no penalty for their intransigence. And finally, since benefit rates have not kept pace with inflation, the injured become more impoverished while the carriers become richer.
In short, instead of the Fund’s TV propaganda of an alley mugging, the real scene is of an Armani-suited gang beating an already injured worker to death with their brief cases. The message to Governor Leavitt? Widen your vision to include "these the least of thy brethren," and not just the rich and influential. Then, being the honorable person you are, you will do the most good for the most people by making a comprehensive reformation of the Worker’s Compensation system.
Loren M. Lambert
June 23, 2002
Monday, June 17, 2002
Cork The Bats, Shorten the Soccer Fields, and Widen the Goals
Under the inquisitor’s knife for using a corked bat, Sammy Sosa screamed for mercy, claiming he had accidentally grabbed the unholy bludgeon which he used for entertainment during pre-game batting practices. Therein lies the epiphany. If it weren't for pre-game batting shows, hotdogs, slick uniforms, and scantily clad fans, baseball would be about as exciting as listening to Alan Greenspan giving a Sunday sermon on whether or not the lectern should be raised or lowered a quarter of an inch. Let’s face it, baseball is filled with hours of butt scratching boredom, punctuated by the occasional flash and romp around the diamond.
We don't want the occasional romp. We don't want to watch fat high salaried "athletes" collapsing after a fifteen second jog. We want to watch athletes hustle, sweat, bleed, emote, score, and score, and score! We want sports that have evolved, innovated, and changed with the times. We want pro-wrestling, football and basketball.
Sadly, like baseball, we don't want hockey or soccer. These two sports, due to beer and brawls and the sheer athleticism of both, are perhaps slightly more redeemable than baseball. And don't even mention Golf, which, like the lottery, is followed because every Joe Schmo thinks he could win. Come on, "The Stingers Trounce the Gazelles Two to One," is not an inspiring headline.
If we, the American Public, wanted sport scores that our Pit Bulls could tally on their front paws, the sports officialdom would shrink the goal areas, lengthen the soccer fields, widen the strike zones and thin the bats. To the contrary, I say--cork the bats, move the pitching mounds back, tackle instead of tag, shorten the soccer fields, and widen the goals–(while also providing psychotherapy for the goal keepers). Then say "Amen" to the excitement of the pre-game-cork-and-Sosa-show.
Loren M. Lambert
© June 17, 2002
We don't want the occasional romp. We don't want to watch fat high salaried "athletes" collapsing after a fifteen second jog. We want to watch athletes hustle, sweat, bleed, emote, score, and score, and score! We want sports that have evolved, innovated, and changed with the times. We want pro-wrestling, football and basketball.
Sadly, like baseball, we don't want hockey or soccer. These two sports, due to beer and brawls and the sheer athleticism of both, are perhaps slightly more redeemable than baseball. And don't even mention Golf, which, like the lottery, is followed because every Joe Schmo thinks he could win. Come on, "The Stingers Trounce the Gazelles Two to One," is not an inspiring headline.
If we, the American Public, wanted sport scores that our Pit Bulls could tally on their front paws, the sports officialdom would shrink the goal areas, lengthen the soccer fields, widen the strike zones and thin the bats. To the contrary, I say--cork the bats, move the pitching mounds back, tackle instead of tag, shorten the soccer fields, and widen the goals–(while also providing psychotherapy for the goal keepers). Then say "Amen" to the excitement of the pre-game-cork-and-Sosa-show.
Loren M. Lambert
© June 17, 2002
Friday, March 8, 2002
The Fen-Phen Society, Geneva Steel, and Union Busting
Many years ago, upon noticing the unusually svelte figures of my customarily overweight relatives, I predicted trouble before the first Fen-Phen lawsuit was a twinkle in a PI attorney's eye. How did I know?
You see, we are a nation that holds these truths to be self evident: there is free lunch, we can have our cake and eat it too, and you can gain without pain. Yes, take a pill, strap on an ab-energizer, use a condom, buy a lottery ticket, get a credit card, pass a few environmental laws while heavily arming the world's Banana Republics and voila, Shangri-La.
We want high wages without the tension that a unionized work force inevitably creates. So we union bust here, pass minimum wage laws and assist corrupt foreign governments so they can red bait and enslave their working poor. We want a clean environment (as we should) so we pass costly environmental laws without ensuring that our industries can still compete. We want to be eternally young and affluent without having to work at it, so we take drugs, undergo unnecessary surgeries, and max out our credit cards.
And what is the consequence? Greedy CEOs pillage companies like Enron or move their capital, earned on our shoulders, to the cheaper foreign labor markets that our tax dollars created. Heavy industries, like Geneva Steel, are overwhelmed by foreign competitors whose impoverished workers chum out cheap products as well as billows of pollution which floods back to us on ocean channels and storm fronts.
Long before it happened I saw it coming because there is no free lunch, we can’t have our cake and eat it too, and you can’t gain without pain. So, the next time you're looking for a quick fix, remember where the Fen-Phen society got you and kiss its promises of Shangri-La goodbye.
Loren M. Lambert
March 8, 2002 ©
You see, we are a nation that holds these truths to be self evident: there is free lunch, we can have our cake and eat it too, and you can gain without pain. Yes, take a pill, strap on an ab-energizer, use a condom, buy a lottery ticket, get a credit card, pass a few environmental laws while heavily arming the world's Banana Republics and voila, Shangri-La.
We want high wages without the tension that a unionized work force inevitably creates. So we union bust here, pass minimum wage laws and assist corrupt foreign governments so they can red bait and enslave their working poor. We want a clean environment (as we should) so we pass costly environmental laws without ensuring that our industries can still compete. We want to be eternally young and affluent without having to work at it, so we take drugs, undergo unnecessary surgeries, and max out our credit cards.
And what is the consequence? Greedy CEOs pillage companies like Enron or move their capital, earned on our shoulders, to the cheaper foreign labor markets that our tax dollars created. Heavy industries, like Geneva Steel, are overwhelmed by foreign competitors whose impoverished workers chum out cheap products as well as billows of pollution which floods back to us on ocean channels and storm fronts.
Long before it happened I saw it coming because there is no free lunch, we can’t have our cake and eat it too, and you can’t gain without pain. So, the next time you're looking for a quick fix, remember where the Fen-Phen society got you and kiss its promises of Shangri-La goodbye.
Loren M. Lambert
March 8, 2002 ©
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
Olympic Volunteers Get Shafted by SLOC
Yes, I do agree that some ingrates (Wayment) make it appear that we are an unduly sue-happy society, however the fact is that we are more a let’s-not-take-responsibility-and-see-how-much-we-can-shaft-the-little-guy society. To illustrate this, in September, before I could enroll my child in preschool, I was handed a release to sign. In October, prior to renewing my driver's license, the Utah DMV required me to sign a release. In November, I volunteered to host an Olympic couple and was obligated to sign a release. Then, after about a hundred hours of training and committing to shut down my law practice, within minutes of proudly obtaining my Olympic volunteer uniform and ID, SLOC shoved yet another release before me to sign or be sent straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Big deal, quit whining, it’s necessary you say. But here's the rub. I'm piqued and I want to burn the SLOC Olympic flag. Why? Although most Olympic volunteers didn’t read it or didn't understand it, the releases they so dutifully signed, as well as the releases mentioned above, all had language that in essence means, "If SLOC, the Olympic sponsors or their agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, burn, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release them from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney."
Granted, the releases at issue here were more diplomatically stated. Nonetheless, take the SLOC release you volunteers signed to any attorney and you will find that my tongue and cheek interpretation is dead on. But what really gets my goat is the element of force. I didn't sign the release to enroll my child because I could go elsewhere. However, I had to get my license from the DMV and what choice did I have with SLOC's coercive timing? We volunteers had already signed a relatively palatable release before we started so why the last minute ambush? Because it was a con.
Contrarily, would SLOC agree if we asked it to release us volunteers from any similar liability? No. SLOC wouldn't blink an eye about suing any volunteer if he or she negligently, or otherwise, caused it or the Olympic sponsors harm. So why did we Olympic volunteers sign SLOC's release? Answer: Baaaa.
To end, I challenge Mitt Romney and anyone who thinks I am a whiner to sign this editorial and return it to me. By so doing you agree that, "If I or my agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, bum, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release me from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney." Fair enough?
Loren M. Lambert
Proud To Be an Olympic Volunteer
January 22, 2002 ©
Big deal, quit whining, it’s necessary you say. But here's the rub. I'm piqued and I want to burn the SLOC Olympic flag. Why? Although most Olympic volunteers didn’t read it or didn't understand it, the releases they so dutifully signed, as well as the releases mentioned above, all had language that in essence means, "If SLOC, the Olympic sponsors or their agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, burn, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release them from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney."
Granted, the releases at issue here were more diplomatically stated. Nonetheless, take the SLOC release you volunteers signed to any attorney and you will find that my tongue and cheek interpretation is dead on. But what really gets my goat is the element of force. I didn't sign the release to enroll my child because I could go elsewhere. However, I had to get my license from the DMV and what choice did I have with SLOC's coercive timing? We volunteers had already signed a relatively palatable release before we started so why the last minute ambush? Because it was a con.
Contrarily, would SLOC agree if we asked it to release us volunteers from any similar liability? No. SLOC wouldn't blink an eye about suing any volunteer if he or she negligently, or otherwise, caused it or the Olympic sponsors harm. So why did we Olympic volunteers sign SLOC's release? Answer: Baaaa.
To end, I challenge Mitt Romney and anyone who thinks I am a whiner to sign this editorial and return it to me. By so doing you agree that, "If I or my agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, bum, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release me from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney." Fair enough?
Loren M. Lambert
Proud To Be an Olympic Volunteer
January 22, 2002 ©
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
Supreme Court Strips The American with Disabilities Act
While many may quiver in awe at the Supreme Court's latest edicts on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it must be said: The highest Court has stripped the ADA of its clothes, kicked it into an open sewer where it now huddles in its filth, with its arms desperately crossed before its chest, its hands cupped over its genitals, shivering like the bastard child the Judiciary took it to be when it first laid eyes on it, fresh faced, dressed in new clothes and full of youthful idealism.
The sad thing is that was probably the plan all along. And how was this done? The good old tried and true method that all anal, out-of-touch and technically constipated minds use--twisting simple, universal principles into mind-numbing, irrational, complex idiocies.
The ADA’s simple universal principle was that otherwise able minded and bodied workers, who had mental and physical infirmities, should not be denied employment because of bigotry and ignorance. So, just as a person who is qualified for a job should not be denied employment opportunities because of his skin color, no matter its shade, that same person should not bedenied employment opportunities because of a real or perceived mental or physical infirmity.
Instead of advancing this universal principle, the Courts have spent their mental capital trying to determine who, in their lofty opinion, is "sufficiently disabled" to deserve protection under the ADA as a "protected person." In so doing, they have created a "protected" class of phantoms.
If the Supreme Court's reasoning under the ADA was used to determine who could be protected against discrimination because of the darkness of their skin, it would have decided the following: Only persons with the perfect hue of skin, somewhere between completely black and completely white will be deserving of protection under the law. Consequently, persons to either side of this "perfect hue, " too dark-skinned or too light-skinned, could be summarily denied employment opportunities without any legal recourse.
Sounds ridiculous? This is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided under the ADA. To be a "protected person" under the ADA with legal recourse against bias, the Supreme Court has stated that one must be "severely" disabled. Of course one must not be too "severely" disabled (or dark-skinned) because then one is incapable of working. This is why, even though you may see a few in management, you won't see too many comatose employees on the company pay roll. And of course, one must not be too "slightly" disabled (or light-skinned) because, according to the Supreme Court, such persons are undeserving of protection under the ADA. This is why, under the Supreme Court's ruling, it is perfectly legal for some comatose manager to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified persons because in his ignorance he thinks someone with a "lazy eye" is casting spells, he perceives all redheads to be devilish hemophiliacs, he fears anyone who has been treated for mental illness is dangerously evil, and he believes anyone wearing glasses are aliens, etc., etc.
Consequently, anyone alleging disability discrimination and filing suit has a Sisyphean task. To get his case past the Judge's nose and to a jury, he must first prove that he is so severely disabled he is worthy of protection under the ADA (not too light-skinned but that perfect dark hue), yet despite his severe disability he is still capable of doing his job (not too dark-skinned). Unfortunately, these two objectives are factually incompatible. To prove a "severe" disability is to prove one is incapable (too dark-skinned) of working. Yet to prove one is qualified to work is to prove that one is not "severely" disabled (too light-skinned) to deserve protection under the ADA.
This approach facilitates those that harbor irrational and bigoted views against anyone who has, or is perceived to have, physical or mental infirmities whether "severe" or "slight." If you are qualified and capable of doing a job, you should not be disadvantaged whether you are a quadriplegic or have a "lazy eye." To advance the universal principle expressed in the ADA, the law should only ask: (1) Do you have or are you perceived to have a mental or physical infirmity? (2) Despite your real or perceived mental or physical infirmity, with or without a reasonable accommodation, are you qualified to do a given job? and, (3) Were you disadvantaged because of your real or perceived infirmity? If the answer is yes, you should find refuge under the ADA. You should not have to go through the irrational, needlessly complex and expensive task of proving that you are "severely disabled" but yet still capable of working.
There was language in the ADA permitting this black-letter-law approach. Instead, the Judiciary ignored the universal principles expressed in the ADA’s more simple passages and exalted its more complex language. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not a body given to repent of its mistakes and perhaps the ADA was purposely riddled with flaws by those who knew it would be emasculated by the courts. Therefore, the cry must go out to our legislators to take this child back, clean it off, re-clothe it and give it its dignity back.
Loren M. Lambert
January 2002, ©
The sad thing is that was probably the plan all along. And how was this done? The good old tried and true method that all anal, out-of-touch and technically constipated minds use--twisting simple, universal principles into mind-numbing, irrational, complex idiocies.
The ADA’s simple universal principle was that otherwise able minded and bodied workers, who had mental and physical infirmities, should not be denied employment because of bigotry and ignorance. So, just as a person who is qualified for a job should not be denied employment opportunities because of his skin color, no matter its shade, that same person should not bedenied employment opportunities because of a real or perceived mental or physical infirmity.
Instead of advancing this universal principle, the Courts have spent their mental capital trying to determine who, in their lofty opinion, is "sufficiently disabled" to deserve protection under the ADA as a "protected person." In so doing, they have created a "protected" class of phantoms.
If the Supreme Court's reasoning under the ADA was used to determine who could be protected against discrimination because of the darkness of their skin, it would have decided the following: Only persons with the perfect hue of skin, somewhere between completely black and completely white will be deserving of protection under the law. Consequently, persons to either side of this "perfect hue, " too dark-skinned or too light-skinned, could be summarily denied employment opportunities without any legal recourse.
Sounds ridiculous? This is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided under the ADA. To be a "protected person" under the ADA with legal recourse against bias, the Supreme Court has stated that one must be "severely" disabled. Of course one must not be too "severely" disabled (or dark-skinned) because then one is incapable of working. This is why, even though you may see a few in management, you won't see too many comatose employees on the company pay roll. And of course, one must not be too "slightly" disabled (or light-skinned) because, according to the Supreme Court, such persons are undeserving of protection under the ADA. This is why, under the Supreme Court's ruling, it is perfectly legal for some comatose manager to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified persons because in his ignorance he thinks someone with a "lazy eye" is casting spells, he perceives all redheads to be devilish hemophiliacs, he fears anyone who has been treated for mental illness is dangerously evil, and he believes anyone wearing glasses are aliens, etc., etc.
Consequently, anyone alleging disability discrimination and filing suit has a Sisyphean task. To get his case past the Judge's nose and to a jury, he must first prove that he is so severely disabled he is worthy of protection under the ADA (not too light-skinned but that perfect dark hue), yet despite his severe disability he is still capable of doing his job (not too dark-skinned). Unfortunately, these two objectives are factually incompatible. To prove a "severe" disability is to prove one is incapable (too dark-skinned) of working. Yet to prove one is qualified to work is to prove that one is not "severely" disabled (too light-skinned) to deserve protection under the ADA.
This approach facilitates those that harbor irrational and bigoted views against anyone who has, or is perceived to have, physical or mental infirmities whether "severe" or "slight." If you are qualified and capable of doing a job, you should not be disadvantaged whether you are a quadriplegic or have a "lazy eye." To advance the universal principle expressed in the ADA, the law should only ask: (1) Do you have or are you perceived to have a mental or physical infirmity? (2) Despite your real or perceived mental or physical infirmity, with or without a reasonable accommodation, are you qualified to do a given job? and, (3) Were you disadvantaged because of your real or perceived infirmity? If the answer is yes, you should find refuge under the ADA. You should not have to go through the irrational, needlessly complex and expensive task of proving that you are "severely disabled" but yet still capable of working.
There was language in the ADA permitting this black-letter-law approach. Instead, the Judiciary ignored the universal principles expressed in the ADA’s more simple passages and exalted its more complex language. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not a body given to repent of its mistakes and perhaps the ADA was purposely riddled with flaws by those who knew it would be emasculated by the courts. Therefore, the cry must go out to our legislators to take this child back, clean it off, re-clothe it and give it its dignity back.
Loren M. Lambert
January 2002, ©
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)