Gentlemen:
As I indicated earlier in this thread (post 5) two days ago, as Paul Harvey would say, I preferred to wait for the rest of the story. Well there it is. However, this thread is reflective of several issues which I have been ranting about since I began posting here at Madjacks.
Initially, the thread was started by the weasel from New Jersey who wrongully assumed that the person who alledgedly did not assist the cop was a lawyer. The weasel then stated that this story (as initally reported) "... was another reason to hate pieces of shit who hide behind the veil of the legal profession".
This rash, incorrect, and biased post by the weasel (maybe I will call him "W") clearly represents certain types of individuals who have been posting at this forum who 1) take stories out of context to support their positions, 2) use such misleading stories to support popular themes intiated by several special interest groups (ie hatred of lawyers), and 3) jump to conclusions without looking into the facts as long as those rash, unsupported conclusion fit their belief systems.
What effect does this thread have, you ask? Look at the title of this thread. "Lawyer keeping tabs on police refuses to come forward after cop is stomped." Now a lurker or member casually surfing the politics and religion forum will see this title which supports the popular belief that lawyers are scumbags will reinforce his already inaccurate viewpoint and come away with a reinforced belief that such belief is true.
This story, as initially reported is inaccurate. It was not a lawyer, but rather a computer worker. However, computer workers who watch and do nothing while a cop gets stomped ain't quite as newsworthy is it boys. That doesn't fit a popular theme conceived by special interest groups. I mean none of us hate computer workers. Let me put it another way W, "... another reason to hate pieces of shit who hide behind the veil of the computer worker profession".
By the way, what is a computer worker anyway? I mean right now, I'm working on the computer. My secretary is working on the computer. Wayne is working on the computer. This leads me to my next example of erroneous and misleading posts made at this forum by certain indiviuals with an agenda which are designed to drive home points not based on fact but, rather based on misleading, media driven, innuedno, supposition and out and out lies in an emotional appeal to enforce right wing principles.
Lets examine the article posted by Wayne which retracts the earlier erroneous new story that the women who blatently watched and walked away from the dismantling of a police officer by protesters was a lawyer who, as W said, lived by the "...hypocrites oath". Was this story a retraction or in reality a spun editorial by someone with an agenda? Initially, lets look at who wrote the article so gratiously provided by Wayne. John Gibson. John, is employed by Fox News. You know, part of the liberal media.
Now, lets look at the facts in Johnnies story. Fact (1), the woman was not a lawyer but, rather a computer worker. Who did the woman work for? The article does not say. Now, Johnnie reports that "Ms Lawyer Wannabe" made herself scarce rather than help the cops. Well, I got some problems with this. Did Johnnie talk to the woman? How does he know that she wants to be a lawyer? How does he know, as he reports, that the protesters were stomping the cops? Are there any quotes in this story?
Johnnie then states, as fact, that the National Lawyers Guild was "...formed in the 50's to represent communists." Well, boys and girls I never heard of the National Lawyers Guild, so being the inquisitive fellow that I am, I pumped those key words into my handy dandy google search engine.
Then, unlike Johnnie, I clicked on the National Lawyers Guild website. I went to the "about us" tab and then clicked on history. It appears that Johnnie was inaccurate about when this organization was formed. He said 50's but in reality it was 1937. Now that error was rather insignificant. But wait, theres more.
It appears that the "communists" that this organization was representing were the McCarthy era blacklisted Americans during the communist scare. Johnnie also fails to point out that this group assisted in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals at the Nuremburg trials.
To be fair, this is a group of lawyers more akin to the ACLU than it is to mainstream legal associations like the ABA. So for those of you who think that the ACLU are Satans attorneys here is more fodder for your coffers. More of a fringe group and not mainstream.
If you really look at this article please count the facts and the verification of facts reported by Mr. Gibson. It appears to me that the only fact in the story is that the woman was not a lawyer. However, Johnnie, in his fair and unbiased manner, turns this story into another attack on lawyers!!!! Amazing.
The story is not factual. It is Johnnies way of reporting, in a completely biased fashion, that the "lawyer" is now a "lawyer wannabe". Ask yourself, did Johnnie report both sides of this story? Did Johnnie talk to the protesters, or as he refers to them, "street thugs"? Did he report their side and the police side, so that we can decide.
He did not. He wrote a story that barely reports that the EARLIER STORY WAS WRONG, yet spins it in such a way that it continues to reinforce the belief that lawyers are scumbags. If it wasn't a lawyer it was a lawyer wannabe. Hell, maybe she hates lawyers and is a reporter wannabe.
This srory was portrayed as factual yet is in reality a thinly veiled editorial advancing Fox News conservative conservative, anti-lawyer agenda. Yet, the American public buys into these sound bite editorials as "news" when in reality it is propoganda.
These are the type of stories that Wayne and anothers post at these forums on a daily basis. Stories which are in fact just that, stories. Not news but artfully crafted prose designed to advance popular misconceptions that feed into the publics preconceived notions.
It is effective to polarize as the Republicans are doing. It is effective to refer to all trial lawyers as "predators" as Dr. Bill Frist did several nights ago. It is effective to be divisive. It is effective to fight instead of work out solutions. It is effective to make people black and white instead of seeing them as grey.
Ask yourself, who is effective for. You might find the answer a bit scary.
Eddie
