Some have studied the Zapruder film, frame by frame, to conclude that the government is still hiding something about the Kennedy assassination. Others have concluded that there is a connection to Communism, the mob and organized crime, or even Lyndon Johnson.
The majority now believes that there was no gunman on the grassy knoll. They accept the government’s full investigation. I suspect that others have tired of the topic and may just think that Zapruder is a new meatball sandwich at Subway. If you obsess over something, you can convince yourself into belief.
Anyone can combine beliefs with events, and come up with their own reason for an occurrence. Soon, logic is thrown out the window and conclusions are made to fit that belief system. It’s as simple as coming to the conclusion that, since you might know that Canadians play hockey, then all Canadians are good at Hockey. Or, since you’ve seen fast marathon runners from Kenya; then everyone must be a runner from Kenya.
Politicians know that we all believe that the United States needs more jobs. So, they take that information and apply it for a political belief system. Or, support agendas when large donors “financially suggest” their beliefs.
If Oil companies are supporting a candidate, then we might hear that candidate say that more drilling is needed to create jobs. Have you heard this one? “We need lawsuit caps, or a removal of regulations on businesses; because those are hurting job creation”. It’s easy to say a big, hearty amen, because who doesn’t want more jobs? It’s also easy to forget the consequences of those political agendas.
Pharmaceutical companies are still pushing to have caps or restrictions on lawsuits brought against them. Then, politicians get up and announce that we need to curb or eliminate liability on Drug companies; or else they will not have an incentive to experiment and invent more medications to get us better. Don’t we all want to get better?
I was reminded of this logic when I read the Sunday paper (well, Internet) from Spartanburg, South Carolina. GoUpstate.com had an article titled “Gov. Haley endorses Bright in state Senate race“.
Governor Nikki Haley has taken the unusual step of endorsing one Republican candidate over another, for their upcoming primary; to determine the Republican candidate for that Spartanburg Senate seat. Usually, office-holders stay out of inter-party races. In fact, many Republicans employ the old adage of Ronald Reagan who always said, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”.
The background to this race is that Senator Bright is the State Senator incumbent. His current opponent, John Hawkins, held the seat from 2000-2008. In 2004, Hawkins was challenged by Bright, but won the primary against him, by a mere 31 votes. In 2008, Hawkins stepped down and Bright beat the other candidate(Hawkin’s friend) by 198 votes. Good old fashioned politics.
I’ve given you some tedious detail to get to the point of Haley’s endorsement. She says that she is endorsing Bright because “John Hawkins was an incumbent we were lucky to get rid of the first time. We don’t need any more trial lawyers who are going to feed off the system”. She said that Hawkins “feeds off the worker’s comp system” because he represents injured workers.
Here’s where my earlier logic discussion applies. Very few people would disagree with the concept that we have too many lawyers. Then, politicians, The Chamber of Commerce, and Big Business have done a great promotion of the message that, lawsuits and lawyers hurt job creation. They even say that lawsuits keep businesses from coming to (insert state name) where the election is occurring.
I’ve attached the article for full reading of the background on this election. Those who accept Governor Haley at face-value on these statements woud not be impacted by any other reasoning. Some might say that the real reason that she endorsed Bright is because Hawkins supported her opponent in the 2010 Governor’s race. Also, Hawkins claims that Bright has held fundraisers with trial lawyers and received thousands of dollars in lawyer campaign contributions. But… those are just mere details.
One final note, I do smile when I read Haley and Hawkins going at it. Not long ago, I was reminded that I first met Nikki Haley, when she was a receptionist/office manager for a chiropractor in South Carolina. I don’t recall her dislike for lawyers back then.
A while back, I was informed that John Hawkins was quoted by the newspaper, by complaining about my South Carolina advertising. He later went on to introduce legislation in an attempt to regulate lawyer advertising. Isn’t life funny! For blog purposes, I just blog… you decide!
I first thought about a “no advertising” sign for pic o’ day
Then, I got distracted like Clyde