tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1724814998338928097.post1780218002777807718..comments2024-03-27T03:13:42.345-04:00Comments on The Legal Roller Coaster: "Cause" for Alarm: 3 Ways To Reduce The Chance Of A Public Interest LawsuitErik H. Beard, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12021548329555288575noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1724814998338928097.post-46438421872545624572011-09-07T13:23:43.287-04:002011-09-07T13:23:43.287-04:00IMO (again, for the cheap seats: I.M.O.), we as a ...IMO (again, for the cheap seats: I.M.O.), we as a society have become too progressively sensitive, passive and politically correct. While we continually "walk on eggshells" so as to not damage someone's sensibilities, no EXTRA effort or strides are being made to help those afflicted with real unfortunate problems of mental illness. The fight has become more aggressive of what to call these individuals and how to act around them, and less the actual testing and treatment of those who are ill.<br /><br />And to that end, I think as those progressively win at making a society who is passive, are also successfully making the definitions of the diseases of the affected; not only less offensive, but also less important. For example (and this isn't mine. Credit where it's due: George Carlin. He was funny, but also very correct at times. This isn't his actual bit, I'm paraphrasing), the mental illness that soldiers carry home with them. It used to be called Shell Shock. That term was scary in and of itself. It actually sounds like the racking of a shotgun: SHELLSHOCK. Sounded very serious and needing to be treated. So, over the years this disease has carried a few names, and today I believe it's called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. <br /><br />To me that doesn't sound as need-to-treat as Shell Shock did. It actually sounds like a problem that the soldier had with trying to cope with the situation, rather than the situation having a real impact on the soldier's mental well-being.<br /><br />I don't know. Just ranting. Again. In my Opinion.<br /><br />And as far as the lady not wearing being able to wear a head wrap, give me a break. How is she going to celebrate her culture when she has been strangled or decapitated because of her head wrap? And Holy Cow, can you imagine? They would own that park if she died in that manner. So it's a lose-lose situation. But I agree with their decision. And I think the judge would ere on the side of safety rather than an act to deny religion and culture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com