Friday, May 7, 2010

Nostalgia: Exosquad

I'm not sure if anyone remembers Exosquad, but it was one of my favorite TV shows as a child. It dealt with a lot of mature issues, including: the ethics of "playing god", racism and the fight for acceptance, death and loss, working hard towards your goals, perseverance, teamwork, religion, and politics.

That's a lot to throw into what is nominally a kid's show, eh? But I remember it resonating within me, because even as a kid I got the idea that the world wasn't as rosy as the other kids' shows would have me believe.

One of my favorite things about Exosquad was how it avoided painting a simplistic "good verses evil" schema; they went out of their way to show that the "bad guys" were actually treated very poorly and were unfairly oppressed when they rose up to fight against humanity.

I'm sadly not familiar with modern day kids' cartoons, but I hope that there's at least one similar show out there that can help the young'ins get a head start on understanding and being ready to deal with so many heavy issues.

If you're interested in watching it, either for the first time (bear in mind it is a kids' show and furthermore its from the 90s...) or else for nostalgia's sake, you can find them here thanks to Hulu.

On a different note, we have yet another "my hot beverage was hot" lawsuit, this time against Starbucks. I swear, historians will refer to our time period as either the age of liability or the age of entitlement. Either way, I find it kind of embarrassing.

I'm off to my last undergrad final ever!

6 comments:

  1. On the "hot beverage" lawsuit front, I don't know the specifics of the current case against Starbucks. However, if you read about the McDonalds case from the 90's, I think the only shameful thing about it is the willingness of a corporation to put its customers at risk and refuse to compensate them for their injuries. The plaintiff in that case sought to settle with McDonalds for a mere $20,000 to cover her medical costs as well as some compensation for her pain. The fact that McDonalds chose to pursue the case to trial and lost in a big way does not mean that the plaintiff is greedy or "entitled."

    If a corporation peddles an unsafe product that harms consumers, they should pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ashley, don't you know that the Supreme Court says corporations deserve the same rights as people! In fact, they should have better rights than people. After all, what's a few shattered lives compared to shareholder dividends?

    In all seriousness, I do know about that McDonalds case and how it was in fact a legitimate claim on the plaintiff's part, but at the same time the fact of how ridiculous it sounds on the surface has become symbolic for the gold-digger litigation that's so prevalent in our times.

    In a mostly unrelated note, have you heard of Jack Thompson?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Way to perpetuate a stereotype, Sam. I understand the whole "frivolous lawsuit" pet peeve, but I feel like most of those get sorted out/thrown out really quickly and, if not, then a jury is not so stupid as to award someone millions for no reason. Money is real to the average American, and I think (hope) they take their job as jurors seriously.

    On a related note, and why I hate when people talk about frivoulous lawsuits, the whole tort reform issue is a hot-button one for me. I think it's because I do work in the legal system on behalf of the "little guy." I am all for people being able to sue if harmed, and I feel like capping damages or going toward a no-fault system is the wrong way. I want them to fight it out in court and the party in the wrong to pay. With a system of damage caps, it makes it difficult for an attorney to take your case on contingency because they won't recover as much. God knows the big corporations have lawyers, and the little guy should get one too! And have his day in court. I could go on...

    Yes, I've heard of Jack Thompson...thank God he's finally disbarred.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not convinced I perpetuated a stereotype incorrectly; I didn't specifically mention the McDonalds lawsuit, merely alluded to the silliness that has crept into our legal system. I'm bitter towards it based on personal experiences.

    A small fender bender should have resulted in a small insurance settlement, but on the very last day possible to file a claim this couple that had been rear-ended did so with an exorbitant medical fee for "back problems" resulting from this accident. They had a huge history of this exact type of claim, yet the judge ignored this and awarded them their full amount. The lawyer on behalf of my family member said it was shady as hell and obviously a scam, yet they still made bank... thankfully most of it from the insurance company.

    This type of thing still occurs and there was no jury involved to say "What the hell? Get lost, gold diggers." And there was no investigation regarding the doctor who faithfully signed all their medical evidences for all the various fender benders they had milked.

    All of this has soured me personally on the idea that most litigation is honorable. Maybe it is, and my close experience to this was an exception? You certainly have more experience in the legal realm than I, so we'll have to talk it out next time we're visiting and you can convince me that my anecdote was the exception rather than the rule.

    And yes, thankfully Jackass Thompson was disbarred. That guy was so incredibly off kilter and had video games as his target of choice... what a pain in the butt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sorry for your personal experience with a shady plaintiff, and I don't pretend that they aren't out there. My firm gets tons of calls from shady fold who just have no case and want to work the system. From what you say, it sounds like the judge in your case dropped the ball, which happens sometimes.

    However, I really fear limiting the ability of people to seek legal recourse because it will continue the disturbing trend of giving corporations more power and more rights than natural persons.

    We will have to have a lively debate when next we meet! :-)

    ReplyDelete