"Erin Brockovich": The real story

[amicus]

http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/04/14/sharp/index1.html

"Erin Brockovich": The real story

http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/04/14/sharp/

“…In the wake of the PG&E litigation, for example, there is no public record of whether an enormous, publicly held utility did or did not poison a town..”

“…The tale started in Hinkley, a town of about 3,500 in the Mojave Desert about 120 miles northeast of Los Angeles. Residents here are surrounded by methamphetamine labs and live next to two Marine bases, downstream from a huge naval weapons center, and 20 miles east of Edwards Air Force Base. Over the last 15 or 20 years, many of the residents have also drunk, bathed and swam in water polluted by a chemical called chromium 6…”
~~~~~~~~~~~

The above are but two excepts from five full pages of a rather dull and boring read about the 'real' events that occured that were publicized by the Julia Roberts film, Erin Brockovich.

A strange nexus of events occured this evening while watching the Seattle Seacows(my son in laws term) whup up on the Carolina Pansies(my term).

While we were watching the game my daughter was studying for her MBA and asked if I knew what 'Nigeria, Shell Oil and Brent Spar" meant or had to do with anything.

Well I know a bit about Shell Oil and Nigeria, but not a clue about 'brent spar', so I did a google search and learned a little.

It is a left wing, 'GreenPeace' thing in the mid 90's that somehow got referenced in 2006 in an MBA class, curious.

Well, the game got over, I switched channels after Terry Bradshaw presented a trophy and asked Paul Allen for help with his email problems, and lo and behold, there was the deeply cleavaged Julia Roberts chastizing the world of big business in the guise of a crusading attorney for the little people; typical left wing shit, I already knew that.

But...but...being in a 'search mode' because of my daughter, and since I have ogled Ms. Roberts before, I let my fingers do the walking and thus this post.

Take what you may from the article and from further searches if you choose, but the bold faced quote I made above, "“…In the wake of the PG&E litigation, for example, there is no public record of whether an enormous, publicly held utility did or did not poison a town..”, caught my eye.

The article sited is long, 5 pages or so and there are many more references, but, I thought that quote was interesting: "did or did not poison a town..."

Of course the film left no doubt as to whom the evil industrialists were and no doubt about their guilt, but in reality, you, I, we, don't really know.

And I don't have to say it of course, but let this serve as another example of the 'Hollywood left' embedding an agenda in popular entertainment venues.

Perhaps you should look more closely when you watch the Jane Fonda's of the entertainment world.


A chuckling amicus wanders off comtemplating the size of the bet in the Superbowl, picking the Seacows, of course.

 

[Pure]

as usual you missed the whole point of the salon write up, which never discussed the merits of the case, but focussed on the greedy shenanigans of the major law firm (Girardi) and the possible corruption or conflicts of interest of the private -judge arbirtators. the 'little people' in the town lost to a big, expensive legal organization (which kept 40% plus 10 million in expenses), some feeling ignored in the process.

NOTE: the whole *private* process and its records are secret, so focussing on the secrecy of evidence of wrongdoing is useless.

 

[elsol]

Obviously more legalese help is needed.


"Did or did not" = The settlement clearly states the defendant admits no culpability & the defendant is under non-disclosure



Sincerely,
elsol

 

[amicus]

as usual you missed the whole point of the salon write up, which never discussed the merits of the case, but focussed on the greedy shenanigans of the major law firm (Girardi) and the possible corruption or conflicts of interest of the private -judge arbirtators. the 'little people' in the town lost to a big, expensive legal organization (which kept 40% plus 10 million in expenses), some feeling ignored in the process.

NOTE: the whole *private* process and its records are secret, so focussing on the secrecy of evidence of wrongdoing is useless.

~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, I didn't miss the point at all, Pure, I just focused on another part of several different linked articles. That point was covered in the film...

You might also enjoy this:

"Love Trouble (1994) - 1 trivia entry

"...The sinister plot of Chess Chemical, in the movie, to falsify the lab tests to show that the LDF hormone is safe to inject into cows and thus for it to get into the milk supply is based on a true story. Chess Chemical is Monsanto. LDF is the controversial "bovine growth hormone," also known as BGH. BGH was found to cause cancer in the cows that were injected. But the FDA approved it anyhow in the 1990s with its full stamp of approval..."
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1656/trivia

http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/pdf/May1903.htm

http://www.google.com/search?source...ls=GGLR,GGLR:2005-43,GGLR:en&q=FDA+BGH+1990's

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

This Julia Roberts, Nick Nolte film was also running tonight and while I did not watch it again, the similarity of the plot seems a little too much to be incidental.

Strange, is it not...I wonder what else will turn up? Anyone care to make an offering?

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Obviously more legalese help is needed.


"Did or did not" = The settlement clearly states the defendant admits no culpability & the defendant is under non-disclosure



Sincerely,
elsol

Yes, Elsol, I know and understand...but of course the film, which is the source of most peoples information, left no doubt as to 'culpability'.

While one cannot really admire the 'legalese' involved, unless one is an attorney, one can question the motivation for a major motion picture to publicize a case in which the final culpability is 'non disclosed' but surely apparent from methods of presentation.

I wonder if the tables were turned and your ox was being gored, if you would be so complacent?

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, Elsol, I know and understand...but of course the film, which is the source of most peoples information, left no doubt as to 'culpability'.

While one cannot really admire the 'legalese' involved, unless one is an attorney, one can question the motivation for a major motion picture to publicize a case in which the final culpability is 'non disclosed' but surely apparent from methods of presentation.

I wonder if the tables were turned and your ox was being gored, if you would be so complacent?

amicus...

No comment on the case, I know nothing about it.

But as to Hollywood making a movie out of it, have you seen the drivel coming out lately? the embellished life story of a rap star, remakes of everything that ever did well at the box office, comic books, just plain books, shootem ups with the same tired plots, but more booms and broads. Hollywood has reached a point wehre they are reaching for ideas. You get very few originals now, almost everything is rehash. The reason the studios hope Brokeback does well has a lot less to do with left leaning social conciousness than it does with hoping alternative lifestyle movies can be profitable, since that's a genre they haven't overmined.

 

[amicus]

Dear Colleen, I trust you realize I do not wish to confront you on issues for the mere sake of confrontation, surely I get that enough from the 'usual suspects' on the far left.

I agree with you that the film industry is 'reaching' and rehashing, I even think, 'Sly' Sylvester Stallone, who must be 60 ish, is about to come out with 'Rocky 16' or something.

But I deeply disagree with your suggestion that they are looking for a 'niche' or a cliche audience to bolster profits; I think you do not know the depth of the political and philosophical conflict that is raging in the artistic world.

They have been pushing homosexuality, lesbianism, alternative lifestyles, for over thirty years, only now becoming more openly blatant; the suggestive content has infiltrated television, literature and even text books.

I suggest that 'Brokeback Mountain' which I have not seen, will be the straw, that 'broke' the camels back. The awards will turn the general public against the medium and the film industry will be forced to retrench and redefine its place in American culture.

The 'moral bankruptcy' of which Ayn Rand Spoke of in the 1960's has truly, finally, come home to roost and the licentious left is about to be dethroned.

It will not be a pretty time, and I do not pretend to know how it will end or even transition, but it will not be pleasant.

i had intended and still may, do this in a separate post, but, I was thinking of the 20 year reign of the democrats from FDR in 1933, to Truman in 1953, 20 years, two full decades of a democrat in the White House, and I think a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

I foresee an extension of the Bush years, beyond his eight, to an equal term of twenty years, to balance the leftward trend of the 30's, 40's and early 50's. If that is to be the case, then the world of 2020 will be somewhat different than the world of 2006, in many, many ways.

I know this is stretching things a bit...but it is late...and my imagination expands, forgive me...


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colleen, I trust you realize I do not wish to confront you on issues for the mere sake of confrontation, surely I get that enough from the 'usual suspects' on the far left.

I agree with you that the film industry is 'reaching' and rehashing, I even think, 'Sly' Sylvester Stallone, who must be 60 ish, is about to come out with 'Rocky 16' or something.

But I deeply disagree with your suggestion that they are looking for a 'niche' or a cliche audience to bolster profits; I think you do not know the depth of the political and philosophical conflict that is raging in the artistic world.

They have been pushing homosexuality, lesbianism, alternative lifestyles, for over thirty years, only now becoming more openly blatant; the suggestive content has infiltrated television, literature and even text books.

I suggest that 'Brokeback Mountain' which I have not seen, will be the straw, that 'broke' the camels back. The awards will turn the general public against the medium and the film industry will be forced to retrench and redefine its place in American culture.

The 'moral bankruptcy' of which Ayn Rand Spoke of in the 1960's has truly, finally, come home to roost and the licentious left is about to be dethroned.

It will not be a pretty time, and I do not pretend to know how it will end or even transition, but it will not be pleasant.

i had intended and still may, do this in a separate post, but, I was thinking of the 20 year reign of the democrats from FDR in 1933, to Truman in 1953, 20 years, two full decades of a democrat in the White House, and I think a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

I foresee an extension of the Bush years, beyond his eight, to an equal term of twenty years, to balance the leftward trend of the 30's, 40's and early 50's. If that is to be the case, then the world of 2020 will be somewhat different than the world of 2006, in many, many ways.

I know this is stretching things a bit...but it is late...and my imagination expands, forgive me...


amicus...

I wasn't challenging your asertion that hollywood leans left. I was just trying to illustrate the fact that nothing should surprise you if it becomes a movie. I mean, Doom and other popular video games are now movies. If they keep this up, last weeks grocery list may be coming to a theatre newr you

 

[Pure]

ami: They have been pushing homosexuality, lesbianism, alternative lifestyles, for over thirty years, only now becoming more openly blatant; the suggestive content has infiltrated television, literature and even text books.

I suggest that 'Brokeback Mountain' which I have not seen, will be the straw, that 'broke' the camels back. The awards will turn the general public against the medium and the film industry will be forced to retrench and redefine its place in American culture.

Well, they used to push hetero-coupledom, monogamy, adultery with punishment, Waltons type family. Wasn't that kinda boring?

I realize that 'pro family' America is not going to like Brokeback, but I wonder why you think it'll turn the tide to 'red' republican. Ellen de Generis is back on TV with a very popular show. The gay offspring of various Republican and conservative icons are well known. While I think gay marriage may be stopped in certain (red) states, and NOT affirmed by the SC, I don't see an imminent turnback to June Cleaver. IOW the 'gay agenda' may not advance for a while, but I see no rollback.

Incidentally, why not just rely on the 'free market' to decide about Brokeback-- surely a moral crusade-- like a boycott of a movie co. is an interference in freedom to sell and buy. Same applies to Hollywood; if people want the Mario Bros., in a movie, they buy, and more like it are made--this is called free market. If people want remakes of the Ayn Rand novels, there will be those movies made. Seems you want to coerce the market.

 

[Pure]

National Review article, by Carlson; history of the family

There are, of course, nuanced analyses of the family and the breakdown of 1950s arrangements. Here is one from the National Review, a well known conservative publication. {I've picked a few excerpts; see the whole article.}


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_13_57/ai_n14785487

Allan Carlson, in the National Review, on Stephanie Coontz's, Marriage, A History [2005]


THE television spirits of Harriet Nelson and June Cleaver haunt historian Stephanie Coontz. Along with Ozzie and Ricky, Ward, Wally, and the Beaver, these black-and-white specters from the 1950s materialize as whole chapters in her books.

: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960, Coontz sees "the 1950s Family" as the lodestone of American social history and the early sitcom housewives as bearers of an awesome, culture-shaping power.

The big news this year is that Coontz has changed her mind about the 1950s family. Her earlier book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, has been standard reading for a dozen years in college-level history and American studies courses. In it, she vigorously insisted that, "contrary to popular debate, Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary"; rather, the 1950s were "a very deviant decade," and the 1950s family model found in the sitcoms--amiable, pipe-smoking fathers; well-dressed, happy, homemaking mothers; endearing teenagers--was both "a new invention" and "a historical fluke."

In her new book, Marriage, A History, Coontz sharply reverses course. Now, she essentially argues that Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver were in fact documentaries, and of a largely positive nature.
[…]


[Coontz proposes in this new book:] The 1950s brought a kind of perfection to this model [of the triumph of love], with the Cleavers and the Nelsons as true icons, "the result of a unique moment of equilibrium in the expansion of economic, political, and personal options."

Then came the deluge, as a "perfect storm" emerging from "the subversive potential of the love revolution" swept away the seemingly solid 1950s family. Marriage became more joyful, loving, and satisfying; and also more optional and brittle. Intentional singleness, living together, non-marital births, care-giving dads at home, and homosexual marriage emerged as compelling lifestyle options.

The marriage model of two becoming one flesh stood as obsolete: "It is no longer possible to assume that two people can merge all their interests and beliefs." Marriage vanished as an institution, and as the primary center of commitment and care-giving. It now means "love, honor, and negotiate," and when any of these fail, quick and easy divorce and a move to other options are the answers.

There are aspects of Coontz's argument that I admire. I agree that the 1950s family model--its rise and fall--is the key to understanding our contemporary "culture war." I share her judgment on sociologists of the era such as Talcott Parsons, whose strange advice to wives was to pursue the role of "glamour girl" and whose confidence in the stability of the 1950s family "seems hopelessly myopic."

She is also correct in identifying portents of radical change during the 1950s, including an uptick in divorce in the latter part of the decade; the quiet growth in the number of working wives in the service sector; and the new Playboy ethos, in which men revolted against the breadwinner family a decade before Betty Friedan sparked a similar revolt among women.

Still, Marriage, A History exhibits serious flaws in analysis.

Coontz's cultural analysis is also quite shallow. For example, her obsession with Leave It to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet obscures the true diversity of sitcom programming in the 1950s. As Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young of McGill University have chronicled, the more common sitcom households of the 1950s featured: married couples without children (The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy in the early, classic years, and I Married Joan); extended families (The Goldbergs, The Real McCoys, and Make Room for Daddy); single-parent households (My Little Margie, Bachelor Father, and December Bride); surrogate families centered on the workplace (Our Miss Brooks, The Gale Storm Show, and The Ann Sothern Show); and "complex" households (The Jack Benny Program and The Bob Cummings Show). In this true Hollywood mix, Harriet Nelson and June Cleaver lived a minority lifestyle.

[…]
Finally, Coontz dismisses an alternative, better explanation of recent changes. As Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman outlined in his 1947 magnum opus, Family and Civilization, history is replete with examples of social decline, where the healthy "domestic family" gives way to the "atomistic family." In this latter order, marriage is reduced to a weak contract, "the individual becomes sacred," and illegitimacy vanishes as a legal concept. This social shift, he shows, has commonly been prelude to civilizational collapse.

In the end, Coontz actually stands exposed as a disciple of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who likewise believed that sentiment is the true driving force of history. Like Rousseau, Coontz rejects marriage as an expression of religion or natural law; she also refuses to see it as the product of human social biology. She dismisses social science as a guide to policymaking: [...]In the end, she celebrates a social order resting on the fickle arrow of Cupid ... and, of course, on the activist state, which is always ready to pick up the human casualties created by weak, broken, or never-formed marriages. In this sense, Marriage, A History is actually an act of ideology, best read as a would-be elegy for a once-family-centered civilization.


---------
Mr. Carlson is president of The Howard Center (Rockford, Ill.) and distinguished fellow in family-policy studies at the Family Research Council. His latest book is Fractured Generations: Crafting a Family Policy for 21st Century America (Transaction).

 

[elsol]

Yes, Elsol, I know and understand...but of course the film, which is the source of most peoples information, left no doubt as to 'culpability'.

While one cannot really admire the 'legalese' involved, unless one is an attorney, one can question the motivation for a major motion picture to publicize a case in which the final culpability is 'non disclosed' but surely apparent from methods of presentation.

I wonder if the tables were turned and your ox was being gored, if you would be so complacent?

amicus...

Wait you mean there REALLY are witches and warlocks like in 'Harry Potter' movies?!?

Legalese doesn't sell movie tickets... but the hot trailer-trash woman taking on the big boys and winning does.

Does this mean... cowboys are all gay like in 'Brokeback Mountain'? I always said there was something queer about chaps!


Sincerely,
ElSol