Of course, what happens when a poor person sues a megacorporation...
The "poor person" had better have a good case and a good attorney.
I started to think maybe having the losing party pay for court costs would be a bit Draconian, but then I read this story. If you want to read the complaint, click here. Again I am resolved that the we need to reform Tort Law as soon as possible.
The merit of those civil actions is irrelevant.
I disagree. The merit of a civil case is completely relevant. I agree that the number of frivolous lawsuits today is outrageous and we need Tort Reform badly. Maybe we could adopt a similar system as they have in England: if you lose a civil case you are responsible for all fees and costs involved.
Eli Lilly produces vaccines that can be used in the event of a bio-attack. It is relevent to national security.
Ok. That may be true. However, is Eli Lilly charging for vaccines? Or are they donating them of their own free, kind heart?
If they are charging for the vaccines, why in the world should they receive an exemption? Not that any "exemption" a politician sticks in a bill is legal and will stand the test of the court, but... why do it?
Wow. Someone definitely needs to limit their caffeine/sugar intake. A little fired-up about nothing, eh?
Not sure why you found it necessary to regurgitate your same point about the direct relationship between Opioid Peptides and asthma, when I never disagreed with you. In fact, I agreed with you, dummy. From original post: you are correct in your point about the harmful affects of Opioid Peptides.
I continued by adding a couple more harmful side affects, like autism, adult diabetes, various cancers, and heart disease.
So, I'm not sure why you're blasting me. I know I have blasted your ridiculous ranting in the past; so maybe this is your way of "telling me off." But, please remember: This time, I agreed with you.
As far as your comments in relation to Fast Food Nation railing Republicans... well, I think it's simply more evidence suggesting that you're paranoid and delusional.
I have read the book, you twit. And it does not single-out Republicans. Maybe in your a skewed view of reality everything and everyone rants against Republicans, but here in the real world not everything revolves around Republicans and the evil Democrats.
I invite you to post a quote from Fast Food Nation supporting your point.
Second, (as hard as this is for me to admit, I must) you are correct in your point about the harmful affects of Opioid Peptides.
From a University of Sunderland study: We subscribe to the opioid excess theory for the causation of autism. The theory has been expounded on a number of occasions (Shattock et al, 1990; Shattock & Lowdon, 1991). In brief, we suspect that peptides with opioid (morphine-like) activity, resulting from the incomplete digestion of certain foods, in particular gluten from wheat and certain other cereals and from casein from milk and dairy produce, find their way into the bloodstream from the lumen of the intestine. Once in the bloodstream a proportion will cross into the brain. They will either act directly as neuroregulators by mimicking the bodies own natural opioids (such as the enkephalins or endorphins) or act as ligands to the enzymes which would break down these naturally occurring compounds. In either case, the consequence is an increase in opioid activity.
Not sure where you get the asthma connection, but an overabundance of Opioid Peptides in one's diet certainly leads to a myriad of health issues, including autism, adult diabetes, various cancers, and heart disease.
As far as your assertion that the book is biased against the "Republican Party," I am beginning to think you're just flat-out paranoid.
Bandwidth caps curb innovation completely. Bandwidth caps don't let people try new things easily.
Those are quite broad statements. I don't agree completely, only because not everyone uses the web like you or I do. A bandwidth cap on people like ourselves would "curb innovation." However, please remember that users like yourself are in the extreme minority when it comes to the Internet.
For example, AOL still has a customer base of over 10 million. And those AOL users are quite happy with 56K dial up for:
email,
chat,
shopping,
accessing financial records, and
planning the annual family vacation.
Bandwidth caps become an issue if more mainstream users move in the direction of using their computers for more than email and chat.
If technologies begin to merge (such as TV and the WEB or Wireless and the 'Net) and attract the average user, then we will see a tremendous increase in usage across the board.
Some questions we may want to address:
1) What is likelihood of mainstream users becoming more active on the Internet with the inevitable merging of entertainment and business technologies (i.e. wireless networks, web access, and TV)?
2) What improvements must we make to the Internet infrastructure, OS software, and hardware to accommodate merging technologies and meet consumer need?
Before you read this understand that I don't think Republicans are worse than Democrats. At times, they're all bad. And at times, they're all good. I just have to dispute the never-ending garbage that spews forth from Benzapp.
Here we go again... I have to say that before this, the Republican Party has never done anything to abridge our freedoms in this country.
What? Have you been living under a rock? I think the easiest example to dispute you is the Republican/Christian War on Abortion. The Republican Party has ALWAYS stood to "abridge" that freedom.
Maybe you should research some of the more interesting actions the various Attorney Generals, such as Ed Meese, took in the 80s and early 90s to undermine the 4th Amendment.
Who instituted the FBI, the IRS, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Alcohol Prohibition, The Harrison Narcotics Act, the income tax, social security, the Department of Education... The list goes on. Not a single right has ever been taken away by Republicans, except perhaps the right to own slaves.
First, it may have been a Democrat who gave Attorney General Charles Bonaparte permission to create the FBI, but it was certainly men like Johnson (democrat) and Nixon (republican) who perfected using the FBI against US Citizens. Second, on May 3, 1970, acting on FBI informants sent to university campuses as part of Nixon and Hoover's plan to eradicate anti-war protestors, Republican Governor James A Rhodes ordered armed National Guardsmen to Kent State. The next day, 4 unarmed students were shot dead by guardsmen. Third, I would also point out the Drug Czar is a Republican creation, as is the "War on Drugs." Remember Ron and Nancy: Just Say No! Fourth, set the way-back machine to 1925, Tennessee. The Republican State House passed House Bill #25: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Wars. The only war started by Republicans besides the Gulf war was the Civil War. From the Spanish American War with Roosevelt, to the world wars, Korea, Vietnam millions (sp) of Americans (sp) lost their lives in the 20th century for democratic wars. The Republican Party was Isolationist until 1950, and always advocated massive nuclear retaliation, but never sacrificed our men for politics.
First, I don't remember any Republicans or Democrats calling for Isolationism after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Nor do I remember any Republicans or Democrats preaching isolationism after we defeated the Nazis and took over in what became West Germany. (And "recruited" German scientists to work on our Atom Bomb project.) Second, it was 6 months after President Harry S Truman pulled American troops out of Korea, that North Korea invaded South Korea. The next day the UN called for countries to assist in defense of South Korea. Sounds very much like the motivations behind Big Daddy Bush's invasion of Iraq and Kuwait. Third, Vietnam: it was Republican Dwight D Eisenhower that sent American Troops to Vietnam in 1958. Kennedy sent additional Troops in 1961. Johnson sent the majority of Troops in '64, '65, and '67. After Tet in '68, American Forces begin to lessen. It was Republican President Nixon that authorized the CIA to run covert operations in and the Air Force to bomb Cambodia and Laos and ordered then Ambassador to the UN, George Bush, to lie to the UN and American people.
forcing the masses into public schools to brain wash them with propaganda (sp), institute oppressive taxation that would destroy the little guy and (edit) make them dependent on the government, and conveniently give him free housing and food.
Umm... I have nothing for this, simply because it is utter nonsense. I ask what propaganda? And I ask how am I dependent upon the government?
I don't like this Homeland Security bill anymore than anyone else, but to suggest Republicans have a history of depriving people of rights is insane. Democrats are and always have been evil, twisted, power mongering (sp) fools.
If you could actually read, you would find that Politicians and Big Business have been "in bed" for quite some time. To single out one party is ignorant and truly displays your lack of education. I suggest rather than wishing ill upon your teachers, try listening to them, and maybe take a trip to your local library: it's FREE and contains an enormous amount of information.
You will never know freedom if you are ignorant of the past.
I did not say: any country 277 years old, I said any system 277 years old.
Of course our current system is not the same as it was in the late 18th century. Quite a few things have changed (for the better and in some cases for the worse).
I may be wrong, but I thought that the whole idea of democracy was that if a majority of people decided they wanted something, then that had to be accepted.
The US is NOT a democracy. The US is a Republic. Big difference. Example, US citizens do not elect the president. The electoral college elects the president. Very much Republic.
And no the majority is not always right; as seen in slavery, segregation, etc...
Your so called 'stupid laws', that you obviously didn't agree with, are then 'struck down' by some irrelevant 200 year old rule that said 'well, democracy may be fine, but we get to choose what it can do, even 200 years from now'.
Laws are removed because they are found to be unconstitutional; hence the law is not fair to all citizens. And in this country, the constitution protects the minority as much as the majority.
Sorry, but to generalize and believe that the 'constitution' supports democracy is just plain wrong.
Well... it has supported this country for quite some time. As the US is not a democracy, I guess you're correct: the constitution hasn't and doesn't support democracy.
Of course the process is broken, since it is relying on judgements made in the distant past. The whole problem with a 'written constitution' is that it does not evolve over time.
Huh? does not evolve. What do you call amendments?
Guess we're just stuck with 18th century values (slavery, no rights for women etc.) for ever. They were so much smarter than us, weren't they? Better that everything is legal, unless a law says otherwise, than a system where the apparent view is that you can only do what is written in some 200 year old text.
Ummm... huh? I think you lost your loose grip on reality. I think maybe you need to spend a little more time in the library reading about the US system of laws and government.
Broken? Something that has built and sustained a nation of 300 million for 277 years is broken?
If the people don't like the laws congress is writing then they have numerous avenues in which to combat them.
For example, in California we vote on Propositions (the ONLY state that does) and every year the people of California, in their infinite, collective wisdom pass at least one completely assinine and unconstitutional law. The California courts have been busy the last 15 years striking down a majority of these stupid laws. At the federal level we have the same type of recourse for stupid laws tacked on to good legislature. However, unlike California (where on average it takes less than a year to overturn a dumb proposition) it takes 3 to 5 years to overturn bad federal law.
To say the process is "broken" is just flat out wrong and ignorant.
However, if you really do believe the process to be broken, convene a state constitutional convention and voice your opinion.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
First, line item veto violates the Constitution; hence no President (no matter his popularity) will receive such power.
Second, if the President worked with Congress to write good, "pork-free" laws there would be no need for line item veto. The President should lead, should communicate openly with Congress on what he believes the American people want.
BMG's "Big-Time" artist list includes: Ace of Base Air Supply Christina Aguilera Big Mountain Chicago Color Me Badd (LOL!) Foo Fighters Kenny G Kylie Minogue N'Sync Outkast Dolly Parton Pink Dionne Warwick Yanni
Not really sure why BMG is so upset over downloading sites... aside from Christina Aguilera, NSync, Pink, and Outkast I don't think they have much to worry about.
Although I have heard there is a HUGE black market demand for pirated Kenny G and Ace of Base cds!
Out
If it was up to me, the US would never have entered WWI or WWII, we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation, and we would not have a standing army.
What colour is the sky in your world?
"Never enter WW1 or WW2." Seriously? Granted we had more of choice in entering WW1, but WW2 became a necessity after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation
I'm not a big fan of foreign aid, especially while so many in the US need assistance, but foreign aid promotes American commerce. And that's good.
and we would not have a standing army
Huh? What will you use to defend your freedoms, political views, and property? Harsh words?
Huh? I take it you're one of the less than 1% of 1% of the world that somehow believes the holocaust was some great ruse? That all of those people marched into German Nazi Death Camps from 1938 to 1945 are actually vacationing in the tropics while running a secret underground government that is solely responsible for keeping the "white man" down?
There is a medical name for your condition: cranial-rectum inversion.
Slashdot Mirror
See we can agree every now and then...
Of course, what happens when a poor person sues a megacorporation...
The "poor person" had better have a good case and a good attorney.
I started to think maybe having the losing party pay for court costs would be a bit Draconian, but then I read this story. If you want to read the complaint, click here. Again I am resolved that the we need to reform Tort Law as soon as possible.
The merit of those civil actions is irrelevant.
I disagree. The merit of a civil case is completely relevant. I agree that the number of frivolous lawsuits today is outrageous and we need Tort Reform badly. Maybe we could adopt a similar system as they have in England: if you lose a civil case you are responsible for all fees and costs involved.
Eli Lilly produces vaccines that can be used in the event of a bio-attack. It is relevent to national security.
Ok. That may be true. However, is Eli Lilly charging for vaccines? Or are they donating them of their own free, kind heart?
If they are charging for the vaccines, why in the world should they receive an exemption? Not that any "exemption" a politician sticks in a bill is legal and will stand the test of the court, but... why do it?
Wow. Someone definitely needs to limit their caffeine/sugar intake. A little fired-up about nothing, eh?
Not sure why you found it necessary to regurgitate your same point about the direct relationship between Opioid Peptides and asthma, when I never disagreed with you. In fact, I agreed with you, dummy. From original post:
you are correct in your point about the harmful affects of Opioid Peptides.
I continued by adding a couple more harmful side affects, like autism, adult diabetes, various cancers, and heart disease.
So, I'm not sure why you're blasting me. I know I have blasted your ridiculous ranting in the past; so maybe this is your way of "telling me off." But, please remember: This time, I agreed with you.
As far as your comments in relation to Fast Food Nation railing Republicans... well, I think it's simply more evidence suggesting that you're paranoid and delusional.
I have read the book, you twit. And it does not single-out Republicans. Maybe in your a skewed view of reality everything and everyone rants against Republicans, but here in the real world not everything revolves around Republicans and the evil Democrats.
I invite you to post a quote from Fast Food Nation supporting your point.
Have a nice day.
Out
First, it's Opioid Peptides and Wheat Gluten.
Second, (as hard as this is for me to admit, I must) you are correct in your point about the harmful affects of Opioid Peptides.
From a University of Sunderland study:
We subscribe to the opioid excess theory for the causation of autism. The theory has been expounded on a number of occasions (Shattock et al, 1990; Shattock & Lowdon, 1991). In brief, we suspect that peptides with opioid (morphine-like) activity, resulting from the incomplete digestion of certain foods, in particular gluten from wheat and certain other cereals and from casein from milk and dairy produce, find their way into the bloodstream from the lumen of the intestine. Once in the bloodstream a proportion will cross into the brain. They will either act directly as neuroregulators by mimicking the bodies own natural opioids (such as the enkephalins or endorphins) or act as ligands to the enzymes which would break down these naturally occurring compounds. In either case, the consequence is an increase in opioid activity.
Not sure where you get the asthma connection, but an overabundance of Opioid Peptides in one's diet certainly leads to a myriad of health issues, including autism, adult diabetes, various cancers, and heart disease.
As far as your assertion that the book is biased against the "Republican Party," I am beginning to think you're just flat-out paranoid.
Out.
Bandwidth caps curb innovation completely.
Bandwidth caps don't let people try new things easily.
Those are quite broad statements. I don't agree completely, only because not everyone uses the web like you or I do.
A bandwidth cap on people like ourselves would "curb innovation."
However, please remember that users like yourself are in the extreme minority when it comes to the Internet.
For example, AOL still has a customer base of over 10 million. And those AOL users are quite happy with 56K dial up for:
email,
chat,
shopping,
accessing financial records, and
planning the annual family vacation.
Bandwidth caps become an issue if more mainstream users move in the direction of using their computers for more than email and chat.
If technologies begin to merge (such as TV and the WEB or Wireless and the 'Net) and attract the average user, then we will see a tremendous increase in usage across the board.
Some questions we may want to address:
Before you read this understand that I don't think Republicans are worse than Democrats. At times, they're all bad. And at times, they're all good.
I just have to dispute the never-ending garbage that spews forth from Benzapp.
Here we go again...
I have to say that before this, the Republican Party has never done anything to abridge our freedoms in this country.
What? Have you been living under a rock? I think the easiest example to dispute you is the Republican/Christian War on Abortion. The Republican Party has ALWAYS stood to "abridge" that freedom.
Maybe you should research some of the more interesting actions the various Attorney Generals, such as Ed Meese, took in the 80s and early 90s to undermine the 4th Amendment.
Who instituted the FBI, the IRS, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Alcohol Prohibition, The Harrison Narcotics Act, the income tax, social security, the Department of Education... The list goes on. Not a single right has ever been taken away by Republicans, except perhaps the right to own slaves.
First, it may have been a Democrat who gave Attorney General Charles Bonaparte permission to create the FBI, but it was certainly men like Johnson (democrat) and Nixon (republican) who perfected using the FBI against US Citizens.
Second, on May 3, 1970, acting on FBI informants sent to university campuses as part of Nixon and Hoover's plan to eradicate anti-war protestors, Republican Governor James A Rhodes ordered armed National Guardsmen to Kent State. The next day, 4 unarmed students were shot dead by guardsmen.
Third, I would also point out the Drug Czar is a Republican creation, as is the "War on Drugs." Remember Ron and Nancy: Just Say No!
Fourth, set the way-back machine to 1925, Tennessee. The Republican State House passed House Bill #25:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Wars. The only war started by Republicans besides the Gulf war was the Civil War. From the Spanish American War with Roosevelt, to the world wars, Korea, Vietnam millions (sp) of Americans (sp) lost their lives in the 20th century for democratic wars. The Republican Party was Isolationist until 1950, and always advocated massive nuclear retaliation, but never sacrificed our men for politics.
First, I don't remember any Republicans or Democrats calling for Isolationism after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Nor do I remember any Republicans or Democrats preaching isolationism after we defeated the Nazis and took over in what became West Germany. (And "recruited" German scientists to work on our Atom Bomb project.)
Second, it was 6 months after President Harry S Truman pulled American troops out of Korea, that North Korea invaded South Korea. The next day the UN called for countries to assist in defense of South Korea.
Sounds very much like the motivations behind Big Daddy Bush's invasion of Iraq and Kuwait.
Third, Vietnam: it was Republican Dwight D Eisenhower that sent American Troops to Vietnam in 1958. Kennedy sent additional Troops in 1961. Johnson sent the majority of Troops in '64, '65, and '67. After Tet in '68, American Forces begin to lessen. It was Republican President Nixon that authorized the CIA to run covert operations in and the Air Force to bomb Cambodia and Laos and ordered then Ambassador to the UN, George Bush, to lie to the UN and American people.
forcing the masses into public schools to brain wash them with propaganda (sp), institute oppressive taxation that would destroy the little guy and (edit) make them dependent on the government, and conveniently give him free housing and food.
Umm... I have nothing for this, simply because it is utter nonsense. I ask what propaganda? And I ask how am I dependent upon the government?
I don't like this Homeland Security bill anymore than anyone else, but to suggest Republicans have a history of depriving people of rights is insane. Democrats are and always have been evil, twisted, power mongering (sp) fools.
If you could actually read, you would find that Politicians and Big Business have been "in bed" for quite some time. To single out one party is ignorant and truly displays your lack of education. I suggest rather than wishing ill upon your teachers, try listening to them, and maybe take a trip to your local library: it's FREE and contains an enormous amount of information.
You will never know freedom if you are ignorant of the past.
Coming from you, that is quite ironic.
Again, you make an incorrect assumption.
I did not say: any country 277 years old, I said any system 277 years old.
Of course our current system is not the same as it was in the late 18th century. Quite a few things have changed (for the better and in some cases for the worse).
You made an incorrect assumption.
No where do I state that the US system of government is superior to any and all others because it has been in place for 277 years.
My one and only assertion was that a system that has sustained a country for 277 years can not be broken.
I may be wrong, but I thought that the whole idea of democracy was that if a majority of people decided they wanted something, then that had to be accepted.
The US is NOT a democracy. The US is a Republic. Big difference.
Example, US citizens do not elect the president. The electoral college elects the president. Very much Republic.
And no the majority is not always right; as seen in slavery, segregation, etc...
Your so called 'stupid laws', that you obviously didn't agree with, are then 'struck down' by some irrelevant 200 year old rule that said 'well, democracy may be fine, but we get to choose what it can do, even 200 years from now'.
Laws are removed because they are found to be unconstitutional; hence the law is not fair to all citizens. And in this country, the constitution protects the minority as much as the majority.
Sorry, but to generalize and believe that the 'constitution' supports democracy is just plain wrong.
Well... it has supported this country for quite some time. As the US is not a democracy, I guess you're correct: the constitution hasn't and doesn't support democracy.
Of course the process is broken, since it is relying on judgements made in the distant past.
The whole problem with a 'written constitution' is that it does not evolve over time.
Huh? does not evolve. What do you call amendments?
Guess we're just stuck with 18th century values (slavery, no rights for women etc.) for ever. They were so much smarter than us, weren't they? Better that everything is legal, unless a law says otherwise, than a system where the apparent view is that you can only do what is written in some 200 year old text.
Ummm... huh? I think you lost your loose grip on reality. I think maybe you need to spend a little more time in the library reading about the US system of laws and government.
Your last comment was just silly.
Broken? Something that has built and sustained a nation of 300 million for 277 years is broken?
If the people don't like the laws congress is writing then they have numerous avenues in which to combat them.
For example, in California we vote on Propositions (the ONLY state that does) and every year the people of California, in their infinite, collective wisdom pass at least one completely assinine and unconstitutional law. The California courts have been busy the last 15 years striking down a majority of these stupid laws.
At the federal level we have the same type of recourse for stupid laws tacked on to good legislature. However, unlike California (where on average it takes less than a year to overturn a dumb proposition) it takes 3 to 5 years to overturn bad federal law.
To say the process is "broken" is just flat out wrong and ignorant.
However, if you really do believe the process to be broken, convene a state constitutional convention and voice your opinion.
First, line item veto violates the Constitution; hence no President (no matter his popularity) will receive such power.
Second, if the President worked with Congress to write good, "pork-free" laws there would be no need for line item veto. The President should lead, should communicate openly with Congress on what he believes the American people want.
Just my 2cents
ROTFLMAO!
BMG's "Big-Time" artist list includes:
Ace of Base
Air Supply
Christina Aguilera
Big Mountain
Chicago
Color Me Badd (LOL!)
Foo Fighters
Kenny G
Kylie Minogue
N'Sync
Outkast
Dolly Parton
Pink
Dionne Warwick
Yanni
Not really sure why BMG is so upset over downloading sites... aside from Christina Aguilera, NSync, Pink, and Outkast I don't think they have much to worry about.
Although I have heard there is a HUGE black market demand for pirated Kenny G and Ace of Base cds!
Out
after all it was the politicians who urged us to finally introduce copy protection measures.
Ummm, yeah. It was the politicians that "made" you develop and implement copy protection measures.
Very good point. Most people would give up some personal freedoms gladly after a "9/11" type of event.
If it was up to me, the US would never have entered WWI or WWII, we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation, and we would not have a standing army.
What colour is the sky in your world?
"Never enter WW1 or WW2." Seriously? Granted we had more of choice in entering WW1, but WW2 became a necessity after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation
I'm not a big fan of foreign aid, especially while so many in the US need assistance, but foreign aid promotes American commerce. And that's good.
and we would not have a standing army
Huh? What will you use to defend your freedoms, political views, and property? Harsh words?
This is entirely too easy:
Republicans have never adopted deceit as their technique.
One word: Nixon.
It's like in the UK, every vacumn cleaner is usually referred to as a "hoover". Or in the US "Xerox".
True. But not every vacuum cleaner in a UK house is a Hoover and certainly not every US office copier is a Xerox.
Branding is good, but consumers purchasing your product and you making a profit is much better.
LOL.
If anyone happens to have the footage I would love to see Aldrin smack this guy.
I love it.
we should just stop reading all together.
Under no circumstances is it ever ILLEGAL to break an agreement.
No. You're wrong. If you break an agreement with criminal intent, it is then ILLEGAL to break your agreement.
Intent leads to fraud. Hence, criminal. Hence, illegal.
please continue swimming naked
That visual is definitely one I did not need this early...
How much of a loser are you to cheat at SETI?
You're joking right?
Nazism has nothing to do with this
Huh? I take it you're one of the less than 1% of 1% of the world that somehow believes the holocaust was some great ruse? That all of those people marched into German Nazi Death Camps from 1938 to 1945 are actually vacationing in the tropics while running a secret underground government that is solely responsible for keeping the "white man" down?
There is a medical name for your condition: cranial-rectum inversion.