Collateral estoppel
Can’t claim to fully understand the term, but I heard it on Law and Order.
At a minimum it IS one of those words or phrases that is fun to say. Not unlike “Oglethorpe”. Kinda feels good to verbalize.
In context it suggests that we have judged the OWS hippies lacking in many ways, and it IS hard to NOT keep doing more of the same.
Taking them lightly is arguably fraught with danger.
To paraphrase my earlier statement for emphasis: A herd made up of a couple of hundred enthusiastic clowns can trample you if they stampede.
We can make fun of some gangster holding a weapon in an improper grip… so long as it’s not being pointed at us.
This ‘movement’ looks silly, granted, but…
I do hate to pee on the parade, so YMMV.
Category: Geezer Alert!
I don’t fear the army of 100 lions lead by a sheep. I fear the army of 100 sheep lead by a lion”
~Alexander of Mascidonia (the Great)
Dang Doc, ain’t that what I said?
Collateral estoppel means that once a question is litigated by a parties in one case, it can not be relitigated by those same parties in another (i.e. once you sue someone and lose, you can’t try again in another action with the same set of facts.) For example, we have “litigated” the fact that the code pink hags at “peace movement” events are whackos. Therefore, the code pink hags can not try to litigate their whaconess again with relation to their OWS crap. We have taken their measure, and found them to be trash.
Dang Susan, Ain’t that what I said?