Thread: Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs Canceled After 8 Seasons

After Mike Rowe Had a Disagreement With a Lawyer at a Liquor Store,
He Went Home and Did This Just to Spite the Attorney
Jun. 24, 2014 10:09am Jonathon M. Seidl

Mike Rowe, the former “Dirty Jobs” TV host and current head of Mike Rowe Works, has shown he’s not afraid to say what he thinks. Monday, he proved it once again — and took on a lawyer in doing so.

It all started when Rowe decided to hit a local liquor store recently and noticed a picture near the front of the shop. That picture was of a man in a white shirt that the store was identifying as a shoplifter. “Good for you,” Rowe says he told the owner while recalling the encounter on Facebook. “I wish every store in the country did this.” https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...314348778710:0

That’s when things got a little awkward. Someone behind Rowe in line disagreed, saying that it wasn’t right to publicly shame someone who may be innocent.

That started getting Rowe a little fired up. The conversation continued with Rowe’s response as well as the store owner’s:

Rowe continued:] “If I were falsely accused I would feel angry. But why would the owner put my face in his window and identify me as a shoplifter if he didn’t have proof that I was in fact a shoplifter?”

“Mistakes happen,” said the guy in line.

I looked at the manager and said, “Frank, have you ever made a mistake or falsely accused someone of shoplifting from your store?”

“Of course not,” said Frank. “I have the proof on the video. I put up a new photo every week. I have hundreds of these scumballs on tape.”

“Really? So has this strategy helped cut down on theft?”

“Big time,” said Frank. I used to get ripped off every day. Now it’s more like once a week.”
.

“[D]oes our country really have [its] head that far up [its] own ass?” — Mike Rowe

..

And that’s when the lawyer got involved. According to the lawyer, Frank the storeowner could technically be sued for posting the photo and shaming the man. That’s when Rowe became “incredulous” and even had some blunt words for the attorney:

Then a third guy chimed in. He identified himself as a lawyer, and said that even if Frank had proof of the crime, the guy in the photo could sue him and very likely win. I was incredulous.

“On what grounds?” Telling the truth in a storefront window?”

The lawyer shrugged. “I could argue that the man in that photo – were he my client – suffered irreparable harm to his reputation and public standing. I’d argue that Frank here was the proximate cause of that damage. Moreover, the level of potential harm caused by this photo goes far beyond the punishment typically handed down for this kind of petty crime.”

“Are you that good a lawyer,” I asked? Or does our country really have it’s head that far up it’s own ass?”

For the next ten minutes, we discussed the law, public shaming, petty theft, and the rights of the accused. I expressed my belief that stocks should be brought back to the public square. Frank concurred. The first guy in line called me a “modern day Torquemada,” which I took as a compliment. The lawyer was in favor of stocks, but only because they’d be good for business. The whole thing made me very thirsty for the Whistle Pig, waiting patiently in my brown paper bag.

Finally I asked, “What would happen if I posted this photo on my Facebook page? Could the shoplifter then sue me?”

“Alleged shoplifter,” said the guy in line.

“Sure,” said the lawyer. “Anybody can sue anybody for anything.”

“Yeah, but would you take the case?”

The lawyer looked at me with something I’ll call recognition. “If I thought there were a decent chance at a recovery, sure.”

“So if I post this image on my Facebook page, and the guy in the photo comes to you and says I’ve ruined his reputation by telling the world he’s guilty of shoplifting, you’d sue me? Even if the guy is proven guilty on tape?”

“Suing celebrities is fun,” said the lawyer. They usually settle, just to avoid the headache. But just to be clear – I’d sue Frank here as well.”

So what did Rowe do? He decided to stick it to the lawyer. He posted the picture of the crook (although he redacted the face):



“After careful consideration and deliberation with Frank, I’ve decided to post the photo in his front window,” Rowe concluded. “But upon the advice of my own attorney, I’ve concealed the identity of the no-good shoplifting scumbag in the white tee-shirt and jeans. I realize this defeats the purpose, but that’s what things have come to in my world.”

So far the post has over 55,000 likes and over 10,000 shares.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...facebook-post/

I'm still waiting for the name of the lawyer whose comments about the shoplifter were the centerpiece of your story, which you basically expanded into a parable about the litigiousness of our society, which you apparently blame on the legal profession.”

Sorry about the wait, John. I hope you passed the long moments someplace comfortable. According to his business card, the lawyers name is Simon. Unfortunately, I won’t be revealing his last name. I know how disappointing that must be, especially after your long vigil, but at least you’re not the only one who’s disappointed. Thousands of other posters made it clear that they would have preferred I not conceal the identity of the no-good shoplifting scumbag in question. Ah, well. Can’t please everyone. As for the root causes of our litigious society, I blame bad laws, human nature, and yes - opportunistic lawyers. I do not however, blame the entire legal profession.

“Those who love to throw stones at lawyers, complete with colorful imagery, mindless jokes, and misleading quotes from Shakespeare are bigots, just as much as those who attribute the problems of mankind to Blacks, Jews, Hispanics or Muslims.”

Hmm....I wonder how the descendants of black slaves will feel about that comparison? Do you think Holocaust survivors will appreciate the implication that lawyers - as a group - have suffered the same sort of bigotry and persecution? Perhaps one day, when Attorneys are born or branded with a scarlet “A”, and physically forced to attend Georgetown or Harvard Law, polite society will count them among the oppressed, and ease up on all those hurtful jokes. But to my knowledge, being an attorney is still a choice, and right now, your chosen vocation doesn’t engender a lot of sympathy. Many Americans feel this country has too many lawyers, too many laws, too many criminals, and not enough justice. Ergo, your profession is ripe for lampooning. (I do agree however, that it’s never OK to tell a lawyer joke that isn’t funny. That simply has to stop.)

“I gather that you identify with those who generally dislike lawyers.”

I identify with those who are tired of seeing compliance trump common sense. Personally John, I rely on lawyers every day, and feel lucky to have some good ones as friends and partners. But I dislike the fact that a criminal like the guy in that photo could team up with a clever attorney and complicate the life of an honest merchant, just because he shamed a shoplifter who got caught red-handed. I believe something bad happens to a society that accepts stupidity of that magnitude.

“If I am correct, that is especially unfortunate because you are an influential public figure.”

Happily, you are not correct. Which is conversely, especially fortunate.

“If I am wrong, please set the record straight by disavowing the anti-lawyer undertone that I inferred from your story and your responses to the comments that followed.”

“Disavow?” What...like on Mission Impossible? Look, aside from the one in your imagination, there is no “record” to correct. I shared a story on Facebook. I don’t mind the cross-examination, but it’s worth remembering that this is not a court of law. This is my Facebook page. You can object all you like, but there are no sidebars and no subpoenas. The story is fundamentally true. But I can’t prove it, and I'm not inclined to try.

“But I also call on you to answer this question: Did you have such a conversation with a real lawyer? Or were you just using dramatic license?”

Tell me John, are you preparing for a trial? I see from your profile that you’re an attorney in Flint, Michigan. Is this some sort of rehearsal? If so, I’m happy to play along. If not, I’m afraid you’re confirming what a lot of people already think and feel about your own profession. Again - the encounter in the liquor store occurred mostly as I described it. I don’t personally know the guy who identified himself as the lawyer named Simon, but his business card is consistent with both his name and his vocation. I suspect it’s accurate, because I recognized the name of the firm. However, I have not verified his identity with The DMV, The California Bar, or anyone else.

“The stilted manner of that unnamed lawyer's speech suggested to me that you had either created a fictional figure to make your point, or that you had greatly embellished what he did say.”

Funny thing John - Simon spoke in much the same way you write. Based on that, might I logically assume that you are a fictional figure? Shall I demand some additional proof that you are who you claim to be? Again - I didn’t embellish what transpired in the store. Nor did I post a transcript of the conversation. I simply distilled the encounter into a more digestible narrative. It’s not evidence, Counsellor; it’s a story.

“I believe that you are straddling the line between fact and fiction, thereby misleading your readers.”

Misleading them? For what purpose? To whip up support against the ABA? To reaffirm my abiding disdain for shoplifters and thieves? You’re entitled to your beliefs John, and I’m glad you feel free to share them. But I’m afraid you may have confused the online musings of a B-list celebrity with the closing arguments of a courtroom adversary. I’m not addressing a jury. I’m just sharing the details of my afternoon walk with 1.4 million friends. I’m happy to count you among them, but here on Facebook, the line between fact and fiction is wherever you choose to draw it. For instance, in this conversation, I made a decision to assume you really are John Streby, Attorney at Law. You have a website, and your photo there matches your photo on Facebook. But in reality, I have no way of knowing if you actually wrote this note, and you have no way to prove it. For all I know, you could be a fourteen-year old named Sheila, running amuck with Mommy’s laptop and Black’s Law Dictionary.

“And from the responses from several practicing lawyers, it is apparent to me that if this unnamed lawyer actually said what you claim, his competence is highly questionable.”

Your skepticism - (which I applaud, incidentally) - seems a bit narrow. On the one hand, you’re pretty quick to question the truth of Simon’s claims, his professional bona fides, and his very existence. But in the same paragraph, you blithely accept the identities of “several practicing lawyers” as authentic. Why? Is it because they attached a name and photo to their post? Is that your standard for virtual veracity?

In my own novice and non-legally binding opinion, you can’t be a credible human or a persuasive attorney if you direct your skepticism only towards those people who make claims you don’t agree with. Trust me Sheila, the search for truth in cyberspace will take you through the wormhole, and there’s nothing on the other side but pedants and nitpickers and bottomless ambiguity. If you’re not careful, you’ll spend all your time proving everything and understanding nothing.

Which reminds me of a joke...

Mike

Mike Rowe’s Inspiring 12-Point ‘S.W.E.A.T. Pledge’ Should Be Read by EVERY American
by Gina Cassini | Top Right News

Former Dirty Jobs’ host Mike Rowe is a strong advocate of getting Americans back to work in real jobs.




Yesterday, Mike posted a truly awesome S.W.E.A.T. (Skills & Work Ethic Aren’t Taboo) Pledge on Facebook that every American should read and take to heart.

This is just the kind of “straight talk we need to have with ourselves as a country to get that “can-do” spirit back.

Please share this everywhere. Mike is the kind of leader Americans deserve but sadly rarely get in Washington.

“THE S.W.E.A.T. PLEDGE”

(Skill & Work Ethic Aren’t Taboo)

1. I believe that I have won the greatest lottery of all time. I am alive. I walk the Earth. I live in America. Above all things, I am grateful.

2. I believe that I am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing more. I also understand that “happiness” and the “pursuit of happiness” are not the same thing.

3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.

4. I do not “follow my passion.” I bring it with me. I believe that any job can be done with passion and enthusiasm.

5. I deplore debt, and do all I can to avoid it. I would rather live in a tent and eat beans than borrow money to pay for a lifestyle I can’t afford.

6. I believe that my safety is my responsibility. I understand that being in “compliance” does not necessarily mean I’m out of danger.

7. I believe the best way to distinguish myself at work is to show up early, stay late, and cheerfully volunteer for every crappy task there is.

8. I believe the most annoying sounds in the world are whining and complaining. I will never make them. If I am unhappy in my work, I will either find a new job, or find a way to be happy.

9. I believe that my education is my responsibility, and absolutely critical to my success. I am resolved to learn as much as I can from whatever source is available to me. I will never stop learning, and understand that library cards are free.

10. I believe that I am a product of my choices – not my circumstances. I will never blame anyone for my shortcomings or the challenges I face. And I will never accept the credit for something I didn’t do.

11. I understand the world is not fair, and I’m OK with that. I do not resent the success of others.

12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=4340