To be honest, I wasn’t sure if this is a “What the Frak??” post, or simply a humorous one – which do you think it comes under?

On tonight’s news, there was a segment about a firearm found inside the D.C. Jail.

It was about 30 seconds into the segment when I cracked up totally in uncontrollable laughter as our local newsdrone Derek McGinty, with a perfectly straight face, mentioned that the firearm was related to an incident in the D.C. Jail from 2003.

Why was this funny?  I’m glad you asked me!

It transpired that the firearm was used in the shooting of four inmates back then.

Gang violence, you wonder?  A drug debt?  A hit?  Just someone was bored?

Nope.

Apparently it was part of a grand plan – they shot themselves so that they could – get this – then sue the city for failing to protect them in Jail.

The plan apparently failed when it didn’t go as hoped – my guess is the one inmate who it seems didn’t actually want to be shot figured he stood a better chance of getting actual protection if he came clean.

The best part is how this part was reported with a totally straight face.  I guess it’s the segments like that which make for an anchordrone

In Perfect Bodies Only, Please, I wrote a piece on how people with disabilities aren’t entirely welcomed within mainstream professional sports, instead in many cases effectively being forced into segregated participation by being barred from using those tools that give them the same level of participation able-bodied players have.

In it, I noted that professional sports seems to focus on appearances.

Today I watched a segment on CNN’s website that I think shows just how far professional sports can go to maintain those appearances and continue to make money¹.

Now, normally I have little time for animal “rights” people, since most of them appear to be either insane pseudo terrorists (ALF, BUAV, SHAC, Lobster Liberation Front), or think the lives of the hamsters that go into making the medication keeping me alive are more important than mine (PETA).

However, I share the outrage expressed by the protesters about Michael Vick being allowed to return to the NFL.

Michael who?

For those of you who’ve been living in that cave in recent years again, Vick is an NFL quarterback who pled guilty to interstate charges relating to dog fighting in 1997, and was given 23 months in prison for it.

When he was released, his old team wanted nothing more to do with him, but he was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles in 2009.

Now back to the whole “appearances” thing – Professional sportsmen, for whatever reason, are looked up to, considered role models, and generally have an extremely high profile.  Their endorsement deals are so lucrative because the products they endorse realize their exposure goes sky-high as a result.

So, what the frak was the NFL thinking by reinstating this guy to play???

I believe the message the NFL has effectively endorsed has become “You can abuse animals, profit from the gambling, get caught, do less than 2 years, but as a professional sportsman you’re too big to allow to fail and so we’ll let you back in all smiles.”

Some role model, huh?

States Of Mind

Now I’m not one to believe in psychobabble, but I have to wonder just how long Michael Vick has had a liking for the torture, maiming, and killing of dogs.

The psychobabblers say that one of the first indications of a psychopath is the killing of small animals, and it’s hard for me to think of dog fighting as being enjoyed by anyone other than people with a taste for blood and guts.

One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism. According to the New York Times, “[t]he FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.^[45] “A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a young boy.”^[45] Robert K. Ressler, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,”Murderers like this (Jeffrey Dahmer) very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.”^[46]

Cruelty to animals is one of the three components of the Macdonald triad, indicators of violent antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. According to the studies used to form this model, cruelty to animals is a common (but not with every case) behavior in children and adolescents who grow up to become serial killers and other violent criminals.

It has also been found that animal cruelty in children is frequently committed by children who have witnessed or been victims of abuse themselves. In two separate studies cited by the Humane Society of the United States roughly one-third of families suffering from domestic abuse indicated that at least one child had hurt or killed a pet.^[47]

Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals#Psychological_disorders

How many kids are going to come away from this with the belief that it’s OK to maim, torture, and kill animals purely for sport and pleasure?  After all, they’ve been taught a life-lesson that doing so has zero practical consequences with the Vick incident.

In 15 years will we hear of another Bundy, and they’ll point right back at Vick’s actions and how lenient the consequences of them, as the role model for their formative years?

Listening to the Vick supporters in the CNN video, I’m not too sure it will take 15 years before we hear of something like it, to be honest.

I wonder how much of Vick’s “charitable” work was funded using the profits from his dog-fighting operation.  It’s hard to tell if his six mansions, the ten cars, and his supporting friends and family were funded by his dog-fighting, or by the ridiculous amounts of money he was raking in legally from his “job”.

In reinstating Vick, has the NFL done almost as much damage to animal welfare as the groups listed at the start of this article?

What about the Philadelphia Eagles – are they really that hard-up for wins?  Maybe they’re hoping Vick will take over training their team?  After all, he did a bang up job training his dogs.

There’d just be a few downsides if they lost.

Professional sports.  People with disabilities not-so-welcome, but animal abusers – step right on up!

What great examples of “perfect specimens” for society.

1. 
   [back]

Over 30 years ago, a 13 year old girl was plied with alcohol and drugs, then raped despite repeatedly saying “No”.

The perpetrator was caught, and pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, in exchange for leniency.  When the judge reneged on the plea agreement, the child rapist fled the country to avoid answering for the crimes he freely admitted to, and remained a fugitive until captured in Switzerland.

At the end of the day, these are the only facts that matter in the case of confessed child molester Roman Polanski.

Unfortunately, a Swiss court has now decided to release this confessed child molester and fugitive from justice on bail pending extradition proceedings to bring him back to the US to finally face justice for his crimes, so long denied by his running.

So a guy with a track record of evading capture by moving across international boundaries as a high profile fugitive from justice is somehow expected to stay put if released on bail?  It’s not like border controls between Switzerland and the rest of the continent are really all that good!

The facts of the case being stated above, let’s look at the excuses and rationalization that have been put forwards that aren’t relevant to the case for a moment.

Why We Should Feel Sorry For Roman

Yes, his pregnant wife was murdered at the hands of the Manson “Family”.

Yes, he’s supposedly a talented film director.

Yes, while a fugitive from justice he lived and traveled freely in Europe, including Switzerland.

Yes, a settlement agreement was reached with his victim.

Yes, his victim has asked the court to drop the case.

However …

The first two points, that his wife was murdered, and he’s a talented film director, do not excuse the fact he’s a confessed child molester who ran to avoid facing justice for raping a 13 year old girl.

Nothing excuses that.

The Whoopi Rationalization

Several people have stunned decent people in the world however by trying to cite reasons that, in their minds, it should be excused.  Witness Whoopi Goldberg’s now-infamous comments on “The View”.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

What’s even more disgusting is not one person on the panel or the audience called her on this.

How about Debra Tate, sister of Sharon Tate (the murdered pregnant wife)?

What the frak is “rape-rape” anyways?  There are degrees of rape now?  Maybe they were simply trying to place some (or all) of the blame on the victim (or worse, implying the victim lied?).

The presumption is that this idea of it not being “rape-rape” is somehow connected to the idea behind statutory rape – that the charge is based on age rather than consent.  That certainly seems to be what Debra Tate is angling towards in her interview.

But both of these clips ignore the information on the record, that the victim did not give consent, and gave evidence under oath to that effect.  In effect, this idea that a) this was only statutory rape, not “non-consentual” rape, and b) that the victim lied, is trying to place the blame for a man plying a 13 year old girl with alcohol and drugs then repeatedly having sex with her on the victim.

Debra Tate is supposed to be a victim’s advocate, I would have thought she’d come across multiple times where the defence ploy has been to blame the victim – but she seems to be doing exactly the same thing here when it comes to her ex-brother in-law’s confessed crimes.

I’d want her as a victim’s advocate for me … if I were a child abuser.

Hollywood and Europe

Worse is the petition by actors, directors, and others in support of this confessed child molester and fugitive from justice, demanding he be released to continue being a fugitive!  Has the casting couch become so ingrained in show business that these supporters of a child molester will battle to sustain his flight from justice?

And yes, I consider these people to be supporters of a child molester.  Not once have any of them unequivocally or unconditionally condemned the crimes Polanski confessed to.  Not one of them.  As far as they’re concerned, it seems, he is the victim in all of this!

In many ways, the impression I get from how Harvey Weinstein et al have jumped on the bandwagon to defend this confessed child molester is that fame in Hollywood, and in European “artsy” circles, bestows the same mystique on Roman Polanski as Chairman Mao had – little girls should feel honored to be invited to his bed.

It’s hard not to think that, to the elite in Hollywood and Europe, child molestation isn’t actually molestation – or, to re-use Whoopi’s thoughts, isn’t “rape-rape”.

Celebrity Hath Its Privileges

Let’s be honest here.  If it was anyone other than Roman Polanski, say for example some black guy from the Bronx, he’d have been locked away and people like Harvey Weinstein, Whoopi Goldberg, and even Debra Tate, would be toasting the reception the guy would be facing in prison from Ordinary Decent Criminals.

But this is one of their own, this is “the Great Roman Polanski”, this is the “poor Roman Polanski whose wife was murdered by the Mansons”, this is Hollywood’s Gordon Kahl and Hollywood is bringing everything it can to bear to get Polanski “vindicated”.

Which brings me to the most abhorrent and disgusting thing that has happened in all of this.

Victim?  What Victim?

Polanski’s victim, remember her?

Whilst a settlement agreement was reached in the matter years ago, there are questions if it was ever paid.

But that’s not all.  The victim in all of this, the real one, is now a grown up woman, with a husband and children of her own, and has asked that the case be dropped.

Not because it never happened.

Not because she forgives him.

But because the continued publication of details “causes harm to me, my husband and children”.

Yeah, I suppose having Harvey Weinstein lobbying for the release of your rapist, and people like Whoopi Goldberg and Debra Tate implying that there was no real rape, minimizing the ordeal and making you feel like a liar, might be something you get tired of in the end and just want to get on with your life.

The disgusting part is, from my seat, comments like those discussed here are akin to the victim being raped all over again, by the media, by Hollywood, by society.

But Whoopi et al can rest easy – after all, it really wouldn’t be “rape-rape”.

Run, Roman, Run!

The rape aside, Roman Polanski does need to be brought back to the US in shackles at the earliest possible moment for a completely separate issue.

For 31 years, he’s been a fugitive from justice.  He’s consciously avoided going to the US or the UK as a result.

According to authorities, they were going to try to apprehend this fugitive at least twice in the past, but were unable to because (they believe) he found out their intentions and avoided being arrested.

He ran from justice, abroad.  He’s been on the run ever since.  Every single day he’s been on the run, he has been breaking the law.

No matter what his reasons were, he didn’t have the right to use his money, and his influence, to escape justice.  the proper place to address issues with the legal system is here, not some villa in Switzerland.

Even with the original trial judge now being dead, he refused to return to the US to petition the Court to throw the case out.  He had no reason to believe the judge hearing his petition would likewise go back on the plea agreement – but he remained a fugitive.

His lawyers, and the supporters of this child molester within show business and Hollywood, want to gain vindication for his running from justice and remaining a fugitive for 31 years by having that fugitive status itself thrown out, his extradition refused.

In effect, they want the whole thing thrown out.  The victim wants to move on, witnesses are scarce, 31 years is a long time.

So the end result of throwing the case out means Polanski will likely get away with giving a 13 year old child drugs and alcohol, raping her repeatedly, absconding from the country and remaining a fugitive for 31 years.

Absconding is another crime he committed that he has admitted to.  He’s said he had no choice, because the judge in the case went back on the plea agreement.  That might be, but it’s still an admission of absconding.

Whatever his reasons for running, he ran, and the world knows it.

What Now?

He must face justice for his crimes.  If money and celebrity are shields against justice, then there’s no justice.

No-one gets to rape a child with impunity.  No-one gets to run from justice with impunity.

Polanski wants both.

If not – does anyone really believe he won’t go on the lam again?

I wonder if that will mean he’s not a “fugitive-fugitive”?

We’ll just have to wait for the inevitable rehabilitation movie.

People have been trying to blame video games for violence in real life for ages.  The most well-known proponent of this concept (and possibly most ridiculed) is Jack Thompson, but it seems that a couple of human rights groups are jumping on the “Won’t anyone think of the children???” blame game bandwagon now.

Reported by the BBC today, two Swiss human rights groups have published the results of their analysis.

Twenty games were scrutinised to see if the conflicts they portrayed and what players can do in the virtual theatres of war were subject to the same limits as in the real world.

What

The

Frak??

First of all, they’re video games – “real world” isn’t really a factor.

The testers looked for violations of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols which cover war should be waged.

(typos as taken from the BBC article)

So, what, there should be a video game International Criminal Court?  War crimes tribunal?  Maybe all 15 year olds should be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

Given the state of the real world, you’d think human rights groups would have something better to do than start trying to decry virtual war crimes.  The human rights of real people are a little more important than the abuse of a handful of pixels in some kid’s bedrooms.  When you have terrorists running around beheading captured troops, or even just civilians, blowing themselves up, and generally being unpleasant, you’d think that would be worth studying more.

This whole idea that violent video games (or movies, or books for that matter) encourages or is responsible for violent acts in real life is ridiculous.  When Jon Venables and Robert Thompson kidnapped, tortured, and eventually murdered 2 year-old Jamie Bulger in the UK, accusations were flying around that the Child’s Play movies were somehow responsible for this horrific crime, for example.

But the whole concept is nothing more than an attempt to place the blame for violent acts, horrific crimes and abuses, onto something other than the perpetrators.  We want to believe that society is perfect, that people aren’t capable of committing such barbaric actions and war crimes, that something else must be responsible.

This idea that violent video games promote the concept that war crimes, violations of the Geneva Conventions, and abuse are “norms” is a desperate move to shunt the blame from reality to fantasy, to deny personal responsibility and for society to try to keep the illusion going that people who can commit such acts don’t really exist unless programmed to commit those acts.

As long as society wants to deny that feral humans, as I consider them – those who can commit such barbarism that it shocks the conscience of society as a whole, and tries to shift the blame onto games, movies, books, guns, or anything else, it’s simply deluding itself.

This report serves no purpose except to set up yet another “It wasn’t my fault” excuse at The Hague.  War crimes will happen, because in times of war the border between civilization and barbarism is emotionally fluid.  But the people who commit those crimes would have committed them with or without input from computer games, movies, books, guns, or anything else.

The propensity for violence, the lack of morality and honor that justifies atrocities, is already present in such people.  Even if they play video games, that doesn’t mean there’s causation.  The capacity is intrinsic to the criminal, so at best the most you can say is that they use the games as an outlet for that capacity.

If all schoolkids that shot up their school played golf, would golf then be considered to cause school shootings?  No!

The same lack of logic is more commonly seen with J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher In The Rye” … How many assassinations has this book ended up being “linked” with?  If I recall correctly, that mythology even managed to make its way into a couple of movies.  The book wasn’t responsible for the things people claim, and neither are video games, movies, books – or guns themselves.

Such groups would do far better if they worked on reinstating capital punishment in Europe so such feral humans can be dealt with properly, removed from society and put out of their misery.

Video games don’t violate the Geneva Conventions.

People do.

The Taliban didn’t play Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto didn’t teach them them to decapitate prisoners or throw acid in the faces of girls trying to go to school.  Quake didn’t train the IRA to put a car bomb on the street in Omagh, and Red Cell didn’t program Al Qaeda.

As much as “civilized” people wish it were otherwise.

So let me get this straight.

Treasury Secretary Paulson goes to Congress and begs for $700 billion of taxpayers money in large part so the government can buy up bad mortgages, refinancing them/guaranteeing them/what have you, because lenders made seriously bad choices in who they lend money to.

Then the week after the election, he wants to use that $700 billion of taxpayer money instead to buy bank shares, on the grounds it will encourage banks to offer more loans to people.

So … the logic goes “Banks made bad loans, let’s buy their stocks so their shareholders get big fat dividends again, and let the banks make … more bad loans”?

And this guy is supposed to be the Treasury Secretary??

What

The

Fuck?

Congress needs to immediately tell Paulson that he has to use the money as he originally called for it to be used, and not to enrich the pockets of shareholders and encourage further financial incompetance and mismanagement by banks.

It’s bad enough that our money is going to fatten the wallets of a bunch of people who screwed up so royally to begin with, but now he wants to turn around and reverse something that was supposed to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure and use it instead to create more debt??

Is he totally incompetant, or is this part of some mysterious plan to totally fuck the country’s economy up so Obama can’t bring it back on track before the next election cycle?

Congress, get off your fat lazy asses and DO SOMETHING.  You’re throwing OUR money away.

At best you got fleeced, at worst you’re complicit.

It’s no secret that I hold politicians in general in contempt – they’re a bunch of parasites who produce nothing yet exercise control over as much as possible.

But recent remarks by Quentin Davies, MP (that’s Member Of Parliament in the UK) have me sickened to my stomach and wondering just how low into the depths of cowardice and buck-passing Brit politicians can sink.

As background: Major Sebastian Morley was a commander in the Special Air Service (SAS), an unfortunately publicly well known special operations regiment of the British Army (AKA Hooligans from Hereford).

Marjor Morley resigned from the Regiment while in Afghanistan recently, in a letter quoted by The Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK he is reported to have accused the UK Government of being “Cavalier at best, criminal at worst” in regards to equipping UK forces over there – in particular the lightly armoured “Snatch Land Rovers”.

Now, the SAS aren’t like most troops – they’re used to making do with what they have, improvising adapting and overcoming any obstacle in the most ingenious ways possible (and yes, I’m complimenting Hooligans – I claim temporary insanity).

So for an SAS officer to quit because the equipment supplied, “Mobile Coffins” as troops deployed to Iraq call them, is inadequate is astounding – these are people who make MacGyver look lost.

Quentin Davies however, as the defence and equipment minister, seems to not have any inkling of just how bad things have to be for a Hooligan to call it quits.

But worse is his apparent attempt, like any “good” politician, to totally refuse any possibility of responsibility, instead attempting to shift the blame onto commanders.

Yes, this jumped up public school snob who has never done anything in life other than be a diplomatic flunky then a politician has the balls, the sheer gall, to actually start throwing out accusations blaming actual fighting men of being irresponsible and culpable for the deaths of British troops through implied incompetence, totally ignoring any accusations they’re dying because of shit kit.

In doing so, I believe Quentin Davies has betrayed every man and woman who serves faithfully in the British armed forces.  This martinet with the power to help equip troops to keep them alive, when a respected fighting man is forced to resign in protest at the incompetant and cavalier attitude of these puffed up civil servants, resorts to blaming it on the commanders??

And like most politicians, Quentin Davies essentially betrays those fighting men with ambiguous comments that are designed solely to obfuscate the issue.  Let’s look at the ones reported for a moment:

“The idea that we have been cavalier with soldiers’ lives is horrific”.

Well yes, it is – but this isn’t a denial that the UK Government has been cavalier – or criminal.

“I recently visited Afghanistan, and 100 per cent of those I asked said they were now satisfied with their equipment.”

And how many people did he actually ask?  How many of them were troops with mud on their boots?  How many were officers faced with a pompous snob minister and said what would preserve their careers – given the way Quentin Davies shunted the blame squarely on commanders, does anyone believe he might not be a petty vindictive bastard as well who would destroy the career of anyone who dares to give him a reality check?

The BBC report goes on to state:

However he said the idea the Ministry of Defence was “indifferent” to the need to get the right kit into theatre was a “travesty of reality that it is actually quite difficult to take this at first face value”.

A travesty of reality might be calling it indifferent, yes.  How does “apathetic” sound?  “Callous”?  “Blind”? “In denial”?  “Controlled by a politician who has no fucking clue what’s actually needed to begin with”?

Those may actually be closer to reality – but we won’t know, because Quentin Davies is so sublimely convinced of his own knowledge as some REMF ponce stuck in Whitehall that a land rover with paper thin armour is actually sufficient to protect troops from EFPs and IEDs, enough that he’ll totally brush aside the concerns of an SAS commander and lump the blame entirely on the commanders?

He said, given the nature of war, “there may be occasions when in retrospect a commander chose the wrong piece of equipment, the wrong vehicle, for the particular threat that the patrol or whatever it was encountered and we had some casualties as a result”.

What

The

Fuck?

Just what reality is this idiot living in?  Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s a politician, reality is a tenuous concept at best for them – but this?  This is beyond the pale!

It might help if commanders in the field actually had the right kit to assign to begin with – that’s Quentin Davies’ job.  But that might require actually taking responsibility for the laundry list of deaths and injuries caused to British troops who have been inadequately supplied by a minister who seems more interested in lumping the blame on commanders without even bothering to investigate the claims behind a warrior feeling his honour leaves him no choice but to resign his commission, walk away from his people, and make it all public.

I realize politicians rarely understand loyalty (Quentin Davies certainly doesn’t appear to, defecting from the Conservatives to the same Labour Party he condemned two years prior), but is there anyone at this idiot’s ministry that can understand just how desperate things must be for a Hooligan to quit and kick up a stink about shit kit?

Aircraft without fire suppression systems in the fuel tanks, inadequate and not enough body armour, vehicles that can’t stop more than a rifle bullet in an AO rife with high explosives, insufficient air transport options … I believe Quentin Davies is the minister in charge of the department responsible for all of this – but I guess the men and women of the British armed forces can forget him actually doing something about these and other matters.

Because according to his comments above, it’s not his fault, it’s the fault of the commanders for not being able to MacGyver their way out of his arrogance.

I’m curious, Quentin Davies.  When you visited Afghanistan, and 100% of the people you spoke to said they were satisfied with their kit, did you land in a -130 with or without fire suppression systems?  Did you get ferried around in one of the few Chinooks in theater?  I bet you sure as fuck didn’t go driving around in a snatch land rover.

If you have faith that British troops are properly and safely equipped and protected, then let’s see that confidence, let’s see you go for a drive out in the middle of nowhere in a snatch land rover, let’s see you land in theater in one of the -130’s being used there by the rest of the troops, let’s see you use the body armour they’re equipped with – and have to queue to get it like everyone else.

Excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.

Is Quentin Davies a traitor?  We’ll only find out when it’s determined if shit kit is responsible for the death of servicemembers.

I only hope that some day there will be an investigation into all these issues, and when the results come out Quentin Davies is put up against a wall for the lives lost because of his arrogance.

All this talk of bailing out financial institutions is an insult to every one of us.

When mortgages started crashing, the Government refused to help homeowners at first, then gave them a paltry amount that in no way could stem the tide.

Companies have been going down, and the Government has done nothing to help them, because the stock market is supposed to be a gamble, and the companies lost.

But now, we’re supposed to accept the Government will happily fork over $700 billion to a handful of select companies, whilst at the same time taking over some of the biggest ones out there?

What

The

Fuck??

Let’s be honest here – the Government stuck its head in the sand for months, refusing to accept there was a problem.  Any bailout now is too little, too late.

So why are they doing it?

My opinion?  The money will go towards shoring up the salaries of the upper executives of those companies, to pay their share options and salaries and golden parachutes.

The money will not go towards saving those companies, only delaying the inevitable until after the elections.  Another short term hope to distract the voters.

We should not allow this to happen.  We should not have to cover the losses of executives who screwed up so badly they got into this situation, and we should not permit the government to try to hide its culpability in this mess by trying to give the appearance of action.

The only way any bailout can be acceptable is if the following conditions are applied:

• No executive or employee of the companies involved can be permitted to draw a salary of greater than $100,000 per year for the next 4 years (until the next election).
• No executive or employee can be awarded or may vest stock or share options in the companies involved for the next 4 years (until the next election).
• No executive or employee can exercise a “Golden Parachute” clause of any sort if they leave the company within the next 4 years (until the next election).
• Every company involved which has moved its staffing or operations of any sort to a foreign country (off-shoring) must be required to return those operations and staffing to US shores – call centers, support, manufacturing, whatever – within the next 12 months.
• The Government should be given a 33% stake of ownership (true ownership) in the companies involved, the dividends or other profits that accrue to the Government as a result must be invested 100% into the Social Security fund.
• No member of Government may be allowed to own, even through a blind system, any shares, stocks, or have any interests personally or corporately in any of the companies involved.

These companies are in a mess because of their own irresponsibility, and because the Government refused to accept there was a problem because it would “look bad” for so long.  Any bailout must take that into consideration, and not be yet another method by which the rich get to remain immune from responsibility.

Those companies have contributed to the crisis by their practices, including moving US jobs overseas.  Whilst people in India are getting work and money, US citizens, who will be paying for this bailout via their taxes, are subsidizing the citizens of another nation.  That is unacceptable.

The executives cannot be permitted to keep their extravagant salaries and lifestyle with subsidization by the taxpayer, they must be restricted and prevebnted from profiting from this.

The government must start trying to save the Social Security fund.  Becoming part-owners of these companies that are begging for Government help will benefit the taxpayers in the long term.

Without the safeguards listed above, as well as those people who are wiser financially than I can come up with, this bailout is nothing more than theft of taxpayer money to fatten the wallets of executives who don’t care about US citizens.

If Congress does this, it needs to be replaced.  It won’t have served us, they’ll simply be accessories to massive fraud and working solely for those who have the money – our money!

Enough already!  If these companies want help, make them help those of us who are paying to help them, by returning jobs to the US and stop making personal fortunes to our detriment!

I’m not sure which is the more enraging right now.

That a hotel seems to have a company policy to refuse accommodation for any service member in the UK.

Or that the (parent?) company has the gall to call itself “American Amusements” with such a policy in place.

What

The

Fuck?

Such a policy sure as hell isn’t “American” (unless you count certain unmentionable crazies who qualify as “American” solely on the fact it’s their citizenship, not their philosophy).

From “American Amusement”’s website:

American Amusements Ltd is one of the UK’s fastest growing and most successful Leisure Company’s.

Ignoring the fact that they can’t spell “Companies” correctly, I sincerely hope that, as of today, they become the UK’s fastest shrinking and failing company.

Combining a winning blend of family entertainment facilities and exciting late-bar activities, American Amusement Centres seek to offer a variety of unrivalled indoor entertainment for all.

Except, it seems, service personnel.

The hotel duty manager didn’t even have the courage to face the soldier themselves – they were “unavailable”.

Use their web site to find their business locations – and boycott them.

These ingrates need to pay a price for their policy. It’s not nearly the price the people whose patronage they deem “unworthy” risk paying, and I’m sure they’ll whine about how unfair it is – but it’s about time people who dishonour service personnel this egregiously started having some of the benefits they enjoy withdrawn.

The only way companies like this will ever understand the error of their ways is by hitting them in the only place that truly matters – their bottom lines.

You have to wonder if the UK will ever evolve, or will Rudyard Kipling be quoted for ever:

I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.

We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.

You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!

Rudyard Kipling’s poem: Tommy

Update: The BBC has a followup article.

According to a statement made by American Amusements:

A spokesman said: “The hotel management has always had an open door policy to all its visitors and guests, including members of the military and armed forces, and will continue to do so.”

He added: “On this particular occasion there was a mistake made by a duty receptionist and the hotel management sincerely apologises for that mistake.”

So we’re supposed to believe that a receptionist decided on her own to exclude military personnel, and that she stated on her own initiative that it was company policy?

So why was the duty manager “unavailable”?  I’m sure he or she could have set things straight – were the receptionist truly in error as they claim.

Was the receptionists “mistake” really to admit to a company policy excluding service personnel, rather than come up with a more palatable lame excuse like “we’re full”?

Of course, we’re talking about the UK here, and the statement will be accepted at face value, no matter how illogical it seems, by The Powers That Be – because they refuse to accept there is a problem over there to begin with!

Derek Twigg, a Defence Minister (read, politician) says:

“I am delighted that the armed forces generally enjoy immense respect and gratitude on the part of the nation and that contrary sentiments are rare, though evidently they exist.”

I guess he’s been sleeping when service personnel were advised not to wear their uniforms in public, or when wounded veterans were told to get out of a swimming pool they were undergoing rehab in because they were scaring the children, and hadn’t paid to use the pool.

Maybe he didn’t hear about the furore local residents made over the family accomodation house for Headley Court, or how spraining your thumb from RSI as a civilian employee entitles you to twice as much compensation as a Marine who loses both legs and an arm?

Let this one slide with illogical excuses from American Entertainment, and it’ll simply encourage more of the ingrates infesting the UK to do the same.

Once upon a time, I thought Ryanair took it to extremes when it came to “no frills” flying – but not even they have come up with this idea …

Both the BBC News and CNN.com websites report on the decision by regional airline Air Canada Jazz to remove life-vests from their planes, citing Canadian regulations that say they’re not needed when flying within 50 miles from land.

Apparently, Air Canada Jazz thinks seat cushions are sufficient flotation devices for their passengers’ safety over water.

Umm …

What

The

Fuck?

Excuse me – what about people who can’t hold on to a cushion? Kids? The elderly? People with disabilities?

Even if a flight goes down within 50 miles of land, that doesn’t mean it’s within 50 miles of SAR showing up, either. A bunch of people dumped into the Great Lakes aren’t going to be able to hold onto those seat cushions for very long – it’s kind of cold up there.

That’s always assuming they can even get out the emergency exits with those cushions getting in the way to begin with!

This has to be the most insane idea airlines have come up with yet. Didn’t the Titanic teach anyone that you can never have enough life saving equipment when it comes to water?

Lets face it, it sounds a lot like the usual historical practice of airlines – the costs saved by not doing something are presumably greater than the costs incurred for liability if something goes wrong.

So people have to ask themselves – just how much do they want to use an airline that thinks the potential costs of being sued by survivors or the relatives of victims of an air disaster is less than the costs saved by removing safety equipment this egregiously?

What else would people consider an “acceptable” removal of safety equipment to cut costs? Perhaps double up on oxygen masks? Replace the emergency chutes with a rope at the door?

If there is an air crash involving Air Canada Jazz, and if passengers die in the water from that crash, someone better arrest, charge, and try every single board member, manager, and beancounter of Air Canada Jazz for willfully negligent homicide.

See if those people consider that an acceptable risk.

Since everyone appears to think they’re somehow experts on the subject, here are my predictions for the upcoming Presidential Elections pre-game rally – the conventions.

• Hillary Clinton will try to steal the nomination for Democratic Presidential candidate at the convention.
• John McCain will announce Joe Lieberman as his running mate at some point.

There. With a side note that it’s a pity there isn’t a Paris Hilton/Stephen Colbert ticket. The political system is a joke, so the pair of them are far more qualified!!

Comments

• August 16, 2008, hank_reardon (3 comments) writes: Here is my prediction, There will be a cyanide attack during the dmc Bush will declare martial law bush will stay