January 28, 2009
— Slublog You're in a plane that hits a flock of geese over the most populated city in the United States. Against all odds, your pilot keeps the plane under control and does what no other commercial airline pilot has ever successfully done. You and everyone on that plane with you survives the ordeal.
What's your response? Gratitude to the pilot and the airline who hired him? A rethinking of life's priorities?
Nah.
If you're Joe Hart, it's lawsuit time!
Joe Hart, a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he “would like to be made whole for the incident.”The significance of the incident? The significance of the incident, you ungrateful doofus, is that you and everyone on that plane is alive. I'm not sure what disgusts me more - that Joe Hart sees his brush with death as nothing more than the opportunity for a payout, or the fact that some catfish-like law firm is willing to actually take his case.It’s too soon after the accident to determine what emotional distress he has suffered, he says.
...In addition to recovering losses, Hart says he's concerned about having trouble flying. He's flown on six planes since the accident, and each flight has gotten "progressively more difficult."
He says he was tense, sweated and "felt every bit of turbulence" on a Los Angeles-to-Philadelphia flight last week, though it wasn't that turbulent a flight.
Hart says he has talked to a lawyer in North Carolina but hasnÂ’t decided whether to take any legal action.
“I want to see how things play out with US Airways,” he says. “I’m hopeful US Airways understands the significance of the incident.”
What holy bleeding hell is wrong with these people? Are they going to argue that the airline has liability because they did not use reasonable care in avoiding a flock of geese that randomly flew in front of an airplane?
I agree with Rachel Lucas on this one. If you want to sue someone, sue the geese who flew in front of that plane.
Heh - From the comments:
I'm channeling the geese right now... They're speaking through me...You morons crack me up."Honk! Honk!", you say? The big airplane ran into you? It didn't even try to turn?
Ladies and gentlemen! Justice must be done! And I must receive 20 percent!
Posted by: John Edwards at January 28, 2009 10:10 AM (7dXKM)
Posted by: Slublog at
05:18 AM
| Comments (141)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.
— Gabriel Malor
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:14 AM
| Comments (20)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
January 27, 2009
— Gabriel Malor Here's a bit of blog-fodder I found in my inbox this morning. Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit refused to re-hear en banc (PDF) a Pledge of Allegiance case it decided in July (which I didn't hear about then because I was busy taking the bar exam). The case is Frazier v. Alexandre; a copy of last year's decision is here (PDF).
In a nutshell, a Florida statute requires that public school students K-12 stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. There is an exception, however, for students whose parents provide a note requesting that they be excused from reciting it. There is not an exception for students who choose not to participate but for whatever reason cannot get a note from a parent.
A public school student, along with his mother, sued. They argued that the "Pledge Statute" was an unconstitutional violation of his First Amendment rights. They were on pretty solid legal ground. The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that public school students cannot be compelled to salute the flag or pledge allegiance (although the majority decision caused Justice Frankfurter to write a famous lament for the death of judicial restraint).
However, the student and his mother lost in the Eleventh Circuit. The panel held that the Pledge Statute involves parental rights to control the education of their children more than it does students' speech rights. Parental rights, though not enumerated in the Constitution, are among the earliest rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a component of the "liberty" protected under the Due Process Clause. The panel held that parental rights, though not enumerated in the Constitution, trump a student's First Amendment speech rights. They denied the student's facial challenge.
So what do you think? Can (or should) the government be able to compel a public school student's speech, so long as they give the student's parents the option to excuse him? more...
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:57 PM
| Comments (106)
Post contains 667 words, total size 5 kb.
— Dave in Texas This is said in print, as if with a straight face, and almost like it's a big fuckin deal or something.
The case could drag on for weeks or even months -- and all the while, Minnesota will be fighting for federal funds with one senator tied behind its back.
My fellow Texan (no more a native than I am) is apparently on the front line of the orders from the left: "you are all charged with making the stupidest of arguments on behalf of our side". The long drawn out fight should just be conceded because golly darn, what will Minnesota do with just one Senator while this mess is counted and shit?
I don't know. Not participate in the federal legislative process until it's properly resolved because they couldn't seem to come to some agreement up there?
Personally I can't work up an ounce of "give a shit" for Norm Coleman, but he's got a right to fight it out Paul. Your argument doesn't sound "noble". It doesn't sound "important". It sounds like, what's the word I'm looking for? Fucking partisan bullshit from the CNN dorks that give you a megaphone. Yes. That's the word.
Ok, words.
UPDATE: couple of astute commenters have already pointed out the Dems were willing to let South Dakota ride it out with Sen. Tim Johnson out of action following his stroke for nine months. For the good of the nation.
Nuance.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
08:21 PM
| Comments (44)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
— Open Blog (And anything else that crawls across your mental threshold.)
In keeping with the tradition of AosHQ being a very smart military blog, IÂ’m pleased to present Cracked.comÂ’s list of The 11 Most Retarded Fictional Weapons.
”What would you give for a working lightsaber? Or, barring that, a pulse rifle from Aliens?““If we could make fictional weapons real, there's no limit to the ass we could kick. That's because writers and prop departments are usually pretty good at coming up with weapons too badass to exist. Usually.“
“Sometimes, though, they get so involved in making something that looks cool on the screen that they come up with a weapon that, in reality, would be more dangerous to the guy using it.”
Cracked harshes on the Bat’leth, but does make a good point. Nice ceremonial weapon for an “honorable” deathmatch, but why get up close and personal when a disruptor works perfectly fine? Note also how the first weapon they list (Batman’s “Batarang”) is basically just a compressed version of the bat’leth.
But there's a glaring omission on their list: The “Weirding Module” form David Lynch’s version of Dune. Never mind that the weapon wasn’t even in the novels, but hopefully it had some pretty sturdy safety measures built into it. As an amplified, sound-based pulverizing weapon, what happens if you suddenly have an uncontrollable sneeze while demonstrating it? Oh well, just get a new group of military advisors. I think in the movie they said that some words had a more devastating effect than others.
Other powerful/destructive words are: heh, Valu-Rite, hobo, Skittles, cockholster, Hillary and vagina. ThatÂ’s just a partial list.
Geekery x2 below the fold.
more...
Posted by: Open Blog at
07:29 PM
| Comments (119)
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace Patriotism. I love my country, so long as my preferred political party is in office.
More: But they'll always love Che, even if he was a serial killer.
In fact, they'll get palpably angry if you even mention that.
Posted by: Ace at
02:18 PM
| Comments (163)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace She's a player; she needs to do this.
I don't think we got a real handle on Palin's politics -- only some of it , not nearly all -- during he campaign. Most importantly, she was a deputy in service of John McCain, so many of her actual stances were burred or suppressed entirely to remain on message. In addition, her sudden, shock elevation to the national stage didn't give her a lot of time to announce her political thinking, or to develop it where she hadn't thought about it too much at all.
This PAC -- and hopefully a more prominent role as spokesperson for the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- will do a lot to put some flesh on the bones of what, I hope, will coalesce into an actual "Palinite" program. Which candidates will she actively support? What heterodoxies are deal-breakers? Hopefully we'll soon be finding out.
I do hope that she was just making nice-nice with McCain on border (in)security and amnesty.
Oh: Despite previous questions, it's real, not a prank.
Posted by: Ace at
12:31 PM
| Comments (145)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace Well, not death by a thousand cuts, but maybe superficial wounds by ten or twelve cuts.
Expose the bullshit, win the argument:
Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."
He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups' political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year.
But he said the funding is just one example of frivolous spending items in the $825 billion package.
"It's just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill," Vitter said. "It's line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill -- not a job creation bill."
Not only is this good policy, it's good immunization as far as politics. By raising awareness of obviously non-stimulating pork bullshit by this, Republicans lay the predicate for voting against the bill and being praised, or at least not scorned, for doing so -- because the public is wise enough to know that for every major case of shenanigans like this, there are six or seven less major ones still lurking in the Great Liberal Budget Blowout Bonanza of 2009.
Thanks to Dan.
Vid: Vitter Slams. At William Amos'.
Posted by: Ace at
12:13 PM
| Comments (92)
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace I'm only posting this because it has hot chicks in lingerie having sex with vegetables. Or at least foreplay with them.
Of course, PETA submitted this ad to run in the Super Bowl, knowing they'd be rejected, and then would 1) not have to pay for the ad but 2) get lots of free media for their "rejected too-hot-for-tv ad."
It's so fucking childish. I guess I can't beat up on PETA because this sort of deliberate tween-aged shock value stunt always works. At least as far as getting the never-intended-for-airing ad on the local news.
On the other hand, I can beat up on the media for always rewarding this stupidity. The media will jump at any opportunity, under the guise of "controversy" or "newsworthiness," to run stories about 1) celebrites or 2) sex.
Want to bring attention to your cause? Accuse some celebrity or movie or tv show of being "insensitive," somehow.
Is no one being insensitive? No problem; cut an ad with hot chicks giving hand-jays to arugala.
Would it work for the GOP? Maybe we should start cutting ads like this. Like Jim DeMint being chased, Beatles-like, by topless busty women, because his economic ideas are so hhhhottt.
Posted by: Ace at
12:06 PM
| Comments (81)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace Virtual fraud:
A virtual border surveillance program Gov. Rick Perry has committed millions of taxpayer dollars to fell far short of expectations during the first six months of operation.Border sheriffs, who Perry gave $2 million to line the Texas-Mexico border with hundreds of Web cameras, installed only about a dozen and made just a handful of apprehensions as a result of tips from online viewers.
Reports obtained by the El Paso Times under the Texas Public Information Act show that the cameras produced a fraction of the objectives Perry outlined.Perry's office acknowledged the reported results were a far from the expectations but said the problem was with the yardstick used to measure the outcome and not with the camera program.
"The Virtual border progress reports need to be adjusted to come in line with the strategy," said Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger.
What the hell does that last statement mean? How can progress reports come in line with the strategy? Was the strategy to fail?
Rhetorical question; of course that was the strategy. The strategy is to appease the public with bullshit window-dressing while doing nothing to actually stop the problem.
Thanks to Gabriel Hussein Malor.
Posted by: Ace at
11:49 AM
| Comments (66)
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
44 queries taking 0.3516 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
