Flying while drunk

It would seem that some airlines need to re-think their alcohol policies in light of the latest display of utter idiotic behavior by a passenger. Apparently, a French woman tried to open the door of an aircraft as she was taking a drag while being intoxicated.

Here are the details (courtesy of cnn.com):
A French woman who is terrified of flying admitted in an Australian court Monday that she drunkenly tried to open an airplane door mid-flight to smoke a cigarette.
Sadrine Helene Sellies, 34, was placed on a good behavior bond after pleading guilty in Brisbane Magistrates Court to endangering the safety of an aircraft.

If I was on that plane, I can certainly say I would have bought some drinks for whomever stopped this moron. While everyone is worried about pilots being drunk, it would seem that there isn't enough concern about the passengers being sloshed. My question is: Just how drunk do you need to be to try and open an airplane door? The other question becomes whether the airlines need to re-think their smoking policies and bring back the smoking section so that a bunch of people don't have to risk becoming fish food because someone being ridiculously drunk and having a nic fit at the same time. And lastly, she must have been a 1st class passenger being that she was let off on a good behavior bond. Boy, am I glad I'm not her husband.

I guess it's a good thing that those doors are really hard to open.

Right to a Perfect World? - NOT!

A discussion on CNN's American Morning about the latest in the long line of frivolous lawsuits is being pitched as:
'An angry passenger sues after being bumped from a flight. What are your rights if an airline overbooks or cancels on you?'

Srop right there. No need to read any further into this one. I don't give a shit how long someone had to wait to get on another flight because they were bumped off a flight or because a flight is cancelled; they should not have the right to sue an airline because of it. There is no way to prove intentional wrong-doing and the result of any negligence, in most cases, is not grounds for punishing the airlines.

Let's get something straight. We are not born to this Earth with the right to experience the perfect life - regardless of whether your name is Rockefeller or Kennedy or whatever. SHIT HAPPENS!! Nobody benefits from lawsuits like this except the selfish ass who brings it and gets the settlement. The rest of us get screwed by having to pay higher prices because one person couldn't deal with being inconvenienced. Airlines are usually more than happy to give upgrades and offer other reconcilitory measures if you complain to them - hell, sometimes you don't even have to and it comes automatic.

Regardless of what product or service your talking about, the concept of sueing over an inconvenience is generally ridiculous and counterproductive. It hurts the economy and causes more tax dollars to be wasted. I can understand wanting to stick it to "the man", but that's not what's happening. Mostly, we're sticking it to ourselves.

Wait..it gets better

Reading further into the moon land sales article, it is interesting to note the Chinese company that was shut down was actually the China agent of a U.S.-based firm called Lunar Embassy. In light of this, I'd say we need to see my proposal acted upon sooner rather than later. As much flap as the Chinese get about recognizing human rights, I have to say that at least they still recognize the concept of common sense.

Here are the remaining details:
The domestically financed firm is the China agent of the U.S.-based Lunar Embassy, an extra-terrestrial real estate agency aimed at exploiting what it sees as a loophole in a 1967 international treaty on the moon.
Earlier this month, the Lunar Embassy started selling domain names for the "extra-terrestrial Internet", which the company says will eventually include Web sites with such endings as .lunar, .space and .uranus.

They need to some other domain endings for the "extra-terrestrial Internet" such as .wacko, .duh, and .oncrack.

Creative profiteering

On a lighter note than yesterday, I have noticed that there are increasingly creative ways to make a buck if you've got serious nerve and a really good poker face. Well, actually, e-commerce makes it so don't even have to have a poker face at all.

Take this for example (from cnn.com):

Beijing, China -
For sale: acre plots, great Earth views, low gravity, moonrock-bottom prices, about as away from it all as you can get.
A Chinese company is fighting for the right to pitch plots of land on the moon for sale after authorities shut the scheme down on charges of profiteering and lunacy.
Beijing Lunar Village Aeronautics Science and Technology Co. has sued commercial authorities in China's capital for suspending its business licence on October 28, just days after it opened, Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday.
"There is not a law or regulation in China that prohibits the selling of land on the moon," chief executive officer Li Jie was quoted as saying.
"They don't have enough evidence to make the ruling."

Regarding this, I'd like to know a couple things. First, can someone in the U.S. be charged with lunacy? If not, then some Congressmen and State legislators need to get busy drafting some state and federal bills allowing this happen because we can do some serious cleaning up in this country if we can actually charge someone with "lunacy". I wonder what the criteria of that charge is. I'll have to make a mental note to research that one.

Anyhow, back to moon land sales. While I'm a big proponent of thinking ahead, I think most would agree with me that this is taking it a little far. Then again, with real estate prices in America rising the way they are, I might just have to look into this a little more. ;-)

My favorite part of this is actually the arguement that there isn't a law prohibiting selling land on the moon. Someone needs to tell this jackass that you have to own something before you can sell it and the oil companies already have the moon staked out. They hashed that out along with other provisions in 2001 when they met with Dick Cheney on that Energy Task Force business. Oh yeah, they didn't really do that. Almost forgot.

Justice for whom?

I'm sure we're all too familiar with the inconsistencies and injustices produced by our "justice" system, but recent events should push us toward an important question. Who is getting justice from our justice system? Answer: Next to nobody. The current state of our system defies even the most distorted notion of what justice is.

Let's look at just a couple cases and try not to vomit in response to sad facts of them and the ultimate conclusion.

This is an excerpt from an article regarding "sentencing" for the mother of the starved Jackson boys that most of us are all too familar with. Take notice of the bold print sections. (excerpt from philly.com - Phila. Inqirer article)

CAMDEN, N.J. - A woman accused of systematically starving her four adopted sons pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of child endangerment, admitting she did not provide the children with proper food or medical care.
Prosecutors who signed off on the plea deal for Vanessa Jackson are recommending she serve a seven-year sentence in state prison. She could be eligible for parole in less than two years.
Under the deal, though, a three-judge panel could put Jackson in a program that could reduce her prison time even further. Sentencing is set for Feb. 10.
Jackson, 50, and her husband, Raymond Jackson, were thrust into the national spotlight in October 2003 when their adopted son, Bruce, was found scavenging for food in a neighbor's trash can. He was 19, but from his size - just 45 pounds - police figured him for about 7-years old.
Three younger boys in the home were equally gaunt.
Jackson and her husband were each charged with 28 counts of aggravated assault and child endangerment. Raymond Jackson died of a stroke last year. The criminal case against his wife continued, and she could have faced a sentence of hundreds of years in prison.

Let's keep those sentence figures in mind as we review the facts of this next case (excerpt from cnn.com):

GOLDEN, Colorado (AP) -- A woman who authorities said had sex with high school boys during alcohol- and drug-fueled parties has been sentenced to 30 years in prison, officials said.
Silvia Johnson, 41, described herself to investigators as a "cool mom" who "was never popular with classmates in high school" and who was beginning to feel like one of the group.
She pleaded guilty in July to two misdemeanor counts of sexual assault and nine felony counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. (Watch the judge's scolding -- 1:20)
She also was sentenced for additional charges of third-degree assault, violation of a restraining order and harassment for unrelated cases involving her husband and children, prosecution spokesman Carl Blesch said.
Authorities said Johnson held parties for the boys almost weekly between October 2003 and October 2004. They said Johnson provided drugs and alcohol to eight boys and had sex with five of them.
Johnson was to be sentenced on September 26, but the hearing was postponed after she was injured the day before while riding in an SUV that veered off an interstate.

Ok, let's do some math here. 30 years and 7 years - that's a difference of 23 years and that doesn't take parole info consideration. The woman being sentenced to 30 years did some pretty immoral things, yes, but the fact is that the young men she banged and drugged probably didn't suffer a whole lot compared to the boys who starved and endured God knows what else at the hands of their own guardians.

I could go on stating other ridiculous cases, but we're too familiar with them, so let's skip to what it all means. We don't have a f---in justice system. We have a system of controls that punishes only so far as it is expedient for the state to do so and punishes more according to the plaintiff and defendant's social status and the nature of the crime versus the severity of the crime and ultimate rammifications. The Jackson boys will probably never be completely healthy individuals, neither phyisically and sure as hell not psychologically. Yet, their guardian (I dare not call that scumbag bitch a mother) will probably get to go on with her life, scamming and stealing all the way, in another couple years after she makes parole because everyone will have forgotten by then. The party boys, on the other hand, will go off to college and probably brag about the parties they had and how they had their way sexually with this desparate 40-something housewife.

Another major factor prohibiting justice is the inability of the state to proficiently pursue and collect evidence that can actually make a real case. As a result, the states are held hostage to defense lawyers who rake in the dough at the end of the day.

Oh, and by the way, John Lennon's killer is up for parole - again. This is parole hearing #3 for him. John, on the other hand, doesn't get a hearing to get his life back.

With justice like this, anarchy is inevitable.

Getting started

For those of you who know me, you probably have a pretty good idea of what to expect from this blog in terms of commentary and topics, but those of you who don't, the short list would be: political humor and occasional bashing, strange happenings, and general ragging on the stupid people of our society (most of whom work for the various components of mass media, which is why reasonably intelligent people feel the need to start blogs such as this one).

So let's get started. Commentary is welcomed and encouraged.