Why?

Why is it that the men who most want war refuse to go?

Why is it that the men who rail against gays, get caught in the closet,(and sometimes the public water closet?)

Why is it the men who proclaim family values have mistresses? And accuse their opponents of being gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Why is it that the men who are destroying health care reform already have health care?

I understand that these qualities aren't limited to the male gender, but I truly don't understand how crazy got to be the new normal.

Tell me...
Why
Why?



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

And we'll drink and dance with one hand free, And have the world so easily

UPDATED below.

I don't suppose I have to spend a whole lot of time going over details of the whole AIG bailout and bonus brouhaha. It's pretty much everywhere at the moment.

The bonuses were kind of the icing on the cake to all the news from the past several months of the very companies crying "Help!" with their palms outstretched to the taxpayers turning around and being caught continuing their pampered lifestyles with spa vacations, superbowl parties and so on. They are like the trophy wife in a divorce wanting $100,000 a month in alimony to continue "the lifestyle I've become accustomed to". Like the sports star who will turn his nose up at a $15 million a year contract to hold out for $25 million a year with the reasoning "I have to feed my family", to which the average person wonders "What the hell do you feed them... bowls of diamonds??!!"

They are in a different world than the rest of us and can't understand (or, at least, don't care) that their greed and massive excess is disgusting to those "beneath" them in the economic scale. But the part that galls people the most is that it's now being practiced on the taxpayers dime. Taxes paid by people not worried about having to buy one less Rolls Royce or vacation home, but instead worried about staying in their one home and having money to put food in the refrigerator.

I did get a chuckle out of this:

Edward M. Liddy, the government-appointed chairman of A.I.G., said at least some bonuses were needed to keep the most skilled executives.
“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses."

And that's the biggest outrage: Having to hand out big bonuses to the very same people - contracted or not - who put their company, and the globe, into the mess that necessitated the bailout in the first place. "The best and the brightest". Steering the ship into the rocks and then making Gilligan an admiral. Yeah. It all makes sense to me.

If they are the best and the brightest, then God help us all. Hannibal Lecter was considered extremely bright, but I certainly wouldn't turn my back on him.

Addendum by The Sailor: Just when you thought the AIG scandals couldn't get any worse, we the people,owners of 80% of AIG, are suing ourselves for tax refunds:

A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.
[...]
The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 27 in Federal District Court in Manhattan, details, among other things, certain tax-related dealings of the financial products unit, the once high-flying division that has been singled out for its role in A.I.G.’s financial crisis last fall. Other deals involved A.I.G. offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chairman, and the Starr International Company, a privately held enterprise incorporated in Panama, and commonly known as SICO.

Can you freakin' believe the sheer gall of these folks!?

Well can't you just let it ring a little longer

Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows my computer love is reserved for all things Mac. I've been using Macs since 1985, owned my first in 1990, and am typing one one now. I do use PCs when I have to, but using a Mac is like wearing my own comfortable clothes.

Apple has long been considered a progressive company, not only technologically, but socially. Heck, they even donated $100,000 to the recent No on Pro. 8 campaign here in CA. But this really makes me sad, and is hardly progressive:

Walmart has started to sell the iPhone 3G at nearly 2,500 Walmart stores beginning Sunday, December 28, 2008. The retailer is offering the black 8 GB iPhone 3G model with the price of $197 and the 16 GB black or white model for $297, with a new two-year service agreement from AT&T or qualified upgrade.

Damn. Hardly surprising, I guess. Profit transcends ideology for most companies. And for some other allegedly progressive folks too, who felt a need 2 years ago to get in bed with awful Walmart:

Don Henley is famous for his green causes and bad temper. Wal-Mart is famous for hyper capitalism and exploitation of its workers. What do these two parties have in common? Well they are now in business together, probably for the rest of Henley’s life.

An announcement on October 18 claimed that The Eagles are giving Wal-Mart an exclusive on their upcoming recordings that will be made and released sans major label.

Bastards. All of them.

People say I'm crazy, doing what I'm doing.

As our Tonstant Weaders know, I frequently cross-post between here and VidiotSpeak.

But this is the first time I've ever quoted and linked to a VS post I was not the soul (sic) author on.

And it's because I and my co-bloggers over there all contributed to creating this and I, in my egocentric way, think it's important to share with SteveAudio's crowd:

Let's not muddy the waters…
posted by Bill Arnett

Updates below

This latest "incident" involving, allegedly, five Iranian patrol boats almost being fired upon by the U.S. Navy begs the question: If the American ships were in international waters available for passage by all ships, why aren't the Iranians allowed to be in international waters just like anyone else?

Why should the Navy have fired on boats in international waters just because they didn't like fellow boaters from Iran tailing their ships?

And, lastly, if the U.S. Navy HAD fired on the Iranian boats would they not themselves be in violation of international law, the laws of the sea, treaty and have, once more, taken aggressive, provocative action against a peaceful nation in order to provoke a defensive reaction as a prelude to another illegal American war?

So, again, we hear all this bellicosity from bushco's navy about boats being where they were lawfully entitled to be and we're supposed to take bushco's representation that the Iranians somehow violated any treaties or obligations by being lawfully within international waters?

Sailor, you probably know more about this than I, but aren't international waters open to all, without regard to political affiliation or country? Hence the name, "International waters?"

Why can't the MSM figure stuff like this out on their own?

Update by The Sailor:The encounter lasted 20 minutes and the US edited it to 4 minutes. The audio and video were recorded separately, edited, allegedly 'synched' and released by the Pentagon.Here's a link to to the heavily edited video.

From the original reports I thought the navy was talking about fast attack boats, (AKA Swiftboats or PT boats), but the Iranian's boats are no bigger than speedboats on my lake. So we're talking about a boat maybe 30 feet long vs a ship 500 feet long that has guns, torpedoes and helicopters!

International waters are open to all, but that doesn't mean you can harass anyone and 200 yards is harassment to a naval warship in international waters, (in addition to all of the Right Of Way Rules that I teach my students is the unlisted 'Law of Tonnage', especially if they have guns;-).

OTOH, according to the Navy, according to the AP

The confrontation with the Iranian boats happened at the eastern end of the Straits, about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, according to the Navy.

Now that's harassment!

Just think if a hostile country put 3 of the most advanced warships in the world 15 miles from America? And all we responded with were 5 speedboats without armor or heavy weapons.

Jeebus, look at the boat, it's 2 guys sitting in a glorified bassboat with an outboard! And they're not 'dressed in orange' as the AP article says, they're wearing PFDs (life preservers.) As every motor boater should according to the US Coast Guard.

The AP article also states that the US Navy 'faced down' the Iranians.
Pfft. I can 'face down' anyone who shows up to a gunfight with a knife.

So who has the most to gain from this 'confrontation?'

Iran, who could only respond with 5 unarmed speedboats to 3 heavily armed US warships within striking distance of their shores?

Or bush, about to embark on a Middle East 'mission' who insists, despite all evidence, that Iran is a nukular (sic) threat?

Bump & Update II by The Sailor: Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon’s video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself.

Read the whole thing, seriously, even the comments are interesting.

And The Vidiot noted something I missed on a letter board she reads:

The voice from the 'speedboat' does not appear to include background engine or wind noise - WHY? Outboards are noisy, fast moving craft on open sea have wind noise and what about the crashing sound when a small craft hits a wave? FAKE"

The letter writer is absolutely correct and as a sailor and former sound engineer I should have caught it.