Tension in the Ranks in Blighty

CAPT H sends: Colonel sacked for rebuke over visits to injured.

Sean Rayment, writing in the Sunday Telegraph:

A high-flying Army officer has been sacked for rebuking a senior commander who failed to visit injured troops in hospital.

Col Julian Clover, 43, was dismissed from his post as a staff officer at the Army's Land Command headquarters after clashing with his superior over the need for senior officers to visit troops injured in Afghanistan and Iraq at the Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

His sacking has sent shock waves through Land Command, the biggest Army headquarters in Britain, and has raised concerns that some senior officers are "out of touch" with the concerns of the rank and file.

There's more to the story.

Brig Bruce Brealey, 47, who had previously served in the Royal Artillery, was on a rota of senior officers who had been asked to visit Selly Oak hospital in November to check up on the soldiers' welfare and to deal with any complaints they might have. It is understood, however, that before he was due to travel to the hospital he delegated the visit to Col Clover, who at the time was an assistant chief of staff with responsibility for media operations at the headquarters.

After visiting the hospital, Col Clover had a meeting with Brig Brealey in which he expressed his view in a "forthright and uncompromising manner" that it was not acceptable for senior officers to delegate the responsibility of visiting injured troops to junior officers. The two officers were known by colleagues to have had a difficult working relationship.

Brigadier Brealy is referred to by a fellow officer as a "process man" whilst Colonel Clover has made a career in unconventional operations. A clash of personalities.

I'm no Brit, so I may be wrong, but I read this rather as Brigadier Brealy is a Stuffed Shirt Rule-bound Garret Trooper, while Colonel Clover is rather more results-oriented. I can see, being a Brigadier, how your schedule might be pretty full and it's hard to carve out the time to do things like that. Who knows what the travel time is to the hospital?

Of course, that's why you have a vehicle with a driver, and a cell phone, etc - and a laptop. No reason you can't work while in the vehicle going to and fro. And I suspect the hospital might just allow you some leeway in visiting hours, so you could go after work.

And, I suspect, this incident was merely the straw that broke the camel's back for the Brigadier, what with that unruly subordinate. The Brigadier undoubtedly has a story.

Absent any more information, however, I frankly don't care. Bad Brigadier. Sit, stay! You can't find time in your schedule to go visit soldiers? To show you actually care for soldiers - and make the hospital people know you care for soldiers, especially wounded ones? If you can't muster that kind of professionalism, then, in my book, you are unworthy of your commission.

Worse, the man's a Gunner. An Artilleryman. A Redleg (which no doubt was *some* of CAPT H's motivation for sending me the story).

Meaningless as it is, I shun you, sir. I call upon Saint Barbara to withdraw her patronage from you.

Unless you've got a far better reason than the story indicates. If so, I'm sure Saint Barbara will take that into consideration. However, if I hear of you suffering a horrible accident involving a barbecue gone wild... or something similar - well, we'll know Saint Barbara's opinion, won't we?*

This isn't about Colonel Clover - wronged or not. He's getting by on his 70K ($135K USD) salary just fine.

This is about the soldiers, wounded soldiers, you didn't have time for.

Shame, Brigadier. Shame.

You can read the whole story here.

If someone can show me the Brigadier's side of the story, I'll be happy to run with it.

*Note to unbalanced personalities. Don't help the Saint. She doesn't need it. Let her be the judge. Don't you do a thing. -the Armorer

Oh good golly gee, save me from the Crusaders.

And no, I don't smoke.

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

Yep. I didn't make that up. It gets better, though.

It's the attitude.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image [sic] how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

I'm betting he said "Imagine" and the paper just spell-checked themselves into that corner.

Okay - let's do some imagining. First, let's change the quote a teensy bit.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [fill in the blank] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

Alrighty then. Would not then, all these statements be true? Where *do* we draw the line.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [drinking] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [drug use] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [gun ownership] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [vehicle ownership] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [bathtubs] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [fill in the blank] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [being overweight] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [unprotected sex] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law against [fast food] as we can, I would like to make it illegal,� said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.�

Go ahead, come up with your own. I've made this a Denizen post so Denizens can add to the post directly, not just via the comments.

Pope Benedict and Manuel Paleologus...

SWWBO, Chief Catholic here at Castle Argghhh! has been all over this.

So, the Pope has apologized.

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that didn't reflect his personal opinion.

Over this:

In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Works for me - he's sorry that a bunch of ignorant punks took remarks out of context and got their panties in a twist.

Guess what? I'm sorry they're a bunch of ignorant punks, too. And I'm not just talking about the Imams and their congregations deep in the Muslim world who can be expected to have a profound ignorance of Christian and Western history and, fed by a sound bite secularist western media, only heard the remarks out of context, and then behaved in the (to my eyes) childish ways they have become so famous for... torching churches, tossing firebombs, the usual reaction of certain practioners of the religion of peace to words, any words, that might be perceived as... oh, I don't know, critical. Yet they look at you uncomprehendingly when you ask them about their criticism of, oh, judaism or christianity.

No, rather, I'm saving my greater contempt for the MSM and their reporting of he issue.

But I also like the fact that Benedict didn't apologize for the remarks, just expressed regret people got their panties in a twist.

Muslim reaction was mixed...

Mahmoud Ashour, the former deputy of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, told Al-Arabiya TV immediately after the pope's speech that, "It is not enough. He should apologize because he insulted the beliefs of Islam. He must apologize in a frank way and say he made a mistake."

What, quoting old dead white men to illustrate a point in how things have morphed over time is a mistake? Hmmmm, better check to see if this guy is on faculty at a Major University... He didn't make a mistake, he quoted from history to support a point. And if you aren't adult enough to work with that... okay.

There's no pulling the wool over the eyes of this academic, Mohammed al-Nujeimi, a professor at the Institute of Judicial and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, he got the point...

The pope does not want to apologize. He is evading apology and what he said today is a repetition of his previous statement," he told Al-Arabiya TV.

But the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, takes a more laid-back approach,

But the leader of Egypt's largest Islamic political group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said that "while anger over the Pope's remarks is necessary, it shouldn't last for long."

Of course, why does he take a laid-back view? He senses victory in the long-term...

While he is the head of the Catholic Church in the world, many Europeans are not following (the church) so what he said won't influence them. Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and cooperative," Mohammed Mahdi Akef told The Associated Press.

Methinks he sees Europe as ready to accept dhimmitude, following a template laid down by Vichy France.

I mined this article for the quotes.

Tagged. Gollum Style.

Dang it. Why did Trias tag me with this ‘what do you’ thing? You’se a cruel man Trias. Posting it here because Kat’s Place (middleground) is so serious, unlike Argghhh!

1) What scares me:
a) Losing my physical faculties, which I’m already starting to do.
b) Losing my mental faculties (I know what you’re thinking, but no, not yet.).
c) The idea that the inmates are running the asylum the world over.
2) People who make me laugh:
a) Pro-comedians(Bill Cosby, Billy Connley, Gabriel Iglesias)
b) People who do the same crap over and over with the expectation of a different result.
c) Myself. When you do as much stupid chit as I have you have to laugh.
d) My wife, Jess. How anyone so smart and so sophisticated can be so into silly stuff like Pokemon and the anime Fushigi Yugi just astounds the heck outta me.
3) Things I hate the most:
a) Elitism. This is the fastest way to piss me off in the world. That means much of the political left (since they seem to be so smug in believing that they are morally superior in just about every instance while those of us who disagree just aren’t capable of understanding their ideas.) and many comedians have lost me from the word go.
b) That I wasted 15 years of my life studying the wrong subject. Your vocation and avocation should be matched horses. Mine ain’t.
c) When my uber-liberal in-laws meddle or get ‘that look’ when I take a stand contrary to theirs. You aren’t my parents and life would be so much simpler if you understood that and acted that way.
4) Things I don’t understand:
(I don’t think there are enough slots to list that which I don’t understand, so I’ll just go with the top four.)
a) Willful ignorance.
b) Braniacs who have nothing but contempt physical activity and jocks.
c) Elitism.
d) The Church of Oprah.
5) Things I’m doing right now:
a) Thinking about whether the fuel budget can handle me driving up to Fowler to visit the VFW they have there.
b) Thinking about how to turn something The Armorer sent me last night into a meaningful blog post (impossible mission).
c) How I’m going to get my professional life re-tracked and how I’m going to get my grubby little hands on the materials (books, lectures, and ultimately some kind of certification) and the money to do so.
6) Things I want to do before I die.
a) Make Jess really happy for a really long time.
b) Be the son my Mom and Grandmother and Mrs. E raised me to be. Not there yet.
c) I should want to be more than a good husband, a good man, and a good son?
7) Things I can do:
a) Drive really long distances in a single sitting.
b) Distil hexane like there’s no tomorrow.
c) Know the direction of the four points of the compass even at night. Decent skill to have.
8) Ways to describe my personality:
a) Vitreous.
b) Immature.
c) Misanthropic.
9) Things I can’t do.
a) Convince my Wife to learn to drive.
b) Convince my Wife that firearms are not themselves inherently evil.
c) Convince my In-Laws that I really do know what I’m doing more than a quarter of the time, and that they should leave Jess and I the hell alone.
10) Things I think people should listen to:
a) Bill Cosby’s comedy album ‘Bill Cosby: Himself’
b) “Amazing Grace” played on the bag pipes at least once in their lifetime.
c) Yourself. You usually know what’s best for you.
d) Detractors. Sometimes they’ve got a point.
11) Things you should never listen to:
a) Grievance Mongers. They don’t want justice. They’re just narcissistic jerks who only want power for the sake of power.
b) Communists/revolutionaries. See above.
c) Guidance councilors. They may mean well, but these people usually haven’t a clue.
12) Favorite foods:
a) Pizza with chicken, Alfredo sauce, green onions, garlic, and a mix of mozzarella and other soft, white cheeses.
b) Coke-a-Cola.
c) Apple Fritters with milk. Easiest way to pacify me is to plop that down.
13) Things I’d like to learn:
a) Chinese, Korean, and get my Japanese back up to par.
b) How to do literature searches well. Seems more like an art than a science, and I’m not that artistic (with apologies to JTG. Autistic? Yes. Artistic? No.)
c) The true meaning of Grace.
14) Things I normally drink:
a) Filtered water.
b) Milk (2%, can’t stand 1% and non-fat. Blech.).
c) Coke, sometimes with lemons or cherry flavoring, and typically straight, right out of the refrigerator out of the can. Ice waters it down and drives off the carbonation. Ick.
15) Shows I watched as a kid (I watched a lot of tv, are we only allowed three?).
a) Popeye the Sailor, right before and right after Mass on KTLA channel 5 with Chris van Patton as the host.
b) KTLA channel 5’s weekend movies, hosted by Chris van Patton. Typically was either a war movie (like Tora! Tora! Tora!, Midway, or Battle of the Bulge) or the Godzilla movies of the 60’s and 70’s (Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster, Destroy All Mosters, stuff like that). Did sit thru Dr. Zhivago, once. Not easy for an 8 year old.
c) Robotech and Voltron on channel 13(3:30 and 4:00. Right before Mom would get home from working at Target in the inventory department(the docks)).
16) People I’m tagging with this?
Nobody. We’ve emberassed enough people for the week with this, doncha think?

Some people are just obtuse b@st@rds.

Heh. I hate piously sanctimonious field grade officers. Yeah, I know, that means I'm punching myself a lot.

Imagine this.

You are a holder of the Medal of Honor. On the advice of your superiors, you donate your Medal to a Divisional Museum, for safekeeping and preservation.

Over the years, you go visit the museum and you get the Medal and wear it for ceremonial occasions.

Then your age and infirmities put you in a position where you can no longer do that.

You're dying, and you'd like to wear your Medal again before you die.

And some piously sanctimonious field grade a$$hat says:

‘Tulbahadur Pun’s medal has been donated to the museum by his regimental association. We have a duty of care to ensure this medal is available to the public to see and it is secure.’

As if, in the cosmic scheme of things, the "Public" truly gives a flying flip in this regard. My guess is, Major Davies, if you were to poll the public as they filter through the doors, they'd be aghast at your attitude.

I am.

I'm sure there are rules and regulations to be followed. I have no doubt of that. I used to be a US Army paid military historian with staff responsibility for what amounts to a regimental museum here in the US.

And I would have found a way to get that Medal back to the guy whose name is on the back of it. I might have had to do a little fundraising to go to the extreme of actually sending someone with it, to bring it back, but I would have moved heaven and earth to get that Medal (in this case, a Victoria Cross awarded to a Gurkha soldier) back to its named recipient.

In this case, Honorary Lieutenant Tulbahadur Pun, VC, of the 6th Gurkha Rifles.

As the author of this post notes:

It’s a shoddy way for an old, dying man to be treated, after the part he played in our eventual victory. This man is one of only 12 VC winners still alive, so you’d think he’d be granted a little more respect and honour. I have e-mailed the Major at the museum with a link to this article and I will let you all know what his response, if any, is. Whilst I appreciate heritage being preserved, this all smacks of red tape, callous neglect and short memories. I simply can not accept that the logistics of reuniting Mister Pun with his medal one last time are unachievable.

In this country, when Sergeant Alvin York through poverty sold his Medal of Honor, a subscription drive was raised to re-purchase the Medal and restore it to him.

Surely something similar can be done (and I would argue Major Davies should be doing it) to grant Lieutenant Pun a chance to wear the Victoria Cross with his name on it.

Shame, Major Davies, shame for giving such a staff wallah bumf-driven reply.

Should you wish to share your thoughts with the museum on the subject: curator@thegurkhamuseum.co.uk

Another TSA story.

From a comment to the TSA post below. I just thought it should see the light of day.

The TSA really amazes me, they go out of their way to avoid charges of profiling and go overboard on other people. Travelling home on mid tour leave I had my body armor and helmet with me as carry on luggage. At that point I had been in combat for eight months, with all that implies. I had been in firefights, I had used C-4, hand grenades, AT4s, and since this was 2003 (before EOD was a handy phone call away) had had to dismantle the occasional IED. You could imagine my shock and surprise when my gear popped hot for a wide range of explosive chemicals when it was scanned. I can understand this causing questions, but the Uniform, ID card, leave form, fact that I am pretty sure most of the public was aware that a war was in progress and the obvious lack of any amount of actual explosives should have made it easy... But no, two hours of explaining myself and a missed flight later I was finally allowed through security...

Like I said - some judgement *is* required...

Heh. The TSA strikes.

First thing up in the mailbox this morning. My first reaction? Exactly the one of my emailer: WTF?

MSIG/OPREP-3 SIR/21-06/1STMARDIV//

SUBJ/SERIOUS INCIDENT REPORT 21-06//

REF/A/MCO 5740.2F//

NARR/REF A IS MCO ON SIRS//

POC/SGT CASTILLO/1STMARDIV CASOC/DSN 365-5006//

RMKS/1. AT APPROXIMATELY 1200 20060503, WHILE ESCORTING THE BODY OF SGT MILLS, LEA R. (OIF 05-07 USMC DECEASED) FROM DOVER AFB TO THE FINAL RESTING PLACE IN GULFPORT, MS, SGT STOCK, CPL BIGALK, CPL SCHADEBURG WERE STOPPED BY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) IN THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND TAKEN INTO SMALL ROOMS SET ASIDE FOR SEARCHES.

THEY WERE FORCED TO REMOVE THEIR BLUE DRESS UNIFORM BLOUSES, BELTS, AND SHOES. THE SECURITY PERSONEL SCANNED ALL THE ITEMS AND ALSO PATTED DOWN THE MARINES. TSA ALSO TOOK SGT STOCK'S SHOES OUT TO THE X-RAY MACHINE AND THEN DIDN'T RETURN THEM; HE WAS INSTEAD REQUIRED TO FIND THEM HIMSELF.

ALL THE MARINES SAID THEY FELT HUMILIATED BY THIS TREATMENT. THE MARINES HAD ORDERS IN HAND THAT TASKED THEM TO SERVE AS OFFICIAL CASUALTY ESCORTS. SGT STOCK WAS CARRYING SGT MILLS PERSONNEL EFFECTS, AND CPL SCHADEBURG WAS CARRYING THE FLAG FROM SGT MILLS' CASKET. THESE ITEMS WERE IN HAND AND IN PLAIN VIEW.

2. MAJ SHAFFER, KEITH E., STAFF SECRETARY, 1STMARDIV

3. VICTIMS

A. SGT

A. CPL

A. CPL

B. STOCK, JOHN C.

B. BIGALK, AARON J.

B. SCHADEBURG, JASON A.

C. XXX XX XXXX [SSN Deleted]

C. XXX XX XXXX [SSN Deleted]

C. XXX XX XXXX [SSN Deleted]

D. 3RD AABN. 1ST MARDIV

E. WHITE/MALE/XXXXXXXX [DOB deleted]

E. WHITE/MALE/XXXXXXXX [DOB deleted]

E. WHITE/MALE/XXXXXXXX [DOB deleted]

F. GULFPORT, MS

4. N/A

5. PAO HAS BEEN NOTIFIED. LOCAL & NATIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE POSSIBLE BUT NOT ANTICIPATED.

6. NO.

7. INVESTIGATION IN PROGESS. SUBSEQUENT REPORTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED.

8. SGT. STOCK, CPL. BIGALK, AND CPL. SCHADEBURG HAVE NOT DEPLOYED ISO OIF.

Now, bare of information, that just begs questions. So, what'd I do? First up, I called Pendleton PAO. That's dumb, it's Sunday, they're not open. I could call the duty spokesman, but, let's do some checking, first. So, now that the coffee is really down the hatch and processed, I check the dates. Okay - over a week old. I'm probably pretty late to this and others are *all* over it. So, while I'm in the cyber-area, I check the DTIC Press Release site and see if the casualty name is legit. It is. Off to Google. "TSA Mills Marine" that ought to do it. And what pops up on that? The middle of the Blogosphere. Not the big buys, but the middlin' to small ones - you know, guys like us.

Such as, Beth of MVRWC, Liberty Post, TSA-Screeners (bandwidth exceeded at the moment), Woman Honor Thyself, The Sierra Times, Lone Star Times, The Academic Submariner at Unconsidered Trifles...

The one "MSM-equivalent?" The Marine Corps Times, which has a pretty even write-up.

The trio had to go through the terminal’s security in order to reach their flight that would take them to Houston and make sure that Mills’ body was properly placed on the airplane. While their uniforms likely would trigger the metal detector, they had figured they would be able to zip through the screening process and get on with their business.

“Wearing the blues, the metal detector is going to go off,” said Sgt. John Stock, a mechanic, who was accompanied by Cpls. Aaron Bigalk and Jason Schadeburg.

But as the Marines went through the initial screener in their dress blues, they were stopped by several TSA agents. Each was told to remove their dress uniform blouse, belt and black dress shoes, which were scanned by the detector, as the agents scanned them with hand-held detecting wands.

“They had me take off my shoes and ran them through the screening,” Stock said, speaking by phone May 5 from Gulfport, where the men are helping with Mills’ family and funeral support. “We all got searched.”

Then they were taken to a nearby room, where TSA workers patted them down.

At one point, Stock’s shoes disappeared, leaving him to frantically search for them and retrieve them from a TSA agent. Separated from their belongings, which included the flag that they bore that would drape Mills’ casket for the rest of the journey home, they worried about getting to the gate in time to ensure his safe placement in the airplane.

Time, it seemed like a half-hour, clicked by. “I was like, hey, we need to be on the tarmac,” Stock recalled. “It just took longer than it should have had to take.”

The agents said nothing to explain why all three were singled out for additional search and the Marines didn’t protest. “We were just trying to get there as quick as we could,” he added.

In all, it was a humiliating experience that left them angry.

It looks like over-zealous following-of-rules, with a lack of judgement on the part of individuals. I've said this before to hoots of derision, and this case is similar to one we covered last month, Leave No Man Behind, Ever, but the fact is, TSA *shouldn't* have auto-exclude groups of passengers. Just as they *should* have auto-include groups of passengers, as they do - just perhaps not inclusive enough.

The TSA is obviously aware of the remains that are passing through the transportation system. There are in fact, procedures in place to facilitate the movement of remains and escort teams. I would bet, based on what I've dug up, the Marines (and hopefully, by extension, *all* the services) are now working on some form (if it doesn't exist already) of expediting credential that is hard to fake, because troops in Class A uniforms and low-quarter shoes aren't going to get through the metal detectors without setting them off.

Say what you like about the utility of searching little girls and grandmothers - but the fact is that the bad guys are watching. And they've shown themselves completely capable of using innocents as bombs-carriers. And well before the current unpleasantness. Remember this? The point being, the bad guys will flex and adapt. And if they thought they could use a casket... that would be a big bang. My point is not that TSA is doing a great job or not - evidence indicates plenty of problems, and they really shouldn't trumpet their successes - but that the processes need to be under constant modification and change - if they are to have any deterrent effect at all.

Nature of who I am and what I was, I watch the screening process at airports - for the precise mental exercise of "How would I test that, in order to try to defeat it." I am pleased that now and again, changes have been made that would have caught me, were I to try something like that. Guess what - that's what terrorists do, when intel gathering on a target. Which is why truly random and seemingly random changes, though they inconvenience the people who pass through, are good. Lemme tell ya, it's a real pain when they do a 100% ID vehicle check at the Fort, especially on the Monday after I went shooting Saturday and still have ammo, though no weapons, in the trunk. They note it, ask some questions, note that everything else is in order, and let me go. As it should be.

What's my point? The TSA should explain the reasons and make a public statement (if only on their website). They have, rather, chosen to ignore it and hope that it will go away.

No, they shouldn't tell us (nor should the Marines) what, if any, changes are being made. They should just make them. And slap that inspector in Philly on the back of the head.

Apparently there are some in the Midwest who could use a cluebat, too. Let Bloodspite draw his sounds on your screen.

The Fran O'Brien's Issue on CNN

[Posting this as a separate entry because it's time-sensitive]

Update II: The video that introduced the interview with Jim Mayer is up on the CNN website. It's well worth seeing--it's got a lot of quotes from wounded soldiers about what Fran's has meant to them.

Update: Andi has seen it and says "YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS. If you do not have tears in your eyes, and you are not committed to boycotting Hilton over this, nothing will move you." She reports that the segment airs about 40 minutes into the program (see below for times).

Jim Mayer, the wounded Vietnam veteran and friend of Fran O'Brien's co-owner Hal Koster who encouraged Hal to begin the free dinners for wounded troops will be on CNN tonight. Andi reports in an email:

I know it's late, but I just got the word that Jim Mayer is being driven to the CNN studio right now to do an interview with Glenn Beck that will run on CNN Headline News as follows:

TONIGHT on CNN Headline News with Glenn Beck at 7 p.m. [Eastern] and again at 9 p.m. and midnight. Jim Mayer is being taken to a studio right now to be interviewed remotely and will air later tonight.

While the email campaign didn't save the restaurant, it did let them know veterans and troops care a lot about this issue. The top three executives had to shut down their email addresses ... I'm sure costing their IT department some bucks and unnecessary headaches. Plus, a PR firm had to [be] involved. They don't seem too successful in squashing the negative press.

It's really nice when you can use your blog as a way to do something good and help those who deserve to be helped. I don't think milbloggers are finished with this story. We still need to help Hal and Marty get on their feet. I should learn more tomorrow night about how we can do that [after attending the Fran's Friday Dinner hosted in another DC hotel]. Thanks to everyone for all you've done already.

Now hear this.

[This post will be up top all day, because I want to make sure everybody gets a chance to read it. New stuff comes in below here.]

And I mean it, people.

This would be a Cease and Desist order, except it would imply that I gave an "Execute" order.

While SWWBO and I appreciate the loyal support of our readers (and the cautionary advice, as well) there are limits to how I will conduct my blogspat with Debbie Schlussel.

I was bcc'd this note this morning, from someone who is trying to be *supportive* of SWWBO and I in our little blogspat with Ms. Schlussel:

Enjoy your tea today?

Maybe you and Joe Wilson could book passage on a ship for Niger. I hear the cake is yellow, like your spine.

Quit bullying my friends, Deb.

You want a war? You'll get a war. Only I fight by the old rules.

In other words, I always win.

You can take my life, but you'll never take my freedom.

The next time you threaten a lawsuit against one of my friends, your home address goes up on every jihad website from here to Tehran. Along with the Google Maps versions of 8X10 color glossies with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining each one.

Capiche?

I did *not* ask for this kind of thing, I do *not* endorse this, and I'm telling you if this is how you intend to show support for SWWBO and I...

Don't.

This.isn't.support. While it may have been satisfying to send, and you may think it no lower than dropping the threat of a lawsuit every time a dog barks, as far as I am concerned, it *is* worse than the threat of a lawsuit. I don't fight my fights this way. I like a good rant, and clever invective - but I prefer reasoned argument and don't sink to this level. Sure, we're not as entertaining, but it also keeps the moonbat population down.

It's unacceptable conduct. I have no authority other than moral here - but I am mustering all of that that I have.

Do.not.do.this.again. Any of you. Ever. This is *not* the behavior I have built this space for. I don't tolerate that kind of stuff here, and I will not tolerate it being done in my name. In the post below about Mayor Bostick and his illegal holding on the money of the dead Marine, I told everybody to be polite.

Like this:

If you choose to contact the individuals or city, do so in a polite, civil manner. [Don't bother them, the message has been recieved] The Armorer does not approve of spittle-flecked rantings - especially at people who are only tangentially involved by association, and not direct action. For the record - be polite to the Mayor, too. Even if he does seem to be the villain here.

And later, this:

That doesn't mean we shouldn't gently and politely remind Mr. Mayor Bostick to follow through - and that means we need to follow-up. A gentle heat, that would be "simmer" on your blog-stove.

That is how it is done at Castle Argghhh!!!.

Capiche?

Because what you have really done is kill all the fun I was going to have with it. I had some nice graphics (all original artwork) that was going to play the satire and parody card.

Now they are going into storage. Because that's about the only way *I* have to cut this off at the knees.

For the record - I don't *ever* need that kind of support, and if I change my mind, I'll let you know.

Don't hold your breath.

One wonders what the story is in Fort Lupton, Colorado.

Or if it is just as it seems? That Mayor Jim Bostick is an asshat?

The mother of a U.S. Marine was grieving for her dead son when she found that his savings account had been claimed by the director of the funeral home. It was money that he had no right to and despite a court ruling, the funeral director refused to pay. What's even more puzzling is that he's not just any debtor, he's the mayor of the small town and a member of a City Council that has financial responsibility for the city's budget.

Jason's body was returned to Colorado for burial. Records show that the funeral was paid, in full, by the Marines. But after closing out her son's accounts, Jason's mother realized that the probate court had sent the proceeds of Jason's savings account to the funeral home, which is run by Jim Bostick.

In addition to his duties as mayor and member of the Ft. Lupton City Council, [Jim] Bostick also owns two funeral homes. In his role with the city, he is heavily involved in overseeing the finances of the town.

Do take the time to read the *story thus far* which is seedier than it looks.

As the Puddle Pirate (whose tip this is) sez:

OK, milbloggers. Let's close ranks and charge.

City of Fort Lupton
[city data remove based on the update]

Indeed. Let's shine a little light in this corner of Colorado and see what scurries out.

If you choose to contact the individuals or city, do so in a polite, civil manner. [Don't bother them, the message has been recieved] The Armorer does not approve of spittle-flecked rantings - especially at people who are only tangentially involved by association, and not direct action. For the record - be polite to the Mayor, too. Even if he does seem to be the villain here.

Mayor Bostick - I'll be happy to post any reply to this you have that is more substantive than that you gave The Denver Channel's 7NEWS Investigator John Ferrugia (story linked above).

Oops. Immediate update. It seems that shining lights (and not from here, just having hit "post" two minutes ago...) had the mostly intended effect. But I really wish people would quit the whole death threat crap. Besides being criminal, it's just stupid.

FORT LUPTON, Colo. -- The mayor of Fort Lupton, who operates two funeral homes, has been afforded police protection after receiving death threats following a 7NEWS investigation that revealed he has refused to repay money illegally kept from the family of a U.S. Marine who died.

"I've been getting a lot of phone calls from a lot of different people, a lot of threats," said Jim Bostick, the mayor of Fort Lupton.

Bostick is worried about his personal safety and that of his business and he now admits he made a big mistake.

"It's my fault ... I will try to do whatever I can with Mrs. Sepulveda to get this issue put to bed," Bostick said. "As soon as I get the money, it's hers. I mean, fast. Because, you know, I can't keep putting up with the threats against myself and my family."

Well, I know that no Castle Denizens are yet involved in death threats. And none better be. I'll revoke your status.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't gently and politely remind Mr. Mayor Bostick to follow through - and that means we need to follow-up. A gentle heat, that would be "simmer" on your blog-stove.

Why? Because Bostick would appear to be a deadbeat.

While he may be sincere this time, Bostick claims he doesn't have the $7,500 a Weld County court said he owes Elis Sepulveda.

Sepulveda is the mother of a U.S. Marine who was killed in a car accident and brought back to Fort Lupton for burial. Jason Sepuldeva's savings were sent to Bostick's funeral home. It was money Bostick had no right to but he refused to return it.

"He was the person who received the money," said Magistrate Rebecca Koppes Conway. Conway assessed the judgment against Bostick in small claims court but can't force him to pay.

But lay off the City, folks. T'ain't their fault, and if the Mayor won't resign, one can hope the voters will fire him.

Several city officials are urging the Fort Lupton mayor to pay the Sepulvedas as soon as possible, hoping that the firestorm, which has nothing to do with city business, will subside.

As one official put it, "This has nothing to do with the Marines vs. Fort Lupton. This is about how Jim Bostick is doing his private business."

Indeed.

The follow-up story is here.

Feh. National Preparedness and Response Authority

Senate panel recommends the elimination of FEMA.

WASHINGTON - Hurricane Katrina's latest fatality should be FEMA, the nation's disaster response agency, a Senate inquiry concluded in calling for a government overhaul to avoid future failures like those the devastating storm exposed.

Okay. Hey, I'm all for reducing non-functional organs of the Federal government (though I don't happen to think tossing FEMA is a rational solution). I have some perspective in this arena. My last job on active duty as a Military Support to Civil Authority (now DSCA, or Defense etc.) planner at 5th Army (now ARNORTH) in San Antonio. We worked closely with (really, *for* in a sense) FEMA when acting in our MSCA role.

One thing the Clinton Administration did *well* was put Jimmy Witt in charge of FEMA. One *huge* failure of the Bush Administration was devolving FEMA to an organ of Homeland Defense. The whole Homeland Defense construct is *still* dysfunctional, and that lays squarely at Bush's feet. FEMA is a shadow of its former self - with no bad cess to day-to-day FEMA employees in general, I know they are still struggling to make it work. The upper structure of the agency and the structure of it's over-sight agency is at fault.

In this, the panel has it correct.

The recommendations conclude that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is crippled beyond repair by years of poor leadership and inadequate funding.

That is this administration's fault - though that is ameliorated somewhat because they were focused on 9/11 style responses that they lost the bubble about the more common disasters... like hurricanes. So, what do the Senators recommend?

They call for a new agency — the National Preparedness and Response Authority — to plan and carry out relief missions for domestic disasters.

Okay. Really. I am *so* impressed. It just gets better.

The new authority would communicate directly with the president during major crises, and any dramatic cuts to budget or staffing levels would have to be approved by Congress. But it would remain within the Homeland Security Department and would continue receiving resources from the department.

Okay, at this point, I throw the bullshite flag. This is a perfect example of "Change is the Illusion of Progress."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who led the inquiry by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the new authority would be "better equipped with the tools to prepare for and respond to a disaster."

She described FEMA as a "shambles" and said the change "will help ensure that we do not have a repeat of the failures following Hurricane Katrina."

Really? It will? Aside from the fact that DHS is busy trying to digest all those lessons from Katrina and implement changes, how is it going to make a huge difference?

It's not like the current FEMA employee base and structure won't be the basis of the "new" agency. Ya *really* gonna start from scratch? Nope. Didn't think so.

Unless you are *really* going to break the paradigm, this is simply taking a tire, scraping the "year" of "Goodyear" off, and painting on "rich" to make it a "Goodrich" tire.

An opinion shared by Homeland Defense, and, Michael Brown, the hapless director of FEMA during Katrina.

But the proposal drew disdain from Homeland Security and its critics, both sides questioning the need for another bureaucratic shuffling that they said wouldn't accomplish much.

"It's time to stop playing around with the organizational charts and to start focusing on government, at all levels, that are preparing for this storm season," Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, who resigned under fire after Katrina, said the new agency would basically have the same mission FEMA had a year ago before its disaster planning responsibilities were taken away to focus solely on responding to calls for help.

"It sounds like they're just re-creating the wheel and making it look like they're calling for change," Brown said. "If indeed that's all they're doing, they owe more than that to the American public."

Indeed, if that's all they got, can we get our money back for that study?

The whole story that fired me up is here.

I'll go hunt up the recommendations and see if this is what it seems, or if it's just incomplete reporting on the part of the AP, missing the forest for the trees. I guess I owe the Senate *that* much.

Update: Here's the Exec Summary. No, I haven't read it yet.

Okay - I've read it. The AP did a singularly carp job of reporting.

I think it's evenly written and apportions blame all 'round, with pretty much nobody but the Coast Guard and some unnamed private firms getting a pat on the back.

The "Seven Foundational Recommendations" are a ringing condemnation of this and previous Administrations and Congresses.

The weaknesses laid out with recommended solutions are *not* new, nor did they suddenly appear because of the Bush Administration. The FEMA personnel I worked with in 1998-2000 (where we were focused on terrorism and Y2K) were aware of the flaws in the system - and the lack of money for dealing with them (and this was after Hurricane Andrew and similar other disasters)

These fissures were thrown into stark relief by the effects of the redirection of effort due to the focus on prevention of and response to 9/11-style events drained money from on-going efforts to improve and enhance response to large-scale natural disasters.

After a surface read, I like it. I can understand why DHS does not - much of what is being proposed is on-going, I know for certain in DoD. Northern Command, the DoD agency responsible for this is a new command, still standing up and getting organized - but will provide a full-spectrum headquarters to coordinate the DoD response, overseeing a JTF Headquarters that would come out of ARNORTH in San Antonio. The function of Defense Coordinating Officer, until recently an additional duty of Regional Training Brigade commanders, is moving to a permanently assigned active duty Colonel, with a reserve component Deputy, who will have a mixed civilian/military planning and execution staff, who will be aligned with and located with or close to, the FEMA Regional Headquarters. All of this is intended to streamline and enhance the DoD response capability. Similar things have occurred within Pacific Command, which has responsibility for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific dependencies of the United States.

DHS no doubt does not wish to see another powerful department head created, and in fact think they've got this under control. Perhaps they do - but I've long thought that FEMA was under-graded so to speak, and so I am supportive of this direction.

Nice to see the Senate understands that they, along with the House, and the Administration, have been remiss in their duties themselves... though for the most part they only mention the Administration.

Four More Days for Fran's

Have you done all you can for Fran O'Brien's and the family they've developed to support severely wounded troops?

Rumor has it there are still conversations going on between lawyers, so not all hope is lost. What we need right now is to help Hilton understand it is to their benefit to give Fran's enough time to find and establish a new home so that Fran's can make a smooth transition for the sake of the wounded soldiers, and for the employees and volunteers who have been trained in supporting the wounded and have established relationships with them. For example, Fran's employees were given cell phones and have been "on call" for anyone who needs a ride, an encouraging word, or anything else that can be offered.

Friday Night at Fran's isn't just a dinner, it's an entire community centered around that restaurant. The wounded know they can drop by on any day and find at least one person who cares and can "be there" for them. The night I was at Fran's, I watched one particular very young wounded soldier spend a lot of time in the bar. I didn't know his story, but as several others I spoke with noticed, his body language made it clear he was having a tough time. I saw Hal Koster put his arm around him and talk to him. Other people I knew were vets and lived in the DC area also came up to him and put their hands on his neck as they put their faces close to his, making deep eye contact and earnestly talking to him. By the end of the evening he was clearly more relaxed, and even smiling a bit. The community had obviously recognized his need and rallied around him, lifting his spirits.

I received a comment on my post about the SSG's speech from someone with intimate knowledge of the community that has developed around Fran's (we've corresponded). Lawrence Kelly had previouly commented at Andi's about the "salon-style" aspects of the dinners at Fran's, and pointed out the poltical implications of Hilton's behavior. He has since written in comments at Fuzzilicious Thinking:

...what happens on Friday nights at O'Briens is more than the sum of its parts. Some people get that, most, lacking the opportunity to see it in person, don't. When I think of O'Briens, I don't really think first of Hal or Marty. My thoughts go to [Vietnam veteran, double amputee, and volunteer peer counselor at Walter Reed] Jim Mayer, and how he birthed and raised to maturity the universe that Fuzzy describes. By urging the 2003 and 2004 seriously wounded to follow through on making it better for the next person in a bed on Ward 57 [the amputee ward at Walter Reed], Jim created an ethic for this generation of amputees and seriously wounded. With all due respect to Hal and Marty, the dynamic that Fuzzy observed at O'Briens is largely the residue of this incredible young generation of volunteer military and Jim Mayer's singular efforts in bringing the wisdom and experiences of his life to the task of bettering and motivating this generation in their recoveries.

To be fair to Hal and Marty, everything came together at O'Briens. Jim. Hal. Marty. The families releasing pent up hospital frustrations. Life on a grand scale. A place to enjoy and start thinking about the future. Young men and women readying themselves for their next chapters.

If there is a clear victory from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is in the work Jim did in creating the conditions for these young men and women to succeed in life on that same grand scale. One of the places it is on display now is Fran O'Briens. In the future, the entire country will see the results of his handiwork in the careers and contributions of these young men and women. If there is a Medal of Freedom to be awarded by this administration for true success in the advancement of freedom, it will rightfully be awarded to Jim Mayer

Therefore, when I heard that Hilton managers hung up on Jim when he called, I shook my head at their ignorance. Hanging up on Jim Mayer. You can't even put that on a truck scale to weigh the level of stupidity. It underscores that there is a wide gulf in America between those heroes (like Jim Mayer) who teach by example, and those individuals and organizations which fail to grasp why they would need to listen.

So, what have you done to support and save this community that has comforted the broken, inspired recovery, and developed tomorrow's leaders? Andi has your orders, and Laughing Wolf sets an example (more contact info here). Don't forget to sign the petition. Only four more days to save this amazing community...

- Fuzzybear Lioness

[Background on the Fran O'Brien's story here.]

OPSEC of a different kind.

Here's a thought for you high-powered business types out there, who have their cell phones surgically implanted. You know the type - the Cyborgs, with the glowing blue phones where their ear used to be...

OPSEC.

When you shout out your end of the conversation, *someone* might be listening. Someone who knows what he's hearing.

Like that contract for the Army your (firm) is bidding on. The one where you are competing with (firm). The one where your boss, (name redacted) who doesn't know policy from shinola, is screwing the pooch on. You know, the one where your Level of Effort is 2 man years, being billed on a multiple of 2.6, is going to get you creamed, because the competition is going to come in under that.

Yeah, you remember that conversation, right? The one on the shuttle to the airport? The one that if you had mentioned *my firm* I'd have been on-line in a flash, seeing who was working that contract, and then calling corporate legal, to make sure it was okay to pass on what I heard... and then passed on some *very* good intel. And, since I haven't been in this area since 2001, nor am I a corporate bigwig, I know that was not a clever little disinfo op.

Hope your flight out of Reagan was pleasant.

Just hope those guys from Northrup-Grumman (firm> aren't sitting in any seats around you.

Yer suffering from the ID10T fault.

Well, that's probably unkind. You're just completely clueless, like a lot of your wired bretheren, that when you start blabbering out loud in public, those of us who have no choice but to share your conversations may be taking notes.

Leave No Man Behind. Ever.

Since I'm about to get on an airplane - I found this story of interest:

The Transportation Security Administration bagged a terrorist in Los Angeles International Airport Tuesday, or so they thought. Daniel Brown's name came up on their no-fly watchlist, so they dragged him into interrogation and grilled him, despite the protestations of Brown and his fellow travelers, who swore they could vouch for him.

Yep. The bureaucrats of the TSA (and I'm a former government employee who still gets a check from the government, I'm inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt - but I've had better interactions with the IRS and VA than I have TSA...) kept us safe - by holding up (and, since he's on the no-fly list, by implication, saying he can *never* fly) Staff Sergeant Daniel Brown, USMCR. The flight they stopped him on?

His return home to Minnesota with his Reserve MP unit. From 8 months in Iraq.

Mind you - he had orders, ID card, and was traveling *with* his unit. The story doesn't say - but I'm betting he was in uniform, too.

Y'know, I don't mind a little zealousness. I really don't. What drives me to distraction is mindless adherence to guidelines as an excuse for the avoidance of a tenth-of-a-degree temperature rise in their cranial cavity caused by a little rational analysis and decision-making. It just drives me crazy when confronted with full-of-their-power drones who fail to avail themselves of the joys of synaptic activity.

So, how did Staff Sergeant Brown find himself on the list? On his previous flight *out* to Iraq, he was discovered to have gunpowder residue on his... wait for it... combat boots. You know, those things we wear to the range when qualifying before we... deploy. To a combat zone. But hey, I guess he can leave, we'll just make sure he can't come back. Good grief. Here's a tack the Brady Campaign can use to harass gun owners. Get 'em on the no-fly list because they... use their legitimately-owned implements. But I digress.

Yet another story of mulish government employees not properly trained, equipped, and supervised (since the supervision suffers the same deficits, that's not likely to offer much improvement anyway) isn't really a story, is it?

This is.

Ultimately, the TSA screeners figured out that Brown really was a Marine, and no threat to his fellow passengers, and let him board a later flight. When he deplaned at MSP, his unit's bus was waiting -- his fellow Marines in it.

Marine 1st Sgt. Drew Benson explained why. "We don't leave anybody behind. We start together, and we finish together." All 26 Marines waited for Brown -- even though their families were waiting for them at a scheduled welcome-home bash at Fort Snelling.

Brown's mother Terry was glad they did. "They all come back together... no matter what it takes and I think that's very important," she told WCCO-TV.

Good on 'em. Hand Salute to 1SG Benson and his Marines. Semper Fi!

The whole, sad story is here, with a tip of the hat to one of the people who feeds my habit, John S.

The Latest on Fran O'Brien's

Thanks to Andi's World, the general manager of the Hilton in which Fran O'Brien's currently resides agreed to answer questions submitted by milbloggers. The results are in.

Despite Capital Hilton's statement that this was "just business," it's obvious it was bad business. Those with some training and skills in managing or analyzing businesses have been weighing in. Read about it here, here, and here.

There is still hope, though. Hilton has the right to make their business decisions and we have a right to respond as consumers. Here are some ideas for supporting the continuation of the Friday-night dinners and helping other companies who may see this understand what their customers expect from them:

1. Follow through on the threats that were made to the Hilton brand. The decision to toss Fran's was made at the local level. It was a bad business decision [3 separate links], and the corporate offices are likely to recognize that. If they hear from you (#5 below) and see that they have lost you as a Hilton customer, there is still a chance they will intercede at the Capital Hilton.
   
2. Sign the petition. I don't think this will change the local hotel's actions, but it is part of getting corporate Hilton's attention.
3. Donate to the charity that has been set up to fund the dinners at an alternate location.
4. Contact your congressional representatives, as Lex has long suggested [Clarification: I am not suggesting congress should be regulating Hilton's behavior on this, but that a congress member might be interested in drawing attention to this situation during an election year, etc.].
5. Write to Hilton's corporate offices. If you haven't yet written, or you contacted Doyle or Kelleher, you were dealing only with the local Hilton (Capital Hilton). Now is the time to take it to the corporate level (see Flash Traffic). We overwhelmed the Capital Hilton with email and phone calls; we can do it again at the corporate level.
   

[Corporate Contacts for Hilton are in Flash Traffic below.]

Background:
Save Fran O'Brien's
Fran O'Brien's Update
Hilton Replies
Hilton's Behaviour, In a Nutshell
The Inner Circle Speaks
Kelleher Answers Blogger's Questions

Fran O'Brien's, Part 4

[Sorry for the possibly-excessive use of your generous posting privileges, John. But you know me well enough not to be surprised that I'm not gonna let up on this unless you tell me to. And then I'll just take it back to my place and hang onto it like a pitbull, haha!]

Update: The Italian Connection.

Lots happening on the "Save Fran O'Brien's" front.

Hilton's response has left Lex unimpressed and encouraging us to contact our congressional representatives, and Greyhawk swearing (scroll down) and issuing a call to arms. In the comments on Greyhawk's "swearing" post, Buzz Patterson is reaffirming that restaurant co-owner Hal Koster says there were no negotiations, contradicting Hilton's claims.

The story has also made it to the front page of the "City" section in the Washington Post, and now Michelle Malkin is onboard.

[Updates as the story develops]

Update on Fran O'Brien's

[Background here]

Update III: Hilton Replies.

Madeleine Kleiner - Executive Vice President, Corporate Secretary and General Counsel
madi_kleiner@hilton.com

Andi's World points us to information that clarifies the lease situation. As we already know from the emails Greyhawk posted, Fran's is not going willingly. Local media in DC have picked up the story:

A two-year tradition for wounded war vets is about to go by the wayside. A downtown DC steak house that’s catered to injured troops every Friday night is about to close.

Fran O’Brien’s landlord is forcing out the steakhouse of the same name.

“We're not feeling very good about leaving and especially the Friday night dinner,” O’Brien said.

I hesitate to make assumptions, but it's appearing more and more that Hilton has made a very poor business decision based on surface-level analysis of profit/loss (as Lex has theorized). And it's also becoming clearer that they have treated Fran O'Brien's very shabbily, possibly to the point of not negotiating in good faith. One email sent to Hilton sums it up pretty well:

All I ask is that you deal with the owners openly and honestly, not dissemble, lead them on, and then hit them with a two week eviction notice.

To be fair, Hilton has said they want to find some way to continue an activity for the troops on their site. However, they are promising nothing at this point:

A Hilton hotel spokesperson says they are -- on some level -- hoping to keep the Friday night alive without Fran O’Brien’s.

And if it's not the free Friday night steak dinner for injured veterans ... The same statement from the hotel concludes: "the Capital Hilton prides itself on its involvement and service to the community and will continue to support these organizations in the future."

The story of what Fran O'Brien's has done and what it means to the wounded who participate is pure gold. The first time I saw a news report about it I cried. It was so wonderful to see the expressions and hear the laughter and words of the wounded who said that going to Fran's made them feel "normal" for the first time since their injuries. Cooperating with Fran's to ensure the restaurant's continued association with the hotel would have given Hilton the kind of PR that money can't buy...

The owners of Fran O'Brien's are expected to make an announcement of some type this morning.

--FbL

[The Armorer interjects: Hilton has the right to do what they wish with the space they control, within the context of contract law. In other words, absent some tortious malfeasance on their part, what they did was perfectly legal.

Just as what Fuzzybear Lioness and others have done is perfectly legal - which is attack both the decision and (this is more my problem) the shabby way in which this was done. Hilton wants to change their property, they should be able to. And if they were going to do that - why not just say so with enough time for the owners of Fran O'Brien's to make other arrangements, as Hilton seems not to have done?

That's the lesson learned here. In time of war, *especially* in the era of the Blog, messing with recovering wounded soldiers, however indirectly, can land you in hot PR water - and it didn't have to be that way, if a little Golden Rule had been applied to the issue. Make no mistake - this story has the legs it does not so much because of the restaurant - as it is the patrons on that night.

This is a Story That Should Never Have Been.

That said, I suppose those of us attending the Milblogger Conference ought to go do dinner there, eh?]

[FbL adds: I'll second what the Armorer says. I think that had Hilton handled the lease issue more professionally, this would hardly be a story: Fran's would be moving to a new location in the DC area with plenty of time to make the transition, and while people would lament the disruption, Friday Nights at Fran's would be likely be continuing at their new location while a few people might shake their heads at Hilton's lost opportunity.

Instead, many of us now have a lower opinion of Hilton for how they "negotiated" with Fran's, and will long remember the Hilton name in association with this event.

(And yes to the to the dinner suggestion--with healthy tips to the waiters who donated their labor on Friday nights and will soon be out of work.)]

Blogging with thin skin...

Is dangerous. For the same reason being a thin-skinned politician is dangerous. Or any Public Person.

I ran into some illustrative examples yesterday.

You see, I blog out my a$$. A Public Person who blogs and is a media maven told me so.

First up. If you blog or want to blog, read this. Why I Hate Weblogs. Written tongue-in-cheek, with bite. BTW, I scored "normal" on the quiz in Appendix A. The whole thing is good for keeping your perspective (which most of us lose doing this, at one time or another). The key to losing it is to keep in in-house, and not share it around with everybody.

Kinda like Gary Trudeau, vice Ted Rall. Heh. Were I Ted, I would have talked to my lawyer first, before soliciting advice from my readers. But at least he was smart enough to collect pledges, and not money. Too bad Ted isn't willing to put his own money where his mouth is, he prefers instead to redistribute it from his readers. But voluntarily. He didn't suggest that the government collect the funds for him and deposit them in his account, so that's progress, coming from a lefty like Ted.

We on the right have our own thin-skinned people. For the record, if you'd like to complain to me about something I've written, this is *not* the approach I recommend.

I read your post about my "whining" to the idiot rottweiler. Do you always blog out of your a$$? You have NO IDEA what I said to the idiot because he lied and didn't post my e-mails to him. Why do you think he changed what he wrote and posted a "retraction"? I NEVER threaten to sue anyone over being offended. Believe me, his site, which I never before visited and won't again, is NOT worthy of my time and attention. I've been called a lot worse by more worthies and ignored it. But defamatory, LYING speech is NOT protected anywhere, much less so in your precious Denmark. I find it interesting that you are willing to write a blog entry, when you haven't a clue and you never read my e-mail. Like a true idiot . . . .

Debbie Schlussel

You know, she's right. I didn't know any of that. Nor, for the point I was making (see the blurb up early in yesterday's H&I that starts with "The Rottweiler") did I really need to. My point was simply that picking a fight with Misha, especially if that's the tone, just feeds the beast that is Misha's patented invective. Heh. That and the fact that I haven't really been all over supporting Denmark lately, but what the heck, she was on a roll.

Misha was, well, rather rude to her in his post. Okay, being mostly otherwise on the same team (or even if not, what the heck, honey gets more than vinegar) go tell him how hurt and annoyed you are and how inappropriate his comments were, and ask him to retract them and give him a chance to retreat gracefully. But toss invective at him? *That* helps. Not.

So, I responded.

Debbie -
1. Do you always email out your a$$? This email would seem to indicate yes, at least when you're annoyed. You should always reread and take a deep
breath before you send something like this.
2. If he never published your emails, I couldn't very well have read them, but that's a different issue.
3. My advice still stands. Whining at The Rottweiler just feeds him, basically the point of my post. I stand by what I said. Mistake, Debbie. None of which
has anything to do with the merits of your claim. A nice, measured email laying out your side of the story would go farther than "Do you always blog out of your
ass?" will. Just as I'm guessing a similar approach with Misha might have produced a slightly different response from him - but maybe not. He *is* the Rott, and that pretty much was the point of my post.
4. Small detail, I live in Kansas, not Denmark, I have no idea why you thought I might live in Denmark.
5. Your reading preferences are, of course, your right. I don't read him but once a week now either, mostly to see what the moonbats he attracts (in this
case, I'm not lumping you in, but if you were to continue in this tone, I might) but I do like a good rant, if only for variety. If you were to check any of the services that track such, you'll find that I'm not a prolific linker to him - though he was the first high-traffic blogger that linked to me, back in the days when I was getting started.
6. My blog entry, despite your personal angst over your tiff with Misha, wasn't really about you. It was about "Don't feed the animals, it just keeps them
hanging around." Now you're running around and kicking me in the shins.

So. Now my conundrum. Do I post your email and my response, or not?

Decisions, decisions. I'm of a mind to.

Obviously, we see what my decision was. In retrospect, my temper wasn't as under control as it might have been, either. I did edit the typos and for the PG-17C, btw. Mind you - I did edit my post, though perhaps not entirely to her liking.

I'll take the rest of the to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry in the interest of my long-suffering dial-up customers.

Cheney @ The Range.

Obviously, someone was out of position when the Veep went hunting yesterday. Whether it was the Veep or the Victim, the Veep has ultimate responsibility as the trigger puller, unless the victim was behind some bushes taking a leak or something. I'll leave that for others to settle.

It certainly didn't take long for the jokes to appear, once it was clear Mr. Whittington would survive.

Owen Dyer, in an email to me, observed it was a good thing that Cheney was a Republican, and therefore hunting with fatcat corporate lawyers. If he'd been a Democrat, those would have been personal injury lawyers...

IMAO has a contest going.

Go forth, Denizens, find the good, the bad, the ugly jokes. Find the Moonbat Howls at the Moon from the anti-gun, anti-Cheney, anti-anything-not-me crowd.

If you have posting privileges, slap 'em in here. If you don't, put 'em in the comments. Lets be a Cheney@TheRange clearinghouse!

For the record - after the investigation is over, based on whatever evidence is gathered and what the laws of Texas provide for - Cheney should suffer whatever consequences fall out from that. No more, no less. And no, a hunting accident is no more justification for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens than car accidents are justification for banning car ownership.

Speaking of investigations, The Keystone Cops go Hunting.

CHENEY STATEMENT -- ON THE LICENSE, NOT THE SHOOTING [Byron York]

Vice President Cheney has not yet made a public statement about the incident in which he accidentally shot a fellow hunter in Texas Saturday, but his office has just released a statement about the issue of whether he had the proper license to be hunting quail:

It has been brought to the Vice President’s attention by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department this afternoon that, although he had acquired a 125 dollar Texas non-resident season hunting license, he lacked a 7 dollar stamp for hunting upland game birds. To address any questions about the licensing:
-- A member of the Vice President’s staff wrote a check for 140 dollars understanding that this would purchase a Texas non-resident season hunting license that would permit the Vice President to hunt quail in Texas. It appears now that the license itself cost 125 dollars, and an extra 15 dollars covered the cost of a Federal migratory bird stamp. The Vice President did not need the Federal stamp, as he already possessed one.

-- The staff asked for all permits needed, but was not informed of the 7 dollar upland game bird stamp requirement.

-- Because the requirement is new, the Department has informed us that it is issuing warnings, and the Vice President expects to receive one. He will take whatever steps are needed to comply with applicable rules.

-- In the meantime, the Vice President has sent a 7 dollar check to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which is the cost of an upland game bird stamp.

Sigh. Amateurs. In my case, that would be a literal truth when it comes to hunting in Texas. In the Veep's case, he's been let down by his staff, *and* Ms. Armstrong, on whose ranch the hunt was conducted (if it's done as a business, anyway). No, I *don't* expect the Veep to take the time to personally check on all these details -