United: We’ve finally reached a settlement with the passenger we had airport security beat up and dragged off the plane. Whew! That was awful!
Delta: Hmmmmmmm…. free publicity. Watch this!
The Schear family of Huntington Beach says they were flying from Hawaii to Los Angeles last week when airline staff asked them to give up a seat occupied by their 2-year-old son and carry him on their laps for the duration of the flight.
They tried to refuse and argued with airline staff, but say they were threatened with being sent to jail.
“You’re saying you’re gonna give that away to someone else when I paid for that seat?” Brian Schear says to an airline employee. “That’s not right.”
Eventually he agreed to hold his son on his lap for the flight – but it was too late. The airline said the whole family had to leave.
Unlike United, Delta did have a clause in their Contract of Carriage that specifically states transport can be refused “when the passenger …fails to obey the instruction of any member of the flight crew.” So, they were well within their right to kick a passenger who was being uncooperative with the instructions of the flight crew off the flight.
- The passenger – after being threatened with jail – agreed to give up the seat he paid for and hold his toddler in his lap.
- The whole family was booted off anyway.
- The flight attendant tells the passenger that per FAA rules, two-year-old child cannot have their own seats, and must sit in their parents’ laps the entire time. Unless I’m missing something, that is a blatant lie..
When traveling with a baby, most commercial airlines define an infant as less than two years old (no more than 24 months of age). Since children vary in size, it’s recommended that parents travel with the child’s birth certificate if he or she is between one and two years of age. Most airlines require children under two to be accompanied by an adult over 18 years of age. However, some allow the adult to be only 14.
If the child meets the age requirement, parents are not required to buy a kid’s airline ticket for a domestic flight as long as the child is traveling with a paying ticketed adult. Instead, children under two can legally ride on the parent’s lap. For international flights, lap children may have to pay 10 percent of the adult fare and taxes and surcharges may be applicable. The airline might even require them to have a paper ticket purchased at the 10 percent rate.
Nothing I have seen specifies that a child who is two years old cannot fly in a car seat in his own seat and must sit in a parent’s lap, as the flight attendant claims. Nothing. As a matter of fact, the FAA specifies that “Your arms aren’t capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence.”
So Delta lied.
And Delta, on its own company website recommends children under the age of 2 should fly in individual seats while secured in an approved car seat, and the LA Times spoke with FAA spokeswoman Allison Duquette, who told them FAA rules only govern safety, and there is no written federal policy about the use of an assigned seat by a passenger who is not the person the ticket was originally purchased for, as the airline staff claimed in the video, according to FAA spokeswoman Allison Duquette, who said FAA rules only govern safety.
So Delta lied again.
So once again the plane is overbooked, the passengers are already seated in the seats for which they paid, and the employee attempts to force them to vacate one seat by forcing them to hold a toddler in their lap for five hours by threatening them with jail and lying to them. And when the threat worked, and they grudgingly agreed, they were thrown off the flight anyway, and their seats were given away, while they had to purchase new tickets at the bargain price of $2000 the next day to get home. They were not belligerent. They were not a threat to anyone’s safety. And yet, the airline decided to kick them off anyway.
I suppose their claim that they originally bought the seat for one child, but then used it for their second child, so therefore the first child is technically a no-show, so they can give the seat away, does hold some merit – technically. However, I would submit that this is the shittiest, most repugnant excuse for customer service I’ve seen since United had Dr. Dao dragged off its plane limp and bloodied. Fact is they paid for this seat. Fact is they lied to him about FAA regulations. Fact is THEY THREATENED HIM WITH JAIL! Literally, jail – for the heinous crime of wanting to retain the seat for which he had already paid. Fact is they booted off this family even though, the video clearly shows the passenger kept his cool and in the end agreed to take the child in his lap.
After relenting, and then being told that the family will have to leave the flight anyway, the passenger asks what he’s supposed to do – at midnight – and how he’s supposed to get home. The flight cunt replies “Sir, you should have thought about that in the beginning. At this point you guys are on your own.”
I’m beginning to suspect that unless you shell out hundreds of dollars extra to fly first or business class, you’re nothing but a nuisance to American air carriers. You’re something to be disdained because you chose the least expensive option for your flight. You are something to be abused, if they feel it’s necessary, because FUCK YOU! That’s why. You paid less, so you must be some poor trash that can be treated as such. You’re cattle to be treated as something less than human, even though you may have paid thousands of dollars for a seat in their overcrowded, smelly, many times filthy tin can.
But until passengers refuse to travel by air en masse, this kind of treatment will continue, because the airlines are happy to know you have few other options.
And hell, even if we boycott air travel, I’m sure they’ll just whine about how they’re critical to national security and get more taxpayer dollars anyway.
It’s unfathomable to me how fanatically desperate some media outlets are to smash Ivanka Trump to bits, destroy her reputation, and denigrate her – despite the fact that she is a successful, educated, accomplished, charitable woman in her own right.
Yes, I’m sure her family name didn’t hurt when she was starting her career.
Yes, her father’s presidency is the only reason why she currently holds an official position at the White House (albeit an unpaid one).
Yes, many of the views she espouses are hardly consistent with conservative principles of limited government, spouting the liberal talking points about the “wage gap,” a soft stance on Syrian refugees, and pushing family leave, which while a desirable benefit, should hardly be within the purview of the federal government.
Policy-wise, especially given her position, criticisms of Ms. Trump are certainly fair game, but this unmitigated assery? Not so much.
You see, when Ivanka Trump was starting her fashion business, she apparently failed to consider that some of her employees may want to take some leave after having a baby. GASP! How terrible!
Four years ago, she expected women to return to work soon after giving birth, according to a report in The New York Times.
Marissa Kraxberger, a former executive for Trump’s fashion company, told The Times that she asked Trump about paid leave when she was pregnant in the summer of 2013.
Kraxberger recalled Trump saying: “Well, we don’t have maternity leave policy here; I went back to work one week after having my child, so that’s just not something I’m used to.”
Afterward, Kraxberger and others pushed Trump to adopt a paid-leave policy, but the company didn’t implement one until the next year, according to The Times.
This is what Yahoo! Finance and the hysterical creature that has published the original piece in Business Insider Hayley Peterson consider newsworthy! Wow.
Let’s take this apart a bit, shall we?
Let’s start with the New York Times report Peterson quotes about Ivanka “expecting” women to return to work soon after giving birth. That’s not at all what the NYT story said. What it actually said was that Ivanka herself returned to work a week after giving birth, so she didn’t give much thought to having a maternity leave policy until one of her employees brought it up. There’s nothing in the Times piece to imply that she expected the same of her employees. Quite the opposite, actually.
While Peterson sniffly implies that it took way too long to implement said policy, the company did consult with its employees before developing a good plan that also included some other benefits that many other companies don’t offer, such as two months of paid family leave, flexible hours, and a play area for children in its office. Not too shabby, and a good business practice to boot to sit down with one’s employees and take their concerns to the table, especially since the company was young and apparently still in the process of developing its operating procedures.
So why is this news, Ms. Peterson?
Why the clickbait headline Yahoo! Finance? Ivanka Trump had a surprising response when a pregnant employee asked her about maternity leave
The headline predisposes the reader to a negative response, especially given the third paragraph of Peterson’s piece, which claims Ivanka “wasn’t always a supporter of family-leave policies.” This is a blatant lie. Not having a company policy in place, and implementing a damn generous one after consulting with employees is not in any way equal to not being a supporter of family leave policies.
I also note the photograph Yahoo! Finance chose to use for this non-story. A picture that makes the usually smiling, pretty Ivanka look like a cross between Leona Helmsley and Satan.
Is this what passes for “journalism” at Business Insider and Yahoo! Finance?
I’ve spoken here before about destroying the enemy. It’s not enough to oppose the President’s policies. It’s not enough to be critical of Ivanka Trump’s views. She must be destroyed, because anything having to do with Trump must be destroyed, according to the unhinged left.
Does a store carry his family’s product brand? Boycott the store. It’s not enough to just choose not to purchase said product. Others must be forced to avoid said product as well, and worse yet, any store that carries it, must be destroyed, along with its workforce, which for department stores and grocery stores, consists of the very demographic the left claims to want to protect and defend!
Any supporter of Trump must be destroyed. Voices of dissent must be silenced, especially on college campuses. And dog forbid you do any kind of business with Trump’s companies!
So it shouldn’t be surprising that his family is fair game, especially since some of them have become an integral part of his administration. But publishing obvious lies and misinformation in an effort to destroy the individual?
It looks like our unhinged pals on the left have certainly learned well from the Russian propaganda playbook.
Dear Media –
You’ve seen me bitch directly about your lack of objectivity. You’ve seen me take on fake news that was so ridiculous, that anyone who is not a halfwit should have laughed the story off the Internet. I’ve condemned your inability and unwillingness to actually report the news, vice insert yourselves into it. I’ve condemned you for shoving your political agenda into nearly every “news” story. I’ve kicked you for publishing intentionally misleading garbage under the protection of the First Amendment, as if it’s some kind of shield to protect your bullshit from being identified as… well… bullshit. Needless to say, I am not a fan.
Recently I polled several hundred readers on my public Facebook page about what news sources they use and why. These are folks who come from all sides of the political spectrum – from extreme left progressives, to moderates, to ultra-conservative, to frothing Kool-Aid drinkers on all sides.
I asked them about their news sources. What actual news sources do you use to be informed about the world? I specified that I wasn’t talking about opinion journals or blogs, but actual news sources, such as the Wall Street Journal or the Economist, which have opinion sections, but generally provide insightful reporting on world events. My own list of daily go-to sources is a combination of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, the Financial Times, and the Washington Post. I also use news aggregators for a combination of sources and news reporting.
The responses I got were interesting. Here’s what I found, in addition to the usual conservatives/Fox News and liberals/NYT.
The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, and the Washington Post seem to be the most popular news sources among all political affiliations.
Many can’t tell the difference between a blog, an opinion journal, and a news source. I suspect it’s because you have blurred the line between op-eds, features, and news, and twisted the definition of news to such an extent, that the audience can no longer distinguish between these media, and worse yet, has stopped caring about the difference.
Many have given up on trying to get information from media sources at all. They’d “rather be uninformed than misinformed.”
And those who do use mainstream reporting sources to get information, still look for corroborative reporting. They read the news story – even in a source as commonly trusted as the Wall Street Journal or the AP, and then they check primary sources and what other media outlets reported on the issue.
You know what this boils down to?
They don’t trust you.
They don’t trust you to report accurately.
They don’t trust you to report objectively.
They don’t trust you not to twist your reporting to suit your agendas.
They don’t trust you to have the honor and integrity to admit your mistakes.
What does it tell you when instead of just reading a news story, most people have to scrape for corroborative reporting before they believe a word you write?
What does it tell you when people trust blogs more than they trust journalists, who ostensibly have more access to information?
What does it tell you when readers trust others’ opinions more than they trust your reporting?
Is it on them? Almost certainly. Many are too lazy or too committed to their own ideologies to even consider anything that challenges their worldview. This creates a certain market for bullshit – a demand for reports that stroke people’s confirmation biases. But is it all on them? Not even close.
You complain about “fake news,” but you, more than anyone and anything, have contributed to that phenomenon with your constant failure to report objectively, your inability to report on the story without sticking your political dick into it, your outright contempt for your audiences, and your intentional and sometimes malicious obfuscation. These egregious misdeeds are well-documented. Your inability to accurately report the story without snark or subjective garbage has made you something to be derided. The public trust in what you dish out is at an all time low.
Are you really surprised that people seek out other sources of information? And are you really shocked when they begin to believe whatever they’re fed – even by ignorant, uninformed bloggers with their own agendas – as long as it’s not through you? Is it any wonder that any number of fake, misleading, biased sites have popped up to fill the void? You suck at your job, so someone else has to do it – no matter how poorly!
You twist words. You omit critical information. You conceal your own opinions in a torrent of word salad, and try and mask it as factual reporting. You obfuscate. You insert inflammatory language into a straight news report to elicit a certain reaction.
Take this current example from NPR. From the very title and first paragraph, not only do we know what the writer feels on the topic of Trump extending a program to afford veterans an opportunity to seek health care from private doctors, but we can also see how said writer tries to shape the reader’s opinion on the topic!
Trump Extends Troubled VA Program That Pays Private Doctors
Yeah, let’s make private doctors seem like a negative, dirty phrase, instead of an opportunity to choose for those who have made significant sacrifices for our country, and are now stuck in a broken, corrupt VA system.
It’s a fix that hasn’t fixed much, but the troubled Veterans Choice program has been extended anyway.
Hasn’t fixed much, according to whom? The author, who quite obviously hates it that veterans have a choice, and is taking the opportunity to slam the administration?
Veterans Choice is designed to allow veterans who have waited more than 30 days for an appointment at a VA facility, or who live more than 40 miles from one, instead to get care from private providers who then bill the VA. But it has been plagued with problems. Many vets complain that Choice actually makes getting care more difficult and time-consuming, and some health care providers have dropped out due to slow payments or administrative hassles.
“Plagued with problems.” Because that’s not inflammatory language or anything!
“Many vets complain.” How many? I checked a Facebook page for Veterans’ complaints about the program itself. There were fewer than 20 since March, 2016. A January 2017 IG report detailed some of the problems investigators found with the program, including VC’s inadequate network of providers (I’m guessing due to the VA having 90 days to implement choice, which for a government bureaucracy is daunting, to say the least), and lack of strong oversight into payments for participating providers.
While, NPR derps about “many vets complaining,” it doesn’t provide actual numbers, nor does it note that only 13 percent of eligible veterans actually took advantage of the program, according to the IG report!
By omitting contextual information and using obviously inflammatory language to obliquely condemn the Trump Administration for having extended the program, the NPR undermined its own credibility in a transparent attempt to influence reader opinion on the issue.
And if you think NPR is a rare culprit, bitch, please! In a quest for audiences and clicks in a market that has become saturated with information, attention-grabbing headlines, no matter how misleading or outright false are gold!
And then you wonder why no one trusts you anymore? Come on! You can’t possibly be this lacking in self awareness!
But then again, maybe you are.
Clueless, arrogant, conceited, and completely lacking in storytelling ability.
Is it no wonder so few people trust you?
Someone who is sick of your shit
Normally, I wouldn’t call someone a Filthy Antifa Whore (FAW). However, since Moldylocks, who was shown getting punched out at this weekend’s Berkeley protests by some dude everyone claims is a fascist/racist/neo-nazi/somethingorother, is a nasty, unwashed, slovenly sow, and since she did, in fact,
demonstrate riot, throw bottles, and assault people at a rally for a President whom she apparently does not like, and since there are photos of said skank on the Internet baring her unshaven, unwashed, beaver and sprocket, that probably reek of week-old garbage and decaying pork, wide for the world – and presumably her parents – to see, I think FAW is appropriate.
No, I’m not giving you a link, pervs. When I ran across it while doing an image search on the protests the other day, I’m pretty sure I developed a severe case of post-traumatic stress, and I may or may not have gone blind for an unspecified period of time, while desperately stumbling around my house trying to find enough brain bleach to erase that image from my mind forever. Suffice it to say that cum-gurgling sausage junkie gives the term “bearded clam” an entire new meaning.
Her mommy and daddy must be so proud!
The FAW decided to speak out to the uber-friendly media – journowhores who will take any opportunity to make Trump supporters or anyone who didn’t worship at the cankles of Queen Pantsuit – look like a horde of fascist monkeys.
She was just a peaceable protester, you see.
She was just there to show her support, you see.
They were “rushed” by the counter-demonstrators, you see.
Her boyfriend disappeared, you see (oh-so-brave soul, who probably saw some pissed off demonstrators, who decided they’d had just about enough bullshit from the black-clad fascist crowd, and decided to hide, while his filthy hippie whore decided to engage in some assault) and she was just trying to protect herself.
“There was no time for emotion,” she said. “I was just terrified. I didn’t have time to process what was happening to me. All I knew was I was trying to find my boyfriend and not get hit…When it was happening I realized they were trying to crack my skull on the curb and on the rocks in the planter.”
During the entire attack, Rosealma said she never saw any Berkeley police officers. She also said the attack was unprovoked.
“I didn’t exchange words with anyone,” she said. “I was just standing there.”
Funny how the journaljizzer reporting on this story didn’t include photos that clearly show the FAW is lying.
Oh, whoops! Who would that be holding a bottle with the all-telling dreadlocks snaking out from under her hat?
And who would this be, viciously attacking that guy before getting “equal treatment” at the hands of her would-be victim?
Oh, did you want a clearer photo of the FAW getting her ass handed to her as she holds said bottle?
What’s that red arrow pointing to? Would that be a bottle? Gee, but she was just an innocent protester, lending her support, right? She only accidentally ran into that guy’s fist!
And she didn’t plan on violence, right?
Except that she did. Publicly. On Facebook. With her barely literate minions encouraging her “beat they ass.” Of course, now her account has been locked tight, but the Internet is forever, you noxious cum dumpster, and there are plenty of screen shots out there.
None of the “news” outlets covering this story mention this awkwardly inconvenient visual evidence. None of them even tried to appear balanced in any way! They’re simply all falling all over themselves to paint this hairy, walking septic tank of spectacular FAIL as a victim.
I’m used to the media being a completely biased, cocked up horde of communist-fellating fucknozzles. But to pretend to be objective, when there’s so much visual evidence available that contradicts the FAW’s claim of innocent victimhood? Come on!
She was not a victim. She was not innocent. She came to that protest fully prepared to attack those who dared to hold different political views than she did. What she didn’t expect is for the targets of her rage boner to fight back.
Recall when I said to prepare for civil war?
Just remember how that fucking fist felt cracking into your face, you miserable, lying sack of cunt. I’m pretty sure no one is going to play nice with you any longer.
Karma is a bitch.
That would be more appropriate than “Nkechi Amare Diallo,” which is the new name of Rachel Dolezal, which apparently means “Gift of God” in West African.
The 39-year-old filed to adopt the West African moniker in Washington State … according to Daily Mail. Nkechi is short for Nkechinyere in the Nigerian language of Igbo, and translates to “gift of god.”
Her new last name, Diallo, comes from the Fula people of West Africa and means “bold” … which seems all too fitting for the artist formerly known as Rachel.
This lying psycho is the gift that keeps on giving. Like a bad case of the herp, she just continues her outbreaks of stupid – as if no one will figure out who she is when she applies for jobs with this new moniker!
She started a Change.org petition in October urging the TEDx organization to post one of her controversial speeches from April, 2016 at the University of Idaho. She listed the petition under Nkechi Diallo, never mentioning her birth name.
Instead of learning from the experience and doing some serious introspection, this mental case has decided to double down on the stupid. She’s not sorry. She doesn’t care that she lied to thousands, while faking the African American experience. She just wants to continue lying and pretending to be something she’s not.
She’s better off doing the porn she claims she was offered. I’m sure there are severely damaged freaks who are into spray tan crazy chick pretending to be black. It’s a limited market, but she’d be a big fish in a small pond.
Kind of like Lobster Porn Crazy McZucchini Tits.