damnum absque injuria

May 21, 2010

Marriott to Gun Owners: Drop Dead (But Pay Us First!)

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:16 pm

Sebastian thinks the boycott is premature. I say it’s long overdue.

Grass Roots North Carolina notes that the Charlotte Marriott made instant criminals of countless guests by putting up no guns” signs while the event was underway – and long after GRNC had selected the venue in reliance on it being gun-friendly (at least in the Starbucksian sense of the phrase, i.e., not openly hostile to gun owners). Many have complained, and the good news is that Marriott has apologized. The bad is that rather than apologizing for putting those signs up and exposing their guests to criminal prosecution, their apology was for not having the signs up all along:

Dear Valued Guest,

Correction: the remainder of this email will make it clear that from their perspective I am not valued, nor am I a guest.

Thank you for contacting Marriott. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information.

Neat, but I didn’t ask them for information. I contacted them to provide them with information.

We would like to thank Grass Roots North Carolina/Forum for Firearms Education for its business at the Charlotte Marriott City Center hotel.

In other words: we like money. Fair enough, but….

During the group’s stay, there was some confusion regarding the hotel’s position on the carrying of firearms by the public. It has been the hotel’s long-standing policy to not allow firearms by the public on the premises.

In other words, they are an explicitly anti-gun organization, which has thus far managed to stay off the NRA blacklist despite being far worse than most of the companies on it. This, in turn, allowed them to exploit that very confusion not just during GRNC’s stay, but for months before that; else GRNC members (and Lord knows how many NRA members) take their business elsewhere.

In accordance with applicable law, this policy is posted in several locations around the hotel. Marriott’s policy is to comply with all applicable laws and ordinances.

From these weasel words you’d almost thing there were some law or ordinance requiring Marriott to post no guns signs around the hotel. Of course no law does; what the applicable law (North Carolina General Statute 14-415.11(c) – there are no applicable ordinances due to preemption) does do is convert what would otherwise be a mere civil trespass into a crime that can get our Valued GuestsTM fined, imprisoned and deprived of their right to carry anywhere in the state or even purchase firearms without their sheriffs’ permission. If this is what they do to their Valued GuestsTM, I shudder to think what they’d do to the guests they don’t value.

We are a hospitality company that provides public accommodations and space for events and functions. We do this without regard to the lawful purpose or views of any specific group or organization.

Yeah, it’s might hospitable of you to not be quite as hostile to the First Amendment as to the Second, but a company serious about hospitality wouldn’t have such a ridiculous policy in teh first place. There’s certainly nothing hospitable about tricking thousands of law-abiding gun owners into patronizing your joint, only to turn around and expose them to criminal liability for taking you up on your offer of faux hospitality.

As always, the safety and security of our guests and associates is a top priority.

So high that you adopt a lame-brained policy that has no potential of making any of your guests or associates safe, and ample potential to endanger them.

Marriott Customer Care

Translated: disregards, some lying crapweasel who won’t even stand up and put his/her/its name behind his/her/its words. Let’s call him/her/it … oh, I dunno …. Kathleen Matthews? Or maybe here assistant, Marilyn Cole? I doubt it was Jim Diehl, the brainiac who started this mess.

Note that despite having non-signed the email, he/she/it isn’t quite done yet. While Marriott loves to “comply with all applicable laws and ordinances” that enable it to expose others to criminal liability for exercising their legal and constitutional rights wherever they can, that doesn’t mean they’re above quoting scary, legal-sounding gibberish where no such law applies:

This communication contains information from Marriott International, Inc. that may be confidential. Except for personal use by the intended recipient, or as expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, and/or using it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and all copies, and promptly notify the sender. Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an electronic signature under applicable law.

So to the extent that receiving mail from someone is the equivalent of being on their property, Marriott takes it upon themselves to say, in essence, “by reading my smarmy email you agree not to fisk it in a public forum.” Sorry, Marriott, no dice. Gun owners made the mistake of paying Marriott a fortune last week in Charlotte. We won’t be making that mistake again.

UPDATE: The original version of this post omitted Diehl’s name and address, on the theory that he was just taking orders from on high. After re-reading the message I’m not so sure; they never actually said it was the entire chain’s policy to require its Valued GuestsTM to be sitting ducks; only that it was the longstanding policy of “the hotel.” I’ve sent them a follow-up email asking for clarification on that point, but meanwhile, I’m leaving Diehl’s name and email address up there now, because at a minimum he is the one responsible for negotiating this deal with a gun rights outfit he knew, or should have known, would expect to be allowed to carry there.

May 18, 2010

Letter to Brixx Prixx

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:43 pm

Dear Brixx:

Today I read that you fired a waitress for griping about a cheap couple who took up three hours of her time and left a whopping $5.00 tip. I was briefly relieved to learn that there had been an apology, less so after I learned it was from her to you rather than vice-versa. Rest assured that your heavy-handed response to what should have been a non-incident has generated far more negative publicity for your shitty little restaurant than your former employee’s gripe ever could have done. If anyone should have lost his/her job over this, it was the manager who made the idiotic decision to fire her rather than politely warn her not to do it again. Him, and maybe Marky Mark Zuckerberg, for screwing with everyone’s Facebook settings and sending everyone’s comments much farther and wider than the user intended them to go.

Given your policy of canning every employee who says a negative thing about any customer of your restaurant, kindly inform your staff that they are free to disparage me to their hearts’ content, as I am not now, nor will I ever be, your customer.

Love and Kisses,

May 9, 2010

Elena Kagan: The Third Woman on the Court?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:50 pm

Howard Bashman reports that the Obama Administration has unofficially promised to appoint Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens and become the third woman to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I hereby offer a free gram of cocaine* to the first person who can persuade me as to how Ms. Kagan, if confirmed, would be the third woman on the Supreme Court. Possible theories:

  1. Sandra Day O’Connor wasn’t really a Supreme Court Justice.
  2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t really a woman.
  3. Sonia Sotomayor … um … you tell me.

*Offer void where prohibited by law.

May 6, 2010

Texting While … Oh Hell, Let’s Just Ban Texting Altogether

John and Joana Tsinonis have developed software that will prevent a not-too-smartphone from allowing calls or text messages from anyone who is either operating a motor vehicle or killing time while someone else does. Why on earth would anyone NOT want to install this on their phone?

May 5, 2010

Sideshow Bob Gets Trounced

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:22 pm

Running as America’s Toughest Sheriff Felon works well in Springfield, USA. In Davidson County, NC, not so much.

UPDATE: Mr. Bob’s campaign signs aren’t completely useless, though:


March 23, 2010

Who Are You Going To Believe, The Safety-Nazis Or Your Lying Eyes?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:01 pm

This headline on an article for cell phone bans says it all:

Don’t Let Research Distract From Safe Driving Efforts

Because everyone knows real-world, empirical evidence is, like, a distraction or something.

February 20, 2010

Another Bill O’Reilly Extremist

Bill O’Reilly thinks it’s a “pretty extreme position” that the Bill of Rights remains in force when it snows in wintertime:

The next night he non-explained his position by noting that President Lincoln (and many others, but who’s counting) suspended habeas corpus. Never mind that habeas has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, or that the part of the Constitution that does protect habeas, which is Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the original Constitution, expressly provides that habeas may be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” while no comparable limiting language appears anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The mainstream view of the Constitution is whatever Bill O’Reilly tells you it is. Actually reading the damned thing is an extremist position.

February 13, 2010

Secondhand Booze

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:14 am

Time to play “spot the disconnect.” Sam Isaac Edwards (‘hat tip: Uncle) argues that since he himself is a dumbass who got liquored up and shot his fridge, no stone cold sober individual should ever be allowed to carry a weapon in any location where others might consume alcohol.

Coming next: a ban on driving cars while others on the road may be intoxicated.

January 30, 2010

Shocka of the Day

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:55 pm

Via Anwyn, a new study shows that laws prohibiting drivers from talking on hand-held cell phones, but not hands-free devices, have not reduced auto accidents in the four jurisdictions studied. On a wholly unrelated note, another study concluded that laws forbidding drivers to drive under the influence of scotch, but not bourbon, have failed to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents appreciably.

January 24, 2010

So-Called Tort Law

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:24 pm

So sayeth the Los Angeles Times. Dumbasses … er … I mean, “bless their hearts.”


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.