Guess this one should be called villains "and" victims, the former being the Canadian government, the latter people in developing countries.
Was alerted to this by a documentary the other night, which made me wonder just how low human beings can sink, and also ponder whether governments [ and the companies involved ] can be charged with manslaughter, which is what this surely amounts to.
Deplorable! Asbestos? Really? I thought asbestos was banned...at least in industrialized countries.
So I drilled. It has been banned in 60 countries; Canada (obviously from Katina's post) is not one of them. And contrary to popular belief, neither is the U.S.. We import it.
The EPA issued a banned on asbestos products in the late 80s, but it was overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Despite continued efforts to get it completely banned here, powerful asbestos-interest lobby groups have made a total ban impossible, (talk about deplorable - how'd you like to explain to your kid's classroom on "Career Day" that you are an asbestos lobbyist?).
A partial ban remains in place, but the following asbestos products are still being marketed: asbestos-cement corrugated sheet, asbestos-cement flat sheet, asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, mill board, asbestos-cement pipe, automatic transmission components, clutch facings, friction materials, disc brake pads, drum-brake linings, brake blocks, gaskets, non-roofing coatings, and roof coatings.
Talk about governments and companies that can be charged with manslaughter, I would say the U.S. should be up there on the stand right along with Canada.
Good grief! I thought this was outlawed. Um ... do these people use it in their own homes/buildings and local schools where their kids go? If not, they should be careful about reaping what they sow. I feel that way about those who dump toxic waste. Just because they dump it in someone else's back yard doesn't mean it won't come back to bite them in the a$$ at some point. And the ones to pay could be their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. The comeuppance could be more disastrous than they believe.
Deplorable! Asbestos? Really? I thought asbestos was banned...at least in industrialized countries.
Yeah that's what I thought as well Gams, or at least assumed.
Since it became known just how deadly it is I figured it would be banned in all industralised countries, guess I'm more naive then I thought because it's apparent that as long as there's a buck to be made [ or a vote to be gained ] then some people's moral compass is thrown out the window and they're able to justify something to themselves even if it means bringing illness and death upon others.
I haven't forgotten about Red, Scrappy, but this one has been splashed across the front page for about a week now. There are many victims, and a whole lot of villains in the Penn State scandal, probably the biggest name being Joe Paterno, who was fired from his position as college football's winnest coach. Paterno didn't quite turn a blind eye, but neither did he perform what one would think is a moral and legal obligation to pursue justice in a heinous crime.
And yet, there are those who oppose the firing of Paterno; even the attorney for the prosecution of Sandusky claims the firing was premature. There was an outcry among the student body when the decision was announced. "“I think if they had just let Joe retire, it would be okay. People have to remember that we all came here because of Joe. He’s a legend.”
Pfft! Legend or not, how can a person not report the sexual abuse of a child to the proper authorities, and instead just make a superficial effort, essentially passing the buck off to someone else?
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jan 24, 2012 14:09:12 GMT -6
The guy will surely rot in a special place in hell.
Think I'll add another subject just to see who bites at either. Red is still on the table but I thought I'd pull form one of my favorite files.
Shylock Villian or Victim.
Shylock: Go to then, you come to me, and you say, "Shylock, we would have moneys," you say so. . . . Shall I bend low and in a bondman's key, With bated breath and whisp'ring humbleness, Say this: "Fair sir, you spet on me Wednesday last, You spurn'd me such a day, another time You call'd me dog; and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys"?
Shylock: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
The guy will surely rot in a special place in hell.
That happened a lot sooner than many people would have thought.
I like this thread; the different perspectives make for interesting conversation, I think. I'm gonna have to pass on this one though, Scrappy. I know absolutely nothing about Shakespeare. Aside from knowing Shylock is the ancient day form of a loan shark, there's not much else I can say. I really should read The Merchant of Venice one of these days.
Feel free to give me the condensed version, though - kind of like you did with Beowulf. (snicker)
No, no, no - that actually wasn't what I was doing (but if you insist....). I just remember how you diligently chipped away at the epic, but kept getting interrupted. It was kinda funny at the time. LX, btw, ended up giving me a three-minute compressed, condensed, and neatly packaged low-down on Beowulf when they studied it last year, (I don't think I interrupted her once...but maybe BP did; I can't remember).
She, to my knowledge, hasn't studied Shakespeare yet, or if she did, she didn't spend three minutes of her time to fill me in on what I've been missing all these years.
All hope is not lost though! I found "The Merchant of Venice in 140 Seconds", (the audio on this is nearly inaudible, but click on "show more" for a written run-down):
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jan 28, 2012 11:27:28 GMT -6
Ok so.....Shylock lends money to an idiot (it's always about the woman) under a specific contract. Antonio (referance above idiot) signs said contract knowing full well what the conditions are. Thing is he doesn't believe that Shylock will ever be able to make good on the contract (free money) because he is jewish.
How unfair is that. If you borrow money from a loan shark you KNOW you are going to get hurt or killed or something if you don't pay it back. If you borrow money from a bank and don't pay it back you may not die but you're sure gonna be in trouble. Doesn't matter what you think of the bank itself. You signed a contract.
Post by Scrappy Amazon on May 12, 2012 16:41:31 GMT -6
Just had a right nice rant (complete with pictures) on my facebook page. Which I NEVER DO! Preferring to keep that solely for the purposes of Castleville. *sigh yes I play Castleville.
But I digress......
Not only has Michael Vick been named "sportsman" of the year but he's been picked up as a spokesman for Subway. I had a conversation once in which a friend tried to convince me that the man should not be prevented from making a living due to his past. Not that she didn't believe he wasn't evil, just that she didn't see a reason for him to be excluded from playing football again. I said basically I didn't care weather he ever played football again I felt the man shouldn't be allowed to live.
Yes I can get a little angry about this particular subject. Moving on.
I have since calmed a bit from this original stance. I don't want him dead any longer. Now I want him punished, preferably using a lot of painful procedures that will make him wish he'd were dead.
Anyway, my point in bringing this to this particular thread:
Subway. Villain for supporting him? Or victim of unfair prejudice?
I think it depends on Subway's intent. Are their reasons selfish? They know it will bring them attention and bring in more customers? Or are they taking the high road and giving the guy a second chance. If the guy really is regretful and trying to turn his life around, then he deserves for someone to step up and give him an opportunity to redeem himself.
But ... will Subway maintain their stance, or will they buckle under pressure and drop him? As long as he deserves a second chance, he should get it, but if he's pretending to be reformed and hiding his true colors, he should just crawl under a rock and keep out of the limelight.
Just sit back and let it play out. People up to no good tend to shoot themselves in the foot sooner or later. And Subway is taking a big chance that this won't come back to bite them in the rearend. They probably have more to lose than this guy does. So, I hope they did it for the right reasons, and that it doesn't blow up in their faces, whichever way this guy turns out to be.
I think it depends on Subway's intent. Are their reasons selfish? They know it will bring them attention and bring in more customers? Or are they taking the high road and giving the guy a second chance.
Unless Subway are somehow more moral then most corporations I'd say they've weighed up the advantages against the possibly disadvantages and decided there's money to be made by hiring this dropkick, whether it comes back to bite them on the butt remains to be seen.
It's an informed decision by them so they can't be called victims in any way, shape or form if it blows up in their face IMO.
As for the guy in question, and at the risk of getting my leg chewed off by Scrappy, no matter how reprehensible we may consider him to be I think that once you've paid the penalty for whatever crime you've committed you deserve to get on with your life.
Some of the wording of the last few posts - bite 'em in the butt, the gnawing off of legs - whether intentional or not, is interesting considering the offense.
Not only has Michael Vick been named "sportsman" of the year...
Interesting too. Not being a pro football fan (or follower of the sport or its players), I had no idea he'd come so far since the dog (fighting) days before his conviction. The title of "sportsman" would have never entered my mind as a word to describe him based on his past.
I do believe though, that everyone deserves to prove they've changed. Not many people get it right the first time around, and second chances have saved many a life. However....
Celebrity spokespeople are usually role models of a sort. Role models are people whose behavior is considered admirable. They are people who others wish to emulate. If Vick considered his behavior regrettable, and after being released from prison, used his experience as an example to others of how not to conduct oneself, if he donated some of his earnings to the prevention of cruelty of animals, spoke against animal cruelty in schools in areas known for dog-fighting....if he did any of these things (maybe he does? I don't know), that would be commendable, and he'd be worthy of being called a role model. That, coupled with his NFL comeback, is worthy of a sportsman of the year title.
If that was the case, Subway's decision to use him as a spokesperson is completely understandable.
I get the idea though, that his only regret is that he got caught. It's all about money: the dog-fighting, the however-many-million dollar NFL contract, and Subway capitalizing on a highly-paid, highly visible sports star who happens to be the man of the moment.
Eagles quarterback Michael Vick started playing chess in prison, but on Tuesday he played in a friendlier environment, taking on several children at the Eagles Youth Partnership’s annual chess tournament.
He lost several million dollars because of his imprisonment; while under home confinement, Vick — once the National Football League's highest-paid player — worked a $10-an-hour construction job for a few weeks. He switched jobs, assisting in children's health and fitness programs at the Boys and Girls Clubs.
When Vick was released on May 20, few expected that he would be involved with the Humane Society. But a day later, Wayne Pacelle - the chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, announced that the group and Vick would work together to eradicate dogfighting among youths.
"I stand before you a changed man," Michael Vick tells an auditorium packed with kids whose parents would very much like to see them change, too. "Use me as an example of an instrument of change."
It's early June, and Vick is at Philadelphia's Kimmel Center, addressing the graduates of the Camelot Schools of Pennsylvania. These students are primarily from low-income African-American families, and most wound up here after being kicked out of other schools. Vick has stumbled through parts of his speech but nails this bit. It's his second-biggest applause line—after an eleven-way tie between each time he says the word Eagles.
The students want him there; he won a popular vote. Their options were Vick, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, and school-district superintendent Arlene Ackerman. The Camelot Schools claim the vote was "close." I do not believe them. When Vick was selected and accepted the honor, Milton Alexander, Camelot's vice president of operations, waved off any potential criticism by saying, "One thing that we are constantly addressing with our students is if you make a mistake, if you make a bad decision, there is accountability involved, and just because this is your reality now, it doesn't have to be your reality forever. Vick's story is very relevant to their situation."
All of the above are extracts from different articles written about Vick post prison. My question is: what's enough? When has someone earned that second chance that so many people talk about? Or do we insist on throwing his hubris and poor choices in his face because there is no getting past his participation in dog fighting?
If he is faking all his 'good deeds,' he'll show his true colors at some point. I hope, for those who are looking up to him, that what he presents is the real deal. I'd really hate to see him let them all down.
Post by Scrappy Amazon on May 13, 2012 21:10:50 GMT -6
My question wasn't about Mr. Vick.
There will never be a time when I don't fervently believe the man doesn't need to be strung up for his part in what he did. And I'm not talking about participating in the "sport" of dog fighting. Anyone who has the decided lack of compassion it takes to do what he did or participate in what he did or even stand by and allow others to do what they did has a major disconnect.
Tell me, if he had done this to a child would he still deserve a second chance?
Regret is admirable. Does he regret what he did? Or does he regret that he lost everything because of it? But what he did can't be taken back.
Back to my question. Does Subway deserve to pay for his sins? Not necessarily. I think it goes to what Kat said. What was their reason for picking him? Greed or a willingness to allow someone a second chance?
Back to my question. Does Subway deserve to pay for his sins?
They do if their decision to hire him was, as I suspect, based on what's best for their bottom line [ okay I'm a cynic, and make no apologies for being so ]
He's back playing pro football and doing fairly well financially I'd assume, so it isn't as if he needs a lifeline extended in the form of a spokesperson role.
People are willing to forgive a heck of a lot where "celebrities" are concerned, and my guess is Subway realised his celebrity status, and even his notority, was something they could case in on.
And on that point, as Gams pointed out, aren't spokespersons supposed to be someone we look up to, perhaps even try to emulate. Changed man or not I don't think he comes close to fitting that criteria.
My question is: what's enough? When has someone earned that second chance that so many people talk about? Or do we insist on throwing his hubris and poor choices in his face because there is no getting past his participation in dog fighting?
As I stated in my first post, everyone deserves to get on with their lives after paying for their crimes, and "if" he's a changed man all well and good, doesn't mean we have to accept having him held up as some sort of role model though.
doesn't mean we have to accept having him held up as some sort of role model though
Agreed. The next question is, "who" is holding him up. Most likely it's the general populace who like the fact that he's a gifted athlete. Subway in turn is using as a celebrity spokes person, someone who the public currently favors. I think the term 'role model' is coming from the media who sees him talking to kids - willingly or no - they see the adulation from the sports fans - and call him 'role model'. He's not a role model for me because I'm not willing to forget his past, but I am willing to let him have that second chance.
Last Edit: May 14, 2012 18:34:00 GMT -6 by stepper
Why the victim is always the one blamed in a lot of cases is a mystery to me ... but it seems like some of the most vilest people can get away with anything and come out of it as such sweet human beings.
Actually, the villain was the Holy Roman Emperor. Henry's first wife was Catharine of Aragon. At the time of her marriage, her uncle was the Holy Roman Emperor, who, as it was, happened to have kidnapped the Pope. After close onto 20 years of trying and having produced no male heir (but close to 20 bastard sons), Henry was freaking out. It was quite common for popes to dissolve marriages and Henry did have a bogus, but doctrinally sound point: Catherine had been wed to Henry's older brother. That's taboo in Catholicism. But Catherine and Henry's brother were married before either even thought about puberty. Still, if the new Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine's nephew wasn't still holding the Pope, Henry could have paid a hefty sum and had his marriage annulled. Anne Boleyn wasn't stupid: she'd seen Henry blaze his way through dozens of affairs, so she smartly raised the stakes and refused Henry's advances. No male heir; Catherine's getting older; time to start reinterpreting what the phrase "divine right of kings" meant. What it ultimately meant was the creation of the C of E, a divorce, and marriage of Henry and Anne.
Zip along time for 4 years. Henry's got gout, problems with France and or Spain, and no male kid. But by now, in the unwritten English Constitution, Henry is head of the English Church. Ah, but what device can be used against Anne? Well, she did have 11 fingers (a small extra little finger). That extra finger became the outward and visible proof that Anne was a witch. So she lost her head. After six wives, Henry had produced a sickly son who would die a horrid death, one crazed daughter who would become known as Bloody Mary, and daughter of a "witch" who was such a brilliant monarch that the now free Pope once wrote that it was a shame her couldn't marry Elizabeth as he felt that, together, they could conquer the world. Elizabeth ruled for 45 years and killed roughly 50 more people than her sister had in 9 years.
So was Anne a villain or a victim? That's not an easy question. Anne willingly (and pretty deftly) played in an arena wherein the stakes were incredibly high. She wanted to be a Queen. But she got rooked. England had always made gestures that implied that the monarch had to answer to his or people: there was an ethos of England having a participatory government. So Henry had to be able to justify his actions. Granted, to our minds, Henry's justification seems very lame. That wasn't the case in 15th Century.
Trivia: remember that dreadful song, "I'm Henry the 8th I Am?" It was written in the 1910s.
Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots never met. Elizabeth's successor, Mary, Q of S's son was James VI & I and was 3/4 French...
See Elizabeth II? If her uncle had abdicated prior to her birth, she would not have been named Elizabeth. The Brits retired that name.
This will be an interesting time: should Prince Charles manage to outlive his mum, Camilla, who has been pretending not to be who she is, that is, the Princess of Wales will be a problem. If Charles becomes King, she will become Queen. And that will be dicey, indeed.
I should explain that I had a mad crush on Glenda Jackson when she played Elizabeth on TV and so worked off my excess energy by learning far too much about the Tudors.
Coincidentally, I just started reading "Brief Gaudy Hour" by Margaret Campbell Barnes. It's a novel of Anne Boleyn; though I haven't got very far yet, (the book is musty, and I can't read for long without it making my eyes itch), it definitely falls into the historical fiction category, with the emphasis on fiction, I'm thinking.
The author seems to paint Boleyn as a "victim" instead of "villian". The back flap of the dust jacket reads "Margaret Campbell Barnes believes that Anne Boleyn never recieved her just due and that the truth about her is on the side of right and justice. From such profound conviction she has written this moving story of a woman whose life contained the greatest heights and the most sorrowful depths.
Off topic, but I thought the passage in which contains an explanation of the title contained some beautiful imagery.
Yet the girl (Anne) to whom she called still lingered on the terrace watching the giddy flight of butterflies above the drowsing knott garden. For her, as for them, the gaudy hour of life was being born. Bright as their painted wings, heady as the hot perfume of the flowers. Full of golden promise, and transient as the summer sky.
Both. I do feel sorry for her when they show her before she turned evil. But she refuses to turn good for her (adopted) son. She won't let go of past grudges for him. (I'm sure there's still hope for her. She seems to be trying, although at times it seems like a mask she hides behind while she continues to be bad.) She might have some redeeming qualities. Don't think her mother does though.
Last Edit: Oct 22, 2012 17:00:55 GMT -6 by Mini Mia
Your Anne Boleyn reporter did a pretty good job. Of course I have my own natterings to add.
Did Anne Boleyn really say “I heard say the executioner is very good, and I have a little neck?" Probably not those exact words. But she did say something which persuaded Henry VIII to allow her to be beheaded by a sword rather than an axe.
RE: Anne's adultery Proof wasn’t required in Tudor courts, only the appearance of justice. Yes, Caesar’s wife must be above reproach. The Star Chamber (from which the USA’s grand jury is derived) was clearly populated by those opposed to Boleyn.
Was Anne distraught over the birth of Elizabeth? Well, yes. She wasn’t stupid or blind to the fact that Catherine of Aragon was dethroned for her failure to produce a male child.
Did Anne hold out her sexual favors in order to lure Henry into marriage? Given Henry’s sexual appetite, withholding sex was one of the few ways in which Boleyn could possess any power. Makes sense to me – and Anne got to be a queen instead of a mistress.
Was Anne the sister from hell? Mary Boleyn may have been sweet (or not), but she wasn’t particularly fecund. Mary Boleyn was Anne’s older sister. In her two marriages, she only produced two children. Henry VIII was rumored to be the father, but that’s not likely – the dates don’t add up. And though Mary was one of Henry’s mistresses, he never acknowledged her children as his own – something he did with Henry FitzRoy, his son by Bessie Blount.
Mary was unfit to be the queen consort for two reasons. Gossip spread that she had been a mistress of Henry VIII's rival, King Francis I of France. Mary’s second marriage in (1534) was to William Stafford, a commoner and a soldier. This marriage to a man so far beneath her station went against all of the Court’s mores. It pissed off both Henry and Mary’s sister, Anne. Mary ended up being banished from Court; she spent the remainder of her life in obscurity.
Was Anne a great beauty? Actually, she probably resembled Mary, Queen of Scots and mother to Elizabeth’s successor, James VI & I. Mary of Scotland never lacked for suitors. The myth that blondes have more fun takes a lot of killing.
Did Anne have six fingers? Nope, but there is some evidence of her having a vestigial fingernail.