The Dentist – WC Fields – Comedy Movie

 

W.C. Fields stars as the subject of this classic comedy short, which he also wrote the screenplay for. The dentist is a misanthropic, absent-minded sort who keeps an office in the same house that he shares with his rebellious young daughter. One morning she announces that she has fallen in love with Arthur, the iceman. Fields won’t have it, and scares the poor Romeo off when he tries to make his daily “delivery.” The hubbub makes him late for his golf game. When he tees off, the ball knocks an elderly man out cold but he plays through regardless, trying to cheat wherever possible. Frustrated by a particularly difficult hole, Fields loses his temper and tosses all of his clubs (and the caddy) into a water trap. Back at the office, the dentist locks his daughter in her room to prevent her from eloping with the iceman, and takes out all his frustrations on his patients (whom he refers to as “buzzards” and “palookas”). An attractive young girl naively bends over to show where a little dog bit her, a sophisticated society dame is driven into bizarre contortions while Fields sadistically drills, and a strange “little fella” ends up with a mouth full of broken teeth and birds in his beard. Through it all, the dentist treats everyone with disdain, but his well-deserved comeuppance is on the way.

An unconventional dentist deals with his patients in some very unusual ways. He wrestles one woman all over the office during an extraction. Then another patient has such a heavy beard that he can’t find the man’s mouth. The zaniest dentist’s office you’ve ever seen.

Advertisements

TOP-SECRET-Noncombatant Evacuation Operations

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/USArmy-SF-Evacuation.png

 

 

Field Manual (FM) 3-05.131 establishes Army special operations forces (ARSOF) doctrine for planning, coordinating, and executing noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) across the entire continuum of operational environments. NEOs are inherently joint operations. History demonstrates that joint forces conducted the vast majority of NEOs. This manual describes ARSOF operating within that context, thus the content of this manual mixes joint and Army terminology where appropriate. This manual does not duplicate or supplant established doctrine dealing with tactical or strategic operations, but it does provide a specific framework to apply that doctrine. Commanders tasked to conduct NEOs should ensure that their planning staff is familiar with referenced publications.

NATIONAL POLICY

1-1. The DOS directs NEOs. During a NEO, the welfare of in-country U.S. personnel is the paramount consideration. However, the decision to evacuate the Embassy and the order to execute a NEO also affect political elements that may influence the timing of an evacuation. U.S. foreign policy objectives are the determining factor in the timing of an evacuation. The following paragraphs discuss the national policy concerning NEOs.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656

1-2. Pursuant to Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, the DOS is responsible for protecting and evacuating U.S. citizens and nationals abroad and for safeguarding their overseas property. The DOS is the lead agency for planning and conducting NEOs. Executive Order 12656 also directs the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) to advise and assist the Secretary of State in preparing and implementing these plans.

EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN

1-3. Every U.S. Embassy and Consulate must maintain an emergency action plan (EAP). One section of the EAP covers the military evacuation of U.S. citizens and designated foreign nationals. The appropriate geographic combatant commander (GCC) reviews the EAP to ensure it is accurate and adequate to allow military support. Evacuation operations differ from other military operations in that the senior DOS representative directs the operation at the time of evacuation. The DOS representative’s order to evacuate is usually a political decision with extensive ramifications. The DOS or Ambassador may not give an evacuation order at the most opportune time. The representative may delay the order until the last moment to save political face by avoiding actions seen as a tacit admission of political failure. The DOS or the Ambassador may initiate the evacuation process or plan. Evacuation transportation options, in order of preference, are—

  • Commercial transportation (already scheduled).
  • Commercial charter.
  • U.S. military charter.
  • U.S. military transportation.

Note: Transportation options must be coordinated through the Washington Liaison Group (WLG).

EVACUATION GUIDELINES

1-4. The DOS or the Ambassador can order the following personnel to depart. These personnel are eligible for evacuation assistance. Once evacuated, the DOS and chief of mission (COM) must approve their return. Personnel in this category are—

  • U.S. civilian employees of United States Government (USG) agencies, except mission-essential DOD employees of military commands.
  • U.S. military personnel assigned to the Embassy, such as Marine security guards, defense attaché (DATT), and security assistance personnel.
  • Peace Corps volunteers.
  • USG contractors, if the contract provides for evacuation assistance.
  • Dependents of those listed above.
  • Dependents of other U.S. military personnel, including those assigned to military commands.

1-5. The DOS or Ambassador cannot order the following personnel to depart, but these personnel are entitled to evacuation assistance. They may return at their discretion and expense. These personnel are—

  • U.S. employees of non-USG organizations.
  • U.S. employees employed by or assigned to international organizations.
  • U.S. employees that the host government directly contracts, even if the USG funds the contract.
  • U.S. employees of private entities, such as relief organizations, even if the employer receives USG funding.
  • Fulbright grantees and private U.S. citizens.
  • Family members of private U.S. citizens, to include alien spouses, children, and other bona fide residents of the household.
  • Other individuals the DOD designates eligible.

1-6. Legal, permanent U.S. residents (green card holders) are not entitled to any special assistance unless they fall into one of the above categories. As a rule, if the USG is controlling the evacuation, the priorities
for assistance are as follows:

  • Priority I: U.S. citizens.
  • Priority II: Alien immediate family members of U.S. citizens.
  • Priority III: TCNs and designated foreign-service national employees of the USG.
  • Priority IV: Seriously ill or injured eligible non-U.S. citizens in imminent peril as determined by the DOS (but who do not qualify for a higher priority).
  • Priority V: Other individuals the DOS determines eligible.

DOWNLOAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE:

USArmy-SF-Evacuation

Ex-Capital Chefredakteur Brunowsky entlarvt die STASI-Stalker- und Erpresser-Spekulanten-Methoden der “GoMoPa” am Beispiel WGF

 

Nepper Schlepper Bauernfänger im Internet

Im Internet tummeln sich seit einiger Zeit Finanzportale, in denen anonyme Schreiber manipulative Texte verfassen. Sie richten sich in der Regel gegen kleine, marktenge Börsenwerte und kooperieren mit Anwälten, die vorgeblich Kapitalanleger schützen wollen und für die notwendigen Zitate gut sind.
Das ganze funktioniert so:  Ein kritischer Text in “www.börsennews.de” oder “www.gomopa.net“, anonym oder unter falschem Namen geschrieben, stellt Fragen, ob das Geld der Anleger sicher sei, ohne diese Frage zu beantworten. Der Schreiber sendet diesen Text anonym an Medien wie das Handelsblatt oder FTD. Ein kooperierender Anwalt spricht dann vielsagend von Gefahren für den Anleger. Die Anleger reagieren natürlich  verunsichert, der Kurs stürzt ab. Leerverkäufer – wahrscheinlich aus dem Umfeld des Trios Finanzportal, Finanjournalist und Anwalt – haben sich rechtzeitig eingedeckt und sahnen einen kräftigen Gewinn ab.

Die größeren Medien sehen angesichts der Kursverluste nun ebenfalls das Unternehmen in Gefahr, berichten darüber und verunsichern die Anleger zusätzlich. Vom Finanzportal “gomopa.net” ist bekannt, dass es anschließend den Betroffenen einen PR-Beratungsvertrag aufdrücken wollte, den diese dann als “Erpressung” ablehnten, wie die Süddeutsche Zeitung am 3.9.2010 berichtete. Auch das  Handelsblatt hat im April vor einiger Zeit über einen ähnlichen Fall berichtet.
Ich erlebe diese Methoden gerade bei einer ähnlichen Kampagne gegen meinen Mandanten WGF AG. Die WGF AG handelt mit Immobilien, entwickelt großartige Projekte und refinanziert sich mit Hypothekenanleihen. Am 15.11. wurde pünktlich die zweite mit 6,35% verzinste  Hypothekenanleihe im Volumen von 30 Millionen Euro entgegen diversen Unkenrufen pünktlich und vollständig zurückgezahlt.
Im Juli war ein Text unter falschem Namen im Finanzportal “Börsennews” mit Zitaten eines Anwalts erschienen, den der Autor weiteren Medien zuspielte. Unmittelbar darauf stürzten die Kurse mehrere Anleihen von 100 auf teilweise bis zu 60 Prozent. Die Kurse erholten sich dann zwar wieder um 10 bis 15 Prozentpunkte, aber nicht so, dass Raum für die Platzierung neuer Anleihen mit einem Ausgabekurs von 100 blieb. Die WGF war dennoch in der Lage, aus dem gut laufenden operativen Geschäft heraus die Rückzahlung der zweiten Anleihe sicher zu stellen. Anfang der Woche, am Tag nach der Rückzahlung erschien wieder ein anonymer Artikel in “gomopa.net”. So geht die Kampagne weiter.
Selbstverständlich müssen alle Geschäftsmodelle kritisch hinterfragt werden. Unternehmen machen Fehler und müssen diese Fehler auch beheben. Es kann aber nicht sein, dass gewissenlose Leute im Internet ihr Unwesen treiben und ganze Unternehmen attackieren, um damit Geld zu verdienen: Der Anwalt, der dazu beiträgt, Unternehmen zu gefährden, um anschließend Klienten für seinen sogenannten Kapitalanlegerschutz zu generieren, ist genauso hinterhältig wie der Journalist, der sich nicht zu seinen Texten bekennt und anonym oder unter falschem Namen schreibt, um an Kursspekulationen mitzuverdienen.