Unfortunately I now have a concrete example of the impact of the culture of fear that the president has cultivated. Two men returning from Paris on American Airlines flight 45 were confronted by a flight attendant for kissing, and told to “stop that.” Several exchanges between the men and the purser ensued, by all accounts entirely calm and civil.
The purser asked the men to describe what they’d been doing, and she acknowledged that their behavior had not been inappropriate. Tsikhiseli then asked if the stewardess would have made the request if the kissers had been a man and a woman. Suddenly, Leisner said, the purser “became very rigid.” Contradicting what she’d told them before, she stiffly said, “Kissing is inappropriate behavior on an airplane.” She then said that she was busy with the meal service and promised to come back.
Eventually the pilot summoned one of the men to the cockpit where he told him that is he didn’t drop the matter the plane would indeed be diverted.
Maybe an hour later, the purser approached Tsikhiseli and said that the captain wanted to talk to him. Tsikhiseli went up to the galley and gave the captain his business card. The captain told Tsikhiseli that if they didn’t stop arguing with the crew he would indeed divert the plane. “I want you to go back to your seat and behave the rest of the flight, and we’ll see you in New York,” he said. Tsikhiseli returned to coach.
American Airlines says that a similar injunction against showing “affection” beyond a “peck on the cheek” would be made whether the couple is gay or straight. Fine and that is as it should be. I am no fan of intense public displays of affection — certainly even less on a crowded airplane. However, the lesson I take away isn’t that you shouldn’t kiss on the plane, it’s that the threat of the terrorist treatment now faces each of us if we do something a person in a position of power, i.e. an airline pilot, disagrees with.
Clearly the threat of diversion represents a concurrent threat of action by legal authorities on the ground for, I don’t know, causing a disruption on an aircraft. Who knows — and it is beside the point. I should now have to fear that in everyday situations I might be singled out for actions that someone finds offensive and threatened with repercussions not at all commensurate with the offense.
As Americans we need to reevaluate just how far we allow ourselves to fear terrorist attacks and to what extent we give authority to those with little accountability.
Hopefully American Airlines (and all airlines) will make it clear to their pilots exactly what types of “offenses” warrant aircraft diversion. If they fail to make it clear perhaps the courts should do it for them.
Bill Clinton* was right, you know. Few issues have the ability to sway voters as effectively and in many cases I think that is a good thing. For me, it’s the biggest reason I cannot be a Democrat; the party just doesn’t get this stuff at all, and it’s funny and shocking.
By all accounts the poor Dems have lost their way (so have the Republicans, honestly) since 2000. They have stumbled from one issue to the next, lacking any cohesive ideal for America. In fits and starts since the 2004 election they seem to have found at least part of one though, and it is too bad. I am going to call it economic populism, even though I don’t really know if that is technically correct. But you know what I mean, don’t you? Issues like:
*the dangerous threat of outsourcing (actually good thing) *raising the minimum wage (also a good thing) *bashing Wal-Mart
Yes, that’s right: if you are a Democrat you now hate Wal-Mart. According a New York Times article at least six Democratic presidential hopefuls attended rallies specifically targeting Wal-Mart’s low wages and lack of benefits for workers.
Supposedly this is part of a larger populist economic message, but like any recent Democratic messge, it’s a bit muddled. For example, the Dems want to raise the minimum wage to over $7. An excellent idea. But Joe Biden recently complained at an anti-Wal-Mart rally that “they talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?” Well, obviously you cannot. So what? Not every job in America is a career and not every job should be required to put you straight into the middle class. People take low-wage jobs for many reasons, and these jobs ensure that at least parts of the American economy stay competative.
What I find more telling about Biden’s comment, however, is that he seems to demand wages higher than $10 and hour, but his party does not propose raising the minimum wage higher than $7.50. Who can live a middle class life on that?
So, while they are busy bashing the largest private employee in the country for supposed sins, thousands of other companies are commiting the same sins without any outcry. But Wal-Mart is easy to hate and it is well-known. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say they want all workers to earn more than $10 (I do too, I just don’t think it is realistic). That would seriously destabalize the economics this country relies on, I think. Which would force most jobs overseas, except that won’t be allowed because outsourcing is bad.
I just don’t get the Democrat economic message. Can someone please explain it to me?
You have the right to defend yourself if attacked, including license to use deadly force in defense of your life. Much precedent and common sense unpins the notion of self-defence. Fifteen states have now enacted legislation that expands this idea, giving people the prerogative to shoot first, essentially. And not just to protect your self or your family from impending harm — now you can shoot to protect your property as well.
In Florida you are now within the law if you shoot an intruder who has entered your home or car by force, even before determining danger or trying to retreat. The notion that one should attempt to retreat before exercising deadly force is long established, although recently this has become a disused prerequisite in courts.
My concern is that a change in the law will lead to deaths that could be avoided if people tried first to get away from danger before acting with deadly force. No doubt supports of the change will make many arguments, including that people may not have time to fully determine the danger or that I am soft of crime and don’t want support crime victims. Both are specious arguments because a judge and jury should be sufficient to determine the motive of a crime victim’s self defense. Furthermore, just because I do not support the immediate execution of car jackers and thieves does not translate to being soft on crime or insensitive to its victims.
Let’s look at a few examples:
A cab from Florida shot and killed a man after driving him to his destination. The fare was “reluctant” to get out of the cab so the driver used a stun gun on him. The fare got out and started to “come at” the driver (who was still in his car), at which point he fired warning shots at the man’s feet and them at his body, killing him.
Why did he just drive away? The fare had no weapon, although the driver claimed he had a knife.
A second incident involved an argument between neighbors over the number of garbage bags left at the curb for collection. This ended up with one man shooting the other in the chest. He was not charged because of the new statute on self defense.
The shooting victim had no weapon, and the other man had to enter his house and fetch the weapon in before coming back out to shoot his neighbor.
Over trash bags? Really?
The NRA is, shockingly, supporting the law wherever possible on the argument that it “empowers good people to make good decisions,” which is clearly demonstrated by the above examples. I would argue that it empowers no one, and allows good people that make bad decisions to get away with crimes. This doesn’t reduce crime, it multiplies it by turning victims into criminals.
Did you know that President Bush hasn’t vetoed a single bill since taking office six years ago? How the heck does he manage that kind of congenial record with the most irritatingly partisan congress in history? I’ll tell you how: presidential singing statements.
Basically a signing statement is a brief note attached to a bill when the president signs it, which tells the congress how the Executive interprets the language of the bill. Sounds fair enough, right? Here’s an example dealing with one of my least favorite laws, The PATRIOT Act.
The law: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
The addition essential negates the law, returning authority to the Executive to do as he pleases.
Granted form presidents have also used these statements, that doesn’t make them less offensive to the idea of our republican democratic system. During the present administration they seem to deal often with alleged national security exemptions. Here’s my favorite example:
The law: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ”as advisory in nature.”
Essentially a big screw you to the people’s elected representatives from the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces.
Please stop writing to or calling your elected officials, they are very busy considering the very most important issues of the day an don’t have time to speak with you right now. Some of the pressing matters recently or soon to be voted on are:
- protecting the flag from the recent rash of burnings and other desecrating acts
- protecting innocent men and woman from the too-fabulous weddings of gay couples
- protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from recalcitrant schoolchildren and parents
- protecting free thinking individuals from the dangers of Internet Texas Hold’em poker
- various other unspecified “social issues” called the “The American Values Agenda”
Now here’s a list of the things that the congress considers less important, but that you still should not contact them about:
- discovering what’s broken in Iraq and helping to fix it
- providing legislation that will protect America from attachs via our seaports
- developing meaningful, consequential caps on vehicle emmisions to prevent global warming
- legitimately investigating and monitoring the president’s overreaching domestic surveillance programs
- stopping the same spy activities
- fixing the gaping budget deficit
- repairing Social Security and more importantly Medicare entitlements before they bankrupt my children’s government
- improving American primary and secondary schools
- helping the 40 million children without it to get into some form of health insurance program
He is consistently positive about the prospects for America’s contining to stand at the forefront of nations, economically, politically, and otherwise. Friedman’s column in the New York Times today is a perfect example of why I always enjoy reading what he has to say.
He describes his daughter’s graduation ceremony at a fairly large high school in Maryland. The roster of grads was very diverse:
The commencement was my daughter Natalie’s, the high school was Montgomery Blair in Silver Spring, Md. There were some 700 kids receiving their diplomas, and as I sat there for two hours listening to each one’s name pronounced, I became both fascinated and touched by the stunning diversity — race, religion, ethnicity — of the graduating class. I knew my daughter’s school was diverse, but I had no idea it was this diverse.
He goes on to say that there may be many reasons to feel pesemistic about the future of America: the war in Iraq, fiscal irresponsibility, and waning educational success. And then he turns it around again:
But if there is one reason to still be optimistic about America it is represented by the stunning diversity of the Montgomery Blair class of 2006. America is still the world’s greatest human magnet. We are not the only country that embraces diversity, but there is something about our free society and free market that still attracts people like no other. Our greatest asset is our ability to still cream off not only the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world but the low-skilled-high-aspiring ones as well, and that is the main reason that I am not yet ready to cede the 21st century to China. Our Chinese will still beat their Chinese. […] It is hard to watch a graduation like this and not think about our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan — the Taliban, Islamo-totalitarians like bin Laden and Zarqawi, and the retrograde regimes that support them. Their whole mind-set is about how to purify their world from “the other,” from diversity, from “infidels.” With enough brutality, they may win in Iraq. I still hope not But they will never win the future — because as soon as their oil wells run dry, their societies will be as barren, bland and unproductive as their deserts. Our oil wells, by contrast, will still be pumping. They’re right there, hiding in plain sight, in the Blair commencement book…
You may not have noticed it, but gas prices are incredible these days. During a trip down to Texas last month, I saw prices higher than $3 in Dallas and around $2.79 outside of Dallas. And of course this is happening while ExxonMobil (headquarters in DFW) rakes in profits of $8 billion in the first 3 months of 2006. Possibly I have it wrong, and someone please correct me if so, but the price of gas seems higher than would seem appropriate given increased demand and higher crude prices if profits are rising so dramatically for oil companies.
Our friends in the Congress are hard at work trying to appear hard-at-work doing something about gas and energy prices and their solution, at least the Senate’s one is to rebate what they estimate each person would pay in federal gas taxes for 10 months. How they figured 10 months, I have no clue, but they did. This comes to $11 per month or $99, which they rounded to $100 because it sounds better I guess.
Lame, ladies and gentlemen. Lame.
One hundred dollars per person regardless of car ownership to about 100 million people, would cost the government $10 billion — or about $2 billion more than what ExxonMobil made in the last 3 months. And as a bonus, it will give about two or three tanks worth of relief to recipients. Wait wait, there’s more — it won’t do a damn thing to temper demand the demand for gas, which is the only way to force gas prices back down.
Now here’s a novel ideal that’s been circulating that would force down gas prices by decreasing demand — raise the federal gas tax to $2 per gallon. Normally, being a Republican, I would oppose an increased tax, especially one designed to manipulate the market the way this would. However, in this case increasing the tax is a pragmatic solution to a problem that isn’t going to fix itself. The best part about this tax would be in its encouragement to drivers to drive less and buy more fuel efficient automobiles, and increases interests in alternative fuels like ethanol by making them more cost-effective in the short-term. Beyond that it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of oil, which has been a big part of President Bush’s rhetoric in the last five years, and something I agree with, but it avoid having to open up places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to do so.
I myself don’t want to pay $5 for a gallon of gas, but I recognize the overwhelming benefits to America if I am required to do so. Lucky for me I have public transportation in New York, but if I moved back to Texas and needed a car I would get myself a Honda Civic Hybrid, which is rated at 50 mpg combined city and highway. That’s probably more than twice what most cars get, effectively cutting my fuel bill in half. I get to drive twice as much as everyone else for the same capital and environmental costs.
With what seems like every retired general who can draw breath coming forward to dump on Donald Rumsfeld, it hardly seems necessary or fair for me to t o add to the chorus of dissent. Of course, I’ve never let that stop me in the past so why start changing now?
At the a press conference Gen. Peter Pace defended the Secretary of Defense by saying:
“Nobody, nobody works harder than he does to take care of the P.F.C.’s and lance corporals and lieutenants and the captains. He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights.
“People can question my judgment or his judgment,” he continued, “but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld.”
It is very likely that Donald Rumsfeld, the president, and the rest of the government and military are all very patriotic Americans. But is it right to argue that we should not ask for more than patriotism and dedication and long weekends? Those traits are no substitute for good judgement and correct choices, no matter how noble. If the military command was and is being ignored and Rumsfeld, as is obvious to me, cannot improve the situation through his decisions, then it is time for him to go.
Things in Iraq have been bungled and mismanaged, according to at least six retired generals. They use words like “casualness”, “swagger”, “wrongheaded”, and “arrogant” to describe Rumsfeld and the prosecution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I don’t see evidence to cause em to disagree. What I do see is a president unwilling to admit he was wrong and to take every conceivable step necessary to correct his mistake. What I see is a president who says we must support our troops, and then denies them the leadership that may prove more valuable and efficacious than all the body armor in the world.
Donald Rumsfeld, et al. may be a patriot, but the rest of us patriots want someone who is more than talk and swagger.
The cutest baby on the planet, now with three weeks added.
For those of you who don’t live in New York, it was a beautiful Spring day yesterday and so Baby and I decided to visit Central Park to enjoy the weather. While throwing the frisbee around, I accidentally pegged a passerby in the shin with a soccer ball. I don’t do sports, people. This is why.
