 |
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 |
The AFP on Monday reported the incident of an American Airlines pilot who, while the aircraft was waiting in cue to take off, got on the PA system and began to have Christian passengers and then non-Christian passengers identify themselves. He spoke about serving a mission in Costa Rica and seemed to hint (according to many passengers) that non-Christian passengers were "crazy."
Many passengers were immediately concerned, so much so that a few called loved ones on their cell phones, worrying that something was going to happen to the flight. Flight attendents quickly attempted to quell the concerns. They reported it to the pilot, who, after 45 minutes, got back on the PA and apologized to the flight attendants for having to take heat from the passengers for what he said. He did not apologize to the passengers.
Paul over at Playing With My Food has posted the interview of the pilot, in which the pilot still does not feel he did anything wrong.
This story disturbs me. It seems to be the paradigm of how the Christian Right is quickly becoming an aggressive and even lawless movement, feeling they can do whatever they want and it will be the right thing because it is for God.
The fact that the pilot did not express regret for saying what he did shows a contempt for the people he is being paid to serve. With the images of the doomed flights of 9/11 still fresh in our psyche, and having the knowledge that the terrorists were religious fundamentalists, this pilot's words to a planeful of trapped passengers are definitely threatening. I too would have worried about the intentions of the pilot. I too would have questioned his mental ability to be the pilot.
American Airlines should heavily reprimanded the pilot, if not let him go.
10:19:42 PM  | |
|
|
Eschaton linked to a Gail Sheehy article from the New York Observer titled "Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show." Sheehy updates us on the investigation into 9/11, painting the most complete picture of what actually took place on the planes to date. Sheehy also explains the frustration by many families of the pilots, flight attendents, and passengers who feel that the investigation is being controlled by the White House, who have excused themselves from appearing in front of the panel except in closed quarters and who have sealed 28 pages of the 9/11 Report (which consisted of information regarding Saudi Arabia).
See my previous post The President's New Dilemma for more information on the 9/11 Report.
Atrios is right. Sheehy's article is a must read.
7:20:10 PM | |
|
|
On Big Government
LiberalOasis today talked about the how the Right are spinning the fact that Bush has made the government bigger under his watch. LO suggests that the Dems should call Bush on hypocrisy and fiscal responsibility because of this. In fact, to help the Dems out, LO created a great response I feel will come in handy come campaign debate time. It reads as follows:
"It’s not about whether government grows or shrinks, it’s about whether our government is serving our needs and spending our money wisely.
"The government had to grow to respond to our homeland security needs. And so it grew under George Bush.
"Yet, it’s still not serving our needs, because he’s not properly funding first responders, he’s not funding thorough cargo inspections, and he’s leaving a massive debt for our grandchildren to pay off."
On Bush's Character
Salon.com printed an excerpt from Paul Waldman's book Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You. I found this paragraph most revealing:
According to the Washington Post, friends and lawmakers who met with Bush just before he launched the invasion found him "upbeat," "chatty," "cocky and relaxed" and "in high spirits." The most revealing moment came when he thought the cameras were off: Before he gave his national address announcing that the war had begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist, as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. "Feels good," he said.
Yet the mainstream press, given this appalling glimpse into the president's character, chose to remain silent, no doubt hesitant to become the target of the White House's wrath, not to mention that of innumerable conservatives demanding that they support the president in a time of war. But after all, we are talking about what ABC News' "The Note" referred to as "inarguably the most beaten down press corps in the modern era."
On Liberals
Here is a noteworthy quote from Waldman's book about the conservative media and their attack on the liberals:
The conservative media apparatus is an integrated system in which stories circulate between talk radio, conservative magazines and newspapers and the Fox News Channel, generating momentum and pushing their way into more mainstream news outlets. The most enthusiastic goal of this media machine is locating and publicizing foolish things said by liberals, no matter how obscure or inconsequential the speaker may be, to inspire mainstream contempt for liberals. The idea that the words of some random professor or student are more important than the actions of the country's leaders may be farcical, but by giving endless attention to these alleged outrages, conservatives sustain the image of liberals as powerful and elitist and conservatives as persecuted and victimized. Were they so inclined, liberals could no doubt find conservative citizens who say stupid things too. But no one is paying them to undertake the search.
On the FCC's Investigation of Janet Jackson
From The Guardian in Britain comes an excellent opinion piece by Gary Younge titled "Ignorance is no excuse." He lambasts the US government for rushing into an investigation of a bare breast instead of one over the rush to war against Iraq. Here are some great excerpts:
Let's leave aside for a moment the value system of a government that can order an immediate inquiry into a bare breast and take a year to launch one into a bare-faced lie presented as a pretext for war. For there is a far more important principle at hand than the US government's calibration of indecency.
At best somewhere along the way on Super Bowl night there was an unfortunate mistake, either individual or systemic. At worst, and more likely, this was a cynical, tasteless publicity stunt. Either way it was wrong, and Michael Powell is going to make sure that whoever is responsible will pay the price.
Hold that thought. Now cast your mind back to the United Nation's security council chamber a year ago last Friday. With the help of tapes, aerial photographs and a PowerPoint presentation, Michael Powell's father, Colin, illustrates the US government's case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Jabbing the air and slapping the table, he offers "not assertions, but facts" and "evidence, not conjecture".
Colin Powell's "evidence" and "facts" have been proven to be not only "assertions" and "conjecture", but erroneous ones at that. But one year, one war, no UN resolution and thousands of deaths later, we are still waiting for someone to pay the price for a conflict that never needed to start and sparked a resistance that shows no sign of ending.
On Learned Helplessness
Dave Pollard of How to Save the World published an incredible poem (I do believe it is original, too) titled "An Ode to Learned Helplessness." I'm including his excellent ending here:
The greater dangers we ignore, distracted by learned helplessness:
Pollution, global warming, wealth imbalance, population stress,
Injustice, power run amok, farm factories, the world's oppressed.
And while we look the other way, extinction looms within the fog
Divert attention for too long and we become The Boiling Frog.
6:47:43 AM | |
|
|
|
|
