Stir The Pot

An article from CBS appeared on the web this morning regarding announcing that "the FAA is prepared to propose an initiative that would prohibit pilots from using personal wireless devices in the cockpit for the entire flight, aiming to cut down on any distractions. The proposed prohibition comes nearly a year after Congress called for it to be implemented as FAA law."

It goes on to say that "the FAA’s latest push against personal devices in the cockpit comes after several incidents in the past few years happened as a result of pilots using personal devices, such as laptops, in the cockpit during flights. One incident in particular was the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407. In that February 2009 tragedy, the co-pilot sent a text message about five minutes before the plane was cleared for takeoff. Shortly thereafter, the plane crashed, resulting in 50 deaths."

Let's think about this. 

Continental Connection Flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, made a delayed departure at 9:20 PM EST from Newark (NJ)'s Liberty International Airport enroute to Buffalo (NY)'s Niagara International Airport.  At 10:17 PM EST, 57 minutes into the flight, the plane crashed into a house in Clarence Center, NY, after experiencing an aerodynamic stall while on final approach into Buffalo.

The cause of the crash was determined to be lack of proper training on the part of the pilots in failing to recognize and correctly respond to an aerodynamic stall.  Contributing factors were ice accumulation which caused the stall, and the inability of the autopilot, which was engaged, to compensate for the change in aerodynamic characteristics caused by the ice accumulation.

Fifty-seven minutes into a flight is not "shortly [there]after" takeoff.

A text message sent on the ground five minutes before takeoff did not cause the aircraft to "experience an aerodynamic stall" an hour and two minutes later.

The one has nothing to do with the other.  

Therefore, how is this relevant to the subject of "several incidents in the past few years happen[ing] as a result of pilots using personal devices, such as laptops, in the cockpit during flights."?  Why would a "reporter" write a story in which an irrelevant incident which played no part in an accident is used to reinforce the reason for the FAA's proposal?  How does an "editor" miss such a glaring disconnect from logic?

The only people who accept the CBS report as "fact" anymore are what have become known as "low-information voters."  

For the rest of us, sifting through crap like this to get at the truth is becoming more and more annoying.

In response to the mass murder of small children and teachers that took place last year in the Sandy Hook elementary school’s gun-free zone, NRA executive president Wayne LaPierre’s suggested that all schools be required to have an armed police officer present.  

The anti-gun crowd and their agitprop lackeys predictably went nuts.  Instead of using this as an opportunity for rational discussion or compromise, since it didn’t contribute to their agenda of disarming law-abiding citizens, the president and his cronies dismissed the idea out of hand (despite NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly’s assertion that they were already doing that in their schools).  Some on the president’s side even claimed it would be too costly – ironic, coming from those who won’t even discuss reductions in spending elsewhere to balance the budget or reduce the deficit.  Ironic and cynical coming from those whose rallying cry for every new denial of liberty is "But if it saves just one life. . . .!"

However, Sidwell Friends School, educators of the Washington elite, made the announcement in the wake of Sandy Hook, that they were increasing their armed guard presence from 11 to 14 guards.   

The National Rifle Association took the opportunity to post a Web video that labeled President Barack Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing his daughters  (who attend the exclusive private school) to be protected by armed Secret Service agents while not embracing armed guards for schools.  "Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the video narrator asks rhetorically, and answers "Then why is he skeptical of putting armed security in schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards in their school?"  A fair question.

Even before the president unveiled his restrictive gun proposals, the video drew an indignant response from the White House.  In a typically cynical attempt to depict their enemies as having crossed the lines of decency, White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed "Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” a truism that was conveniently forgotten by the agitprop press during President Bush’s terms.

Mr. Carney, of course, had no problem using other people’s children as pawns in a political fight, especially for photo ops of a "caring" president at Sandy Hook.  He probably played a major role in setting it up.  Nobody made an issue of that, since the nation was grieving, and to cast question upon his motives would have been rightly perceived as unseemly and insensitive. 

“But,” Mr. Carney continued, “to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."  Attack ad?  Pointing out that Washington elites, from the president on down, mouth platitudes of fairness and equality, yet in practice live by “rules for thee, not for me” is an attack ad?  More like an astute observation regarding the continuing class warfare coming from this administration!

Yet the very same week, the president presented the opening shot of his agenda to disarm law-abiding citizens at a White House event in front of an audience that included children, and relatives of some of the children slaughtered in the defenseless free-fire zone of Sandy Hook public elementary school. 

"We can't put this off any longer," he said, vowing to use "whatever weight this office holds" to make his proposals of war on the rights of law-abiding citizens a reality. "Congress must act soon," he said, flanked by schoolchildren – other people’s children being used as pawns in a political fight.  

Mr. Carney’s outrage was noticeably absent that day, but the repugnant and cowardly display of using other people’s children as pawns in a political fight that does nothing to guarantee their safety did not go unnoticed by the public.

"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia?  They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State...."

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

So then their counter-argument becomes that the militia today only means the National Guard.  

From the United States Code (federal law):

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [former members of the armed forces up to age 65], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Wow!!  I'll bet there are millions of people out there who never realized that they are/were part of the unorganized militia.  

And they didn't even have to take an oath to join!!

From thehill.com:  “Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) announced the vice chairmen of a congressional task force on gun prevention on Friday.”

If I hadn’t seen it myself, I would never have believed it! 

I was watching “Castle” on ABC when the commercial break came on.  I usually take this opportunity to hit the “mute” button, but for some reason this time I didn’t.  An ad came on promoting a new movie by an old Sylvester Stallone (he looked 70-ish).  The movie was typical Stallone depicting violent themes and titled “Bullet to the Head.”

Immediately following the movie commercial was a promo for a Diane Sawyer ABC news exclusive interview with Gabby Giffords, the Arizona Congresswoman who took a bullet to the head during a shooting rampage by a wacko in Tucson.

I’ve always wondered why automotive manufacturers put up with the commercials they’ve paid millions to produce and air being immediately followed with their competitors' commercials in the same break.  If it were me, I would have demanded my money back.  This, however seemed to raise cynicism to a new level.

Could this have possibly been more insensitive?  Could ABC management really be so clueless to the message that was being conveyed by airing these commercials back-to-back?  Are they really that indifferent, or out of touch, or are they just that cynical?  Is it the arrogance of media infotainment "progressives" such that they just don’t care how that message combination resonates with the public?  

Yet in a related note (that of being completely out of touch or grotesquely cynical) Quentin Tarantino is "disturbed" by the torrent of criticism poured on his über-violent new movie, "Django Unchained" for being (like his other films) too violent. "Yeah, I'm really annoyed," he told NPR's Terry Gross of people who censure him in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre for promoting movie violence.

Connecting movies and a real-life tragedy, Tarantino says, is foolish!!!

"I think it's disrespectful to [the victims'] memory, actually ... to talk about movies," he said. "Obviously, the issue is gun control and mental health." Continued Tarantino: "I've been asked this question for 20 years - about the effects of violence in movies related to violence in real life. My answer is the same as 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota.  I don't think one has to do with the other." 

Oh, no, of course it's not his fault!  Obviously, it's the fault of millions of law-abiding gun owners!  He's only exercising his 1st Amendment rights, while they're being selfish -- selfish -- for defending their 2nd Amendment rights! 

I guess this attitude pretty much summarizes why ABC can't see a connection about a violent movie promo for "Bullet to the Head" and a Gabby Giffords interview.