I Survived A Plane Crash — Now Pay Me!

I was wondering how long this would take.  I had hoped otherwise, but I just knew passengers of the US Airways jet that crash-landed in the Hudson River would start looking for a pay day.  I hadn’t heard that the airline had offered each passenger $5000 for “immediate needs” and to cover the cost of the ticket.  It’s very nice of the airline to do so (though I’m sure it’s a business decision, more than “niceness”).  And apparently many of the passengers appreciate the gesture.  But, of course, there are some that want more.

From the USA Today article:

Joe Hart, a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he “would like to be made whole for the incident.”

“Made whole?”  Does he want the airline to erase his memory of being in a plane crash?  Of course not.  He wants money.  Probably lots of money.

Now, I don’t know Joe Hart. He may be a decent person. He has obviously gone through a very traumatic experience — I can’t even imagine.  So, I don’t want to impugn his character here. But all indications are that this was a freak accident that the pilots did nothing to instigate and everything to mitigate.  Everyone walked away with their lives, and, at worst, minor injuries.  So, why must someone pay (aside from the geese, who paid with their lives)?  And why on Earth should the airline pay?

It sickens me. There is a disgusting need, in our culture, to find someone to blame and punish for every bad thing that happens to us. It’s a terrible way to live. It turns every stranger — even non-strangers — into a potential adversary with a dollar sign on his head. It pits doctors against patients (every mistake must be malpractice), teachers and schools against parents (ever wonder why all of the playgrounds are disappearing?), shopkeepers against their customers (slip and fall scam, anyone?), and provides a strong disincentive for anyone to try to create anything new that might actually improve people’s lives.

And now this.  A man survives a plane crash in which everyone recognizes the heroic efforts of the pilot, and he wants “to be made whole.”  Sorry, but if the miracle of surviving a plane crash (that was no fault of the airline’s) is not an incredible enough gift for you, money is not going to make you whole.

And to the National Air Disaster Alliance & Foundation, which thinks $5000 is not enough, because passengers lost a bunch of stuff:  um, so what? The airline didn’t lose it. The pilot didn’t lose it. The geese and the Hudson River (and physics) took it.  They also took a multi-million dollar plane from US Airways.  Maybe the Port Authority of NY and NJ should reimburse the airline, because their river destroyed the plane?

The Cult Of Obama (Children Should Not Vote)

Barack Obama is our president.  We’ve had 43 others. I do think it’s significant that we finally have a non-white guy in the office.  Otherwise, color me unimpressed.  Color me unenthusiastic.  Color me however you want, but just don’t color me with the same 4-color palette of the “Obamicon.”  I’m sure some people are just doing it to be silly, but I find it, and the other ways Obama is being idolized, a bit disturbing.

Barack Obama is a man – a human being.  Sure, he’s a talented politician, and he may turn out to be a decent leader.  But he’s not “hope,” he’s not a savior, he’s not brilliant, and he’s most likely not going to make the world a better place.  It is likely that he’ll take the United States a long way down the road to European-style socialism.  It is beyond doubt that he will vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government — he has laid out his plans to do so.

Now, perhaps you like that idea.  Maybe you think a bigger, more involved, more activist government is a good thing.  OK.  I don’t agree, but OK.  But come on, do you have to act like a 12-year-old girl falling to pieces over her favorite Jonas Brother?  Seriously?  This idol worship just reinforces the perception that most of his “supporters” were simply voting for the symbol, the celebrity.  This is why a lot of republicans think of democrats as unserious.  Democrats seem to go for the “rock star” candidate.  Obama has the thinnest resume of any modern president, and so was elected mainly on blind faith.  This had a lot of us, who did not support him, scratching our heads.  And now all the idol worship just seems to confirm the suspicion that a bunch of empty-headed children swung the election in Obama’s favor.

Perhaps this actually touches on the nature of the difference between republicans and democrats.  Democrats tend to support the idea of a more paternalistic government:  pay for our health care, our education, even our food, give us a job and don’t let us fail — take care of us!  So, maybe it makes sense that so many democrats see their president as the guy who can “save us” — the way children see their parents.  But still, the icons, the slogans, the fawning press coverage, the crying when he speaks, the cheerleading — these things make Obama supporters look like followers, similar to how North Koreans look worshiping Kim Jong Il, or the Chinese idolizing Mao.  So, please, cut it out.  It’s creepy, and it’s childish.

Do People Really Find This Guy Shocking?

Here we go again.  “Funny man,” Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie, Bruno, is on its way, and we’re already hearing about how shocking Cohen is going to be.  In fact, we’ve been hearing about it for months.  I’m sorry, but doesn’t that kind of diminish the whole shock factor?  “Hey, go see this super shocking movie.  You’re going to be super shocked!!  Did we mention how super shocking — and outrageous — it is?”  Talk about setting up expectations.  Anyway, that would be bad enough, if Cohen was actually funny or shocking.  I’m sorry to burst bubbles here, but he’s neither.  I recently watched Borat.  Well, most of it, anyway — I thought it was so pathetically stupid that I sent it back without finishing it.  So, I have to ask.  Do people really find Cohen shocking?  Do they really find him funny?  Did anyone not know that he was going to start making out with his “sister,” after introducing her as the town whore?  Was him breaking a bunch of stuff in the antique shop not ridiculously predictable?  How about his ridiculous, juvenile, phony national anthem performance?  He sure taught those overly-patriotic rednecks a lesson.  Ooo!  He’s so outrageous!  *yawn*

Privacy And Liberty – Hand In Glove?

A friend of  mine wrote a blog post about the right to privacy and the erosion of our “basic human rights,” resulting from our government’s efforts to fight terrorism.  I started responding with a comment, but it got pretty long, so, I decided to write my own post on the subject instead.

Being that I tend toward libertarianism in my governing philosophy, I do agree that we have to be very careful about granting the government permission to put in place policies that threaten our basic freedoms.  I’m not going to defend recent security policies (the Patriot Act is specifically called out, in my friend’s post), except to say that the situation over these past several years has required a very difficult balancing act. Has there been some overreaching? I’m sure there has. Hopefully our representatives throughout government will realize the areas where overreach has occurred, and correct it.

The government is specifically tasked with protecting and defending the people of the United States. When the largest concern was invasion or attack by an opposing army or their long-range weapons, providing security meant one thing. But, given the string of terrorist attacks that lead up to (and have occurred since) the attacks of 9/11/2001, providing security now means something else. Figuring out the most effective ways to provide that security, while not trampling on our basic freedoms, will assuredly take some time. But is it better to do nothing until we figure things out? My Friend quotes Benjamin Franklin while making his case against the erosion of our privacy rights:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I’m not sure what Franklin is saying here really applies.  Are you more free if you have to fear being blown up on public transit on your way to work or if your bags are searched, once in a while? (And is it not the right of the operator of the transit system to set rules for its passengers?) Is not having your bag searched for explosives an “essential liberty?” For that matter, is communicating without someone else snooping an essential liberty? I feel certain that being able to speak your mind, meet with whomever you want, worship as you see fit, move freely and not be falsely imprisoned are essential liberties — and my guess would be that these are the kinds of essential liberties to which Franklin was referring.  But is freedom to not have other people know things about you essential? I’m not so sure. The act of using such information against you improperly should be forbidden. But gathering that information? I don’t know that the answer is so clear. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather not have my emails monitored, nor my conversations eavesdropped upon. But does the mere act of monitoring really impede my freedom? I can’t say that it does.

Is privacy itself a “basic human right,” as my friend suggests?  I’d imagine that the reason privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a protected right is that it is difficult to quantify, and therefore cannot be construed as a basic human right.  Freedom of speech?  That’s easy enough — government can not stop you from saying what you want to say.  Freedom of the press?  Sure — government cannot stop you from printing what you want to print.  These are actions you have a right to take, which our government cannot prohibit.  But what about privacy?  Privacy is not an action.  It is not something you can do, and it is therefore not something that someone can stop you from doing.  This is why many privacy debates come down to discussions about “unreasonable search.”  Eavesdropping on your cell phone conversations is framed as an unreasonable search.  Intercepting and scanning your email is an unreasonable search.  Using heat sensing technology to peak into your home is an unreasonable search.  I believe a good case can be made for all of these examples, depending upon the idea of what makes a search unreasonable.  However, a reasonable case can be made on the other side, as well.  If you’re knowingly sending out a signal carrying your conversation onto the airwaves, or transmitting an email through multiple servers owned by other parties, across public and private networks, are you not, by definition, taking some non-private action?  What about walking down the street, or sitting in a cafe, having a private conversation with someone?  Obviously, nosy people nearby can hear what you’re saying.  Is that a violation of some right?  What I’m trying to get across is that the mere fact that you want something to be private neither makes it private nor means you have a right for it to be so.  And governments snooping into what you’re doing and saying, while creepy,  is not in itself necessarily something to get all wound up about.  It’s the abuse of the information they obtain, leading to the violation of one or more of your actual rights, that is something we should all be ready to fight.

Want to be concerned about government encroachment on our rights?  How about the fact that the government is taking over more and more of what is supposed to be the private sector, and is assuming an ever-increasing role in manipulating what is supposed to be a free market economy?  Now that is trading freedom for temporary (financial) security.

Can Everyone Please Just Take A Deep Breath?

Has our country gone completely insane?  Out government is bailing out entire industries.  The incoming president is promising to spend unheard of amounts of money (that the government does not have).  And nearly everyone seems to be perfectly OK with this — or at least tolerant of it.  We all got into the mess we’re in (people, companies, governments) because we over-extended ourselves.  And now it seems like everyone wants to call a do-over.  We can’t just wipe away the mistakes we’ve made and start over.  It doesn’t work that way.  If the federal government pours a trillion dollars into the economy, this year, in an effort to ease everyone’s suffering, there will be consequences to be faced.  We don’t have the money to spend.  That means that we’ll either have to just print it, and drive down the value of the money we do have, or we’ll have to borrow it.  At some point, those who are lending it to us (by buying bonds and such) are going to realize that they’re no longer going to be able to expect much of a return.  The rumblings have already begun.  So then what?

How about this?  Stop overreacting!  Yes, we want the economy to turn around and start growing again.  But, as we’ve seen over and over again, when the growth is artificial, the collapse can be brutal.  So, stop.  Let the economy find it’s footing.  Let businesses work out how they’re going to work things out.  Don’t dangle the promise of billions of dollars in front of them, so that they don’t take the steps they know they should, because they’re waiting for their big government payday.  Let housing prices find some natural equilibrium.  Sure it hurts the people (like me) who are losing a lot of the money they sunk into their last home purchase.  But those people (like me) will be able to take advantage of those same lower prices when they look for a new home.  In fact, let prices in general find a more natural level.  People will not produce things on which they cannot make money, but that doesn’t mean nothing will be produced.  Do we really think there’s no room for the price of that $2 bottle of water to come down a bit?  How about the $80 sweater?  Can’t get by selling it for $60?  (Or $40?)  Come on.  We all know we spend way too much money on things we don’t really need.  Let those things get squeezed a bit.  And how about letting some states get squeezed a bit.  California is running a huge deficit?  Well, maybe now is a good time for California to figure out just why the heck it’s spending so much money.  Maybe it will take taxpayers not getting their refund checks to make them (finally) hold their representatives’ feet to the fire.

We are not headed for catastrophy.  We’re not all going to lose everything we have.  Many of us will lose some.  And some of us will have to make some major adjustments.  But the world is not ending.  These times do not call for unprecendented measures.  Unprecedented measures have unknown consequences.  So, slow down.  We have a very rational system, when it’s permitted to be rational.  Let’s let it do its thing.