KOREA: WHY?

August 21st, 2017

Note (04SEP2017): So, in the midst of the fruitless yak and the ineffective sanctions, North Korea may have tested successfully a fusion-based weapon suitable for fitting onto an ICBM. Hydrogen bomb, in commonplace parlance! Thank you, Mr. Clinton for your feckless lying in 1994.

Consequence of the testing? Talk and more talk; sanctions and more sanctions. Meanwhile, a possible alternative for us Americans, unpalatable as it may be, exists albeit ignored. Our so-called leaders have convinced us better to have dead Americans and Koreans than just dead Koreans. If and when, the “nukes” explode over these United States of America as a consequence of our involvement in a civil war among Koreans, in those moments between living and dying, perhaps those in favor of such involvement may have second thoughts.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Korea! Why is our American military still there — there, so many decades after the end of the Korean Conflict; so many years after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union? Why are our political leaders so enthusiastic about risking the nuclear annihilation of these United States of America and the rest of the world in order to become involved in a civil war among Koreans? A treaty, you say?

See “DEFEND SOUTH KOREA?”

The Korean-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is a dangerous joke. Mutual defense? Did we Americans then or do we now need the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to defend us against foreign aggression? The treaty represents a one-way street for us to defend them militarily while they rape us economically.

Military treaties are made with such ease. Military treaties are defended with such difficulty. Making a treaty involves words easily written. Defending a treaty involves lives brutally spent and treasure often wasted.

Democracy
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Democracy? By way of correcting a widespread misapprehension, these United States were founded neither as a pure democracy nor a republican democracy but as a democratic republic. Yes, there is a difference.

See “DEMOCRACY? WRONG, MR. CHURCHILL”.

On principle and by tradition, however, a strong case can be made that these United States judiciously should support everywhere the cause of individual freedom embracing the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Support with words but not by blood unless the latter directly and overwhelmingly be in our own national interest.

Against the advice of our Founding Fathers, “Neo-Conservatives” and their supporters favor imposing democracy by force upon backward countries resistant to even the concept. Witness the abhorrent consequences and the cost to this nation in blood but much more in treasure of such adventurism to date. Afghanistan, where we had won with a thousand troops then lost with a hundred thousand?

PART TWO

The North Korean Perspective
As we humans creep closer to nuclear self-annihilation, consider the consequences of our ignoring consequences. Specifically, the consequences of President Truman’s ignoring the consequences of not winning the Korean Conflict. The consequences of Clinton’s ignoring the consequences of North Korean lies then compounding the matter with lies of his own; thereby, allowing that Communistic tyranny, now turning Fascistic, to develop nuclear weapons. The consequences of the fecklessness of Bush the Second then of Barack Hussein Obama II.

In contrast, the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) attended to consequences — consequences befalling others; for example, the trampling of Slobodan Miloševic’s Yugoslavia by American-led NATO with its civilian bombing. Would NATO have acted so cavalierly, whatever the claimed righteousness of its cause, if Miloševic had had nuclear weapons? Would the Europeans in front and these United States behind so cavalierly have attacked Muammar al-Gaddafi’s Libya had he succeeded in gaining nuclear weapons?

The consequence of the heavy-handedness of Americans’ behavior was to demonstrate to small, weaker nations the consequence of a behavioral deficit in gaining such weapons. The North Koreans claim, with obvious military justification, that they are protecting themselves from American military action. They understand consequences. We do not.

See “PERSPECtIVE FROM PYONGYANG” .

Beneficiaries
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)

In these United States, who directly benefits most from wars? The dead and wounded? No. The taxpayers? No. The “military-industrial complex”? Yes.

Former General of the Army (5-stars) and President of these United States warned us to beware of its power and potentially pernicious influence. It represents a dual-edged sword. One edge, defense; the other, deceit combined with inefficiency. Witness the fiasco called the F-35.

“The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists.” – Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

Yes, we must maintain a strong military force and the industry that supports it. No, we must not allow misguided capitalists and militarists who place short-term profit before long-term patriotism to influence us towards our own annihilation and that of the rest of the world.

Recall the words of Vladimir Lenin when he supposedly said, “’The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.” In this instance, he knew of that which he spoke. Let us not be led down the Path to Perdition by propaganda from those in Big Business seeking only personal profit and politicians seeking only personal advantage at the expense of American security.

See “Chinese Missile Allegations: Key Stories” .

With regard to Korea, when exposing ourselves to the self-inflated talking heads on radio and television, writers in the newspapers and magazines, and even commentators in social media, we continually should ask ourselves, “In the first place, why are we there?” Few ask that question.

Solution
Is there a solution to the current Korean mess dumped onto President Trump by his feckless, incompetent predecessors? Possibly.

No, we should not allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons with the means of delivery to the American mainland. The same admonition applies to the religious fanatics in Iran; its ilk poses a threat in which China, Russia, and these United States operate under a common variable.

Yes, we possibly can come to a non-violent accommodation with North Korea — non-violent for these United States, which should be the primary concern of our government. We can offer Kim Jong-un the following:
1) These United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

Would Kim accept such an offer? Possibly, mainly depending upon China. Consider the alternative of potential nuclear war involving the same China with the certain annihilation of Kim and much of his rump-state. Believe the following: There is no tactical nuclear war that does not lead to strategic nuclear war!

Should Kim accept the offer, would he attack South Korea afterwards? Possibly. His doing so, however, would amount to an active civil war among Koreans. It is not in our own overwhelming national interests to intervene? How? Diplomatically? Possibly. Militarily? No.

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Of note, in 2009 we published a semi-fictional novel entitled Inescapable Consequence. Chapter Twelve describes the events that are occurring today in Korea.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

June 19th, 2017

Note (10JUL2017): As though the world required more confirmation of the semi-psychotic state into which these United States of America have degenerated, the U.S. Army reportedly issued new instructions concerning so-called trans-gender personnel. Normal females in the context of a shower-room simply should ignore an abnormal, naked male characterizing himself as “trans-gender”. Those who are religious might view this blatant denial of reality as spitting into the eye of God. Those who are less religious might view it as poking a finger into the eye of Mother Nature. Whatever the case, reality is reality, and perversion is perversion.

Note (03JUL2017): Tomorrow is Independence Day. Independence from what? In 1776, from the British Crown. Today, from social sanity. The following posting offers a commentary on but one aspect of the semi-psychotic state into which this land of the increasingly enslaved and home of the increasingly timid has become.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” -Camille Paglia (b. 1947)

Radical Feminism: A movement demanding a restructuring of society, so that male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

One element amid the decline of these United States of America has been the rise of “Radical Feminism” devolving into that which might be called “Radical Maternalism”. What is “Radical Maternalism”?

Radical Maternalism: The infecting of normal maternalism with a combination of “Radical Feminism” and perverted “humanitarianism”.

“What fools these mortals be.” -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD)

Envy
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis may have been off the mark with his non-scientific theories of mental activity, but he was close to the truth in many of his phenomenological descriptions thereof. One of those descriptions addressed human females’ envy of the male sexual organ.

Freud’s explanation revolved around anxiety, often unconscious, among little girls elicited by their father’s manliness, which seemed, even unseen, as dangerously gigantic — capable of ripping them apart. As little boys identify with their father’s organ and, thereby, with their father, given their anxiety little girls identify with their mothers, who as they do lack the frightening member.

Recent trends among many American women give credit to Freud’s observation. Examples?

“And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.” -First Kings 16:11 (King James Bible)

Zippers. Traditionally, women’s slacks had their zippers on the side; thereby, maintaining a smooth and pleasing frontal line. Then, the zipper on women’s slacks migrated to the front to become a “fly” as on men’s slacks; thereby, disrupting that line. What’s the point? Biologically, women do not have the anatomical equipment to require or even make use of a “fly”.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell

Another example? Grammatically, the disappearance of the feminine among nouns; for example, aviatrix and executrix. Even more to the point, the use of the plural pronoun in the third person when its antecedent is singular.

These examples may seem trivial to some. They are not! Their inefficiency symbolizes a confused and conflicted society in decline and on fire.

The War Against Men
“To accuse is to smear.” -Saying

The Radical Maternalists have enjoyed success while the nation suffers failure. They have declared a War Against Men. One of their most potent weapons has been the accusation of sexual harassment. Its mere suggestion forces American men, now emasculated, to cringe — successful companies to disintegrate.

A lone woman, even a known prostitute, accuses; sometimes years after the alleged act. She offers no objective evidence. The accused male is guilty with no way to prove himself innocent. Be he an executive, he is fired or suspended, at best. Be he a student, he is expelled, prevented from even confronting his accuser. Be he key-man to a commercial enterprise, it suffers substantial financial reversal.

Has the accused with the been found guilty in a court of law? No. Has the accused been arrested? No. Has a criminal charge been brought against him? No. His career, nevertheless, is ruined, and his personal life destroyed. All because a lone woman accused him without objective evidence. His possession of a penetrating sexual organ is sufficient.

“Wait!” you say. “After she made her accusation public, other women made the same accusation.”

So? None produced objective evidence. The only confirmation was hearsay.

The following is a true story:
Some years ago, a woman working in an office-building began to complain of generalized itching upon arriving at work. Her complaint became a public accusation that the building was infested with some unknown, unseen vermin and that the callous owners, men of course, had been indifferent to her alleged plight. Immediately, thereafter, her complaint spread among other women. An expert’s investigation of the building revealed nothing. A dermatologist’s examination of the women revealed nothing. Asked for his opinion, a psychiatrist labelled the accusations a sign of “mass hysteria”. The accusing women were advised of his professional opinion. Their complaints faded into a past, for them, best forgotten.

PART TWO

Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

A definition reflecting a noble sentiment, indeed. The question arises, however, What form does that “concern” take operationally in terms of actual behavior?

Sadly, “humanitarianism” has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for substantially the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part — often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism, for example, the disestablishmentarians concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less 0.1% of the population, they destroyed a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind; infecting even the military. As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware especially of those claiming to generate social change in order to “protect the children”!

Too often, abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies without scientific basis promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called humanitarianism and social justice become the basis for law. Currently, we are witnessing such madness sweep the country.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Normal maternalism places mercy before justice. Normal paternalism places justice before mercy. Combined with moderation, prudence, and charity, together they generate healthy humanitarianism.

In these United States, no longer! The Radical Maternalists and their sycophantic supporters on The Left have accused men of waging a so-called War Against Women. They claim that, in the name of their version of humanitarianism, women must be elevated economically, politically, and socially based upon their sex not upon their abilities.

The strategy is to emasculate men, beginning with little boys in kindergarten. In schools across the nation, both public and private, feminine sympathy has replaced masculine honor. Gone is accepting individual responsibility for one’s own self in favor of shifting collective responsibility to others. Gone is heroic strength among men in their righteous pursuit of riches in favor of cowardly stealth masking perverse deception and treachery. Gone is grace among women in their righteous and proud pursuit of feminine honor in favor of disgrace in a lustful pursuit of dishonor and an impossible pursuit of manhood.

Consequences
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” -Yogi Berra (1925-2015)

B = f(x) under c. Science tells us, “Behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context.”

Ideologues of The Left would have us believe that theory trumps practice. Witness the continued resurrection of Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union via messengers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (b. 1941), frighteningly admired by an indoctrinated and misguided American youth. Perhaps, spending a month in the socialist reality of Venezuela might make them realize the actual consequences of “free-this” and “free-that” really mean.

“For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” – Will Durant (1885-1981)

The rise of Radical Maternalism concurrent with the decline of the nation is no coïncidence. Can women lead a nation? Yes, consider Queen Elizabeth I and Prime Ministeress Thatcher of England and Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia. Should women be given equal opportunity under equal circumstances? Yes. Should women or minorities, for that matter, be given unequal advancement in order to achieve equal outcome? Consider the consequences.

Men and women are not equal and never will be; propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. From top to bottom — inside and outside, they differ biologically in anatomy and physiology. To pretend otherwise is to travel the Path to Perdition, as is Western civilization currently. Conversely, to give each his rightful due is to travel the Road to Righteousness, a route long departed.

Ultimately, however, reality wins. So it will be in these United States; ideologues of both Left and Right notwithstanding. Given current trends, it will be ugly. What then? The aftermath promises to be frightening.

There is a constructive alternative rarely mentioned, if ever. Biobehavioral Science. Shall we employ it? What’s your bet?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

 

SINKING SHIPS

June 5th, 2017

Note (12JUN2017): As the Mohammedans continue their “Silent Invasion” of these United States of America and their not-so-silent invasion of Europe, Western Civilization continues to rend itself into conflicting pieces. The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West; in this case, on the on the East and on the West.

Tell me, tell me, tell me lies. Tell me lies. Tell me sweet little lies.” -from Little Lies (1987) by Christine McVie (b. 1943) and Eddy Quintela (b.1955)

“Believing is seeing, but seeing is not believing.” -drawn from John 11

Fools fooling themselves. Seeing only that which they wish to believe.

They had opened the gates to groups that would destroy them economically; politically; sociologically; and, yes, biologically. Firstly, a group of an entirely different race then two groups of different sub-races. Oh, they had been warned more than a generation before by a then-prominent politician. They vilified him as a “Nazi”, driving him into infamous obscurity.

The first group had no particular culture except stupidity, ignorance, and violence. Once inside, it continued to do that which it had done whence they had come. Common criminality prone to violence, preying mainly on its own kind.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” – John Heywood (1497-1580)

The second group came from an ancient culture characterized by aristocratic, class-based divisions; intelligence; and industriousness. Its presence, however, added to the divisiveness of diversity generated by the first group, weakening the native culture and changing its biology while undermining its centuries of internal evolution. Furthermore, if that group, why not others? Others were to be.

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

The third group came from relatively recent but increasing populous religion born in war and committed to homicidal violence against those who disagreed. As its presence increased, its violence increased with mass killings of random victims.

“It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.” -G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

“Those who say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth split asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!”The Recital (The Koran), Mary: 19:88

Still, they refused to define the problem as it clearly was. They falsely claimed that the religion of the invaders was a “religion of peace” when it clearly and explicitly was born as a religion of war to rationalize territorial conquest — war primarily against the detested Christians. History be damned! They denied the obvious.

“The term, ‘Moderate Islam’, is ugly and offensive. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam.” -Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b. 1954), Prime Minister of Turkey (2003- )

They apologized for the sworn enemies who had invaded their country in order to destroy it. They false claimed that most of the homicidal invaders, in fact, were moderate in their beliefs and peaceful in their actions. Untrue! The substantial majority of the third group not overtly violent remained covertly sympathetic to the violence. Their intolerance of the truth led to the authorities arresting for “hate speech” those among them who protested against the obvious lies, labelling the arrested “xenophobes” for trying to protect their homeland and themselves.

“Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” – American President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

Biobehavioral Science tells us that every discrimination carries with it an implied set of instructions; for example, in the context of driving a car, a passengers shouts, “The traffic-signal just turned red!”

It is said that one picture is worth a thousand words. The colored photograph slashed broadly across the front page of a national newspaper showed a young, blond policewoman holding a bouquet of flowers given to her by a grieving young, blond woman holding a dog about to defecate on the sidewalk.

In the context of being invaded, to admit the truth demanded action that the cowardly, misguided, and self-loathing ideologues refused to take. Instead of harsh retaliation and mass deportation of the invaders, they organized mournful vigils with candles and flowers. The late-paederast and wife-beater, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), would have been proud. Their pathetic response certainly is affrighting their invaders, no end. Candles and flowers against guns and bombs.s

After another bloody “incident”, the President of a cousin-country suffering even worse from the same invaders sent a message stating boldly, “We are with you.”

Really? How?

Perhaps, that which the Mama’s Boy meant was that his people, who just had elected him, would stand on their respective decks as their ships of state sank. If so, he was not alone.

Once again, the Sun was rising in the East. The last bastion of Western civilization encompassing Christianity was becoming the giant nation that straddled East and West. As had its Oriental neighbor been shedding debilitating Communism, it had been shedding a debilitating form of democracy in favor of a transition toward Fascism. Despite vicious attacks from the West for reclaiming territory that had annexed in war from the Mohammedan Ottomans in the 19th-century, under its autocratic President the nation was weathering the economic storm initially unleashed by a declining nation on fire from across the Atlantic.

Biobehavioral Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. As a people committed to its own joyful suicide, those in the West refuse to listen. Consequence? Reality will exact its toll.

So it is. So it will be.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

AIRLINE CONTINGENCIES

May 1st, 2017

[Note 1: The author is a pilot with a commercial license and multi-engine and instrument ratings. He has flown numerous types of aircraft, single and twin-engined, from Piper Cub to Cessna 150 to Cessna 210 to Cessna 310 to Piper Seneca to Beechcraft p-Baron to Beechcraft Duke.]

Fictional Anecdote 1
“Sir, please take your seat. The Captain has asked everyone to take their (sic) seat. The ‘fasten seat-belt sign’ is on.”

“Hey, I’m just changing my seat for that empty one next to the window across the aisle.”

“I’m sorry, Sir, but we’re experiencing some turbulence, and it could get worse without warning.”

Another male passenger shouts, “Let the guy change seats. What is this . . . a concentration-camp? We’re the customers. We’re not prisoners. The customer is always right. Come on, folks, let’s take a vote.”

“Sir, please take your seat.”

From a loudspeaker, “This is your Captain. Everyone, please be seated with your seatbelts fastened.”

“Sir, I’m ordering you to take your seat.”

“What’re you gonna do? Beat me up? Look, I’m sorry, but it’ll just take a second. Besides, there is no bad weather. Look out the window. The sun is shining.”

“Sir, sit down! That’s an order.”

With those words unheeded, the recalcitrant passenger begins a dash across the aisle to the adjoining row. As he is about to enter it, the aircraft encounters turbulence — extreme turbulence — clear-air turbulence.

It plunges downward hundreds of feet then upward hundreds of feet. Passengers scream. The airliner momentarily is out of control. Violence ends as quickly as it had begun. Meanwhile, the recalcitrant passenger became a human missile, flying through the air, bouncing off other passengers, then landing atop a toddler.

“Mommy, I’m hurt! I’m hurt!”

The mother becomes hysterical, screaming at the man, “What have you done to my baby?”

He cannot hear her. Lying sprawled atop the screaming child, his unblinking gaze fixed at the ceiling, he never will hear anything again. His neck is broken. The child never will walk again. Her spine is severed below the neck. Let passengers rule?

Fictional Anecdote 2
An airliner taxies towards its assigned runway. A young woman in her twenties arises from her assigned seat. A steward leaves his to rush towards her.

Approaching, he surveys the woman — skinny with stringy, multi-colored hair and a multitude of tattoos covering her neck, arms, and legs. Through her left nostril, she sports a metallic object in the form of an arrow with a sharp point facing outwards.

He comments silently, “Man, that thing could make a helluva weapon.”

They meet. The steward detects the odor of alcohol reeking from twixt reechy lips covered with purple paint.

[Note: Alcohol acts as a diuretic.]

“Miss, please return to your seat.”

“I have to pee, and I mean right now.”

A female passenger yells, “Let the girl pee.” Some other women agree, reflecting the new age in commercial aviation.

“Miss, please,” the steward pleads, “we’re heading toward the active runway, and we’ve been cleared by the Tower for departure. You must return to your seat.”

“No way! Let me pass. Have me arrested later for having a pee. Fat chance of that, Big Time! I watch televison, you know.”

As she spits her last words into his face, a fueling truck on a cross-taxiway darts in front of the lumbering airliner nimble in flight, ungainly on the ground. The co-pilot at the controls slams his feet down on the braking pedals. The aircraft lurches to a sudden halt.

The steward grabs seat-backs across the aisle from one another. One hand slips. He plunges forward as the recalcitrant passenger begins tumbling backwards. His head strikes her bony chest, pushing her to the right and spinning her around. She falls heavily into the lap of a male passenger holding in his arms an infant. Her nasal arrow pierces the infant’s eye. The baby howls in agony.

Horrified, the enraged father pushes the bewildered woman off him, hands the howling baby to his wife, then attacks the woman now sprawled across the aisle. Throttling the wretch, he seems intent on killing her.

Two stewardesses rush to her aid. The man swats them away like flies. The injured steward and two other, male passengers pull him off. They wrestle him to the floor.

After a conversing via the inter-com with the steward and receiving clearance from Ground Control to return to the gate, the Pilot-in-Command, shaking his head, says to his colleague, “No more! This fly-boy is getting a job hauling freight.”

The airliner arrives at the gate. An ambulance rushes the injured infant to a local hospital. The police arrest both the young woman and the father.

Days later, an ophthalmologist, now labeled a “healthcare provider,” pronounces the infant’s eye blinded. The parents file suit against the airline for willfully failing to control the passenger.

A prosecutor exonerates the young woman, characterizing the blinding an accident. She files a lawsuit against the airline. The airline settles promptly. Its CEO publishes a personal, public apology to her.

The prosecutor charges the father with assault to commit murder. He pleads “temporary insanity”. The court judges him innocent by virtue thereof and orders him to see a “therapist” to gain “anger control”. After paying his lawyer’s bills, he declares bankruptcy. Let passengers rule?

Actual Incident 1
One sunny afternoon with puffy, white clouds dotting the sky, having departed from Honolulu International Airport in a Cessna 172 for a sightseeing flight around Oahu, a passenger and the author approach Kaena Point. The passenger is carrying a camera ensconced in a hard-shelled case. Without warning, the aircraft encounters turbulence — extreme turbulence — clear-air turbulence. It plunges downwards. The pilot’s hands fly upwards off the yoke. His feet lift off the rudder-pedals. The camera strikes the roof of the cabin. The aircraft is out of control. Violence ends as quickly as it had begun only to recur once more.

Upon returning to the airport with winds now gusting to 35 knots, he lands the aircraft intact. His passenger lifts the camera. Its hard-shelled case is cracked open from the blow received. Were it not for their seat-belts, passenger and, worse, pilot would have been knocked unconscious. Such is the power of Nature.

Actual Incident 2
A passenger on an airliner still sitting at the gate is requested to deplane by personnel from the airline. He refuses. He is directed to deplane. Again, he refuses. He becomes hostile. The personnel call the police.

After trying to convince him to depart, the police forcibly remove him from the aircraft. Unauthorized, he reënters.

When police try to remove him again, he attacks them physically. They drag him from the aircraft, bleeding.

Other passengers? They side with the recalcitrant passenger.

Later, the American public largely sides with passenger. Big Media of both The Left and The Right side with him. Given the ruckus from the public, police nationally, already under fire from Big Media and The Left, refuse to intervene further in such incidents.

Who is the man? A physician who graduated medical school not in these United States of America but from the University of Medicine of Ho Chi Minh City, a city previously known as Hanoi, located in that which previously was North Vietnam. Recall the North Vietnamese? They’re the folk who killed 58,000 American soldiers not so long ago and tortured hundreds others as Prisoners of War at places like the “Hanoi Hilton”, the Geneva Convention be damned!

How did this Vietnamese immigrant express his gratitude for being allowed to live and work in these United States of America? He became a felon convicted of trading narcotics prescriptions and cash for homosexual favors in motels. He became a habitual gambler for high stakes. His gratitude extended to his medical license being suspended in 2003, following his being arrested on charges including unlawful prescribing and trafficking in a controlled substance. At the hospital at which he held privileges, he became the subject of numerous complaints. He developed a history of impulsive, explosive behavior.

This is the man who unilaterally assumed authority on an airliner. This is the man with whom other passengers sided. This is the man with whom the American public sides. Let passengers rule?

Unsurprisingly, anyone who states these facts is branded a “racist”, especially by The Left and becomes subject to all the social abuse that that questionable term unleashes upon those so labelled. As in Canada, the truth is no defense. Western civilization, where goest thou?

The antecedent occasioning personnel to request the man’s deplaning? “Over-booking” with the reässigning of seats to other personnel from the airline.

PART TWO

Issue
At issue is not the policy of the airline. Perhaps, the policy was ill advised. A case can be made otherwise. Whatever the case, legally a reservation does not guarantee a seat on a particular flight, merely transportation from Point A to Point B. Flights change frequently as a function of mechanical problems and meteorology beyond the control of the airline.

So, what is the issue? The primary issue in Incident 2 is that a passenger on an airliner received a directive from authorized airline personnel. He resisted the directive and, thereby, interfered with the normal operation of the aircraft by the crew. Even that he subsequently became violent is secondary.

Booking policy notwithstanding, an aircraft is not a bus that can be stopped at the roadside to resolve problems. An aircraft is a delicate machine that operates in an unforgiving environment. The worst airliner mishap in history occurred on the ground.

What if an airliner is in the air in an emergent situation? Diverting the pilots’ attention from flying the aircraft to policing recalcitrant passengers endangers the aircraft, it passengers, and its crew. Potential consequence? People die. Rule by passengers?

The ultimate authority in the operation of an airliner is the operator, the airline. In turn, it designates an appropriately licensed pilot (Airline Transport Pilot) with a current medical certificate as the Pilot-in-Command (PiC). Once the doors close, the PiC has total authority and responsibility. The PiC is just that which the title denotes — in command.

Technically while at the gate with the door open, the operator of the airliner or designee retains authority. The aircraft is the property of the operator, the airline. As owner, the operator possesses the legal right to remove passengers. If you allow someone into your home then he refuses to leave when requested, have you no recourse?

FAR 135.120 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers: No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

A passenger legitimately may disagree with policy. Once aboard, however, a passenger may not refuse a directive of the operator, the PiC, or a designee. By refusing to comply with a directive, a passenger is interfering with crewmembers in the operation of the aircraft.

Once the door closes, the PiC of an aircraft is just that which the title denotes — in command of any and all operations of the aircraft, including an aircraft on the ground. An aircraft is not a democracy. Passengers do not rule; they have no say. When a passenger boards an aircraft, he is under the authority of the operator and the operator’s designee, the PiC.

trespass vb.: to go or intrude on the property, privacy, or preserves of another with no right or permission.

When the recalcitrant passenger reëntered the airliner again without permission, he became guilty of a second offense — trespass. The recalcitrant, assaultive, trespassing passenger was in the wrong on two counts and, thereby, subject to both criminal prosecution and civil tort.

Some have raised the ridiculous argument that, under this doctrine of operators and pilots’ authority, airline personnel could issue a completely inappropriate, if not illegal, directive such as to undress. Argument ad absurdum! It never has occurred. It never will occur. Other personnel would countermand it immediately.

So, afterwards what actually did occur? What did the perpetrator do?

He did that which many Americans would do. He claimed that he was the victim. He found a lawyer, or a lawyer found him, and they filed a lawsuit.

Rather than being castigated as a perpetrator and serving time in jail as punishment for his misbehavior and rather than facing a civil action by the airline for trespass, he became celebrated and pitied as a victim, and he sued the airline, reaping a sizable reward in a settlement. Likely, had he not settled, at trial he would have received a sizable reward from a jury ensconced in a courtroom housed in a building versus dependent upon an airliner at 35,000 feet surrounded by a thin tube of aluminum — a jury safe and sympathetic to his cause. Justice or mob-rule?

Could this encounter and its aftermath serve as a model for other passengers? It already has.

Another airline just suspended a male employee as a consequence of his arguing with a passenger when she demanded to bring aboard her child’s stroller. Then, another passenger, a male, threatened to assault physically the flight-attendant. Both passengers were given “psychotherapy” on the spot and relented. The incident was recorded, as usual, on someone’s so-called smart-phone and went “viral”. Passengers rule.

[Note: An assault is a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and may result in either criminal or civil liability.]

PART THREE

Consider the following question: Of the more than two-million passengers flying every day, what percentage are mentally deranged? At any given moment, one-percent of the population is actively psychotic suffering delusions and hallucinations. Such people are five times more likely to become violent than the average person. Estimate that only one-tenth of one-percent of the one-percentage is a passenger on an airliner on any given day. The result is that minimally twenty passengers aboard airliners daily are actively deranged and dangerous. That number does not include a multitude under the influence of mind-altering drugs, probably numbering in the thousands. Reality!

A directive is a directive. It is not the occasion for psychotherapy as happened in the latter instance with the argumentative, hostile mother and her assaultive sympathizer.

What will be the long-term consequences of these incidents? Better service? Fine but at what cost? More such incidents? More such lawsuits? Deaths? Ultimately, the reality of context and consequences will rule.

Controlling Variable
So, the American public largely sides with recalcitrant passengers violating laws and jeopardizing safety. What’s the controlling variable?

In the context of being a passenger, actual or potential, the general public is operating vicariously under the same contingencies as though they were the passengers in question. In that context, all have common variables controlling their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In the jargon of psychoanalytic theory, the controlling variable is “identification” — the public “identifies” with the offenders.

[Note: The term, “identification”, may be a handy shorthand, but it offers no scientific explanation.]

Meanwhile, operators and flight-crews operate under a different and occasionally conflicting set of controlling variables. Aboard an aircraft, which set of variables should take precedence? Who should rule? Operator and PiC or passengers?

Given the public outcry, operators and police are bending to a media-orchestrated public outcry. The at-risk operator of the airline in question even groveled repeatedly before posturing politicians sitting safely in Congress and an outraged public sitting safely at home or at work.

Now, no police will intervene except in cases of safety and security? Oh? Who determines safety and security at any particular moment? What are the criteria? Who makes the decision on the spot and at the moment? Politicians? Lawyers? Perhaps, passengers deciding by vote.

What will be the consequence of withdrawing policing enforcement? Anarchy? Anarchy on an airliner? Anarchy on an airliner in flight? Consider an even more recent brawl between two male passengers aboard a third airline. Flight-crews are not capable of enforcing directives without the contingency of support from the police and the courts, nor should they be.

Now, consider the recent riots on academic campuses where students rule over cowering administrators, and police do nothing — the University of California at Berkeley and Middlebury College, for example. Mob-rule!

The trend will not last because it cannot last. In the end, the reality of context and consequences rule — not passengers on airliners or students on campuses. Forget not that anarchy always is followed by tyranny.

Visit Inescapable Consequences.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

-86-