I was watching one my favorite movies the other day - Dirty Harry (one of the 8000 movies that I would watch every time it is on, much to my wife's dismay) - and after having the usual laugh about "Dean Wormer" being the mayor of San Francisco, began laughing at another little tidbit. When the psycho punk (who called himself Scorpio and who, in my mind, was forever typecast as that psycho, even when he played a detective in the forgettable movie "Cobra") asks for ransom, he asks for $200,000. That's not the funny part - what was funny was the police lieutenant (?) telling Harry (Clint) that the mayor was "...using up a lot of favors" to drum up the money.
How times have changed. Cost of living AND cost of kidnap dollars have gone up exponentially, and I'd suspect that a similar punk today would be after (say it like Dr. Evil, everyone) a BILLION DOLLARS or something. Meanwhile, $200K probably doesn't even pay for a week's worth of udon and sushi downtown.
OK, I have to write it out now...
Uh uh
I know what your thinkin'
Did he fire 6 shots or only 5
Well, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself
But being that this is a 44 Magnum...the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question
Do I feel lucky?
Well, do ya, punk?
Now at the beginning of the movie, the reply is "I gots to know". At the end, it is a psychotic laugh, an attempted shot, and a BIG hole in the chest for our friend as he is thrown into the water by the force of the bullet.
Classic stuff.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
What happened to us?
Yesterday, my wife and I heard from various parents that were outraged that the entire 5th grade class was going to be forced to be quiet during lunch today due to their inability to remain quiet during picture taking sessions yesterday. Those parents were eager to get together and write a letter to the school in protest of this horrific punishment bestowed on their poor children.
Give me a break.
I don't know what happened to our generation. We coddle our children, we wrap them in protective coverings and would gladly glue styrofoam peanuts to them (if we didn't think someone would be allergic to them) to ensure their safety at all times. We think dodgeball is too tough, we think everyone should get a chance on the team, we insert ourselves into the daily education routine, we overmedicate kids when they sniffle and we cough up inordinate amounts of money to ensure well-roundedness through endless participation in activities.
I must be getting old, because I'm about to make a "When I was their age..." statement: when I was their age, if I came home and bitched about a teacher punishing us by making us be quiet for 20 minutes, my parents would say "Good! Maybe they can make it a whole day next time! Perhaps THEN all you kids would learn to behave". Underlying the issue here is an implicit assumption by parents that their children are beyond blame, always innocent and pure, beyond reproach. Forget the bad apples spoiling a good time for the bunch - my kids are untouchable.
Also pervasive in this is a group mentality among many parents that seems to breed discontent and protest that wells up like some volcano as it makes its way through the neighborhood. Rather than confront issues head on with administrators or (heavens no) challenge their children as to the veracity of their claims and whinings, many parents instead choose to intensify their anger through group chat and THEN unleash it on those unfortunate enough to have possibly implicated their children in some malfeasance.
I don't want to sound unsympathetic - I'm there to defend my kids whenever necessary - it's just that I trust teachers with years of experience within a superiour school district within which I pay dearly (in taxes) to ensure that they do just what they are doing - educate, manage, discipline, and encourage my kids to be the best they can be. I do not automatically assume that my 6 or 10 year old is giving me The Truth in every disciplinary situation. I listen, I weigh the facts, I think, and THEN I choose how to react - I don't automatically pound my shoe on the table, Kruschev-like, and attack the people in charge.
We were disciplined, perhaps not to the ruler-on-the-back-of-the-hand extent of our parents, maybe with less spanking and less yelling, but we certainly were not the over-protected, shielded bunch we are now creating. Like the bear cubs that, if raised entirely in captivity, won't know how to fend for themselves in the wild, we risk the creation of adults that won't have had serious challenges, won't have tasted disappointment or criticism and thus won't be prepared to face these things when they happen - and they WILL happen - in the real world.
Maybe all this is simply a desire to give our kids everything we might not have had. Certainly, I m happy to provide over and above for my children so that they can often get cool things, so that they will be able to attend the colleges they want, and simply so that finance doesn't get in the way of us or them achieving the goals or maintaining the life styles we desire. We try not to spoil our children, however, which leads to some interesting explanations of the value of things and of money (try explaining a home equity line of credit to a 10-year old to whom $23 in cash is a LOT of money). But we need to take a step back and let our children live their lives, experience good and bad and learn from it, not insulate them from every negative situation there could be. Safety and well-being is one thing. Creating a generation of kids in plastic bubbles is another.
Give me a break.
I don't know what happened to our generation. We coddle our children, we wrap them in protective coverings and would gladly glue styrofoam peanuts to them (if we didn't think someone would be allergic to them) to ensure their safety at all times. We think dodgeball is too tough, we think everyone should get a chance on the team, we insert ourselves into the daily education routine, we overmedicate kids when they sniffle and we cough up inordinate amounts of money to ensure well-roundedness through endless participation in activities.
I must be getting old, because I'm about to make a "When I was their age..." statement: when I was their age, if I came home and bitched about a teacher punishing us by making us be quiet for 20 minutes, my parents would say "Good! Maybe they can make it a whole day next time! Perhaps THEN all you kids would learn to behave". Underlying the issue here is an implicit assumption by parents that their children are beyond blame, always innocent and pure, beyond reproach. Forget the bad apples spoiling a good time for the bunch - my kids are untouchable.
Also pervasive in this is a group mentality among many parents that seems to breed discontent and protest that wells up like some volcano as it makes its way through the neighborhood. Rather than confront issues head on with administrators or (heavens no) challenge their children as to the veracity of their claims and whinings, many parents instead choose to intensify their anger through group chat and THEN unleash it on those unfortunate enough to have possibly implicated their children in some malfeasance.
I don't want to sound unsympathetic - I'm there to defend my kids whenever necessary - it's just that I trust teachers with years of experience within a superiour school district within which I pay dearly (in taxes) to ensure that they do just what they are doing - educate, manage, discipline, and encourage my kids to be the best they can be. I do not automatically assume that my 6 or 10 year old is giving me The Truth in every disciplinary situation. I listen, I weigh the facts, I think, and THEN I choose how to react - I don't automatically pound my shoe on the table, Kruschev-like, and attack the people in charge.
We were disciplined, perhaps not to the ruler-on-the-back-of-the-hand extent of our parents, maybe with less spanking and less yelling, but we certainly were not the over-protected, shielded bunch we are now creating. Like the bear cubs that, if raised entirely in captivity, won't know how to fend for themselves in the wild, we risk the creation of adults that won't have had serious challenges, won't have tasted disappointment or criticism and thus won't be prepared to face these things when they happen - and they WILL happen - in the real world.
Maybe all this is simply a desire to give our kids everything we might not have had. Certainly, I m happy to provide over and above for my children so that they can often get cool things, so that they will be able to attend the colleges they want, and simply so that finance doesn't get in the way of us or them achieving the goals or maintaining the life styles we desire. We try not to spoil our children, however, which leads to some interesting explanations of the value of things and of money (try explaining a home equity line of credit to a 10-year old to whom $23 in cash is a LOT of money). But we need to take a step back and let our children live their lives, experience good and bad and learn from it, not insulate them from every negative situation there could be. Safety and well-being is one thing. Creating a generation of kids in plastic bubbles is another.
From nonsense to AdSense
Being the capitalist pig that I am, I responded "yes" (plus numerous clicks) to integrating Google's AdSense to this blog. The blog will have ads. For those socialists that decry the commercialization of the web, tough. I'm just sittin' back waiting for the money to roll in. Retirement will be sweet!
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Random thoughts on a Tuesday
1) Rest in peace, Don Adams. Get Smart was one of the funniest sitcoms on TV way back when (how could it miss - Mel Brooks was the writer - interesting piece of trivia - he decided to put the show on TV as a way to get money to fund his new movie, The Producers). Farewell, "Maxvell Shmaht" (think pre-Love Boat Bernie Kopel).
2) Gartner is going to struggle to keep its revenues up. I hear from more vendors that are strong arming contract negotiations about reps that are MUCH more willing to deal than ever before. Actually, I should say that the INDUSTRY will ultimately struggle - Gartner is simply the 800 lb. gorilla (how much is that in kg, kids?) that will be first to feel the brunt.
3) When your 10 year old daughter asks you where she will go to college, you say:
- Yale
- Wherever you want, as long as you get the grades to support it
- You're never leaving this house, young lady
- Someplace with NO fraternities
- Someplace with NO sororities
- Who cares...can I go too?
4) Which is the more likely scenario:
- The Mets win out, Houston loses every game, and the Mets make the playoffs
- The Yankees choke in the last game with Boston and are eliminated from the playoffs
- Broadway Joe makes a return to the gridiron despite his knees, former alcohol issues and age and leads the Jets to the Super Bowl
- I win the Ironman World championships in Hawaii.
Here's one thing I don't miss about the cube at my last job -- the aftermath of a McDonald's chocolate shake (think about it).
2) Gartner is going to struggle to keep its revenues up. I hear from more vendors that are strong arming contract negotiations about reps that are MUCH more willing to deal than ever before. Actually, I should say that the INDUSTRY will ultimately struggle - Gartner is simply the 800 lb. gorilla (how much is that in kg, kids?) that will be first to feel the brunt.
3) When your 10 year old daughter asks you where she will go to college, you say:
- Yale
- Wherever you want, as long as you get the grades to support it
- You're never leaving this house, young lady
- Someplace with NO fraternities
- Someplace with NO sororities
- Who cares...can I go too?
4) Which is the more likely scenario:
- The Mets win out, Houston loses every game, and the Mets make the playoffs
- The Yankees choke in the last game with Boston and are eliminated from the playoffs
- Broadway Joe makes a return to the gridiron despite his knees, former alcohol issues and age and leads the Jets to the Super Bowl
- I win the Ironman World championships in Hawaii.
Here's one thing I don't miss about the cube at my last job -- the aftermath of a McDonald's chocolate shake (think about it).
Monday, September 26, 2005
Freakonomics - very interesting
Last week, as we were taking a cab to a meeting, coworkers and I had a discussion about crime in New York City, particularly how it's decreased quite a bit over the last several years. One person asked if we could identify the single biggest reason for its decline. After we guessed various reasons ranging from greater numbers of police and other factors emanating from the Giuliani administration (vs. Dinkens, we thought), the questioner stated that it was legalized abortion that has had the greatest impact on the decrease in crime.
Turns out that this is the major theory and discussion in Freakonomics, a book by "rogue" economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner. Basically, the idea is that the children that would have been raised by most of the mothers (specifically as opposed to families) that had aborted them stood the greatest statistical chance of turning to crime. Farbeit for me to explain in detail a controversial subject like this, but if you read the book, you'll understand the notion.
There are numerous other theories and questions posed, all in a prose that is very easy to read and very "non-economics 101". If nothing else, it may get you to ask some interesting questions about what you think is going on around you.
Turns out that this is the major theory and discussion in Freakonomics, a book by "rogue" economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner. Basically, the idea is that the children that would have been raised by most of the mothers (specifically as opposed to families) that had aborted them stood the greatest statistical chance of turning to crime. Farbeit for me to explain in detail a controversial subject like this, but if you read the book, you'll understand the notion.
There are numerous other theories and questions posed, all in a prose that is very easy to read and very "non-economics 101". If nothing else, it may get you to ask some interesting questions about what you think is going on around you.
What am I, stupid?
You see that picture below? Where has that guy gone, I wonder? Yesterday was the Westchester Triathlon, the next-to-last race of my triathlon season, and today as I write this, I wonder if it shouldn't have been the last one.
The race was pretty good, by the way, although it tells you a bit about the psyche of the triathlete when most of us were wondering why the obviously short swim course couldn't have been LONGER (and thus accurate). So my PR time of 2:04:46 will have to have a major asterisk next to it, especially since I ran a lot more slowly than last year. But still, I was pretty happy, especially since (1) my right butt (buttock would be more correct, I suppose) has felt like someone has beenkicking it with a steel tipped shoe for the past week and (2) on my first step out of bed yesterday morning, my right calf seized up like it was forming a black hole. What they hell, a couple of Advil later, some stretching, a nice ride to the start, and all was well.
There were 1200 people in this race. I had never been hit, kicked, or crashed into (actually, I did a good amount of crashing as well) during a swim as much in any other race. I think they spaced the waves of competitors too close together. That was the roughest part of the race, save the two-three tough hills on the bike, so all-in-all, it wasn't so bad.
Today, though, I feel like a train ran over me. Sure, I slogged through 44 minutes of running this morning, but all things considered, I'd rather be in bed. With 5 days (including today) to recover for next week's race (another Olympic distance Tri in Darien, CT), it's a game of recover, do a bit to stay sharp, then taper. Or, I could just do a whole week taper. Or, I could shitcan the whole thing next week and sleep in. Naaaahhh...I already missed one race this year due to injury (a wonderful back ailment about 6 weeks ago that made me miss training days for the first time in 2 years and left me barely able to move around for 2 days), so I think I can gut this one out.
I have to say that I have a new admiration for the back-of-the-packers in triathlon. It was tough for me and I'm one of the top in my age group. I can't imagine weighing another 30-40 pounds or simply having to be out there for 3-4 hours trying to finish.
Oh well...one more race for the season. One more chance to improve my ranking. One more potential encounter with jellyfish or sea lice. One more opportunity to put the quads to work on a speedy bike ride.
I think I talked myself into it.
The race was pretty good, by the way, although it tells you a bit about the psyche of the triathlete when most of us were wondering why the obviously short swim course couldn't have been LONGER (and thus accurate). So my PR time of 2:04:46 will have to have a major asterisk next to it, especially since I ran a lot more slowly than last year. But still, I was pretty happy, especially since (1) my right butt (buttock would be more correct, I suppose) has felt like someone has beenkicking it with a steel tipped shoe for the past week and (2) on my first step out of bed yesterday morning, my right calf seized up like it was forming a black hole. What they hell, a couple of Advil later, some stretching, a nice ride to the start, and all was well.
There were 1200 people in this race. I had never been hit, kicked, or crashed into (actually, I did a good amount of crashing as well) during a swim as much in any other race. I think they spaced the waves of competitors too close together. That was the roughest part of the race, save the two-three tough hills on the bike, so all-in-all, it wasn't so bad.
Today, though, I feel like a train ran over me. Sure, I slogged through 44 minutes of running this morning, but all things considered, I'd rather be in bed. With 5 days (including today) to recover for next week's race (another Olympic distance Tri in Darien, CT), it's a game of recover, do a bit to stay sharp, then taper. Or, I could just do a whole week taper. Or, I could shitcan the whole thing next week and sleep in. Naaaahhh...I already missed one race this year due to injury (a wonderful back ailment about 6 weeks ago that made me miss training days for the first time in 2 years and left me barely able to move around for 2 days), so I think I can gut this one out.
I have to say that I have a new admiration for the back-of-the-packers in triathlon. It was tough for me and I'm one of the top in my age group. I can't imagine weighing another 30-40 pounds or simply having to be out there for 3-4 hours trying to finish.
Oh well...one more race for the season. One more chance to improve my ranking. One more potential encounter with jellyfish or sea lice. One more opportunity to put the quads to work on a speedy bike ride.
I think I talked myself into it.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Encroyable mais vrai!
Which do you find harder to believe?
1) Kate Moss is (maybe) going to try and kick her coke habit.
2) Tyra Banks' breasts are natural.
3) Martha Stewart out of prison is less interesting than Martha Stewart IN prison.
4) That a Yahoo news editor would actually write and post the following: "NBC fires blanks with 'Inconceivable'".
I learn quite a bit every day from Yahoo News.
1) Kate Moss is (maybe) going to try and kick her coke habit.
2) Tyra Banks' breasts are natural.
3) Martha Stewart out of prison is less interesting than Martha Stewart IN prison.
4) That a Yahoo news editor would actually write and post the following: "NBC fires blanks with 'Inconceivable'".
I learn quite a bit every day from Yahoo News.
Why blog? Why now? Who cares?
I'm a frustrated writer. Since most of my friends are likely quite annoyed at the e-mails I send with content for them to read, I figured I'd join the crowd and establish a blog. I'm not sure:
- how often it will be updated
- what topics will be covered
Other than that, it should be great! Basically, I'll write about whatever strikes my fancy, so stay tuned.
- how often it will be updated
- what topics will be covered
Other than that, it should be great! Basically, I'll write about whatever strikes my fancy, so stay tuned.
The Cable Disaster Network
“It was like watching a train wreck”, as the saying goes. Only it was almost a plane wreck – and a tornado – and a hurricane – all coming together in a (pardon the pun) perfect storm of potential disasters for the cable news networks last night.
My father called me, nearly breathless, at 8:05 Wednesday to let me know that he was glad I was home and not flying JetBlue since (1) a JetBlue plane was having a problem with its nosegear and was about to attempt a landing at LAX, (2) Rita had strengthened into a Cat 5 hurricane threatening Texas, and (3) a tornado was about to hit downtown Minneapolis. He quickly ran back to his TV after our chat to make sure he didn’t miss a minute of voyeuristic disaster fun. Being the simple person that I am, and also being unfortunately enthralled with disaster, I’m ashamed to admit I also ran to the TV.
It was eerily like the OJ Simpson freeway drive, and it was also in LA, only it was a white plane and not a white truck. Still, I watched the JetBlue plane circling, burning off its fuel as it prepared for its landing. On CNN, as coverage shifted from anchor to anchor (from Paula Zahn to Larry King in this case), there seemed to be an attempt to get the most dramatic predictions from on phone guests to string viewers along. Larry King, once he took over, tried everything from inserting the word crash, to wondering aloud if there could be some international incident over fixing the Airbus model involved, to wondering (this, most interestingly) if the passengers on the plane were watching his very coverage at that instant (indeed they were, up until the last 10 minutes of the flight). But rather than seek out ways to soothe those people he thought might have been watching, he (and others) sought out experts to help the audience understand the impending tragedy that could occur.
Interspersed with the flight updates were snippets of ongoing hurricane coverage. I thought this was quite interesting since the hurricane wasn’t due to make landfall until about Friday, but I guess there was such a strong impact to be made by continuing to guess how much damage would be done to which parts of Texas (or wherever) given what could be the strength of the hurricane that they stuck with it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a neat satellite image, but once you’ve seen the eye and the cone and the clouds and the pretty colors (not to mention the hordes of “lucky” newspeople who are now the only morons stationed in Galveston), there’s not much more to see. I don’t know, maybe they were hoping the hurricane would take a sudden turn, something like a “Crazy Ivan” for you “Hunt for Red October” fans (though that might only happen if the storm were named Ritalov or something).
What we didn’t see or hear a lot about was the tornado that was supposed to be bearing down on downtown Minneapolis. I heard something at one point where an anchor mentioned, somewhat disappointedly, that it had diminished and moved out to the suburbs, which gave them the benefit of…
…switching back to the *exciting* potential airline tragic crash coverage. However, a fly soon entered the ointment. On the Larry King show, an expert that was on the line to explain what was happening did the unthinkable: he refused to buy into the potential for disaster. Indeed, as I and I’m sure many other frequent fliers thought, this was a classic emergency landing situation that pilots train for, and since they could dump/burn fuel, take their time to position correctly and use all of a very long runway to stop, it seemed quite unlikely – barring something REALLY out of the ordinary – that this would be more than a nerve racking tough landing. The expert said exactly this – he thought the pilots would be quite well trained enough to handle the tilted back landing required and that the greatest potential for passenger injury would probably exist if they had to leave the plane via the emergency slides.
You could almost feel the hatred welling up in Larry King once that statement was made. He tried to nudge the expert back to doom, but while that expert certainly noted that something else could happen – like the main gear might not be locked – he seemed pretty comfortable that everything would be OK. [I also tried to switch coverage to FOX news, but decided that Sean Hannity had nothing to offer this extravaganza. I did wonder if he might suggest that this was somehow due to some liberal shortcomings, but in the end stuck with Larry King.] I also wondered how, since he must also fly very frequently, Larry couldn’t come to the same conclusion. But then I remembered that he was on TELEVISION and his job, rather than to talk sense, was to sensationalize the event as much as possible.
I also noted that the networks, all of which have been impacted (financially) to some extent by the 24 hour cable news networks, ignored the whole thing. There was no scrawl, no break in coverage, etc. during regular programming. This also convinced me that everything would be OK, since despite their capitalist makeup that demanded they stick to their regular programming, no self respecting network would pass up the chance to televise a plane crash.
Speaking of which, I’d also like to know how we were getting the stupendous video of the airplane itself as it flew, circled, and finally landed. It was shot like a golf tournament from above and beside; actually, it seemed a lot like the coverage of the space shuttle landing in which there are chase planes flying alongside. In fact, the shots were perfect until after the successful landing (which went exactly according to the plan the expert mentioned above laid out) and the passengers were disembarking (from movable steps and not the slides – perhaps the airport personnel heard THAT comment and took action), at which time the camera or cameraman couldn’t stay quite still enough.
As I was watching this whole thing play out, I was almost ashamed that I was watching it play out. I thought, as the expert did, that this would turn out fine. But I stayed and watched anyway, playing right into the hands of the Enquirer-esque coverage on CNN. I guess that this is what happens when we have multiple 24-hour news networks, cameras everywhere, and a need for subject matter to fill them. I wonder, if the plane had actually begun to crash, if the coverage would have been stopped – does CNN run a delay? Certainly, televising an impending disaster such as that would be worse for people to watch then 3 minutes of a white woman coming on to Terrell Owens in a football locker room (remember from last season?)? Well, in the confused minds of those in charge of such things, I guess not.
My wife’s uncle’s stepson is a pilot for JetBlue. We wondered, as we watched, whether he might be flying that plane. At first, we hoped it wasn’t him, but in thinking about it, we hoped it was. He’s a great pilot, a cool head, and a responsible person, and given the nature of the problem, I figured it would be a textbook situation for him. And not that I would wish him to be in the situation in the first place, but in viewing the glass as half full, I felt he would be the right person to get the plane home. That, to me, is the essence of the difference in the way these things are covered by the networks and the way they could or should be covered. Rather than seem dismayed about the lack of a disaster, a crash, or whatever, perhaps our newspeople could offer some hope or positive thoughts? For the people in the plane watching themselves live on TV, it might have been nice.
My father called me, nearly breathless, at 8:05 Wednesday to let me know that he was glad I was home and not flying JetBlue since (1) a JetBlue plane was having a problem with its nosegear and was about to attempt a landing at LAX, (2) Rita had strengthened into a Cat 5 hurricane threatening Texas, and (3) a tornado was about to hit downtown Minneapolis. He quickly ran back to his TV after our chat to make sure he didn’t miss a minute of voyeuristic disaster fun. Being the simple person that I am, and also being unfortunately enthralled with disaster, I’m ashamed to admit I also ran to the TV.
It was eerily like the OJ Simpson freeway drive, and it was also in LA, only it was a white plane and not a white truck. Still, I watched the JetBlue plane circling, burning off its fuel as it prepared for its landing. On CNN, as coverage shifted from anchor to anchor (from Paula Zahn to Larry King in this case), there seemed to be an attempt to get the most dramatic predictions from on phone guests to string viewers along. Larry King, once he took over, tried everything from inserting the word crash, to wondering aloud if there could be some international incident over fixing the Airbus model involved, to wondering (this, most interestingly) if the passengers on the plane were watching his very coverage at that instant (indeed they were, up until the last 10 minutes of the flight). But rather than seek out ways to soothe those people he thought might have been watching, he (and others) sought out experts to help the audience understand the impending tragedy that could occur.
Interspersed with the flight updates were snippets of ongoing hurricane coverage. I thought this was quite interesting since the hurricane wasn’t due to make landfall until about Friday, but I guess there was such a strong impact to be made by continuing to guess how much damage would be done to which parts of Texas (or wherever) given what could be the strength of the hurricane that they stuck with it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a neat satellite image, but once you’ve seen the eye and the cone and the clouds and the pretty colors (not to mention the hordes of “lucky” newspeople who are now the only morons stationed in Galveston), there’s not much more to see. I don’t know, maybe they were hoping the hurricane would take a sudden turn, something like a “Crazy Ivan” for you “Hunt for Red October” fans (though that might only happen if the storm were named Ritalov or something).
What we didn’t see or hear a lot about was the tornado that was supposed to be bearing down on downtown Minneapolis. I heard something at one point where an anchor mentioned, somewhat disappointedly, that it had diminished and moved out to the suburbs, which gave them the benefit of…
…switching back to the *exciting* potential airline tragic crash coverage. However, a fly soon entered the ointment. On the Larry King show, an expert that was on the line to explain what was happening did the unthinkable: he refused to buy into the potential for disaster. Indeed, as I and I’m sure many other frequent fliers thought, this was a classic emergency landing situation that pilots train for, and since they could dump/burn fuel, take their time to position correctly and use all of a very long runway to stop, it seemed quite unlikely – barring something REALLY out of the ordinary – that this would be more than a nerve racking tough landing. The expert said exactly this – he thought the pilots would be quite well trained enough to handle the tilted back landing required and that the greatest potential for passenger injury would probably exist if they had to leave the plane via the emergency slides.
You could almost feel the hatred welling up in Larry King once that statement was made. He tried to nudge the expert back to doom, but while that expert certainly noted that something else could happen – like the main gear might not be locked – he seemed pretty comfortable that everything would be OK. [I also tried to switch coverage to FOX news, but decided that Sean Hannity had nothing to offer this extravaganza. I did wonder if he might suggest that this was somehow due to some liberal shortcomings, but in the end stuck with Larry King.] I also wondered how, since he must also fly very frequently, Larry couldn’t come to the same conclusion. But then I remembered that he was on TELEVISION and his job, rather than to talk sense, was to sensationalize the event as much as possible.
I also noted that the networks, all of which have been impacted (financially) to some extent by the 24 hour cable news networks, ignored the whole thing. There was no scrawl, no break in coverage, etc. during regular programming. This also convinced me that everything would be OK, since despite their capitalist makeup that demanded they stick to their regular programming, no self respecting network would pass up the chance to televise a plane crash.
Speaking of which, I’d also like to know how we were getting the stupendous video of the airplane itself as it flew, circled, and finally landed. It was shot like a golf tournament from above and beside; actually, it seemed a lot like the coverage of the space shuttle landing in which there are chase planes flying alongside. In fact, the shots were perfect until after the successful landing (which went exactly according to the plan the expert mentioned above laid out) and the passengers were disembarking (from movable steps and not the slides – perhaps the airport personnel heard THAT comment and took action), at which time the camera or cameraman couldn’t stay quite still enough.
As I was watching this whole thing play out, I was almost ashamed that I was watching it play out. I thought, as the expert did, that this would turn out fine. But I stayed and watched anyway, playing right into the hands of the Enquirer-esque coverage on CNN. I guess that this is what happens when we have multiple 24-hour news networks, cameras everywhere, and a need for subject matter to fill them. I wonder, if the plane had actually begun to crash, if the coverage would have been stopped – does CNN run a delay? Certainly, televising an impending disaster such as that would be worse for people to watch then 3 minutes of a white woman coming on to Terrell Owens in a football locker room (remember from last season?)? Well, in the confused minds of those in charge of such things, I guess not.
My wife’s uncle’s stepson is a pilot for JetBlue. We wondered, as we watched, whether he might be flying that plane. At first, we hoped it wasn’t him, but in thinking about it, we hoped it was. He’s a great pilot, a cool head, and a responsible person, and given the nature of the problem, I figured it would be a textbook situation for him. And not that I would wish him to be in the situation in the first place, but in viewing the glass as half full, I felt he would be the right person to get the plane home. That, to me, is the essence of the difference in the way these things are covered by the networks and the way they could or should be covered. Rather than seem dismayed about the lack of a disaster, a crash, or whatever, perhaps our newspeople could offer some hope or positive thoughts? For the people in the plane watching themselves live on TV, it might have been nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)