A Total Indictment

Russel King gives us what is, by far, the more comprehensive list I have ever seen of the hypocrisy, hyperbole and hate of the conservative movement. I gave up after the first few links but there were literally hundreds more to follow.

The Hair Salon Index

TPM highlights this appearance by former GE CEO Jack Welch on the morning Squawk Box and points especially to his comment that the Republicans may be shocked by how well they WON'T do in the Fall. Welch's comments obviously surprised the hosts of the show, but his case is compelling. He makes the point that jobs are what the election will be about, but it isn't simply the question of whether enough people have jobs. What also matters is the confidence of those who already have jobs (90% of employable people) that they will be able to retain those jobs. If those people feel that the economy is getting better, then they will not be as willing to vote for change.

I think this is an important point that a lot of people overlook and I think it takes a person of Welch's background to point this out. He made a lot of money paying attention to the hidden indicators of economic activity. We all talk about employment and GDP and inflation. But what he talks about here are things like whether people buy their own hair care products or they go to the salon. He talks about whether people mow their own lawns or they hire someone to do it for them. It's these intangibles that tell the story of re-emerging economic confidence.

The economy went into recession in 2007. But the economy didn't really go into free fall until the Fall of 2008. What caused that free fall? Was it the collapse of the financial services industry? That, again, is the observable factor. But what was going on behind the scenes that people didn't pay as much attention to?

It's what I call the kitchen table moment. It's the moment when a family realizes that their financial situation is unstable and could become even worse. So a family meeting is called around the kitchen table. At this meeting it is decided that the time has come to cut back on the luxuries until such time as the family's financial situation stabilizes. What turns this normal human behavior into a global economic meltdown is when EVERY family has a kitchen table moment at the same time. When that happens, a small recession suddenly becomes a great recession. And if the austerity measures the family takes last for more than a year, it starts to become a depression. If they last more than a couple of years, it becomes a great depression.

Obama and the Democrats prevented that from happening by stabilizing the economy and creating the atmosphere where families could peak out from their shelters and think, "You know, the lawn really is looking crappy but I don't want to mow it today, but we might just have enough money to pay someone else to mow it for us."

And that's when the economy starts to turn around.

The Republicans are pinning their hopes on the despair of that 10% who haven't gotten a job. What they are forgetting is that the remaining 90% are starting to feel better. Not great. But better. And as long as they think things will continue to get better, the Democrats will do just fine this Fall.

Wanna see something disturbing?

Upside down celebrities!

It's all about Joe

Once again Joe Lieberman proves that nothing he ever does is his fault. It's always someone else to blame for his actions.

This is brilliant

A group of Palestinian protesters dressed up as Na'vi from the film Avatar.

Birds are more dangerous than terrorists

Just on a hunch, I did a little research. The following comes from AirSafe.com. It is a list of fatal or near fatal significant events involving major passenger airlines since 1996. The list is limited to flights that either landed in or took off from the United States. It excludes flights that involved smaller passenger planes (e.g., <100 seats).

11 May 1996; ValuJet Airlines DC9-32; Near Miami, FL: The aircraft was on a domestic flight from Miami to Atlanta. A fire had started in one of the cargo compartments at some point after the cargo had been loaded. Shortly after departure, the crew reported smoke in the cockpit, and soon lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft went into a steep dive, crashing into the Florida Everglades about 15 miles (24 km) from the airport. All 105 passengers and five crew members were killed.

6 July 1996; Delta MD-88; Pensacola, FL: During the takeoff, the left engine sustained an uncontained failure, and pieces of the engine penetrated the cabin, killing two passengers.

17 July 1996; TWA 747-100; Atlantic Ocean near Long Island, NY: The aircraft was on a flight from New York to Paris and had a catastrophic in flight breakup shortly after departure. All 18 crew and 212 passengers perished.

28 December 1997; United Airlines 747-100; over Pacific Ocean near Japan: The aircraft encountered severe turbulence during cruise about two hours after departing Japan. One of the 346 passengers was killed. None of the 23 crew members were killed but three sustained serious injuries.

2 September 1998; Swissair MD11; near Halifax, Canada: The aircraft was on a nonstop flight from New York's JFK airport to Geneva. The aircraft crashed at night in the Atlantic Ocean close to shore about 50 miles (80 km) southwest of Halifax, Nova Scotia. All 15 crew members and 214 passengers were killed.

1 June 1999; American Airlines MD80; Little Rock, AR: The aircraft ran off the runway, broke up, and caught fire after a night landing. There were thunderstorms in the area at the time of the event. One of the six crew members and 10 of the 139 passengers were killed.

31 October 1999; EgyptAir 767-300ER; Atlantic Ocean near Nantucket Island, MA: Radar and radio contact with the aircraft was lost shortly after the aircraft departed JFK Airport in New York on a flight to Cairo. The aircraft crashed into the ocean about 60 miles (96 km) south of Nantucket Island. The NTSB determined that the aircraft departed from controlled flight and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean as a result of flight control inputs by the first officer. All 14 crew members and 203 passengers were killed.

31 January 2000; Alaska Airlines MD83; near Pt. Mugu, CA: The aircraft was on a flight from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to San Francisco when it crashed into the Pacific Ocean about 20 miles (32 km) northwest of the LAX airport. Reportedly, the aircraft was diverting to Los Angeles and started a rapid descent from about 17,000 feet. All 83 passengers and five crew members were killed.

11 September 2001; American Airlines 767 (Flight 11); World Trade Center, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles when it was hijacked and flown into one of the World Trade Center Towers. Another jet, a United Airlines 767, was hijacked and crashed into the other tower. Both towers later collapsed. All 11 crew members, 76 passengers, and five hijackers were killed, as were untold numbers of people on the ground.

11 September 2001; United Airlines 767 (Flight 175); World Trade Center, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles when it was hijacked and flown into one of the World Trade Center Towers. Another jet, an American Airlines 767, was hijacked and flown into the other tower. Both towers later collapsed. All nine crew members, 51 passengers, and five hijackers were killed, as were untold numbers of people on the ground.

11 September 2001; American Airlines 757 (Flight 77); The Pentagon, Arlington, VA: The aircraft was on a flight from Dulles to Los Angeles when it was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon, collapsing part of the structure. All six crewmembers, 53 passengers, and five hijackers were killed.

11 September 2001; United Airlines 757 (Flight 93); near Pittsburgh, PA: The aircraft was on a flight from Newark to San Francisco when it was hijacked. However, the aircraft crashed outside Pittsburgh. All seven crewmembers, 34 passengers, and four hijackers were killed.

12 November 2001; American Airlines A300; Queens, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic when it crashed into a residential neighborhood just outside JFK airport. The aircraft experienced an in-flight breakup, with the vertical fin and one engine landing away from the main impact site. There were a number of homes damaged or destroyed by the crash, and five people on the ground were also killed. All nine crew members and 251 passengers on the aircraft were killed, including five infants.

21 September 2005; JetBlue Airways A320-200; Los Angeles, CA: Shortly after takeoff on a domestic scheduled flight from Burbank, CA to New York, the crew became aware of a problem with the front landing gear. The wheels on the landing gear were locked in an incorrect position, leading the crew to divert to Los Angeles for an emergency landing. The landing, broadcast live by CNN and many other television networks, was visually spectacular but did not result in any serious damage to the aircraft. There were no injuries among the 140 passengers and six crew members.

8 December 2005; Southwest Airlines 737-700; Chicago, IL: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Baltimore to Chicago's Midway Airport. After landing, the crew was unable to stop the aircraft on the runway, going off the runway, through the airport's barrier fence and onto a nearby street. At some point during this event, the nose wheel collapsed. The aircraft struck at least two vehicles, with the impact causing fatal injuries to a six year old boy who was a passenger in one of the vehicles. None of the five crew members or 95 passengers were seriously injured. This was the first serious accident involving the 737-700.

20 December 2008; Continental Airlines 737-500; Denver, CO: The aircraft, which was on a scheduled flight to Houston's Intercontinental Airport, departed the runway during takeoff and skidded across a taxiway and a service road before coming to rest in a ravine several hundred yards from the runway. The aircraft sustained significant damage, including a post crash fire, separation of one engine and separated and collapsed landing gear. There were about 38 injuries among the 110 passengers and five crew members, including two passengers who were seriously injured.

15 January 2009; US Airways A320-200, Flight 1549; New York, NY: The aircraft was on a scheduled passenger flight from New York (LaGuardia) to Charlotte, NC The aircraft struck a flock of birds shortly after takeoff and experienced a loss of power to both engines. The crew was able to successfully ditch the aircraft in the Hudson River near midtown Manhattan. The aircraft reached an maximum altitude of about 3200 feet before it began to descend. After ditching, all five crew members and 150 passengers evacuated the aircraft. One passenger sustained serious injuries.

18 June 2009; Continental Airlines 777; Flight 61; en route from Brussels to Newark: The captain of Continental Airlines Flight 61, a 777 en route from Brussels to Newark, died while the aircraft was in flight over the Atlantic. The captain was replaced by a reserve first officer and the crew declared an emergency. The aircraft landed without further incident. There were 247 passengers on board, and there were no other injuries to passengers or crew.

25 December 2009; Northwest Airlines A330-300 (N820NW); Flight 253; near Detroit, MI: A passenger on a Northwest Airlines A330-300(N820NW) apparently attempted to detonate an explosive device while the aircraft was approaching Detroit. Flight 253 was an international flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, and early reports are that a passenger, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian national, allegedly had the device strapped to one of his legs, and that the device was triggered during descent (about 20 minutes before landing) and started a small fire. The flight, operated by Northwest Airlines using an Airbus 330-300 aircraft with 278 passengers and 11 crew members on board, landed safely, and the suspect, the only person injured, was transported to a local hospital for treatment of serious burns.

One significant incident missing from this list is the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. That flight took place on 22 December, 2001 on American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami (wikipedia) I'm not sure why AirSafe didn't consider this a significant event.

Now, let's add up the numbers:

• Total # of flights: 20


• Total # in which there was total or near total loss of life: 10 (4 involving terrorism)


• Total # which involved terrorism: 6 (4 resulting in total loss of life)


• % of flights in which total or near total loss of life occured: 50% (66% of those involving terrorism)


• % of flights involving terrorism: 30% (66% resulting in total loss of life)

If I get on a major US flight and a significant event occurs during that flight, the odds are likely that the event will not be terrorist related.

When a non-terrorist event occurs it will get significant news coverage. The FAA and the NTSB will investigate. They will issue a report in 1-2 years detailing the causes of the event and what changes can and should be made to prevent the event from happening again.

But if the event involves terrorism, it will not only get the above treatment, it will also be investigated by the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and various other agencies. Politicians will make hay out of it and newscasters will hyperventilate while the viewing public goes into panic.

Yet, again, the odds are that any significant airline event I might be involved in will be non-terrorist related. Why then should I see the threat from a would be terrorist as greater than the threat from a flock of birds?

By the way, AirSafe mentions that there have actually been several other instances of planes having to land with locked landing gear and other potentially dangerous in flight problems. They only listed the ones that got significant media coverage. What that means is that the threat of a significant event being terrorist related is actually less than the 30% I calculated above.

Be the water

Maine's gay marriage law was repealed last night.

It is little consolation I know but at times like this I try to keep a historical perspective. The fact that almost 50% of Mainers would support marriage equality is something to be proud of.

Ignorance is a powerful force. It is a mountain that appears insurmountable. But all mountains eventually are worn down by the water.

Be the water.

Will we be Health Care Reform's unwitting assassins?

(I'm going to tempt fate by doing some speculating about what will happen once Obama signs the HCR bill into law. May the gods forgive me.)

While there are still details to be worked out, the final form of Health Care Reform has come into focus. The public option is almost certainly going to be an opt-out, trigger-free, negotiated rates system that will be available realistically only to those who aren't already covered. We can wail and moan about this, but all of that is pretty much wasted breath at this point.

There will be floor amendments (all of which will fail). There will be reconciliation (which will could possible have some additional teeth grinding compromises). We should continue to fight for further reform in the final package (lightning can still strike). But what we will get in the end is no longer much of a mystery.

What we cannot do is let our disappointment stand in the way of defending the final bill. That is precisely what the opponents of HCR want.

The propaganda war that is coming will make the last few months seem like a small skirmish. You and I both know that the opponents of HCR (and the PO in particular) are already cranking up their machines to try and paint the worst picture possible of the enactment and execution of this bill. We cannot let them succeed, even if means defending what we consider to be a poor bill.

For example, we all know that the PO is only going to be available to a limited number of people. A lot of people outside the debate don't know this, but they will become aware of it soon enough when they ask their Human Resources rep what they need to do to switch.

When they find out that they can't, there is going to be a lot of outrage. And when the limited PO does not produce any great savings in insurance costs (as even its proponents expect), the propaganda machine will point at this and say, "See! We told you it wouldn't work!"

The worst thing we could do at that point is agree. We must not give their position weight. If they manage to convince the public that the public option is bad, it will die and will set back our efforts by another couple of decades.

We must be prepared to argue that the PO's weaknesses are entirely because it was hobbled from the beginning (suggested image: a horse leaving the gates with three of its legs chained to iron balls). We must be prepared to use the inevitable complaints about limited access to push for Wyden's proposal (or one like it) to open the exchanges to ALL Americans.

We must not let our bitterness over the limited nature of this reform get in the way of using it as the foundation for more profound reform down the road. We must not let our anger become our opponents greatest weapon.

Once Obama signs this bill, the fights of the last few months are over. The fights to come are waiting for us. Will we be ready for them?

I miss Carl Sagan

Self Awareness

I try to keep two things in mind:

(1) Political attention is a precious resource, when you get it, use it wisely. That means you should ask yourself, before saying anything or taking any action, "What am I trying to accomplish by doing this and is it worth the trouble to accomplish it?" Venting feels good, but does it actually help? If not, then do the venting with your close friends and family, but leave it out of the public debate.

(2) You are being watched. You are being watched, not just by those who agree with you, but also by those who do not. And among those who disagree with you are people who truly are your enemies. As such, they are looking for any advantage they can get from disagreements you have with those who are your allies. Don't think for a moment that political operatives aren't following public discussions closely, looking for some avenue of attack to use against you. If they can find a wedge issue that will divide you from your allies, all the better. If they can find a sound bite that will isolate you, even better. (Many of the worst talking points against Democrats came from other Democrats.)

Express your frustrations. Demand justice and what is right. But do it smartly and never offend anyone unnecessarily.

Fortune Cookie Patriotism

Defeating Reid is pointless

What people often forget when discussing the "failings" of caucus leaders is that caucus leaders do not represent the interests of the wider movement that elects that caucus. Their constituents are not the Democratic voters. Their constituents are the other members of the caucus.

That's why Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat from a liberal district, had to be more moderate in her approaches to managing the caucus in the previous congressional term. She didn't just represent San Francisco. She also represent the Democratic congress people from the South.

Why do I bring this up? Because simply demanding the defeat of Reid is pointless if the caucus as a whole will just elect another Reid-like leader. If you really want to change the leadership of the caucus then you need to change the caucus itself. You do this by either persuading its members to vote differently, or you elect new members who will vote differently.

Reid's "spinelessness" is just a symptom.