Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Ah, Mahmoud, my little monkeyman. You are by far the most dangerous imbecile in the world today - and it seems to please you. That's what scares me the most.

Not even the nut case that rules North Korea can hold a candle to you when it comes to outrageous rhetoric, though he is every bit as pathetic as you in the way he presents himself to the world.

I sincerely hope that the people of Iran get rid of you and the Mullahs you represent before you get all of them killed with your foolishness. They have already suffered enough.

Bin Laden Dead?

Unconfirmed reports suggest that bin Laden may have died from typhoid. Say it ain't so! Typhoid is too good for him. I can think of many better ways for him to see his last sunrise.

When Osama stopped making propaganda videos, I speculated that he was either dead or seriously wounded. There was no other plausable explanation for his disappearance from Al-Jazeera broadcasts.

I'm skeptical of the purported audio tapes made by bin Laden in the meantime. The jihadis want everyone to think Osama is still alive, because he is an important icon for their cause. He is immensely popular with Islamists and serves as an inspirational leader for the jihadis.

The U.S. wants everyone to think he is alive, too, because they need him to be the bogey-man in the so-called "War on Terror." Without Osama, we have no one on whom to focus our outrage for the actions of the terrorists.

If Osama is dead, I suspect that a lot of people will lose interest in continuing a costly campaign to rid the world of all the scumbags who carry on bin Laden's war against the West. Instead, they will support the isolationists' desire to simply hunker down in the relative (note I said relative) safety of America's distance from the bulk of the trouble-makers (yeah, the Middle East).

Stearman PT-17

This WWII primary trainer was produced in many variants for the Army, Navy, and foreign military. After the war, many were sold to individuals for sport flying and cropdusting and can often be seen at airshows around the country today.

A quick scan of the NTSB Accident Database shows that at least 8 of these beautiful aircraft have crashed since 2001.

*UPDATE*
A closer look at the accident database shows at least 23 PT-17 accidents since 2001. I'm feeling even more depressed now.

Muslims Offended -- what, again?

The Christians are at it again. An AP story in today's Star-Telegram reports on a Christian campaign urging Muslims to convert to Christianity.

According to the story, "Many Muslims and others consider campaigns like these offensive in both their timing and their goals." If I were a Muslim, I wouldn't be offended. I would just say "Thanks, but no thanks, you stupid infidel."

That was, in fact, my reaction to the recent admonition by Al-Qaida for all infidels to "convert to Islam or die." But I don't recall reading (in any newspaper) about any Christians who were offended by that statement. Maybe the Christians, rather than trying to convert people to Christianity, could simply teach Muslims some lessons in civility.

Lord knows, somebody should.

EMS Helicopter Crashes

A study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine (on line) in January 2006 reports a "disproportionate increase" in the number of EMS helicopter accidents and deaths.

Without a membership, we are limited to reading only the abstract and, consequently, are not privy to the more detailed statistics. Therefore, the numbers cited in the report have little meaning.

For example, we could reasonably expect the total number of accidents to increase over time, but has the accident rate increased? If so, by what measure (per 1000 flight hours, per 1000 sorties, etc.). And what is it that makes the increase "disproportionate?" Disproportionate to what?

These folks sometimes have a funny way (to me, anyhow) of stating the obvious, like when they say "Multivariate logistic regression revealed that controlling for other factors, the odds of fatal outcome was increased by postcrash fire ..."

What the heck is "multivariate logistic regression," and just why was it needed to "reveal" that postcrash fires increase the odds of a fatality? Common sense will "reveal" the same obvious result of postcrash fires.

The conclusion to the study (at least that part included in the abstract) offers nothing more than what has been known for many years:

"Fatalities after helicopter EMS crashes are associated especially with
postcrash fire and with crashes that occur in darkness or bad weather..."

Yes, postcrash fires add to the number of fatalities. Crashes that occur in darkness or bad weather (low visibility) usually involve high-speed impacts with obstructions or terrain and, therefore, increased trauma to the aircraft's occupants.

"...and can be addressed with improved crashworthiness..."

Believe me, helicopters are already about as crashworthy as they can be made to be and still be practical for their intended uses.

"...and measures to reduce flights in hazardous conditions."

This problem was addressed very well in a 1986 NTSB Safety Study of EMS helicopter accidents - mainly, apply strict weather minimums (ceiling and visibility) and don't pressure the pilots to fly in any weather conditions that the pilots determine are too dangerous. The highest percentage of fatalities (61%) in the 59 accidents included in this study resulted from "continued VFR flight into IMC."

"Further studies will be necessary to determine which changes will decrease the fatal crash rate and which are cost effective."

Again this is already known, but the lessons learned from previous studies are soon forgotten.

Recurrent flight training in flight simulators (not in the actual aircraft), in my opinion, will yield the most positive results in accident reduction. Yes, simulators are usually more expensive per hour of flight than the aircraft, but simulators offer the pilot the opportunity to fly in the kinds of situations and conditions that most often result in accidents. One hour in a simulator can provide the pilot with several hours more training benefit than one hour in the aircraft.

EMS pilots are often required to fly when the weather is at, and possibly below, their VFR minimums - at least at some unknown point along their flight route. That's why pilots sometimes (especially at night) find themselves in unforeseen IMC through no fault of their own.

Flight scenarios in the simulator can include all the elements involved in an actual aircraft accident and prepare the pilot to better handle the same or similar situation.

Those pilots who have experienced this type of simulator training know of its benefits. Unfortunately, the people who determine how much money will be spent on pilot training and how it will be spent are often not pilots and unaware of the value of simulators.

I have over 30 years experience conducting all levels of training for pilots in both aircraft and simulators, so take my word for it.

In all fairness to the authors of the study, I have access only to the abstract. The full study may actually have some useful information in it.

Letters to the Editor

I am often dismayed by the many illogical arguments I read in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, but there are, occasionally, letters that really do merit publication.

One such letter in today's edition justly criticized Mexican Independence Day celebrations in the U.S. and contained a comment that bears repeating:

"For Mexicans, Sept. 16 should be viewed and experienced as a day of tremendous sorrow, because Mexico would be so much better off today if Spain still ruled there."

Why is it that Mexico is, and always has been, such a train wreck of a country? It's no wonder they all want to come here.

Citizenship

While I'm on this subject, I'd like to say a few things about what I think it should take to hold citizenship in the United States.

First of all (the 14th Amendment notwithstanding), citizenship should not be a "birth right" unless at least one of the parents is a U.S. citizen. I know, we need a Constitutional Amendment to correct that little mistake.

Also, no American citizen should be allowed to hold citizenship in any other country....make your choice. If citizenship in another country is more desirable to you than being an American, go there.

Naturalized U.S. citizens should be required to renounce their citizenship in any other country and surrender their passports for an American passport.

Any U.S. citizen who takes up arms against the United States military anywhere in the world should have his citizenship revoked - posthumously, of course.

Americans are justified in being proud of their citizenship. Those who feel ashamed of being Americans just because they disagree with whoever is currently running the government should be ashamed of themselves instead. Who gives a damn what foreigners think about us or our government? Their ignorance comes from being brainwashed by their leftist media - and many of them are just crude enough to whine about the U.S. to American visitors they don't even know!

I wasn't ashamed to be an American when I was stationed overseas - even when Jimmy Carter was President. Those who tried to shame me only earned my scorn for being so gullible and so willfully ignorant about the United States.

Voter ID

Is there any reasonable argument against requiring voters to show some evidence that they are who they say they are and that they are actually entitled to vote in U.S. elections, that is, be American citizens?

An editorial in today's Star-Telegram seems to argue against such a requirement, citing Democrat claims that it would disenfranchise "the country's poorest, oldest and least-educated citizens." Specifically, "those black Americans for whom no birth certificate was ever issued" and "those who cannot take time off of work for fear of dismissal to visit a public office to acquire a government-issued ID."

Do black Americans not get to have birth certificates that whites and others are allowed to have? If you "cannot take time off of work" to get a government-issued ID, can you get one on your own time?

I think the argument that too many good, upstanding citizens would be prevented from voting is bogus. You almost have to have a government-issued ID in order to survive nowadays.

In my experience, without an "official" ID, I can't cash a check or, in many cases, even use a credit card. I can't buy or rent a place to live, open a bank account, fly commercially, or drive a car. So are there really a lot of Americans who don't have or can't get a photo ID from their state? I doubt it.

People in this country illegally naturally have a problem getting a valid ID, and I suspect that is what the Democrats are really worried about. The editorial claims that the Democrats believe that requiring an ID would affect those least likely to vote Republican.

The Democrats seem to want illegal aliens to provide the votes that Americans won't.

That would explain why the Democrats aren't serious about eliminating illegal immigration, but why is it that the Republicans aren't serious about it either?

Sportsman's Rights Act?

Well here's another one the Texas state legislature slipped past us.

The Sportsman's Rights Act, according to today's Star-Telegram, makes it illegal "to intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife."

The article tells the story of one landowner fined for making too much noise for hunters to shoot deer on an adjacent property.

I've got mixed feelings about this issue. People have a right to hunt on their property. People have a right to play music or ride dirt bikes and ATV's on their property.

Which "right" is more important to uphold?

If I were the landowner fined for making noise that interfered with hunting, I would file a counter complaint about the noise of gunshots interfering with my lawful use of my own property and even causing me concern for my safety.

I believe both of the property owners are within their rights, but I don't like the way the law reads, because it tends to negate the rights of non-hunters in favor of the rights of those who want to hunt with noisy and potentially dangerous guns.

The Company You Keep

Hugo Chavez called the President of the United States the "devil" in his shameful address to the UN General Assembly. I say shameful, because his childish rant was unbecoming of a leader of a nation - any nation.

This is not the first time a national leader has insulted the U.S. in an attempt to capitalize on anti-American sentiment around the world, and, since it can be done with apparent impunity, there's no reason to think it will be the last.

Hugo reminds me of Mussolini - just another posturing buffoon.

It's time we shunned tin-pot dictators by cutting off all diplomatic and economic ties with their countries when they decide to bite the hand that feeds them - so to speak. Without support from the U.S. government (us taxpayers) and the American economy, they would soon understand the real meaning of "third world."

The same should apply to any country whose government leaders scorn ours. Just like with undesirable people, we should not associate with undesirable governments.

We can certainly do without them.

The Wright Amendment

One of former U.S. Rep. Jim Wright's(D) legacies here in Texas is the Wright Amendment, signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter(D) in 1979.

What this means to the people who need to fly into and out of North Central Texas using DFW airport is having to pay for over-priced airline tickets. In some cases it is cheaper to fly to Houston or Austin and then catch a flight to your out-of-state destination.

This legislation restricts flights departing Dallas Love Field (Southwest Airlines, mainly) from non-stop flights beyond the boarding states. Dallas/Ft. Worth International airport (American Airlines), it was believed by some, needed protection from competition by Love Field (Southwest) in order to be successful in this market and "become the driving economic engine in north Texas."

Stifling competition didn't seem to be necessary in Chicago (O'Hare & Midway), Houston (Intercontinental & Hobby), or New York (JFK, LaGuardia, et.al.), so why here? I haven't seen or heard a plausible explanation for that.

For nearly 30 years, passengers have had to pay higher fares from DFW airport - not that the politicians, or American Airlines, really care about passengers.

Recently, to stave off another (likely successful) attempt by opponents of the Amendment to have it repealed, an agreement was reached between (the politicians of) Dallas and Ft. Worth to basically phase out the restrictions over an 8 year period.

I have not flown out of either of these airports in nearly 10 years (except for one unusual exception this summer) and cannot foresee any need to for the rest of my life. Therefore, I have no stake in the argument. It just seems wrong that this type of restriction on free enterprise would even be considered, much less made into law.

What I find amusing is the opinion column in the Star-Telegram, written by both the mayor of Dallas and of Ft. Worth, that begins:

"For almost 30 years, business and leisure travelers in North Texas have suffered the consequences of burdensome federal restrictions on air travel in our communities."

Keep in mind, Ft. Worth and American Airlines have been the staunch defenders of the Amendment, while Dallas has often protested it.

What's their joint solution to these "consequences of burdensome federal restrictions?"

Allow American Airlines to bleed the public for another 8 years.

Is this a great country, or what?

Are Muslims Prone to Violence?

Looks like the Pope has stirred up a real hornets nest - not that it takes much to do that nowadays. It seems that the Muslims are up in arms over the Pope's remarks last week quoting a 14th Century emperor, Manual II Paleologos (whoever he was), who criticized the Prophet Mohammed.

So far, Muslims around the world are making Emperor Manual's case for him - by murdering a nun, fire-bombing churches, and, in general, just making complete asses of themselves.

Even a simple cartoon is enough justification for some Muslims (tens or even hundreds of thousands, actually) to go on a rampage.

Here are the infamous cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten last year (oh, the horror).

Are these people so easily offended that they can display no dignity in the face of criticism? Do they not realize that their behavior validates every derogatory comment ever made against Islam and it's followers?

The Muslims' penchant for bombing markets, hotels, trains, planes and automobiles....even their own mosques....doesn't aid their cause. Western liberals try to rationalize the behavior of these scumbags - yes, that's right, SCUMBAGS - and try to somehow excuse it, but no one with any sense is buying their arguments.

Here are just a few of the atrocities commited by Muslims in the name of Islam:
The World Trade Center in New York.

The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.

Subway trains in Madrid.

Nightclubs in Bali.

The Marriott Hotel in Jakarta.

Busses and subways in London.

All of these and most others are civilian targets.

What do the vast majority of peaceful Muslims have to say about the "hijacking" of their Religion of Peace?

::crickets::

I thought so.