$moke 'em if ya got 'em

Ahh, whatever happened to the romance of smoking?

On January 1, 2007, many smokers will have a greater incentive to quit smoking. The Texas legislature and Gov. Perry decided that adding an extra dollar to the tax on a pack of cigarettes would be a great way to get more money for the things they want to spend it on.

Actuaries, no doubt, worked overtime to come up with a figure ($1/pack) that would, at least in the short term, earn the State the most revenue from everyone's favorite "whipping boy" (smokers) without causing so many of them to quit smoking that the State would pass the point of diminishing returns.

Aside from smokers, who seem to be in a minority nowadays, who would argue against the new tax?

Those who feel it is their duty to control other peoples' behavior (liberals) are almost giddy over the prospect of forcing even more smokers to finally quit as an economic necessity, if not for their own health.

Other non-smokers simply say: "To hell with smokers. That's what they get for smoking in the first place."

The politicians are not interested in the health of smokers, or the welfare of non-smokers. All they care about is the money.

I have an idea that would raise even more revenue and be a greater benefit to the welfare of my fellow Texans. Instead of taking out our anguish and greed on smokers (who have had it tough enough as it is), slap an extra $1 per drink tax on alcohol.

The non-smoking alcoholics that fill the State legislature probably wouldn't like that idea too much, though. But just think of the benefits!

How about it AA? How about it MADD? It would be a win-win situation for everyone but the alcoholics we despise (almost) as much as we despise smokers.

Next, we go after coffee drinkers.

Hmmm....aren't soft drinks bad for you? What about red meat?

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." -Hedley Lamarr

The Next Texas Governor

Carol Strayhorn(I), Chris Bell(D), Rick Perry(R), Kinky Friedman(I). Who to vote for?

The pundits say Perry will win easily, Bell will lose completely, and Strayhorn and Friedman will make a good showing (but still lose).

I wouldn't be too quick to predict what Texas voters will do, but I'll bet that the two Independent candidates will have the (D)'s and (R)'s biting their nails until the final tally.

Rick Perry, in spite of his "pretty-boy" appearance, seems to have done an acceptable job as governer so far, even though he signed into law that new tobacco tax ($1 more per pack). He is, however, a career politician, and more and more people seem to be less and less satisfied with those whose career paths amount to one public office after another.

Chris Bell seems like a nice enough guy, but he is a Democrat. In Texas, that is not a good selling point....nor does it seem to be anywhere else, for that matter.

Carol Strayhorn said something on one of her radio ads that struck a chord with me. She said: "I'm 67 years old. My future is not in politics. My future is my grandchildren" I like that attitude. Her goal is not to use her public office to get elected over and over again.

Kinky Friedman is the candidate for all those people who are fed up with what politics and politicians have become. For them, he is a breath of fresh air. He also seems to be the most conservative candidate on the ballot.

I'll be watching the candidates' televised debate very closely on Channel 8 (WFAA) on October 6 at 6:30pm.

Alliance Air Show = Road Closures?

There will be an airshow at Ft. Worth Alliance Airport this weekend that will result in some road closures. The closures are deemed necessary for the pilots' safety because "Vehicle traffic can sometimes interfere with landmarks, which pilots use to keep track of their maneuvers."

Color me skeptical, but I'm not buying that explanation. Someone's trying to hide something here. Closing important roadways (for other than repairs or construction) is not something that is done around here unless there is a really good reason.

I may be wrong, but I can't think of any way that vehicle traffic would interfere with pilots identifying their landmarks.

Yes, I'll try to attend and get some great pictures, but I don't expect to get any straight answers.

$moker$

Starting January 1, 2007, smokers in Texas will have to pay an extra dollar per pack of cigarettes. The price of a carton of cigarettes will, therefore, increase $10.

The anticipated windfall in tax revenues will supposedly be used to help fund our schools. Just like some specialty license plates were supposed to fund state parks.

A large portion of the Texas state lottery (finally) is used to fund public schools, but school taxes are still high. The Texas legislature has reportedly been unable to come up with an adequate plan to fund

The new cash cow for Texas politicians comes in the form of people who refuse to quit smoking (how dare they keep lighting up!). The current taxes on tobacco products have not provided the politicians with the revenues they crave, possibly because the number of smokers keeps dropping.

You can bet that somewhere in the bowels of Texas state government, actuaries have been hard at work determining just how much more tax can be levied on smokers until the number of smokers is reduced to the point of diminishing returns.

Cowardice in the "War on Terror"

Have you noticed that the MSM have resolutely avoided any possibly of offending Islamic terrorists? Oh sure, they say they just don't want to offend the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims (who also seem reluctant to offend the "tiny" extremist elements among them). They're more than happy to point out anything offensive to Muslims if it will serve to undermine the Bush administration, though.

Now it appears that the Berlin Opera House is the latest entity to capitulate to the fear of Islamic terrorists by canceling the performance of an avant-garde version of a Mozart opera that included a scene that included the severed heads of prominent religious figures, including Mohammed. German government officials reportedly urged that the "show must should go on," but the opera house chose to cancel anyway. Does anyone doubt that the terrorists are winning.

[Remember, it was the Germans who quietly freed the terrorist Mohammad Ali Hammadi not in exchange for the release of Susanne Osthoff, a German national working in Iraq who was "kidnapped" by terrorists last year. Susanne is suspected of having participated in her own abduction and assisted her Baathist "captors" in this scam to get Germany to release an important terrorist and cancel the training they had agreed to provide to Iraqi security forces. Don't expect the German government to file charges against her, though.]

Whether the opera production was tasteless or inappropriate is beside the point. Many, if not most, artistic presentations could be characterized as tasteless or inappropriate (Pis Christ, Madonna, CBS News, etc.). Those of us who value civil liberties will allow such garbage as part of the price of having our own freedom.

The performance was reportedly cancelled because the German police informed the opera house that it could result in "a violent backlash from Muslim fundamentalists." They weren't worried about angry Christians or Buddhists, though (why is that?). Although no Muslim group had expressed displeasure with the scheduled performance, it's not hard to imagine that someone would have jumped at yet another excuse to torch some cars or blow up something.

Frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of all this tip-toeing around Muslim sensitivities. I was genuinely proud of President George W. Bush when he said to those who wished to attack us, "Bring 'em on!" I was genuinely disappointed when he backed off from that rare show of strength and defiance of our enemy.

The MSM promotes such cowardice in the way it reports (or fails to report) the news. A good example is Newsweek magazine. It couldn't wait to publish an unfounded (and false) rumor that guards at Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet (a physical impossibility, btw), but at the height of the Danish cartoon kerfluffle, the editors at Newsweek refused to publish the cartoons in question to show everyone what the "news" was all about. In fact, no major news outlet had the courage to show what was causing the uproar.

Whatever you might think of former President John F. Kennedy, he inspired me when he said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Is there a leader in this country today who has that kind of courage?

Korea

My last overseas assignment was in Korea. Things were pretty humdrum then, and I wondered why U.S. troops were even there. I gather that we still have about 37,000 troops in South Korea, and I'm still wondering why we're there.

South Korea is an economic powerhouse in Asia with a high standard of living and a dedicated military. North Korea, from what we're told, is a backward, impoverished country hobbled by a communist dictatorship.

Does South Korea really need the U.S. to protect it? I don't think it does, and even if I'm wrong, I think it's time for the South Koreans to take care of themselves.

In addition to the cost to the taxpayers, stationing American troops in another country during peacetime creates enormous PR problems. Local sentiment regarding our troops is divided, of course, between those who make money off of the GI's and those who's nationalistic pride is at stake.

My experience in Korea convinced me that the Koreans' gratitude for the U.S. having saved the country from a communist takeover has worn very thin over the years since 1953. Every time our military activities interfere with the daily lives of Koreans or even when a GI misbehaves in public, that gratitude gets a little thinner.

There have been reports of serious demonstrations against the U.S. presence in South Korea for many years now. Young Koreans can't relate to the fear and suffering their parents and grandparents experienced over 50 years ago.

It's time for us to leave. If the South Koreans can't defend themselves from the North Koreans....well, maybe they don't deserve the freedom we've provided them all these years.

Decline in Aircraft Accidents

Did you know that the number of aircraft accidents that occur each year has gradually decreased since 1986? More importantly, the accident rate has also gone down.

If you're not a pilot (and even if you are), you might never have given it a thought.

When there's a front-page accident, such as a fully loaded airliner crashing on short final, it gets peoples' attention. As soon as the news outlets tire of that story, however, and move on to more current events, people tend to forget any previous concerns they had about aviation safety. Most people never even find out what was eventually determined to be the cause of the accident.

I used to ask my pilot students how many civil aircraft accidents they thought there were each year in this country. Their guesstimates usually ranged from a few dozen to several hundred accidents accidents a year. They were always surprised when I informed them that the annual number of accidents always hovered around 2000 or more (it has been less than 2000 per year since I retired).

These tables for accidents and accident rates come from the NTSB's Aviation Accident Statistics web page: As you can see from these tables (click on the image for a larger scale view), the airlines contribute only a small number of accidents to the total. Airline pilots receive continuous, intensive training to keep them on their toes, so it's always a bit shocking when an airliner crashes due to pilot error.

General aviation, on the other hand has a great number of pilots who get almost no training after receiving their pilot's certificate. I don't want to appear to discourage people from becoming pilots, but I think that if you aren't willing to dedicate yourself to obtaining and maintaining a high level of flying skill and aviation knowledge, you would be well advised to leave the flying to the professionals.

GA pilots are involved in the vast majority of aircraft accidents, mostly due to a lack of basic piloting skills. Even commercial pilots (non-airline) have a considerable number of accidents, even though their basic piloting skills are much better maintained through frequent training sessions.

The most common cause of accidents among professional pilots, both airline and non-airline, is pilot error resulting from a loss of situational awareness. This problem has been addressed by airlines and commercial pilot training organizations over the last two decades and may account for the gradual reduction in the yearly number of accidents.

There are a number of identifiable recurring situations that tend to cause pilots to make small, but serious mistakes, and those situations are not uncommon in routine flying - especially in low visibility conditions (night and weather). They form a common thread and make many accidents almost identical to previous accidents.

Knowing what has caused previous accidents helps pilots avoid experiencing what others have already suffered. Therefore, I've encouraged pilots to review aircraft accident reports frequently. They may find one (or more) that contain flight scenarios that closely resemble some of their own flight situations that, fortunately, did not result in an accident.

I have always believed that knowing what causes accidents is a pilot's best defense against accident. Becoming familiar the "traps" that other pilots have found themselves in will better ensure that they will be able to continue to avoid getting caught in one themselves.

More important is the need to develop error recovery skills. Pilots, being human, will always make mistakes. The ability to correct those mistakes in a timely manner is what prevents them from resulting in an accident.