Errant Planes

Last week a small plane flies into the restricted airspace of the Nation's Capitol. By all accounts it was just a mistake, as possibly evidenced by the freezing of the 69 year old pilot when approached by the Black Hawk helicopter. And if that didn't paralyze him enough, two F-16 fighter jets rushed to the scene, dipping their wings and dropping flares. Thank goodness the 36 year old student pilot had his wits about him or there might really have been a national emergency at the White House.

But this isn't about the errant, and possibly clueless, meanderings of a pilot and his plane. This is about how the government, NORAD, and the FAA handles air security. I've been expecting someone to draw a corollary on this one, and excuse me if I haven't seen it, but what about 9/11? I'm not a historian of FAA protocol, and perhaps I'm talking out my arse, but I do believe that FAA and NORAD regulations regarding restricted air space on the morning of 9/11 were fairly similar to what they are now--the fugly war on terrorism at home and abroad, all the personal sacrifices to civil liberty, gargantuan debt, etc., we've had forced on us aside.

Two things. Questions.

Thing one: Why the huge, and costly, evacuation of the White House and nearby government offices last week, but no evacuation of the second tower or the Pentagon on 9/11...when NORAD, FAA, and the air traffic controllers all KNEW there were big errant planes flying around, ostensibly bent on becoming missles of death? (Oh that's right, there was a full scale war game going on that morning and everyone "in charge" believed that the planes they were seeing on their screens weren't actually real? Nevermind the actual television footage of actual carnage?)

Thing two: Why does our "commander in chief" continue to not be kept abreast of critical emergencies? The White House security level is raised to its highest, Red. But the president is kept blissfully unaware as he continues frolicking on his bike, probably dreaming about his pet goat.

For more information on air security protocols, war games, and evidence regarding government complicity on 9/11, see:
1
2
3
4 I declare a bad war.

Crimes of the Century

I actually believe this very important article by David Michael Green, a professor of political science, titled Stop the Crime of the Century is misnamed. I'd title it The Second Crime of the Century.

What was the first you ask?

9/11.

And not because I believe 19 hijackers, acting in accord with a former CIA guy named Usama, or Osama, were the sole, if at all, perpetrators of 9/11.

Why would I say that?

(Please give my answer a chance before you call me a traitor, tell me to go to France, or call Homeland Security.)

An easy place to begin would be checking out a transcript of David Ray Griffin's talk regarding government complicity in 9/11. If you're only familiar with the "official" version of 9/11 you might be in for a surprise. If so, please suspend your disbelief, read (or listen via many different internet links) to the talk Mr. Griffin, theologian and author, gave to University of Wisconsin students on the 18th of April and which was telecast via CSPAN2 on April 30th and May 7th (way to go CSPAN!). If, after reading the transcript, your interest is sufficiently piqued--and it should be--this will only be the beginning of your trip down a very interesting, and disturbing, rabbit hole.

Let me know if you need any directions for the journey. I'd be happy to supply you with a variety of credible links.

Ditto what Mr. Green suggests, except let's add an s to the end of crime so that we can really get the job done right.

...........................................................................................

Decided to look up the lyrics to Supertramp's Crime of The Century. Seem especially appropriate to include here. I love Supertramp by the way. And I think my all time favorite song might be School.

Crime of the Century, by Supertramp

Now they're planning the crime of the century
Well what will it be?
Read all about their schemes and adventuring
It's well worth a fee
So roll up and see
And they rape the universe
How they've gone from bad to worse
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let's see.
But that's no right - oh no, what's the story?
There's you and there's me
That can't be right

The "Ultimate Educational Experience"

A substitute biology teacher in Gunnison, Utah facilitates a class in the dissecting of a live dog. The dog was sedated. And the dog was scheduled to be euthanized.

Questions anyone?

"The teacher is standing by his decision and calls it the ultimate educational experience. Principal Anderson said he supports the lesson and it will be allowed to continue because the students are learning."

What's next, live dissection of sedated death row inmates? Gitmo prisoners? The terminally ill? I could go on, and it'd probably include something sarcastic about "ultimate educational experiences" regarding the substitute teacher and his principal, but I'll refrain.

I can, unfortunately perhaps, imagine what was going through this teacher's mind. And he's probably going to take a public flogging, however justified or not, regarding it. What's most distressing is that this kind of "educational experience" has much more to do with desensitizing impressionable students than teaching them anything about the digestive tract of the unwanted dog or how to be a compassionate human being.

When I was in high school, I wrote a paper regarding my distaste for dissecting anything. I didn't mind the biology class so much. The teacher I rather liked, although he always smelled a little too much like booze. Though the booze probably contributed to his fairly lax teaching style and somewhat humorous and sarcastic nature which most of us--except those who most wanted to learn biology--enjoyed. But when it came to being told I had to dissect frogs whether I liked it or not, I tried to stage a mini revolt. It wasn't that the teacher made me feel violated. More like the system was making me feel violated.

I wrote an article intended for the school newspaper merely suggesting that if one didn't feel destined for a field in biology or medicine, why should they be forced to dissect frogs? For one, I liked frogs. And, just a few years earlier, they had been the subject of many of my favorite childhood stories and personal imaginings. And now I'm being coerced into dissecting them?

I worked for the school paper and submitted the article for final approval. Soon thereafter, along comes the well meaning head of the newspaper department and, taking me by the arm, tells me that it's an inappropriate piece. Incredibly, as I consider it now, I was even directed to speak to the principal about it, who chastised me about my subversive attitude, and told me firmly, "you mustn't question."

Well...this is why our family homeschools. For one, to create our own ultimate educational experiences. Like focusing on community service, sustainable living, human and animal rights, global politics, clean water and air,...the list of potential ultimate educational experiences is endless. But, to be honest, we homeschool mainly to preserve the natural, and necessary, questioning ability of young people. We aren't perfect at it. There are plenty of times we don't do the best job of encouraging or answering the questions. But question we must. All of us. Everything. And I sure question the thinking that says it's okay to dissect live, however sedated, dogs.