Stakes On A Plane / 6-8-09

(Dedicated to Val G.)

So, when we're 35,000 feet above the earth, what laws apply? This riddle came up Friday night in between drinks, and this is my pathetic answer to it.

Whilst "researching" my "answer" after a "hard" "day" of "work," the trip across the Internet took me many places. To the BBC magazine, which examined, thoughtfully and Britanically, the lawfulness of joining the Mile High Club. To a Nevada company's effort to install baccarat tables on international flights. To Baby Sasha, born in Canadian airspace on New Year's Day -- apparently, she's a Canadian citizen, imagine that. To the legendary stories of how flight attendants would relieve you of your cocktail when the plane flew over dry parts of Kansas. I got to read sections of the United States Code as exciting as this:

Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.

(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.

I'm still looking for an ironclad answer, but my brilliant legal mind can deduce that if the plane is registered in the U.S., U.S. law applies from takeoff to landing. As a result, I don't suggest trying to get away with indecent exposure just because you're flying to Rio. (Or to the moon. By the way, the acronym for that treaty cited in subsection (6) goes like this: TPGASEUOSIMOCB. Rolls deliciously right off your tongue.)

This is all well and good for international travel, but let's get practical: Can or can you not engage in Nevada-approved behavior while in Nevadan airspace? On a flight from Sacramento to Salt Lake City, can you hire a prostitute? Can you gamble at cruise altitude? Can you get a quickie wedding?

I mean, my word, can you say "aboot" with a straight face on a flight from Spokane to Calgary?

Those crucial answers are harder to find. It's possible I may not sleep tonight.

(On the other hand, I DID find this, which was humorous, if unrelated.)

A wise Latina once said... / 6-7-09

Clearly the Supreme Court of these United States needs more women. An 8-1 male-female ratio is unhealthy.

Clearly it needs a greater ethnic diversity as well. Eight whites out of nine jurists, in a country that is trending away from lily-whiteness, that's not especially healthy, in my opinion. The Court should in fact reflect the values AND the racial makeup of our country. Without a doubt, the values come first in the pecking order, but background counts too.

With my disclaimers now out of the way, I would like to complain about Sonia Sotomayor's well-publicized unfortunate "wise Latina" comments. (Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who has chosen NOT to die on the bench. Good for him.)

Wait, one more caveat! I wish for a speedy, uneventful confirmation process for Sotomayor. It is offensive to me that no Latinos/Latinas have served on SCOTUS yet. That is a serious shortcoming in our justice system. Let's get her on the court ASAP, stat-mmediately. Is yesterday possible?

But I am particularly bothered by her repeated assertion that she hopes a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Saying that kind of thing once is excusable; but she wove that bit, sometimes word for word, into other speeches as well. (Yes, I just linked to CNN and... Fox News. It was painful for me too. I apologize. Get over it.)

Anyway... as a white male, I find her line of thinking to be condescending, patronizing and prejudiced. I don't think I need to explain why.

And yet, she has a point. The Court and the courts, they need more Latina voices and Latino ears. Desperately. But her ancestry doesn't make her a better jurist. Her life experience might provide her with insight a white man doesn't have, but let's get real: Gustav O'Leary is perfectly capable of having a history that enwisens him too! ("Enwisens?" Yup. "Gustav O'Leary?" Not a real guy, I hope.)

Sotomayor is presumed to be a semi-automatic liberal voice for a long time, which brings me great relief. Thank goodness a Democrat sits in the Oval Office, for this very reason. I wince to imagine another young conservative on the Court, ruling for big business and smacking down the little guy then retiring to the back room to smoke his strict-constructionist cigars.

John Roberts was qualified when mini-Bush nominated him. Now, for sure, Roberts is an unimaginative creep with whom I couldn't disagree more frequently. He probably lied in his confirmation hearing when he said he couldn't recall belonging to the ultra-far-right-wing Federalist Society. But he was qualified; so is Sotomayor. And the President can select whoever he pleases. So let's get on with it, shall we?

And so, I will be interested to see how the Republicans proceed. If they drag it out, delaying Sotomayor's confirmation more than usual, I'll post about how Obama may well have ensnared them in a trap. Which is totally unnecessary -- conservative white males have shown themselves to be plenty self-destructive. Almost as if they haven't learned a blessed thing from their rich life experiences.

Celebrity Deathmatch / 6-6-09

I'm on Google news, at 7:30 p.m. on a Saturday night, browsing for stories to blog about. (I acknowledge there are two problems with my opener: I ended it with a preposition and it contains the embarrassing confession that I have no life.)

I glance at the headlines to the left of the page; there are 4,293 stories at my disposal covering the mysterious death of actor David Carradine.

Since I'm a math geek, I notice that four of the surrounding headlines display a total of related stories somewhere in the 4,000 range. I notice their sum ends with the digit 3, so I chuckle at the possibility that the numbers might match. I do the math. (You'll recall I have no life.)

4,283 is the grand total. I kid you not. Ten more stories out there on a has-been actor's suicide/murder/accident than on the president's approach to health care reform, the launch of new Palm Pre, the day in major league baseball, and a little thing we like to call the demise of the U.S. auto industry.

I'm disturbed. Which I kind of shouldn't be, since this kind of "creative" prioritization happens every single day. But then again, I'm relieved that I'm still disturbed.

Venting complete. Carry on.

(OK, one P.S., but just one: God help us if any serious calamity should befall Jim Carrey or Angelina Jolie. Ever.)

Don't get sick / 6-5-09

If you were planning on breaking both your legs, replacing a kidney, or having a couple-three rounds of brain surgery for fun this summer, you might want to rethink things.

Insurmountable medical bills were a factor in 62 percent of bankruptcies last year (meaning 2007). This according to a study in the American Journal of Medicine.

Well, we gotta start gettin some health insurance to these poor saps, then, huh? Well... 75 percent of the newly bankrupt actually HAD medical coverage.

Oh.

And here I was thinking that layoffs and the recessionaryismentation-ness of the economy were to blame. And all the suckers who bought $800,000 homes on $40k jobs. For sure, those things play their role, but it's the medical bills that push people over the edge, it appears.

The data is for 2007, as I said. Which leads some to conclude that the 2008 numbers will be even more striking.

Possibly, health care reform is the biggest challenge we face today. Bigger than terrorism... bigger than Social Security's coming insolvency, bigger than climate change, even. (All that's going to do is displace a billion people and de-stabilize the poor countries of the world and raise sea levels and mess with the food supply. OK, so maybe they're tied.)

The Taoist Christian, Part 2 / 6-3-09

Part 2 of many.

Taoism is especially attractive to me because I get so hung up on the un-knowability of the God introduced in the Bible. I mean, seriously, has anyone reading this blog ever had a two-way conversation with that God?

I don't consider receiving a warm fuzzy feeling to be a two-way conversation. Nor does an all-encompassing profound inner peace count. I don't even consider a reading of 1st Thessalonians to be God speaking.

I'm a human being, dagnabit. If a relationship wants to be called a relationship, the communication has to flow in both directions in real time. Otherwise, who are we kidding? What kind of relationship is it? Those of you who are married: Imagine for a second that your spouse communicates with you exclusively through sometimes cryptic writings from centuries past. How long before divorce?

This isn't late-night Bible-trashing. This is out-loud wondering whether "relationship" is the best word to describe how we get along with God.

(And don't you dare trot out the line about "God is so great and you are so small, where do you get off making these kind of demands?" -- that's nothing but a lame cop-out. If a close personal relationship is the ultimate goal, then both parties have to communicate regularly. That's just how we're wired. Or me at least.

"That's why God sent Jesus, John. Don't you know anything? Of course we can't relate to this Universe-Creating Omnieverything God of Timelessness Eternity. Duh. Get to know Christ already." Mmmm. Same dead ends, people. And let's not even get into the questions surrounding how accurately -- or not -- Christ is portrayed in the Gospels we have left.)

One last pre-Tao point: anyone else have trouble developing an authentic "relationship" with a being that might not exist? I mean, I believe in God and all, but sometimes I wonder. And that gets in the way a lot. Consider the possibility that someone you know somewhat well, say, a friend with whom you just reconnected with on facebook after many years of separation, that this friend is imaginary. You made her up. She wasn't real a decade ago and her semi-regular comments on your status updates are a figment of your imagination. I know, crazy, huh? Now try making that friend the central figure of your life, and worship her. Try it out. See how that relationship feels.

I know. Apples to oranges. Although really, more like lemons to limes.

So enter Taoism, which instructs adherents to contemplate the Tao, to be in tune with it, even to love it. That sounds relational. But it's different in this tradition, and I take comfort there. From the Tao Te Ching:

"The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."

That's juxtaposed with:

"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao."

What does that mean for a guy like me who reveres the Christ figure (in an extremely nontraditional way) but balks at the idea of striving to know and be known by God? Maybe I don't have to try so hard to experience God. Maybe I already am, and I just need to wake up to that fact.


[EDIT 6-5-09: The comments section is useful this time around. I actually explain a couple things a wee bit better than in the post itself.]

I like this / 6-2-09

This is good.

If you want to try and overturn our state's recent decision to grant overdue civil rights to gay couples, it's going to cost you something. Your anonymity, to be exact.

Let's imagine that you put your name on Referendum 71, the petition to overturn Senate Bill 5688; the petition then gathers enough signatures to qualify for the fall ballot; your name gets published on WhoSigned.org. Excellent strategy. Expose the haters for what they are. I love it.

Predictably, these very haters are dismayed. Larry Stickney, of Protect Marriage Washington, the organization driving the Referendum 71 petitions, said in today's Seattle Times: "This seems to be a typical pattern developing around the country where the homosexual lobby employs hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics wherever their interests or intent are challenged."

Ah, but signatures on petitions are a matter of public record. What could be more democratic than open records? (Free hint: Do not pose that query to Dick Cheney.) And what exactly is "intimidating" or "hostile" about posting a list of names? Unless you don't want anyone to know you signed the petition... in which case you might want to re-examine your reasons for signing it.

I was accosted last year by an organizer seeking signatures for an initiative to repeal the estate tax. I didn't sign; I happen to enjoy the estate tax's existence. But had I signed, I would have been happy for my name to be listed online.

And it's not really good form, Larry, to call civil rights "interests" or "intents."

As I might have mentioned, I like this development. WhoSigned.org, put together by gay-rights activists, is following the example of other organizations using the same strategy. Here's hoping it works. (I'll track whether Protect Marriage Washington gathers the necessary 120,000-plus signatures in time. If they do, I'll link to the list.)

For bonus points, go to the Decline to Sign 71 Facebook page in the meantime to show your support for civil rights.

The squishy center / 6-2-09

Let's face it, a fetus is not a person.

Let's face it, a fetus is not a random collection of cells.

So how 'bout we don't treat it as either.

If it's a person, it is subject to being murdered. So what then -- you want to prosecute would-be mothers for involuntary manslaughter if they miscarry? You want to charge a pregnant woman with assault if her blood type is harmful to the fetus inside her? Or if she smokes in her third trimester? Because those are three extremely viable courses of action, on a purely legal level, that result from giving a fetus the same rights as a born baby. (Actually, that third one sounds kind of borderline OK.)

Now likewise, if this fetus is nothing more than a bunch of tissue contained within another person, then when does it turn into a human? At birth? Really? Not two hours earlier, during labor? Or not a week before? When it crowns? At the first painful contraction? At 28 weeks, when it's considered viable for legal reasons? At 37 weeks, when it's viable pretty much all the time? Or before it's C-sectioned out of its mother who died four minutes ago on the operating table? Do we have a line in the (sand) womb we can draw here?

Let's face more: George Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered Sunday -- is he a creep or a hero?

How 'bout neither.

You'll have heard, by now, that Tiller performed somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 abortions, that he was charged and acquitted with providing illegal abortions, and that he was fatally shot in the head at his church on Sunday while handing out the bulletin during the service.

In Salon, Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, in the wake of Tiller's death, writes to him: "Our world is doing poorly for having lost you. But your courage will inspire us to draw on our own strength and carry out the work for which you gave your life."

As pro-choice as I am, I can't quite squeeze Tiller into the same box she does. Was he fearless? Certainly. Principled? For sure. Brave? Can't deny it. But heroic-slash-courageous-slash-inspirational? I wonder.

And let's not make Tiller into some sort of villain. He provided a legal service few do, under constant threat of violence. He was shot once already, twice actually, in both arms. You may think his profession is despicable, but that doesn't give you the right to kill him. Or the right to rejoice that he died. (Now, different story altogether if he were a lawyer... hardy har har.)

So, in summary, hope you brought your gray Crayolas for this one.

Mariners drop a really, really close one / 6-1-09

OAKLAND - The Mariners just can't catch a break, as evidenced by today's 0-0 loss to the A's.

Five Seattle pitchers combined to hold Oakland to five hits and no runs over 16 innings Sunday afternoon, yet the M's were forced to forfeit the game in the middle of the 17th frame when the umpires scientifically determined that the Mariners had a zero percent chance that day of reaching home plate before making three outs.

The low, low final score sets a new major league record for fewest runs scored without use of a soccer ball.

The Elias Sports Bureau believes this is the first case of a team shutting out its opposition yet losing the game.

"More research is needed on this issue," Elias spokesman Guy Ked said. "But we can confirm that the game set a new record for craptastic suckfestiness. No offense."

Following the umpires' controversial ruilng, the Mariners were serenaded off the field by a loud and delirious contingent of A's fans who chanted "So-do No-jo! (clap, clap, clapclapclap) So-do No-jo!" An irate Jose Lopez had to be restrained from charging the crowd, although he did relieve his frustration by swinging at eleven cups of Gatorade in the dugout. All eleven remain standing.

The Mariners wasted a 8-for-9 night by Ichiro, who tripled twice, doubled twice, stole five bases and was stranded at third base seven times. Starter Felix Hernandez gave up two hits and no walks in eight innings and the bullpen allowed four Oakland baserunners the rest of the way, three of those on errors by shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt (0-2 with three walks and four sacrifices).

Third baseman Adrian Beltre saved three runs with a bases-loaded defensive gem in the bottom of the eighth but finished 0-for-9 with seven strikeouts and 24 men left on base. His batting average fell one point.

"We didn't even have to look that one up," Ked said. "Totally a record for LOB. Not even close."

Eight different Mariners were thrown out at the plate in the game. First baseman Russell Branyan, fresh off a 4-for-5, 3-HR night Saturday, had the day off.

Tonight's umpiring crew will determine ten minutes prior to game time, based on the lineup M's skipper Don Wakamatsu turns in, whether the contest will proceed or another forfeit is forcibly declared.

"I'm thinking of hitting Rob Johnson cleanup and putting YuBet in the two hole again," Wakamatsu said.

Generally Bankrupt Motors, Inc. / 6-1-09

With Chrysler and GM due to emerge from bankruptcy as leaner, meaner, presumably greener machines, it will be fascinating to see if the companies' main stockholder, the United States government, benefits financially in the long run.

I own two Japanese cars, but I'm rooting for the Amerikan yonrisha seizousha here.

Too much bend for my mind / 6-1-09

To a certain point, I can understand what motivates a guy to load his gun and, in a very premeditated fashion, go out and kill an abortion doctor. Particularly a late-term specialist who is estimated to have performed five figures' worth of abortions.

However, it's horrifying that Dr. George Tiller was shot dead this weekend for essentially performing his job within the confines of the law. (I also think abortion, since it is a gruesome and delicate medical procedure, should only remain legal if reasonable restrictions are in place.)

It's just that I can't bend my mind around how you would rationalize gunning down a man, presumably in God's name, during a Sunday morning worship service.

I've explored this from a couple vantage points. The killer must have believed the doctor was doing Satan's work unwillingly? The killer was convinced the man was in church just for show or out of habit? The killer was a fragile mind easily nursed into vigilante behavior? The killer was an atheist who despised abortion rights?

Either way, Dr. Tiller helped end as many as 60,000 pregnancies. (That's the estimate of the right-wing Washington Times.) With so many people considering him a mass murderer, you have to wonder why the doctor lived as long as he did. And that is a sad commentary.

P.S.: I snagged this from the non-right-wing New York Times:

"Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group based in Wichita, said he had always sought out 'nonviolent' measures to challenge Dr. Tiller, including efforts in recent years to have him prosecuted for crimes or investigated by state health authorities.
'Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system,' Mr. Newman said, adding, 'We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe.' "

At least there's that.