United Airlines, Who Else?

A mutiny ensued among furious, exhausted United Airlines passengers stuck for days in Shanghai, trying to get to Newark. United, of course, is downplaying the trouble but is nevertheless offering the stranded passengers a voucher.

Here's the report on the latest United fiasco, in the Newark Star-Ledger newspaper.

United put its deputy PR shitstorm first-responder Rahsaan Johnson on the case. Johnson is the guy they trot out on these occasions, and he's the least respected PR guy in the airline business, which is saying something. Says Johnson, ".... the situation clearly didn’t go as smoothly as we would like. We did not meet these customers’ expectations. We hope they will give us another chance." He added that the United stalwarts "did their best under those circumstances."

###

Thank You from American Airlines: Those Old Miles That Were Never Supposed to Expire? They're Expiring! !

I will never, ever understand the propensity of airlines for clumsily insulting the intelligence of their customers. The tin-ear syndrome is always on full display.

Here's a beauty that one Suzanne L. Rubin, who runs the AAdvantage loyalty program, sent out in e mails to customers, thanking them for their loyalty while advising them that those "miles with no expiration" will now expire. It's a "streamline," she says!

***

"For more than 30 years the American Airlines AAdvantage program has been making travel special. Thank you for your loyalty for so many years as an AAdvantage member.

In order to streamline our program, we are announcing a change to AAdvantage miles earned before July 1, 1989, also called Miles With No Expiration.

Starting November 1, 2012, these miles will automatically be converted to Miles Subject to Expiration, and because of your tenured loyalty, you will earn a 25% mileage bonus on every unredeemed mile earned prior to July 1, 1989. To have your Miles With No Expiration converted and to earn the mileage bonus, you do not need to take any action. For more information about this change, please visit AA.com/MileConversion.

Once your miles have been converted, as long as you earn or redeem AAdvantage miles at least once every 18 months, your miles will not expire. This is our normal mileage policy and more information can be found at AA.com/AAdvantageTerms.

It is easy to keep your account active! In addition to earning AAdvantage miles for travel, you can earn miles for making everyday purchases such as dining out, shopping and paying your electricity bill. Plus, you can redeem miles for hotel stays, rental cars, flight awards, and more! Find out more ways to earn and redeem miles by visiting AA.com/AAdvantage.


...Thank you for your continued loyalty!

Sincerely,

Suzanne L. Rubin
President
AAdvantage^® Loyalty Program"

###

The Red Light Camera Hoax

Here are excerpts from an anonymous (of course) comment from someone objecting to a recent post that ridiculed red-light cameras and the bogus claims being made for them.

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (which is not part of the "red-light camera industry") has done the best work in this field. The Institute found that the number of red-light fatalities ... decreased dramatically at intersections with cameras and significantly at other intersections in red-light camera cities. The Institute also found that a majority of individuals support red-light cameras, but opponents have become increasingly vocal. I trust that you don't run red lights with or without cameras, Joe."

Well, now. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a lobby group funded by automobile insurers, a group of entities (not to put too fine a point on it) that would also have a financial interest in forcing everyone to drive 15 miles an hours in daylight hours only, and then only if the driver is between the ages of 25 and 55.

Our anonymous red-light camera lobbyist adds somewhat pointedly that he has "trust" that I don't run red-lights, with or without cameras.

Along with all of the other spurious and often bogus claims by the red-light camera lobby, that little hint is quite telling.

Of course I have crossed through intersections when the light abruptly turns red. Everyone has! Who among us has not suddenly found ourselves at a badly designed intersection, perhaps with a big truck fast on our bumper, and had to make an instant decision, based solely on a judgment about safety, when the light suddenly turns yellow?

There is a notorious intersection in a commercial district about three miles from my house where rear-end collisions are up by 40 percent in two years. Why? Because my city, tapping into the allegedly easy money offered by the red-light camera industry, has installed these insidious devices at that intersection. People I know now avoid businesses in that location simply because they do not trust the red-light cameras.

The cameras don't just flash when someone overtly "runs" the light (and "runs" is a term favored by the camera-industry lobby, in that it implies wanton disregard for public safety). Oh no! The industry has devised new ways to catch motorists "running" the red when they are, for example, just stuck in an intersection behind someone who dawdles on a left-hand turn and the camera flashes or, even more infuriating, making a right turn and being stuck slightly into the intersection when, say, a woman pushing a baby stroller crosses in the pedestrian lane and the light suddenly changes. The choice? Get flashed and pay up, or force woman and baby off the road.

I have never had a red-light camera ticket. Yet. But the increasing number of people I know who have been trapped by these odious devices are all safe drivers -- not the idiots who actually do run red lights with disregard for public safety. To a person, they are outraged at the injustice of these devices. They claim that the red-light they allegedly ran was really a yellow light timed too fast (and lots of real studies have shown that normal yellow-light times are shortened at most intersections that have red-light cameras). And they are stunned to find that the ticket also includes mandatory attendance at a "safety" school where the fee is in the $300 range and the cynicism about the system, from attendees and "instructors" alike, runs shockingly deep. Everybody feels that justice is mocked. Everybody knows that red-light cameras are a scam!

Independent studies (that is, studies not funded by the industry or its accomplices) have always found that red-light cameras are simply a bad idea. And they are also a dangerous invasion of personal privacy, not to mention a base insult to legal due process. The dopey media, especially the local dimwits, can always be depended upon to parrot the red-light and speed-camera industry, mainly because the dopey media don't have the brains or even the courage to cogently evaluate research.

The National Motorists Association, a vocal and reliable opponent of these surveillance cameras (which gets some funding from the highway-engineering industry that lobbies for better intersection safety-design) does do intelligent evaluation of the data. I recommend that anyone interested in the subject peruse its Web site. This is its basic position on red-light cameras:

***

"NMA Objections To Red Light Cameras

The NMA opposes the use of photographic devices to issue tickets. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for ticket cameras. They can actually make our roads less safe.

1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.

2) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

3) Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.

4) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.

5) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.

6) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
When red light cameras are used to make money for local governments, these governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic-light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.

7) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.

8) There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red light violations. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.

9) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.

10) Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!

###

Yo, British Airways: Google This

Some marketing genius at British Airways thought it would be a grand idea to nose around online information about its best customers to compile useful personal information, including private photos, that could be used to "essentially [...] recreate the feeling of recognition you get in a favorite restaurant when you’re welcomed there," as one British Airways marketing genius explained in the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK.

Yo, British Airways: That is a stupid, annoying idea, and whoever came up with it deserves the boot. Facebook users are already increasingly wary of corporations nosing around in their private matters, of course -- and this idea is absolutely nothing like a "favorite restaurant" where you might be known and greeted by name.

Here's another take from the useful Big Brother Watch blog in the UK.

###

Border Patrol Nabs Castro Sneaking Dirty Bomb Into U.S. ... Oops! Make That Ex-Arizona Gov. Castro, 96, and He'd Just Had Radiation Treatment

[Photo: Mr. Castro, the suspect in suspected nuclear-bomb plot that was thwarted by vigilant U.S. Border Patrol agents]

The former governor of Arizona, 96-year-old Raul Castro, of Nogales, Ariz., was waylaid recently by intrepid agents of the U.S. Border Patrol in southern Arizona, where they don't have as much to do these days because fewer Mexicans are risking death illegally trudging 100 miles through the brutal heat of the Sonoran Desert.

A radiation detector, it seems, signaled some radiation on the elderly gentleman's person during one of those pesky stops by the Border Patrol agents who are all over the region.
Governor Castro, it seems, was emitting traces of radiation from a medical procedure. So he was detained and humiliated in the 100-degree heat because he could have posed a "nuclear threat" to the Homeland.

This occurred a good ways from the border itself on Interstate 19 north of Tubac, Ariz. (Border Patrol claims to have martial-law authority in a zone within 100 miles of the border, which includes the city of Tucson.)

You think I'm kidding? Read this.

Mr. Castro was elected in 1974 as the first (and only) Mexican-American governor of Arizona. He is also a former U.S. ambassador to Argentina, Bolivia and El Salvador.

This appalling incident has been well-known in the area since it occurred three weeks ago, and I've been amazed that the national media ignored it for so long, till it got picked up out of a local Nogales publication. (The Phoenix and Tuscon media are too lazy and too craven to rouse themselves much and report this out. They're afraid some right-wing screwball might write them a stern letter of complaint, after all.)

Finally, Salon has got on the case. Here.

###

TSA 'Business As Usual," Defending the Indefensible. Again

I bend over backwards at times giving the TSA the benefit of the doubt, including in its remarkably timid responses to the guns that more people are trying to bring through checkpoints because those people think they have a God-given "right to carry" their firearms anywhere they choose, including onto an airplane.

TSA=We're vigilant about old ladies in wheelchairs, but we're terrified about upsetting the gun lobby.

Now here, as if to prove that the TSA just doesn't make sense many times, is the agency's intrepid mouthpiece, "Blogger Bob" Burns, defending the indefensible -- that is, he airily waves off protests about TSA agents waylaying passengers as they queue to board airplanes, and "testing" whatever beverages they have in hand.

Now, it's a given that if you have a soda or a bottle of water in hand at the gate, you have purchased or obtained that drink within the secure area of the airport, because they wouldn't have let you carry it through the checkpoint in the first place. The TSA says, as a matter of optics and a tactic of preemptively covering its butt, that of course nothing is "100 percent secure," yada-yada. Yes, that is correct. Except when the TSA has some asinine gate-theater to defend, and then it's "CSI Airport."

"Blogger Bob" is correct in saying that this is nothing new, despite the current outpouring of online protest about the agency testing drinks at the gate. And, let note here the absolutely predictable response from the Brigade of Official Reassurance on public radio that there's nothing to see here, folks. Why, silly, the government told us so!

Yes, they have had this ludicrous procedure in place for a while -- but my guess is that they've stepped up the performances lately of this particular comic act on the security-vaudeville playbill.

Agents waylaying passengers at the gate may be designed to present "another layer of security," as "Blogger Bob" says, but in fact what we, the public, see is another ridiculous manifestation of make-work for a vastly bloated federal jobs program, the TSA -- which is without doubt the most hated agency of the federal government. The most hated, yes. The possibly also the least trusted. And lack of trust in your security is a basic security flaw, as any expert in the field will tell you.

Here's "Blogger Bob" on the TSA blog today, pooh-poohing objections to this nonsense by insisting that this all is "business as usual." Business of security theater as usual, I would add.

Emphasis is mine:

"While browsing the web this morning, I saw that the topic de jour was that TSA was now screening liquids at the gate. We've talked about random gate screening here before, and if you travel frequently, you've likely experienced a gate screening. Not a big deal really... Heck, even I have been pulled aside for random gate screening.

So, the most popular question that comes up with this topic is: "Isn't this redundant?" On the surface, it does seem that way, and it's the first logical thought that many have. However, any security expert will tell you that nothing is ever 100% secure. So, gate screening is kind of like our safety net to keep up with anybody who might be trying to get things past conventional screening.

We stay away from static security tactics. Layered security is common practice, providing the necessary unpredictable measure that makes it more difficult to do malice to the transportation infrastructure. If everything we did was always the same, it would provide a checklist for people to know exactly what to expect. While this would be extremely helpful for passengers, it would also be useful to those wishing to do us harm. ...

As far as the testing of liquids at the gate, this is just one of the many options we have to choose from when deciding what additional tactics to use each day. We started using test strips back in the summer of 2007 and continue to do so. The test involves a test strip and a dropper containing a nontoxic solution. In case you're wondering, our officers don't place the test strips in your beverages/liquids. They simply have the passenger remove the cap/lid and they hold the strip over the opening of the container. Procedures call for moving the test strip to the side and applying the solution from the dropper to test the strip. If the test results are positive TSA will conduct additional testing to make a final assessment.

In a nutshell, liquid screening at gates is random and it isn't happening at every airport every day. So other than possibly taking a few moments of your time before boarding your flight, it's business as usual."

###

On July 4th: Veterans By the Numbers, and a Grand Old Flag

I was at a minor-league ballgame in Tucson last night, on the eve of the Fourth of July, and was surprised when the 10,000 people at Kino Stadium were asked to "honor" the "active-duty and retired" military veterans in the crowd.

Yay for them. But hang on a minute, I thought. In jingoistic circles, it's become increasingly popular to exhort people to jump to their feet to salute "our veterans." But we seem to be forgetting (not just at this ballgame, but elsewhere) that our "military veterans" are mostly not active-duty and retired people on the government payroll.

I wish we would start better defining what we mean by "veterans." The fact is, most military veterans are not "retired," that is, receiving lifetime pensions from the government after being on the active-duty military payroll for at least 20 years.

Rather, the vast majority of living veterans are those who honorably did their service, usually at extraordinarily low pay, and then returned to civilian life after their hitches were up. In general, unless they were injured in combat, those veterans receive no benefits from the government. They don't even quality for treatment in veterans' hospitals unless they are flat-out destitute, with no other access to medical care. I think we're entitled to a free flag at our death, is all. Fair enough; that's the deal.

In 2010, according to the Veterans Administration, there were 21.8 million living veterans of the armed forces in the United States. Of those, 1.9 million were retired after having spent at least 20 years in the military -- and are receiving veterans pensions that totaled, in the 2011 fiscal year, $51 billion, not counting other benefits such as health care.

The rest of our veterans -- that is, 19.9 million of them -- are just men and women who were in the service, during World War II and Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf wars, and in peacetime as well, who did their duty and were honorably discharged and went on to normal civilian lives.

My concern here is that in professionalizing the military, which we have done, we've lost the grounding we once had in the idea of military service that once included the general population.

The jingoists have forgotten that many, many Americans served and then went quietly about their lives. They don't require public "honoring" -- but they still should at least count when we talk about veterans.

And speaking of ballgames, when did it become common to have the crowd stand at honor and sing "God Bless America" at the 7th inning stretch? I felt like I was at a religious tent revival and imagined that awful tub of lard Kate Smith in a star-spangled white gown, bellowing into a microphone while jack-booted American Legionnaires stand by with truncheons to whack those who don't obediently remove their caps. When did God, baseball and Kate Smith join up? Nietzsche said God is dead; I know Kate Smith is dead, and I suspect baseball is at least dying since it became patriotic audience-participation rather than sport.

You know what I wish our National Anthem was? "You're a Grand Old Flag," by George M. Cohan, which goes:

"You're a grand old flag,
You're a high-flying flag
And forever in peace may you wave;
You're the emblem of
The land I love,
The home of the free and the brave
Every heart beats true
'Neath the red, white and blue
Where there's never a boast or brag;
So should auld acquaintance be forgot
Keep your eye on the grand old flag!"

Happy July Fourth!

###

Driving in France? Blow Into le Bag Starting Today

...or at least have le bag in the car.

Starting today, the nanny state of France requires you to have an approved Breathalyzer device in your car when driving there. Actually, they're recommending that you buy two, just in case you might use one -- and do not try to suss the logic of that or your head could explode.

Here's the link with all you need to know from the Breathalyzer industry, which no doubt is busy, busy, busy lobbying to try to have lucrative laws like that one passed elsewhere.

Not here in the U.S., you say? Well, not bloody likely, I agree. On the other hand, Americans in a lot of states do kind of passively accept those disgraceful traffic red-light and speed cameras, and the road to le bag is a slippery slope.

###

Whose Bloody Hand Ye Shakin'?

Depends on whose bloody hand is being shook, I suppose. But it's interesting that the old German lady Queen Elizabeth II (you don't really buy that name change to "Windsor," do you?) had no issue with ungloved hand-shakes when the Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad came calling in 2002.

But when the ex-Irish Republican Army leader Martin McGuinness came around the old castle last week, note that the Queen -- who sits on a throne that has known a lot of bloody hands -- was wearing protection.

And on my, the Irish-American twee brigade never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

And please, spare us the tears on the odious "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten.

###

Savage Sex Assaults on Western Women in Egypt Continue

I never managed to get myself all weepy-eyed with joy over the alleged "Arab Spring," when tinpot despots were challenged and toppled, but what sometimes rose in their place were vile Islamic radical thugs with their barbaric attitudes toward women.

In Egypt, for example, there have been numerous savage sexual attacks on Western women, especially reporters, by Alahu-Akbar-chanting male thugs. The most recent occurred during the celebrations after a winner was chosen in Egypt's first free presidential election, when a British student journalist was brutally assaulted by the mob in (where else?) Tahrir Square.

That mob assault on that young woman, Natasha Smith, was similar to assaults on other female journalists, including a horrifying mob sexual attack on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan and one on Egyptian-U.S. journalist Mona Eltahawy last year. There have been other attacks on other female journalists too.

Ms. Smith, wrote about the attack on her blog and spoke about it in an interview with CNN.

Dozens of Egyptian men stripped her naked, repeatedly sexually assaulted her and dragged her by her hair across Tahrir Square. Her story is horrifying, as were the others.

Incidentally, here's an important take on the issue, and the idea of blaming the victim, on the important Web site devoted to combating street harassment against women, IHollaback.org. However, I don;t think even IHollaback is doing enough to focus on the harassment and assaults on female visitors in places like Egypt and other Moslem countries that attract foreign tourists, including Morocco. (Re Morocco, see this by a Peace Corps volunteer)

Meanwhile, officials in Egypt are hoping to repair the extreme damage that has occurred since the Arab Spring to tourism, which until recently has accounted for more than 10 percent of the country's GNP.

Not to worry, the boosters say (abetted by credulous media). Tourists can have fun in Egypt!

"There will be no bans on wearing bikinis and drinking alcohol for tourists coming to Egypt after the Islamist Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected president on June 24, Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily quoted Egyptian Ambassador to Russia Alaa El Hadidi on Friday as saying. Here's a link via the travel industry trade publication Global Travel Industry News, which adds:

"Hadidi’s statement came after Morsi’s allies said during the presidential campaign that there will be a number of restrictions for tourists if Morsi is elected, including a ban on selling alcohol, wearing bikinis outside hotels and dividing beaches into male and female zones."

The U.S. State Department, which is after all the department of being diplomatic, has issued only a "travel alert" rather than a more pointed travel warning for Egypt, of which this is an excerpt: "The U.S. Department of State strongly urges U.S. citizens to avoid all demonstrations in Egypt, as even peaceful ones can quickly become violent and a foreigner could become a target of harassment or worse."

Or worse? Hey, not to worry!

Really! They probably will not behead you for wearing that bikini or drinking that beer. After all, this is the 15th, ... uh, 21st Century! Welcome!

###

TSA OKs Private Screeners at Little Airport in Orlando

From the the credulous media: The TSA has green-lighted a switch from federal to private security at the Orlando airport! Poor sad Drudge even has it highlighted in red on his Web site!

I'm always amazed at how it's routinely not pointed out that the "Orlando airport" in question, Orlando Sanford International Airport (which handles about 380,000 passenger departures a year), is not quite the same as Orlando International Airport (which handles 17 million).

Here's another news report today that fails to point out the significant difference between the two. The Sanford airport is served by Allegiant Airlines, a leisure travel low-cost carrier, and a few charter operations.

There are now 16 airports that have been allowed to return to private screeners under an opt-out program that was forced on the TSA by congressional Republicans.

Also routinely overlooked is the vested interests of the congressional titan behind this move to turn security back over to the rent-a-cops companies, Rep. John L. Mica of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House transportation committee. Mica, who has five close relatives who are lobbyists, has close ties to the private security industry, one of his best campaign contributors.

You know, the industry that was in charge of airport security on September 11, 2001.

Just sayin, is all.

###

Phoenix Phony 'Tough Guy' Sheriff Joe Arpaio Arrests 6-Year-Old Girl on Immigration Charges

Joe Arpaio, the silliest windbag currently holding any public office, which I know is really saying a lot, has arrested a 6-year-old little girl on immigration charges. Way to go, rootin', tootin' self-proclaimed tough guy Joe!

As if Arizona needs any more ridicule. Remember, outsiders, the insane people who are causing tourists to avoid Arizona are concentrated in Phoenix, which is basically Orange County, Calif., circa 1967, but without the ocean. The sensible people are all in Tucson, the self-proclaimed capital of the imaginary state of Baja Arizona.

Visit Tucson instead, where it's only going to be a mild 107 degrees when it's 110 in Phoenix!

From the Arizona Republic newspaper in Phoenix, which is always amusingly timid about causing any offense to the significant portion of its readership that is clinically delusional:

"Maricopa County Sheriff Office deputies arrested a 6-year-old suspected illegal immigrant Friday, the day President Barack Obama softened the country's deportation policy toward young illegal immigrants. ..."

Here's the link.

###

Packing for the Airport (Continued)

[Chart shows number of guns found at TSA checkpoints, by airport, June 8-14]

Our fellow travelers who think it's okay to take a gun on an airplane are outdoing themselves lately. Usually, the TSA reports finding 28-32 guns each week in passengers' carry-on bags.

Last week (June 8-14), the total was 40, according to the always informative TSA Blog.

And remember, that's only the ones they're catching.

###

The 2 Faces of Arizona

Top: What those of us in Tucson see.

Bottom: What the rest of the country sees.

###.

California, It's Cold and It's Damp

[Chart shows average percent of possible sunshine per month. From Curbed LA]

Here's an interesting piece via the terrific blog Curbed LA -- from The Last Word on Nothing blog, with an explanation of the cultural and scientific importance of June Gloom--the infamous weather phenomenon that casts a gray pall over the Southern California coastal region every spring and summer, prompting shock in newcomers and visitors.

From Curbed LA: "The recipe for June Gloom requires three ingredients: cold Pacific Ocean water, an ocean current known as the California Current, and a high pressure formation known as the Pacific High: "Usually, the atmosphere gets colder as you head up. But the cold water creates a situation where the air near the water's surface is colder than the air above it: an inversion. The Pacific High pushes air downward, compressing it and warming it. Together, this forms a stable inversion air that can hold a layer of cloud near the water's surface like an older brother crouching on an upstart sibling."

Aha! Finally, an explanation for my first mystifying impression of California, as a kid from Philadelphia in the service in 1970, astonished that it was (as the old Rogers and Hart song goes) cold and damp -- in June. Also, the ocean water was impressively cold. Turns out that's a year-round phenomenon, though.

Also, that the Pacific Ocean is nearly always seen from high ground, as opposed to the Atlantic Ocean, which is nearly always encountered from eye-level. That's simple geography and topography.

###

Meh, Brttannia

Far be it from me to rain on some old German lady's parade (wait, the English weather already did that!) but really: Britannia once ruled the waves, but this sorry-looking flotilla on the Thames the other day [photo at right] indicates that Britannia doesn't even rule the rivers anymore.

Really, British friends: This is the best you can do in a celebratory flotilla? Where did they come up with that rust-bucket tub the poor queen is riding on -- a salvage yard near an old Arco refinery in the Philly harbor?

The red uniforms are nice, I suppose. But really, England, you are embarrassing your cousins here on the other side of the ocean with this sad-sack fleet of shrimp boats and glorified iron-ore barges.

The next time you need to come up with an impressive display on the waves, or even the ripples, why not give the old colonies a call and we'll send over some of our truly spiffy tall sailing ships like those in the top photo shown during a spectacular tall-ships flotilla in New York Harbor in 1986. (Though a heart can skip a beat to see any photo of lower Manhattan with the World Trade Center twin towers still gleaming in the sun.)

###

More Than 160 Dead As Nigerian Airliner Crashes Into Neighborhood Near Lagos

An MD-83 passenger plane crashed into a building near the airport in Lagos, Nigeria, today, killing all 153 on board, and at least 10 people in the neighborhood where the plane crashed.

The plane crashed and burned in a densely populated residential area near Lagos Murtala Muhammed airport. It wasn't immediately clear how many people on the ground were killed.

[UPDATE: Here's an excellent story by the AP, via the Guardian newspaper.]

The plane was flown by Nigeria's Dana Air (here's their Website) and was bound for Lagos from Abuja.

Here's the preliminary report on the specific details of the accident by the Flight Safety Foundation. The MD83 was initially delivered to Alaska Airlines in 1990, and experienced two electrical/smoke incidents during its service. Alaska stored it at the aircraft storage "boneyard" site in Victorville, Calif., briefly in the summer of 2008 before sending it to Miami for maintenance. The plane was then delivered to Dana in February 2009.

Nigeria has long had one of the worst aviation-safety reputations in the world, though the country has been claiming improvements in that record in recent years.

For eight years until 2000, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had signs in U.S. international airports warning that security and safety conditions at the Lagos airport did not meet international standards, and even suspended service from the U.S. to Lagos for a short period. The airport was known as a center for criminal activity, where immigration officers routinely demanded bribes, and robberies -- including robberies on parked planes -- were common. The Nigerian government eventually cracked down on the crime problem, and the FAA lifted its flight suspensions to the Lagos airport in 2001.

But today's crash occurred only a day after a Boeing 727-200 freighter operated by Nigerian carrier Allied Air Cargo for DHL Aviation veered off the runway at Accra’s Kotoka airport in Ghana, after a flight from Lagos. The plane plowed through the airport fence and struck several vehicles, killing 10 people on the ground. The four crew members survived.

In Nigeria, the last major airline crash before today's was in October 2006, when an ADC airliner crashed after take-off from Abuja, killing 96 people.

In December 2005, 103 people, most of them schoolchildren, were killed when another Nigerian commercial airliner crashed and burst into flames in oil city, Port Harcourt. Two months before that, 117 were killed in a 737 crash in Lagos.

Here's a timeline of Nigerian air disasters before today's.

One part of the overall problem in Nigeria is operating a complicated, high-cost business like an airline, which requires careful maintenance and upkeep, in a largely corrupt society. See this.

Dana Air, operator of the flight that crashed today, started up in 2008. On its Web site it stresses whjat it calls its commitment to safety, saying: "Dana Air places a high premium on safety. The airline adheres strictly to the maintenance schedule for all aircrafts in its fleet, as prescribed by the manufacturers and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority. More detailed and scheduled checks of the Boeing MD83 aircrafts are, however, carried out at aircrafts maintenance facilities overseas."

###

Packing for the Airport (Updated)

The guns keep on coming at TSA checkpoints. The chart above is the latest tally (of guns found at airport checkpoints in the week ended yesterday) on the always informative TSA blog.

As I pointed out in my New York Times column this week, the increase in guns being found at checkpoints coincides with ongoing liberalization of "right to carry" laws being pushed by the NRA in many states (and also at the federal level) and the overall increase in gun sales in general.

The TSA claims that most people found trying to take a gun onto a plane in a carry-on bag say they simply forgot they had it in the bag. Nobody really buys that, except as it might apply to a few knuckleheads who would forget their home address if it weren't printed on their drivers license. Fundamental gun-safety education says you should always know where your weapon is. Always.

There are absolutely no indications that people with terrorist intent are taking guns to the airport. Instead, the increase in guns being found is likely to be attributable to a growing belief in the gun world that people who legally own and carry guns have a right to carry anywhere.

You can, of course, travel by air with a firearm if you pack it in a checked bag and declare same to the airline when you check it. Here are the TSA regs on that.

And no one knows, of course, how many guns are actually being sneaked onto planes by passengers who manage to slip them through the checkpoints.

Incidentally, I like the TSA Blog, but I do wish that the agency would man-up more on the subject of people trying to get guns onto planes. The weekly running tally is great, but the blog takes a somewhat breezy attitude about the threats posed by firearms coming through checkpoints. In my opinion, that's because the NRA has such fearsome political clout in Congress, which can yank the TSA's chain at will, and does.

Instead of hammering on guns at checkpoints and the people who bring them, the TSA Blog puts more focus, actually, on something that is none of its business, legally: Drugs discovered by those abominable body-scan machines.

From the current blog (my emphasis):

"Body Scanner Discoveries This Week – There were nine incidents this week where body scanner alarms resulted in drugs being found on passengers using imaging technology. Items were found everywhere from pockets to the breast, to the groin area at EWR, SAT, ORD, TPA, PHX, SFO and GEG. In addition to these discoveries, there was also a passenger at Tampa (TPA) who had a white drawstring pouch concealed in his underwear containing several types of Narcotics. (See Picture) Another passenger at Chicago O’Hare (ORD) had marijuana taped to his ankle. We’re not looking for drugs, but finding these nonmetallic items in areas where explosives could also be hidden is a testament that the technology works. "

Well, not to be tendentious, but 1. Finding a wad of marijuana stuffed into someone's shorts is hardly proof that "the technology works," except to identify a wad of something in someone's shorts. There have been some disquieting studies showing that these scanners actually are pretty easy to beat by someone who knows how to conceal a weapon. And 2. Drugs, as the TSA blogger chattily notes, are really none of the security agency's business.

Somebody with a bag of pot isn't going to be able to take over an airplane. Somebody with a gun who waits for the vaunted fortified cockpit door to open so the pilot can use the bathroom is. Passenger vigilance works only to the extent that somebody does not have a gun at a flight attendant's head. Or worse.

###

Giddyup! Er, Schnell! Schnell!

[Photo: Hitler henchman Hermann Goring, 300-pound Nazi equestrian, demonstrates the finer points of dressage riding to der boss in this historical photo]

An amusing story in today's Times concerns Ann Romney and her expensive hobby of dressage riding, and the various horse-tradings and associated equestrian pursuits, and legal disputes, by the Romneys.

Hey, I'm a horse guy. You won't find me carping about how much it costs to keep a horse. A horse costs dough. Nor would I ridicule high-quality dressage riding, which encompasses the most precise movements of horse and rider together and stems not from some prissy riding-circuit, but from the most exacting maneuvers of warhorse and cavalry in a very old tradition of superb ridership.

Still, it does not appear from the photo accompanying the story that Ann Romney has particularly good control of her horse, perhaps understandably because she's a relative novice as a rider, though a very well-heeled one (excuse the pun).

But I'm amazed by the Romneys' exorbitant horse expenses and their amusing relationship with a German horse-seller and dressage trainer, one of those familiar types barking away in the barns of the high-stakes, super-wealthy dressage world -- one Jan Ebeling, who is said to be a shrewd horse-trader and a very tough trainer/instructor.

Here's where I laughed out loud in the story: "Asked if she was ever unhappy with Mr. Ebeling’s instruction, Mrs. Romney said in a deposition in the lawsuit, “I think that is not a fair question because we all get upset at certain times with anybody that is — you know, especially a German.”

Several of the 1,000 or so readers who commented asked whether Ann Romney transported the horse on the roof of one of her Cadillacs, before the editors shut down the comments.

Me, I will resist the urge to elaborate on the somewhat colorful history of Mormons and disputes over horse-trading.

###

New York Times Insults Arizona (Again); Javelinas Demand Apology

Tim Egan, who for my money is the best columnist writing in the New York Times, has once again insulted and ridiculed the state of Arizona. OK, he's right. The right-wing crackpots in Phoenix, who seem to have mounted a kind of coup d'lunatique, are in full moon-bay, embarrassing those of us in the sane southern part of the state, Tucson -- which we have taken to calling Baja Arizona to distinguish it from Phoenix, which we regard as Orange County, Calif., circa 1964, but without the ocean.

Here's a link to Egan's terrific column. The objection here is to the lede in the column:

"We interrupt reality to bring you Arizona, once known as the Grand Canyon state. So glorious, this home to sublime cacti and ugly javelina ..."

Two issues here right off the bat, Egan. One, and I don't care what some prissy copy-desk scold in a high-button collar says, the plural of cactus is cactuses. I ask you: Is the plural of circus "circi?" Case closed.

But more important, this insult to javelinas being ugly is unacceptable to those of us who know javelinas. (And a herd of them usually saunters in the front of our property every morning, snorting and grubbing).

Well, ok, they are pretty ugly, and they do stink. (The little javelina babies are so cute, though)

But really, Egan? In a state where the most famous elected official is the phony tough-guy Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you're calling the javelinas ugly?

On behalf of javelinas, I demand an apology. The gnarliest javelina is better looking than Sheriff Joe.

Smells better, too.

###