My daily slashdot news crawl came across this CNN article that outlines a federally-mandated universal hiring process for all companies employing 50 or more people.
What I'm trying to figure out is how this accomplishes anything for anybody besides creating extra work in the hiring process. We're under the 50-person mark, so it won't effect us, but I just don't see how this could possibly accomplish it's goal (ensuring "diversity" in the workplace).
The basic idea is that employers are supposed to look at "qualifications" only -- they're not supposed to (or, really, even allowed to) consider anything other than job requirements, and they're not allowed to hire people that don't already fulfill 100% of the requirements. If a job description asks for "three years of X", and you have two-and-a-half... they're apparently not legally allowed to even consider you for the position.
Since I've yet to see the job description that didn't ask for way more than any one person could possibly have, it sounds like large companies are going to be doing essentially 0 hiring until they rewrite all their job descriptions. (That's not going to happen, which means, more likely, that just about everybody will either ignore, or partially ignore, the law... and some examples will be made, and then we'll probably just get back to business...).
And all this is so that the federal government can supposedly protect all the minorities from unfair managers who won't hire them. Except that people aren't machines... most positions seem to require more than a robot-with-X-qualifications...
I just don't know what the government was thinking... or if they were at all... And why haven't I heard about this before?
America just keeps sounding more and more like the EU and less and less like the America we used to be...
A few months ago I spent about two hours in the Custom Comfort store before ordering a brand new bed for myself. I tested out every bed in the place before making my decision. I paid a large sum of money, and received a yellow slip of paper promising delivery 4 days later.
A few months ago I spent many hours in the ABE Office Furniture store, over several trips, evaluating desks. I tested out every desk in the place, before sitting down with a salesman. About an hour later I left with the promise of a quote via e-mail. That quote arrived. It was for exactly what I wanted, so I ordered the desk, and received a promise that in 4-6 weeks I'd have my desk.
Four days later, the new bed arrived. It looked beautiful. It was exactly what I ordered. I put the new sheets on it, and, later that night tried to sleep. It was terrible. After 5 minutes of laying on it, I hurt. Badly. It took hours to fall asleep. Over the course of the next 3 weeks, I adjusted to the bed, and it went from terrible to uncomfortable and disappointing.
Then, the desk arrived. It was beautiful. It was also wrong. Oh, sure, it was the right shape, and even the right size... but all the details were wrong... the drawers had the wrong handles, the edging was wrong, the bookshelf was the wrong color, the drawers were damaged, and the credit card bill showed the wrong price (I was overcharged -- by about $75).
So, twice in one month I ordered expensive pieces of furniture, and twice I was left disappointed... Well, that was months ago, each company has had their chance to fix the problem...
Custom Comfort Mattress Company
I called up Custom Comfort, and said that my bed was very uncomfortable, and that I needed help. I was very calm, very polite. I got exactly what I ordered, so I knew that there were limits to my recourse if I couldn't convince them to help me out.
They invited me to return to the store, and, having now experienced a "really soft bed" and hating it, to try and find a different bed I liked better. I spent 2 hours at the shop trying first one, then another, then the first again, then a third... I picked one out. I left 15 minutes later with a yellow slip of paper promising that the next morning someone would pick my mattress up from my apartment, take it to the factory, alter it so that it felt more like the one I liked and return it to me by 6:00pm that same day.
They lived up to that yellow piece of paper, and I now have a bed that I love. As they were leaving, having returned my mattress, they extracted a promise that I try it for two weeks, and if I still don't like it to call again. They didn't promise another same-day-alteration would be free, but they did promise to help me out if ever I needed, and to continue to "be reasonable with me so long as I was reasonable with them."
And I heartily recommend Custom Comfort Mattress Company if you are in the market for a new bed. They have all prices, all sizes, and it's all built to order. And apparently they stand behind their products.
ABE Office Furniture
I called up ABE Office Furniture, and received a promise that "it will be fixed."
About two weeks later I called ABE up again... no response... Eventually, I found out that the guy who sold me my desk has since been fired. Seems mine wasn't the only expensive desk he botched. So, the store manager e-mailed me, and asked to hear my story.
He came to visit my apartment, and looked at the desk. Then he looked an order form that was apparently used to order my desk. He told me that I got exactly what I ordered, and that he's very sorry that I'm not happy, but that contracts are contracts, and he'd be happy to fix it for a price.
I asked him to show me my signature on that order form, since I'd never seen it before... it had, written in cursive and not in my hand, "Phone Order" on the signature line.
He changed his tune, promised to set things right, told me to expect a phone call from him in one hour with options, and he left.
Three weeks later, I finally got ahold of him again... His tune had changed a little bit. Sure, I'd get new drawer faces and new doors... He wouldn't replace the damaged drawer-interiors, though -- so that in addition to the minor damage that's present now, there'd be extra holes drilled in for the new drawer faces. We decided not to deal with the bookshelf color or the desk edging, because they were minor to me, and extremely expensive to fix. I even decided not to fight over the extra charge -- at this point, I was willing to compromise to get a desk that I wanted.
I wasn't pleased, really, but I figured it was better than nothing, and that if he actually made good on all his promises, I'd end up with a desk I could be somewhat happy with, and while $75 is a lot to overcharge me, compared with the price of the desk it was minor... I decided to let it slide if he fixed the rest.
That was about four weeks ago. Today, some delivery guys from ABE showed up with replacement doors and drawer faces... They were beautiful. They were also still wrong. Oh, sure, the handles were right now. In fact, the drawer faces were fine. But the doors... they didn't fit! They were about 6 inches too narrow!
I called the store... they gave me the manager's cell-phone number. I called the cell-phone... no response... so I left a voice message... a very calm, courteous, polite voice message. (remaining calm took real work, by the way) The delivery guys installed the drawer faces, measured the doors, wrote down the measurements, marked up the delivery form to show that the doors were not delivered in satisfactory condition because they didn't fit, and asked me to sign. With all the conditions, alterations, and caveats he and I added to the sheet, I could sign it. So I did.
I've still not gotten ahold of the manager... it's been about a half hour since the delivery guys left. I'm very unsatisfied.
I strongly recommend against buying from ABE Office Furniture because of the extreme incompetence and carelessness their employees exhibit.
So... two companies that delivered unsatisfactory products. One of them I now trust and recommend; One of them I would never do business with again... Who says customer satisfaction isn't important?
— The Shelanman
PS: I'll update this if things change soon... must give ABE the opportunity to redeem themselves (to the extend redemption is still possible) — TS
I know people are saying "Happy Holidays" because not everyone celebrates the same holiday. I think that's nice.
Some cities are putting up "Holiday Trees" with "holiday ornaments" and all that... that's not very cool. That says to me: "we want to celebrate Christmas, but you'll be offended... so we'll pretend we're just celebrating "the holidays" and you'll never be the wiser"
Personally, I don't understand why people would be offended to receive a Christmas card, or at being wished a Merry Christmas...
If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I usually wish them a Merry Christmas. If someone wishes me Happy Holidays, I usually wish them Happy Holidays.
If you walked into a big store, say at the mall, and the greeter was wishing everyone a Happy Hanukkah... would that bother you? What about if Hanukkah decorations were up, and Hanukkah music was playing?
What about if Senator Lieberman sent everyone in his contact database a "Happy Hanukkah" card. Or a "Happy Holidays" card. Would it make a difference?
To me this whole "controversy" about the "war on Christmas" is overblown...
What do you think?
So... what do you think? And how'd I do with my first post?
Today, the company I work for posted this article on wasted time, which is apparently derived from an AOL / Salary.com survey of time wasted by employees.
I've watched this article work its way through the posting process, and ever since I first read it, I've been dying to comment... well, it's up, and I did...
The article is very interesting, and makes some good points. But it also purportes to know the precise financial cost of "time wasters" to the nation's economy.
I think that part of the study results is wildly inaccurate, and I said so.
In fact, here's what I said:
While it is entirely possible that 45% of workers waste time on the internet.
And it is also very likely waste way more time that managers expect.
But, it is not fair to say that this comes to the tune of $759 billion per year, and here's why:
Many employees work on a salary (rather than hourly) basis. These employees are not hired to work a particular number of hours, but instead are to complete certain tasks.
Generally speaking, we all assume salaried workers work 8 hour days -- and so, if someone wasted 2 hours a day, that would be 25% waste.
But this survey does not take into account how many extra hours are worked by the average salaried employee.
In addition, it presupposes that workers would be just as effective during the time they did work if they never wasted any time -- a supposition that is probably untrue.
Also, if you want to dock employees for time spent surfing the internet at work, you should credit them for time spent working (or even checking work e-mail or voice-mail) at home and on weekends.
I'm not suggesting that time isn't being wasted, or that it's unimportant. Just that I don't buy the $759 billion number.
Today I read an article from Reuters that really pissed me off...
So, basically, Air France forgot to check the U.S. No-Fly list before allowing a man to board a U.S.-bound aircraft. The plane was diverted to Maine, where the man on the No-Fly list and his family were removed from the aircraft, questioned and detained for an unknown duration.
Personally, I don't believe in super-secret No-Fly lists. If the government wants to put someone on a No-Fly list, they should have to get a warrant, and then send the person a copy of the warrant, including a warning that they will be unable to board aircraft. All entries should have an expiration date that is publically available, non-extendable (without another warrant), and of reasonable duration. Personally, I'd say less than a few months in the vast majority of cases. Such warrants should be more difficult to obtain than a search warrant, but no harder to obtain than an arrest warrant.
So, in my book, detaining the man on the No-Fly list is both morally and legally wrong (unless an arrest warrant has also been issued)
Howeve,even if you believe in the No-Fly list, you should be angry. Why? Because 3 individuals who were not on the No-Fly list were also detained simply because they are relatives of the "suspect."
If a man were dangerous -- no, I'll make it even easier for you to say "yes" -- if a man were a known serial killer (which the detained man is not accused of being), would it be OK to arrest his family?
I didn't think so
So why is it OK to detain and interrogate them when the man is simply on a secret list of people who aren't suspected of anything and who didn't know they weren't supposed to fly?
This morning's rant began as radio-induced rage on my way in to work. You see radio personality Bill O'Reilly was ranting at the way liberals in general and the Los Angeles Times in specific are attacking the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.
Well, I only caught one of the reasons the LA Times is attacking him before Bill's absurdity caused me to switch from radio to the CD of The Incredibles soundtrack sitting in my CD player.
Apparently Mr. Gonzales holds a "hard line" against terrorism. So far that sounds fabulous. However, apparently this "hard line" includes statements that suspected terrorists arrested in Afghanistan are not subject to the protections provided in the Geneva Convention.
On the air, Mr. O'Reilly quoted the LA Times piece Gonzales is a Disastrous Choics:
Gonzales wrote a memo in early 2002 arguing that suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan were not subject to protections under the Geneva Convention. He called the convention's particulars "quaint,"
(source: LA Times, no URL, registration required).
Bill O'Reilly said that someone wearing civillian clothes is not deserving of the special treatment provided for enemy soldiers in combat situations. Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you are entitled to your opinion. However, here's mine:
As I have explained previously I believe that the terrorists we face are truly Evil. I believe that we are doing the right thing arresting these terrorists and dismantling the terror network. However, before we deny these people the protections of the Geneva Convention... let's ask: what exactly are those protections?
I haven't read the full text of the convention, but here is a quote from Article III, Section 1. This is the key point of the Geneva Convention (ethical treatment of prisoners of war).
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
So, all the Geneva Convention would grant is essentially freedom from torture, access to medical treatment, and the right to a trial.
Now, the Geneva Convention may, in a strictly legal sense, not apply to suspected terrorists. However, it really ought not be a treaty that restrains us from torturing people. It should not be a treaty that forces us to treat the wounded. It should definitely not be a mere piece of paper that requires that the accused are given a fair and public trial, regardless of what horrors they are accused of.
It should be the moral principles upon which this country was founded and continues to operate that require of us all these things. If it is only our contractual obligations that prevent us from torturing the accused, how, precisely, are we any less Evil than those we fight.
Some people like to Fight Fire with Fire. 9 out of 10 firefighters agree, Water works better than Fire at fighting Fire. Apparently some people, including the new head of the justice department, want to Fight Evil with Evil. I think that's despicable.
Yesterday on Garthnakdot, Garthnak wrote a little political rant about the differences he percieves between Libertarians/Classical Liberals and pretty much everybody else.
His basic point is that the Libertarian believes that the primary function of Government is to serve the [will of the] people. I certainly remember being taught that this was the purpose of government.
Not everybody sees things this way. Many people today apparently believe that one of the purposes of government is to encourage the following of certain "moral values." Many of these people reminded us to vote for George W. Bush because of his strong stance on moral prinicples and values.
Garthnak points out that serving the interests of the State — especially when they coincide with those of the people of the State, is a noble and honorable thing to do. That said, mandatory service of the State... well... you can read his thoughts
As I am still in the appropriate age group, the occasional comment about the military draft gets my full attention. But many people — especially those who served previously seem to think that it is my duty to serve... I have spoken with a number of people who believe that everybody should be obligated to join the Army.
Why should I join the Army? Because I should learn what it means to be an American, or what it means to be Free, or how wonderful this great country is, or some other such nonsense. The only valid reason I can think of for someone to serve would be: They believe strongly in the necessity of the conflict and have the desire to participate.
However, the way our current military is set up causes great difficulties here. Suppose, for instance, that I decided that the current fight in Iraq was so crucial to the freedom of this country that I felt a need to contribute. Well, first I must sign number of contracts that strip me of all but a few of my personal rights.
I would become, for all intents and purposes, property of the U.S. Army. Not that I am saying that battles should be run by committee... but... after a soldier's commitment is up, he is free... unless the government decides that they want to keep them longer. You lose your right to a jury trial — its a military court for you now...
This means that should the Iraq war be ended, and the government should entangle itself in a less worthwhile battle, they could force me to support it. How is that fair?
I know I've run over a few different topics here, but the basic idea is this: I agree with Garthnak — it is the purpose of the government to serve the people, it should never be mandatory for a person to serve the Government. If that means I'm a Libertarian, so be it.
You Want Fries With That? I'll Need to See Some ID
I have been noticing a frightening trend across America lately. It is increasingly the case that you have to prove your identity to do more and more simple things.
A while ago, I wrote about the need to show your papers to board an airplane. Since then, the California Highway Patrol set up "sobriety checkpoints" -- places along the road where you are stopped and asked for a driver's license. The most recent use of this highly illegal tactic occurred on Labor Day.
I doubt that there was any mischief intended by the CHP, they merely wanted to attempt to decrease the number of highway deaths on the deadliest day of the year (at least, deadliest as far as driving is concerned).
CONSTANT VIGILANCE -- this is the price that must be paid to insure our freedom. We must not allow our freedoms to be spent lightly for increased "safety" and "security."
But today I learned of an even more obscene request for identification...
My brother attends the local public high school. It is a reasonably good school. It has phenomenal athletic programs, and the academics, while not quite top-notch, are satisfactory...
Today my brother received a letter informing him that beginning next week, if a student wishes to purchase any food item from the cafeteria, a valid current student ID must be presented. Even if the payment method is cash.
Worse, if the student refuses to identify himself, not only is he forbidden to buy food, but he will be subject to a four-hour detention!
It is only a matter of time before the rest of the world mocks us, just as we mocked the Russians, when they demanded that law-abiding citizens to "show their papers".
How do I know this time will come? Not because of a slippery-slope theory, but because we have allowed two consecutive generations to grow up not expecting to be free, not caring about freedom, indeed not even noticing when government steps in and takes a few more freedoms... this is just business as usual and nothing to be overly concerned about. That attitude will be the death of American freedom yet.
It seems to me that in the United States today there are two* major kinds of businesses that survive.
Those companies that provide a valuable product or service at a price that potential customers can and are willing to pay.
Those companies that have no particularly valuable products of their own, but that turn litigation into a big profit center, suing the life out of productive companies
* Actually, there is a third, a sort of degenerate company which started out as a 1 and is fast becoming a 2.
In fact, there are many companies in that third situation. A while back the SCO group realized that they had no new business coming in, and embarked on a completely bogus multi-billion dollar lawsuit against IBM and then threatened to sue everybody who uses the Linux operating system.
The latest entrant into this pathetic category is Kodak. A couple of days ago there were articles all over the web, including This one from Computerworld talking about the latest lawsuit...
It seems that Kodak filed for a patent on software that agrees with other software on a method of communication. Sound a little vague? Well, as the computerworld article points out, practically every piece of software written since 1960 would be covered by this patent. Seems the Patent Office is in need of some serious house-cleaning!
Well, as soon as Kodak got their absurd patend back from the patent office, they filed suit against Sun Microsystems, asking for half of the profit they obtained from the sale of products and services related to Java. Java is an object-oriented programming language. This means that different parts of a Java program have an agreed-upon method of communication... and Kodak invented the idea of computer communication while they were designing film for their cameras, right?
What is truly disgusting is that Kodak won. That's right, Sun Microsystems has been found guilty of violating Kodak's patent, and the federal court has validated this patent. So... I hope you read this quickly, because according to one jury, at least, Kodak owns not just the Internet, but the idea of computers communicating. Goodbye Cisco and Linksys, goodbye Microsoft and IBM, Broadcomm and Intel, every company that makes software that runs on Operating Systems, Operating Systems that run software, and all computer communication equipment, such as modems and network cards...
One can only hope that Sun wins its appeals, or that the patent office gets unbroken quickly... otherwise the U.S. is going to sue itself back into the stone age. And then when someone patents stones, we'll be really screwed...
Today, Google News is running countless headlines describing a U.N. resolution that did not pass. Specifically, this resolution "demanded an end to Israel's military operations in the Gaza strip."
The U.N. Resolution was vetoed by the United States, which has veto power over all Security Council resolutions.
What is interesting in these articles is not that the U.S. did the obvious thing and vetoed this resolution. The interesting thing is how the rest of the "free world" voted...
According to a USA Today article fifteen Security Council members voted.
The U.S. voted "no". They were the only ones to do so. Britain, Romania, and Germany abstained.
The other 11 members voted to adopt the resolution, condemning Israel for launching attacks against known terrorists.
This brings me to my real problem with this issue. Nobody argues when I say that Al Quaida members are terrorists. Few people disagree with me when I say we ought to be hunting them down to the best of our ability (within the restrictions provided by the U.S. Constitution).
Why then can't I call Palestinians in the Gaza strip who freqently attach bombs to themselvesd to go blow up busloads of citizens what they are? They are Evil Terrorists.
That's right. Anybody who straps a bomb to themself and blows up a busload of people is a Terrorist. Why must we call Hamas members "militant Palestinians". They aren't members of an army, they are murderers and terrorists.
Having considered the Palestinian cause, some of their own propaganda — for instance the Palestine Chronicle" — I have determined that their plight is not so terrible as to mitigate the crimes they commit. I'm not certain that any such plight could possibly exist — but I'd know it if I saw it, and this is not it.
Thus I feel 100% justified in adding the qualifier "Evil" to the title "Terrorist".
So, I will conclude this rant by finishing the title sentence "... is another mans Evil Terrorist." — for even if there was a valid cause behind the terrorism which there is not it is still terrorism. We need to stop politically-correctifying everything. Terrorists are Terrorists, Murderers are Murderers, and The Shelanman is here to guide you aright!
Today the Kobe Bryant criminal case ended when the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the case. Well, it didn't actually end until the judge accepted the motion, but there would be no doubt that such a motion would prevail.
I have no personal opinion as to whether or not Kobe Bryant actually raped the unknown accuser. I was not there, and the bits of evidence that I have seen suggest that it would be very difficult to prove that anything illegal occurred. However, I do not have all the evidence, and in actuality there are at most two people who know whether rape occurred.
All that said, I definitely have an opinion about the ending of this case. In my opinion it is good that the Kobe Bryant case ended in this manner -- both because the trial never happened and because Kobe was not convicted. Read on and I'll try to convince you I'm right.
I believe that it is wonderful that Kobe Bryant is not going to be further dragged through the mud (at least in a criminal case -- as the civil case is pending, he may yet have his name dirtied more). Why, you ask?
I believe that the manner in which this case has proceeded is very unfair to Kobe. The accuser was allowed to simply come out and declare, for all the world to hear, that Kobe was a rapist. Then the District Attorney filed criminal charges against Kobe, adding a certain merit to the charge. All of a sudden, Kobe's name is mud. He loses valuable endorsements, his career is irreparably harmed.
All this is fair and appropriate if Kobe Bryant is a rapist. But consider the supposed victim (my use of the word supposed indicates uncertainty, notdiscredit or disbelief). We aren't allowed to know her name. Indeed, news reporters qho (entirely legally) discovered her name were forbidden by an improper court order not to divulge the information. (The order was improper because it is an instance of illegal prior restraint (source: Wikipedia).
This means that, by simply accusing him the unknown person (well, I guess we know that it is a female -- but that's all we're allowed to know) can destroy Kobe Bryant's name without any personal risk. If we all discover, during the proceeedings, that she is a terrible person who is simply out to cash in on what she sees as a golden opportunity, we can never know to hold it against her.
For this reason I am glad that the case has ended -- even if it was for all the wrong reasons. I will not speculate as to any payoff that Kobe did or did not make to get the girl to shut up.
Now, while the criminal case is over, the civil case is not. That's right, our beloved victim has filed a lawsuit against Kobe Bryant asking for an "unspecified amount" of money. Incidentally, the judge in the civil case has compounded the inequity in this case by forbidding the media from divulging the name of a plaintiff in a civil case. This should be a matter of public record, regardless of any bogus "Rape Shield" laws.
I am working under the assumption that Kobe Bryant believes that he did not rape Ms. What's-Her-Name. I am not assuming that he didn't rape her -- only that he doesn't think that he did. In that case, I believe that it would be appropriate for Kobe Bryant to file a counter-claim demanding that the plaintiff pay up to cover the damage done to his career for this claim. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say that this is good advice, only that I think it is "right".
I have been wanting to engage in a healthy rant about the secret FBI/TSA air "no-fly" list -- and other anti-terrorism policies and procedures in place at U.S. airports, and on U.S. flights for some time now. Finally, today, I received enough ammunition to write what I feel is finally a worthy rant.
This rant was born when I read about John Gilmore who is currently suing John Ashcroft and other high-ranking government officials over what he claims is a highly unconstitutional requirement -- presenting government-issued photo ID to board an aircraft...
As Mr. Gilmore points out, we Americans once mocked Soviet Russia for requiring its citizens to "show their papers" to travel within their own country. And yet, now, when you go to the airport, you will be asked for photo ID. If you refuse to show photo ID you may still be allowed to board a plane -- provided that you submit to a thorough hand search of your person and your belongings.
You can read what John Gilmore has to say about himself here and here.
I personally believe that Mr. Gilmore is... well, I won't be politically correct -- I think he's nuts...
... But I think he is on to something here. First off, the Russian example is both appalling and accurate -- you do have to prove that you are allowed to travel -- and, in fact, there is a secret list of people who are not allowed to travel (at least not by air). The government can add anybody to this list that they choose -- there are no meaningful restrictions on it -- or if there are, they are government secrets (which, of course, means that they may as well not exist). (source:
EPIC.org).
Recently several famous individuals have found themselves on the no-fly list, Sen. Kennedy included. Mr. Kennedy was able to place phone calls to the heads of various agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (the topic of a future rant, when I have more sources). Thus, the Senator was eventually allowed to board his flight. But what about us lowly citizens? Are you on a first-name basis with Tom Ridge? Would he tell the police and security personnel to leave you alone and let you get on with your business? Probably not. (Mr. Ridge, feel free to correct me on that one if I'm wrong).
In addition to being required to show ID (and the... difficulties... that causes), there are ohter anti-terrorism policies in place. Apparently it is now some sort of crime to be rude to flight attendants, or to be pissed off at the flight attendant, the crew, or the airline in general.
Specifically, I am referring to a fascinating little report about one Hazel O'Leary was arrested while on board a United Airlines flight that had been delayed due to bad weather.
Ms. O'Leary claims that she -- very politely -- asked to be allowed off a plane that was just sitting on the ground for about two hours. She had apparently telephoned the airlines customer service desk and had already scheduled a new flight for herself in the morning (her flight had apparently been diverted to some random location, and she did not relish spending the next 20 hours waiting and then flying back-and-forth.
The flight attendants refused, so Ms. O'Leary stopped the pilot (the pilot was returning from a bathroom break, and walked by her seat). The pilot refused to allow her to leave. Ms. O'Leary then got up and followed the pilot back towards the cockpit (cockpit door was apparently open). She was told that she must return to her seat, or police would be summoned to remove her from the plane. She said "fine" as she wished to be allowed to leave. She was arrested and questioned for approximately three hours by the Airport Police, TSA, and FBI officials before finally being allowed to leave. (source: Original Incident Reports, The Tennessean).
Now, I doubt that Ms. O'Leary was half as calm, collected and patient as she claims to be in her report, but that doesn't matter. You have every right to get just a little pissed off if an airline decides to ruin your entire day, and then decides to have a go at your night too. Personally, I would be livid. I usually don't shout, but I can guarantee that I would have steam billowing from my ears. I might have even acted as Ms. O'Leary did.
Now think for a minute... is it right to have the FBI arrest and interrogate someone for making a small scene on an airplane after being cooped up all day long and then told that she could not get off the plane (apparently one passenger was let off, as the plane had been diverted to his Ultimate Destination -- according, at least, to Ms. O'Leary -- the pilot's report did not mention that passenger).
I am not sure whether I think it was appropriate for Ms. O'Leary to be removed from the plane, or whether or not she should have been allowed to get off the plane. However, as there was no reason to believe that she had committed (or attempted to commit) a crime, nor that she was likely to do so, I find it inappropriate for her to have been arrested. It is, after all, illegal to detain someone without either probable cause or a warrant, and I assert that, given the witness accounts, Ms. O'Leary's situation fit neither requirement.
If I was in charge of the Airport Police, I probably would have removed Ms. O'Leary from the plane, asked whether we could talk about what had happened (mention that 'no' was an aceptable answer) and given her the opportunity to file her "witness/victim" report. I then would have asked her to calm down, and arrange for new flights in the morning -- especially since she seemed to want to do this anyway. If, during our conversation, something questionable arose, then I might have taken action. But a three-hour conversation with so many different law-enforcement types is nothing but an interrogation, which, as I said, is uncalled for and, in fact, illegal in this situation.
On another note... go take a look at the incident reports here
(in case you missed the link above). Notice that the pilot's name is visible on the documents, and Ms. O'Leary's name is on the documents. But, all those lovely law enforcement types who so kindly detained and question Ms. O'Leary have conveniently had their names crossed out -- meanwhile we get a physical description of the passenger (who, may I point out, was a paying customer of the airline's).
I'm still saving up for a rant about hiding and disclosing of people's identity by the government, but you can expect one of those soon too... I expect this case and the Kobe Bryant case to figure in heavily in that rant... Until then I'll leave you guessing as to what I think about such disclosure.
This little rant was inspired by a brief segment on KFI's John and Ken Show today.
The 9/11 Commission apparently has asked Congress to implement national standards for obtaining a driver's license. They claim that this will make driver's licenses harder for terrorists to obtain licenses -- and since licenses are accepted fairly univerally as positive identification, this is a worthwhile goal.
However, I don't think nationalized driver's license standards, or worse, a new national ID card is the way to go...
First: what makes the federal government believe that it can do a better job at organizing driver's licenses than individual states can. I mean, even in California there are "only" 35.5 million people, versus 290 million nationwide.
(source:
U.S. census, 2000).
Surely a smaller organization can do a better job keeping track of its applicants than a larger one. And for that matter, do you enjoy the thought of having to visit the United States Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or whatever they'd call it, every time your license expired? I mean, the lines at the DMV are already obscene... imagine if it was run by the federal government. And imagine how much more it would cost!
As for a national ID card. Well, you know what? I have one already. It is called the "Social Security Card", and every single taxpayer in the United States has one. And everyone is very afraid to give the number on it to anyone -- because it is a very powerful number. How would you like it if every time you tried to pay for groceries with a check or your MasterCard, the clerk said "Can I have your Social Security card please, just for I.D. verification." I think not!
Beyond the surface of this issue is a deeper one of State's Rights. The battle over State's Rights began long ago -- and was one of the issues at stake in the Civil War. Over the century and a half since then, we have continued along the trend towards a larger federal government. The federal government now has its hands in road building, public education, healthcare and health insurance, criminal prosecution, and now, it seems, driving. Whatever you think, you have to admit that this is not a direction the founders of this country would have recommended -- in fact, the overwhelming purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to ensure that this did not happen. But, alas, people get what they want, and they want a sense of security more than anything else
I think I will end with a quote which I like very much, because I truly believe it.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -- Benjamin Franklin