The extermination camps were at the end of an extended period of increasingly more awful steps. The process started in 1933 with measures intended to make Germany an unattractive place for Jews and other non-Aryan people to live with the intention that they would voluntarily move, followed by forced relocation into ghettos and then into work camps and finally extermination camps.
It is not, IMO, inappropriate (especially around Holocaust Memorial) to point out where a government is doing something very similar to any of the steps along the way to extermination camps. If a government is heading in the direction of evil we shouldn't wait until they've reached the full depth of evil before pointing out what they are doing.
This post, of course, is relevant to the UK and other nations, not just the US, for we have our own "hostile environment" sanctioned by the government, our own use of former military sites to lock people up. The new Labour government might not have progressed further than the previous government, but they've also done very little to reverse what had been done.
I can remember talking a couple of years ago ( here and elsewhere) about Nigel Farage, the BBC and the adage “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. Those are the components of the general thesis that however much any section of the media wants to be balanced or appear to be balanced, giving airtime to people with extreme views is both unwise and counterproductive. Sometimes I think it’s necessary to be unbalanced and ensure that if extremists get airtime you need other, saner, voices to challenge them and shred their nonsense to pieces.
The BBC used to give a lot of room for satire, which was often very effective in puncturing the pompous and the powerful. I think that was valuable but they often got criticised for trivialising serious issues.
And in terms of current affairs, Robin Day and Jeremy Paxman for example were quite fearless in interviews with the prominent and asked confrontational questions. And pressed in on ducking. They had prominent politicians walk out on them. Those politicians couldn’t stand the heat and got out of the kitchen.
But that got the BBC criticised for partiality and the current policy on balance reflects that. Farage got far more airtime than he deserved and has made profitable use of it.
That’s all by way of preamble to Trump. Comment about Trump cannot be avoided given his position, but the cruel nonsense of many of his current policies do not deserve politeness. They deserve relentless, critical, fearless, questioning and criticism.
I think the BBC has had its teeth drawn by its policy of balance. The website and some of its podcasts do better than the live broadcasts.
It’s an opinion. I’m sure plenty would see it as a political opinion. And maybe I’m nostalgic for a BBC with bite? Would that be in the national interest? I think it would be in both the national and international interest.
And maybe I’m nostalgic for a BBC with bite? Would that be in the national interest? I think it would be in both the national and international interest.
And in terms of current affairs, Robin Day and Jeremy Paxman for example were quite fearless in interviews with the prominent and asked confrontational questions. And pressed in on ducking. They had prominent politicians walk out on them. Those politicians couldn’t stand the heat and got out of the kitchen.
But that got the BBC criticised for partiality and the current policy on balance reflects that. Farage got far more airtime than he deserved and has made profitable use of it.
I don't think this causal links quite works chronologically, the problem with the Day, Paxman, Humphries approach was that politicians learnt to deal with it and those who couldn't would simply refuse to be interviewed or send a junior minister along instead.
The policy of 'balance' seems to have risen contemporaneously to the Gilligan affair and I'm sure the fact that it has inevitably served the right wing is purely coincidence and not reflective of the views the British state finds more threatening.
It is not, IMO, inappropriate (especially around Holocaust Memorial) to point out where a government is doing something very similar to any of the steps along the way to extermination camps.
OK, but that's a very broad brush. For one thing, you seem to be using it to suggest that policies that may be reasonable in and of themselves (your own disagreement notwithstanding) should be opposed by everyone simply because they are similar to C20 German policies that eventually resulted in extermination camps.
My issue with that is that the same argument could be used against Socialist policies on the grounds that in C20 Russia they eventually resulted in the Gulags.
Oppose a policy on the grounds of its actual impacts by all means, but I don't think this sort of political reductio ad extremis is particularly helpful - it ends up in a situation where all but the most anodyne of policies are decried as a step towards death camps, and absolutely no compromise or agreement between opposing sides can be countenanced. In a functioning democracy there has to be a certain allowance for policies one disagrees - even vehemently disagrees - with to nevertheless win the day if they are what the electorate has chosen to vote for. Not every left-winger is a Bolshevik just waiting to send their opponents to the Gulags, and not every right-winger is a Nazi just waiting to send their opponents to the Todeslager.
I forgot to mention the fearsome John Humphries. You’re probably right that politicians learned how to deal with him and his like but it sure was educational to see them flounder.
I’m an admirer of Owen Jones, who sees that the internal balance of BBC employers has definitely shifted to the right. It does feel to me more milk-toast than I remember. I don’t think it’s just nostalgia.
It is not, IMO, inappropriate (especially around Holocaust Memorial) to point out where a government is doing something very similar to any of the steps along the way to extermination camps.
OK, but that's a very broad brush. For one thing, you seem to be using it to suggest that policies that may be reasonable in and of themselves (your own disagreement notwithstanding)
Just to be clear, the policy you say 'may be reasonable in and of [itself]' consists of the creation of a large scale prison, offshored in order to evade the national law, in which people will be detained indefinitely.
I agree, chrisstyles. Trump’s proposed use of Guantanamo is not a reasonable policy. It’s exactly the sort of target for the most swingeing criticism that I envisaged in my BBC critique. A subject for a high profile Panorama investigation? Perhaps later? But you can’t help but feel that ‘National Security’ would be used to impede.
It is not, IMO, inappropriate (especially around Holocaust Memorial) to point out where a government is doing something very similar to any of the steps along the way to extermination camps.
OK, but that's a very broad brush. For one thing, you seem to be using it to suggest that policies that may be reasonable in and of themselves (your own disagreement notwithstanding)
Just to be clear, the policy you say 'may be reasonable in and of [itself]' consists of the creation of a large scale prison, offshored in order to evade the national law, in which people will be detained indefinitely.
And which I guarantee will see massive loss of life with the first hurricane that sweeps through, alongside the inevitable torture and abuse of detainees by whatever thugs are recruited to staff it. 50-50 on whether adequate food, water, sanitation, healthcare, period supplies, shelter, etc are provided.
Can you stop with “the Americans”? I’ve done everything that lies in my power to prevent him being where he is. So have many others. You have your idiots, and so have we.
The timing! The optics! But the Americans are too stupid to pay attention to anything but wring their hands and act like all of this is inevitable!
Fucking asshole.
The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is established by statute so it can't simply be eliminated outright by the president. Trump (or his advisors) decided to get cute about this and fire all committee members, arguing that the committee still existed but simply had no members. It's unlikely that firing the TSA chief or vacating the ASAC or pressuring the head of the FAA to resign or Trump's hiring freeze on air traffic controllers (already understaffed before he took office) directly contributed to this specific accident (though that is a hell of a list), but it will certainly make it harder to assess what happened and decide what changes need to be made. This is all of a piece with Trump's war on competence, expertise, and science. If you wanted to deliberately take actions to make air travel accidents more likely, the list above would be a pretty good start.
Can you stop with “the Americans”? I’ve done everything that lies in my power to prevent him being where he is. So have many others. You have your idiots, and so have we.
@Bullfrog is American. And I think maybe “the Americans” was a reference to how Trump views things and thinks, though that’s not really clear.
The BBC News has just reported that Trump is blaming the equal opportunity policies of Obama and Biden and claimed that these had (or might have) affected the quality of Air Traffic Control work. It also reported that Trump admitted to having no idea of the actual cause. It also reported two rapid reports, one of energetic denial of the Air Teaffic Control equal opportunity connection and another deploring the politicisation of the tragedy.
The BBC News has just reported that Trump is blaming the equal opportunity policies of Obama and Biden and claimed that these had (or might have) affected the quality of Air Traffic Control work. It also reported that Trump admitted to having no idea of the actual cause. It also reported two rapid reports, one of energetic denial of the Air Teaffic Control equal opportunity connection and another deploring the politicisation of the tragedy.
Enough said.
Zero evidence but the MAGAs will lap it up.
"Comrades," he said quietly, "do you know who is responsible for this?
Do you know the enemy who has come in the night and overthrown our
windmill? SNOWBALL!" he suddenly roared in a voice of thunder.
"Snowball has done this thing! In sheer malignity, thinking to set back
our plans and avenge himself for his ignominious expulsion, this traitor
has crept here under cover of night and destroyed our work of nearly a
year
Can you stop with “the Americans”? I’ve done everything that lies in my power to prevent him being where he is. So have many others. You have your idiots, and so have we.
As an American, I feel obliged to take responsibility for my own failure, and our failure. I also claim the right of "As someone who was born here, and even was born in Trump country, picking on us is my birthright!" These are my idiots, and they are, to some limited extent, my responsibility. Hell, I got some in my extended family.
That said, I'll try to circumspect. I am aware that there are a good many of us who have somewhat better sense.
The BBC News has just reported that Trump is blaming the equal opportunity policies of Obama and Biden and claimed that these had (or might have) affected the quality of Air Traffic Control work. It also reported that Trump admitted to having no idea of the actual cause. It also reported two rapid reports, one of energetic denial of the Air Teaffic Control equal opportunity connection and another deploring the politicisation of the tragedy.
Enough said.
For what it is worth, I am actually shocked that he managed to make this situation worse.
I shouldn't be, but here I am.
I have some friends and family who are retired USAF, one of whom I think is still flying privately, and most of them tilt his way. I honestly don't know if I could stand to hear what they're thinking right now. I'm scared to ask because this could impel me to torch a few bridges.
The bodies of the dead aren't even recovered and buried and he and his henchmen are already utilising their corpses in order to boost themselves politically, and claim that it's probably the fault of the disabled and the mentally ill, because of diversity hiring policies under Obama and Biden.
Despicable. Using tragedy like this to score political points based on complete lies. And knowing they are complete lies. Shameless. One can only imagine what it feels like to be a relative of the deceased and listening to this man's insane ranting shite; using the death of a much loved friend or family member to allow this creature to elevate his 'common sense'.
The bodies of the dead aren't even recovered and buried and he and his henchmen are already utilising their corpses in order to boost themselves politically, and claim that it's probably the fault of the disabled and the mentally ill, because of diversity hiring policies under Obama and Biden.
Despicable. Using tragedy like this to score political points based on complete lies. And knowing they are complete lies. Shameless. One can only imagine what it feels like to be a relative of the deceased and listening to this man's insane ranting shite; using the death of a much loved friend or family member to allow this creature to elevate his 'common sense'.
It's particularly irritating given that the last few weeks have been a parade of drunks, lunatics, sex predators, conspiracy theorists, failsons, and outright incompetents (or some combination of those traits) appearing before Senate committees because they'd been nominated for cabinet-level posts by Trump. Claiming to be concerned about qualifications now seems like a particularly cruel joke.
As a reminder of how Trump handled air safety during his previous term, his reaction to a pair of crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max was to insist that everything was fine and to make Transportation Secretary (and wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) Elaine Chao take a flight on one of the planes. As it happened the fault was revealed to be faulty flight controls/sensors, which wasn't something that could be fixed by a PR campaign.
Whaf bothers me about balanced reporting is what happens next. What ought to happen next is for everyone to wait for the published findings of the enquiry.
Before that everything is premature speculation. Balanced reporting would say that. But that’s not news, is it? So “balanced reporting” normally amounts to balancing premature speculation, balancing related political views, balancing the opinions of various citizens. The polarising effects of that leads to scepticism of a considered report at variance with premature politicised opinions. What is “balanced” about that? And consider the harm to the bereaved.
Depends what he does I think. The problem at the moment is the emergence of new BS on an almost daily basis. So he continues to outrage, deserves to be in (SoF) Hell.
Whaf bothers me about balanced reporting is what happens next. What ought to happen next is for everyone to wait for the published findings of the enquiry.
Before that everything is premature speculation. Balanced reporting would say that. But that’s not news, is it? So “balanced reporting” normally amounts to balancing premature speculation, balancing related political views, balancing the opinions of various citizens. The polarising effects of that leads to scepticism of a considered report at variance with premature politicised opinions. What is “balanced” about that? And consider the harm to the bereaved.
Inquiries of that nature can take over a year. That's a bit long for people to simply sit down and shut up about a mass casualty event. The findings of the National Transportation Safety Board will (eventually) give us definitive answers on immediate causes. On the other hand, the wider environment in which this happened does suggest some secondary questions that should be asked, such as:
The head of the FAA was forced out on January 20. Why didn't Donald Trump think it important enough to appoint a successor to this position until after this crash?
-
Donald Trump was very quick to indicate that the military helicopter was at fault. What does he know that led him to this (possibly erroneous) conclusion?
-
Does newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have anything to say about this crash and the President blaming his troops for the accident?
-
If the Aviation Security Advisory Committee has no members who, if anyone, is filling that gap in technical expertise and advice?
-
To what degree does the busyness of the airspace around Reagan National Airport make this kind of thing an ongoing risk? This is the favored airport of Congress, members of Congress like their direct flights back to their home districts, and airlines seem very willing to add direct flights from DCA to West Nowhere if West Knowhere's Senator or representitve sits on the Transportation Committee. This has been a point of contention for a while between the delegations from Maryland and Virginia and the rest of Congress.
etc.
These are all very relevant questions that are worth pursuing even without knowing the immediate cause of the collision.
I understand the desire for answers. But I think that very desire can poison the investigation. So can premature claims by POTUS and others. It's a serious tragedy. I want the enquiry to have the space to do it's job. And of course I recognise the potential interference from inside the investigation. There are big bucks at stake, big reputations at stake. But it's wrong to start from the premise that the investigation itself deserves to be on trial.
Yes. I understand that there are related issues and perhaps some of them can be pursued without prejudicing the investigation. I'm working from a sub judice viewpoint. Not because I want to suppress the right to know. I'm arguing that impatient curiosity can actually get in the way of that, compromise the knowing.
This may be a simple investigation. From the outside it's hard to believe the aeroplane was in the wrong place so the speculation that the helicopter must have been looks worth investigating. By investigators who have access to facts and know how to analyse them. The hows and whys deserve proper consideration. That's work to do.
A bit of personal history might not be amiss. I was visiting friends in San Francisco and as the plane came into land it suddenly changed course, rose up from its flight path and began circling again. After a few minutes the captain broadcast apologising for what had happened and informing us that a small plane had entered the landing zone and interfered with the flight path. I don't know any more than that, but if things had been a little different I guess I might have ended up in San Francisco Bay. But Air Traffic Control and the pilot looked after our safety.
I'm just curious -- do you all think you are going to be able to keep this up for four years?!
Yes. I can. My dad was a career public servant who lost his first job when Reagan was elected. And Trump, for all of his braggadocio, is just the same fucking thing for a new generation.
I'm not given to violence, but I do have a bit of an Inigo Montoya complex about these jerks. I imagine if I'm on the ship, I'll be circling back here for a while.
Trump has always been known to jump the gun when it comes to investigations. He just cannot keep his mouth shut. And he is very prone to blame anyone else but him.
It does appear the military helicopter was flying at the wrong altitude, It was supposed to be no higher than 250. The plane was coming in at 300 ft. Traffic Control had asked the military pilot if he could see the plane. He said yes. I have not heard Traffic Control asking the pilot of the civilian plane if s/he saw the helicopter.
Still, we will not know for sure until the black boxes of both craft can be located and examined .
Trump has always been known to jump the gun when it comes to investigations. He just cannot keep his mouth shut. And he is very prone to blame anyone else but him.
It does appear the military helicopter was flying at the wrong altitude, It was supposed to be no higher than 250. The plane was coming in at 300 ft. Traffic Control had asked the military pilot if he could see the plane. He said yes. I have not heard Traffic Control asking the pilot of the civilian plane if s/he saw the helicopter.
Still, we will not know for sure until the black boxes of both craft can be located and examined .
There's another report coming in that the plane was asked to switch runways at the last minute, according to the NYTimes.
Shortly before an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter collided near Reagan National Airport on Wednesday night, the plane’s pilots were asked to pivot its landing route from one runway to another, according to a person briefed on the event and conversation overheard on audio recordings of conversations that occurred between an air traffic controller and the pilots.
This is apparently not an uncommon occurrence to facilitate the flow of air traffic.
And it seems like a larger theme is that the Reagan airport is, fittingly considering its name, overused and under-supported. There's barely-to-not enough labor to do all the work safely. And I suspect it makes an accident like this inevitable, because nobody wants to pay the cost of doing everything with appropriate buffers and contingencies.
Thanks, Reaganomics! Ending lives to lower taxes!
Yeah...I'm a little sarcastic. I also think there'll be more pieces coming together as the investigation continues.
CBS is reporting at the time of the crash there was only one air controller monitoring both the military helicopter and the civilian plane. Normally, at the time of the crash, there should have been two controllers. Later in the night, there could be one controller, when traffic is at a minimum.
CBS is reporting at the time of the crash there was only one air controller monitoring both the military helicopter and the civilian plane. Normally, at the time of the crash, there should have been two controllers. Later in the night, there could be one controller, when traffic is at a minimum.
That fact sticks out to me. I hope they don't force whoever that controller is to take the fall. I suspect this is a compound failure, but...as noted, we'll see when the investigation is completed.
Of course, with a bunch of hacks taking over the government, better hope the investigation is honest.
And Dear Lord, do I hate living in that kind of world.
[And it seems like a larger theme is that the Reagan airport is, fittingly considering its name, overused and under-supported. There's barely-to-not enough labor to do all the work safely. And I suspect it makes an accident like this inevitable, because nobody wants to pay the cost of doing everything with appropriate buffers and contingencies.
Yep, because it’s so much faster and easier to get into Washington from Reagan, which is right on the Potomac across from Washington, than Dulles, which is almost 40 miles away from central Washington. (I’ve flown in and out of both many times. I’ve also driven, parked my car at Reagan and taken the Metro into Washington; I can be at Union Station in 15 minutes.)
That convenience means members of Congress and the like want to be able to fly in and out of Reagan rather than Dulles, and Reagan simply isn’t big enough to handle the traffic they want to move through it. Most people I know who’ve used Reagan with any regularity are surprised this hasn’t happened before.
A bit of personal history might not be amiss. I was visiting friends in San Francisco and as the plane came into land it suddenly changed course, rose up from its flight path and began circling again. After a few minutes the captain broadcast apologising for what had happened and informing us that a small plane had entered the landing zone and interfered with the flight path.
Small Cessnas or whatever accidentally wandering in to the class B airspace around a major airport happens quite often. It's usually a pilot who is a bit confused about where they are / is trying to land at a nearby small airport and is in the wrong place. They're usually not talking to ATC, and it can sometimes be a bit of a challenge finding which channel the Cessna's radio is tuned to, so ATC can "politely instruct them to turn around", and then copy down a phone number.
Or so says my friend the air traffic controller, anyway.
This was a US Army Blackhawk, which had established active communication with ATC. ATC instructed them to go behind the CRJ (the small regional jet). It was dark, and there would have been a lot of lights around.
The CRJ clearly knew where it was - it was on final approach to runway 33, was in the process of landing, and was exactly where it had been told to be. It's much less clear where the pilot of the Blackhawk thought they were, and what the thought they knew, and whether any of that was different from reality. It's possible, for example, that the Blackhawk identified some different light in the sky as the CRJ, maneuvered to pass behind that light, and completely failed to see the CRJ.
It has been noted that the Blackhawk was on a "training flight", but that could mean almost anything - it doesn't in itself tell us about how experienced the pilot of the Blackhawk was, or what else was going on in the cockpit. Mr. Hegseth describes them as "fairly experienced".
NPR said the one pilot had 1,000 hours in the Blackhawk. The other pilot had 500 hours in the cockpit. It is likely the senior pilot was allowing the junior pilot to fly the mission but made the crucial mistake not to intervene when the altimeter was showing they were flying too high.
Again, the data from the black boxes need to be examined before anything definitive can be known for certain.
Again, the data from the black boxes need to be examined before anything definitive can be known for certain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90Xw3tQC0I has the audio of the conversations with ATC. You hear the Blackhawk (PAT25) twice state that they have the CRJ in sight, and request visual separation. In other words, they say "I see it, I am keeping it in sight, I will be responsible for keeping out of its way". ATC approves this request. The only thing that makes sense of it is if the Blackhawk crew saw something else and mistook it for the CRJ, or if they saw the CRJ, but misjudged its distance.
Trumps diatribe against EDI shows he simply doesn't understand what EDI is about. He says he wants to eliminate "equality hires" so that they can be replaced by the "best people" (I'm sort of paraphrasing here, because if I have to go back to read the exact words he used I'd end up nauseous). But, one of the purposes of EDI is to make sure the best people are hired - it's a counter to unconscious (or, even conscious) bias to hire and/or promote "people like us" on the assumption that they're better qualified, typically so that middle aged white men don't predominantly hire younger white men (who in a few years will be middle aged white men) overlooking better qualified women, people of colour, someone in a wheelchair etc.
He’s doubling down. I’ve just seen a report that he is ordering the FAA to cease using equal opportunities standards in appointments.
But on Thursday evening, the White House doubled down on blaming his predecessor and DEI policies. The president signed a memorandum to end diversity efforts in the aviation sector and to review all hiring decisions and changes to safety protocols made during the Biden administration. He also signed an executive order to appoint a new head of the FAA.
(BBC website)
Pete Buttigieg defended his record on social media, calling Trump's comments "despicable". "As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying," he said.
But then, in Trumpworld, Pete Buttigieg is doubly a member of the incompetent, lacking in “common sense”. He’s a Democrat and he’s homosexual.
But, one of the purposes of EDI is to make sure the best people are hired - it's a counter to unconscious (or, even conscious) bias to hire and/or promote "people like us" on the assumption that they're better qualified, typically so that middle aged white men don't predominantly hire younger white men (who in a few years will be middle aged white men) overlooking better qualified women, people of colour, someone in a wheelchair etc.
It is also - as generally implemented - a mechanism of minimal proof that stops the company concerned being sued for discriminatory practices and very little more.
I’ve just seen a video on CNN which provides a much clearer image of the movements of the helicopter prior to and at the point of the crash. Those images are consistent with the helicopter mistaking other lights for the plane, both before and even at the point of impact. There is no sign of attempted evasive action by the pilot of the helicopter or the plane. No doubt the black boxes will reveal more.
I'm just curious -- do you all think you are going to be able to keep this up for four years?!
Good question. I'm wondering what the choices are. Developing indifference to maniacal incompetence at the highest levels of world government doesn't sound like a safe option either.
Reminds me of Auden's 'Epitaph of a Tyrant'.
'When he laughed, respectable Senators burst with laughter,
When he cried the little children died in the streets.'
Maybe we'll all get so used to the hypocrisy and corruption of 'respectable senators' and the suffering of the 'little children' we'll just give up being appalled?
I think my anger has run out, it's been replaced by a deep sadness at the state of a country that can elect such a leader - and for all my American friends, none of whom did.
Keep up the opposition to tyranny? Absolutely, in any way I can. I fought a bully ten years ago and won. It took a lot, but I'm proud I did it and pleased for the staff who no longer had to suffer her.
Comments
It is not, IMO, inappropriate (especially around Holocaust Memorial) to point out where a government is doing something very similar to any of the steps along the way to extermination camps. If a government is heading in the direction of evil we shouldn't wait until they've reached the full depth of evil before pointing out what they are doing.
This post, of course, is relevant to the UK and other nations, not just the US, for we have our own "hostile environment" sanctioned by the government, our own use of former military sites to lock people up. The new Labour government might not have progressed further than the previous government, but they've also done very little to reverse what had been done.
The BBC used to give a lot of room for satire, which was often very effective in puncturing the pompous and the powerful. I think that was valuable but they often got criticised for trivialising serious issues.
And in terms of current affairs, Robin Day and Jeremy Paxman for example were quite fearless in interviews with the prominent and asked confrontational questions. And pressed in on ducking. They had prominent politicians walk out on them. Those politicians couldn’t stand the heat and got out of the kitchen.
But that got the BBC criticised for partiality and the current policy on balance reflects that. Farage got far more airtime than he deserved and has made profitable use of it.
That’s all by way of preamble to Trump. Comment about Trump cannot be avoided given his position, but the cruel nonsense of many of his current policies do not deserve politeness. They deserve relentless, critical, fearless, questioning and criticism.
I think the BBC has had its teeth drawn by its policy of balance. The website and some of its podcasts do better than the live broadcasts.
It’s an opinion. I’m sure plenty would see it as a political opinion. And maybe I’m nostalgic for a BBC with bite? Would that be in the national interest? I think it would be in both the national and international interest.
And maybe I’m nostalgic for a BBC with bite? Would that be in the national interest? I think it would be in both the national and international interest.
This.
I don't think this causal links quite works chronologically, the problem with the Day, Paxman, Humphries approach was that politicians learnt to deal with it and those who couldn't would simply refuse to be interviewed or send a junior minister along instead.
The policy of 'balance' seems to have risen contemporaneously to the Gilligan affair and I'm sure the fact that it has inevitably served the right wing is purely coincidence and not reflective of the views the British state finds more threatening.
OK, but that's a very broad brush. For one thing, you seem to be using it to suggest that policies that may be reasonable in and of themselves (your own disagreement notwithstanding) should be opposed by everyone simply because they are similar to C20 German policies that eventually resulted in extermination camps.
My issue with that is that the same argument could be used against Socialist policies on the grounds that in C20 Russia they eventually resulted in the Gulags.
Oppose a policy on the grounds of its actual impacts by all means, but I don't think this sort of political reductio ad extremis is particularly helpful - it ends up in a situation where all but the most anodyne of policies are decried as a step towards death camps, and absolutely no compromise or agreement between opposing sides can be countenanced. In a functioning democracy there has to be a certain allowance for policies one disagrees - even vehemently disagrees - with to nevertheless win the day if they are what the electorate has chosen to vote for. Not every left-winger is a Bolshevik just waiting to send their opponents to the Gulags, and not every right-winger is a Nazi just waiting to send their opponents to the Todeslager.
I forgot to mention the fearsome John Humphries. You’re probably right that politicians learned how to deal with him and his like but it sure was educational to see them flounder.
I’m an admirer of Owen Jones, who sees that the internal balance of BBC employers has definitely shifted to the right. It does feel to me more milk-toast than I remember. I don’t think it’s just nostalgia.
Just to be clear, the policy you say 'may be reasonable in and of [itself]' consists of the creation of a large scale prison, offshored in order to evade the national law, in which people will be detained indefinitely.
There is no middle ground there.
And which I guarantee will see massive loss of life with the first hurricane that sweeps through, alongside the inevitable torture and abuse of detainees by whatever thugs are recruited to staff it. 50-50 on whether adequate food, water, sanitation, healthcare, period supplies, shelter, etc are provided.
And then I see another report that Trump just gutted a key aviation safety committee.
And they've got a picture of him giving a thumbs up in a church.
I couldn't make this bullshit up if I tried. No joke.
The timing! The optics! But the Americans are too stupid to pay attention to anything but wring their hands and act like all of this is inevitable!
Fucking asshole.
The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is established by statute so it can't simply be eliminated outright by the president. Trump (or his advisors) decided to get cute about this and fire all committee members, arguing that the committee still existed but simply had no members. It's unlikely that firing the TSA chief or vacating the ASAC or pressuring the head of the FAA to resign or Trump's hiring freeze on air traffic controllers (already understaffed before he took office) directly contributed to this specific accident (though that is a hell of a list), but it will certainly make it harder to assess what happened and decide what changes need to be made. This is all of a piece with Trump's war on competence, expertise, and science. If you wanted to deliberately take actions to make air travel accidents more likely, the list above would be a pretty good start.
Enough said.
Zero evidence but the MAGAs will lap it up.
George Orwell, Animal Farm
As an American, I feel obliged to take responsibility for my own failure, and our failure. I also claim the right of "As someone who was born here, and even was born in Trump country, picking on us is my birthright!" These are my idiots, and they are, to some limited extent, my responsibility. Hell, I got some in my extended family.
That said, I'll try to circumspect. I am aware that there are a good many of us who have somewhat better sense.
For what it is worth, I am actually shocked that he managed to make this situation worse.
I shouldn't be, but here I am.
I have some friends and family who are retired USAF, one of whom I think is still flying privately, and most of them tilt his way. I honestly don't know if I could stand to hear what they're thinking right now. I'm scared to ask because this could impel me to torch a few bridges.
The bodies of the dead aren't even recovered and buried and he and his henchmen are already utilising their corpses in order to boost themselves politically, and claim that it's probably the fault of the disabled and the mentally ill, because of diversity hiring policies under Obama and Biden.
Despicable. Using tragedy like this to score political points based on complete lies. And knowing they are complete lies. Shameless. One can only imagine what it feels like to be a relative of the deceased and listening to this man's insane ranting shite; using the death of a much loved friend or family member to allow this creature to elevate his 'common sense'.
Same. I wasn't expecting my estimation of him to sink, but here we are.
And thanks, @Crœsos , for the explanation. That all makes sense.
It's particularly irritating given that the last few weeks have been a parade of drunks, lunatics, sex predators, conspiracy theorists, failsons, and outright incompetents (or some combination of those traits) appearing before Senate committees because they'd been nominated for cabinet-level posts by Trump. Claiming to be concerned about qualifications now seems like a particularly cruel joke.
Before that everything is premature speculation. Balanced reporting would say that. But that’s not news, is it? So “balanced reporting” normally amounts to balancing premature speculation, balancing related political views, balancing the opinions of various citizens. The polarising effects of that leads to scepticism of a considered report at variance with premature politicised opinions. What is “balanced” about that? And consider the harm to the bereaved.
Most of the world: "unfortunately, a lot of the people without common sense voted for you"
Inquiries of that nature can take over a year. That's a bit long for people to simply sit down and shut up about a mass casualty event. The findings of the National Transportation Safety Board will (eventually) give us definitive answers on immediate causes. On the other hand, the wider environment in which this happened does suggest some secondary questions that should be asked, such as:
-
-
-
-
etc.
These are all very relevant questions that are worth pursuing even without knowing the immediate cause of the collision.
I understand the desire for answers. But I think that very desire can poison the investigation. So can premature claims by POTUS and others. It's a serious tragedy. I want the enquiry to have the space to do it's job. And of course I recognise the potential interference from inside the investigation. There are big bucks at stake, big reputations at stake. But it's wrong to start from the premise that the investigation itself deserves to be on trial.
Yes. I understand that there are related issues and perhaps some of them can be pursued without prejudicing the investigation. I'm working from a sub judice viewpoint. Not because I want to suppress the right to know. I'm arguing that impatient curiosity can actually get in the way of that, compromise the knowing.
This may be a simple investigation. From the outside it's hard to believe the aeroplane was in the wrong place so the speculation that the helicopter must have been looks worth investigating. By investigators who have access to facts and know how to analyse them. The hows and whys deserve proper consideration. That's work to do.
That unfortunate usage of "common sense" is so stale that if it were food, it'd be an undifferentiated puddle of slime by now.
Guy needs some new talking points!
Yes. I can. My dad was a career public servant who lost his first job when Reagan was elected. And Trump, for all of his braggadocio, is just the same fucking thing for a new generation.
I'm not given to violence, but I do have a bit of an Inigo Montoya complex about these jerks. I imagine if I'm on the ship, I'll be circling back here for a while.
It does appear the military helicopter was flying at the wrong altitude, It was supposed to be no higher than 250. The plane was coming in at 300 ft. Traffic Control had asked the military pilot if he could see the plane. He said yes. I have not heard Traffic Control asking the pilot of the civilian plane if s/he saw the helicopter.
Still, we will not know for sure until the black boxes of both craft can be located and examined .
There's another report coming in that the plane was asked to switch runways at the last minute, according to the NYTimes. This is apparently not an uncommon occurrence to facilitate the flow of air traffic.
And it seems like a larger theme is that the Reagan airport is, fittingly considering its name, overused and under-supported. There's barely-to-not enough labor to do all the work safely. And I suspect it makes an accident like this inevitable, because nobody wants to pay the cost of doing everything with appropriate buffers and contingencies.
Thanks, Reaganomics! Ending lives to lower taxes!
Yeah...I'm a little sarcastic. I also think there'll be more pieces coming together as the investigation continues.
That fact sticks out to me. I hope they don't force whoever that controller is to take the fall. I suspect this is a compound failure, but...as noted, we'll see when the investigation is completed.
Of course, with a bunch of hacks taking over the government, better hope the investigation is honest.
And Dear Lord, do I hate living in that kind of world.
That convenience means members of Congress and the like want to be able to fly in and out of Reagan rather than Dulles, and Reagan simply isn’t big enough to handle the traffic they want to move through it. Most people I know who’ve used Reagan with any regularity are surprised this hasn’t happened before.
Small Cessnas or whatever accidentally wandering in to the class B airspace around a major airport happens quite often. It's usually a pilot who is a bit confused about where they are / is trying to land at a nearby small airport and is in the wrong place. They're usually not talking to ATC, and it can sometimes be a bit of a challenge finding which channel the Cessna's radio is tuned to, so ATC can "politely instruct them to turn around", and then copy down a phone number.
Or so says my friend the air traffic controller, anyway.
This was a US Army Blackhawk, which had established active communication with ATC. ATC instructed them to go behind the CRJ (the small regional jet). It was dark, and there would have been a lot of lights around.
The CRJ clearly knew where it was - it was on final approach to runway 33, was in the process of landing, and was exactly where it had been told to be. It's much less clear where the pilot of the Blackhawk thought they were, and what the thought they knew, and whether any of that was different from reality. It's possible, for example, that the Blackhawk identified some different light in the sky as the CRJ, maneuvered to pass behind that light, and completely failed to see the CRJ.
It has been noted that the Blackhawk was on a "training flight", but that could mean almost anything - it doesn't in itself tell us about how experienced the pilot of the Blackhawk was, or what else was going on in the cockpit. Mr. Hegseth describes them as "fairly experienced".
Again, the data from the black boxes need to be examined before anything definitive can be known for certain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90Xw3tQC0I has the audio of the conversations with ATC. You hear the Blackhawk (PAT25) twice state that they have the CRJ in sight, and request visual separation. In other words, they say "I see it, I am keeping it in sight, I will be responsible for keeping out of its way". ATC approves this request. The only thing that makes sense of it is if the Blackhawk crew saw something else and mistook it for the CRJ, or if they saw the CRJ, but misjudged its distance.
(BBC website)
Pete Buttigieg defended his record on social media, calling Trump's comments "despicable". "As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying," he said.
But then, in Trumpworld, Pete Buttigieg is doubly a member of the incompetent, lacking in “common sense”. He’s a Democrat and he’s homosexual.
Again, enough said.
It is also - as generally implemented - a mechanism of minimal proof that stops the company concerned being sued for discriminatory practices and very little more.
Good question. I'm wondering what the choices are. Developing indifference to maniacal incompetence at the highest levels of world government doesn't sound like a safe option either.
Reminds me of Auden's 'Epitaph of a Tyrant'.
'When he laughed, respectable Senators burst with laughter,
When he cried the little children died in the streets.'
Maybe we'll all get so used to the hypocrisy and corruption of 'respectable senators' and the suffering of the 'little children' we'll just give up being appalled?
They did last time.
I don't know who you mean by 'they' @Marvin the Martian?
Keep up the opposition to tyranny? Absolutely, in any way I can. I fought a bully ten years ago and won. It took a lot, but I'm proud I did it and pleased for the staff who no longer had to suffer her.
The "you all" from Riv's post, in reference to the fact that a Donald Trump thread managed to persist for all four years of his last presidency.