Prozac

The inability to understand that not everybody thinks the same way you do is a real problem in this country. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I respect your position even if I disagree. But that's the thing. There are hundreds of millions of Americans who disagree with you and saying that we "all know damn well" when life begins is presumptuous at best and dangerous at worst. Americans come from wildly varied backgrounds and have equally varied life experiences. I don't presume to know what's going on in your head because I haven't experienced your life. Please don't presume to know what the rest of us think or believe.

Prior to Roe, abortion was essentially banned in Texas. It will be essentially banned there again when it is repealed. Not limited. Banned. It will be in states like Texas where debate will be stifled because there will no longer be any debate. Oh and BTW, there is already a bill being put forward in Missouri that will allow private citizens to sue anyone, including, say, a doctor in Illinois, who enables a Missouri resident to get an abortion in or out of that state. I expect other states will follow. This ruling will have the definite and unfortunate effect of further pitting Americans against Americans.

I don’t have an answer for that other than it strikes a balance that reflects where we are as a country. Let’s use another example since abortion and guns seem to be uniquely likely to elicit an emotional response: Speed limits. The hardcore libertarian might argue that speed limits are wholly unnecessary. They impede upon the individual’s liberty to drive his highly capable German sports car as fast as he wants, and if exceeds the vehicle’s or his own capabilities we should accept that as natural selection at work. Problem is, this is not just potentially dangerous to the car’s owner. There are other road users to consider. So we limit the individual’s liberty to protect the rights of others not to be exposed to undue risk. One part of that is a speed limit. Where do you set that limit? If you want to protect life and property to the maximum extent, the limit might be absurdly low (and for the record, it is!). But if you favor considerations like the capabilities of modern vehicles and the economic value of time, you might be tempted to set it too high. So we settle on a somewhat arbitrary number that attempts to reflect our values as a society. I don’t necessarily like it, but I mostly abide by it because I accept the fact that I don’t exist in a vacuum. This kind of debate happens all the time & somewhat arbitrary limits are set when we make laws for the benefit of society.

Ahh yes, the old everything must be black and white argument. My personal view is that abortion should generally be restricted at some point in a pregnancy, generally in the third trimester except in extreme circumstances (mother’s life at risk). Otherwise, it’s none of my fucking business what a woman chooses to do with her body. Most Americans live in the part of the abortion debate that lies between ‘under no circumstances ever’ and ‘game on until the chord is cut’. Just like most Americans live in the part of the gun control debate between ‘no guns for anyone’ and ‘Apaches for sale on eBay’. Glad you’ve got it all figured out, but just because you’re the smartest person you know doesn’t mean the rest of the country is magically going to fall in line with your reasoning.

I was, and am. Doesn’t mean I am against the second amendment. It is possible to exist on a spectrum regarding most of the issues that get debated here, and most people don’t live on the very edges of that spectrum.

Negative ghostrider. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed unenumerated rights through its interpretation of the 14th and 9th amendments. You have a ton of rights in this country that are not codified in specific laws. That’s why this ruling is concerning. And yes, I understand that justice Alito intends this only to apply to abortion but that’s not how legal precedent works and the logic behind this ruling will absolutely be used when states and other entities desire to limit rights for one reason or another. Alito argues that abortion is specifically a threat to human life. Well, many would say the same of gun violence. See how this case could be used as a precedent to re-interpret the second amendment? Alito may be earnest in his intention to limit this ruling to abortion, but what happens when he is gone? This ruling will have far reaching and long lasting consequences.

Exactly. The rabbit hole is open. Part of the court’s rationale is that there is no specific right to abortion in the constitution. Well, there is no specific right to birth control either. No one should be the least bit surprised when conservative states start banning things like IUDs. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? This ruling and the logic behind it has much further reaching implications than just abortion & has the potential to put many of the rights we enjoy at risk.

I kind of thought that was assumed. It certainly appears that Roe will be overturned very soon. There are many states that will immediately ban abortion when that happens. The argument made is only a hypothetical for a few more weeks.

I think some of you are missing the forest through the trees. The question being posed here is: If we are going to argue that a fetus is a human, then why don't all laws/norms then apply to that human? The example given makes sense. If an infant dies in his or her parent's care, it will generally be investigated as to whether the parents were neglectful. If a miscarriage takes place, and we define the fetus as human, why don't we apply the same rules? Shouldn't the mother, at the very least, be forced to to take a blood alcohol test? If she is positive, should she be then charged with murder?

Depends on the base. Some bases (ONT, most of the non super-senior MIA schedules) are domestic only so the choice is made for you. Others you get to choose which is one of the things I really like. You might spend a decade at a legacy pax outfit before you have a chance at wide body international flying. Not so in cargo. At Brown it’s a single payscale (no difference for widebody flying) so everyone finds their niche and no one is stepping over each other for better pay. That said, I really do believe domicile is a more important consideration than pax vs cargo flying. I just advised a neighbor to stick with his current, just started gig at Delta vs going to FedEx (we’re in the Seattle area). I stand by my “reasons cargo is better” statement but none of that stuff trumps living in base when we’re talking about any of the majors/Fdx/UPS.

Misanthropic? What the hell does that even mean? I swear, I don’t even want to leave my remote cabin anymore if I’m going to constantly be surrounded by all these high and mighty pax pilots who can’t even speak damned plain English.

Which ones? Honestly curious. I know there are some on the left who will argue for late term abortions but I don’t recall many leaders or people in charge making that argument. As others have argued, most Americans have seemed pretty content with the status quo which generally prohibits late term abortions. Somewhere north of 90 percent of abortions occur before the end of the first term, a fact which tends to support the idea that the whole idea of late term abortions and fully developed babies being ripped out of the womb is more of a bogeyman for the anti-abortion crowd than it is an actual issue.

If only both parties would internalize this rationale. Instead we have them one-upping each other in a race to the margins where the vast majority of the public doesn’t feel represented.

Whatever you think about the morality of it all (newsflash: we ain’t gonna solve it here) CH is right about one thing: This ruling will absolutely energize the left and put potential Republican midterm gains in jeopardy. It will likely continue to be a major issue in the 2024 presidential election with the Dems making the argument that despite their candidate’s fitness, the Republicans cannot be allowed any more potential nominations to the court. This is a major gift to the dems. The Republicans stomped their feet about “activist judges” right up to the point that activism tipped to their favor.

Not dealing with pax and flight attendants is a godsend. Reason number one is that I can get up, take a leak, and stretch whenever I damn well please. Reason 2: I change into sweats at TOC. Reason 3: I’ve never had to divert because of a sick or unruly box. Reason 4: flight attendants, while potentially fun, know where you work, live, and how much money you make. The list goes on & I’m sure there are lots of good reasons to work for Delta but I wouldn’t trade.

The Navs will probably go to Group and Wing staff and continue to fly on the new jets for "proficiency". There, they will fuck up basic tasks like ATC 'direct-to's' , A/R rendezvous', and oceanic crossings, and generally make your life in the front seat more difficult. (Sorry to my nav bros but god sometimes it's hard to resist talking shit.....it's just so goddamn easy!)

Indeed. Most magnificent…..uh….what were we talking about? Oh, yes….acting, magnificent acting. 😎

Lawrence of Arabia Just watched it for the first time. Some of the best cinematography I’ve ever seen, including in modern films. Set to an excellent score that helps do justice to the starkly beautiful scenery. Peter O’Toole gives an excellent performance, even if he tends to over-act on occasion & Omar Sharif nearly steals the show. Anyone who has experienced the ideals of youth being crushed by the cold realities of the world will have an instant connection with the storyline. I really think the movie needs to be seen in the theatre to be truly appreciated & I’ll be looking for an opportunity to do so. Highly recommend with the caveat that you must be prepared to have a nearly four hour chunk taken out of your day.

Not true. Everyone should care about sovereignty. That’s what makes trade possible. Ask most of the auto manufacturers on the planet. A large percentage of automotive wiring harnesses are/were produced in Ukraine. I guarantee you Volkswagen, Ford, and Toyota care a whole lot about sovereignty right now. Same goes for anyone who produces anything with a microchip in it. They’re anxiously watching Taiwan ATM. What do you think would’ve happened if Russia’s invasion was met with no resistance from NATO? There is a very good chance Putin would’ve come to the conclusion that NATO was ineffectual and obsolete and his next move would likely have been the Baltics. He has been testing NATO resolve there for years & if he thought for a minute NATO would not defend that territory, he’d be there in a hot second.

Very different situations. We are now looking at a developed country that is democratizing and courting the free world that has been straight up invaded and is asking for help. This is worlds away from an I’ll advised war against an already shaky dictatorship or popping into someone else’s civil war hoping you can prevent more bloodshed. I agree that in all honesty, we probably don’t care all that much about Ukraine per-se. But we do care about the idea of sovereignty. Very much in fact. We also care about Eastern Europe and Europe as a whole. If you don’t think this is Putin’s litmus test for Poland, Lithuania, Romania, etc, you’re being naive. And while we’re being honest, yes, this is a chance to affect Russia’s abilities to threaten its neighbors and hold Europe hostage over energy, which have been major concerns of ours for years now. To recap, our interests in the region are: the survival of a democratic nation and its people, protecting the very idea of sovereignty, hardening the NATO alliance (and finally getting Europe to pay its fair share & take defense seriously), weaning Europe off Russian energy, and sending the Russians something with a little more kick than the strongly worded letters they’ve been receiving from the UN the last several years. And the icing on the cake is that our strategy does not involve any direct military confrontation with Russia. Sure there are pundits out there who argue we should act more aggressively, but I have not heard one voice from the current administration make that argument. The Russians say we risk nuclear escalation by supplying weapons and support to Ukraine because of course they do. What other cards do they hold? None. Their conventional forces were apparently worse off than we thought and have been severely degraded from there. They’re quickly losing their biggest bargaining chip in Europe, energy, and it’ll likely be gone permanently. They thought they were good at information warfare, and maybe they were but they’re losing this one (at least abroad). So the one card they have left is waiving around their nukes. But Putin likes living. He likes his mansions and his boats and his girls. While he’s no 4D chess player, he’s smart enough to know that all turns to glass if he actually pulls the trigger.

I have a couple friends in a similar situation. I think the issue is a terminal date that’s still several months out. While I have seen CJOs go out up to 6 months in advance at my airline, that seems to be the exception vs the rule. Unless you’re getting TBNT letters, assume no news is good news, keep updating your apps, check your spam folder & answer the phone when it rings. 😎

I've got to take issue with this one. I live on one of the bluer states and we've been pretty much open for the majority of Biden's term. Same is true down south in Cali. Yeah, we had mask & some vaccination mandates (ex. large events) which might've deterred a few people from participating in the economy, but by and large, the sports stadiums and concerts have been filled for a while now. And the reality is, despite rhetoric from both the current and last admins, individual states have far more control over this than the Presidential admin. I agree with much of the rest of your post, but I just don't understand why many continue to argue that we kept the economy shut down for so long when the reality is we were one of the first developed countries to start opening up.

Had to look that one up. Assume you’re referring to the stunt the Lincoln Project pulled during the election. I actually think Youngkin is exactly the type of candidate the Republicans should be pushing & while there is a lot I disagree with, I believe he is perfectly capable of good governance which seems to be a dying art on all sides. Unfortunately, it’s the Lauren Boberts, the Margarie Taylor Greenes, & the Matt Gaetzs that seem to be the rising party stars. And yes, the Lincoln Project stunt was stupid.

Really? Do tell. And remember to keep your own bias out of your reply.

That’s a fair argument. But I will again posit that we have a far richer media environment than we ever have in the past. By richer, I mean more (LOTS more), not better. We have always been influenced, whether it be television networks, newspapers (Remember the Maine(?)), family, neighbors, political campaigns, etc. Conservatives really like to complain about the media environment lately and how it’s stacked against them. I just don’t buy it. There have never been more conservative media options than there are now. Fox News is as unabashedly biased in its editorial/infotainment coverage (think Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham) as anything from MSNBC or CNN and the Fox shows have the highest ratings by a large margin. If Democrats were just steamrolling Republicans in every election you might have a point, but it seems like Republicans are holding their own just fine. If they would spend some time vetting reasonable candidates who were actually capable of governance (vs just stoking outrage over Hillary’s emails, Hunter’s laptop, Pat’s preferred pronouns, etc) they might find a few more votes (including mine) because the Dems are a mess too & their only real advantage is that they haven’t stormed the Capitol yet & they’re not pushing insane conspiracy theories. In short, stop focusing so much on the supposed outrages of the other side & tell me what you’re actually for.