Seems like poor training and professionalism. Well run establishments typically train staff in silent service for this very reason, to not interrupt guest conversations.
Hot Topic's "You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because you're all the same" shirt sold in every mall across America in the late 90s has always been my favorite.
I would be a bit more charitable in assigning motive for the pilot's actions.
Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority.
Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism.
Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination.
They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion.
I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people.
The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.
At first I thought, "Wow, he's much braver than I am."
But "audacious" and "bold" are probably better words to describe it. Maybe I'm overly cautious, but it's inherently risky to confront someone who has taken your property since they have already shown a willingness to break the law. It's a coin toss whether they will perceive the confrontation as a threat and react violently.
All that without even considering that he was dealing with a police officer who, de facto, will be given the benefit of the doubt in a confrontation and may behave accordingly. Not all cops are bad, I think most are good actually, but you have no way of knowing which one you will get in a situation like this. I'm very glad that this ended well (as well as it could have) for him.
The way this is supposed to work is that the victim says "I got screwed into a baseless DUI and I'm only out a predatory tow bill and my $2k Mackbook. That's $3k less than the lawyer's starting price. Golly gee it's my lucky day"
He's not brave. He's dense enough to still believe in the system. See also: Knocking on the door of a cop who you've got beef with.
How do you think this would play out? Changing the apportionment of the Senate, aside from being a political and legal nightmare, would also create monumental constitutional crisis.
First, the Connecticut Compromise is a democratic underpinning of the US. It was central to the formation of the nation, and any attempt to alter it would be a foundational structural change to the constitution to say the least.
I understand the concerns about one generation binding another without recourse. Legal scholars differ on whether Article V, which implements the compromise, can be amended or not.
But for the sake of argument, let's say it can. It would be an insurmountable task requiring the following:
1. A supermajority in both houses of Congress (67% in the Senate and 66% in the House) to propose the amendment.
2. Ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
3. Consent of the states that would lose their equal representation in the Senate.
4. Overcome any legal challenges that would likely arise at every step of the process.
The result would be a dramatic redefinition of federalism and democratic representation. This wouldn't be a cosmetic change, it would be a fundamental alteration to the structure of the government and constitution.
Very few things were deemed "unamendable" and entrenched in the constitution before, both explicitly and implicitly, but now it would all be up for grabs. Now nothing is irrevocable.
What's to stop future generations from altering other fundamental principles? While we may complain of being bound by the decisions of our ancestors, we would be opening up a Pandora's box of constitutional instability for future generations, binding them to the whims of a (slim?) majority of the current generation's political agenda.
I think that is the best case scenario. The worst, and I think a very possible scenario, is that states losing representation would claim that such a drastic and material change to the constitution upends the root of the bargain that led to the formation of the union, and would likely seek to secede. You may have achieved your goal of changing the apportionment of the Senate, but at the cost of the union itself. There are far easier and less risky ways to achieve political change.
We could add new states. For example, Washington DC has 702,000 people with zero Congressional representation, and they're currently occupied by Federal troops without any voting recourse. If they were made a state, they'd be bigger than Wyoming and Vermont. Puerto Rico is also a US territory with 3.2 million people and zero Congressional representation. As a state it would be larger than 20 existing states. This doesn't "fix" the problem but it does ensure that more U.S. citizens gain access to representation in Congress, while also shifting power to more densely-populated areas.
True. I'm not as familiar with the politics of DC, but my limited understanding of the PR statehood situation is that the GOP is unlikely to approve what would presumably be 2 new safe democratic seats in the senate.
If I remember correctly, the governor of PR would appoint the first 2 senators. A tactic could be to promise to appoint 1 republican senator as an enrichment to approve statehood. It's a real shit situation.
There are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC and Orlando than in PR. I'd like to visit before the little family I have left there leaves or dies out.
fwiw DC is essentially the same situation as PR in this regard. DC would essentially be a blue city-state (state) which is also why DC statehood resolutions always fail.
It's an open joke in DC if you ever visit there the official DC license plate has "end taxation without representation" on it.
You are right to point out the problems with getting it passed. I would just say we need to stretch our political imaginations. Let's also remember that when the Constitutional Convention was originally convened no one thought it was going to create a new constitution - it happened sort of by accident as circumstances changed. The original purpose was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation.
I'll put it another way. We are far from the bottom here. This system can and I believe will inflict more dysfunction on us in the coming years. A constitutional crisis is not unthinkable anymore for a variety of reasons. A modern constitutional convention might be one of the few ways of getting ahead of it.
Perhaps in such a future situation then, small states can be convinced to amend compromises they may otherwise have never considered.
You could also just do away with bicameralism, which was proposed at the original convention. Also remember as originally written the population of the states did not directly elect their senators. Thus there is already amendment precedent (17th) for making major changes to the Senate.
I don’t think either of these things requires more than a vote of Congress and the President’s signature. DC might, because of its unique Constitutional status and the current partisan Court, but there’s no argument for PR. You would have to abolish the filibuster, but Congress can do that once per session by majority vote — it’s just a legislative rule and not a Constitutional mechanism.
I mean even if we accept the premise the problem is if you start to engage with this game then the next Congress can do it too.
Pretty soon you'll have "Middle Dakota". And on and on.
At a certain point the USA is going to have to address its structural issues - the founders foretold of this necessity. It's why the amendment process exists in the first place.
Getting rid of the filibuster is a good thing in general. The GOP-led states have already moved into mid-cycle gerrymanders and routine gerrymandering of the state legislatures to eliminate fair elections there: I'm sure eventually someone will have the idea of adding new GOP states. Adding two actual territories/districts that are full of actual unrepresented Americans happens to be a good idea on the merits, since those people are being screwed by the Federal government.
If you're referring to telcos sharing their tech with government there are a few examples of Ericsson working with the Swedish military:
> Brigadier-General Mattias Hanson, CIO, Swedish Armed Forces, says: “Strengthening Sweden’s militarily and acting as part of a collective defense requires us to increase our defensive capabilities. We need to utilize the latest technology and all the innovative power of the Swedish private sector. Sweden has unique skills and capabilities in both telecoms and defense technology..." [0]
The crux of all religions. The only comparatevely harmless religions are the ones who don't claim that gods demand absolute obedience, but their orders are spoken through a chosen few; otherwise they're just a form of primitive government.
There is a difference however, of faith based on evidence vs. faith based in no evidence. Without getting into too much details here since it is not the avenue, Islamic faith is strictly based on evidence.
Naturalistic religions, so called "paganism", also worshipped living beings or natural phenomena like a particularly big tree, a mountain, a forest, the Sun, etc. Some of these didn't demand obedience nor spoke through a ruling elite. Bonus points for worshipping things that could be verified as real.
No, "faith" is actually an integral component of "the Christian faith".
Go read the first part of Acts 4, where a section closes with: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus." So...yes! We do believe in a God that can empower average people to speak in above-average ways.
> You have a lot of faith in the qualities of average priests.
>> To be fair, faith is the crux of Catholicism.
So, in context (which the downvoters seem to have missed), "faith" is being used equivocally here. There a difference between having faith in Christ and his promises and faith in his claims of divinity on the one hand, and having "faith" in a priest or whatever else on the other. Hence, my question whether this was some kind of a bad attempt at humor or whether something was meant by it.
(FWIW, authentic Christian faith is not an arbitrary faith in anything you please. This is blind faith which is irrational. This is why we can speak of preambula fidei. There must be reasons for faith. When a friend tells you something about his inner life that you cannot know directly, you may believe him given an ensemble of evidence and reasons that cannot prove his claim definitively, but are nonetheless very supportive of it. Furthermore, the claim makes sense of what you do know about him.)
But part of the faith is faith that God can communicate through imperfect mortal vessels.
> Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”
> The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”
Like, that's the whole deal about all of the prophets, popes, priesthood in general. They are all mortal and imperfect, but God still speaks through them.
> authentic Christian faith is not an arbitrary faith in anything you please
But he's not talking about an arbitrary faith. He's talking about faith in the capacity of priests -- clearly a relevant subject. And there are, indeed, _preambula fidei_ here: that the priest was taught in seminary, that the priest was approved by the Church, that the priest (through the bishop who ordained them) participates in a line of apostolic succession going back to Jesus, etc.
What you've written is simply an intellectual jumble. What does faith (the theological virtue) and acceptance of the apostolic succession have to do with "faith" in the capacity of priests, here, as competent homilists?
99% of the jokes I've made throughout my life don't land. For better or worse, if I find something amusing I impulsively share it.
In this case, I thought it should be obvious that OP must have faith in priests, given that they're Catholic, which requires faith as a prereq.
If you read my comment as a slight against Catholicism, I can understand, but I wouldn't feel comfortable publicly joking about any religion other than my own. If that's the case, you're in good company, with the multitude of nuns who've admonished me for similar offhand comments spanning 20 years of Catholic education from pre-k to college, this is old hat for me.
God willing, I'll mature or start telling better jokes some day.
