Our ship itinerary include a port of call in Labadee, Haiti. Yes, you heard me right, Haiti. A week before we sailed, I became concerned that one of our ports would be canceled due to the horrific tragedy that occurred in Port of Prince. Once on board the ship, it became clear that RCI was dedicated to continuing they’re 30 some-odd years of support of the Haitian economy. We were told that all the ships calling to Labedee were carrying precious supplies for the Haitian people. AND, that all 100% of monies spent while we were there were going to Haiti. The RCI resort employs some 250 local Haitians. If we did not call there, it would have a devastating effect on their economy, which would have a ripple effect all across the island.

Everyone disembarked at Labadee to enjoy an absolutely beautiful island. The area sported some of the best beaches in the Caribbean. However, we all left the ship knowing full well that there was a different picture some 60 miles away. You could tell that folks were there for a reason, not so much to have a have a wild and fun time, but to provide support that those individuals rely on.

Every deck and every balcony was filled watching the Haitians load off the thirty some odd pallets on the pier and move them on-shore for delivery. It was so quiet that you could hear the forklifts and crew talking as the supplies made their way to the shore.

SO, I was absolutely appalled when we arrived in Miami to only hear how our ship and RCI was being criticized for calling to Haiti! To the folks in the press who think they know what is right and wrong when it comes to Haiti… SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!. You sit in your comfy offices and spew out your garbage on what should and shouldn’t happen in Haiti. Well, I ask you this question.. WHAT DID YOU DO TO HELP THE HAITIANS?

I am proud that we were apart of something special. Thank you to Royal Caribbean International, the staff and crew on board the Navigator of the Sea and all the staff of Labadee, Haiti for an wonderful vacation. Thank you for all you continue to do for our island neighbors. The dedication to your customers is great, however your dedication to your RCI family and relationships could never be greater. Our prayers will continue for the Haitian people and for RCI as they lead the way in rebuilding that broken nation.

Kelly & Joanie Morrison, Texas
Navigator of the Sea – January 18, 2010

I’m not saying its better–just different. I’m not claiming we should or could do that here in America. We have more stress and have to work harder here, but we have far more opportunity and wealth. Do you think its possible that what conservatives and liberals are fighting over is really just two different approaches to life and government, both with pros and cons? Maybe one is not entirely “better” than the other, but both involve trade-offs.

I’m not picking a fight with anyone, just more thinking out loud. Maybe my outspoken conservative friends Brady or Brett will comment. Also to be fair, liberals should keep this in mind that maybe what conservatives want is not to have the country run by greedy corporations but a different set of advantages that involves more hard work, less security but greater rewards.

Just some thoughts…

The first thing to realize is that there are a few different scenarios which the terrorists could be using on your particular flight.  (Also realize that it could happen on any flight, not just one originating from a non U.S. location.) Options include testing TSA and law enforcement personnel, testing passengers and crewmembers, observation, dry run/practice, and actual execution of an attack.  Of course it is hard to differentiate which scenario is playing out until after your flight lands, but it might assist you in recognizing the threat and knowing how serious your reaction should be if you know all of the options. In most of these instances, their job is to also scare you. Terrorists create terror. If you stop flying, they win.  So be pro-active. Maybe something you do will cause them to call off the attack.

As a passenger you must be observant and vigilant. Most often someone notices some unusual activity or behavior. It doesn’t have to be just a person either. Suspicious bags, luggage, packages, notes, pillows, and electronic devices have been found on planes.  One of the biggest advantages you have is the ability to profile. TSA refuses to do the obvious thanks to political correctness.  Everyone knows who is committing these attacks — Muslim, Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 40.  Maybe al Qaeda is trying to recruit others than don’t fit this profile but it sure fits the mold right now.

Some things to look for: groups or pairs of men, a passenger talking to themselves, speaking Arabic, watching crewmembers (this is different than looking), staring at the cockpit door, long stays or multiple trips to the lavatory, reading a book but not turning any pages, nervousness, being unusual by trying to fit in, taking pictures/videos, not making eye contact. When you are at the boarding area and on the plane if you notice a suspicious passenger, look for others.  How many?  If it is one or two then they could be planning on bombing the aircraft or just making observations of crew procedures.  6 or more?  Then this cell’s objective would be hijacking the plane by brute force.  Also remember that there are sleepers that try to blend in with the other passengers and could be very hard to notice.  A website reports a well-dressed man in custody that was also a passenger on Delta Flight 253. After an incident, your entire plane might be delayed for security and they will treat everyone as suspects.  Also expect the government and airline to try to cover up parts or all of an event.

A recent example of a possible test occurred on Nov 17 with an Airtran flight from Atlanta to Houston. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane and caused a big disturbance and ended with passengers assisting the flight attendants in the commotion. TSA was called, they took the men off, talked to them, and put them back on. The crewmembers walked off the plane refusing to fly it, and then passengers walked off as well. The terrorists tested the TSA and passengers but probably also threatened lawsuits to the government and Airtran. This could be setting up a later mission with hopes the TSA and airline would be afraid to take them off the plane. Just like the Delta flight, the final layer of security, the crewmembers and passengers, are the ones who might have prevented an attack, nothing the government did was successful.

The best time to do something is prior to boarding and before the aircraft pushes back from the gate while the door is still open. This is when you have some control in the situation and easier for the captain to get involved.  Before you board you can talk to a TSA employee or gate agent and explain your concerns. The gate agents are usually very busy and might give you the brush off.   Talk to other passengers.  While on the plane you will have to find a flight attendant, which could prove difficult because at times the boarding process can be quite chaotic.  If one flight attendant seems to ignore you then talk to the other one.  Maybe ask to see the captain.  Write a note.  If you are really scared, grab your bags, say you are sick, and get off the plane. Some crewmembers can be just as ignorant about the serious nature of the threat as our government officials.  One time after a flight years ago a flight attendant asked me what the captain did about the suspicious passenger. She had called the cockpit inflight to report the behavior to the captain (since retired) and he neglected to tell me anything and did nothing.

While seated look for able-bodied men, military personnel, or deadheading crew to assist you.  Maybe you notice a suspicious passenger but do not feel it warrants a visit with TSA/Flight Attendant or it happens inflight . Volunteer yourself or change seats on your own to sit next to or right behind any suspicious passengers.  A recent crew moved a soldier to sit next to a nervous Middle-Eastern passenger before pushback.  Once while I was deadheading in coach during a flight, the captain told the flight attendant to move me next to a suspicious passenger.

Once airborne there are limited options.  Talking to the flight attendants and moving seats is basically all you can do.  A divert takes time and would be a major emergency.  On the flight I diverted for security issues we had an F-16 on our tail, ready to shoot us down if we didn’t immediately land.

If an actual attack occurs, then all bets are off.  Take Action! DO NOT wait for crewmember instruction! This is a life or death situation.  The terrorists will be hoping for the element of surprise.  You will probably die anyways if the terrorists are successful so you might as well die giving them a fight.  If it is a hijacking, block the aisles and do not let them get to the cockpit.  For a bombing, jump on the passenger and separate him from the ignition source.  For a suspicious package, box, etc. there is a place on the plane to move it to, but do not move it until necessary and with guidance from the crew.

The airlines are doing their best just to stay in business with the recession, bad weather, tough competition, and low fares.  The employees are very frustrated with pay cuts, long hours, full planes, grumpy customers and poor morale. The commercial aviation system wasn’t designed to fight terrorists. And don’t necessarily blame the TSA and law enforcement agencies.  They have some really hard working personnel trying to protect us.  It is the policies implemented by people working in the U.S. government that is the problem, and amazing enough, it is the federal government that is required by law to defend us by the U.S. constitution.  So what do they do?  President Obama decides to take legal action against CIA employees for using special interrogation techniques to obtain information from terrorists to keep us safe.  It was an obvious emotional, liberal, political decision.  This will only make it much more difficult for the intelligence agencies to do their jobs and recruit/retain top talent, as well as lowering morale.

Another government employee, the DHS Secretary herself, said after the 12/25 attempted bombing, “the system worked” when it was obvious to the world that it did not.  The news media gave President Bush an amazing amount of grief for not connecting the dots with 9/11.  Regarding the underwear bomber on Flight 253; his father warned the government, was on a watch list, paid cash for his ticket, no passport, no luggage. A third grader could have connected these dots.  The Republicans had to undo the laws and policies enacted by the Clinton Administration that impeded communication between intelligence and law enforcement agencies while President Bush implemented new ones to protect us after September 11.   Now Democrats are acting like it is September 10 again.

Government by definition is a bureaucratic monopoly.  It is managed by politicians and career bureaucrats.  Slow, inefficient, unaccountable. Lots of finger pointing, blame games, commissions, hearings, conferences, meetings, and reports, but do you know anybody that got fired after 9/11, Fort Hood, or any other government blunder?  Deja vous with this security lapse?  It feels like we are on a team that wants to lose.  And I don’t like being on a team that likes losing and neither does millions of people across the United States.

Unfortunately, until the Obama administration, Congress, and our government officials get serious with national security and the war on terrorism, then what we will lose is more of our freedoms and the lives of more American citizens.

For example, take an extreme liberal.  Liberals generally believe in large government to solve social issues.  They will endorse government regulations and increased government power.  They will do this for a number of reasons, but one common one I hear is regulation of large corporations to prevent exploitation of workers, the community, the environment, consumers and so forth.  Government then is considered a tool by the people to prevent wealth and powerful corporations from becoming too powerful and corrupt.  Powerful corporations are considered “bad” by extreme liberals because they can then use that power to exploit the people in various ways such as paying unlivable wages or dumping toxic waste near a residential area.   Corporations are also very bureaucratic and deceitful and therefore will not hear the complaints of their various stakeholders–employees, shareholders, consumers and so forth.  They will be slow to take corrections in matters such as public health or welfare until it is deemed profitable or legally necessary.

There is definitely some truth to this but there is a core problem with this philosophy.  Namely by expanding government power to “check” large corporations and their corruption, bureaucracy and deceit, they create a government that in fact acts just like a large corporation.  Government and politicians are incredibly bureaucratic, much like large private businesses.  They practice a fair amount of spin and ideological manipulation just as corporations do and are just as susceptivle corruption.  Worse, they do not have financial incentives the way a business does to become more efficient.  Where a corporation must make money at some point in order to survive, the american government can literally print its own money or increase taxes and borrowing against the future from foreign lenders.

Ironically, conservatives have a similar problem.  They are generally anti-government for exactly the above reasons, and are often pro-business to the extreme.  The problem with their view is that without SOME sort of government regulation, corporations take over, eliminate competition and fair trade through monopoly and aggressive tactics with vendors and partners  and actually use the government itself through lobbying to protect their interests.   While corporations have some monetary incentive to be efficient in a way the government doesn’t, they are not necessarily beholden directly to the public, because their leaders are not elected by the citizens, but by shareholders.  They also can practice exactly the same level of deceipt through advertising and media relations as the government.  They don’t even have to produce good products in order to survive–merely profitable ones that may be cheaply made, over-hyped or even unsafe.

Similarly, both groups will claim to be defenders of liberty.  Ironically, both fail here as well, just in different ways.  Liberals will strive for personal liberty, such as on issues of private drug use, abortion, religion in public schools, and so forth.  However, they will often vote in ways that gives the government more power to control people’s personal lives, so that it can solve problems such as poverty and health issues.  Liberalism also tends to dampen business interests through higher taxes and regulation, which doesn’t just affect large corporations  but small businesses and individual entrepreneurs as well.

Similarly, conservatives will vote to defend things like family values and strong defense, but in doing so they will curtail individual freedoms.  Allowing the government to define marriage, imprison people through the patriot act and control medical practices by outlawing abortion or medical marijuana also gives the government more interference in businesses and individual choices.

It seems that any level of extremism tends to be self-contradictory.

Does that mean we should keep polluting and consuming fossil fuels and other resources at exactly the same rate of growth that we are currently? Do we really think that we can just keep increasing our energy consumption and the oil will be there indefinitely, or that churning smog into the air from oil, gas and coal wont ever have any ill affects (look at china)? Do we think somehow the earth and its resources are infinite and can withstand a never ending increase in global population and industrialization? Should our economic interests forever outweigh the need for future sustainability?

Then I read the next paragraph which I will quote you from the picture I took on my IPhone:

“Once kids get u into the middle and high schools, the larger pathologies of the education system kick in. Boys are somewhat less expected to act like girls, though if they are too boyish they might be put back on Ritalin. Girls are now encouraged to act like boys, though, by taking up advanced science, math, and strenuous sports, which few of them have any liking or aptitude for…” (Emphasis mine.)

Really? Are you kidding?  Really??? This is what the modern day conservatives have to offer, a return to 1950’s style misogyny? Girls do not have any interest or aptitude in math or science? They can’t handle strenuous sports? I closed the book right there and walked away disgusted. Maybe I shouldn’t have. Maybe I’m not giving Derbyshire a chance. Maybe this is just one small ugly spot in an otherwise elegant and morally relevant defensive of conservatism. But I doubt it. I suspect it is more of the same, ass backwards, anti-progress, racist, sexists, nonsense that our society should already be done with.  Abuses by the left does not legitimize sexism by the right.

For the record, i grew up having no interest or aptitude in sports passed middle school, being both toothpick skinny and completely uncoordinated in my sort of developing body.  I could do math, but was far more into liberal arts. My wife on the other hand took calculus and enjoyed it up until college. My 15 year old daughter has been interested in advanced math and science for some time now.   And one of my wife’s best friends can out bench, out press, out stretch and out run me too.   I have not gotten the impression from any of them that they were pushed into these roles by society to make them more “boyish”, even if advanced academia could be considered an exclusively male attribute.

I get it. I’m pretty open minded. There are a lot of problems with our society’s overly political correct nature right now. I have no illusions that liberalism is some perfect ideology that will solve all our problems and bring us into socialist utopia. But the conservatives answer is to ignore 50 years of valuable progress and return to some supposedly golden age where women were either not allowed in the work force or if they were, expected to be put up with less pay, less responsibility and the occasional “playful” slap on the rear by their male counterparts.  That and certain types of people had to use specially designated water fountains.

This is why conservatism turns me off.  If republicans or conservatives have any hope of selling moderates like me on their platform, they better dump the archaic anti-values and come up with something that can speak to our generation, instead of trying to build a bridge back to the past.

Hello?  1950’s called.  They want their misogyny back.

First let me back up by saying that I am a utilitarian.  What this means is that I do not believe morals exist because they are handed down by God or gods.  God might indeed exist, but thats not particularly relevant.  Instead, I believe moral rules, obligations and even political laws exist for a sole purpose: to increase human happiness and decrease suffering.    I distinguish this from pure hedonism or the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it.”  There are indeed many actions like taking drugs that feel good and might make you happy in the short term but in the long term cause more suffering and pain to self and others.  I also say God is irrelevant to the discussion because I feel if God exists, he too must be a utilitarian!  The reason is that I do not think a supremely intelligent being “who is love” would create moral rules or laws arbitrarily or for his own amusement.  God would not outlaw something “just because” or to test people’s faith.  He must have a reason.  With something like stealing or killing it is obvious that when people perform these actions that they cause misery and pain, so it would make sense that God would outlaw them.   But more on God and morality another time.  For now you will just have to agree or disagree with me that morality exists for a purpose (human happiness) and does not stand in its own right.   It is a means, not an end.

Secondly, I am not a moral relativist, at least not in the strictest sense of the word.   Moral relativism is the philosophy that morals are relative to either the culture or the individual.  What is right for one individual or society may not be right for another.  There is some truth to this.  C. S. Lewis in one of his books talks about modesty as being relative to the culture, such as the amount of skin that must be covered up and how much is allowed to be shown.  In one culture, a lot of skin must be covered up in another not as much.  The reason is that in the latter culture, people are used to seeing a lot of the human body and as such it does not incite feelings of lust or tempt people into unchasteness.  One could argue that this is in a sense “moral relativism” but Lewis would deny such a claim.   Or one could bring this down to the individual level.  It might be okay for you to drink, because you have a temperate personality and not prone to getting drunk, however it might be wrong for me to drink if I were a recovering alcoholic.  So there is some truth to that as well.

Moral relativism, despite elements of truth to it, has some obvious problems.  If morals are relative to the culture, and that culture believes its necessary to sacrifice the first born infant, is that morally acceptable?  In some cultures they still perform cliterectomies as part of a ritualistic coming of age ceremony.  Is it right to say that this is an acceptable practice within that culture and we should ignore it?  Or do we have an obligate as outsiders to step in and stop this from happening when possible?  If an individual believes no one should own personal property, does he have a right to steal my car?  There are countless examples where relative morality comes to conclusions  that we won’t feel comfortable with and would be difficult to create a society we’d want to live in.

So on the one hand, there are some areas where morality seems relative and others where it seems morality is relative and others where it seems it must be absolute.  What are we to make of this?  I believe the problem stems from blurring the lines between morals and values.  I define morals as the specific rules about what is right and wrong, such as “do not steal” or “do not commit adultery” to borrow from the ten commandments.  I define values as the things moral rules are defined to protect, those things that promote human happiness (remember, utilitarian here) and decrease human suffering and pain.  Values are such things as “truth”, “love”, “life”, “freedom”, etc.  Now my thesis here is that morals are generally relative to the time, place and situation, whereas values are absolute.   For example, nobody values killing for its own sake except the criminally insane.  Life is a human value, not death.  As such its an absolute.  However the moral rule might change depending on the situation.  We generally believe that it is okay to kill in self-defense..   So the rule, the moral, is relative to the situation.  Its okay to kill in self-defense, because doing so protects your own life and might also stop a murderer.  Its not okay to kill for fun.

What is interesting about this philosophy is that with the exception of the criminal psychopaths, we all share the same values.  You can see this in the pro-life versus the pro-choice debate.  Both groups ironically share the same values!  The pro-choice group believes that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy because the embryo prior to the first trimester does not feel pain and is not truly a human being yet, or perhaps they belive the embryo might feel some pain but this is very limited and better than the woman having to give birth to a child she can’t raise.  On the other hand, the pro-life groups feel that abortion is wrong because the embryo is developed enough to be considered a human being (perhaps at conception), does feel pain and should be protected.  Also many feel that abortion causes side-effects both physical and emotional that harm the woman.

These are admittedly simplified views of the two groups and there are other variations but they’ll suffice for my example.   I think it can be proven that both groups actually share the same values, they just disagree on the best moral rules to protect and promote those values.  Both groups believe in personal freedom and the preservation of life.  The pro-lifers would be just as against a government program forcing women to have babies and the pro-choicers would be just as against the government forcing women to have abortions the way China does currently.  The two groups disagree because the two values come into conflict in a way that is not obvious to resolve.  The pro-lifers believe that personal freedom must take a backseat to protect life and the pro-choicers believe the opposite or that human life isn’t in the picture yet to need to be preserved.

This has some interesting connotations.   First it means that moral rules, or at least some of them, are relative to the situation at hand.  This shouldn’t concern us.  This isn’t the same as saying morality is “whatever I feel like” or “whatever society says is good.”  We can judge one society or culture as being better than another based on the health, happiness and other values that we all share.  Of course, its difficult to judge your own culture and easy to misjudge someone else, but this should not dissuade us.  We should try to look objectively passed our own bias at other cultures, other points of view and ask, “does this work?”  Does this make people happy, keep them healthy, prevent disease, death and misery?

This also means moral rules can change depending on the time in history. One thousand years ago,  protection of the environment was not a big concern.  If the environment is as big of an issue as some scientists say it is, than we have a moral obligation to protect it, to change our personal habits as well as our political ones to protect our air, food, energy and climate.  This is a new moral concern, relative to our situation and point in history, but the values are the same – human health and happiness.  You may disagree that the environment is a big concern, but even the most ardent right wing extremist will hesitate to shout “Pollution is good!”  This is because we share the same values and just disagree on the rules.  Similarly, other moral concerns may fall by the wayside.  If for example, there was such an abundance of technology and production of goods that everything could easily free (Star Trek fans will recognize this theme) the moral need to protect wealth, business and property may no longer be a concern.  I’m not saying this will ever happen, but we could imagine it.

I think most people, even particularly religious people, have a sense of this utilitarian concept of morals versus values, even if they don’t express it.  Religious people will not very often say “its right because god says so, and thats that” except for the most extreme among them.  I had a conversation with a conservative Christian about whether premarital sex was morally acceptable.  He told me “if pre-marital and extra-marital sex were outlawed, sexually transmitted disease would be reduced dramatically or wiped out entirely.”   He did not attempt to persuade me on purely religious grounds but he was basically saying that we as human beings would be better off if we followed this moral rule.  Although I disagreed with him, its a point I can respect.  At that moment, we were sharing the same values, even if we differed slightly on the moral rules.

We often disagree on moral principles because it isn’t always obvious what the correct moral action happens to be.  I already mentioned the abortion and environmental debates as a examples of this as are other disagreements between liberals and conservatives.  Often,  two opposing sides will accuse the other as being amoral.  While I think there are definitely plenty of amoral political figures, I think the average person has a pretty decent moral compass, regardless of which camp they fall in.  I have met very moral liberals, conservatives, moderates, theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists and fundamentalists.  I have also met crooks of all flavors.   Most would agree on things like respect for others, hard work, pursuit of love and truth, protection of children, etc. are all values we should promote.  They just don’t always agree on exactly how to do that.    There are countless gray moral areas even in just day to day life.   I think the solution here is to stand outside our own personal biases and view morality as another scientific inquiry with the purpose of increasing happiness and protecting life.  Moral knowledge will need to be flexible and increase or change, rather than just basing it solely on religious grounds, or ignoring the questions entirely.

Another weekend comes and goes. The NFL season under way.  The kids back in school.  Already I can sense that another 9/11 anniversary is fading from memory.

Friday was a very special day.  We spent the show remembering, observing, analyzing The Day and the years since.  It was an occasion to regard humanity at its worst, but also to celebrate humanity at its best.  And America at its best.

Firefighters and other first responders.  Ordinary people who reached out to help on that horrible day.  The troops who wear our nation’s uniform, fighting to prevent more attacks.  9/11 showed us how bad people can be, but also reminded us how we can come together, joined by the bonds of shared humanity.

Humanity, after all, is the point.  I do not believe we can share a human race with the kind of people who did this to us eight years ago.  They cannot be bargained with, lured over to the side of reason or ignored.  They must be killed.  All them we can find.  It is, as the saying goes, the only language they understand.

Our troops have done a magnificent job of disrupting al Qaeda, but there is much left to be done.  Iraq cannot be allowed to slip back into peril.  Afghanistan now cries out for additional forces.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says there is not much support in the country or in the Congress for that.

It kills me, but she is right.

Every year, the 9/11 anniversary seems to take us back to the feelings of that day, and then that righteous anger subsides.  Hey, the kids have homework.  The Cowboys are on.   The routines of life require our attention.

I understand, up to a point.  We cannot stay on an intense war footing 24/7/365.  Our heads would explode.  But somewhere between that and nonchalance is a responsible grasp of what we are up against and what we must do.  It is a grasp we slowly lost before the first 9/11 anniversary, as the fringes and then the mainstream of American liberalism decided that if a war was going to lead to a potential positive for the George W. Bush legacy, it was to be opposed.

I often wonder: would it take another attack to give our short-attention-span nation some clarity on what we’re up against?  I’d love to think not, but as we count each additional day and month and year without attacks, our dismissiveness increases our danger. – Mark Davis, WBAP