Because Surviving A Dual Engine Failure Crash Landing Isn't Enough

You remember the famous Hudson water crash landing where Superman, disguised as mild-mannered U.S. Airways pilot Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, executed the most perfect crash landing you could ever hope to participate in, saved thousands of lives, and finally won the War on Terror?

Well, apparently surviving a crash landing where both of your engines are disabled simply isn't enough for some people. Take, for instance, passenger Tess Sosa.

Sosa and Sophia, 4, have needed therapy, and the Sosas have had to pay out of their own pockets because US Airways' insurer says only three counseling sessions are covered. The family has private insurance and large deductible.

The airline and insurer say compensation to the passengers has already exceeded US Airway's obligation, adding they gave $5,000 to passengers after the incident. But Sosa said she thinks the airline is still falling short.

... Commenting for AIU [U.S. Airways' insurer], Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, said he concurred that the airline and insurer had fulfilled their obligations.

"We have a flock of birds flying into jet engines for a perfectly well-functioning aircraft and a crew that exhibited extraordinary professionalism in this particular incident. This is very important to recognize, but again, the liability does not exist," he said.

This is little consolation to the Sosas, whose private insurance has a $3,000 deductible. Sosa said the family still needs help dealing with the trauma, especially Sophia.
advertisement

The family just received another $1,000 bill for therapy sessions.

"I expect my family to be taken care of in the very best way possible, and I don't feel like that's happening when you're balking at my claims to a therapist and you are setting limits on that," she said.

So check this out. In thirty seconds I was able to procure the US Airways Terms of Transport (Revision 5) via their website (http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/aboutus/customersfirst/contractofcarriage.aspx) and find the airline's liability to passengers in the event of an accident:

Consequential damages: Purchase of a ticket does not guarantee transportation. US Airways shall in no event be liable for any indirect, special, or consequential damages resulting from the performance of, delay in performance of, or failure to perform transportation of customers and other services incidental thereto (except baggage liability, section 11) whether or not US Airways had knowledge that such damages might be incurred.

And in the very first paragraph of the introduction, it states: "Travel on US Airways shall be deemed acceptance by the customer of US Airways' terms of transportation."

In other words, Tess Sosa, you implicitly agreed to not hold US Airways liable for ANYTHING that happened to you on that flight simply by stepping on the aircraft. Maybe next time you'll read an airline's terms before you decide whether or not to buy that ticket.

Or, as I am fond of saying: pwn3d.

Ping 127.0.0.1

Hello? Do I even update this blog anymore? Who knows? But I'm not dead or anything. At the same time, teh politics is quite boring these days. But, hey, iPhone 3GS hardware and stuff, right?

AFK...

The Governator Compliments Limbaugh On Weight Loss

Sonia Sotomayor: Aspirations To Judicial Impartiality A Pipe Dream

Last night I was watching Lou Dobbs (for teh lulz) on CNN and he was discussing a few remarks President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor - a Hispanic - had delivered back in 2001 to the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. The specific quote he cited was this:

"...I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Jeffrey Toobin, some CNN douchenozzle, was a panelist on the show and he brought up the issue of context. I was also thinking the same thing: I wanted to read the context in which the statement was made.

Moreover, Toobin said that the point Sotomayor was making was that "...it's a good thing to have a diverse bench..." We'll come back to this later.

So I went out and found the full text of Sotomayor's speech here. I read it. Dobbs was on the money this time.

Here is a larger excerpt leading up to the quote in question:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

(Emphasis mine.)

I can find no relevant context in the statements leading up to the quote that place it in a different light than racism. Or if there should have been a contextual framing, Sotomayor failed to do so.

Secondly, if Toobin had actually read and understood the speech, he would have realized that Sotomayor's point wasn't about the good that may come from a diverse bench. Sotomayor's whole point was, in her own words, this:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

...I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration...

(Emphasis mine.)

Moreoever, any advocacy Sotomayor has for a diverse judicial bench seems to stem from her belief that it would balance out the racist decisions being made by the white male judges on that bench.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.

(Emphasis mine.)

Hint, hint: We need women and minority Supreme Court Justices to balance out all the racism that the white male Justices bring to the table.

Wow.

But what is racism, or sexism, or any type of discrimination, but anything other than the lack of impartiality? Racism is what happens when one does not aspire to impartiality.

So Sotomayor is okay with judicial biases - but only when they come from women or minority judges. Judicial biases coming from white men, however, are wrong.

This view that Sotomayor holds should bother a lot of people. It bothers the fuck out of me.

Terminator's Product Placement

So I watched the latest Terminator movie last night. The visuals were pretty cool, but the storyline was pretty weak. But there was this one scene where Bale's character, John Connor, is hacking into a security system on a small mobile device. And then I glimpse it: "Vaio" on the upper right corner of the device.

Face. Palm. To the max.

Abrams' "Star Trek"

Best. Film. Ever.

Holy shit. I've seen this movie twice and my craving for some more sexay USS Enterprise footage has not been sated. I don't know how that genius Abrams does it, but every scene of the Enterprise is sweet, delicious sexual intercourse with my eyeballs. The Enterprise never looked so good; nor has it ever kicked as much ass.

Up until last weekend, after my first viewing, but before my second, the new Trek film was neck-and-neck with Favreau's Iron Man for my favorite movie of the universe. But after seeing the utterly gorgeous choreography of Abrams' space battles again, I had to hand it to Trek.

J.J. Abrams essentially reboots the series by utilizing string theory in creating an alternate universe for the crew of the Enterprise. It's not so different that they do not all serve on the same starship, but it is different enough to impact James T. Kirk's life - from the moment of his birth.

I find this implementation acceptable. Most other directors don't really care enough to try to explain a new interpretation to old source material. For example, the chronologically second Hulk movie makes it seem like the first origin film never happened. It doesn't try to explain another origin film; it just ignores the first one, hoping it will go away.

That said, I do consider myself to be an old school Trekkie. Even so, I feel Abrams and the cast of the film treated the source material with respect. It is evident that Chris Pine and Karl Urban both studied the peculiarities of Shatner's Kirk and Kelley's McCoy, respectively.

But, again, my absolute favorite parts of the film involve starship choreography. The camera work really captures the immense sizes of these ships; it's very stylized and dramatic, and I love it so hard. During one scene where the Enterprise drops out of warp firing its full phaser spread, I had to control myself from jumping out of my chair and yelling "Fuck yeah!" with my fist in the air.

It was fucking pwnage.

Abrams has breathed new life into the Star Trek series. And I am extremely happy with the direction it's going. I look forward to more Trek movies.

Watch Fail

Diesel designs a watch without a face.

"So let me get this straight: reading the right side of this watch (if worn on the left arm) requires me to make a fist and point it at my face.

"I think if I actually bought one of these, I'd do everyone a favor and just go ahead and punch myself in the face while I was at it."

Win.