Letters to the Editor
WeikuBoy
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 62
-
I Heart Singapore Girls
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Earlier in this thread, while I was trying (unsuccessfully) to duplicate finding the article updating Ms. Razak's condition -- the one Sarahnity claimed she found "in five minutes" -- I, too, came across an article critical of the cabin crew in the Taipei disaster. However, it appeared to be based on the comments of a single passenger, who related that neither a flight attendant or anyone else were able to open a particular emergency door, and that, with fire closing in, he found or helped find another way out of the burning wreckage.
The same article went on to describe the horror of passengers "hanging in the air" while still strapped into their seats inside the fuselage, which appears to have been wholly or partially upended; and it mentioned past problems with similar emergency doors being difficult or impossible to open even under less trying circumstances. Actually, the most damning criticism of the crew had to do with their occupying as a group the first rescue bus that arrived on the tarmac to take survivors from the scene. That the crew members did not give up their bus seats and continue to assist passengers annoyed some people.
(No explanation was given; but it seems possible that the crew members -- some or all of whom might have been in shock -- were told to stay together in one place, and basically to get out of the way and let the emergency workers do their jobs. But that's just a guess.)
Most importantly, none of the above in any way contradicts or detracts from the heroism of 'Singapore Girls' Farzana Razak and Irene Ang, who did not run away (how was it that Evans Evans so obnoxiously put it? "screaming and crying"?). To the contrary, in order to save the lives of strangers, Ms. Razak braved a fire that burned 45% of her body (and still hurts her); while Ms. Ang went back into the burning fuselage and ultimately perished.
I have been made aware -- loudly and angrily -- that some Salon readers do not find such courage and heroism "interesting" and do not appreciate its being raised in a discussion of the role of flight attendants generally and of the Singapore Girls' ultra-glamorous image particularly. I disagree; but as an American male I am of course trained to always defer to the whims of American women, no matter how ridiculous, and thus will try no more to bring unwelcome reality into their deluded fantasy that courage and heroism cannot be found within the hearts of "girls" who are also possessed of such exquisite beauty and manners.
-
With a Whimper Not a Bang
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh and by the way, the whole point of The Pilot's article is that, rightly or wrongly, air travel is still viewed as a glamorous occupation in many other parts of the world. It's more akin to something like starring in the movies in the U.S. -- or reading the "news" on TV, or serving hot wings at Hooters, or doing pretty much any job at all that involves meeting customers or facing the general public. Non-unionized American men AND women are judged every day based on looks, without women also having to go abroad and, in the role of "honorary men" (which simply means that foreigners, though appalled at your lack of good manners, will not attempt to make you follow the basic "When in Rome" rule of travel) browbeating the rest of the world into becoming just like the YOO-nited States. There's enough of that particular arrogance already on display in Iraq, I should think.
-
Final Post (Let's Hope)
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Correction: I don't imagine working at Hooters is glamorous. I meant that we Americans -- male AND female -- are hired, promoted, and in some instances gotten rid of based on our looks, just as in other parts of the world, and that this is true not only for the few well-paid occupations that Americans consider as glamorous, such as movie star or TV newsreader, but even in poorly-paid jobs if a company's public image is involved. It is odd, in fact, that (some) airline employees are among the increasingly few Americans to have protection against such treatment. In the corporate world, looks are vitally important; and if you want REAL discrimination, see female corporate HR Directors interviewing 40+ year-old men.
Addition: I have not criticized U.S. flight attendants, who work well under trying conditions. I've described their service as efficient but grudging; and in truth I have never had a really bad experience on a U.S. airline, knock on wood. But the warmth and (yes) the glamor of some foreign carriers is a world apart, and a real treat for a lucky few American travelers.
-
If by "the American people" Broder means his G.O.P. friends?
[Read the article: Did David Broder "prop up" the Bush presidency?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dean Broder explains his propping up of Bush-Cheney as "wanting the president to succeed"; fair enough. So why did he and his colleagues refuse to extend the same courtesy to President Clinton? Why is Bush-Cheney still deserving of Broder's faith and trust, despite Osama bin-Forgotten, but Bill Clinton needed to be driven from office over a psuedo-scandal that seemed ridiculous then and seems more ridiculous in retrospect?
Let's not even get into the treatment meted out to Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Kerry by the esteemed Beltway Boys & Girls who for too long have guided America's discourse.
I especially gasped at the "powerful emotional bond" Junior supposedly formed with the American people after 9/11 (whereas I merely remember him being AWOL at a series of undisclosed locations) -- and also at Saint Reagan's "mythical dimension". If there is any hope of restoring the American Republic in the wake of Bush-Cheney, that hope must be found in the blogosphere's superseding the confederacy of dunces led by this "Dean".