Dear Patrick,

I'm a devoted reader of, fairly regular writer to your column and all-around member of your fan club. Partially that's due to the fact that the same things that fascinate you about aviation also fascinate me, but partially it's due to the fact that I share both your worldview about the crazy times we live in and your strict adherence to logic.

That said, I think today's column takes a slight detour from your normally rigorous logic. It's clearly too soon to make a final judgment on the actions of the Air Marshalls in Miami, or on what those actions say about the system as a whole, which you also acknowledge. But while you heavily criticize them in the lead, at first blush, they did exactly what you spend most of this column (as well as most of many other columns) advocating for: enforcing security based on actions and intent, not dumb things like scissors and sneakers.

Whether the use of *deadly* force was warranted is an unanswered and very important question. Among other things, I don't know what their protocol is for these things – whether it's a "if you shoot at all, shoot to kill" situation, as many police protocols are. But on balance, a guy running around an airplane screaming incoherently and reaching for something in a bag is *exactly* the type of threat that at least I believe we should be responding to – as opposed to weeding out manicure kits at security. It's a dangerous behavior, and at least apparently, an intent to do harm. I share your belief that a lot of our response since 9/11 has been overblown, wasteful and not very effective. But this one, at least on the face of it, seems to me like a counter-example.

You know why I liked this letter and Cary's response? Because depite being a really big liberal and all that, I sometimes get so sick of all the P.C. whining and coddling and excuse-making. I liked the letter for the same reason Cary seems to have – yep, some people are just dumb. It's refreshing to say that and then think contructively about how someone in that spot can still be successful – and they can. Is it possible that the kid has a long-undiagnosed learning disorder or mental illness or webbed feet or whatever the thing of the week is? Yes, it's possible, and I guess a round of tests couldn't hurt. But folks, although he is a little pompous, the dad is a TEACHER who is clearly pretty smart and the mom is evidently REALLY worried about all this, so don't you think they thought of that? I have lots of friends who are teachers, and every one of them says they can spot kids who have potential problems from a mile away – they may not know what problem specifically, but enough to refer the kid for some tests.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the kid can be confirmed not to have any of the fashionable diagnoses of the day – then would it be okay? I guess I'm just frustrated by a world in which everything has a pharmaceutical cure or a protected status. Some people are really just garden variety dumb, and i think Cary's pragmatic approach of "OK, he's dumb – so now what?" is right on the money.

I'm not generally either an Oprah-defender or a letter-writer, but something about this article made me deeply angry – not to mention the fact that i think it totally misses the point.

The point is that this quality of Oprah is EXACTLY what has made her successful – the self-depricating, over-sharing, realness of her. Her show and it's spin-offs have succeeded because people feel they can relate to her, precisely because she isn't perfect (like Martha Stewart tried to be before everything blew up for her) or plastic (like Jerry Springer and pretty much all the rest of the talk-show host crowd). She's flawed and real-seeming, and if her opening of the school showed her flawed and real self, well then so much the better. And I don't mean to suggest in a cynical way that it was all calculated just for appearances – i think some if not most of her schtick IS real.

Ms. Traister failed to mention in the article what i found one of the most interesting parts of the school opening, IMHO – that Oprah took an AIDS test and agreed to pay for tests, counseling and treatment for all the students and their families. Symbolic? Yes. A stunt? Maybe. But still brave and wise in a country where the taboo of AIDS still makes detection and treatment hard to impossible even when there are resources for them available. If one girl takes that test, finds out that she is positive and gets treatment, that act has altered the course of dozens of people's lives for the better.

So what if she is flawed and still troubled by her own background? In my view, that makes her that much more of a good messenger – and a good role model – for these girls, many of which will undoubtedly have to battle the same demons.

...But i gotta say, I enjoy Cary's column today even more than usual because its such an eloquent smackdown of the whole "i wear black on the outside because i feel black on the inside" uber-smarty-pants thing. I'm just not a real big fan of the "I think bigger thoughts than you" crowd, and it's so nice to see someone who's your intellectual superior break it down so simply as Cary did: "get over yourself!"