Beaten with a Stupid Stick

A quick report from the trenches.

Okay, here’s a true story about a “senior” couple who committed three acts of stupidity right in front of me in the span of ten minutes.

Background: The couple were living in a motorhome in the parking space next to mine. They’ve been there four days. They also have an SUV that, when they’re on the move, is towed behind the motorhome. This is commonly known as a “towed” or “toad.”

Stupid Trick #1

I went out to locate a cherry orchard. When I returned, I saw the motorhome driving through the parking lot in front of the campground parking spaces. It made a U-turn, then drove back toward where it had been parked. The SUV was also on the move with the wife behind the wheel. The motorhome stopped right in front of my camper, right in the space I’d been parking in every single day and night since they arrived. I pulled in behind it, hoping my presence would give the idiot at the wheel the hint that he should move up. He didn’t take the hint. He parked and shut down the engine.

The whole f*cking parking lot is available, but they have to park in my space as I’m returning.

Stupid Trick #2

I parked elsewhere and walked around the front of my camper. Their water connection is in my “yard.” They’d disconnected their hose but had left the water dribbling out of the faucet. Loudly. You know how some outdoor faucets get when you don’t turn them off all the way? A loud, whistle-gurgle? It was enough noise that it would have kept me up at night.

I figured it was broken, but I stepped up to it anyway and attempted to twist it off. No problem. I shut it off and it stopped dripping.

Apparently, shutting off a faucet is too difficult for the brain-dead.

Stupid Trick #3

It had been windy for the past few days and I’d stowed my awning. Now the sun was out and the wind was calm. While they were right in front of my camper, in my parking spot, hooking up their toad, I began extending my awning. Then I arranged my lounge chair and table under it.

The husband came around the front of my spot. He’d finished hooking up the SUV to the motorhome. “We’ll just be about three minutes,” he said. “Then we’ll be out of your way.”

“No problem,” I said, just wishing he was gone already. “I parked somewhere else.”

“Oh,” he said, looking puzzled. “I thought you were getting ready to leave.”

Tell me, how stupid does a person have to be to think that extending an awning and arranging lawn furniture can be confused with leaving? Any moron could tell that I was settling back in. Can’t drive a camper with a f*cking awning hanging out, can I? Can’t stow a lounge chair if I’ve just extended it on the lawn, can I?

They’re on the Road Now

People like this are driving large motorhomes on our roads and freeways. Right now.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Creation Museum

Yeah. Science lies. Believe this crap instead.

I learned this morning that the Creation Museum’s attendance exceeds expectations. I find this factoid distressing.

If you haven’t heard of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, consider yourself lucky. This bible-story-gone-wild uses exhibits to illustrate biblical explanations of the natural world. In doing so, it’s attracting thousands of Christian school students on field trips. From the Courier-Journal article:

Inside, the students learned from displays that, contrary to mainstream textbooks, science supports the Bible’s accounts of the Earth’s creation in six days; that the Grand Canyon was created suddenly in Noah’s flood; that dinosaurs and humans lived together; and that animal poison did not exist before Adam’s original sin.

This, as a “supplement” to science lessons.

My first exposure to the Creation Museum came from a John Scalzi photographic tour titled “A Visit to the Creation Museum, 11/10/07.” I clearly remember viewing the photos and great captions Scalzi put on Flickr; I was stuck at the FBO at Las Vegas McCarren Airport, waiting for a helicopter mechanic to replace my alternator belt, feet up, surfing on my laptop. It was the highlight of the day. Also quite enjoyable was Scalzi’s blog post, “Your Creation Museum Report.” It really got to the meat of the matter. I recall reading it, wondering how long it would be until the “museum” was laughed out of existence.

And then this report about its popularity, complete with stories of visits by school children as part of their science lessons. Those school groups make up 20 to 30 percent of the attendance.

Ouch.

Now my question is this: Of the 70 to 80 percent of other visitors, how many of them are visiting, like Scalzi did, to take in this spectacle of ignorance and close mindedness? How many of them want to see irrationally designed models and dioramas depicting impossible scenes from natural history? How many of them just go for a good laugh?

I hope that most of them do. The alternative — that people actually believe this crap — is too frightening to consider.

It’s bad enough that they’re exposing our children to it.

Greed is Stupid

Just one example.

I’m in Quincy, WA, right now, living in my camper while I work four cherry drying contracts. I live in my camper because it’s cheaper than living in a motel. A lot cheaper. And since I can cook my own meals, I save a ton of money over the cost of a motel.

One of my contracts is for an orchard down by the Columbia River. There’s a campground literally across the street from it. The campground is also right on the river. I thought it might be nice to stay there for the duration.

I called. They wanted $42 per night for a hookup that included water and power, but no sewer. They weren’t interested in giving a discount for long-term stays. In fact, they didn’t seem to want long-term guests. I figured it was because they were so busy they didn’t need the business.

I knew I could camp at the Colockum Golf Course (formerly the Quincy Golf Course) for $300/month. The site included electricity, water, and sewer. High-speed, reliable WiFi was also available for an additional $35/month. There’s even a restaurant on the premises.

I couldn’t justify the additional $30+ per night for a campsite with fewer amenities. I parked at Quincy, where I’ll likely spend the next seven weeks.

Yesterday evening, I drove down to the orchard to refresh my memory about the setup. I needed to know where the powerlines were and whether there was a fan in the block. While I was down there, I drove through the $42/night campground.

Every single spot was empty.

So explain this to me: wouldn’t it be more beneficial to get someone in there for $20/night ($600/month) rather than no one in there for $42/night?

A perfect example of how greed can be stupid.

How to Annoy Other Helicopter Pilots

When a pilot’s attitude problem leads to safety issues.

Last week, Mike and I took my brother and sister-in-law for a day trip to a popular scenic destination here in Arizona. I’m purposely being vague here to obscure the identify of the subject of this post.

Helipad DiagramThe airport we landed at has a special helicopter area that consists of a large landing pad and six parking spaces. You can see the layout in the image here, captured from Google Maps. I’ve never seen anyone use the big pad. I parked in the spot marked “My Heli.” When I touched down, all the other pads were empty, although as we walked away, an Enstrom flew in and parked at the other end of my row of pads. He was gone before we returned a few hours later.

Some Background on the Parking “Turf War”

One of the helicopter tour operators at this destination uses the pads marked #1 and #2 in the illustration. About a year before, right after they started operating, I landed at the airport and attempted to set down in my usual parking space. A pilot was spinning on #2 and asked me to park on one of the other pads. Not knowing why — but assuming he had good reason to ask — I moved over.

I later discovered that he liked to take off through the spot where I normally parked and I was in his way. That kind of pissed me off. After all, I usually come with passengers and it’s a long enough walk to the terminal. My usual spot was the safest (pointing my tail rotor away from where people were likely to be walking) and most convenient (shorter distance to the terminal). I decided that I’d park there whenever the spot was available.

Another time when I came in for a landing, the same pilot asked me again to move over. When I said I preferred to park where I was, he said he was worried about damaging my blades as he went in and out of his spot. I didn’t say what I was thinking: how bad a pilot could he be that he couldn’t avoid another helicopter on such well-spaced pads? Instead, I told him I wasn’t worried and I used my blade tie-downs before leaving the area.

When I arrived the other day, I was glad that other pilot wasn’t around to ask me to move. Just in case he was out and about, I did tie down my blades.

An Unsafe Departure

We returned to the airport after a nice hike and walked back out to the helicopter. Now there was a tour helicopter on the pad marked #1. He’d just started up and was warming up the engine with passengers on board.

On the HelipadI wanted to get some video of my helicopter sitting on the pad with the scenery behind it as a jet took off on the runway. I asked my passengers to stand by the blue X while I did this. I assumed that the helicopter on pad #1 would depart along the markings in the helipad area. That’s what we’re trained to do. That’s why there are markings there. My passengers would be well out of the pilot’s way and safe — or as safe as possible in an active helicopter landing area.

I assumed wrong. The helicopter picked up to a 10-foot hover and hovered straight out toward the opposite pad, right next to mine. (See the straight green arrow in the illustration.) It was less than 15 feet from my waiting passengers as it paused at the back edge of the pad, over concrete and dirt. Dust, small pebbles, and grass clippings went flying all over us. Then the pilot took off, leaving us to brush debris out of our hair and clothing.

I was angry. The pilot’s departure was unsafe. Not only did his unusually high hover put his own passengers at risk in the even of an engine failure, but his proximity to us was downright dangerous. There was no reason for his departure route. He could have more safely departed across pad #2 (which was empty) or behind (above in the image) pad #2.

My husband, Mike, who is also a helicopter pilot, commented on the departure immediately, calling the pilot an asshole. I couldn’t agree more.

The other company helicopter returned from a flight and landed across from mine in pad #2. My group climbed into my helicopter and I started the engine. While warming up, the helicopter on #2 changed passengers. By this time, we had headsets on and were monitoring the radio. The pilot politely asked if I was ready to go. I told him I was still warming up and that he could depart. He picked up into a hover and hovered from the pad to the taxiway (see the bent green line in the illustration) — as I assumed the other helicopter would have done — and departed.

Teaching Me a Lesson?

I was almost ready to do my mag check when the first helicopter returned. The flight couldn’t have lasted more than 8 minutes. The pilot came in on the taxiway from the northeast and asked on the radio if the “Robbie” would hold position. (The way he said “Robbie” was definitely condescending; sit a guy in a turbine helicopter and he forgets what he learned to fly in.) I told him I would remain on the pad. As he taxied in for landing — before he even touched down– he told me that if I’d park at one of the other pads, I would be out of his way and my passengers wouldn’t get dusted.

This absolutely enraged me. This was obviously the same pilot who had told me to park elsewhere in the past. Apparently, he’d purposely hovered past my passengers — my family members putting them at risk — to teach me a lesson. Now he was making sure I understood. He also very condescendingly added that they like to see out-of-town visitors, but it’s better if they park on one of the other pads.

Until this point, the parking situation had been a turf war between the tour operator’s pilots and the other helicopters who land and park at that airport. But with this incident, it became a serious safety issue. I got extremely rude to the pilot on the radio — I admit it — and, after telling him that I didn’t like him putting my passengers at risk, I said that I’d park “Any damn place I wanted.” He told me not to “cuss over the radio” and then tried to smooth it over by saying he was trying to be courteous. I told him he should be safe first.

Why?

The question I have after all of this is, why?

Why should a pilot care where other pilots park, as long as they’re not in his assigned space?

Why would a pilot purposely put people on the ground at risk to prove a point?

Why would a tour company hire a pilot with an attitude like this?

As you might guess, I didn’t let this go. I reported it to the FAA. I did it more to get the incident on record than to initiate any kind of action. If anyone else complains, I want my complaint to provide additional evidence of an ongoing problem.

The way I see it, each pilot represents all other pilots. When one pilot does something stupid and dangerous, he’s making all of us look bad. I work too hard to keep my own operations safe and trouble-free to tolerate this kind of bull from a pilot with an attitude problem.

What do you think about this? Use the comments link or form for this post to share your thoughts.

On Illiteracy and the CelebCult

Thoughts about the demise of intelligence and critical thinking.

Today, two thought-provoking articles that I read online came together in my brain. Here’s the meat of the matter.

Can You Read Me Now?

About three weeks ago, one of my Twitter friends, @BlankBaby, tweeted a link to an article on truthdig by Chris Hedges titled “America the Illiterate.” The article begins with a few statements I can’t help but agree with:

We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.

At no time did this become more evident than during our recent presidential campaign. Consider these points:

Existing in a non-reality-based belief system? Unable to distinguish between lies and truth? Informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés? Yeah. I think so.

Mr. Hedges’ article goes into some detail about the problem of illiteracy in America. He has statistics — although I’m not sure where they’re from — that claim 42 million American adults, including 20% with high school diplomas, cannot read and 50 million read at an elementary school level. He claims — and, as a writer, I find this hard to believe — that “…42 percent of college graduates never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.”

There’s a lot more and it makes for fascinating reading. I agree with much of the opinion content, which is unfortunate because it paints such a bleak picture of Americans. But the following quote stuck with me when I read the piece and I actually clipped it out to write about it later:

In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek or want honesty. We ask to be indulged and entertained by clichés, stereotypes and mythic narratives that tell us we can be whomever we want to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities and that our glorious future is preordained, either because of our attributes as Americans or because we are blessed by God or both.

I’m reminded of thought-free flag-wavers who cry treason whenever someone uses their Constitutional right of free speech to question American policies at home and overseas. I’m reminded of Sarah Palin, claiming that these flag-wavers are the “real Americans” while the rest of us, in that other America — the people who know how to think critically — are unpatriotic.

A Canary Speaks Out

This morning, I followed up on another link sent out into the ether by a Twitter friend that turned out to be related — at least in my mind. @BWJones linked to an article by noted film critic Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times blog called “Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!” In it, Mr. Ebert claims that “a newspaper film critic is like a canary in a coal mine.” His piece was prompted by a 500-word limit imposed by the Associated Press (AP) for all articles by entertainment writers.

Worse, the AP wants its writers on the entertainment beat to focus more on the kind of brief celebrity items its clients apparently hunger for. The AP, long considered obligatory to the task of running a North American newspaper, has been hit with some cancellations lately, and no doubt has been informed what its customers want: Affairs, divorces, addiction, disease, success, failure, death watches, tirades, arrests, hissy fits, scandals, who has been “seen with” somebody, who has been “spotted with” somebody, and “top ten” lists of the above. (Celebs “seen with” desire to be seen, celebs “spotted with” do not desire to be seen.)

He goes on to say:

The CelebCult virus is eating our culture alive, and newspapers voluntarily expose themselves to it. It teaches shabby values to young people, festers unwholesome curiosity, violates privacy, and is indifferent to meaningful achievement.

That’s the root of the matter right there. People are more interested in celebrity lives than just about anything else. They’d rather read about what a “hot” celebrity ate for lunch yesterday than the failing economy, war in Iraq or Afghanistan, energy problems and solutions, or the struggles of third-world nations against poverty, disease, and genocide.

Of course, they’d rather see video or pictures of what the celebrity ate for lunch. No reading required.

It’s a failure of critical thinking. Too many people living in a non-reality-based world. And the media is feeding it. Newspapers and television channels are selling out, providing this low-level content just to survive.

Mr. Ebert points out, “As the CelebCult triumphs, major newspapers have been firing experienced film critics. They want to devote less of their space to considered prose, and more to ignorant gawking.” He goes on to say:

Why do we need critics? A good friend of mine in a very big city was once told by his editor that the critic should “reflect the taste of the readers.” My friend said, “Does that mean the food critic should love McDonald’s?” The editor: “Absolutely.” I don’t believe readers buy a newspaper to read variations on the Ed McMahon line, “You are correct, sir!” A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.

But his conclusion is what ties his piece in with the truthdig article I started this post with — at least for me:

The celebrity culture is infantilizing us. We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically. It is about the failure of our educational system. It is not about dumbing-down. It is about snuffing out.

Think about it…if you can.