FREQUENTLY WRONG; NEVER IN DOUBT

          This morning’s New York Times carried an opinion piece, “A Back Seat for Safety at the FAA,” that fairly jumped off the page as I was reading it over breakfast in the wee hours of the morning.

         Written by the former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the piece alleges that the FAA has gotten too cozy with the industry it is supposed to regulate and, as a result, safety has suffered.  Nothing could be further from the truth and the accidents statistics bear that out.

         The last fatal commercial airline accident happened more than four years ago – on February 12, 2009, to be precise – when a Colgan Airways plane, en route from Newark, N.J. to Buffalo, N.Y. slammed into a house, killing all 49 on board and one person in the house.  Tragic as that was, it happened more than four years ago, which is a phenomenal record.

         Just reflect on that for a minute.  It means transporting billions and billions of passengers – the equivalent of flying the entire U.S population, over and over again, in all kinds of weather – without anyone suffering so much as a scratch.

         This safety achievement didn’t happen by accident.  And, make no mistake, the FAA had a major role to play in this achievement.

         When I came to the FAA in 1974 as a public information officer, major commercial airline accidents were commonplace. Routinely, I had to call home to tell my wife that I would be working late fielding calls on this or that airline accident.  Then, over the years, as new technology and improved procedures were introduced, gradual safety improvements were made.  But, most of these improvements came as a result of a “forensic approach” to safety during the “fix and fly” period.

 

         The forensic approach means that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) goes to the accident scene and sifts through the smoking wreckage, looking for the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, and searching for other clues as to what might have happened.  Then, weeks or even months later, the Board determines a probable cause and recommends such and such improvements.

         It’s no wonder that these technology improvements were grimly dubbed “tombstone technology.”

         But, using the forensic approach only hit a wall when all the “low hanging fruit” had been picked clean.  Accidents no longer seemed to happen for predictable causes or in bunches, but increasingly became random and unpredictable.  The FAA focus then began to shift in the direction of preventing accidents before they occurred.  This required a dicey, politically risky regulatory shift on the part of the FAA because members of Congress and the general public like regulatory agencies to use the “tough guy” approach to enforcement.  It makes them feel better.  The problem is that it only gets us so far.

         There was and still is a place for strict enforcement, to be sure, but relying solely on the “tough cop” approach was driving underground critically needed information that the industry possessed but was afraid to divulge to the FAA.   FAA inspectors recall going into airline maintenance shops and seeing signs on the walls warning, “Don’t Talk to the FAA.”

         This led to a courageous political decision by the FAA leadership at the time to begin working more closely with industry to tease out the information needed to prevent accidents before they happened.  And it has paid huge safety dividends. “Working together” is not necessarily a synonym for “cozy.”

         So when you read Op Ed pieces like the one in today’s New York Times, don’t be deceived by seemingly authoritative titles and automatically take so-called expert opinions at face value.  Experts of all stripes can be wrong as we frequently see in so many spheres of our public life.  As President Kennedy learned after the Bay of Pigs debacle, be careful of experts.

 

         They’re frequently wrong but never in doubt.

Jerry

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

        

Yesterday’s gun control vote frustrates me, but maybe not for the same reasons it does some. I, too, wanted the measures to pass, but the sole cited reason for its failure – Senators caving under the pressure of the NRA – is a simplistic explanation. Not wrong, really, but avoiding the lesson that will have to be learned to succeed the next time.

         

The President staked meaningful measures for gun control on the outpouring of emotion in reaction to Newtown. The President and leading Democrats gambled that they had the moral authority and political power to seize the moment.  The polls and the American people were with them. They failed to utilize the political finesse inside the walls of Congress success on this issue will require.  Obama, Reid and others bet on this power, and they miscalculated.

         

Here’s what I see as the crux of the issue: President Obama offered no real cover to those Republicans who might have crossed the aisle to vote with him. He has continued to make this a binary argument: join me, or be with the NRA. By blaming the NRA, they fuel its success. Obama has not built a third-way, big tent approach that I think is very possible to create.

         

Make no mistake, the NRA is not the only opposition. They are the far-forward noisy edge. And, of course they have money and influence. But the President, who had so much going in his favor, has a credibility problem on this issue. President Obama laid the groundwork for this failure in his “clinging to guns and God” comments. Photos of him shooting skeet at Camp David were reminiscent of Dukakis in the tank. He revealed a kind of outsider’s scorn for gun culture in America. He equated that culture more recently with the events in Newtown.

         

That was a political mistake. People don’t really trust President Obama on this issue. And he overreached.

        

It’s going to take someone who understands gun-owning Americans to succeed.  I think meaningful legislation will come from a leader who believes the following:

         1. It’s not Gun Control. The art here is to de-tooth the slippery-         slope argument made by the NRA, and to build a more broad-based coalition of reasonable argument. The slippery-slope argument is that the government will create gun laws for the common good and then move toward taking away guns. Start by coming up with new words. Ask someone if they support gun          control, and get narrow support, ask someone if they support background checks, and the support is much bigger.

         2. Don’t try to exploit a tragedy. Actually, understand how to          exploit a tragedy. It’s a crime and public safety issue. Everyone hated Newtown. Yelling at your neighbor about guns to soothe pain doesn’t solve it. It will take an argument something along these lines: we don’t want to take away your guns. We want to make it less likely that guns end up in the commission of a crime, and less likely to be discharged in accidents.

         3. Know of what you speak. If you think the answer is eliminating high-capacity magazines or certain kind of weapons, then know what you are talking about. Automatic and semi-automatic are the “actions” used by a weapon to operate, sort of like standard and automatic transmissions are used by automobiles to operate. Most of my friends think anything with a          banana clip and that is black is an “automatic weapon.” Why is this important?  Like it or not, Americans know a lot about guns, just not the Americans who want to get rid of them.

         4. Make sure you don’t actually want to take away guns.  Some          people do. They see the answer as taking back guns, and eliminating the Second Amendment. European countries take this approach. It’s fine if that’s what you believe. But if you want to create successful legislation in this country, don’t make common cause with those people. They are less representative of the country at large than the lunatic fringe of gun ownership.

         5. Criminals do kill people, not just guns. This should be a crime          and public safety issue, not another part of the cultural war. Build on that idea, not what you don’t understand about why people would “want” to own a certain kind of weapon, or whether or not they “need” to own one. Some people like to go out into the desert and blast away at inanimate objects. They have that right.

I don’t think President Obama and Senators Reid and Feinstein are the right lawmakers to solve this problem. I think they are the perfect lawmakers to help the NRA raise money to defeat commonsense solutions. I want success, not just rhetoric. That's possible with the right kind of leadership.

John Lavey

A PARLIAMENT OF WHORES

          That’s the title, if you recall, of a late 1980’s book by satirist P.J. O’Rourke about the meretricious ways of Washington.  It’s a very funny book that takes no prisoners and leaves no stone unturned.  The title came to mind this morning as I was reading news reports on the shameful vote by the U.S. Senate yesterday on gun control legislation.

         This was not representative government at work.  It was a perfect example of the best government money can buy.  The Senators who opposed the bill did not vote the wishes of their constituents because the majority of Americans even in red/gun states are in favor of expanded background checks.

         Before yesterday’s vote, a member of Congress reportedly said that if the vote were secret and behind closed doors the bill would sail through the Senate without a hitch.  Implied is that some members could “not afford” to vote publicly in favor of the legislation.  What a sad commentary.

         Imagine a Senator who voted “no” coming home after the vote yesterday. When his son or daughter asked him how he voted, if he were honest he would have to admit he did not vote his conscience.  He was afraid to vote his conscience -- he might tell his son or daughter – because he might not get elected to another term in the Senate if he did that.  Can you imagine how his children must have reacted?  But, Daddy, you told us to be brave and to stand up and act on principle and do what was right no matter what.  And, Daddy, what about protecting school kids like the ones who were killed at Newtown?

         Okay, a trifle over dramatic, but the larger point is what kind of person with any sense of self-dignity would want a job where you had to leave your conscience at home and vote however influential lobbyists, such as the NRA, told you to vote?  Apparently, a few, if yesterday’s vote is any indication.  Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession and it is not just practiced by poor, unfortunate young women driven to it by circumstances.  It flourishes at the very top of our government by men in pinstripe suits.

         Yesterday’s vote does make you appreciate the political courage of Senators like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who put principle ahead of politics and joined a coalition of Senators to cobble together a bipartisan package.  Let’s hope their constituents reward them for their courage and statesmanship.  And, let’s hope that constituents of those who cowardly caved in yesterday will be told by their constituents in 2014 and 2016:  “Sorry, we can’t afford to re-elect you.  We sent you to Washington to vote for our interests and the interests of the American people.  Instead, you put your own interests first.”

         As the President said yesterday, it was a shameful day in Washington, but yesterday’s vote was only Round One.  Someday we’ll get this right.

Jerry          

ON TURNING 75

        Reaching the age of 75 is serious business.  You can begin to hear the footsteps.  When you reach 65 or 70, people say “you don’t look your age at all,” or you can comfort yourself with the old bromide “you’re just as old as you feel.”  But, at 75, the mirrors and your own body blurt out unmistakably:  “You’re old.” 

          Having reached that milestone a few weeks ago, I thought I would pass on whatever hard fought wisdom I have accumulated or learned from others along the journey and how these lessons might make it easier for you and me -- and, just as importantly, for others around us.

          First, start with the nose hair.  Yeah, that’s right, nose hair.  If you haven’t noticed, your nose hair has grown at a galloping pace, as if all the testosterone in your body has departed your nether region and headed straight towards your nose.  If you don’t have a wife to remind you, you may not have noticed because your eyesight isn’t what it used to be either.  But if you have not clipped your nose hair recently, chances are the hair is now the length of the ropes Tarzan used to swing on when you and I were kids.

          So, go buy a nose clipper – or weed whacker, as the need requires -- and put it right next to your toothbrush and shaving kit.  Use it.  Nose hair is gross.

 

          Ah, shaving.  That’s another thing.  When we were younger, even into our 40’s and early 50’s, we may have looked cool, even sexy, with a couple of days’ growth.  At 75, we look like panhandlers or street people.  Use your razor daily, if for no other reason than as a courtesy to your wife or partner.

          By the way, the word “cool” is a word that has not been used in the same sentence as a 75-year old guy since forever.  There are exceptions, such as Sean Connery and a few others.  But for most of us, we and “cool” parted company a long time ago.  “Sexy” left town even long before that.  So, don’t try to act cool; it’s embarrassing.  If not to you, at least to your family.  You don’t have to act your age either.  Don’t go that far.  In fact, old people who act their age are a pain in the ass – in Malls, shopping centers, and other public venues.  Like people owe them something special because they’ve occupied a place on this planet for a long time.  They don’t owe us anything. If we want special treatment when we get old, we should move to Asia.

          And, by the way, while we’re talking about Malls, go shopping with your wife if you haven’t done much clothes shopping for yourself in a long time.  When she’s is in a stall trying out clothes, walk over to the full length mirror and check yourself out.  Yeah, I know, it’s harsh and unforgiving.  Don’t look as cool in your faded jeans and tennis shoes as you thought you did, huh?  Me neither.  Homeless person perhaps?   Here again, young guys in their 20’s and 30’s can wear clothes that were rejected by the Salvation Army and still look cool.  We can’t.  So get over it and get some nicer clothes.  Again, as a favor to your wife or partner, if nothing else.

          Finally, for more substantive issues, let me turn to someone far more substantive than I – the anonymous author of one of my favorite pieces called “An Old Nun’s Prayer.”  I have referred to it occasionally over the years and think of it often.

  ·        “Lord, keep me from the fatal habit of thinking I must say something on every subject and on every occasion.”

   

  ·        “Release me from craving to straighten out everybody’s affairs. Make me thoughtful but not moody; helpful but not bossy.

  ·        “Keep my mind free from the recital of endless details; give me wings to get to the point.” 

 

  ·        “Seal my lips on my aches and pains; they are increasing and love of rehearsing them is becoming sweeter as the years go by.”

  ·        “I dare not ask for grace enough to enjoy the tales of others pains, but help me to endure them with patience.”

  ·        “I dare not ask for improved memory, but for growing humility and a lessening cocksureness.”

  ·        “When my memory seems to clash with the memories of others, teach me the glorious lesson that occasionally I may be mistaken.”

  ·        “Give me the ability to see good things in unexpected places and talent in unexpected people, and give me O Lord the grace to tell them so.

    AMEN.”

Jerry