phik

I have a lot of friends who are user-interface-savvy, some of whom even have advanced degrees in perhaps-relevant areas of study.

So maybe some of them could please start applying for jobs at Garmin (and probably all of the other glass-panel avionics manufacturers beside).

I’ve never used a G1000 in flight, but I’ve read plenty about them, and every single experience goes something like this. Which, given the infuriating interface of the simpler Garmin aircraft GPS units to which I’m accustomed, is no surprise.

Donald Norman is spinning in his grave and he’s not even dead yet.

These are not the idle complaints of nitpicky rich people who need day jobs. It’s not like having a handle on a “push” door. This is turning a plane full of people into a fine pink mist because a pilot gets confused about where the mountaintop is on a low-visibility approach.

I bet that before the decade is out, we’ll have at least a dozen NTSB reports that include terrible glass-cockpit user interfaces in the probable cause.

I rang the local helicopter hire/training place this week, to inquire about their R44.

I knew it would be more expensive here. I had girded my loins for this practicality.

Jandakot Helicopters, however, charges 880 rapidly-appreciating Australian dollars per hour.

That is roughly seven hundred and seventy-five Earth dollars, more than two and a half times what I pay in Boston.

Or to put that in some perspective, after 400 hours I could buy the ship outright. (It has a useful life of 2,200 hours before a very major overhaul is required.)

And some people seem genuinely surprised that general aviation in Australia is dead.

I’ve been pondering lately why more of my friends aren’t on board with Ron Paul.

A fair number are on board. Some of the others are easy to understand: a couple are genuinely socialist, and most of the rest seem to be entirely uninterested in politics, or at least in talking about it. But there are also a few people for whom I thought Ron would be right in their wheelhouse, and for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened.

Robert, my friend, you’re the most perplexing of all. Of everyone, I think you’re the one who most consistently shares my own political beliefs, and your recent criticisms took me somewhat by surprise. There are a couple points I think need making:

• Gold — I’m not an economist. Though some will argue otherwise, there seems to be ample room for debate both for and against asset-backed currency, and I’m certainly not in a position to make convincing arguments. More interesting, if you ask me, is his desire to legalize competing currencies and eliminate the taxes on gold to facilitate alternatives to our fiat dollar.

  Regardless, whether he’s right or wrong, I think this issue should barely move the needle. Such a major monetary policy decision is not one that a President can make without Congress. I don’t know why people get so worked up about this particular campaign plank that would very likely be impossible to implement anyway.

• The “Amero” — I also don’t know why the NAFTA superhighway and closer North American integration are referred to (by most people, not just you) as conspiracies. Certainly the Congressman doesn’t refer to them that way.

  There is already a NAFTA superhighway, and an organization that supports it. The NASCO web site itself reads: “There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35.” See also the Government of Alberta. Some politicians, such as Mexico’s ambassador to the United Nations, are quite outspoken about an American union.

  You wrote, “The North American Union, unsupported by facts, is simply not going to happen.” On what do you base this assertion?

  To be clear, I don’t think it’s imminent — I don’t think the presidents and prime minister are executing some grand vision — but I also don’t see anything absurd about it. There’s nothing unusual about government, particularly this one, striving for yet more government. Mexican politicians promote weakening American sovereignty at every opportunity. The narrowly-averted immigration proposals of last summer would have been a leap toward labour integration. Where is the absurdity?

  The EU took a good 50 years to develop from a trade partnership to a single currency zone with supra-national legislation; it didn’t spring fully-formed from some Belgian’s breast. These things happen over long periods of time, via small steps, most of which I imagine seemed reasonable on their own.

  But here’s my real question in the context of Ron Paul: why is it relevant?

  If you honestly don’t believe that our trajectory is towards weaker national sovereignty and all the rest — then what exactly is the harm? If you elect Ron Paul, you know that he’ll work to prevent it from happening.

  The only reason to be concerned about a Paul presidency is if you want an American Union.

• “a nativist and an isolationist” — You use these labels again and again, but even the definitions that you chose clearly don’t apply.

  “Nativism is an opposition to immigration”, which is a serious mischaracterization of his views. He’s opposed to illegal immigration, which is to say that he favours enforcing the law. Amazingly, that is what passes for “hard line” in the modern immigration debate.

  It’s true that he wants to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, and I don’t disagree. It’s one of many powerful subsidies for illegal immigration.

  He also favours immigration reform — “The current system is incoherent and unfair.” — but not what (almost) passed for reform last summer.

  I don’t know how you get from there to “nativist”. Have you seen speeches or writings that support that claim?

  As for isolationist, if we must deal in labels, I think we should not have difficulty agreeing that “non-interventionist” is far more accurate.

  To be an isolationist you must first be a protectionist, which does not in any universe describe Dr. Paul.

  Ron has written and spoken extensively on his commitment to free trade, eliminating tariffs, open travel, and broad diplomacy. Global Trade Watch rates him second only to Kucinich on his free-trade voting record.

  He wants to end our embargoes and allow Americans to once again travel the world unrestricted. That’s isolationist?

  Indeed, let’s not confuse his numerous votes against managed trade with being against free trade. He dislikes NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, &c. because they create more government, more regulation, and less sovereignty, as opposed to actual free trade. Even CATO — which classifies such agreements as free trade — gives him a 76% free trade voting record.

  I can understand why you used “isolationist” — “non-interventionist” doesn’t have the same epithetical punch — but you’re too articulate to resort to that kind of rhetorical fallacy.

Next time I’ll write about why I like him, instead of just reacting to why Robert says he doesn’t.

From this week’s Democratic radio address:

We gave back to our men and women in uniform who are sacrificing so much — but because of President Bush, they remain in Iraq without a clear mission or endgame, and our Armed Forces are stretched to a breaking point.

Sure, it’s President Bush’s policy — but it’s Congress’s decision. Every time they provide war funding they’re re-approving the war and the tactics, every bit as complicit in its continuation as the President.

Sure, he vetoed the bill that contained a timeline for withdrawal.

But the President can’t spend money that Congress doesn’t give him. He can’t sign a bill that Congress doesn’t pass. That’s the great thing about our system. And the Republicans can’t pass war funding without help from the Democrats.

So it’s easy: don’t pass a bill with war funding. Make the President veto the budget. Make him shut down the government. Ending an ill-conceived war should be the top priority of any nation.

They have failed just as surely, and just as completely, as the Republicans did. Nothing has changed.

Since we apparently can’t rely on Congress, if you want the troops home there’s only one presidential candidate from either party promising to withdraw not just from Iraq, but from most of the costly, terror-inciting, none-of-our-business military bases worldwide: Ron Paul