A 380
JFK International Airport is divided between what is called landside and airside. To be allowed the privilege to drive airside, one takes training classes and one must have a security clearance. We went airside to Hangar 19 to see the new, large Group 6 aircraft, the A 380.
The plane is impressive because of its size. The wingspan is close to 300 feet. It takes 81,000 gallons of fuel that is more correctly described as taking on 100,000 tons of fuel. Can you imagine that? The front wheels of the aircraft landing gear have to be placed on a special tow vehicle so it can be towed from the ramp to the taxiway. On other aircraft, this is done with a tow bar that is simply hooked to it.
While driving airside you monitor the control tower. We knew that the plane was going to take off today, March 20, 2007 and went to see that event. The commands from the tower were to, "Lufthansa Super". The A 380 lumbered down the taxiway behind an American Airlines Boeing 767 - 300. Its wings seem very sensitive as you can see them rock a bit. The tower gave the 767 the option of taking off ahead or behind the A 380 and he chose to take off first. They taxied to runway 13 left which is the longest at JFK - 14,456 feet I think. The 767 took off as normal using about half the length of the runway. The A 380 waited its turn. I wondered how much fuel his Rolls Royce engines used while sitting at the end of the runway. The normal airside activities essentially came to an unofficial halt as many, many people watched. Operations sent two vehicles down the runway to scare off any birds and to ensure there was no debris that might get caught in the engines. The A 380 took off very easily at approximately 11:30 AM, using about 2/3 of the runway before lift.
We were drawn to this event. Ayn Rand observed the Apollo 11 launch on July 16, 1969. She described the significance as philosophical, specifically, moral-epistemological. Paraphrasing her thoughts and words to the A 380 rising:
“What we had seen was an abstraction made into reality. Engines unleashed energy that was controlled by man, ruled by his power to serve his purpose, i.e., causing a craft to rise. This was not a whim of nature, chance or luck. It was grandeur. Man’s purpose and a long sustained effort was succeeding!
We had a demonstration of man at his best. This was the cause of the attraction. No one could doubt the achievement of man, an achievement of reason, logic, mathematics, and of total dedication. The A 380 enacted a story of audacious spirit, purpose, execution, triumph and the means to achieve it. This is the story of man’s highest potential.”
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Reflections on the Fourth of July
“Honor: A History” is a book written by James Bowman that describes the loss of honor from the lexicon of 21st century American society. The author states, “Honor is stark and unrelenting” and “Americans do not like stark choices”. If one accepts the premise, the question is why has honor been lost from our vocabularies?
Observing those who would be President, Mr. Bowman may be correct. Pretenders to the throne rely on polls of the ill informed as a substitute for leadership. In contrast, our Founding Fathers did not rely on polls. They relied on the writings of John Locke, their conviction that they must stand up to the great British army and navy, and the courage to do so no matter the cost. If we are to survive as a nation in the 21st century, we should start with the definition of honor.
One may define honor as a sense of what is right, just and true. It is the finest sense of justice our minds can frame. Honor is exhibited by conscious exertion of one’s self esteem exhibited throughout the course of one’s lifetime.
As with our Founding Fathers, it is axiomatic that in each man’s life, in each nation’s there comes a time to decide between good and evil, truth and falsehood, decisive leadership or poll watching. The poem, “Once to Every Man and Nation” comes to mind. Written by James R. Lowell, this most quoted thought appeared in the “Boston Courier” on December 11, 1845. “...Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside...” We expect bravery and honor of our military leaders. We should expect no less from our civilian leaders because if we expect nothing of them, that is exactly what we will get. Reflecting on the conviction and courage of our Founding Fathers, the bravery of our military, we the people of the United States must define honor, first for ourselves as individuals and secondly, for those we elect. Never expect the converse to be true.
Ayn Rand once described to West Point’s graduating class that, “...the highest integrity and sense of honor exhibited by character, resolution, the persistence to do what is right despite the cost are virtues.” To lead the most moral country in the world, one must have an individual sense of earnestness, dedication and a conscientious awareness of honor. In order to be retained in the lexicon of the 21st century, honor has to begin with each of us, individually.
Hank Hessing
Babylon, NY
Observing those who would be President, Mr. Bowman may be correct. Pretenders to the throne rely on polls of the ill informed as a substitute for leadership. In contrast, our Founding Fathers did not rely on polls. They relied on the writings of John Locke, their conviction that they must stand up to the great British army and navy, and the courage to do so no matter the cost. If we are to survive as a nation in the 21st century, we should start with the definition of honor.
One may define honor as a sense of what is right, just and true. It is the finest sense of justice our minds can frame. Honor is exhibited by conscious exertion of one’s self esteem exhibited throughout the course of one’s lifetime.
As with our Founding Fathers, it is axiomatic that in each man’s life, in each nation’s there comes a time to decide between good and evil, truth and falsehood, decisive leadership or poll watching. The poem, “Once to Every Man and Nation” comes to mind. Written by James R. Lowell, this most quoted thought appeared in the “Boston Courier” on December 11, 1845. “...Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside...” We expect bravery and honor of our military leaders. We should expect no less from our civilian leaders because if we expect nothing of them, that is exactly what we will get. Reflecting on the conviction and courage of our Founding Fathers, the bravery of our military, we the people of the United States must define honor, first for ourselves as individuals and secondly, for those we elect. Never expect the converse to be true.
Ayn Rand once described to West Point’s graduating class that, “...the highest integrity and sense of honor exhibited by character, resolution, the persistence to do what is right despite the cost are virtues.” To lead the most moral country in the world, one must have an individual sense of earnestness, dedication and a conscientious awareness of honor. In order to be retained in the lexicon of the 21st century, honor has to begin with each of us, individually.
Hank Hessing
Babylon, NY
Monday, September 11, 2006
September 11th, 2006
The site of the former World Trade Center where 2,749 innocent people died by passenger filled missiles on September 11, 2001 still haunts our soul. Some of our bravest - police and firemen - gave all that day. In the agonizing aftermath, emergency medical technicians, policemen and firemen began searching for survivors and restoring order. Construction workers stabilized the site. Together, these are the men who keep our city functioning everyday and particularly on that day of infamy. For months thereafter they continued the work that empty suits and talking heads cannot and never will. Others stood on the sides of the road cheering those who can as they kept returning for twelve-hour shifts. Religious services were held. We buried our dead.
Today, on the north side of Vesey Street, a sparkling 52-story high-rise structure replaces one of the buildings that collapsed. Deroy Murdoch, a columnist and senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, said, “The barbarians crushed the gates, but we repelled them, with our beauty and prowess intact.” Those who can, private enterprise and capitalism, have reconstructed 7 World Trade Center. The hole in the ground where the twin towers once proudly stood remain a testament to incompetent government bureaucratic socialism and what it cannot do.
Five years have passed since the attack against freedom, individual rights, science, engineering and capitalism and yet, little has changed in our “fight” for the sanctity of our own lives. Our immediate response was to inconvenience every air traveler by making them pass through magnetometers and screening their luggage. The August 2006 foiled plot to destroy ten aircraft bound from England to the United States had us toss away water bottles and shampoo.
We sent soldiers into Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had not restrained our FBI, CIA and our military, it could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East. Unmitigated restraint in the guise of political correctness is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" these countries. Totalitarian groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and the countries supporting them such as Iran and Syria, are hell-bent on destroying capitalism and killing Americans. They sacrifice their young as suicide bombers to attack us. Golda Meir is quoted as saying, “We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Western civilization is facing an ideology that would subjugate every human being to Islam and murder everyone else. Would that our President take his own words to heart and that the vapid United States Senate, lacking moral certitude, understood that Islamic totalitarianism will be achieved if allowed to impose its religious dogma by use of force. It is a moral travesty that we do not destroy our enemy using unrestrained force and with everything in our arsenal including nuclear weapons. We should grant those who wish suicide their reward. When Islamists die rather than their victims will victory be achieved as no amount of baggage screening or tossing toothpaste will make us safe.
And if we use unrestrained force, what legitimate concern should we have for possibly harming Middle Eastern “innocents”?
In a lecture concerning “The Moral Factor” held in the Ford Hall Forum in 1976, a
similar question was posed. “Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union: assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?”
Ayn Rand’s response is quoted: “This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression--in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones – and they’re mainly in concentration camps.
If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it--because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.”
It is in our own self-interest, for the sanctity of our lives and that of other free nations whose leaders aught to be urging us to do so, that we must inflict devastation on those who would destroy us. Islamic totalitarianism ceded all “rights” on September 11, 2001.
Today, on the north side of Vesey Street, a sparkling 52-story high-rise structure replaces one of the buildings that collapsed. Deroy Murdoch, a columnist and senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, said, “The barbarians crushed the gates, but we repelled them, with our beauty and prowess intact.” Those who can, private enterprise and capitalism, have reconstructed 7 World Trade Center. The hole in the ground where the twin towers once proudly stood remain a testament to incompetent government bureaucratic socialism and what it cannot do.
Five years have passed since the attack against freedom, individual rights, science, engineering and capitalism and yet, little has changed in our “fight” for the sanctity of our own lives. Our immediate response was to inconvenience every air traveler by making them pass through magnetometers and screening their luggage. The August 2006 foiled plot to destroy ten aircraft bound from England to the United States had us toss away water bottles and shampoo.
We sent soldiers into Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had not restrained our FBI, CIA and our military, it could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East. Unmitigated restraint in the guise of political correctness is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" these countries. Totalitarian groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and the countries supporting them such as Iran and Syria, are hell-bent on destroying capitalism and killing Americans. They sacrifice their young as suicide bombers to attack us. Golda Meir is quoted as saying, “We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Western civilization is facing an ideology that would subjugate every human being to Islam and murder everyone else. Would that our President take his own words to heart and that the vapid United States Senate, lacking moral certitude, understood that Islamic totalitarianism will be achieved if allowed to impose its religious dogma by use of force. It is a moral travesty that we do not destroy our enemy using unrestrained force and with everything in our arsenal including nuclear weapons. We should grant those who wish suicide their reward. When Islamists die rather than their victims will victory be achieved as no amount of baggage screening or tossing toothpaste will make us safe.
And if we use unrestrained force, what legitimate concern should we have for possibly harming Middle Eastern “innocents”?
In a lecture concerning “The Moral Factor” held in the Ford Hall Forum in 1976, a
similar question was posed. “Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union: assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?”
Ayn Rand’s response is quoted: “This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression--in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones – and they’re mainly in concentration camps.
If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it--because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.”
It is in our own self-interest, for the sanctity of our lives and that of other free nations whose leaders aught to be urging us to do so, that we must inflict devastation on those who would destroy us. Islamic totalitarianism ceded all “rights” on September 11, 2001.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Honor
“ Say, what is honor? 'T is the finest sense Ofjustice which the human mind can frame, Intent eachlurking frailty to disclaim, And guard the way oflife from all offense Suffered or done.” – William Wordsworth
Is there a consciencious awareness of honor in American society today? Is there an individual sense of earnestness, dedication and honor or is it virtually non-existent?
There are eleven definitions of the word “honor” that appear in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913). The third definition is: “3. A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege.”
In a recent World Street Journal article, Josiah Bunting III reviewed James Bowman’s “Honor: A History” which describes the loss of honor from the lexicon of 21st century American society. The author is quoted, “Honor is stark and unrelenting” and “Americans do not like stark choices”. The article referenced the “old hymn” - “Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside.”
The “old hymn” is a poem by James R. Lowell that appeared in the Boston Courier, December 11, 1845:
Once to Every Man and Nation
Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.
In an address at West Point, the Objectivist philosopher, Ayn Rand stated, “We are the most moral country in the world.” She defined honor as “self esteem made visable in action. …the highest integrity and sense of honor exhibited by character, resolution, the persistence to do what is right despite the cost are virtues”.
Our poets, and philosophers understand what honor means. The point Mr. Bunting makes is: we must understand our own definition of honor, our enemy’s, and act honorably in confronting them if we are to survive as a nation.
Hank Hessing
Babylon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)