Flight of Fancy

This last Saturday I flew to Arizona to visit with my sister and her family. On the flight out, I had a couple of thoughts.

The first thought was, how cool would it be if commercial jetliners had transparent ceilings. I think it would be neat to lean back in my chair and stare up into the sky. Now, I think I'd only want to do this during the night as it might get a little hot in the day with the Sun shining in. Therefore the plane would need some sort of retractable window covering in case the cabin got too hot or too bright. Think how neat it would be though to stare up at the stars on a clear night, or to see lightning flashing all around you during a storm. Granted some people may prefer not to see all the lightning crashing around them, but I think it would be exciting. I originally thought it might also be a good idea to have a transparent floor, sort of like a glass bottom boat, but this seemed somewhat impractical for a commercial jetliner, though perhaps it might be feasible for a private plane of some sort. Don't get me wrong, I personally would find it exhilarating to have a transparent aisle where I could see thirty thousand feet down, or to watch the runway grow ever closer as the plane lands. However, the impracticality is that you have a cargo/baggage compartment below most aisles and as fun as a transparent aisle may be, the excitement of staring at peoples luggage for several hours doesn't seem to merit the expense of installing such a perk. It's just too slight an improvement over the existing situation, unless of course the cargo hold was filled with objects that react to a decompressed environment such has cans of soda, people's pets, or Cuban refugees; then it might be interesting enough.

The second thought I had was that airplanes are like a microcosm of life. I compared my flight to our journey through life. Life is like waking up on a plane that is just taking off and you don't remember who you are, where you're from, or where you're going. All you know is the inside of the cabin and the people inside with you, all of whom are as forgetful as yourself. The thing that really struck me is how, on a flight, you feel like you're in control and that everything is alright. However, in reality, if something goes wrong, there's really nothing you can do. Your realm of "control" and influence is wholly confined to the cabin; how you interact with your fellow passengers, whether or not you choose to listen to the occasional warnings and announcements from the pilot over the intercom, to heed the safety card or ignore it. I think this is very similar to life. I often feel like I'm in control of situations, but how much control do we really have? In the end, the only thing we actually have any true control over is our own internal lives. We control how we respond to and influence the environment in which we're placed. I think our environment can extend into our own minds. We often think of our environment as our physical surroundings, but I think it also includes our chemical makeup, which when you think about it is a physical component of ourselves. The challenge is not to try and control other things, it's to act and react in the proper way to all of the various stimuli and challenges we face, be they mental or physical. I feel it's a comfort to know that there's a pilot and a destination on our "flight" through life and that everybody is capable of discovering this if they choose to seek out our "pilot" and ask about our "flight" information. I think that we need to remember that how we conduct ourselves on our "flight" is more important than how many bags of peanuts we receive, or whether or not we get a blanket, or how much leg room we have.

The Sun will come up tomorrow (though it will be a little earlier)

Like many of you, this weekend I took part in the annual rite of springing forward, though I have to admit that I don't spring forward like I used to. This years "springing" event was exceptionally bad for me in that I only got about an inch off of the ground, tripped on my way down, twisted an ankle and bumped my head. This was still better than my falling back event in November, which I'd rather just try and forget about. As I lay on the ground rubbing my head and massaging my ego; I began to ponder this silly tradition of ours.

My ponderings led me to an interesting thought that I'd like to share. It seems that we are now on Daylight Savings Time longer than we're on Standard Time. This makes me wonder, is Standard Time really standard? It seems to be more of the anomaly than the norm. Perhaps, Daylight Savings Time is the new Standard time. Of course, if it's the new Standard Time, than what is the Old Standard time? If we do decide to move forward with this new nomenclature, then maybe "Old Standard Time" should be called "Daylight Spent Time", since we've used up all our daylight during the "New Standard Time" which leaves us in the dark from November through February. This is especially true in the northern climes, as anyone who lives up north will attest. Those months can be pretty bleak and since we've never actually been able to develop an effective means of saving, storing, and redistributing sunlight during this dark period, I feel the new wording is therefore doubly apt.

I think this new arrangement would also reflect the modern American trend of spending more than we earn. If we can spend more money than we earn, then why not spend more sunlight than we receive? In truth we've been running a net sunlight deficit for years, but we've been fooling ourselves into thinking that we're saving. In reality our trade deficit with the Sun is out of control. The Sun continues to manufacture and send light to the earth without opening it's markets to Earth based light manufacturers. According to recent scientific reports, if this trend continues the Sun's reserves will become so massive that within ten to fifteen billion years it will expand to such an extent that it will absorb the Earth. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that this will lead to a loss of our sovereignty. In order to combat this threat to our freedom, I believe our government should sends our top ambassadors to meet with the Sun's government to work to break down these trade barriers. In the mean time, I think we should all do our part by consuming more Earth based light products and cutting down on our use of solar imports. Once they see that we're going domestic, they'll be forced to negotiate a fairer trade pact.

Are the Democrats Mavericks or Spurs?

I was recently struck by a similarity between the current U.S. presidential race and the NBA. Everyone seems to be convinced that the Democrats have all the momentum and that the Republicans have pretty much tanked their chances of retaining the presidency, but I'm not so sure. This is where the similarity with the NBA comes in. The NBA is made up of two conferences, the East and the West. The West, as anyone who has listened to even the slightest amount of sports talk radio can tell you, is stacked. It has the top teams. They're the most fun to watch. They're high energy. They're innovative. They're what's right with basketball. The East, not so much. Not good. Not fun. Not high energy. Not innovative. They're, let's face it, the least. However, that doesn't mean that the West is guaranteed the title. It seems like that for the last few years many of the sports pundits have called the Western conference semi-finals the true championship series. However, the East has gone on to win the title a few of those times. Most recently two years ago when the Miami Heat upset Dallas.

I wonder if we're making the same mistake with politics. Many of the political pundits seem to believe the strength is with the Democrats; they've got the high energy, the fun, the appeal, the innovation. The road to the White House is being portrayed as being decided in the Democratic primaries. I wonder, however, if there might be too much strength in the Democratic position. In the NBA, the Western Conference teams usually beat themselves up just to make it to the finals. They're emotionally and physically beat up when they meet their Eastern Conference foe. The Eastern Conference champion however is usually fresher because of the easier path to the finale. In a similar vein, I believe that the Democratic nominee, whether Hillary or Barack, will be bruised and spent from just trying to get the nomination. Whereas John, for the Republicans, is fresh and already focused on the general election.

This of course is not a predictor of the final results. Is it better to be tested throughout the playoffs, or to have an easier first couple of rounds? In the NBA, Miami topped Dallas in 2006; but the Western Conference Spurs swept Cleveland in 2007. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this race hasn't been decided yet, and it won't be until November. I think the lesson we can learn from the NBA is that surprises and injuries happen and that a position of strength is not a predictor of victory. The Democrats should take a lesson from the Spurs. Don't be overconfident, play your game, stick to fundamentals. They probably should "sweep" the general election, but let's not count our hanging chads until Florida is disqualified from the Union.