Familiarise yourself with the brace position

Recently, I flew my family across the country. Sitting next to my 4 year old daughter was interesting for more reasons than the obvious. She was captivated by the airline staff playing out the safety instructions. Her favourite part was the display of appropriate use of the brace position. She would act it out for the first 25 minutes of the flight. She would hold the safety procedures card for the whole flight, continually pointing to the brace position diagram. She was telling me, "Familiarise yourself with the brace position", then would demonstrate for me.

Riding on planes has been a polemically different experience to riding on trains, as I normally do. There are some glaring differences; and I am not just talking about the height and speed at which one travels.

One of the things I notice most on trains is the people riding them. Naturally, the people on the plane did not go unnoticed by myself. I noticed that the people on the plane are much more civil, even considerate, when dealing with their fellow passengers. I have thought of a few possible reasons for this incongruity in interpersonal relationships witnessed on two different modes of public transport.

First, I thought that the difference in the way people treat each other may be due to the fact that on the plane you get free food and a TV to watch. Two basic principles in people management; feed them and entertain them and they will do what you want them to do. Julius Caesar knew this when he made sure that the Roman masses only needed to have their 'bread and circus' for them to love and obey him. True the 'bread' of Roman fare from some 2000 years past is vastly different to the menu offered by modern day airline companies, and the circus of pre-Christian Rome is not quite the same as the airing of an episode of 'How I Met Your Mother' (although some would say that dating is very much like being fed to the lions!), the principle remains the same.

Secondly, I ruminated on the fact that most people catch a train to go to work. Not really exciting, but necessary. The vast majority of people catching our plane were not travelling to work, rather they were going on holiday. This was definitely true for me. The destination, and reason for travelling, may well have induced a higher state of euphoria, and overall contentment, in the average passenger.

On the surface, riding on trains and riding on planes is similar in its experience. One simply boards a mass transit vehicle and is taken from Point A to Point B. Yet, when one delves deeper into the experience, some glaring differences come to light. And these differences would seem to produce a different reaction from the respective passengers. In the words of an unnamed friend, and work colleague, the experience is "exactly the same, but nothing like it."

In this period of holiday bliss I have considered something else that is exactly the same but nothing like a normal experience for many of us; shopping.

The Christmas period is normally full of peace, joy and a happy Christmas and to all a good night. Yes, there are some who do not have this joyous experience. There are those who can't revel in the pageantry due to that embarrassing incident at the office Christmas party. And others do not enjoy this season for different reasons. I think one of those reasons is the shopping.

Christmas shopping is a nightmare. It all starts with trying to find a car park at the local shopping centre. Along with the other 3000 people hoping to pick up a bargain or two. Now parking the car is normally not all that stressful. Difficult at times, yes, but not stressful. Throw in the Christmas shopping and you will see old ladies flipping you the bird, middle-aged men threatening to rip your innards out and every driver becomes a potential threat that must be destroyed completely.

After you have driven around for 5 hours, offended at least 7 people and torn out half of your hair and found that car park, then you have to go inside the shops. And they are FULL of people. I swear that the centre management hire people to walk around their shops. I think it gives the rest of us the illusion that there is something worth finding and purchasing. With people, come the elbows! You throw lots of people into the one space, all of whom are trying to buy the same item, and you are simply promulgating the principle of survival of the fittest.

It is funny, in the ironic sense, to me that a season that is marketed as joyous and festive turns out to be full of stress. I think it is due to the focus on buying our loved ones next year's landfill. My thoughts are that when we get caught up in the commercialism of Christmas we become participants of the circus, not the spectators. We become the grumpy commuters of trains. When we focus on family and charity towards our fellow man at this time of year, we find that the bread is sweeter and the circus more fun and vibrant.

In short, I am going to focus on my wife and kids in the hope that I enjoy the ride of the Christmas season. And if all else fails, thanks to my daughter, I am fully aware of the brace position should things not go according to plan.

Permission slip

George W. Bush once said, amongst many unintelligible, yet highly amusing things, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

And with that he went and waged a war in Iraq, using trumped up 'intelligence', that is still being waged some 10 years later. Was there a permission slip? You can bet your life that there wasn't, because George W. didn't need one.

Some cynics will say that the war on Iraq was motivated by the great oil grab. Some sympathisers will say  that this war was waged to rid the world of a dictatorial, tyrannical leader and was a blow for freedom and democracy. I am not going to go into debating the pro's and con's of why this war was waged. I want to talk about one facet of the war that was utilised; the pre-emptive strike.

America, and her Allies, launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq after "evidence" was uncovered that Iraq had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). America feared that the leadership of Iraq was primed to utilise such weapons. They decided to strike first. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, no WMDs were found in Iraq.

The question that comes to my mind is, "When is it ok to launch a pre-emptive attack?" Another question that follows is, "What laws/social etiquette govern the use of a pre-emptive attack?"

Now, I know that some people around the world protested against the use of force against Iraq. Some still do. But the war went ahead, and to the best of my knowledge, George W. Bush did not get arrested for being the first person to fire a missile or drop a bomb. I can only assume that this is due to international tolerance of said actions? This is quite the precedent to set on an international level and I would like to think that the same leniency would be shown to me were I to, say, launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train.

If I might take you back to my train journey this week. I was sitting on the train after a long day at work. I was reading my book, not being a nuisance or getting in anyone's way. An old lady was to be seen boarding a train and, as there were numerous vacant seats, I did not stand to offer mine. As she walked past me, she bumped my knee with her heavy bag and just kept walking. I thought she might acknowledge the accidental bump, but I was to be disappointed this day. She walked on.

My parents taught me to respect my elders, so i said nothing of her bump. My parents also taught me to treat others the way I would want to be treated. We all know the golden rule, even if we, evidentially, choose not to live by it. So does this then mean that this old lady would not mind if I bump my bag into her and just keep walking?

In my mind, she is Iraq and I am the United States of America. And I do not need a permission slip!

Bringing it all back to my earlier questions; would it be socially inappropriate for me now to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train based on this experience? If you are answering, "Yes it would be extremely inappropriate", I would have to ask why? I could tell you that the old people have Bags of Mass Destruction (BMDs) and cause an unacceptable threat to the safety of all middle-aged, white, male train passengers.  Would it then be acceptable?

Before we get too carried away, I am not going to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train. Do I feel like doing it sometimes? You bet I do. Admittedly, rude old people who think they can get away with banging into people without apologising would not be at the top of my list. That spot would be reserved for either the people who listen to music REALLY loud, or those who have those really obnoxiously loud conversations that are of no interest to anyone but projected so loudly that people have to turn their music up REALLY loud to drown them out.

I do wish to highlight here, as the purpose of this post, that a simple, open conversation will solve just about any issue. I know it's naive to think that a simple sit down would solve all of the world's problems. But it is reprehensible to think that we teach our school children to talk to a bully and tell them not to engage in a physical resolution to their problems, but we have world leaders dropping bombs on innocent people to strike a blow for freedom.

I just don't understand that logic, or lack thereof.

But then again, George W. Bush was not really ever known for clear, logical thought. This is the man who brought us such gems as:

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." And,

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." And my personal favourite,

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

That's Dirty

Just how much do we expect to be able get away with? I have been forced to ask myself this question whilst riding the train.

A conversation was overheard on the train that went a little like this:

Lady 1 - "My friend has a son who is on his P-Plates. He was pulled over by a cop for speeding, but the cop booked him for speeding, having the wrong colour P-Plates on and for not carrying his licence. He got done $200 for each infraction, for a total of $800. And to make it worse, he was only going half a kilometre down the road to get something for his Mum, who was sick."

Lady 2 - "$800. That's dirty."

Lady 1 - "I know. He wasn't even speeding that much."

There are two things that I took out of this conversation, and I hope that they are not a general indication of the views of the wider community.

First, both of these two women thought that the cop went too far in fining this kid for not adhering to specific road rules and conditions of driving for P-Plate drivers.

Second, both of these ladies excused the breaking of a law because the kid didn't "speed that much."

Both arguments are, in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

First, the cop was just doing his job. It is his job to pull over speeding drivers and then nab them for everything he can. How would one of these women felt if a cop pulled over a driver whose car was clearly defective, but let the guy go. Then the guy in the defective car kills one of the women's relatives in a car accident? What would the women say about the cop then? The cop is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Second, the P-Plater broke the law. If the sign says 60, then you are only allowed to go 60. Now, we have all sped at some point, I am sure. And for those of us who have been caught, hopefully our reaction has been, "Fair enough, I was going faster than I should."

My question for these two women would be, 'When does speeding a bit become speeding too much?' Their argument was that this P-Plater was only speeding a bit, or not too much. Again, what would have happened if one of their loved ones was killed or injured by someone who was not speeding too much, or who was just running an errand for their sick mother? Would they still be so quick to forgive the indiscretion?

All of this causes me to ask, How much should we be able to get away with? How much can we break the laws of the land without going too far? Is it acceptable to speed just a bit? Is it acceptable to physically abuse your spouse/partner just a bit? Is it acceptable to kill just a couple of people? Is it acceptable to  steal just a bit? If not, why not? Do we tolerate the breaking of some laws, but not others? Should we tolerate the breaking of some laws, but not others? If so, which ones and who says which ones?

Pearl Jam sing a song called 'Alive'. It comes to mind within this train of thought. Some of their lyrics are as follows:

"You're still alive, she said. Oh, and do I deserve to be? Is that the question? And if so, who answers?"

For my two cents worth, I do not believe that we can have it both ways. Either the cops have to uphold the laws, even when it is unpopular, or they just let everything go. Either we all have accept the laws that are handed down, or we just ignore them. Whichever we pick, there will be things we don't like. But it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

It proves, in my mind, that we can't have our cake and eat it. Especially not on the train, because there are signs that clearly state eating is prohibited in carriages!