Women Fighter Pilots as a Funny Idea

Click for Radio Podcast: Women Fighter Pilots as a Funny Idea (4:44)

Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS
to get episodes automatically downloaded.

Transcript:

All the burning debris, and the burning flesh, and the ashes falling down. And nobody knew. There was no information for those individuals as they were evaluating the building. Was there another one coming in? I mean there had been two that had hit the World Trade Center.

And then we flew over, in full afterburner, coming low right over the Pentagon as we headed up north to look for Flight 93. And this individual said that the entire crowd erupted into cheers.

Because they knew at that point in time, that they were safe, because we were airborne and we wouldn’t let anyone else come and hurt them.

Major Heather Penney, remembering the 9/11 attacks, interviewed August 8, 2011

Most of us remember where we were when we first became aware the nation was coming under attack. I hadn’t watched television that morning. A hothead at the office where I was working yelled in anger at me for arriving without knowing what was going on.

I later wept with a young family member in college near DC. Some of her friends carried a double burden. She mourned with them over loved ones they had lost at the Pentagon. She feared for them because they were Muslim, subject to attack on American streets.

Major Heather Penney was considered by many to be a bit of a novelty in 2001. The idea of woman piloting a fighter plane seemed kind of funny to some at the time. America has grown up a little in some ways since then.

She and another pilot were airborne within a few minutes after it became clear the country was under attack. Three planes had already slammed into their targets. A fourth hijacked plane was headed toward Washington. Possible targets included the White House and the Capitol building, where Congress meets.

The assignment the two pilots had been given was to find and bring down that fourth hijacked plane. The problem was that, having been on training missions, their fighter jets were not armed. In the air, they decided on a plan. They would collide their aircraft with Flight 93. Her partner would take the nose, she would take the tail.

I would essentially become a Kamikaze and ram my aircraft into the tail of the aircraft.

Major Heather Penney

Steve Scully, of C-Span attempts to clarify.

Scully: So you were prepared to take your own life if necessary to bring down that plane.

Penney: Of course.

I was thinking of Heather Penney, who is now a Major and a veteran of the Iraq war, as I heard about a young fighter pilot who had helped lead an attack against the extremist group ISIS in Iraq. The fact that the pilot was from the United Arab Emirates was especially important. It accentuated that the fight is against terrorism, not against the billion and a half around the world who worship God through Islam.

Major Mariam Al Mansouri is also the first woman in the Emirati Air Force. Since joining in 2007, she has risen to command a squadron. She was in command as her group dropped bombs on ISIS.

The fact that a woman would pilot a fighter plane is still hilarious to some.

Greg Gutfeld: The problem is after she bombed it she couldn’t park it. I salute her.

Eric Bolling: Would that be considered boobs on the ground or no?

Fox News, September 24, 2014

In fairness, the segment began as an attempt to salute Major Mansouri, and one of those who thought a woman fighter pilot was a funny idea, Eric Bolling, has apologized. The other, Greg Gutfeld, says some people in Washington and elsewhere misinterpreted him.

I think back to that terrible day of mass murder in New York and Washington, and those workers in Washington who cheered for the pilots who protected them, the pilots they may later have discovered were on a suicide mission.

“…they were safe, because we were airborne and we wouldn’t let anyone else come and hurt them.”

In those terrible moments of fire and rescue, if they had known a woman was piloting one of those planes, I doubt they would have thought it was a funny idea.

Fearful Faith

Click for Radio Podcast: Fearful Faith (5:35)

Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS
to get episodes automatically downloaded.

Transcript:

The friendly radio evangelist had been brought to visit by the local pastor. I liked him, for all his unusual beliefs. Creationism was his big thing. He had come to preach truth to a heathen.

I posed one of the traditional questions. If God had created all that he had created 6000 years ago, how would we explain fossils that were dated millions of years old. How about light from stars billions of light years away?

He had an answer. God had created his creation with the appearance of age. That was my introduction to what is known as the Omphalos hypothesis, named for a novel written in the MID-1800s. It has a certain chicken-and-egg logic to it. If God created the egg, it would appear to have come from a chicken. If God created a chicken, it would appear to have come from an egg. Both would have the appearance of age.

My visitor’s faith was very strong. Unbending, really.

I suggested that, if God had gone through that much trouble to give his universe the Appearance of Age, it seemed to me a bit unsporting for us not to surrender to his will and believe in all those contrived eons.

My new friend’s unbending faith was strong enough for him to find my observation completely nonthreatening. In fact, he laughed appreciatively. It was hard not to like him.

Not all creationists accept the Omphalos hypothesis. I don’t much blame them. The big gaping hole in it is that it can support pretty much any theory of limited existence. God created the universe last Tuesday. He did it with the Appearance of Age, including memories, pseudo-history, relationships, and a fictitious past. Why not?

My friend’s faith was strong and unbending, but his logic could support pretty much anything. So it pretty much supported nothing.

A few years ago, I happened upon an argument about all those light years of distance in observable stars. Andy Schlafly, the creator, as it were, of Conservapedia, considers Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and pretty much all science that flows from light traveling at a constant speed, as “heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.”

Like my friend from decades ago, Mr. Schlafly’s faith is unbending and rigid. His faith is so rigid and unyielding on so many points, it makes me wonder what is at its core. His insistence that accepted science must be wrong, wrong, wrong, suggests to me that a faith that rigid is more than a little brittle.

Like most Christians, my own faith has its own vulnerability. It is historically based, at least in part. Christ died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. If I became convinced that Jesus died running from Gethsemane with a Roman spear in his back, I would be devastated.

I use that internal image to gain some empathy. If the slightest crack were allowed into any of the many crevices of the rock whose cleft shields so many of my brethren, the entire edifice might weaken and collapse.

I was reminded of the dangers of the single weak link in an unnecessarily long chain as I listened to small segments of the famous Creation vs Science debate a few months ago between Kenneth Ham the creationist and Bill Nye the science guy. Ken Ham was asked this:

Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the Earth was older than 10,000 years and creation did not occur over six days, would you still believe in God, and the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that Jesus was the son of God?

Mr. Ham began his answer this way:

Well, I’ve been emphasizing all night, you cannot ever prove, using the scientific method in the present, you can’t prove the age of the Earth. So you can never prove it’s old. There is no hypothetical. Because you can’t do that.

He continued for a minute or two, repeating variations of his theme. He doesn’t have to test his faith, even hypothetically, because the universe isn’t billions of years old. It just isn’t. It can’t, can’t, can’t be.

Although it is impossible to judge the inner core, the hidden strength, of Mr. Ham’s faith, I can see the Appearance of Weakness in his writhing efforts to escape such a seemingly harmless question.

Einstein’s theory must be wrong or else everything we believe will be at risk. The speed of light must vary over time or faith will die. A universe that is older than 6 millennia threatens God himself. We struggle within our souls against theocide.

A faith that shouts its unbending strength, its intractable rigidity, its brittle inflexibility, almost compels us to complete the circle. We have to wonder about the delicate fragility that fights so hard to avoid the slightest touch of factual contradiction.

Why will faith fear a touch, except that, like a fragment of ancient parchment, a touch will make it crumble?