Author Archives: Ian Lind

Close call at SFO?

Meda and I were on United Flight 373 from Honolulu to San Francisco on Saturday, March 21. Our flight was more or less on time, scheduled to arrive at SFO at a bit after 3 p.m.

Meda was in the window seat, right side of the aircraft, looking out the window as we descended. We were on the approach to the airport, dropping in altitude as we came cross the bay toward landing. Everything was smooth.

Then Meda was startled to see another plane not too far below us as we descended, and our pilot reacted by pulling up, circling back around the airport again, and then proceeding with a second approach. This second time we landed safely.

It sure seemed like a close call to us on board. But while I see several incidents like this over the past year or two described online, I haven’t seen anything about this as a reportable incident.

Perhaps the other aircraft wasn’t as close as it looked from Meda’s vantage point. I don’t know.

Maybe someone out there knows how to find whether there’s any info about this apparent in-flight incident?

I’m forced to take a leave of absence

I’ve been posting at ilind.net more or less regularly for 26 years, beginning in early 2000, if I recall correctly (although it might have been the following year).

I think this is the first time I’m reluctantly putting it aside for more than a few days.

The greatly edited story is that I watched the weekend’s storm from a 6th floor room at Straub Hospital.

Two attempts to complete an endoscopy failed, and I’m hoping to be admitted to a medical center in San Francisco for further diagnosis and treatment.

I might be moved to grab the keyboard now and then, but I need to avoid that little daily background stress and concentrate on my health.

I know you all understand and I appreciate all of your support.

And don’t forget that this remains a good place to search for interesting tidbits from the past z25 or 26 years.

Subscribers will get a notice when I’m ready to resume.

A second federal judge in Oregon orders limits on use of chemical munitions against protesters in Portland

In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated. In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Indeed, a democracy is only as strong as its tolerance for dissent. As Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.

Our nation is now at a crossroads. We have been here before and have previously returned to the right path, notwithstanding an occasional detour. In helping our nation find its constitutional compass, an impartial and independent judiciary, operating under the rule of law, has a responsibility that it may not shirk.

So begins the 34-page decision and order by Judge Michael H. Simon, U.S. District for the district of Oregon, granting a preliminary restraining order restricting the use of chemical weapons against peaceful protesters near the ICE building in Portland, Oregon.

No Enjoined Person may direct or use chemical or projectile munitions, including but not limited to kinetic impact projectiles, pepper ball or paintball guns, tear gas or other chemical irritants, soft nose rounds, 40mm or 37mm launchers, less lethal shotguns, and flashbang, Stinger, or rubber ball grenades, unless the specific target of such a weapon or device poses an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person.

No Enjoined Person may fire any munitions or use any weapons described in subsection (a) at the head, neck, or torso of any person, unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person.

Other restrictions, and conditions under which such munitions can be used, are spelled out in a separate order of preliminary injunction.

The Portland Chicken in an AP photo included in the original legal complaint.

Plaintiffs in the case include two journalists, a couple in their 80s who were hit by various munitions while peacefully protesting, and the lead named plaintiff, Jack Dickinson, better known as the Portland Chicken. Dickinson’s has appeared at protests outside the ICE facility in a distinctive bright yellow chicken costume to which he owes his chicken identity.

It is the second such opinion in just a few days. On Friday, March 6, another federal judge ordered similar restrictions in a lawsuit brought by residents and owners of a low-income apartment complex across the street from the ICE building.