Hopes Flying High

Thousands of young and beautiful Chinese women recently duked it out in a head-on, televised audition in an attempt to capture the job of their dreams. Contestants stripped down to sport their cutest bikinis, dawning their youthful and fit bodies. They lugged heavy suitcases, balanced drinks atop trays and served up cocktails to critical judges, with the hopes of becoming China Southern Airlines’ next “symbol of excellence.” These 5’3’’ to 5’7’’ women hopefuls, none of whom was over the age of 24, were each given the equal opportunity to become the new face of the airline—they were given the chance to become China Southern’s next flight attendant.

While in America it is no longer legal to give preferential treatment to certain applicants, say unmarried females over men or other married women, China remains steadfast in exploiting everything and anything that sells therefore airlines have narrowed their flight attendant searches to the youthful jaw droppers. Though China Southern denies the fact that they exclude men from the flight attendant applicant pool, the airline company exhibited a fair degree of discrimination by only featuring young female applicants who met certain criteria on it s annual recruitment drive on TV.

Despite such discrimination, one must question who really ended up on the shallow end of the deal: the men or the women? Sure, the men may have had to forfeit their chance to have their 15 minutes of fame, however, these featured women competing for the job of a stewardess in such a demeaning manner have been unrightfully exploited. These women were compelled to compete in outrageous competitions that seemed to only reinforce the subservient nature that many Asian countries to this day believe that women ought to follow. The show, which was funded by the airline, pitted thousands of women against each other in “swimsuit competition and a race involving luggage, makeup brushes and drink trays.” In one instance, women were paired up in which one team member would be “skipping rope and the other lugging a heavy suitcase…then grabbed trays of drinks to present to the judges.”

Making matters worse, the airline industry has been successful in brainwashing these female young adults with the belief that becoming a flight attendant via such competition is a prideful event. “This is every little girl’s dream,” said Lu Ju. “I want to be beautiful like the flight attendants.”

The airline industry’s exploitation of these female participants is apparently widely accepted by many Chinese citizens. In fact, the TV show’s website received over one million visits. Through my personal experience, it is quite common for many Asian countries to exploit the young and the beautiful in similar manners. Asian countries understand that sex sells, and they are quick to take advantage. For example, many big name shopping centers and stores that are peppered throughout major upscale shopping areas in the Philippines only hire young, good-looking individuals. A quick walk through of any major department store will provide anyone with the explicit truth. It is certainly not a coincidence that every cashier and sales person is within a certain height and weight range and considerably decent to good looking.

China Southern, for example, will not even bother giving the time of day to anyone over the age of 24 looking to become a flight attendant. Moreover, each applicant must be within a certain height range, a couple of inches taller than the average person, yet not obscurely tall. If you are fat and overweight, perhaps you should even reconsider taking the time out to fill out the application.

Though this hiring practice among many Asian airlines has become somewhat of a standard, some still oppose the system. Li Ning, an etiquette instructor in Beijing for flight attendant hopefuls, finds more diversity in the flight crew as more pleasing. Many would argue that with age comes wisdom, and strictly having such a young flight attendant crew could be detrimental to the safety of passengers.

Here’s some food for thought: many flight attendant hopefuls in this competition have never flown on commercial airliners on a regular basis. Though some may argue that this will help nervous flyers to feel more at ease since they can relate to each other on a more newbie level, this is certainly not the case. If any plane were experiencing some mid flight problems, I am sure that most would prefer a tested, proven, and experienced individual who is aware of the counter measures to ensure passenger safety, despite having a few wrinkles above the brow coupled with bags under the eyes. Or even tree trunk looking ankles. Appearance should not matter. Experience, knowledge, and the ability to handle situations under pressure should.

Quickly throwing off bikinis to change into a different outfit while touching up hair in front of tiny hand-held mirrors while being timed just does not seem to qualify as a significant amount of pressure.

While caked up women serving your favorite alcoholic beverage may be quite pleasant and relaxing on the eye, it sure would not do any justice in the event of a disaster. Merely looking extra attractive in a two-piece bathing suit or coming in first in a skipping rope race while hauling a luggage certainly does not qualify one to earn the job of a flight attendant.

Perhaps China Southern and other Asian airliners should forfeit this sort of beauty pageant-like selective process, and adopt one similar to that of the United States’, one in which merit and experience takes precedence over looks.

“You can do it. We can help.”

This just in: Forget the glistening ocean, rows of towering coconut trees that provide shade upon the island’s beautiful beaches, or perhaps even the sight of a rare sea turtle’s silhouette gliding through the crystal clear waters. Because now, as airliners tip their wings on the final descent to the island of Guam, vacationers can now peek out their windows to revel in awe—over the sight of the second largest Home Depot in the world. Well, at least according to a number of Guam’s highest dignitaries.

Liuetenant Governor Mike Cruz believes that given the store’s location along Airport Road, tourists will have the great opportunity to “see a slice of Americana” as they approach the island by plane. Overly excited, local lawmakers even drafted a resolution to mark the opening of “the second largest Home Depot in the World.”

The Home Depot’s soft opening brought about a significant degree of fanfare to the island as a number of local residents and dignitaries alike eagerly waited to be one of the first to walk through the doors just moments after the final snippet of the ribbon’s cutting. Home Depot enthusiasts applaud the store’s opening; many are excited over the variety of items that the store carries and at such a low price—for many local business owners, however, perhaps at too low of a price.

At the store’s soft opening, some residents capitalized on the chance to score a number of picnic chairs at the unbelievably low price (for Guam) of $5 dollars a chair. Others searched for other bargains, quickly filling their carts. Items being sold at a fraction of what consumers are usually used to paying is usually a blessing for most. However, for the more skeptical and perhaps knowledgeable few, the enormous slashing of prices forebodes none other than disaster for competition.

Just years ago, Kmart opened its doors to the island offering their products at incomparable prices. Sure, every individual who walked out of the store remained enthused over the store’s bargain like prices in comparison to that of other local stores. Unable to compete with Kmart’s prices, many local businesses were forced to scale back or close, thus adding to the long list of casualties throughout the Kmart driven price war. Monopoly became the name of the game.

It has happened once, and it will definitely happen again. Huge American corporations with deep pockets have the power and financial backing to cut prices to such an extent that other businesses just cannot compete. Once the last formidable market competitor is finally driven to closure, prices magically begin to increase at a much quicker rate—too unproportionate to place the blame on inflation. With the opening of Home Depot, it is likely that this Kmart curse that once plagued the island has returned to elongate the business casualty list.

Only this time, Home Depot will do it, and local leaders and unsuspecting residents will be there to help.

LAPD Entrapment

I could be wrong, I told myself, but the last time I checked the core mission and motto of the LAPD was to protect and to serve.

In a desperate search for some affirmation, I explored the LAPD website—and there it was. “‘To Protect and to Serve’ is not just a slogan—it is our way of life,” the site read, under its explanation of the force’s service to the communities.

Now if that entails some officers sitting on their bicycles, pen and ticket in hand, while stalking college students as they cross the street with the hopes of handing out j-walking tickets, then perhaps their motto is in desperate need of a complete overhaul.

While recently making my way onto the USC campus, I found myself distracted as I made the trek across the street at Jefferson and McClintock. I could not help but overhear an ensuing argument between a male ‘SC student and a LAPD officer who had his bike propped up against him. Though unaccustomed to eavesdropping, I made an exception. I discovered that just moments before my arrival at the scene, another ‘SC student was given a ticket for j-walking, or perhaps j-biking, given the fact that she was sitting off to the side atop her bike. Taking to her defense, the nearby male student questioned the officer’s motive for selectively ticketing that particular individual. “Shouldn’t you be somewhere else around the area? There are people trying to sell us drugs right around the corner, so why not start there rather than writing her up for a $200 dollar j-walking ticket,” the male student questioned. Immediately losing all composure, the bike cop found himself yelling at the student and asking, “Are you trying to educate me about the law? Are you telling me how to do my job?”

Taken back by such hostility, the student questioned the officer’s sudden display or rage, asking if it was really necessary, and suddenly it seemed as if the officer had simply had enough. Seemingly trying to put an end to the heated conversation, the bike cop ordered the student to go along and “step off the sidewalk. Step off the sidewalk. Please step off the sidewalk.” Well aware of the blinking crosswalk signal that had only seven seconds permitting individuals already in the crosswalk to finishing crossing, the bike cop continued to instigate the student to hurry along. Distracted by the officer’s orders, the student proceeded to cross. However the moment the student set his first foot onto the pavement of the road, the officer threatened, “I will ticket you.” Already too late, the student had begun making his way to the other side of the street. The bike cop then ordered him to come back because “I’m gonna give you a ticket for that,” the officer stated. The student then rightfully argued that the officer had just given him the order to cross the street a multiple of times. Despite such a plea to two other officers flanking the irritated bike cop, the student argued to no avail and was awarded a ticket for his compliance.

Though the LAPD would like to pride itself in always exercising the “integrity in the use of the power and authority,” it is quite evident that this is certainly not always the case. Because in this case, they exercised entrapment, and the student ate the apple because the officer had beguiled him.

According to its legal definition, entrapment occurs when a person is “induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.” Furthermore, for true entrapment to take place, three things must have occurred.

First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

Not only was the bike cop a law enforcement officer, but he also commenced to verbally persuade the student into committing the crime. The student was in the heat of an argument with the bike cop, and merely sought to elicit a legitimate explanation for the cop’s actions, however his conversation with the officer was cut short, only to be prematurely dismissed, finding himself being sent off to “step off the curb.” The bike cop knowingly knew the implications of stepping off of the curb, laying in wait to write off and distribute yet another ticket.

If officers continue to behave in such outlandish manners, it becomes quite hard to view the Los Angeles Police Department as a leader in law enforcement. It becomes even harder to believe that its officers ensure that their values become a part of their day-to-day work. If integrity is part of their standard, such conduct exhibited by this LAPD bike cop certainly fails to merit the respect of the city’s people. Perhaps the LAPD needs to re-evaluate its officer’s core values, otherwise go back to the motto drawing board, and create a more fitting slogan.

Feed Thine Enemy

This time around it was Sister Delta Goodhand and company who sought to steal the spotlight that has shone ever so brightly upon the Catholic Church in recent years, borrowing Archbishop Burke’s tactic of exploiting the Eucharist to make a statement. Sister Delta Goodhand, along with another member from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group comprised of male gay rights activists, were recently lambasted by a slew of conservative Catholics for their “provocative gesture” at the Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district of San Francisco. Sporting flamboyant nun-resembling outfits and faces caked with makeup, the two were accused of making a mockery out of the church ceremony, culminating in their attempt to receive the Eucharist from the much obliged Archbishop Niederauer. While other clergymen in the past, such as our old pal Burke, have taken the liberty to grant themselves the power of discretion to administer the Eucharist to those of their liking, it was rather reassuring to know that other clergymen still followed the basic sacramental principle of communion distribution despite any personal reservations.

According to Reverend Jim Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at the University of San Francisco, the basic sacramental principle makes one a “manifest public sinner” if one were to deny the Eucharist to anyone who requests for it. Despite adhering to this rule thus dodging the label of a “manifest public sinner,” Archbishop Niederauer still suffers from the backlash from his innocent action involving the distribution of communion to these two “Sisters.” Unfortunately, he continues to take flak from the more conservative members of the Catholic Church, thus pressuring him to release a letter of apology to Catholics and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

As a concerned Catholic, I find it quite troublesome how many Catholics are so quick to decry Archbishop Niederauer’s actions. The only wrongdoing on the Archbishop’s behalf was the issuance of a coerced letter of apology, capitulating to angry Catholics under the pressure of the San Francisco Archdiocese. Unless the two members of the activist group were formerly excommunicated from the church, he had no authority to deny their request to receive communion. Rather than be scrutinized, Archbishop Niederauer ought to be praised for his judgment call in choosing to administer the Eucharist to these two individuals despite belonging to a group which has a history of making a mockery of the Catholic faith, in one instance even distastefully reenacting the last supper of Christ and his apostles by dressing up as leather-clad homosexuals.

If Jesus were willing to dine with former sinners, then I find no harm in Archbishop Niederauer’s willingness to do the same. Sure, activists will continue to rant over the “practicing and promoting of sodomites in the middle of a gay friendly mass,” however, such criticism should never trump or influence a skewed interpretation of the basic sacramental principle. Nor should any form of criticism merit the issuance of an apology merely to quell the negative sentiment at the expense of an innocent individual. Or perhaps one day, these individuals may similarly make their way up to the alter, stand face to face with an Archbishop whose beliefs contradict their own, to only have their request for the body of Christ, denied.