If I may paraphrase Pterry for a moment, this seems a little like standing on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards!ā
Cool, I saw her on her last day working at our local news station in Denver talking about moving on. Iām so happy and excited for her.
Hardly. Modern aviation is so incredibly advanced compared to Earhartās time itās not even funny. Flying around the world is routine these days, and depending on the plane can even be done without landing to refuel.
More fascinating to me is that there are people in the world who will name their child after a famous historical figure and then rear that child from an early age to ride on the coat-tails of the historical figure and vicariously live through them and their fame.
I simply canāt understand the mentality that would lead people to exploit their own children to chase after phantoms of the past, instead of allowing a child to live their own life and be their own person in the present.
Earthart or Earheart? Is this like Ghandi / Gandhi?
Hardly. Modern aviation is so incredibly advanced compared to Earhartās time itās not even funny. Flying around the world is routine these days, and depending on the plane can even be done without landing to refuel.
Oh, okā¦ Debbie Downer.
More fascinating to me is that there are people in the world who will name their child after a famous historical figure and then rear that child from an early age to ride on the coat-tails of the historical figure and vicariously live through them and their fame.
I simply canāt understand the mentality that would lead people to exploit their own children to chase after phantoms of the past, instead of allowing a child to live their own life and be their own person in the present.
Wowā¦ thatās what youāre getting from this?
Do you know her parents or something? Or are you just being pretentious, insulting and negative like usual? Or, are you simply projecting your own experiences with your own parents upon others you donāt know?
You seem like a very unhappy person jealous of the happiness of others and I honestly feel very sorry for you. I hope you begin to realize someday that life is too short for your kind of petty bitterness and find peace within yourself and begin to share it with others.
In other words, grow up.
The article sounds so downbeat up to the fold! Agahajanian is a nice rejoinder name, though. Also, 17 stops. Itās going to be hard landing the little craft around Denver, towing that Air Malaysia jet and all the super-hungry steampunk alt-history Amelias. Bermuda Triangle Party 2016!
Or, maybe, naming her after Amelia Earheart is a way of showing respect and appreciation for a great American hero.
Also maybe, influenced by her name or not, she chose to become a pilot of her own accord?
Flying a plane might be safer and more comfortable than at the dawn of aviation, but I would not consider being a pilot a walk in the park.
A little less cynicism can go a long way.
So they should say that sheās going to retrace her namesakeās route but without the disappearing.
āwho plans to fly across the worldā So the world is flat after all!
I donāt think you really understand what āexploitationā means. This young woman has not been exploited. She seems to be in complete control of her life (and chosen CAREER), and sheās clearly a very intelligent PILOT, which is no easy feat.
Why so disparaging of someone who is clearly very passionate about what she does? Youāre really focusing entirely too much on her name, and not enough on the obvious determination and drive this woman has. I was going to include ātalentā as well, but that seems to belittle her accomplishments ā sheās a pilot, for Peteās sake. Why are you so negative? Becoming a pilot takes a lot of hard work. I donāt understand why youāre trying to throw her under the bus when the ONLY personal thing you know about her is her given name.
She is more than her name, and itās clear to me you didnāt watch the video at all.
Psst.
I think you might have missed an important person in history that would make your conjecture seem insensitive.
Whatever happened to Amelia Earhart? Who holds the stars up in the sky? Is true love just once in a lifetime? Did the captain of the Titanic cry?
Pfft. Amy Johnson FTW.
Dale Earnhardt Jr?
So I point out that a stunt that was impressive almost a century ago is no longer as impressive because modern technology makes it almost unimagineably safer and Iām told Iām a downer?
I read a story about a woman whose parents named her after a famous pilot, with the article discussing how she even grew up believing herself actually related to the historical figure, with the piece dripping with so much florid romanticization that it reads like an interview with Santa Anna, and you angrily fault me for drawing conclusions you personally feel are too negative and skeptical?
Iām sorry, maybe Iāve just been exposed to more bullshit in my life than you have. Maybe my rose colored glasses have been discolored by it. Maybe Iāve seen too many things like child beauty pageants and unfortunate children named āDoctorā by their controlling and ambitious parents. Maybe Iāve met too many people who cling to the notions of bloodlines and descent grasping at fame and influence by invoking alleged family connection to famous historical figures.
Despite what you may believe, being critical and skeptical of things does not instantly make someone miserable, or even merely truly cynical. The acts of questioning and doubting are not negative things. Itās entirely possible that I question and doubt too strongly for your tastes - that if you were to doubt as much as I do, you would be unhappy for doing so - but I find I do not personally suffer for it in any regard.
Believe whatever you want to believe about me personally. Pity me if you feel it appropriate. It leaves me mystified, but ultimately it is entirely benign behavior.
As for what I believe? My pool of experiences and knowledge leads me to make a few assumptions about Ms. Earhart and her family. Yes, theyāre rather unpleasant assumptions - but they seem to fit based purely on the (admittedly extremely limited) knowledge I have of the situation.
If new knowledge is presented? If I come across additional evidence about the situation which directly contradicts my current assumptions? Naturally I will question those assumptions and disregard them as appropriate.
In the meantime, however, Iām perfectly content to come to skeptical and unpleasant conclusions if that is what my experiences and prior knowledge lead me to. The fact that you care so strongly about my arriving at such ānegativeā assumptions mystifies me as much as anything else, but again, it is an entirely benign behavior in a practical sense, so what do I care?
Sorry, this response makes no sense.
The man you refer to was born Michael King, Jr.; was named after his father Michael King, Sr.; and both men had their names changed to Martin Luther King by the father when the son was five years old after visiting Germany in 1934.
King, Sr. was himself a pastor, and took the same name for himself, so it would be hard to argue he was attempting to vicariously tap into Martin Lutherās reputation through his son. And King, Jr., although quite young, presumably agreed to changing his own name, meaning he had a choice that an infant never would.
Thereās still something to be said for the controlling influences of a father than expects his oldest son to follow in his footsteps and take up the same profession, of course. But then again we are talking about a child born in 1929 to an African American family in the Deep South during Segregation and the Great Depression, not one born in 1983 to a Caucasian American family in the Midwest during the Reagan Era.
But even if we donāt discount the elder Kingās actions as a product of their time, whatās the problem? Are we so reverent of King, Jr. that we are afraid to criticize the actions of King, Sr.? How is it insensitive to recognize that the sonās life was strongly manipulated by the fatherās influences? Itās no more insensitive than to recognize that King, Jr. himself was a problematic figure notorious for his treatment of women, among other matters.
Yet even putting all of that aside, no one in their right mind would suggest that King, Jr. is famous because he emulated Martin Luther. Itās not as if he is known for having re-enacted Lutherās famous nailing of the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg - especially not well after the fact in an age when such an act is far more trivial that it had been historically.
So I point out that a stunt that was impressive almost a century ago is no longer as impressive because modern technology makes it almost unimagineably safer and Iām told Iām a downer?
No, youāre Debbie Downer, specifically. 
If you still donāt get why after watching the video link and reading your own insulting, hurtful drivel towards an entire family youāve never met, then I guess weāre at an impasse here.
Sorry, but the rest of your post is tl;dr for me atm. Continue to revel in your bitterness, pedantic drivel and lack of joy for the accomplishments and adventures of others if thatās your thing.
Iām actually kind of thankful you lack the self-awareness to see how pathetic your attack on her parents and Amelia are, because that would just make you a pretty despicable person through and through. I think youāre simply detached from your own actions and it makes you more pitiable than loathsome, in my opinion.
Maybe if you didnāt use the word āmaybeā so much, Iād be more inclined to believe this actually was your life experience. Rather than the one or two anecdotal first or second-hand instances I now suspect it actually is.
To be honest, I didnāt watch the video, but then again youāre admitting to pulling a tl:dr yourself, so there you go.
Itās strange that you respond to what you perceive as insulting and hurtful remarks in kind. You believe that Iām āattackingā Ms. Earhart and her family (how exactly can one attack a person whom one has had zero interaction with?), and you believe the appropriate response is to therefor (actively and personally) attack me? Do you not realize the hypocrisy?
As Iāve admitted, Iām making some strong and unpleasant assumptions - but theyāre born out of what I believe to be a rational basis founded in the limited evidence I have at hand. Are they āinsultingā and āhurtfulā? Clearly to you they are, but innately, in and of themselves?
The reality of manipulative parents exploiting their children is undeniable fact. To suspect the behavior when one sees evidence of it isnāt cruel or malicious, itās merely pragmatic and realistic. True, my evidence is extremely limited, and my personal biases distort my perceptions, but I admit to those limitations and am prepared to change my assumptions based on new information. What about that is insulting or hurtful?
If we are to posit that the only point of contention as to whether a comment is insulting or hurtful is if someone, somewhere might be insulted or hurt by it, then all of human speech is insulting and hurtful.
Humans are irrational creatures perfectly capable of being insulted and hurt by anything and everything, including the very facts of reality itself. Consequently, it would be patently absurd to censure every unpleasant thought or assumption merely because it is unpleasant. Faulting me for drawing unpleasant conclusions is therefor ludicrous.
Where you see āaccomplishmentā and āadventureā, I see something else entirely. Yet somehow, despite the fact that you and I disagree, only one of us is calling the other āpatheticā, ādespicableā, āpitiableā, āloathsomeā, and the like. Why is it I can accept that your perceptions are different than mine without having to resort to villification and character assassination?
Put more simply, why does it bother you so much what I think or say? I could be entirely wrong on this. If you feel I am in error, fine - logically critique my statements, point out the fallacies in my argumentation, put forth the effort to debate with me - donāt simply resort to petty mudslinging and flat dismissals.
