This is the internet, so yes
from article wrote:"The Federal Aviation Administration, a government agency that regulates US airspace, told local TV station KREM 2 that the manoeuvre did not appear to pose a safety risk and they 'cannot police morality'."
I have heard this before, and it really gets on my nerves. Any justification of any law ultimately rests on morality.
Another thing that gets on my nerves is this widespread claim: that incidents of juvenile penis-worship and "fraternity-syle hi-jinks" in the military (which sometimes escalate into sexual hazing and outright sexual assault of innocent bystanders, while officers look the other way--anyone else here old enough to remember the 1991 Tailhook scandal
?) are a time-honored part of the macho and misogynistic "warrior culture."
Should society just accept the uglier sides of "warrior culture" as the price of having an army, navy, etc.? After all, rape has been a very well-documented part of military action for millennia. I can't deny that.
I also can't condone it. And I don't understand how expecting some level of professionalism and self-control from the military will somehow render these men and women less able to do their jobs like professionals.
I realize that some people will think I'm committing a slippery slope fallacy, but the track record really does show that fraternity-style hi-jinks in the military often go too far when the leadership winks or looks the other way. So no, the military leadership should not wink or look the other way. The response shouldn't be out of proportion, but is this sort of conduct befitting an officer and a gentleman? Really?[Edited to say: I do see why it's not the FAA's bailiwick. But the military's? Definitely.]