Democracy Now!

I got this link to an article about John Travolta’s "little place" the other day–the one with the B-707 parked out front. It’s a little laborious to get through. It violates my "no horizontal scrolling" rule and the person who put it up needs to be beat about the head & shoulders for that one.

That said, surely the couple must be gobsmacked by what they have pulled off? Do they ever look around…at possibly the world’s most elegant private airport…the two planes parked in their front yard and just…giggle?

"Oh yea," they laugh in unison. "Every single day."

Well. "Chortle" might be a better description, don’t you think?

I’d just like to know where Travolta and Preston get off. Who do they think they are, taking for themselves such a very large slice of our social pie? Huh? 6,700 square feet of residence, 9 acre estate, and a tarmac large enough for a 707 and a Gulfstream II.

It boggles the mind, such useless and excessive consumption. Disgusting. The thousands of gallons of fuel–for a single trip. The pollution. Yuk!

They need two jets? How many people are living in poverty around the world, going hungry because John and Kelly need two multi-million-dollar jets? And how many people are traveling in that 707 at any one time–four or five?–when it could be efficiently hauling a couple of hundred people who probably have travel needs far in excess of the Travolta’s. Besides…they have two jets. People are in buses, taking days to make a trip that John and Kelly make in hours. What gives them the right? And not only that, what about security? I don’t think the TSA is checking them out out each time they fly so that we can be safe and protected. What about that? How can we trust John Travolta with a fuel-laden jet that weighs several tons and can go 500 mph? Can you imagine what could happen?

I had thought, gladly, that the awful displays of old-money wealth were a thing of the past. At least that other gaudy display, Vanderbilt’s old place, is now a museum for us, the people. We can only hope for as much with Travolta, eventually.

Power to the people! Some glorious day, we’ll be able to take back what’s ours from those who have stolen it from us, democratic society. Democracy demands it!

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Richard Nikoley on May 26, 2006 at 11:49

    But all the experts agree that money doesn't buy happiness. It only buys happiness when people are in poverty, to the point where they are properly fed, clothed and sheltered.

    So it logically follows that the tens of millions of dollars being greedily hoarded by Travolta isn't buying anywhere near the happiness that could be bought if all that wealth was better utilized to buy a minimum amount of happiness for many people.

    It's a much more efficient way to use all of that wealth, don't you think? What right does he have to hoard it when people are literally starving?

    I think the question that we all need to face is: how much wealth should we allow any one person to have? And this goes doubly so for as long as there are still poor people–many of whom are victims of just the sort of predatory capitalism that Travolta's disgusting display symbolizes.

    Never loose sight of the fundamental: need. There are so many who need just a little to make their lives so much better–and they will become better citizens too. Many probably don't even vote, even for all the civil servants who work tirelessly to help them. It's hard to go out and vote when your stomach is tied in knots from hunger, or you don't even have enough cloths to keep warm and dry.

  2. Kyle Bennett on May 26, 2006 at 13:09

    Tell it, Brother! A post of this quality must also bring up the question of why Glenn Reynolds should get all the traffic, when there are so many great bloggers out there, like you, starving for readers. Let's reprogram all the routers on the internet to randomly redirect 80% of the requests for instapundit and littlegreenfootballs and Kos and the like to those bloggers more deserving who are not getting their fair share.

  3. Lute Nikoley on May 26, 2006 at 11:27

    Hip, hip hooray for John Travolta, man, what a place. He has the money, pays for it, and it's his choice to spend HIS money as he wants. I bet he pays plenty in taxes buying all that fuel. Any complaints about that? Probably, I am sure there is multitude who think "he doesn't pay his fair share."

  4. Davis Straub on May 26, 2006 at 18:30

    This isn't John's private airport. He just lives (some of the time) next to it. It is the biggest private paved airport in the US.

    I flew my hang glider over his place (without knowing who owned it) a couple of days ago as I came into land at the Greystone airport. This was the goal for the Hang Gliding World Champiomships. The house didn't look that big relative to lots I see from the air.

  5. EKENYERENGOZI MICHAEL CHIMA on May 26, 2006 at 13:18

    Everybody is entitled to his fantasy.

    I loved your sermon on helping the poor and needy and John actually helps them.

    Again, remember actors are great ego-centric impressionists and just see John Travolta's fantastic estate and luxury jets as his own ego-tripping theme park.

    God bless.

  6. sally on May 26, 2006 at 19:46

    While it is his money and he can spend it whatever way he wants, it is quite excessive!!!

  7. BobS on May 26, 2006 at 16:13

    If you got it you might as well spend it as you can't take it with you.

  8. Marie on May 26, 2006 at 19:52

    "How many people are living in poverty around the world, going hungry because John and Kelly need two multi-million-dollar jets?"

    Answer: none. Many people were employed designing, building, and selling those planes. Many are still employed servicing, maintaining, and fueling those planes. The more he consumes (assuming he pays for it) the more work he generates. The beauty of capitalism. He enriches others, he doesn't impoverish them.

  9. jbruno on May 27, 2006 at 05:06

    It always comes down to democracy vs. republic, more government vs. less government…

    In this case, I think it's a personal choice. I would never spend that much money on myself; like Richard said, it is important to keep utility foremost.

    But, John Travolta is also a Hollywood movie icon, and therefore with no foothold in reality and no conception of utility.

    And he's a Scientologist. Maybe he will combine his two jets into one hyperdrivin' cruiser to look for Lord Xenu.

    Or he could just begin work on Battlefield Earth 2: Hubbard is Laughing in His Grave.

  10. tracifish on May 27, 2006 at 20:43

    Oh no. The heathens are acting like heathens again! What do you expect? Anyway, It's theirs
    and they have the right to it. They paid for it.

  11. Ryan on May 27, 2006 at 19:49

    This same arguement can be scaled up or down in scope as long as one person has something another doesn't. Relative to an extremly poor person, how can I feel confortable driving my Mustang when I could have bought a used Geo and sent the excess money to buy food for them? How can I justify using the extra power to run my blog server when those excess resources could provide a little heat to a third world hut?

    Excess is relative. I'm sure I could find lots of ways to reduce your usage of resources to benifit someone in need.

  12. Michael_the_Archangel on May 28, 2006 at 08:28

    While I would agree that the way John spends his money isn't the wisest or most prudent use of the money – the bottom line is that the money is HIS!!! He didn't steal the money, he earned it fair and square – or more precisely, folks like you and I gave him the money when we went to his movies. Someone thought enough of his talent to act, to pay him and huge sum of money – as such, he is free to spend it as he pleases.

    If you win the lottery or become a big movie star like John, then spend the money on all the poor – you will soon be poor just like them. There is not enough money in the world to bring all the poor up to a certain level of living. Add to that the fact that some people would think one level is the lowest that should be allowed, someone else is going to want/think that level needs to be higher (i.e. more money needed).

    Bottom line, it's his money, he can spend it, waste it, do WHATEVER he wants to do with it as he sees fit. If you don't like what he does with it, you have the freedom of not going to his movies. If no one went to his movies for the next 20 films that he made, he would soon not have as much money.

  13. Frankly Speaking on May 28, 2006 at 09:25

    If you have the talant, ambition or skill to earn any amount of money you should be able to spend it the way you see fit. If the people that are so judgmental of others want to sell all of their belongings and go help someone they can. I would bet that the Travoltas have donated more money in their life time to chrity than the ones whining about their planes. Good for them and good for America!

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.