AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 01:19 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.


I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Kelly July 21st 04 01:28 AM

They do. My next door neighbor flew T-38Cs in SUPT and absolutely loved
the glass cockpit.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

BUFDRVR wrote:
Mary wrote:


Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?



Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
the SUPT T-38s?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"



Regnirps July 21st 04 06:23 AM

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam wrote:

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.


"The NYT said what I suggest."


-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.


You asked for quote so I quoted myself. It happens to be true.

-- Charlie Springer


Ed Rasimus July 21st 04 03:42 PM

On 21 Jul 2004 00:19:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.


I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR


Dunno about your comm officer. The "jargon" is the language of the
business. IOW, I didn't popularize or "dumb-down" the language ala
"Top Gun". But, I spell out all acronyms and there is a
glossary--adequate so that even my wife could understand it and my
editor would accept it.

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.

I've been very fortunate to get cover blurbs for the new one from
Walter Boyne, Dan Ford, Tom Wilson, Mark Berent and Robin Olds. Makes
me blush--but I'll get over it.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:26 PM

(Regnirps) wrote in message ...
(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).


Mr Kramer was speaking (correctly) about cumulative probablity whereas
the other argument was correct about the probability per event.

If you throw the dice twenty times the probability that you'll throw
snake eyes is higher than if you only threw them 10 times BECAUSE
the probability of throwing snake eyes is the same on each roll.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:30 PM

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.



It did,



You sure about htat?

you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.



I believe that is true also.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:55 PM

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Michael Moore uses some footage in "Fahrenheit 911" from the 2000 certification
of Florida's elctoral votes in the Senate. They could have been challenged if
any one senator had agreed to co-sign the documentation provided by black
members of Congress.


My recollection from 2001 (which could be wrong) was that every Democratic
Congressman from FL got up and voiced an objection.

The reason no Senator signed on to the objection was becuase Al Gore
did not want any Senator to do so. As you know, Joe Lieberman, his
vice presidential cadidate, was a Senator.


Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?


IMHO, the USSC ruled correctly that the differences in voting
technology and variation standards for acceptance of a ballot
from one county to the next in FL violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment.

In view of that, it made no sense to enjoin FL from attempting to
remedy the error.


My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions. But here, they took the issue away from the
state court and basically declared Bush the winner.


The 14th amendment quit eclearly trumps state constitutions. It is one
area where the USSC clearly can and should, if necessary, overule
the state courts.


In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.


I don't know her basis for that statement. The post-election examination
of the undervoted and overvoted ballots found that few of them had
anything that could be reasonably interpreted as the clear intent of
the voter by any objective standard. Fewer than 1500 throughout the
entire state where there were perhaps 100,000 under and/or overvoted
ballots in total.

If the objective standard used to determine the clear intent of the
voter required at least one of the four corners of the chad to
be broken then the post election showed that Bush won the vote by
approximately (just a tiny bit less IIRC) the same as the margin
at the time the USSC closed the show down. However, if 'dimpled'
chads were interpreted as indicating the clear intent of the voter
then Gore would have won by a very small margin. One should consider
how a chad gets to be dimpled. If the ejection port under the chad
on a votamatic becomes clogged with accumulated chads then it may
become impossible to press the chad down far enough to seperate the
corners resulting in a dimpled chad. It seems reasonable to suppose
that the ejection ports under those chads that are being punched out
most often will be most likely to become plugged. So it may be
that the votomatics discriminate slightly against whoever is
getting the most votes.

This is from an article in the Washington Post published about
6 months into 2001.

One Republican dominated county used a two-page ballot for the
Presidential candidates and that county had the highest rate of
rejected ballots due ot overvotes. Up to 15% of the voters
had voted for President on page 1, and voted for president again
on page 2.

As in the country at large there is no clear answer to the question
who won the popular vote in Florida, let alone who would have won
absent mechanical malfunctions and voter error.

The person the Congress says is the winner becomes President on
inaguration day.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:57 PM

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator

sign.


Walt

What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.


Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt


So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what Denny
Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt which
got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit all
when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but OK
when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.



What are you talking about?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 10:10 PM

"Mark Cook" wrote in message m...

Yes, they could have challenged, but would have lost. With the make up of
Congress, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, only the candidate who held
state certification would win this type of challenge. Of course, Bush held
state certification as a result of the remedy crafted by the Democrat
majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris). Instead of ordering a full recount, the court decided that
state certification would be awarded to the winner of 4 Democrat majority
county recount.


As I recall, the second FLSC decision that was appealed to the USSC
required that all undervoted ballots through out the state of FL
be recounted by hand using the standard for interpretation established
in FL election law: 'the clear intent of the voter'.

This was the decision that was first stayed, and later overturned
by the USSC.

"Rougher translation: We're giving you a chance to explain your way out of
the federal law trap into which you stumbled on Nov. 21. But we don't see
how you can do it. And by the way, it isn't only us that you have to
convince. Under another provision of that 1887 act (3 U.S.C. section 15),
the Bush electors that Gov. Jeb Bush has already certified and sent to
Congress, via the archivist of the United States, will be the ones counted,
unless any Gore electors approved by the Florida courts can pass muster with
both the Republican-controlled House and the Senate. Not much chance of
that."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-13.htm


This article concerns the first ruling of the FLSC which was appealed
to the USSC, not the second, which I think is the one Walt was writing
about.

--

FF

Ed Rasimus July 21st 04 10:11 PM

On 21 Jul 2004 13:30:09 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.



It did,



You sure about htat?

you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.



I believe that is true also.


The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.

The registration requirement was suspended from 1975 to 1980, but
that's the only time. Lots of info at
http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com