On 22 Jul 2005 12:37:53 -0700, wrote in
. com::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in
.com::


you failed to address my point: Why isn't his proposed bill balanced?

I don't agree that it's unbalanced. More on this below.


If Mica's bill truly only penalizes pilots, and not anyone responsible
for the ADIZ violation, it is patently unbalanced.

[...]

Some phrases are markers for things. When I hear someone refer to the
President as "Baby Bush" I can hear the sound of an axe grinding in the
background.

My lack of respect for the current administration is no secret. I
believe they have put us and generations to come in extreme debt to
avenge the attempted assassination of the current president's father
by waging an unwinable war under false pretext that will last for
decades. After all, we could have just let the Arabs fight among
themselves, and used all those hundreds of billions of dollars to
bolster our lagging educational system, so that the future generations
of this nation would be a credit to our forefathers.... I further
believe that the current administration's arrogant hubris toward
constitutional guarantees, is a far more grave offence than that over
which president Clinton was impeached. I'll end this unfinished
diatribe by saying, I am ashamed to be represented in world politics
by the likes of the current regime and its inarticulate, smirking,
dolt...

You're doing your own argument a disservice by making the statement,
doubly so because of how gratuitous the insult is in this context.

You'll have to explain that to me; I'm afraid I don't see exactly
which context you mean.

AFAICT, GA is totally bipartisan in both friends and enemies and I doubt
the election of John Kerry would have made one whit of difference in the
operation of the DC ADIZ.

Perhaps you are correct, but somehow I want to believe Kerry would
have had the guts to oppose ineffective security policy dictated by
those shortsighted folks who implemented the DC ADIZ. At least he can
relate; he is currently an active GA pilot.

That's determined by the professional bureaucrats who really run DC regardless
of which stuffed shirt is sitting in the Oval Office.

If the leader of the free world is powerless to oppose those
professional bureaucrats, we are in more trouble than I care to
imagine.

[...]

Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. The way I see it is
that in this case we have the option of half a loaf in the form of
Mica's somewhat unenforceable bill, or nothing in the form of something
foisted on us by Chuck Schumer et. al. that makes this look like a
holiday in Monaco by comparison.

Call me an idealist, but I'd like to think that the possibility of
reason and intellect instead of hysteria and doltish reactions are
still possible among our nations leaders. Obviously you have given in
to the status quo.


Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that
sparked by the Terry Schivo case.

I fail to see what Terri Schiavo has to do with this besides being a
random outburst of your animus toward the right wing, which, I daresay,
does more to discredit your arguments than anything I could say.

Congressional legislation that addresses a single case is
inappropriate at best, and surely a breach of public trust by our
lawmakers. The Schiavo autopsy proved that. This nation's leaders
are out of control, and I find it appalling, and will openly oppose
what I feel is unreasonable at every opportunity.


The point you failed to address is, Mica's proposed bill fails to
address that other 12%. Is everything about how it looks? What of
substance and balanced legislation?


I failed to address it because it's a red herring. A bill that
addresses 88% of a problem is better than average.

While it may currently be better than average, it reeks of
unprofessionism. Must we continue to accept the erosion of
congressional dignity and statesmanship without voicing an opposing
word? That won't make the current situation improve.

I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
to bumble your way into this.

So you've examined every case and found no circumstances where the
bumbling pilot was not at fault? Come on, you know better than that.

It seems to me that the onus is on you to show that it's not pilots'
fault something like 75% of the time. Even if 30% of total incidents
are due to other causes, that still leaves us on the hook for the
overwhelming majority.

I understand your argument, but it is predicated on the assumption
that the DC ADIZ is necessary. That hasn't been demonstrated to my
knowledge.

IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
ADIZ

If the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to de clutter the airspace
surrounding the FRZ, it's doubtful its size will be reduced unless
F-16s are in the air 24 hours a day.

Why can't we hope that the ADZ be dispensed with entirely?

Because a half hour ago I got off the subway in Boston and they were
announcing at each stop for people to look around them to see if there
were any unattended packages left behind. In NYC they're doing random
bag checks on people.

As the months and years go by, I expect to see additional and more
frequent terrorist activity. Like Mr. Blair recently intoned, the way
to deflect the intended impact of the terrorists' acts is to go about
our business as usual. In my opinion, all this contraconstitutional
activity in the name of security only serves to demonstrate to the
terrorists, that they are winning, and very little to actually enhance
our security.

If they were to drop the ADIZ there would likely
be a huge outcry from the public about the inconveniences being borne
by the common man while rich pilots fly at will with no restrictions.

Perhaps the common man doesn't understand that he's being unjustly
manipulated by inept bureaucrats with a hidden agenda.

This isn't a fight we can win right now.

That may be so, but we _surely_ won't win it by sitting on our hands
and stifling our outrage at bureaucratic inanity.

So long as "weekend flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the
donut-eaters making the rules are going to keep things the way they
are or even tighten the screws more.

Perhaps its time for someone with a bit more intellect to look at the
issue, and propose a security measure that might remotely have some
modicum of achieving its purpose, instead of permitting the
"dough-eaters" to foist their inane restrictions on the liberty of
this nation's citizens.

Like I said, you're simply asking too much of the current environment.

If hysteria is given free reign, we will not like the outcome.

To the extent that any improvement is possible, I would offer that it
depends upon us as pilots demonstrating that we're not bumbling morons,
which is kind of what the current numbers suggest to the people making
the decisions.

I understand what you are saying, but your assessment fails to
comprehend the true facts:

1. 2,000 square miles of the busiest airspace in the world
was arbitrarily declared restricted.

2. The perimeter of this restricted airspace is unmarked by
discernable ground reference points.

3. The current penalty for violating that restricted airspace
is the possibility of being shot down by our nation's military.

4. ...

Items 1 and 2 are guaranteed to trap a lot of pilots who are not
bumbling morons as is born out by the statistics.


In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have
prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco.

Well, we do agree on something. It would however be better for us as
regards news coverage and public sentiment, to hear that the potential
peanlty for that kind of screwup is fairly stiff.

I would characterize our government's placing its citizen pilots in
the cross hairs of our military munitions as being not only a "fairly
stiff" penalty, but down right egregious.