irrefutable bottom line about picture ID's

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...


The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to
develop
a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
develop a policy.

Roger,

Intellectuals from the 20s through perhaps to the 50s believed
overwhelmingly that communism had to ultimately succeed because it was far
more scientific, rational, and well-planned than capitalism's free-for-all.
Surely a government of engineers would defeat a government of mere
politicians! Hayek was considered a crackpot in his own time for questioning
this, while Whittaker Chambers said he felt that he was switching from the
winning side to the losing one.

I'm not trying to make a point about communism per se, but rather to point
out that the sort of triumphal rationalism you express is in fact an old
idea, and one largely discredited by history. People and systems are
motivated by forces too numerous to compute the solutions of. It makes the
three-body problem look like kindergarten arithmetic.

Knowing which data to leave in, which data to leave out, and how to
interpret those things which do not conform to theoretical projections is
not the sideshow, it's the main event. Ideology is one of many anvils we can
beat the ore of raw analysis against to extract useful knowledge.

Just to give one example, I personally believe many liberals, particularly
in Western Europe, are at a loss to comprehend the nature of Islamic
terrorism because they have become so secularized that the deep religiosity
of OBL et. al. is simply unimaginable to them. Thus they become enamored of
the idea that we can negotiate on "rational" grounds, which is to say what
seems rational to them. Whereas conservatives, many of whom these days have
an element of apocalyptical evangelism in them, understand quite
instinctively that Bin Laden, the ayatollahs, etc. are talking about Heaven
and Hell, and there is no negotiating those things. Of course, I think good
counterclaims can be made here within the US regarding many social and
racial issues, where the Left has often preceeded the Right in identifying
the persistent gap in black versus white social progress as having roots
deeper than simple economics.

So my point is not necessarily to endorse one ideology but to dispute your
claim that ideology is obsolete. It is not now nor will it ever be.

Best,
-cwk.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wtV4d.100962$MQ5.55263@attbi_s52...
.... snip...

At this point in time, with the type of enemies who are aligned against
us,
we need a leader who can discern right from wrong. Good from evil, if you
will.



Just make sure that you are not picking the guy who loves to fight the
alligators, when maybe it might be more productive to drain the swamp.

http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Root_Causes_report.pdf

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981
-

C J Campbell wrote:

I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear
tinfoil hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix
the problem.

Considering the people making these rules, I'd not be surprised to see your
suggestion (tongue in cheek, I know) taking effect tomorrow.

- Andrew

I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's [...]
for protection of our aircraft and avionics.


How would this work?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Dave S wrote:

I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
to sort out who belongs and who doesnt.
And that's a good thing? Well, don't worry, we'll probably soon have the
same thing here in the U.S.... (some schools already have it I'm sure)
to "enhance" security.

Every little bit helps.

I know, I know.... "if it saves one life..." etc. etc.

I have
an ID for work,
I don't
an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
Not at my airport
photo on my DL,
this is fairly universal as DL serve as Identification nationwide.
a photo on my concealed handgun license..
I have a CCW too but in my state there is only a thumb print required....
always been that way and we've never had any problems with terrorists
using CCW licenses. But.. SURE... why not change that too. I bet the
cost to renew my CCW will then cost as much as it does in your state.

but my pilot
certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.
Okay, then lets do a picture for pilots too .... and ooops you forgot,
you'll need one for your ATM card, your credit card(s) and how about
the AOPA memberships cards too? WHat about your medical insurance cards,
and don't forget library cards. If its good for all that stuff its gonna
be good for everything. WHo cares what it costs or if it really does
any good.

kontiki wrote:

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security.

You're absolutely wrong. It won't provide even an illusion of greater security.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

C J Campbell wrote:

I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear tinfoil
hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix the problem.

You can't do that! The hats will block the control signals the FBI sends out!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Roger Long wrote:

I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking it
out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist measure
that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection of
our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.

I guess if some terrorist steals an airplane and flies it on a suicide mission
we can arrest him for not having a picture ID....

Here's another scenario that makes the picture ID seem REALLY worthless::

Some foreigner comes here on a mission (his own mission from "allah"), gets
a legit Visa, is fully checked out, plays by all the rules, goes to flight school,
gets his license with a nice little picture on it. Waits patiently and follows
all the rules then after he has his nice pictureID pilot license goes on his
terror flight with a rented airplane.

But... he had a valid picture ID! I don't know about you but I feel safer...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Roger Long wrote:

I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking
it
out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist
measure
that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection
of
our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.

I guess if some terrorist steals an airplane and flies it on a suicide
mission
we can arrest him for not having a picture ID....

Here's another scenario that makes the picture ID seem REALLY worthless::

Some foreigner comes here on a mission (his own mission from "allah"),
gets
a legit Visa, is fully checked out, plays by all the rules, goes to flight
school,
gets his license with a nice little picture on it. Waits patiently and
follows
all the rules then after he has his nice pictureID pilot license goes on
his
terror flight with a rented airplane.

But... he had a valid picture ID! I don't know about you but I feel
safer...



Picture IDs do 2 things:

1. They make it more convenient for you, the pilot. You can identify
yourself more easily when renting, or when crossing a controlled gate to get
to your plane, and stuff like that. If you are a pilot with a "mission",
well...., it will be more convenient.

2. They make it somewhat more difficult to operate on a borrowed or purely
stolen licence. This might make it harder for the odd failed-medical to get
in the air. It might also subvert that very rare joyrider/terrorist who
wants to steal a plane by openly walking onto the ramp without real
credentials.

As you have stated, I am sure that any serious terrorist will have those
bases covered.

But you guys really should listen to yourselves once in a while:

"Some foreigner comes here on a mission....". No-where is it carved in
stone that a terrorist has to be foreign... as in McVeigh, for example. The
current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
about their country. (Hell, it can be argued that some significant number
of corporations don't give a real damn for their country, either, but I
digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
enmity.

Some are caught in the 8th grade:

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343204

I expect that many are not.

Icebound wrote:
"Some foreigner comes here on a mission....". No-where is it carved in
stone that a terrorist has to be foreign... as in McVeigh, for example.
Exactly. Foreigner or no foreigner a picture ID does nothing to stop someone
bound and determined to commit mayhem or harm others. Laws are effective only
for the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. But what the heck,
if a little more inconvenience and the addition of a "renewal fee" makes
us all feel safer its worth it I guess... sigh

The
current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
about their country. (Hell, it can be argued that some significant number
of corporations don't give a real damn for their country, either, but I
digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
enmity.

It is not the responsibility of Corporations to "give a real damn for their country".
Their responsibility is to their stockholders... those who have paid money for shares
and expect them to be successful and not to lose money. Only individual citizens are
capable of "giving a damn". It could be argued that those who actually pay taxes in
this country are shareholders in a similar sense.

Some are caught in the 8th grade:

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343204

I expect that many are not.