Hillary's Amendment

BlueSkyzz wrote:
Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.

This has nothing to do with D's and R's.
Hillary is the primary sponsor and introduced it so it gets her name.
You introduced the political aspect, so we know where you stand on the
issue!

Bullsh*t Blue sky ..... Keep em coming.. And we all need to be
writing our senators. This DC ADIZ is a bunch of crap. Maybe you are
not effected.... yet......



BlueSkyzz wrote:
john smith wrote:

You get rid of one, and another pops up!

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_0...senate_03.html

Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.

--

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:53:17 GMT, BlueSkyzz
wrote:

john smith wrote:

You get rid of one, and another pops up!

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_0...senate_03.html

Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.

In this particular case it's the same. It's a bill that could have
dire consequences for general aviation depending on how the results
are interpreted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.

In article . com,
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.

Let's have a show of hands of all those that believe that the conclusions of
such a study will be scientifically sound, logical, and not politically
motivated...

(-{

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.


It sounds like they've already drawn their conclusion and are looking for
ways to force-fit supporting data.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.

Lautenberg and Schumer have taken every opportunity for decades to shut down GA
and GA airports. Any study that those two have a hand in is poisoned from the start.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.


You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these
work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the
conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would
come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.

If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.

The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.

The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.

Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.

Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.

The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.

The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.

Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.

Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.


Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.