If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent us
in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders? "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Foster" wrote in message ... Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't. Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry didn't. Actually, Kerry has not made any such claims and for good reason: he has gone on record too many times saying that Bush fooled him on various issues. Kerry would probably just as soon his supporters did not make such a big argument that Bush is stupid; it makes Kerry look even dumber than Bush. It makes his supporters look even dumber than that, but of course they are too stupid to realize it. :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
First off, after your Halliburton comment, you need not have told us your a
Dem. PUH-LEEZ. Next... On the other hand, a Kerry administration would probably keep FAA a public service, would not be as paranoid with security, would push localities to keep their airports from private developers, but their tax and regulatory policies will probably make it harder to buy airplanes which you would probably be able to fly more freely if you could buy one. Democratic candidates around here have ALWAYS been in league with the developers who pad their campaign chests. In fact, many of the DEM candidates ARE developers. This area is one where the GOP has been better. They put property rights over big business in most cases. The airports having been allowed to operate for years, now have legitimate easements over the surrounding space. So as far as the presidential candidates and GA go, it's six of one, half dozen of another. I don't think the interests of GA will be much of a factor in determining my vote, and it probably shouldn't be for you either. Most likely people will see it from the prism of their general views. If you are a Republican you probably think Bush is better for GA, and if you are a Democrat you probably think Kerry is. So for everyone, it's going to come down to general philosophy. From what I see on the newsgroups, GA pilots tend to be conservative and Republican (my primary flight instructor was a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in 2002), which doesn't surprise me given that it's probably a group that skews wealthier. I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian beliefs. The money comes from the same place. However, in my opinion Republican GA pilots are in total denial over how much their hobby depends on government subsidies and government intervention. The same people who demand less taxes or less regulation in general are right there demanding that the feds do something about the closure of Meigs field or put more subsidy into their local municipal airport. Yeah, some try to feed their denial by fooling themselves into thinking that the tax they pay on AVGAS funds it all (even the ones that don't buy AVGAS say that , but the reality is that GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention. This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside), then the buses would have to merge with the cars. Commercial air travel would be much more expensive and rare. This may not be good, but don't then place the costs of this choice on the backs of GA. You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open airports can and do make profits, yet the they send their fuel taxes to the government. That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy and support while proclaiming that we need less government. Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to the national and major carriers. Don't blame me for using class B radar service. I didn't create the need for the class B airspace - the big boys did. If it were all GA, we could simply put up a slow fly zone, and see and avoid. At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's not even in the top 10 of importance. I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote:
Democratic candidates around here have ALWAYS been in league with the developers who pad their campaign chests. In fact, many of the DEM candidates ARE developers. This area is one where the GOP has been better. Now you're talking about local politics, which as you noted below is a different issue. There are plenty of places, my home county included, where there are plenty of local Democratic politicians who are right-wing developer cronies, simply because Republicans never get elected to local office so those "Democrats" are actually Republicans in Democratic clothes IMO. If there were a viable Republican party in my county, those people would be Republicans, but they register Democratic to give themselves a chance to get elected. Also, since almost all of the money in local races is developer money (around here anyway), it's the rare politician of any party that can get elected without their support. But on a national level, the Republicans are more likely to be the party of the homebuilders and developers -- just look at where they put their political donations; those people are not dumb with their money. But we digress, as this thread is about national elections. which doesn't surprise me given that it's probably a group that skews wealthier. I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian beliefs. There's that denial again. Given how much our government actively spends and regulates to make GA as we know it possible, and given how heavily GA pilots depend on government services and subsidies, it's just laughable to say that GA pilots' Republican leaning comes from being a more independent and self-determining group. Pilots are a wealthier group who use their wealth to buy themselves some measure of independence and self-determination, not to mention influence over how government policies and spending are carried out to their benefit. But we are no more independent and self-determining than the farmers who collect their subsidy and price support checks and benefit from market-limiting laws while calling themselves independent and self-determining. (and I will resist going into how silly it is to say that Republicans are more self-determining, given their party's views on social issues and regulation of private, personal behavior). but the reality is that GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention. This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside), Driving on highways? Well, there's another heavily subsidized activity, and using that as a model does not do much to make your case that GA could be successful without govt subsidy. You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open airports can and do make profits, And how many of our Republican rec.aviation.owning pilots fly exclusively into and out of airfields that are built and operated without government subsidy, huh? Would there be such a market for GA without thousands of subsidized airports to fly into and out of? Could buddies' farm patches really sustain this industry that we depend on? That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy and support while proclaiming that we need less government. Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to the national and major carriers. I disagree. I do agree that the national and major carriers are subsidized, but so is GA if not more so on proportional basis. After all, the national carriers pay ticket taxes and rent to airport authorities and landing fees that GA generally doesn't pay. I would gess that less than 10% of the airports in this country that are federally subsidized will ever see a major commercial carrier land there. Don't blame me for using class B radar service. Do you get weather briefings? Do you use radio navaids? Do you listen to AWOS/ASOS broadcasts? Do you receive GPS signals, or have equipment that reads GPS databases which are based on data that the U.S. Govt provides free of charge to equipment manufacturers? Do you buy navigation charts for a whole lot less than it costs to compile and maintain them? Etc. etc. At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's not even in the top 10 of importance. I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support. On this we clearly agree. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In '68 (not '72) public sentiment was divided.
Probably: by '72 it wasn't. You had a few hardasses and Birchers and whatnot and everyone else was for getting out. I grew up in a middle-sized town and one that was overwhelmingly 'AuH2064':yet even the rednecks had serious questions by '72. Men in uniform-and even then, although it was understood they were noncombatants, the occasional female-were certainly not disrespectfully treated, but it was expressed that we hoped the war would be over shortly -either way. Bush got his training slot when production for UPT was as high as it had been historically since WW II. UPT was expanding from eight to eleven bases and capacity at each site was increased. We were up to more than 5000 per year input to UPT from all sources. (I was director of ATC Student Officer Rated Assignments from 1970 to April 1972 and managing the program.) My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state. Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting. It would seem to this political scientist (BS, MPS, MSIR) that the closeness of the last election in so many states would indicate that the value of every citizen's vote is critically important. Ours wasn't close. And this one will unquestionably be farther apart-Kerry will do worse than Gore. They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict. If you can't differentiate between the basic ideological positions of the two parties, you shouldn't vote. Good choice. I am aware of what their platforms say. I concede some may consider them fundamentally different. I consider them basically similar in that they both seek to encode their politicoreligious notions in the law. In one case it's a recognized religion, the other is an implicit one. In practice, they differ only by amount, not by real principle. Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even a MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that lesser level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to happen. He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter. The initial post was about flying "fighters". Yes, Bonanzas are notorious for applying the principles of Darwin to doctors. Actually some doctors are pretty good, even excellent, aviators. Several aerobatic champions have been doctors. Same with other professions. It is possible to become an excellent stick and rudder pilot through civilian training if you have the time, money, and drive. About the only thing you won't be able to learn as a civilian is weapons delivery. The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper. With all due respect to your uncle, we never won a war by hauling more trash than the enemy. Trash haulers help, but only because they provide the warriors at the pointy end of the spear with the bombs, beans and bullets to kill the enemy. He was no fighter pilot, but he was a good guy and he's missed. He'd planned to get involved in the EAA Young Eagles program and had signed up for a soaring rating when he dropped dead-not a heart attack per se but an electrochemical heart problem. The ambulance got there five minutes too late but the doctors said he might have been brain-impaired anyway, so "maybe it was for the best." Haven't seen Mason't book, but if he thinks the "Tiger" attitude got replaced by something less, he's sadly mistaken. Warriors are professionals, but they'd better have a healthy dose of attitude. Mason's book-wriitten for young adults (young male adults-it was fifteen years before females wore USAF wings)-portrays the USAF air cadet programs as basically unalloyed aggressiveness designed to crank out winning fighter jocks-at the expense of a certain casualty rate, and notwithstanding that most grads went to tankers, transports, bombers, helos, or ocasionally directly to IP school. As I remember the big change_according to Mason_ was that flight training "later on" took in people who were already officers, not needing the boot camp mentality, and was vastly less tolerant of accidents. Also the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37. This agrees with accounts of flight training by many other writers, including Richard Bach and several of the early astronauts, who went through 50s era USAF flight training. Bottom line as far as politics- I personally don't like Bush, right or wrong, and I can't support a Kennedy, which Kerry as well may be, nor would I vote for someone that liberal even if he is an active pilot. (In general I tend to prefer Reps to Dems, provided they are not so fundamentalist they can't separate church from state.) I don't agreee with everything John McCain says but I'd work for his election over Kerry. Voting third party expresses my dissatisfaction, and if it clearly throws the election either way so much the better. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Dude" wrote in message ... If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent us in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders? Exactly the point. That is why you won't see Kerry going around saying that Bush is stupid and why he probably wishes his 'supporters' would stop saying it, too. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Byrams wrote:
[Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37. In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38. Jack |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack
wrote: Sam Byrams wrote: [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37. In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38. You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41 screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming prior to T-38 qualification. The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for another 20 years at least. Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.) Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, so we will stick to the national issues and drop the developer issue.
We both agree that the local pols are bought and paid for by whichever party. In my opinion, this is the biggest political issue for pilots by far. The national stuff just doesn't seem to be fixable through voting. After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps save you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in disagreement based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of other users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs keep this in mind. You can read the rest to get an idea what I mean, but we cannot have a fruitful discussion without a mutual understanding of this concept. I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian beliefs. There's that denial again. Given how much our government actively spends and regulates to make GA as we know it possible, and given how heavily GA pilots depend on government services and subsidies, it's just laughable to say that GA pilots' Republican leaning comes from being a more independent and self-determining group. Pilots are a wealthier group who use their wealth to buy themselves some measure of independence and self-determination, not to mention influence over how government policies and spending are carried out to their benefit. But we are no more independent and self-determining than the farmers who collect their subsidy and price support checks and benefit from market-limiting laws while calling themselves independent and self-determining. (and I will resist going into how silly it is to say that Republicans are more self-determining, given their party's views on social issues and regulation of private, personal behavior). Pardon my overzealous snip, but... It's not denial, its a disagreement on what the real costs are that are PROPERLY attributal to GA. Your statement as "how we know it" is quite telling. How we know it is as a system within a system that is preferential to other users. Not as a system that treats each user as an equal. Seriously, make a list of all the items and services that you do not pay for that would not be there except for GA (No class B space, fewre towers, smaller runways, less jetways, less need for Class A services, less need for radar coverage at all, reduced frequencies, reduced radio coverage, etc.) . Now, add the MARGINAL costs of your VOLUNTARY use of other services (weather, IFR service, etc.). Unfortunately, government accounting will not let you come close to figuring this out, but take an honest SWAG. If you are a VFR pilot, you use almost ZERO other than weather. I would be happy to have weather privatized (please no stones) as it can be had pretty cheaply. Much of what we use as GA is a must have for military and commercial flight. It's not fair, under the current preferential environment to account to GA a prorata share. Period. I will not change my mind until someone comes up with some numbers that do not represent the cost of keeping me out of the way of Delta's airplanes. Since you did not resist telling us about self determmination... throwing in social issues is a straw dog, especially since I said that the people here leaned conservative AND libertarian BECAUSE of those traits. Obviously, us Libertarians's are all about self determination and independence. I think you have different meanings in mind than I do for those words. Besides, BOTH parties are now in a race to legislate values, and the left is winning due to control of the courts. Wow, that was a lot. but the reality is that GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention. This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside), Driving on highways? Well, there's another heavily subsidized activity, and using that as a model does not do much to make your case that GA could be successful without govt subsidy. My understanding is that the transportation fund is kept in surplus to help balance the budget. At any rate, the transportation system could easily be self sufficient if it is not already, simply by curbing pork transportation projects in favor of needed ones. This being a side issue, I doubt either of us is running to find the numbers. You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open airports can and do make profits, And how many of our Republican rec.aviation.owning pilots fly exclusively into and out of airfields that are built and operated without government subsidy, huh? Would there be such a market for GA without thousands of subsidized airports to fly into and out of? Could buddies' farm patches really sustain this industry that we depend on? HA! I got you! You assume that those airports only exist due to subsidy. However, small privately owned, public use airports are common. It is only government interference and subsidized fields that compete for the business that keep more private fields from being in existance. At any rate, if properly managed, these airports are self sufficient. Otherwise, there would not be any private, for profit, airports would there? That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy and support while proclaiming that we need less government. Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to the national and major carriers. I disagree. I do agree that the national and major carriers are subsidized, but so is GA if not more so on proportional basis. After all, the national carriers pay ticket taxes and rent to airport authorities and landing fees that GA generally doesn't pay. I would gess that less than 10% of the airports in this country that are federally subsidized will ever see a major commercial carrier land there. So we are guessing differently, that is fair enough. Lets look at some of the examples. Don't blame me for using class B radar service. Do you get weather briefings? Yes, but I can get much of that info free, or for a small charge. My use of the system is more often than not due to a need to avoid weather AND controlled air space. If it was not available, I might cancel a couple more flights a year. I would be willing to pay a fee for it - now that it is voluntary. Do you use radio navaids? Yes, when I am not allowed to fly direct. Get rid of the airspace controls, and you can get rid of the navaids in my opinion. I am likely in the minority here. I also use them for training, ad for IFR. I would be curious what the costs of maintaining the VOR system is. Private airports do pay for some or all of the costs of NDB and ILS. Do you listen to AWOS/ASOS broadcasts? I heard about a local municipal airport that didn't have the budget for a new unit. Some local pilots simply pulled out their checkbooks when the council was finally cornered into admitting the amount. The city refused do to legal concerns, and later came up with the funds. These are worthwhile, but once again, private airports have them, and I don't think the Feds are paying for them. Do you receive GPS signals, or have equipment that reads GPS databases which are based on data that the U.S. Govt provides free of charge to equipment manufacturers? Do you buy navigation charts for a whole lot less than it costs to compile and maintain them? Etc. etc. An interesting question, and one worth looking into. How often do we REALLY need new charts and updates? How accurate do GA pilots REALLY need them to be? These costs are skewed by decisions made based on the needs of commercial and military users. We are getting a free ride, but we pay in other ways than cash - we get less priority in the system. If you want to charge a pro rata share to GA, then you should make a product that meets our needs, and tell the other users that they can pay more, or get it privately. At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's not even in the top 10 of importance. I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support. On this we clearly agree. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack wrote: Sam Byrams wrote: [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37. In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38. You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41 screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming prior to T-38 qualification. The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for another 20 years at least. Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.) Preceded you a little bit. Did the T-34, Tweet & T-bird. Old T-bird had a lot of inertia with full tips and a lot of slack in the stick. There was a noticeable drop in instrument skills and ability to handle older aircraft when the all Tweet/Talon guys started coming out the end of the pipeline. They were just TOO easy to fly. Our T-34/Tweet instructors were "civilian" at least technically. Mine was actually one of those much reviled in another tread TANG types, in fact became GWB's commander in the Deuce. My best friend, then and now was another instant airman to lieutenant guardsmen. A second guard classmate went on to command his state guard with 2 stars on his shoulders. None of us saw Vietnam. All 3 of us managed 30+ years of airline. Beats working for a living. -- Ron Parsons |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What's this? a politcal rebuttal that is informed and well thought out
and not full of flames? What the heck happened to the usenet I've come to know? Seriously, nice work Dude. I agree that what you have written below is the crux of our disagreement on this issue. You feel that GA would have flourished if left to its own devices and that the infrastructure that we now use is more an imposition to please the big lines than an essential part of our GA experience. I believe that GA would never have been as widespread or as successful as it is if it didn't have all that infrastructure to get a relatively free ride off of. Fair enough, we just see it differently. And we both agree on politicans of both parties at the local level being bought and owned by development interests Dude wrote: After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps save you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in disagreement based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of other users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs keep this in mind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |