Will the new government have any effect on GA?

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.


"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...
| On Nov 13, 2:49 am, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Iran has won, why
| would they change now?
|
| Iran is in its present position of strength (but not by a
long shot
| could it be called a winning position) because the Neocons
decided to
| go after a man and a country that presented no real threat
to the US.
| The idea that Saddam Hussein (an atheist socialist!) could
have even
| wanted to help Osama bin Laden (a religious fanatic) is a
joke that
| only the Neocons didn't get. Ironic, but true.
|
| They ignored Iran (already presenting a threat - its
nuclear program is
| not new) and North Korea (ditto), and put 90% of the US
military's
| might into Iraq (with disastrous consequences for all
involved, but
| that's another story). Any 2nd-amendment-supporting
red-blooded
| Americans who supported the invasion and occupation of
Iraq need to
| re-examine their (no doubt default) patriotism, because
going into Iraq
| was _not_ in the best interests of this country -
economic, diplomatic,
| military, or otherwise. We've succeeded in weakening our
military
| position in the world, we've alienated allies, we've
****ed the
| national budget, and we've left ourselves exposed to
nuclear threats
| from countries that we could've taken care of in a second
if we hadn't
| wasted all that time, money, and human life in Iraq.
|
| Could bin Laden have wished for anything more? If what the
Neocons have
| done isn't treason, then nothing is. George Bush may as
well have taken
| a list of demands from bin Laden, bowed his head, and
said, "It shall
| be done."
|
| Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous
and
| soon we will have a real world war being fought with
nuclear
| weapons and chemicals.
|
| That's not true - terrorism hasn't won. What would it mean
for
| terrorism to win, anyway? True, bin Laden has played Bush,
the Neocons,
| and the right in general like a piano and gotten much of
what he
| wanted. But you can't argue that you haven't lost any
rights and say
| terrorism has won - it's a contradiction. You've got most
of your
| rights, and you're right in believing that the fact that
you're a white
| male protects you from the consequences of the rights you
are losing.
| Unless a white male does something really stupid, like get
caught
| fighting alongside the Taliban, there's no way the US
government will
| lock him up and throw away the key. Only a major change
will threaten
| your inalienable right as a white male to be given
preferential
| treatment by the US govt. But you're arguing that a major
change is
| happening.
|
| So maybe you _should_ be worried.
|
| Marc
|

Why not have all airline passengers fly sedated and strapped
in a straight jacket?

Or arm all pilots and passengers, search for bombs and
profile passengers to fins and screen the known risks.

But actually looking for a Muslim terrorist is some how
religious intolerance. It seems that when there is a bank
robbery and the media reports a white man, with a beard,
5-10-6 feet wearing a T-shirt and ball cap, or a Hispanic
male as the suspect it's is OK, but when they don't report a
description, we "know" it was a black man.

Airplane hijacked by little white haired lady with knitting
needles, we know it was a woman. But if they say riots in
Paris, cars burned, police station burned by "youths" we
know it was Muslim youthful terrorist wannabes.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
| I remember you made a big deal out of going to Dulles,
for a special
| event where the way was paved for you. But that's not
the same as
| flying over the Nation's Capital. Washington DC is
=inside= the FRZ.
|
| Well, the way into the Washington ADIZ wasn't paved for
us -- we had to
| do everything by the book. It took ten minutes, tops, and
was no more
| difficult than filing any other kind of flight plan.
|
| Now, if you're talking about flying over the White House
or the
| National Mall, well, duh.
|
| 2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left --
and a political
| climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see
nothing wrong
| with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.
|
| Why? Perhaps a little one mile ring to keep people who
can't maneuver
| an airplane with that degree of precision away, but if
you think this
| keeps intentional harm away from the complex, that is
laughable.
|
| You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone
around the
| Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a
no-fly zone
| is appropriate?
|
| 3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.
|
| So what? The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my=
carry-on is not a silly
| freedom.
|
| Yes, it is. And it's just another impetus to spur the
growth of GA, in
| any case.
|
| Besides, many of the wines one can get in California are
not
| available anywhere else. There just isn't enough made.
I don't want
| the government telling me what wine I can drink, which
is what
| effectively happens.
|
| And if a terrorist smuggles four "bottles" of explosives
on the plane,
| killing everyone on board, well, that's just acceptable
collateral
| damage? After all, your merlot was an excellent year!
|
| Gimme a break.
|
| I guess you wouldn't understand though. You drink beer.

|
| Exactly. ;-)
|
| The wine rule came about because wine is a liquid, and
somebody tried to
| use liquid explosive. Ever played with powdered sugar
around a heat
| source?
|
| Not recently.
|
| 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has
proven to be a "bad
| thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common
sense" category.
|
| People carrying weapons is not a Bad Thing. It is only
when Bad people
| carry weapons where Good people can't that it's a Bad
Thing. And a
| Swiss Army Knife is not a weapon, except in the sense
that anything can
| be used as one (including a pencil).
|
| The PA airliner didn't make it to the White House
because Good People
| fought the terrorists back. The solution is to keep
weapons away from
| Good People. Hmmm. Common sense?
|
| No, the solution is to make all airline passengers fly
naked. I'd fly
| on THAT airline.
|
| ;-)
|
| 1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's
so unworkable,
| in practice, that it is not used.
|
| Really? You must get more use out of your time machine
than you do out
| of the Pathfinder. I don't see any reason for the
government to
| overturn the library rule, and it's the government that
made it. All
| they have to do is keep quiet about it. As it is, most
people aren't
| aware of it, and many that are are of the opinion that
"if you aren't
| reading anything bad, you have nothing to worry about."
|
| How do you know that the library rule is not used? Part
of the rule is
| that the librarians are NOT ALLOWED TO SAY when it's
been used.
|
| Because the librarians around here protested it when it
first was
| announced, and declared that it would not be followed.
Remember, Iowa
| City has gone so far as to declare itself to be a "Nuclear
Weapons-Free
| Zone", and is the only city in America to elect a
card-carrying member
| of the communist party.
|
| No one rounded up the librarians when they said that, and
no one will.
| It's a dumb, unenforceable, unworkable law, that will fall
by the
| wayside like the 200,000 other stupid laws we've got on
the books that
| no one obeys.
|
| 2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their
homes searched
| without due process. Are you referring to wire
tapping overseas phone
| calls?
|
| Anybody can have their homes searched without due
process if the feds
| use the magic words "national security". I'm also
referring to aspects
| of "home" that are not geographical, such as the
contents of your hard
| drive (which may be seized and searched if you try to
bring a laptop on
| an airliner), the expanded wiretapping and internet
tapping
| surveillance, and other tramplings of what we once
considered private.
| These measures are being pushed through without much
resistance, in the
| name of National Security. Each one passed makes it
easier to pass the
| next one.
|
| 3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held
without charges being
| brought.
|
| If the charges are based on National Security, the
government could deem
| them too secret to present to you. I have no first-hand
experience with
| this, but I am no longer convinced that we are not all
vulnerable to it.
|
| We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won
the war on drugs.
|
| You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative
responses that
| make any more sense.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

On Nov 14, 5:18 pm, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans. The Republicans had their turn,
made a mess of it, and now the Democrats are at the plate. They won't
do any better, but in any case this kind of partisan political debate
isn't useful. People seem more interested in defeating the other party
(whichever that may be) than defeating the forces that are against the
US.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

Sounds pretty paranoid. There aren't going to be any attacks in a few
weeks.

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.

Nothing wrong with that.

Marc

Well, the way into the Washington ADIZ

The Washington ADIZ is not over our Capital. I have been in the ADIZ
many times. There's nothing under it but trees and suburbs.

We have lost the freedom to fly over our Capital. This is strictly
9-11. For a long time we lost the freedom to fly over NY and Boston. I
won't even talk about Chicago.

You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone around the
Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a no-fly zone
is appropriate?

The teeny ones that existed prior to 9-11 were appropriate.

The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my= carry-on is not a silly
freedom.
Yes, it is.

There are no silly freedoms. What if it were beer?

And if a terrorist smuggles four "bottles" of explosives on the plane,
killing everyone on board, well, that's just acceptable collateral
damage? After all, your merlot was an excellent year!

"If only one child is saved...". Yes, it's acceptable collateral
damage. Goddamnit, LIVING is risky. You think the terrorists can't
figure out another way? Gimme a break.

Ever played with powdered sugar around a heat source?
Not recently.

It's an explosive. Somebody will try it, and powders will be banned.
Pretty soon we'll all fly naked in handcuffs.

I'd fly on THAT airline.

Somebody might pick their nose.

No one rounded up the librarians when they said that, and no one will.

No. But they will ask a librarian for records, and she will comply or
not. If she refuses, she'll go to jail. If she breaks the secret,
she'll go to jail. It is not at all unenforcable. It is only needed
sometimes, and those times you can be sure it will be enforced.

We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won the war on drugs.
You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative responses that
make any more sense.

Accept the fact that life is risky. Accept the fact that freedom is
lost long before security is gained. Go from there. Somewhere in your
Holy Book there is a passage on that; something to do with cheeks.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Nov 14, 5:29 pm, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

But if they say riots in
Paris, cars burned, police station burned by "youths" we
know it was Muslim youthful terrorist wannabes.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that's going to lose this war.

Doesn't anybody realize anymore that it takes intelligence (as in
"smarts" not "information") and not just expensive machinery to win a
war?

The day patriotism and nuanced thinking are mutually exclusive is the
day we really will have lost.

Anyway, none of this has to do with flying. I'm outta this thread.....

Marc

Jay Honeck writes:

You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone around the
Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a no-fly zone
is appropriate?

Wherever there are other things in the air that can cause conflicts,
such as balloons, projectiles (for military practice), and so on.

Just forbidding overflight out of concerns about "terrorists" isn't
justified, at least not as long as they can still drive into the area
in vehicles or navigate into it with boats.

No, the solution is to make all airline passengers fly naked. I'd fly
on THAT airline.

No, the solution is to profile and interrogate passengers, rather than
search their luggage. It's not what they are carrying that counts,
it's what they intend to do with it.

You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative responses that
make any more sense.

There are many alternatives, such as the ones I've mentioned above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

No. But they will ask a librarian for records, and she will comply or
not. If she refuses, she'll go to jail. If she breaks the secret,
she'll go to jail. It is not at all unenforcable. It is only needed
sometimes, and those times you can be sure it will be enforced.

I've heard of libraries that regularly announce that they haven't been
told to provide records (which is legal). One day they stop
announcing that, and you know that the government demanded someone's
records.

Accept the fact that life is risky. Accept the fact that freedom is
lost long before security is gained.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear is routinely used
to undermine freedom.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.

You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff you're drinking,
don't you?

Neil

Truth serum?



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
posted:
|
| And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the
Democrats
| to support the President and the troops took a back seat
to
| regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost
the
| war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
| Congress.
|
| Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here
in
| a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
| President?
|
| BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless
office
| since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can
fight a
| war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
| support.
|
| You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff
you're drinking,
| don't you?
|
| Neil
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:

Then aviation will never return to pre-9/11 status, as the war on
terror is an illusory one that can be sustained indefinitely, like the
war on Eastasia or Eurasia. Of course, that was the idea all along.

Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
power since seeking more power is their goal in life.

Politicians in general never return power unless forced to do so, no
matter what their party affiliation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
the time. And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
every day.

Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
the Democrats here.

Skylune out.