Angry

1956 172, rainy/low cloud kinda weather, hills, 9pm at night, 2 kids on
board...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGC9GC0ED8.DTL

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
1956 172, rainy/low cloud kinda weather, hills, 9pm at night, 2 kids on
board...

Angry?

Angry, I think because it is so senseless and needless. It's upseting
to see people killing their families in stupid ways. I don't know what
it is about the hills around gilroy, but they seem to be magnets for
airplanes.

On the other hand, I might disagree with Hilton about whether the time
and type/age of the AC made for unacceptable risk factors for family
flying in and of themselves. If the pilot was skilled for IMC and the
plane was properly equipped and maintained, I don't have a problem with
it. There is, of course, the old single-engine-night-imc worry of
engine failure, but I'd bet $0.50 that this plane augured in with
cruise power. (that's purely speculation, of course, but I'd bet $0.50)

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 -at- yahoo -dot- com

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
1956 172, rainy/low cloud kinda weather, hills, 9pm at night, 2 kids on
board...

Angry?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Angry, I think because it is so senseless and needless. It's upseting
to see people killing their families in stupid ways.

What's the point in being angry? Stupid or careless people kill their
families every day. How is this any different, for example, from this
highway accident:
http://www.nwcn.com/topstories/stori....200c3bb7.html
The father had FIVE of his kids in his truck, at least some of whom were not
wearing seatbelts. Someone else caused the accident, but the father's
negligence is likely what led to the death of his children. Of course,
there are daily examples of even more direct irresponsibility on the part of
parents.

Getting angry over this sort of thing is useless, and if you want to be
consistent about it, you'll be angry 100% of your time. It never stops.

I think it's sad that people died, children or adults. But death is a fact
of life. A certain percentage of us will die "senselessly" or "needlessly",
and for the most part when society figures out a way to prevent that from
happening, individuals figure out new ways to get around it and die anyway.

Hell, most of our senseless deaths are still related to smoking or
gluttonous eating habits. Accidents make the news, but they aren't what
accounts for a major part of our death rate. Funny people should get so
worked up over the former rather than the latter, then.

Anger as an emotional response to an accident like this is draining,
stressful, and misdirected. **** happens. Save the anger for things that
matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

Pete

Did the pilot do something wrong? I got the page at 3AM the CAP
mission. We were told that the pilot declared (or at least implied) an
emergecy with ATC. It sounded like he way being vectored for the
approach. What was stupid?? I've flown with my wife and two kids at
night in IMC many, many times. I certainly don't consider it stupid or
dangerous. I wonder if he had engine problems.

-Robert

Angry that pilots sometimes devolve into emotional civilians who think
SE planes are intrinsicly dangerous and can't believe anyone would
actually fly one of those machines at night or in the clouds. Maybe
Hilton needs to stick with riding in the back of 737s.

-Robert

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:59:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

Save the anger for things that
matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

His days are numbered:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm
Bush stands firm over spying row

Bush refused to confirm or deny the allegations
President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil
liberties, after it was alleged he authorized people in the US to
be bugged without a warrant.

A storm of protest erupted after the New York Times said the
National Security Agency (NSA) was allowed to eavesdrop on
hundreds of people.

Senators from both sides called for an explanation and
investigation.

Mr Bush refused to confirm or deny the claims, but said he always
upheld the law and protected civil liberties.

The president said he would not discuss ongoing intelligence
operations.

But he added: "I will make this point. That whatever I do to
protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so,
that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made
understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties
of the American people."

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order
following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA,
based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international
telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral
to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to
foreign embassies.

Critics have questioned whether wider surveillance in the US
crosses constitutional limits on legal searches.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before
intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

'Big brother'

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation.

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".

The allegations coincided with a setback for the Bush
administration, as the Senate rejected extensions to spying
provisions in the Patriot Act.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said it is a sign of
intense concern about infringements of civil liberties in the name
of security.

The White House is having a tough time convincing even its
Republican supporters that the things it does in the name of the
war on terrorism are always justified, he adds.

Echoes of Vietnam

Administration officials issued a robust defense of anti-terrorist
operations, saying they had prevented several attacks - including
one on targets in Britain.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping
in the US without a court order and without complying with the
procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both
illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers
at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president
above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

To opponents of the Bush administration, the alleged bugging
programme is reminiscent of the widespread abuse of power by the
security services during the Vietnam War when anti-war activists
were monitored illegally, our correspondent says.

That activity prompted tougher regulation of bugging.


NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Formed in 1952
Biggest US security agency, with 38,000 employees
NSA Nicknamed "No Such Agency"
Has a dozen listening posts around the world, tracking phone
calls, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes
May record up to 500 million hours of traffic every day
On US soil, can only listen to "agents of a foreign power"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html
The Washington Post: "The presiding judge of a secret court that
oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases
is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to
address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's
domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and
government sources.

"Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
said in interviews that they want to know why the administration
believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading
e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal.
Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that
information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may
have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their
court. . . .

"Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown
into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of
the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the
court."

What exactly is the government doing so secretly? And why was
judicial oversight -- even with the granting of retroactive
approval -- apparently too limiting? Different theories are
emerging. One is that the secret program is some sort of giant
high-tech fishing expedition.

Leonnig and Linzer write: "Bush administration officials believe
it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to
provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a
warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no
way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a
vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something
that sounds suspicious. . . .

"One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,
said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process
demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on
it.

" 'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the
wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.' "

But Scott Shane writes in the New York Times that "officials who
have been granted anonymity in describing the program because it
is classified say the agency's recent domestic eavesdropping is
focused on a limited group of people. Americans come to the
program's attention only if they have received a call or e-mail
message from a person overseas who is already suspected to be a
member of certain terrorist groups or linked somehow to a member
of such groups. And the agency still gets a warrant to intercept
their calls or e-mail messages to other people in the United
States."

Shane adds some historical context: "For anyone familiar with the
agency's history, the revelations recalled the mid-1970's, when
the Senate's Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission
exposed the agency's abuse of Americans' privacy.

"Under one program, called Shamrock, the agency and its
predecessors for decades collected copies of all international
telegrams leaving or entering the United States from the major
telegraph companies. Another, code-named Minaret, kept watch lists
of Americans who caught the government's interest because of
activism against the Vietnam War or other political stances.
Information was kept on about 75,000 Americans from 1952, when
agency was created, to 1974, according to testimony."

Ron Hutcheson writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "By letting
government agents eavesdrop without court oversight, Bush joined a
long list of presidents who've tested the limits of their wartime
authority -- often to the detriment of their reputations. Most
over-reached. Legal scholars who disagree with Bush's approach say
he missed a vital history lesson."

Neil King Jr. writes in the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush's
claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens
without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his
party.

"On one side is the national-security camp, made even more
numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the
small-government civil libertarians who have long held a
privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have
ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks."




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm
Bush stands firm over spying row

Bush refused to confirm or deny the allegations
President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil
liberties, after it was alleged he authorized people in the US to
be bugged without a warrant.

A storm of protest erupted after the New York Times said the
National Security Agency (NSA) was allowed to eavesdrop on
hundreds of people.

Senators from both sides called for an explanation and
investigation.

Mr Bush refused to confirm or deny the claims, but said he always
upheld the law and protected civil liberties.

The president said he would not discuss ongoing intelligence
operations.

But he added: "I will make this point. That whatever I do to
protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so,
that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made
understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties
of the American people."

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order
following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA,
based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international
telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral
to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to
foreign embassies.

Critics have questioned whether wider surveillance in the US
crosses constitutional limits on legal searches.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before
intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

'Big brother'

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation.

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".

The allegations coincided with a setback for the Bush
administration, as the Senate rejected extensions to spying
provisions in the Patriot Act.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said it is a sign of
intense concern about infringements of civil liberties in the name
of security.

The White House is having a tough time convincing even its
Republican supporters that the things it does in the name of the
war on terrorism are always justified, he adds.

Echoes of Vietnam

Administration officials issued a robust defense of anti-terrorist
operations, saying they had prevented several attacks - including
one on targets in Britain.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping
in the US without a court order and without complying with the
procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both
illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers
at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president
above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

To opponents of the Bush administration, the alleged bugging
programme is reminiscent of the widespread abuse of power by the
security services during the Vietnam War when anti-war activists
were monitored illegally, our correspondent says.

That activity prompted tougher regulation of bugging.


NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Formed in 1952
Biggest US security agency, with 38,000 employees
NSA Nicknamed "No Such Agency"
Has a dozen listening posts around the world, tracking phone
calls, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes
May record up to 500 million hours of traffic every day
On US soil, can only listen to "agents of a foreign power"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Save the anger for things that
matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

His days are numbered: [...]

I wish I could share your optimism. I think it's pretty clear that a
majority of Americans are quite willing to simply overlook criminal acts on
his part. The current scandals aren't any different than those that
preceded the most recent election, and we all saw how much effect *those*
had.

The stench of hypocrisy, since the last attempt to impeach a President, is
astounding. I see no end in sight.

Of course, the alternative explanation is that the election WAS rigged, and
that there really aren't so many people willing to overlook that sort of
thing after all. One hopes the recent Diebold scandals (illegal
certification, untraceable vote hacking, etc.) will produce some movement
toward resecuring the elections. Maybe once that's done, the results will
seem more rational.

I'm not holding my breath. To start with, it would require that those in
power acknowledge the flaws with electronic voting, and agree to address
those flaws. For some odd reason, they seem to think it's perfectly fine to
have unverifiable, easily hacked election results. You'd think that EVERY
SINGLE POLITICIAN would be jumping up and down demanding auditable
elections. But a majority of them are not. I wonder why. What do they
have to fear from it?

Either way, it's not clear that we're headed for an improved situation any
time soon.

Pete

A belief that voting machines were rigged seems to be especially common
among alien abductees and those receiving secret messages from David
Letterman.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
A belief that voting machines were rigged seems to be especially common
among alien abductees and those receiving secret messages from David
Letterman.

Ahh, yes. Ad hominem. The other great tactic used by those without a real
argument.

In any case, the issue isn't whether they were or not. It's whether they
can be.

I take it you are quite happy with all of the lying and deception. Like I
said, for some reason, there seems to be a high correlation between those
who think the criminal acts are fine, and those who don't want the elections
to be secure. Odd. (Not).

Pete