Wrong pilot detained for TFR violation

Jay Honeck wrote:

What about:

This nation was founded by men of many nations and
backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that
all men are created equal, and that the rights of
every man are diminished when the rights of one man
are threatened.

That we no longer seem to believe this is indication enough of a
"lifestyle"
problem.

Well put, Andrew.

Just to be clear: I didn't write that; I merely took the quote from a JFK
speech. I didn't bother to provide a reference as I assumed people would
recognize it as a quote from the indentation, and either recall it or look
it up.

I expect you know this (judging you from your writing), but I don't want
your "well put" comment (thanks, BTW) to mislead anyone else.

Personally, I was responding to Eduardo's broadside against American, by
proclaiming that our new lifestyle "sucks." By any common measure,
this is patently false.

The more subtle aspects of our loss of "rights" brought about by the
closing of certain airports is a different topic, in my opinion.

While I find "sucks" too strong, I assume that this was hyperbole. In my
opinion, our lifestyle is a direct reflection of the rights we enjoy. To
even just threaten those rights is to diminish that lifestyle. We're not
at the "sucking" level yet, true, but the warning flags are out.

But be aware that, to me, "lifestyle" includes more than just "standard of
living".

- Andrew

Recently, Andrew Gideon posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Please. Such positions are ignorantly Fascistic, not liberal. Trying
to sell us on the idea that record deficits are of no concern is
liberal. Fiscal irresponsibility is liberal. So, if the party
embraces those that hold such views, one merely has to decide where
they stand on such points. I don't find the choice all that hard to
make.

Interesting. I've been under the belief that "liberal" referred to
the freedom with which one read the Constitution and related
documents. A "conservative" reading limits government to what's
described, a "liberal" reading permit government to do whatever the
reader thinks the authors would have intended had they written the
documents in the current era.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have evolved and warped a lot since
those definitions. The politic has pretty much rendered them meaningless
labels used as quick-references for "the other guy". I tend to look at
their behaviors and ignore their rhetoric to determine such things.

So what you're calling "liberal" above (a lack of fiscal
responsibility) I'd simply call "stupid" at best (at worse:
dishonest, robbing future funds to buy today's elections).

No argument, here. It *is* stupid, short-sighted, and dishonest.

Hmm...I suppose that this makes the tariffs not liberal but stupid (or
worse) by my own definition.

However, even using your definition, we've still a pretty liberal
administration in office today: tax breaks combined with war spending?
Deficits rising without consideration of consequences?

What's a good conservative to do?

It's called a "clean sweep" over the next two years. Oust every nitwit
that thinks such policies are a good idea, regardless of their party
affiliations. Anything short of that is merely supporting the status quo.

Neil

At least with the rain forest, we'll inherit a big, empty building when
it
fails.

Can you build a runway next to it?

No, but I-80 is right next to the site. That'll do, in a pinch...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What about:

This nation was founded by men of many nations and
backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that
all men are created equal, and that the rights of
every man are diminished when the rights of one man
are threatened.

That we no longer seem to believe this is indication enough of a
"lifestyle" problem.

Comfort and apathy?

--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:gTrSc.131139$eM2.99593@attbi_s51...
This is the first time the police (other than SWAT teams) have been
walking the
streets with fully automatic weapons. The commuter searches were in
effect
for

Can you imagine what the victim's families would say if the Brooklyn
Bridge
was brought down by a truck full of explosives, and they hadn't been
searching trucks beforehand?

Why, John Edwards old law firm would be suing....

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Brian Downing wrote:

Heh. In Illinois if you haven't had any moving violations you plug in
some data into a web site and they mail you a sticker to put on the back
of your old license that gets you four more years.

Talk about coincidence -- I just got my renewal notice today. Turns out
that they not
only require a total of 6 points, there is a small subset of documents
that *must* be
produced. In my case, I'll either have to write the State of Tennessee and
get a
certified copy of my birth certificate or renew my passport.

And to pay for this, they tripled the cost of the license and reduced the
term from 6
years to 4.

Hmmm...in Arizona they jacked the fee to $25 (from $6), but your license
doesn't expire until your 65th birthday...even if you're only in your 20's
now. Of course, most people are out of the state in less than five years
anyway, so it's a great cash coup.

Roger Halstead wrote:

OTOH I've never been able to understand how society can ignore nearly
50,000 deaths a year on the highway.

Probably because, "Highway crashes claimed a total of 42,815 lives in
2002, up from 42,196 in 2001."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/health...rashdeaths.htm

When they climb another 17% or so, then we "can ignore nearly 50,000
deaths a year on the highway."

Considering the amount of driving we do and the ridiculous road design
and maintenance standards coupled with politically correct but
irrational licensing entitlements in the US, the only surprise is that
the total is not closer to 100,000 than 50,000.

However, using the roads in either of our hemispheric neighbors quickly
demonstrates that it could be worse.


Jack

Dave Stadt wrote:

...only 42,000 people were killed in traffic accidents last year, a number
unchanged since the 40s. Deaths per mile are down but 42,000 dead people is
still a huge loss of life.

Relative to what? Irrelevant to "TFR violation", for sure.

Death rates are a misleading statistic anyway. Cars are so much safer
now, that we should be looking at the number of crashes of all types per
mile, and not just fatalities.

The cars are better, but not the drivers.


Jack