Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
of
existence.

Right on!

Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ukjDb.357555$Dw6.1171667@attbi_s02...
On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that
made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation
and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out
of
existence.

Right on!

Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?

Teach your children well...then your neighbors.

America's problems are NOT political, but philosophic (remember -- each and
every one of the "Gang of 535" was ELECTED!!); the problems won't change
until Americans in general, change "between the ears". Unless we stop
thinking of other citizens as "milch cows", we'll only continue shooting
ourselves in the ass.

"Jay Honeck" writes:

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
of
existence.

Right on!

Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?

As a first step, let's form a congressional committee to look into this.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that
made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation
and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out
of
existence.

Right on!

Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?

As a first step, let's form a congressional committee to look into this.

A few $$$millions in PAC money would help...

Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their house
so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
member.

I wonder how much AOPA money is going to candidates? With the
McCain-Feingold BCRA thing now fully in effect groups like AOPA that can
bundle large numbers of hard money donations together are going to become
more important than ever. It may be corrupt to high hell but it's the way
the game is played.

Best,
-cwk.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

A few $$$millions in PAC money would help...

"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their
house
so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
member.

Would that be soft money?

(Ever wonder what would happen to "soft money" if Congress didn't have the
power to hand out favor/goodies and dispensations? Gee...where's the
Catholic Church when we need 'em?)

In rec.aviation.owning Colin Kingsbury wrote:
: Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
: much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

How many of those 400,000 AOPA members are still in the land of the living?

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message


American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

That may be true, but I think the point of the article is that the pace of
innovation and progress would be much greater without the regulatory and
litigious barriers that have been erected since the Wrights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher" wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.


It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well. Progress is
definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
part of slow progress. They can make cost of entry into markets very
high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.


The point of the article was lost on me.

There wasn't much of a point just some emotional knee-jerk with a
lot of fluffy talk.

R. Hubbell


--
Jim Fisher