irrefutable bottom line about picture ID's

[kontiki]

If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security. It is akin to locking the barn door
after the horse has escaped. When it finally becomes obvious that
the measure did nothing to prevent future attacks there will be
even more measures and restrictions which will be proposed.

This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

[Roger Long]

If picture ID's had been required before 911, the terrorists certainly would
have had them. If terrorists use planes again it will be a comfort to us
all to know that they have picture ID's in their wallets.

The biggest problem with all the public relations oriented crap is that it
makes us less safe by diverting money, human resources, and public pressure
for real security solutions.

The mother of all feel-good responses was the war in Iraq. Yes, Sadam was a
danger. He should have been booted. The US should have taken the lead on
it. US troops should have been sent in. But, not in a way that used up 90%
of our resources, alienated the nations we need to help us in the struggle,
created thousands of new and more radical terrorists, and not rushed to try
and get it over with before the election.

There is a basic misunderstanding of terrorism. The purpose is not to scare
or force us into changing our policies. The terrorists know that we have
more spine than that. The primary purpose is to create more terrorists.
These guys think about nothing else and they know history. They know that,
when a critical mass in a society is committed, nothing can stand in their
way. That's what brought the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union down. The
purpose of terrorism is to create that critical mass WITHIN THE MIDDLE EAST
COUNTIES. They do that by prompting the nations they attack to do things
like rush into invasions with inadequate planning in a way that creates the
chaos that is the perfect breeding ground for new recruits. So far, we have
responded as if Bin Laden wrote the script and had a direct red phone line
into the White House. They have been aided by an administration craven
enough to equate any questioning of their simplistic fantasy of the world
with being unpatriotic and not supporting our troops.

Supporting our troops does not mean keeping your mouth shut. It means their
being sent in with a plan, with sufficient equipment, when the time is
right. Above all, it means that many of them should have been from other
nations, just as a matter of numbers, we already stretched thin. Just ask
the Nation Guard members on their second rotation. It was also vital to
preventing the radicalizing effect of this being all US invasion.

If Jr. had had the brains and foreign policy skill of his father, and had
not viewed the war on terrorism just as a domestic political opportunity, we
would have been invading Iraq about now. The country would have been
blanked with troops, many of them Muslims. There would have been
reconstruction resources in place. We would have been prepared to seize all
the weapons and medical radioactive materials that disappeared. Sadam would
have been no more dangerous. Above all, we would have first better secured
our other fronts of vulnerability. Doing this would have required
explaining to the American people and the world why we weren't doing
anything right now before the end of the next news cycle. That takes
leadership, something we are totally lacking. Leadership means leading
which means showing the way and changing the direction things are going.
Marching along in a fancy uniform ahead of a parade and going wherever it is
going is not leadership however grand it looks.

Don't tell me Kerry will do a worse job just because he's a Democrat and all
democrats are idiots. No one can know how he will do but anyone willing to
put their partisanship aside and look at just look at what's going on as
they would an engineering or business problem, cost/benefit,
resources/expenditures, system function, ought to be able to see that this
has all been screwed up beyond imagination.

--

Roger Long



"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
> that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
> to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
> national security.
>
> There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
> that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
> with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
> was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
> activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).
>
> In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
> that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
> an illusion of greater security. It is akin to locking the barn door
> after the horse has escaped. When it finally becomes obvious that
> the measure did nothing to prevent future attacks there will be
> even more measures and restrictions which will be proposed.
>
> This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.
>
>
>
>

[Dave S]

kontiki wrote:

> If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
> that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
> to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
> national security.
>
Neither have I, but...

> In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
> that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
> an illusion of greater security.

I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
to sort out who belongs and who doesnt. Every little bit helps. I have
an ID for work, an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
photo on my DL, a photo on my concealed handgun license.. but my pilot
certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.
>
> This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

You are entitled to yours, and I disagree with you.
Dave

[Roger Long]

I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking it
out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist measure
that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection of
our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.

Now see my post above. The Republican spin doctors would jump on me and
say, "See, he's a flip flopper. First he says one thing, then he says
another. Disregard everything he says."

The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to develop
a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
requires a lot more leadership. This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
Neither party has a monopoly on either wisdom or stupidity. Bush however,
has surrounded himself entirely (except perhaps for Colin Powell) with the
former kind of thinkers.

--

Roger Long



"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> kontiki wrote:
>
> > If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
> > that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
> > to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
> > national security.
> >
> Neither have I, but...
>
> > In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
> > that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
> > an illusion of greater security.
>
> I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
> High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
> to sort out who belongs and who doesnt. Every little bit helps. I have
> an ID for work, an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
> photo on my DL, a photo on my concealed handgun license.. but my pilot
> certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
> the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
> military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.
> >
> > This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.
>
> You are entitled to yours, and I disagree with you.
> Dave
>

[C Kingsbury]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .

> Don't tell me Kerry will do a worse job just because he's a Democrat and
all
> democrats are idiots.

Actually, my main problem with Kerry is that I don't believe a thing that
comes out of his mouth. Just since he's been a pres. candidate (well that's
actually since he was about 16, but that's another matter) he has been the
pro-war candidate, the anti-war candidate, the anti-anti-war candidate, and
now the pro-anti-war candidate. The only way to explain John Kerry's policy
positions are (1) chaos theory and (2) he will say anything whatsoever to
get elected. What he'll actually do in office, who the hell knows?

Best,
-cwk.

[Jay Honeck]

> The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
> It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
> you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
> your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to
develop
> a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
> consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
> develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
> requires a lot more leadership.

While I agree with your basic summation of an underlying current that flows
beneath both ideologies, I truly think that the Left has decided that
"thinking it through" means that ultimately there is no right or wrong in
this world -- only various shades of gray.

At this point in time, with the type of enemies who are aligned against us,
we need a leader who can discern right from wrong. Good from evil, if you
will.

As much as I have misgivings about Bush, Kerry isn't the man for the job.

I wish he were.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

Roger Long wrote:

> Now see my post above. The Republican spin doctors would jump on me and
> say, "See, he's a flip flopper. First he says one thing, then he says
> another. Disregard everything he says."

That's a pretty good example.

I watched Kerry try to explain his take on the Iraqi war, and I think he's
in deep trouble. He takes a considered, subtle approach. Too many
Americans - probably too many people in general, but Americans are the ones
voting in this election - are completely oblivious to both consideration
and subtlety. This is why we often have problems with juries, in fact.

Bush, on the other hand, "takes a stand". People admire that. Never mind
that what this really means is that he draws a conclusion early, and then
sticks with it regardless of the evidence that comes his way.

Again: see problems with juries.

- Andrew

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> While I agree with your basic summation of an underlying current that flows
> beneath both ideologies, I truly think that the Left has decided that
> "thinking it through" means that ultimately there is no right or wrong in
> this world -- only various shades of gray.

First, it's silly to make the general statement "the Left has decided".
But, in reality, because our world is so complex, especially when dealing
with foreign countries, most decisions made by our political leaders ARE
between various shades of gray.

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
"Roger Long" > wrote:

> The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
> It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
> you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
> your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to develop
> a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
> consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
> develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
> requires a lot more leadership. This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
> Neither party has a monopoly on either wisdom or stupidity. Bush however,
> has surrounded himself entirely (except perhaps for Colin Powell) with the
> former kind of thinkers.


Very well said, and very true (and I'm no great Kerry supporter -- not
yet, anyway).

Re the Bush admin in particular, for a while one might have cited Paul
O'Neill, and maybe Christie Whitman, along with Colin Powell. Having
just finished reading "The Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind, the book
about O'Neill's career as Secretary of the Treasury, I'd recommend it as
a very informative casebook on the above theme, as well as a very
entertaining read, regardless of your politics. (O'Neill voted for Bush
and says at the end he probably would again).

Notable quote from p. 114:

"O'Neill knew that Whitman had never heard the President
analyze acomplex issue, parse opposing positions, and settle
on a judicious path. In fact, no one -- inside or outside the
government, here or across the globe -- had heard him do
that to any significant degree. And that, O'Neill decided,
was what Whitman was getting at with the word "credibility."
It was not just the President's credibility around the world.
It was credibility with his most senior officials."

The really serious concern is that the Rove/Cheney/Karen Hughes axis
doesn't just "discard" facts they don't like, they actively suppress
them -- and then lie about them. Bush himself doesn't necessarily do
the same. Concepts like "facts" or "thinking" or "parse intelligently
arrayed opposing positions" just aren't terms relevant to his mental
processes.

[C J Campbell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
> that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
> to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
> national security.
>
> There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
> that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
> with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
> was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
> activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).
>

Okay, you recognize that picture IDs will do nothing to enhance security,
but you are unable to see the impossibility of tracking foreign nationals or
any other class of people in this country.

I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear tinfoil
hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix the problem.

[C Kingsbury]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...

>
> The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
> It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
> you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
> your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to
develop
> a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
> consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
> develop a policy.

Roger,

Intellectuals from the 20s through perhaps to the 50s believed
overwhelmingly that communism had to ultimately succeed because it was far
more scientific, rational, and well-planned than capitalism's free-for-all.
Surely a government of engineers would defeat a government of mere
politicians! Hayek was considered a crackpot in his own time for questioning
this, while Whittaker Chambers said he felt that he was switching from the
winning side to the losing one.

I'm not trying to make a point about communism per se, but rather to point
out that the sort of triumphal rationalism you express is in fact an old
idea, and one largely discredited by history. People and systems are
motivated by forces too numerous to compute the solutions of. It makes the
three-body problem look like kindergarten arithmetic.

Knowing which data to leave in, which data to leave out, and how to
interpret those things which do not conform to theoretical projections is
not the sideshow, it's the main event. Ideology is one of many anvils we can
beat the ore of raw analysis against to extract useful knowledge.

Just to give one example, I personally believe many liberals, particularly
in Western Europe, are at a loss to comprehend the nature of Islamic
terrorism because they have become so secularized that the deep religiosity
of OBL et. al. is simply unimaginable to them. Thus they become enamored of
the idea that we can negotiate on "rational" grounds, which is to say what
seems rational to them. Whereas conservatives, many of whom these days have
an element of apocalyptical evangelism in them, understand quite
instinctively that Bin Laden, the ayatollahs, etc. are talking about Heaven
and Hell, and there is no negotiating those things. Of course, I think good
counterclaims can be made here within the US regarding many social and
racial issues, where the Left has often preceeded the Right in identifying
the persistent gap in black versus white social progress as having roots
deeper than simple economics.

So my point is not necessarily to endorse one ideology but to dispute your
claim that ideology is obsolete. It is not now nor will it ever be.

Best,
-cwk.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wtV4d.100962$MQ5.55263@attbi_s52...
.... snip...
>
> At this point in time, with the type of enemies who are aligned against
us,
> we need a leader who can discern right from wrong. Good from evil, if you
> will.
>


Just make sure that you are not picking the guy who loves to fight the
alligators, when maybe it might be more productive to drain the swamp.

http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Root_Causes_report.pdf

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981
-

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear
> tinfoil hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix
> the problem.

Considering the people making these rules, I'd not be surprised to see your
suggestion (tongue in cheek, I know) taking effect tomorrow.

- Andrew

[Teacherjh]

>>
I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's [...]
for protection of our aircraft and avionics.
<<

How would this work?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[kontiki]

Dave S wrote:

> I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
> High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
> to sort out who belongs and who doesnt.
And that's a good thing? Well, don't worry, we'll probably soon have the
same thing here in the U.S.... (some schools already have it I'm sure)
to "enhance" security.

> Every little bit helps.

I know, I know.... "if it saves one life..." etc. etc.

> I have
> an ID for work,
I don't
> an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
Not at my airport
> photo on my DL,
this is fairly universal as DL serve as Identification nationwide.
>a photo on my concealed handgun license..
I have a CCW too but in my state there is only a thumb print required....
always been that way and we've never had any problems with terrorists
using CCW licenses. But.. SURE... why not change that too. I bet the
cost to renew my CCW will then cost as much as it does in your state.

> but my pilot
> certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
> the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
> military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.
Okay, then lets do a picture for pilots too .... and ooops you forgot,
you'll need one for your ATM card, your credit card(s) and how about
the AOPA memberships cards too? WHat about your medical insurance cards,
and don't forget library cards. If its good for all that stuff its gonna
be good for everything. WHo cares what it costs or if it really does
any good.

[G.R. Patterson III]

kontiki wrote:
>
> In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
> that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
> an illusion of greater security.

You're absolutely wrong. It won't provide even an illusion of greater security.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear tinfoil
> hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix the problem.

You can't do that! The hats will block the control signals the FBI sends out!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[kontiki]

Roger Long wrote:

> I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking it
> out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist measure
> that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection of
> our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.

I guess if some terrorist steals an airplane and flies it on a suicide mission
we can arrest him for not having a picture ID....

Here's another scenario that makes the picture ID seem REALLY worthless::

Some foreigner comes here on a mission (his own mission from "allah"), gets
a legit Visa, is fully checked out, plays by all the rules, goes to flight school,
gets his license with a nice little picture on it. Waits patiently and follows
all the rules then after he has his nice pictureID pilot license goes on his
terror flight with a rented airplane.

But... he had a valid picture ID! I don't know about you but I feel safer...

[Icebound]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking
it
> > out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist
measure
> > that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection
of
> > our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.
>
> I guess if some terrorist steals an airplane and flies it on a suicide
mission
> we can arrest him for not having a picture ID....
>
> Here's another scenario that makes the picture ID seem REALLY worthless::
>
> Some foreigner comes here on a mission (his own mission from "allah"),
gets
> a legit Visa, is fully checked out, plays by all the rules, goes to flight
school,
> gets his license with a nice little picture on it. Waits patiently and
follows
> all the rules then after he has his nice pictureID pilot license goes on
his
> terror flight with a rented airplane.
>
> But... he had a valid picture ID! I don't know about you but I feel
safer...
>
>

Picture IDs do 2 things:

1. They make it more convenient for you, the pilot. You can identify
yourself more easily when renting, or when crossing a controlled gate to get
to your plane, and stuff like that. If you are a pilot with a "mission",
well...., it will be more convenient.

2. They make it somewhat more difficult to operate on a borrowed or purely
stolen licence. This might make it harder for the odd failed-medical to get
in the air. It might also subvert that very rare joyrider/terrorist who
wants to steal a plane by openly walking onto the ramp without real
credentials.

As you have stated, I am sure that any serious terrorist will have those
bases covered.

But you guys really should listen to yourselves once in a while:

"Some foreigner comes here on a mission....". No-where is it carved in
stone that a terrorist has to be foreign... as in McVeigh, for example. The
current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
about their country. (Hell, it can be argued that some significant number
of corporations don't give a real damn for their country, either, but I
digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
enmity.

Some are caught in the 8th grade:

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343204

I expect that many are not.

[kontiki]

Icebound wrote:
> "Some foreigner comes here on a mission....". No-where is it carved in
> stone that a terrorist has to be foreign... as in McVeigh, for example.
Exactly. Foreigner or no foreigner a picture ID does nothing to stop someone
bound and determined to commit mayhem or harm others. Laws are effective only
for the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. But what the heck,
if a little more inconvenience and the addition of a "renewal fee" makes
us all feel safer its worth it I guess... sigh

>The
> current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
> that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
> about their country. (Hell, it can be argued that some significant number
> of corporations don't give a real damn for their country, either, but I
> digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
> enmity.

It is not the responsibility of Corporations to "give a real damn for their country".
Their responsibility is to their stockholders... those who have paid money for shares
and expect them to be successful and not to lose money. Only individual citizens are
capable of "giving a damn". It could be argued that those who actually pay taxes in
this country are shareholders in a similar sense.
>
> Some are caught in the 8th grade:
>
> http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2343204
>
> I expect that many are not.
>
>

[John T]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message

>
> The real political divide is no longer between liberal and
> conservative. It's between thinking and not thinking.

Interesting. It's usually left-leaning folks I've seen make this statement
as if they're the only ones capable of rational thought. It's like hearing
them say "you need to keep an open mind" while completely oblivious to the
fact that they've disregarded any validity in the opposing argument.

Very interesting, indeed.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Robert M. Gary]

kontiki > wrote in message >...
> If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
> that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
> to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
> national security.

Homeland security is about making people feel safe. If this makes the
general public feel safe, then its probably worth the cost to them.
Impressions are all that count. In the real world, reality doesn't
make a difference.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > Now see my post above. The Republican spin doctors would jump on me and
> > say, "See, he's a flip flopper. First he says one thing, then he says
> > another. Disregard everything he says."
>
> That's a pretty good example.
>
> I watched Kerry try to explain his take on the Iraqi war, and I think he's
> in deep trouble.

First he says we shouldn't be there, then he says we should be ready
to react, then he says we should be proactive, then he says he would
have sent troops there, then he says we need more troops. Talk about
your House of Pancakes candidate.

-Robert

[C Kingsbury]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
>
> The
> current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
> that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
> about their country.

Or it could be a measure that they don't need to give a damn. Hear me out:
if you lived in Iraq under Saddam, Romania unde Ceaucescu, etc. you needed
to pay *very* careful attention to "politics" because it was a life-or-death
issue, and it seeped into every aspect of your daily life, too. Want a
better apartment, job, anything, all of life was controlled by government.
Apathy meant death or deprivation.

Here in the US, you can live an entire upper middle-class life and unless
you have a run-in with the local school committee or zoning board, never
really care who's in control.

I'm not saying this is the *intelligent* choice, but given that the history
of mankind is largely that of tyrants and kings, this is something of an
achievement.

> digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
> enmity.
>

Statistical aberration. No question we have our share of homegrown wack
jobs, guys who shoot up abortion clinics, apocalyptic visionaries in Texas,
etc. But no one proposed baggage screening to get on my Cessna when that's
all it was. Not to be ignored but they are not the primary problem today, or
even the secondary one.

Best,
-cwk.

[Icebound]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Icebound wrote:
> >The
> > current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious
symptom
> > that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
> > about their country. (Hell, it can be argued that some significant
number
> > of corporations don't give a real damn for their country, either, but I
> > digress.) Of that segment, some tiny deranged portion may harbour real
> > enmity.
>
> It is not the responsibility of Corporations to "give a real damn for
their country".
> Their responsibility is to their stockholders... those who have paid money
for shares
> and expect them to be successful and not to lose money. Only individual
citizens are
> capable of "giving a damn". It could be argued that those who actually pay
taxes in
> this country are shareholders in a similar sense.


The "corporations" reference was a self-admitted digression, but since you
chose to address it:

I would argue that it is very much the responsibility of Corporations to
"give a real damn for their country".

The Nation provides the corporation with workers and with the mechanisms for
raising capital. The Nation's security and police forces provide a
civilized background against which the Corporation can do its business with
some semblance of safety, security, and reasonable expectation of
longevity.... not only to its entity, but to its people, its material, and
its capital. The Nation's network of laws provide displute-settlement
mechanisms to help ensure that the Corporation will not be cheated, and that
help it carry out business in a level playing field. In many cases, the
Corporation has received preferential tax treatment to locate plants in a
particular location to assist local economy.

I would argue that it is very much the responsibility of Corporations to
"give a real damn for their country".

[C Kingsbury]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> kontiki wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
> > that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
> > an illusion of greater security.
>
> You're absolutely wrong. It won't provide even an illusion of greater
security.
>

Yes, but the next time some girl in a bar asks to see my pilot's license,
maybe they'll believe it's real.

-cwk.

[Jay Honeck]

> First, it's silly to make the general statement "the Left has decided".
> But, in reality, because our world is so complex, especially when dealing
> with foreign countries, most decisions made by our political leaders ARE
> between various shades of gray.

Personally, I think many of the most critical choices to be made in the
world right now are pretty stark.

Our leaders -- whomever they may be -- MUST be able to discern right from
wrong, and act accordingly. Or at least, they must be able to choose MOST
right from MOST wrong. This is not easy, and it requires someone who is
willing to make a moral choice -- not someone who will just waffle around
the edges, waiting for an opportunity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The Nation provides the corporation with workers and with the mechanisms
for
> raising capital. The Nation's security and police forces provide a
> civilized background against which the Corporation can do its business
with
> some semblance of safety, security, and reasonable expectation of
> longevity.... not only to its entity, but to its people, its material, and
> its capital. The Nation's network of laws provide displute-settlement
> mechanisms to help ensure that the Corporation will not be cheated, and
that
> help it carry out business in a level playing field. In many cases, the
> Corporation has received preferential tax treatment to locate plants in a
> particular location to assist local economy.
>
> I would argue that it is very much the responsibility of Corporations to
> "give a real damn for their country".

Where your logic goes awry is when you forget the very simple fact that
Corporations are made up of citizens, just like you and me.

This fact -- so often ignored by the ignorant youth of our nation -- is the
utter downfall of the Left's anti-business/anti-corporation ideology.
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital.

In short, they represent everything the Left supposedly stands for...

This bitter irony never fails to make me laugh out loud whenever I see the
violent, left-wing protesters outside the World Trade Organizations
meetings...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Picture IDs do 2 things:
......

They do three things. In addition to those you mentioned, they effectively remove
more money from your wallet. The NJ driver's license is now $24. A passport is $55.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> Homeland security is about making people feel safe. If this makes the
> general public feel safe, then its probably worth the cost to them.

What makes you think that *they* will pay the cost? Your next certificate is going to
be an expensive one.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:9q35d.254072$Fg5.250970@attbi_s53...
> > The Nation provides the corporation with workers and with the mechanisms
> for
> > raising capital. The Nation's security and police forces provide a
> > civilized background against which the Corporation can do its business
> with
> > some semblance of safety, security, and reasonable expectation of
> > longevity.... not only to its entity, but to its people, its material,
and
> > its capital. The Nation's network of laws provide displute-settlement
> > mechanisms to help ensure that the Corporation will not be cheated, and
> that
> > help it carry out business in a level playing field. In many cases, the
> > Corporation has received preferential tax treatment to locate plants in
a
> > particular location to assist local economy.
> >
> > I would argue that it is very much the responsibility of Corporations to
> > "give a real damn for their country".
>
> Where your logic goes awry is when you forget the very simple fact that
> Corporations are made up of citizens, just like you and me.
>


So how is the logic awry? If corporations are made up of citizens like you
and me, is it not a responsibility of those citizens to "give a real damn
for their country", given all that the country provides to the
corporation????

[John Harlow]

> The Nation provides the corporation with workers and with the
> mechanisms for raising capital. The Nation's security and police
> forces provide a civilized background against which the Corporation
> can do its business with some semblance of safety, security, and
> reasonable expectation of longevity.... not only to its entity, but
> to its people, its material, and its capital. The Nation's network
> of laws provide displute-settlement mechanisms to help ensure that
> the Corporation will not be cheated, and that help it carry out
> business in a level playing field. In many cases, the Corporation
> has received preferential tax treatment to locate plants in a
> particular location to assist local economy.
>
> I would argue that it is very much the responsibility of Corporations
> to "give a real damn for their country".

Unfortunately, outsourcing has totally invalidated this ideal.

[John Harlow]

>>> In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
>>> that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
>>> an illusion of greater security.
>>
>> You're absolutely wrong. It won't provide even an illusion of
>> greater security.
>>
>
> Yes, but the next time some girl in a bar asks to see my pilot's
> license, maybe they'll believe it's real.

A) I don't believe that's ever happened, and

B) why would your picture make any difference, and

C) see "A" above.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Yes, but the next time some girl in a bar asks to see my pilot's license,
> maybe they'll believe it's real.

Hell, nobody has *ever* asked to see mine, girl or not, bar or elsewhere.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jay Honeck]

> So how is the logic awry? If corporations are made up of citizens like
you
> and me, is it not a responsibility of those citizens to "give a real damn
> for their country", given all that the country provides to the
> corporation????

Of course!

But it is the PEOPLE who do this, not "the corporation" -- which is simply
an aggregate of the whole.

Demonizing corporations is popular, but terribly silly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>> Hell, nobody has *ever* asked to see mine, girl or not, bar or elsewhere.

Actually, I was asked for my pilot certificate. In the consulate at the
Dominican Republic where I was applying for a new US passport after my old one
"disappeared" from my pocket. It was in fact one of the most convicing pieces
of evidence that I was me - more so than the photo IDs, driver license, and
other junk I carry. Ironically, it was probalby because it was an old paper
certificate with nothing special about it - I mean who would bother to forge
that?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> Hell, nobody has *ever* asked to see mine, girl or not, bar or elsewhere.

The only person who's ever asked to see my certificate was an FAA guy when I
got ramp checked...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:n755d.105088$MQ5.38182@attbi_s52...
> > Hell, nobody has *ever* asked to see mine, girl or not, bar or
elsewhere.
>
> The only person who's ever asked to see my certificate was an FAA guy when
I
> got ramp checked...
> --
> Jay Honeck

So.... Did you get a date, or get to take him home, afterwards?

<<g>-sorry!>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 9/22/2004

[Jay Honeck]

> So.... Did you get a date, or get to take him home, afterwards?

Actually, he seemed to be more interested in Mary, and the plane...in that
order!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
> positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His position
> on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.

Really?

Please, sir, sum that up for us, as I have to date been unable to find a
common, consistent thread in Mr. Kerry's position(s).
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3Q55d.105477$MQ5.2868@attbi_s52...
> > So.... Did you get a date, or get to take him home, afterwards?
>
> Actually, he seemed to be more interested in Mary, and the plane...in that
> order!
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck

Understandable! ;-)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 9/23/2004

[Bob Noel]

In article nk.net>,
Tom Fleischman > wrote:

> That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
> positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His position
> on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.

you're kidding me.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's all here, clear as day, written in the english language:

Ah, shoot, I can't tell. Is that version 5.2, or 6.1 of "John Kerry's
Position on Iraq"? Or should I wait for the latest patch?

He's been trying to have his cake and eat it, too, under the assumption that
no one is watching too closely.

Thank goodness for video tape, or he might have been able to pull that off.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> If you guys would take an hour or so and do a little bit of reading
> instead of relying on Faux News for all of your information you might
> realize that you are being misled and disinformed.

Sorry, my main source of information during this political season is
National Public Radio, and newspapers. I rarely watch television.

Despite this, I STILL haven't been able to figure out where Kerry stands,
other than that he is running as the "anti-Bush." The poor guy just hasn't
been able to get any traction on anything but Viet Nam, which falls squarely
into my "who cares?" category.

An aside: Did you, by any chance, happen to see the press coverage noting
that Kerry -- a man running as a populist, common-man Democrat -- is worth
over 40 times what our supposed "rich, oil-baron Republican" President is?

After I stopped laughing at that irony, I wept at the ignorance. If only
the poor inner city folk, who for generations now have instinctively pulled
the all-Democrat ticket lever, could read a newspaper!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Tom Fleischman wrote:

>
> That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
> positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His position
> on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.

I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it. Yep, crystal clear.

[C Kingsbury]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...

>
> > Just since he's been a pres. candidate (well that's
> > actually since he was about 16, but that's another matter) he has been
the
> > pro-war candidate, the anti-war candidate, the anti-anti-war candidate,
and
> > now the pro-anti-war candidate. The only way to explain John Kerry's
policy
> > positions are (1) chaos theory and (2) he will say anything whatsoever
to
> > get elected. What he'll actually do in office, who the hell knows?
>
> That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
> positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His position
> on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.

Tom,

I'm a Bostonian and have been involved in politics up here for quite some
time so yeah, I know John Kerry.

In the 80s he was a consistent Massachusetts Democrat--favored the Nuclear
Freeze, opposed deploying Pershing missiles, balh blah. This carried through
to 1991 when he voted against the Gulf War, thus costing him the very good
shot he had at the VP slot on the 1992 ticket.

He learned, and throughout the 90s never missed an opportunity to say Saddam
was not living up to the deals he made with the UN, that the French and
Russians were compromised because they wanted to do business with him, and
so on. He out-hawked many of the hawks and even criticized the Clinton
administration on occasions for not pushing hard enough.

Even here in Mass., I know relatively few people who can say, or even much
care, what John Kerry's position on Iraq is. Their position is that they'd
rather have a block of wood in the Oval Office than W, and that's fine.

To the degree that I've discerned a consistency in John Kerry's actions over
the years, it's a tendency to talk tough on the evening news shows, and then
agree with whatever the appropriate UN committee decides to do the next day.
He's been a profoundly liberal internationalist as long as he's been in the
Senate. And that's what he'd be as President. Now he's starting to say so,
which I suspect will fire the base up nicely, but will cost him the general
election.

Best,
-cwk.

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:25:32 GMT, Icebound wrote:

>"Some foreigner comes here on a mission....". No-where is it carved in
>stone that a terrorist has to be foreign... as in McVeigh, for example.


Letting aside all the terrorist talk and more 'security':
can somebody come up with some numbers on how many foreigners come to the
USA only for flight training and what impact on this (avitaion) industry
they have?
and what alltogether impact on economy they have (they need housing, food,
car rental, ...)? Are there some areas/FBOs that are heavily dependant on
foreign pilots (like Florida or around Wichita) and the money they bring to
the country?

#m

--
The more one is absorbed in fighting Evil,
the less one is tempted to place the Good
in question. (J.P. Sartre)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:49 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
>"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
>corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
>ownership of capital.

*hehe* :-))
I think I .sig that.

#m

--
The more one is absorbed in fighting Evil,
the less one is tempted to place the Good
in question. (J.P. Sartre)

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:00:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote:

>> I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear
>> tinfoil hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix
>> the problem.
>
>Considering the people making these rules, I'd not be surprised to see your
>suggestion (tongue in cheek, I know) taking effect tomorrow.

How about a badge for je^Wforeigners?

> - Andrew

#m

--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:09:24 GMT, C Kingsbury wrote:

>Even here in Mass., I know relatively few people who can say, or even much
>care, what John Kerry's position on Iraq is. Their position is that they'd
>rather have a block of wood in the Oval Office than W, and that's fine.

:-)))))

but: it is a rather bad stand when you only get the vote because you are
the lesser evel or because "whoever wins the election unless it is W".

#m

--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>>
>> Homeland security is about making people feel safe. If this makes the
>> general public feel safe, then its probably worth the cost to them.
>
> What makes you think that *they* will pay the cost? Your next certificate
> is going to be an expensive one.

Democracy: where the majority's hand is on the wallet of the minority.

This is why true conservatives (as opposed to "social conservatives" or "big
government conservatives") are so rabid about keeping limits on government.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
>>
>> That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
>> positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His position
>> on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.
>
> I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it. Yep, crystal clear.

It is if you can get past the first line. But if you stop there, you're
right: it is confusing.

That's Kerry's real problem: he expects more of his audience than Bush.
Bush takes a stand before the evidence is complete, and then ignores any
inconvenient facts that arise. This looks good to those that admire "take
a stand", but can have dramatic consequences down the line if the random
conclusion turns out to have been wrong.

So we waste time, money, and lives on Iraq with N. Korea, Iran, and Al Quada
(along with who knows what else) exploiting our distraction.

Sure, "take a stand" has made the world a safer place. For them.

- Andrew

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
>
> #m
>
> --
> Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
> "big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
> corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
> ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)


Marty, Marty, Marty,

Someday maybe I'll make your sig line... <g>

http://www.banned-width.com/shel/works/rstone.html

But the thrill we’ve never known
Is the thrill that’ll getcha
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Montblack :-)

[Bob Noel]

In article nk.net>,
Tom Fleischman > wrote:

> > > That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
> > > positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His
> > > position
> > > on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.
> >
> > you're kidding me.
>
> No, I'm not kidding you.
>
> If you guys would take an hour or so and do a little bit of reading
> instead of relying on Faux News for all of your information you might
> realize that you are being misled and disinformed.

I never watch Fox news. I realize that fact may confuse
you, but deal with it.

>
> It's all here, clear as day, written in the english language:
>
> http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

exactly where on that site is waffle's "clear" position on Iraq?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:46:32 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article nk.net>,
>Tom Fleischman > wrote:
>
>> > > That's nonsense. Have you done any research at all into what Kerry's
>> > > positions are on these things? Have you read his web site? His
>> > > position
>> > > on Iraq is and has always been crystal clear.
>> >
>> > you're kidding me.
>>
>> No, I'm not kidding you.
>>
>> If you guys would take an hour or so and do a little bit of reading
>> instead of relying on Faux News for all of your information you might
>> realize that you are being misled and disinformed.
>
>I never watch Fox news. I realize that fact may confuse
>you, but deal with it.
>
>>
>> It's all here, clear as day, written in the english language:
>>
>> http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
>
His voting record on firearms legislation is enough for me to vote
against him. He says he supports the second amendment, but a 20 year
voting record shows he's definitely one of the "anti gun" crowd.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>exactly where on that site is waffle's "clear" position on Iraq?

[Paul Sengupta]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article t>, C
> Kingsbury > wrote:
> > Actually, my main problem with Kerry is that I don't believe a thing
that
> > comes out of his mouth.
>
> Do you believe anything that comes out of Bush's mouth?

It's the old joke - how do you know if a politician is lying?

His lips move.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Jg35d.104426$MQ5.58702@attbi_s52...
> Our leaders -- whomever they may be -- MUST be able to discern right from
> wrong, and act accordingly.

Problem is with this way is that it then forces this to apply to their side
as well. Only our right is their wrong and vice versa.

Many more people will join up to fight for what is "right" and "good",
to fight, as you put it, "evil".

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
> The
> current voter-apathy is some western societies might be a serious symptom
> that a significant segment of the population no longer gives a real damn
> about their country.

No, it means they don't give a damn about the political parties. There
may be a rather insignificant difference to the individual concerned from
voting for one part to another. In that case, let those who really feel
strongly one way or the other decide.

In the US the confusion of the current ruling party and the country is
often made on here, and is played upon by supporters of Mr Bush.
It's gone back a long way. Anti-war protesters are often accused of
hating their country.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear
tinfoil
> > hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix the
problem.
>
> You can't do that! The hats will block the control signals the FBI sends
out!

I was going to say that it would only get confused by the US citizens
who are already wearing such a device to stop the cosmic rays beamed
down by aliens.

Paul