"Da Mayor" At Work

[Jay Honeck]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050504/ap_on_re_us/chicago_truck_scandal

Maybe they'll finally arrest King Daley for willful and criminal destruction
of public property?

Supposedly, he's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that there is actual
corruption in Chicago! Imagine that?

Ha! I hope they throw the book at this crook. Maybe we'll get Meigs back
after all...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Galban]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Supposedly, he's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that there is
actual
> corruption in Chicago! Imagine that?
>

Get real Jay! He's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that he got
caught. That's it. Just business as usual in the Windy City.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Ha! I hope they throw the book at this crook. Maybe we'll get Meigs back
> after all...

No way! Mayor "Dick" Daley a crook? He would *never* take money under the
table or be involved in anything un-toward or ellegal....

N O T !

[CJ]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ajbee.56173$WI3.25446@attbi_s71...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050504/ap_on_re_us/chicago_truck_scandal
>
> Maybe they'll finally arrest King Daley for willful and criminal
> destruction of public property?
>
> Supposedly, he's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that there is actual
> corruption in Chicago! Imagine that?
>
> Ha! I hope they throw the book at this crook. Maybe we'll get Meigs back
> after all...
> --
> Jay Honeck

Y'know, I joined AOPA because of their indignation over Meigs. I'm ignoring
their reinlistment emails because of their inability to do squat. What was
the final fine? $13,000 or something?! And AOPA spent tens of thousands
for that, and acts smug.

Freinds of Meigs needed help. AOPA promised help and threw words at them.
Meigs is toast.

Paraphrasing Boyer, "Your organization is..." nothing.

Damn, I wish Edward Abbey was still alive (and a pilot)!

- cj

[Peter Duniho]

"CJ" > wrote in message ...
> Y'know, I joined AOPA because of their indignation over Meigs. I'm
> ignoring their reinlistment emails because of their inability to do squat.
> What was the final fine? $13,000 or something?! And AOPA spent tens of
> thousands for that, and acts smug.

So far. My understanding is that the investigation into the
mis-appropriated $1.2 million (or whatever it was...I think that's close)
used to tear up the airport is still underway. Fines of up to treble
damages are in store if the funds are determined to have been misused (and
that seems likely).

We'll see...but in any case, AOPA certainly did more than anyone else. Who
else are you going to support?

> Freinds of Meigs needed help. AOPA promised help and threw words at them.
> Meigs is toast.

Short of engaging in criminal acts, what was AOPA to do? When you're
dealing with someone willing to tear up an airport in the dead of night,
trying to handle an issue through legal channels can be impossible.

I'm also surprised that you don't consider their work to open the TFRs here
in the Puget Sound to be significant. Granted, we're still dealing with the
stupid Bangor one, but the trend is definitely an improvement, and at least
Bagor hasn't turned into a Restricted Area.

I don't think AOPA's perfect, but it's certainly far better than nothing,
and well worth the tiny annual cost for each member.

Pete

[Denny]

From: "Jay Honeck" > - Find messages by this
author
Subject: "Da Mayor" At Work
Maybe they'll finally arrest King Daley for willful and criminal
destruction
of public property?

************************************************** *********************

uuuhhh Jay, you just fell off the turnip truck, right?
Arrest the mayor of Chicago for grift, graft, and corruption, plus
scoring land for his developer buddies < snork, chortle, choke, gasp,
gurgle - damn it hurts when you blow hot tea out your nose all over the
keyboard > Surely you jest!

denny

[OtisWinslow]

I've been in AOPA since the late 70s. I become more disillisioned with them
by the year. They're impotent. Recently they shut down their message
board instead of just controlling a couple rogue posters. They put out a
line
that they're just "improving" it .. I guess time will tell on that one. The
DC
ADIZ and the constant pop up 30 mile radius TFRs are still around. They're
a business that sells memberships .. not an an organization for the benefit
of members.


"CJ" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Y'know, I joined AOPA because of their indignation over Meigs. I'm
> ignoring their reinlistment emails because of their inability to do squat.
> What was the final fine? $13,000 or something?! And AOPA spent tens of
> thousands for that, and acts smug.
>
> Freinds of Meigs needed help. AOPA promised help and threw words at them.
> Meigs is toast.
>
> Paraphrasing Boyer, "Your organization is..." nothing.
>
> Damn, I wish Edward Abbey was still alive (and a pilot)!
>
> - cj
>

[Greg Farris]

In article <Ajbee.56173$WI3.25446@attbi_s71>, says...
>
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050504/ap_on_re_us/chicago_truck_scandal
>
>Maybe they'll finally arrest King Daley for willful and criminal destruction
>of public property?
>
>Supposedly, he's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that there is actual
>corruption in Chicago! Imagine that?
>


Yeah, I saw that too.
I feel really sorry for him.

G Faris

[Chris W]

OtisWinslow wrote:

>I've been in AOPA since the late 70s. I become more disillisioned with them
>by the year. They're impotent. Recently they shut down their message
>board instead of just controlling a couple rogue posters. They put out a
>line
>that they're just "improving" it .. I guess time will tell on that one. The
>DC
>ADIZ and the constant pop up 30 mile radius TFRs are still around. They're
>a business that sells memberships .. not an an organization for the benefit
>of members.
>
>
The AOPA is a very small organization when compared to the money
involved in politics. I think you guys are expecting too much. How
much do you think such an organization can do in the face or corrupt
politicians, or even just ones that get more money from other interest
groups. I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group. I doubt
that will happen. We lazy Americans don't seem to care until it is
something that directly effects us and what we like to do. What I don't
think most realize, is that an attack on any groups freedom is an attack
on everyone's freedom. Of course there is one big problem with my idea,
lots of so called rights groups that have nothing to do with rights and
really have the same agenda as the people trying to take away rights.

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >, "CJ" > wrote:

> Y'know, I joined AOPA because of their indignation over Meigs. I'm ignoring
> their reinlistment emails because of their inability to do squat. What was
> the final fine? $13,000 or something?! And AOPA spent tens of thousands
> for that, and acts smug.
>
> Freinds of Meigs needed help. AOPA promised help and threw words at them.
> Meigs is toast.
>
> Paraphrasing Boyer, "Your organization is..." nothing.


AOPA has done some good, and they are a constant lobby in Washington,
without which I suspect many more of us would be grounded due to
restrictions and excessive regulation.

However, AOPA certainly does appear to pick their battles. It seemed
pretty clear to me that Meigs wasn't a battle that they were willing to
spend a huge effort fighting. The battle had raged for years while the
City of Chicago played games and taunted the aviation community with
restrictions and harrassment. The City digs up the runway, and all of a
sudden AOPA is outraged. I was outraged years ago when my wife and I
tried to visit the terminal and were nearly subjected to a strip search
by two of "Chicago's Finest" before being turned away. The Meigs
situation had been deteriorating for years, and I suspect that AOPA was
focused on what they considered to be bigger, more important battles.
In my opinion, whatever AOPA is doing now with regards to Meigs is of
little consequence; the airport is gone and will likely never be
restored.


JKG

[Paul kgyy]

Given the amount of control that Daley has over the city, there was
nothing AOPA could ever have done short of outright bribery. I think
they do a great job given the amount of territory they have to cover
and the small amount of dues we pay. I get a little tired of the
self-hype but an organization like that does have to maintain high
visibility to its members.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> > AOPA has done some good, and they are a constant lobby in Washington,
> without which I suspect many more of us would be grounded due to
> restrictions and excessive regulation.
>
> However, AOPA certainly does appear to pick their battles. It seemed
> pretty clear to me that Meigs wasn't a battle that they were willing to
> spend a huge effort fighting. The battle had raged for years while the
> City of Chicago played games and taunted the aviation community with
> restrictions and harrassment. The City digs up the runway, and all of a
> sudden AOPA is outraged. I was outraged years ago when my wife and I
> tried to visit the terminal and were nearly subjected to a strip search
> by two of "Chicago's Finest" before being turned away. The Meigs
> situation had been deteriorating for years, and I suspect that AOPA was
> focused on what they considered to be bigger, more important battles.
> In my opinion, whatever AOPA is doing now with regards to Meigs is of
> little consequence; the airport is gone and will likely never be
> restored.
>
> JKG

AOPA was smart not to spend significant time and money on Meigs. The mayor
owned the airport and had the law on his side. The only thing he did wrong
is he did not notify the FAA the required 30 days (or what ever the required
time is) prior to closing the airport. The penalty for violating that rule
is of little to no consequence. There was nothing legally AOPA or Friends of
Meigs could do. Meigs was a lost cause years before it was finally dug up.
Da Mayor has pulled a number of similar antics in Chicago but always has his
ducks lined up in an immaculate row.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> AOPA was smart not to spend significant time and money on Meigs. The mayor
> owned the airport and had the law on his side. The only thing he did wrong
> is he did not notify the FAA the required 30 days (or what ever the required
> time is) prior to closing the airport. The penalty for violating that rule
> is of little to no consequence. There was nothing legally AOPA or Friends of
> Meigs could do. Meigs was a lost cause years before it was finally dug up.
> Da Mayor has pulled a number of similar antics in Chicago but always has his
> ducks lined up in an immaculate row.

I'm not sure that having the law on his side matters much to Mr. Daley.

Could AOPA have delayed or temporarily stopped the destruction of Meigs?
Who knows. However, the price of such an effort would have been so
high, and the benefit so low, that I doubt it would have been worth it.
The City of Chicago had a jewel that they chose not to utilize and
nurture, and that was their prerogative. I hope that the "park" works
out for them.


JKG

[Grumman-581]

"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
> I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
> is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
> political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.

Nawh, I have a better solution... Since the cause of all our problems is all
the damn lawyers that we have, I suggest that we start off by killing half
the lawyers... If that doesn't fix the problems, well, we'll just have to
kill off the other half... And if that still doesn't fix it, we can dig 'em
back up again, I guess... <evil-grin>

[Matt Barrow]

"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
> I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
> is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
> political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.

How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.

[Chris W]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
>
>
>>I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
>>is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
>>political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.
>>
>>
>
>How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?
>
>Groups don't have rights...only individuals.
>
>

Well if you want to get nit picky, you replied to the wrong post.
Obviously it is the individual people that have the rights. However,
the only way to effectively fight for those rights is to organize into a
group. The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups
fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to
combine to fight for all rights.

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com

[Jose]

> The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights.

Rights conflict with each other.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[EL]

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA.

Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones.

The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have "double rights". If I run a corporation I have my
personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of course is under my control).

Eric Law


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
> "Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
>> I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
>> is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
>> political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.
>
> How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?
>
> Groups don't have rights...only individuals.
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"EL" > wrote:

> Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state
> actually is not true at least in the USA.

?

>
> Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been
> established by statute & precedent that
> corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better
> known ones.

corporation <> group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[AES]

In article
>,
Bob Noel > wrote:

>
> corporation <> group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.
>

Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
those stockholders -- and they're a group.

[George Patterson]

Chris W wrote:
>
> The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups
> fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to
> combine to fight for all rights.

You will never get any of those groups to agree that all the "rights" one of the
others claims to have are actually rights.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Matt Barrow]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:JMOee.2463$cf5.417@lakeread07...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
> >
> >
> >>I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
> >>is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
> >>political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?
> >
> >Groups don't have rights...only individuals.
> >
> >
>
> Well if you want to get nit picky, you replied to the wrong post.
> Obviously it is the individual people that have the rights. However,
> the only way to effectively fight for those rights is to organize into a
> group.

Whole different context -- gathering force in numbers.

> The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups
> fighting for only certain rights,

Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to the
group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...).

> what we need is for them all to
> combine to fight for all rights.

Well, first they have to understand that rights can only pertain to the
individual...otherwise they're farting into the wind of special interests.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting
for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight
for all rights.
>
> Rights conflict with each other.
>

Not if they're RIGHTS rather than special interest privileges.
The theory of individual rights maintains it can't be a right if it
conflicts with another persons rights. Also, that rights are "negative" and
that positive rights can't exist (i.e., someone has to do something for you
or give something to you).

[George Patterson]

AES wrote:
>
> Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
> stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
> Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
> those stockholders -- and they're a group.

That would be like saying that I do whatever my car does.

First off, the stockholders do not have any control over the corporation (with
the exception of the one, if there is one, who owns the majority of the stock).
The board of directors controls a corporation. Assuming that the board is in
agreement, then the corporation (an entity) does what the board wants it to do.
But the corporation is not a group. What is done by the corporation is not
necessarily done by the stockholders.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Matt Barrow]

"EL" > wrote in message
m...
> Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state
actually is not true at least in the USA.
>
> Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been
established by statute & precedent that
> corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better
known ones.


ANd a corporation is en entity comprised of individuals; they neither gain,
nor lose, any rights by virtue of their incorporation. In the same way, you
neither gain nor lose rights by virtue of your being a member of a HUGE
group or a group of one.

>
> The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have
"double rights". If I run a corporation I have my
> personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of
course is under my control).

You have the right you originally hold as an individual and your rights as
spokesman for the corporation derives from that right. Again, you are
neither gaining any rights, nor should you lose any.

> Eric Law
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> > "Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
> >> I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
> >> is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
> >> political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.
> >
> > How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?
> >
> > Groups don't have rights...only individuals.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "EL" > wrote:
>
> > Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you
state
> > actually is not true at least in the USA.
>
> ?
>
> >
> > Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has
been
> > established by statute & precedent that
> > corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the
better
> > known ones.
>
> corporation <> group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a
group.

Correct. You'd not gain/lose rights as a family member, either.

[Matt Barrow]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
> >
> > corporation <> group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a
group.
> >
>
> Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
> stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
> Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
> those stockholders -- and they're a group.

As a group of individuals. See earlier post about gains/loses.

[Jay Honeck]

> Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to the
> group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...).

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

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:HnUee.50$N_5.14@trndny09...
> AES wrote:
> >
> > Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
> > stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
> > Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
> > those stockholders -- and they're a group.
>
> That would be like saying that I do whatever my car does.
>
> First off, the stockholders do not have any control over the corporation
(with
> the exception of the one, if there is one, who owns the majority of the
stock).
> The board of directors controls a corporation. Assuming that the board is
in
> agreement, then the corporation (an entity) does what the board wants it
to do.
> But the corporation is not a group. What is done by the corporation is not
> necessarily done by the stockholders.

Think of "Power of Attorney", or "delegation".

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Think of "Power of Attorney", or "delegation".

I've never signed one yet.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:bsVee.644$14.262@trndny03...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > Think of "Power of Attorney", or "delegation".
>
> I've never signed one yet.

I did say DO one, I said THIN OF WHAT IT IS!

Putz! :~)

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> I did say DO one, I said THIN OF WHAT IT IS!

I *did* think about it -- that's why I've never signed one. :-)

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jose]

>>Rights conflict with each other.
>
> Not if they're RIGHTS rather than special interest privileges.

My right to breathe, your right to smoke.
My right to sleep, your right to fly.
My right to free speech, your right to privacy and freedom from slander.
My right to swing my arms, your right to place your nose in the way.
My right to safety, your right to operate those newfangled aerothingies.
My right to shoot machine guns, your right to domestic tranquility.
My right to deal drugs, your right to to raise children in peace.

The list is endless. You may consider some of these to be "privileges",
but do you really think that rights are never in conflict?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> >>Rights conflict with each other.
> >
> > Not if they're RIGHTS rather than special interest privileges.
>
> My right to breathe, your right to smoke.
> My right to sleep, your right to fly.
> My right to free speech, your right to privacy and freedom from slander.
> My right to swing my arms, your right to place your nose in the way.
> My right to safety, your right to operate those newfangled aerothingies.
> My right to shoot machine guns, your right to domestic tranquility.
> My right to deal drugs, your right to to raise children in peace.
>
> The list is endless. You may consider some of these to be "privileges",
> but do you really think that rights are never in conflict?

Try finding out what the term "negative rights" means.

Even before that, try finding out what "RIGHTS" means.

And please don't barf back something you were force-fed in school.

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> > Actaully, most groups fight for rights they maintain are applicable to
the
> > group (blacks, woemn, gays, straights, French...).
>
> "French?"
> --
> Jay Honeck

Oh, You're so BAD, Jay! <g>

Do me a favor, (and others, too) and leave the "Jay wrote" or "whoever
wrote" at the top of the post when you snip. It makes seeing who the author
of the thread was, so much easier. Thanks!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050504/ap_on_re_us/chicago_truck_scandal
>
> Maybe they'll finally arrest King Daley for willful and criminal
destruction
> of public property?
>
> Supposedly, he's "hurt, embarrassed and disappointed" that there is
actual
> corruption in Chicago! Imagine that?
>

Maybe Cessna Corp. can buy the land that Meigs sat on, built by Chi.
Park
District Taxpayers. Loop acreage is around $5-$10 million these days.

JG