AOPA has totally lost it

[Skylune]

1. "Just the facts, maam": Of the 10 busiest airports (listed airports
are big commercial airports), GA contributes only 4.5% of the traffic.
The Destroyer's conclusion: "So much for the airlines claim that GA is
using more than its paying for." Hysterical. Beyond ludicrous.

2. AOPA opposes emissions study in CA. AOPA opposes even a study. Can't
even discuss it. Verboten by Phil.

3. AOPA previously opposed a study of GA in Maryland. Just a study.
Also verboten by Phil.

4. Aging GA aircraft: No limits other than voluntary.

5. Twin Cities airport: AOPA opposes an economic analysis (by the state
legislature) of Crystal Airport. Huh????? Say again???? I thought
these things brought untold wealth to communities. (Oh, yeah. Only the
studies commissioned by AOPA or state aeronautics boards reach this
conclusion. No other groups are qualified to comment.)

6. AOPA "milestone": 408,000 members. I suppose each thousand members
will represent "milestones." If it hits 409,000, that will be the next
milestone.

7. On ADIZ transcripts again being made public, Boyer says, "I wonder how
much it cost the taxpayers?" Phils concern over the taxpayers may
represent an about face, and perhaps he will now support the user fees.
But wait:

8. "Beware the Camel's Nose" article: I guess he doesn't care about
taxpayers after all.

9. TSA warning about jihadists: What's the worry. The voluntary airport
watch program has been a "proven" success, according to the Destroyer.

I repeat what I've said before: this man is a disaster for your
organization. John McCain, to his credit, got this clown's number years
back, recognizing he is an unscrupulous liar and a fraud.

[Greg Farris]

Well, I guess there's something vaguely flattering to see that you feel
General Aviation should be held to higher honor-bound standards than every
other interest and lobbying group (unless, that is you are also posting
similar laments as "bulletlune" on pro-gun newsgroups, or "splashlune" on
boat enthusiasts' sites) but I am concerned, for someone reaching retirement
age, that you still appear to suffer from the illusion that politicians
order "studies" in order to inform themselves of the facts and hear the
opinions of all concerned parties, in order to make sound, unbiased
decisions in the best public interest. Most of us, by adolescence, had shed
ourselves of this dangerous illusion.

GA airports get on just fine thank you very much without politicians
"studying" them, which usually only means developers studying alternate land
uses.

GF

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> 2. AOPA opposes emissions study in CA. AOPA opposes
> even a study. Can't even discuss it. Verboten by Phil.
>

Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we still
use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is 4 times the
amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble. Especially
in CA.

[Jay Honeck]

> Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we still
> use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is 4 times the
> amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble. Especially
> in CA.

Well, look at the bright side. If all the tree-huggers really DO get
worked up about all that lead, MAYBE they'll let you burn ethanol-free
unleaded mogas again in Kalifornia?

:-)

Nah...that would make too much sense...

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

[Skylune]

by Greg Farris > Apr 21, 2006 at 07:38 PM


Well, I guess there's something vaguely flattering to see that you feel
General Aviation should be held to higher honor-bound standards than
every

other interest and lobbying group (unless, that is you are also posting
similar laments as "bulletlune" on pro-gun newsgroups, or "splashlune" on

boat enthusiasts' sites) but I am concerned, for someone reaching
retirement
age, that you still appear to suffer from the illusion that politicians
order "studies" in order to inform themselves of the facts and hear the
opinions of all concerned parties, in order to make sound, unbiased
decisions in the best public interest. Most of us, by adolescence, had
shed
ourselves of this dangerous illusion.

GA airports get on just fine thank you very much without politicians
"studying" them, which usually only means developers studying alternate
land
uses.


<<

Well, I stand by my commentary that the AOPA has completely lost it. I
mean, using GA traffic at the 10 busiest COMMERCIAL aviation sites to
"prove" that GA shouldn't be subject to user fees is absolutely
preposterous. All the other contradictions and denials by Phil brand this
man as a GA demogogue, at best, and an outright liar most likely. John
McCain has his number.

[Gene Seibel]

There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.
> --
Technically, it's "Am undertaking to select data to fit a preordained
conclusion".

[Gary Drescher]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.

Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's just a PC
name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe whatever is convenient
and leave it at that.

--Gary

[Skylune]

by "Gary Drescher" > Apr 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM


Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's just a
PC
name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe whatever is
convenient

and leave it at that.

<<

Yeah, that is the AOPA way.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by "Gary Drescher" > Apr 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM
>>
>>"Gene Seibel" > wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.
>>
>> Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's
>> just a PC name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe
>> whatever is convenient and leave it at that.
>
> Yeah, that is the AOPA way.

Skylune's way: don't settle for trenchant irony if you can issue a petulant
taunt instead.

[Skylune]

by "Gary Drescher" > Apr 24, 2006 at 05:49 PM



Skylune's way: don't settle for trenchant irony if you can issue a
petulant
taunt instead.


<<

I haven't met "trenchant" yet: made me break out the good old American
College Dictionary. Thanks.

(I think I can do the trenchant ironry and taunt. Petulant? If you are
using that to mean contemptuous, I would have to agree. I do have
contempt for Boyer and his irrational, un-American methods, and his
contempt for everyone who doesn't fly.)

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I haven't met "trenchant" yet: made me break out the good old American
> College Dictionary. Thanks.

You're welcome. By the way, there's a good online dictionary at www.m-w.com;
or you can just google "definition of x".

--Gary

[alexy]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>> I haven't met "trenchant" yet: made me break out the good old American
>> College Dictionary. Thanks.
>
>You're welcome. By the way, there's a good online dictionary at www.m-w.com;
>or you can just google "definition of x".
>
>--Gary
>
Or, if using firefox, type "dict:x" in the address
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we
>> still use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is >>4
>> times the amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble.
>> Especially in CA.
>
> Well, look at the bright side. If all the tree-huggers really DO get
> worked up about all that lead, MAYBE they'll let you burn >ethanol-free
> unleaded mogas again in Kalifornia?

I would discourage you from sounding like a professional talk radio zealout
ranting against "the treehuggers" or what they might do if they find out.

I'm a "treehugger." I once flew a C-152 with a photographer over an illegal
clearcut of an old-growth forest along the Oregon coast that was subsidized
by unknowing taxpayers but shut down as soon as the government found out (of
course, 75% had already been cut thanks to friends in Bill F'ckhead
Clinton's Forest Service)

The photos provided evidence of a crime against the public trust. When they
were on the web, by the way, I was getting hits from federally-leased IP
ranges daily. Big brother was watching.

Without getting too political, there's a tendency for people to think that
environmentalists are out to sink GA even though as a pilot/eco-geek I can
stand toe-to-toe with an educated environmentalist and make plenty of good
arguments for aviation and its fuel requirements.

Near as I can tell, the real enemies of General Aviation are

1) Draconian FAA regulations, which I don't feel I need to explain in this
forum

2) Land developers; (longtime enemies of the treehugger) lobbying to close
down airports because the land is worth more money or because their new
residents won't like the noise.

3) The oil industry; windfall profits off of Katrina, taxpayers are
rebuilding the region that supplies 30% to half of our domestic crude
oil....$750,000,000 in taxpayers dollars to patch up the levees alone, which
represents less than one tenth of Exxon's profits in the last quarter.
They want tax breaks. THEY BUILT THE CANALS that introduced salt water to
the barrier marshland along the Mississippi Delta that helped the storm
surges that wiped out places like Chalmette. By the way, 20% of the
population of New Orleans works in the energy industries.)

4) Social ignorance, largely due to media/public infatuation every time a
plane gets bent, whether somebody is hurt or not.

Feel free to challenge any point. I'd love to test my ideas here.
-c

[Montblack]

("gatt" wrote)
> Feel free to challenge any point. I'd love to test my ideas here.


#1. Legal system.


Montblack

[Newps]

You're not a treehugger. Not even close.




gatt wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>>Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we
>>>still use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is >>4
>>>times the amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble.
>>>Especially in CA.
>>
>>Well, look at the bright side. If all the tree-huggers really DO get
>>worked up about all that lead, MAYBE they'll let you burn >ethanol-free
>>unleaded mogas again in Kalifornia?
>
>
> I would discourage you from sounding like a professional talk radio zealout
> ranting against "the treehuggers" or what they might do if they find out.
>
> I'm a "treehugger." I once flew a C-152 with a photographer over an illegal
> clearcut of an old-growth forest along the Oregon coast that was subsidized
> by unknowing taxpayers but shut down as soon as the government found out (of
> course, 75% had already been cut thanks to friends in Bill F'ckhead
> Clinton's Forest Service)
>
> The photos provided evidence of a crime against the public trust. When they
> were on the web, by the way, I was getting hits from federally-leased IP
> ranges daily. Big brother was watching.
>
> Without getting too political, there's a tendency for people to think that
> environmentalists are out to sink GA even though as a pilot/eco-geek I can
> stand toe-to-toe with an educated environmentalist and make plenty of good
> arguments for aviation and its fuel requirements.
>
> Near as I can tell, the real enemies of General Aviation are
>
> 1) Draconian FAA regulations, which I don't feel I need to explain in this
> forum
>
> 2) Land developers; (longtime enemies of the treehugger) lobbying to close
> down airports because the land is worth more money or because their new
> residents won't like the noise.
>
> 3) The oil industry; windfall profits off of Katrina, taxpayers are
> rebuilding the region that supplies 30% to half of our domestic crude
> oil....$750,000,000 in taxpayers dollars to patch up the levees alone, which
> represents less than one tenth of Exxon's profits in the last quarter.
> They want tax breaks. THEY BUILT THE CANALS that introduced salt water to
> the barrier marshland along the Mississippi Delta that helped the storm
> surges that wiped out places like Chalmette. By the way, 20% of the
> population of New Orleans works in the energy industries.)
>
> 4) Social ignorance, largely due to media/public infatuation every time a
> plane gets bent, whether somebody is hurt or not.
>
> Feel free to challenge any point. I'd love to test my ideas here.
> -c
>
>

[gatt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("gatt" wrote)
>> Feel free to challenge any point. I'd love to test my ideas here.
>
>
> #1. Legal system.

What does that mean?

[gatt]

No, but I've been there and done that and in the process, talked to many of
the various northwestern treehugger species, from the ex-Earth First! types,
politicians and the garden-variety "Drivin' daddy's Beamer to the protest on
the way to he Phish concert" types too. Lotta useless, clueless college-age
parasites but also some -really- interesting minds. I wouldn't say I came
out of the experience with a profound new respect for hippies. :>

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but out here the activist leaders
who organize everything are smart enough to know the importance of general
aviation. The shrieking retro-hippie ninnies don't, necessarily, but they
don't actually accomplish anything anyhow for the most part.

The rednecks who fired shotguns over our heads and dumped roofing nails all
over the road when the OSU Forestry Department and Time Magazine were coming
up to a timber arson auction site sure thought I was a treehugger. I
pulled at least two dozen nails from each of my tires. When we reported it
to the state police, he said "It must have been those ecoterrorists but
there's nothing I can do. The USFS has authority and told us we can't go up
there." -c

"Newps" > wrote in message
...

> You're not a treehugger. Not even close.

>> I'm a "treehugger." I once flew a C-152 with a photographer over an
>> illegal clearcut of an old-growth forest along the Oregon coast that was
>> subsidized by unknowing taxpayers but shut down as soon as the government
>> found out (of course, 75% had already been cut thanks to friends in Bill
>> F'ckhead Clinton's Forest Service)

[Matt Barrow]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The rednecks who fired shotguns over our heads and dumped roofing nails
> all over the road when the OSU Forestry Department and Time Magazine were
> coming up to a timber arson auction site sure thought I was a treehugger.

Which "rednecks" were those?