Bush wants to close FAA facilities like the base closure initiative from the Reagan era...

[Blueskies]

See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat

or:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/FAA02267.xml&headline=FAA%20Reauthorization%20Plan%20Includes%2 0Closures

"The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to recommend
the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."


One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
astounds me!

[John Theune]

Blueskies wrote:
> See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat
>
> or:
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/FAA02267.xml&headline=FAA%20Reauthorization%20Plan%20Includes%2 0Closures
>
> "The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to recommend
> the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
> Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."
>
>
> One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
> downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
> astounds me!
>
>
>
So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities.
The cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to
pay that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.

[BiffClinton]

John Theune wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>> See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat
>>
>> or:
>> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/FAA02267.xml&headline=FAA%20Reauthorization%20Plan%20Includes%2 0Closures
>>
>>
>> "The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls
>> for establishment of a commission to recommend the closing or
>> consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and
>> mission to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) organization that
>> was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."
>>
>>
>> One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these
>> facilities open and viable. This is not like the downsizing after the
>> Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense
>> coming out of this administration astounds me!
>>
>>
>>
> So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
> they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
> consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
> about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
> the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities. The
> cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to pay
> that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.


Go ahead and place all your Air Traffic control in one
building in Kansas. The terrorists love easy targets for
maximum economic disruption. Sounds like more college boy
bean counter bull**** by clueless Government and FAA
Management. Grand Canyon times 10 looms closer and closer.
The bean counter rubber band will be snapping soon. Very soon.

[EridanMan]

Well known and especially pathetic troll... don't waste your time.

[Blueskies]

"John Theune" > wrote in message news:%VWFh.1$jf1.0@trndny01...
: Blueskies wrote:
: > See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat
: >
: > or:
: >
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/FAA02267.xml&headline=FAA%20Reauthorization%20Plan%20Includes%2 0Closures
: >
: > "The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to
recommend
: > the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
: > Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."
: >
: >
: > One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
: > downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this
administration
: > astounds me!
: >
: >
: >
: So tell me why they need to stay open? From the story it looks like
: they are going to study the issue and close what is not needed and
: consolidate the work. Rather then calling this nonsense, I think it's
: about time the federal government examine it's operations in light of
: the current technology and the requirements for multiple facilities.
: The cost of the system continues to go up, yet none of the users want to
: pay that increasing cost, so looking at ways to reduce it looks good to me.


I was seeing the comments about selling facilities (read airports!) as especially interesting. I can only imagine Daily
'owning' O'Hare, or LAX going to the highest bidder.

Also, the way it is written it seems to severely limit the oversight by congress by putting apparently unreasonable
timing constraints on changes.

"The commission would then seek public comment on the FAA Administrator's proposals. Based on its analysis of the
Administrator's proposals, and any public comments, the commission would "make its independent recommendations to the
President for realignment and consolidation of aviation services or facilities," along with a report explaining and
justifying any of its recommendations that differ from those made by the Administrator. Copies of those recommendations
and reports also would be sent to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and the Appropriations Committees in both houses.
The President then would have the option of approving or disapproving the commission's recommendations in whole or in
part and sending that decision, along with a report, to Congress. But Congress would end up with a very limited window
to review the President's recommendations for facility and services closures or realignments. The language in the
proposed bill says Congress could block the President's recommendations only by adopting a joint House-Senate resolution
within 60 days after transmittal of the President's report. The legislative branch also would lose its opportunity to
block the President's recommendations if it did not act before adjourning for the session during which the President's
report is transmitted."

[Jay Honeck]

> One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
> downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
> astounds me!

Your comments mystify me. Have you *ever* looked at ANY government-
run program? 50% of it could be closed tomorrow, and NO ONE WOULD
NOTICE. Do you really think the FAA is any different?

>From NASA, to the toll roads, to the levees in New Orleans, to the
lowliest parking garage, our gummint is laced with incompetence, lard,
and fraud. It is incredibly refreshing to read that *someone* is
actually suggesting that we close and consolidate some the FAA's
facilities.

The only thing I find disgusting is that the FAA has become so
politicized that no one feels strong enough to simply order
consolidation based on common sense. Instead, they feel they must
take the "safe" way out by using a "commission" to "suggest" what
facilities should be closed. As if any competent administrator
couldn't figure it out in a matter of weeks.

IMHO, this is yet another indication of how far out of control the
bureacrats have become.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The only thing I find disgusting is that the FAA has become so
> politicized that no one feels strong enough to simply order
> consolidation based on common sense. Instead, they feel they must
> take the "safe" way out by using a "commission" to "suggest" what
> facilities should be closed. As if any competent administrator
> couldn't figure it out in a matter of weeks.

The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
government appointees over the past seven years or so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
> with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
> government appointees over the past seven years or so.

Try over the last 220 years or so.

Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
for decades are REALLY in charge.

This is true in every branch of our Gummint.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Try over the last 220 years or so.
>
> Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
> for decades are REALLY in charge.

Until 1997, all FAA Administrators had been licensed pilots.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BiffClinton]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Try over the last 220 years or so.
>>
>> Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
>> for decades are REALLY in charge.
>
> Until 1997, all FAA Administrators had been licensed pilots.
>

Or until the edict went out from the PC goon squads to "Kiss
the Black Ass" and hire anything that is not white or has a
dick. That is why since Clinton and his bull-dike brigades
took over in 1992 knowing aviation or being a pilot is not
required to be FAA Administrator. Just be anything but a
white male.

Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
> with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
> government appointees over the past seven years or so.

Cite your evidence for that. She came from NTSB, prior
thereto NHTSA, appointed by Bush-nemesis Bill Clinton.

F--

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

BiffClinton > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> Try over the last 220 years or so.
>>>
>>> Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
>>> for decades are REALLY in charge.
>>
>> Until 1997, all FAA Administrators had been licensed pilots.
>>
>
> Or until the edict went out from the PC goon squads to "Kiss
> the Black Ass" and hire anything that is not white or has a
> dick. That is why since Clinton and his bull-dike brigades
> took over in 1992 knowing aviation or being a pilot is not
> required to be FAA Administrator. Just be anything but a
> white male.
>
> Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

As a 1/4th Black, 3/4th American Indian, I find your comments
rather racist, demeaning and pathetic. I'm glad to say that it makes
you less than the man you think you are.

Do us a favour; break into an O2 bar, and light a match.

P.S. don't bother replying. you're permanently killfiled.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF6R/cyBkZmuMZ8L8RAoxkAJ402X9fUqnhBQl4HaqVptgWoSDRRQCg9 NS4
tICkcTuw3QEDQyaGCm1mXxc=
=IKsx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Denny]

On Mar 3, 1:39 am, TxSrv > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
> > with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
> > government appointees over the past seven years or so.
>
> Cite your evidence for that. She came from NTSB, prior
> thereto NHTSA, appointed by Bush-nemesis Bill Clinton.
>
> F--

Actually, they could close down the FAA and ATC in its entirety and I
would not notice anything, nada, zippo!
- except immediately after that there would be an astounding
resurgence in general aviation... The innovation, vitality, and drive,
in the experimental aircraft ranks would literally bubble up inside of
so called "certified" aircraft ranks... Small airports would be busy,
busy, busy on weekends similar to your local boat launch ramp...
OTOH, the airlines, 99% of whom are in bankruptcy (but who are vastly
important because they contribute to political coffers) won't stand
for a resurgent GA and will put their foot down.... <sigh>

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> Actually, they could close down the FAA and ATC in its entirety and I
> would not notice anything, nada, zippo!
> - except immediately after that there would be an astounding
> resurgence in general aviation... The innovation, vitality, and drive,
> in the experimental aircraft ranks would literally bubble up inside of
> so called "certified" aircraft ranks... Small airports would be busy,
> busy, busy on weekends similar to your local boat launch ramp...
> OTOH, the airlines, 99% of whom are in bankruptcy (but who are vastly
> important because they contribute to political coffers) won't stand
> for a resurgent GA and will put their foot down.... <sigh>

Well put, Denny.

Government isn't the solution, it's the problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
:> Actually, they could close down the FAA and ATC in its entirety and I
: > would not notice anything, nada, zippo!
: > - except immediately after that there would be an astounding
: > resurgence in general aviation... The innovation, vitality, and drive,
: > in the experimental aircraft ranks would literally bubble up inside of
: > so called "certified" aircraft ranks... Small airports would be busy,
: > busy, busy on weekends similar to your local boat launch ramp...
: > OTOH, the airlines, 99% of whom are in bankruptcy (but who are vastly
: > important because they contribute to political coffers) won't stand
: > for a resurgent GA and will put their foot down.... <sigh>
:
: Well put, Denny.
:
: Government isn't the solution, it's the problem.
: --
: Jay Honeck
: Iowa City, IA
: Pathfinder N56993
: www.AlexisParkInn.com
: "Your Aviation Destination"
:


In a lot of cases I agree, Jay, but not this one. There are some things that the govment needs to do, and do well:
Airport facilities, hiways and roads, emergency services, and law enforcement to name a few. If these things are not
mandated and controlled by govment, some places will have services and some places will not. The primary issue I think
is accountability. There can be no profit motive, but the systems and tools need to be efficient and effective - the
challenge is how do you define those measures?

Dan D.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:14:22 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
>with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
>government appointees over the past seven years or so.


If the people, through the news media and Congress, hadn't
successfully stopped his appointment of his dear friend Harriet
Meyers, we'd have a similarly unqualified Chief Justice of the United
States.

She has no judicial record to examine, and she stated, that Bush is
the most brilliant man she ever met.


Imagine Bush's arrogance if he's managed to hold all three branches of
government hostage. The corrupt politicians and lobbyists like DeLay,
Cunningham, Abromoff, ... would have no fear of monitory fines nor
jail. He would have free reign to wiretap and incarcerate American
citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime nor granting
them their Constitutional right to the benefit of judicial due
process. The nation would be awash in newly born unwanted citizens
with only a single parent; the hypocritical evangelical preacher, Ted
Haggard, could send all the other homosexuals to Gitmo to be tortured;
the nation's coastal beaches would be packed with oil derricks; those
who had labored to make this nation great would no longer receive
their Social Security payments nor Medicare benefits. A new federal
department would have been created at enormous expense to assure the
security of the nation while failing to close its borders to terrorist
invaders. Big corporations would be free to exploit their workers and
steal their retirement funds. Military conscription would be
reinstated. The nation would have to print so much money, that our
currency would be worthless. Education reform would have resulted in
mandatory instruction in the Arabic language for every American child.
And he could have flushed the toilet containing the US Constitution
upon which he and his right hand marketeer, Karl Rove, have already
used to wipe their asses.

Nice work, Brownie!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,68829,00.html
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/22/war-profits-trump-the-rule-of-law/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthout.org%2Fdocs_2006%2F1 22206A.shtml&frame=true

[Ron Natalie]

Blueskies wrote:

>
> One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
> downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
> astounds me!
>

While there were some pork barrel FAA facilities in the past (lots of
local FSS's and useless towers in West Virginia) they have largely been
taken care of. I'm not sure what facilities they think they are going
to get rid of. They aleady sold-out the FSS's to LockMart.

>
>

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The current Administrator's only "qualification" is longstanding friendship
>> with the President, something she has in common with most high-level
>> government appointees over the past seven years or so.
>
> Try over the last 220 years or so.
>
> Administrators are figureheads. The bureacrats that stay with the FAA
> for decades are REALLY in charge.
>
> This is true in every branch of our Gummint.
> --

Untrue Jay.

Up until the last few administrators EVERY ONE came either from senior
airline or military aviation managements. Every one was either close
to retirement or retired. They didn't get much money being
administrator, but they were willing to do so out of a sense of public
service when the President asked.

Now they are chosen for their bureaucratic and political track record
more than any relevent qualifications in the field.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

> Imagine Bush's arrogance if he's managed to hold all three branches of
> government hostage.


For all of your political expertise, you should go into politics.

I'm also quite certain that I speak for many other RAP people when I say:

SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT POLITICS!!!

PLONK

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> In a lot of cases I agree, Jay, but not this one. There are some things
> that the govment needs to do, and do well:
> Airport facilities,

Nope.

> hiways and roads,

Nope.
> emergency services,

Nope.

> and law enforcement to name a few.

Govenment is established to protect our rights, not to make things
conveneint.

> If these things are not
> mandated and controlled by govment, some places will have services and
> some places will not.

Bull. the only way people will not have services is if they are not willing
to pay market price, instead expecting others to cover their costs. That's
noting but a form of parasitism.

> The primary issue I think
> is accountability.

The best accountability is profits and losses, and thodse have to be over
the long term.

> There can be no profit motive, but the systems and tools need to be
> efficient and effective

Constradcition - with out a profit motive there can be no efficiency, nor
accountability.
> - the
> challenge is how do you define those measures?

Exactly; you can't.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> Constradcition - with out a profit motive there can be no efficiency, nor
> accountability.

Without competition, the profit motive produces the lowest possible quality at
the highest possible price. This is why public services that are natural
monopolies (electrical power, rail networks, air traffic control, etc.) should
never be privatized unless they are under extremely tight regulatory controls.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:05:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>:

>The best accountability is profits and losses, and thodse have to be over
>the long term.

Oh, you mean like the private contractor (headed by a former
Halliburton executive) who was granted the contract to run Walter Reed
Hospital. They replaced 300 federal employees with 60 private
employees, and you can see how wonderfully that worked out. :-(

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The best accountability is profits and losses, and thodse have to be over
> >the long term.
>
> Oh, you mean like the private contractor (headed by a former
> Halliburton executive) who was granted the contract to run Walter Reed
> Hospital. They replaced 300 federal employees with 60 private
> employees, and you can see how wonderfully that worked out. :-(

Is it better to have Congress mismanaging things or a private contractor
mismanaging things?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:05:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
: > wrote in
: >:
:
: >The best accountability is profits and losses, and thodse have to be over
: >the long term.
:
: Oh, you mean like the private contractor (headed by a former
: Halliburton executive) who was granted the contract to run Walter Reed
: Hospital. They replaced 300 federal employees with 60 private
: employees, and you can see how wonderfully that worked out. :-(


Great example Larry. I didn't know we have mercenary hospital workers also...

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Larry Dighera" > wrote
:
: > Imagine Bush's arrogance if he's managed to hold all three branches of
: > government hostage.
:
:
: For all of your political expertise, you should go into politics.
:
: I'm also quite certain that I speak for many other RAP people when I say:
:
: SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT POLITICS!!!
:
: PLONK
:
:

Sounds like someone is starting to have a conscience...

[Blueskies]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message ...
: Blueskies wrote:
:
: >
: > One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
: > downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this
administration
: > astounds me!
: >
:
: While there were some pork barrel FAA facilities in the past (lots of
: local FSS's and useless towers in West Virginia) they have largely been
: taken care of. I'm not sure what facilities they think they are going
: to get rid of. They aleady sold-out the FSS's to LockMart.
:
: >
: >


Ron,

See my opening post for this thread, a good article by Aviation Week. I don't think anyone here can dispute the
reputation of that magazine, and they spell out this proposal pretty well...

Dan D.

[Jose]

> Govenment is established to protect our rights, not to make things conveneint.

One of the ways to protect our rights is to be a strong country, able to
resist the attempts of other countries to usurp our rights. Some things
make us a strong country; this includes a robust infrastructure, even
out to the boonies. Another is a vibrant scientific research tradition.
It attracts bright people to our country, which makes us stronger.
Both of these benefit even those who do not pay for them.

Not everything can be reduced to the cash register, despite the wailings
of libertarians.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:51:28 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>Is it better to have Congress mismanaging things or a private contractor
>mismanaging things?

Ask the patients at Walter Reed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:57:44 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>
>Sounds like someone is starting to have a conscience...

It sounds more as if someone is acting like a clueless, petulant
child.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:35:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>One of the ways to protect our rights is to be a strong country,

One of the ways to be a "strong country" is to have an educational
system that produces enlightened citizens. The educational system in
the US is a travesty. It is even more of an embarrassment to us
internationally than the yokel who currently leads us. Education is
the only, albeit long term, solution to the world's ills.
Unfortunately, it takes an educated person to appreciate that.

[Jose]

> One of the ways to be a "strong country" is to have an educational
> system that produces enlightened citizens.

I agree totally. And those who benefit from education are not
necessarily the ones receiving it. We all benefit from having everyone
else be educated.

Public education is thus a reasonable function of government (as are
public libraries). The rub is getting whoever is doing it to actually
do a good job, and that entails deciding what the "job" is. Alas,
(primary and secondary school) education has come to replace parenting,
and that is a Bad Thing.

Neither government nor the private sector has a monopoly on Bad Things.
It's up to each of us to fight them, but even we disagree on what is
Good and what is Bad.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:17:33 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> One of the ways to be a "strong country" is to have an educational
>> system that produces enlightened citizens.
>
>I agree totally. And those who benefit from education are not
>necessarily the ones receiving it. We all benefit from having everyone
>else be educated.

The entire world benefits from an educated populace.

>Public education is thus a reasonable function of government (as are
>public libraries).

If the (democratic) government is to continue to exist, it MUST
educate its citizens. It's way beyond an option. Unfortunately, it
takes an educated populace to appreciate this.

>The rub is getting whoever is doing it to actually do a good job,

In my opinion, the rub is making the populace appreciate the
importance of education in the long term survival of their country,
and demanding that the government tax them adequately to fund quality
education.

>and that entails deciding what the "job" is.

It also entails paying teachers a wage commensurate with the vital
service they perform, reducing class-size to a reasonable limit (ten
pupils seems to be the absolute maximum to me), and providing an
educational environment worthy of the high ideals taught in the
classrooms.

How has the Bush administration's, indeed Congress', record on
education been over the last decade?

>Alas, (primary and secondary school) education has come to replace parenting,
>and that is a Bad Thing.

This is a result of the proliferation of divorce, and globalization.
When the US found itself financially besieged by Japan in the '70s, a
movement began to get women out of the home (where they civilized
their children, guided their development, and disciplined them), and
into the workplace. While that did make our nation more productive
and thus competitive in the world marketplace, it reduced the
upbringing of our progeny to almost nonexistent in single-parent
homes. And the vital role mothers played in raising their children
was left unfulfilled. Schools lack the authority, and the church is
too cloaked in superstition and self-serving dogma to effectively
civilize our children. It is the traditional role of mothers, and
they should be coaxed back into fulfilling that role if we are to
progress as a nation.

>
>Neither government nor the private sector has a monopoly on Bad Things.
> It's up to each of us to fight them, but even we disagree on what is
>Good and what is Bad.
>

I think there is little question, that the US$3-billion per week being
squandered on Iraq could absolutely revolutionize education in this
country. Unfortunately, it's going to require future generations to
pay the bill, and that won't leave much for education.

We the people MUST start thinking for ourselves, and demand our
government and those who make governmental decisions choose an
intelligent course.

Alas, the newly empowered Congress can't seem to see beyond partisan
politics and a meaningless resolution, instead of doing anything
meaningful. Oh well....

[john smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:05:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >The best accountability is profits and losses, and thodse have to be over
> >the long term.
>
> Oh, you mean like the private contractor (headed by a former
> Halliburton executive) who was granted the contract to run Walter Reed
> Hospital. They replaced 300 federal employees with 60 private
> employees, and you can see how wonderfully that worked out. :-(

A contractor is only obligated to do what the contract says.
This sounds more like the case of a poorly written contract.
Can you cite a source for the Halliburton contract?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:46:06 -0500, john smith > wrote
in >:

>Can you cite a source for the Halliburton contract?

No. I don't believe there was a Walter Reed Hospital. contract
awarded to Halliburton.

If you were truly interested in this topic, you'd Google it yourself.
However, here is a link that mentions the contract being awarded to
IAP Worldwide Services which is apparently run by a former Halliburton
official:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x328133
The memorandum “describes how the Army’s decision to privatize
support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an
exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” the
committee’s letter states. “According to multiple sources, the
decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a
precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

The letter said Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million
contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a
former senior Halliburton official.

They also found that more than 300 federal employees providing
facilities management services at Walter Reed had drooped to fewer
than 60 by Feb. 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities
management. IAP replaced the remaining 60 employees with only 50
private workers.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:17:33 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
> >> One of the ways to be a "strong country" is to have an educational
> >> system that produces enlightened citizens.
> >
> >I agree totally. And those who benefit from education are not
> >necessarily the ones receiving it. We all benefit from having everyone
> >else be educated.
>
> The entire world benefits from an educated populace.

Does anyone remember the West Wing episode where the Sam Seaborn
character wrote an opposition memo on education? Remember what he said
about Education as the silver bullet?



> How has the Bush administration's, indeed Congress', record on
> education been over the last decade?

indeed, and how about the previous administrations and congresses?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Is it better to have Congress mismanaging things or a private contractor
> >mismanaging things?
>
> Ask the patients at Walter Reed.

You don't think Congress excels at mismanagement?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose]

> Does anyone remember the West Wing episode where the Sam Seaborn
> character wrote an opposition memo on education? Remember what he said
> about Education as the silver bullet?

No. The first several seasons of West Wing were excellent, but I don't
have television, and eventually I stopped having my sister record them
for me. What did he say?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Does anyone remember the West Wing episode where the Sam Seaborn
> > character wrote an opposition memo on education? Remember what he said
> > about Education as the silver bullet?
>
> No. The first several seasons of West Wing were excellent, but I don't
> have television, and eventually I stopped having my sister record them
> for me. What did he say?

be patient. In the next few days I'll find the episode and summarize....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bill Michaelson]

Which incompetent fraud do you recommend be designated to exercise this
common sense?

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>From NASA, to the toll roads, to the levees in New Orleans, to the
> lowliest parking garage, our gummint is laced with incompetence, lard,
> and fraud. It is incredibly refreshing to read that *someone* is
> actually suggesting that we close and consolidate some the FAA's
> facilities.
>
> The only thing I find disgusting is that the FAA has become so
> politicized that no one feels strong enough to simply order
> consolidation based on common sense. Instead, they feel they must
> take the "safe" way out by using a "commission" to "suggest" what
> facilities should be closed. As if any competent administrator
> couldn't figure it out in a matter of weeks.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> > > Does anyone remember the West Wing episode where the Sam Seaborn
> > > character wrote an opposition memo on education? Remember what he said
> > > about Education as the silver bullet?
> >
> > No. The first several seasons of West Wing were excellent, but I don't
> > have television, and eventually I stopped having my sister record them
> > for me. What did he say?
>
> be patient. In the next few days I'll find the episode and summarize....

It took longer than I thought to find the episode...

(in the next-to-last episode of seacon 1) Sam Seaborn says:

Education is the silver bullet
Education is everything
We don't need little changes
We need gigantic monumental changes
Schools should be palaces
The competition for the best teachers should be fierce
They should be making six-figure saliers
Schools should be incredibly expensive for the Government
and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like National Defense
That's my position

I just haven't figured out how to do it yet...

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:44:46 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>See: http://tinyurl.com/32xsat
>
>or:
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/FAA02267.xml&headline=FAA%20Reauthorization%20Plan%20Includes%2 0Closures
>
>"The FAA reauthorization legislation sent to Congress this month calls for establishment of a commission to recommend
>the closing or consolidation of certain FAA facilities, similar in structure and mission to the Base Realignment and
>Closure (BRAC) organization that was used to shutter scores of Defense Department installations."
>
>
>One problem with this whole concept is that we need to keep these facilities open and viable. This is not like the
>downsizing after the Cold War where we had all sorts of excess capacity. The nonsense coming out of this administration
>astounds me!
>
>

Apparently you aren't the only one:


http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1613120,00.html
Friday, Apr. 20, 2007
Vermont Senate: Impeach Bush
By AP/ ROSS SNEYD
(MONTPELIER, Vt.) — Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the
impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying
their actions have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six
Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted
against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad,
including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality,
statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."

"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a
tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about
this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing
troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop
withdrawal from Iraq in another non-binding resolution.

Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution
from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment
resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract
Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which
she says is more important.

In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
the measure.

More than three dozen towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding
impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March. State
lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have pushed for similar
resolutions.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

You should also know that the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican and a
fighter pilot in the Vermont ANG, so, of course he would vote against the
proposal.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:54:31 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>You should also know that the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican and a
>fighter pilot in the Vermont ANG, so, of course he would vote against the
>proposal.

But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.

The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
"The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate —" and
"In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.
>
> The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
> "The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -" and
> "In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
> resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
> President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
> the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.
>

Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.
>>
>> The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
>> "The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -" and
>> "In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
>> resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
>> President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
>> the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.
>>
>
> Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?
>
>

A vote to make a political statement, but which has no other meaning or
force of law.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> A vote to make a political statement, but which has no other meaning or
> force of law.
>

It's also an oxymoron.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:42:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.
>>
>> The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
>> "The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -" and
>> "In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
>> resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
>> President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
>> the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.
>>
>
>Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?
>

In this case, I'd characterize it as a statement of opinion by the
majority of Vermont senators.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> In this case, I'd characterize it as a statement of opinion by the
> majority of Vermont senators.
>

Why do you suppose they don't call it that?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:22:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In this case, I'd characterize it as a statement of opinion by the
>> majority of Vermont senators.
>>
>
>Why do you suppose they don't call it that?
>

I suppose it's because that's what the US Congress calls such things.
I know; why does the US Congress use that term, right?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:37:01 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:22:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> In this case, I'd characterize it as a statement of opinion by the
>>> majority of Vermont senators.
>>>
>>
>>Why do you suppose they don't call it that?
>>
>
>I suppose it's because that's what the US Congress calls such things.
>I know; why does the US Congress use that term, right?


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/13/whats_a_nonbinding_resolution/
What's a nonbinding resolution?
By The Associated Press | February 13, 2007

A nonbinding resolution such as the one being debated on Iraq does
not have the force of law.

There are three kinds of congressional resolutions: simple,
concurrent and joint. Simple resolutions, approved by only one
chamber, and concurrent resolutions, by both chambers, often
express non-statutory opinion or concern the internal operations
of Congress and are usually nonbinding. ...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose it's because that's what the US Congress calls such things.
> I know; why does the US Congress use that term, right?
>

Both have the wacky party in control.

[Jose]

> Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?

It's an expression of group opinion that carries no force of law.

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

[Jose]

> Both have the wacky party in control.

Is the wacky party ever out of control?

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

[601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.
>>
>> The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
>> "The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -" and
>> "In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
>> resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
>> President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
>> the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.
>>
>
> Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?
>
>

Legislative Masturbation

[601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:42:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> t>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> But he didn't get an opportunity to vote.
>>>
>>> The way I understand it, given these two quotes from the AP article
>>> "The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -" and
>>> "In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the
>>> resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate
>>> President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up
>>> the measure.", there's not going to be any more votes cast.
>>>
>> Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?
>>
>
> In this case, I'd characterize it as a statement of opinion by the
> majority of Vermont senators.


And baerly that. There are I think 30 state senators in Vermont. Sounds
like the president pro tem looked around and saw that he had enough
votes for this silliness and called a immediate vote.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> It's an expression of group opinion that carries no force of law.
>

And no resolve.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Is the wacky party ever out of control?
>

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
>
> Legislative Masturbation
>

That's the best answer so far.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:38:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> It's an expression of group opinion that carries no force of law.
>>
>
>And no resolve.
>

Perhaps you are both wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson's_Manual
Jefferson's Manual is currently being used in the movement to
impeach George W. Bush. Although the impeachment process is
usually thought of as a bill introduced by a representative, the
Manual actually outlines several different methods:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment
in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a
Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is
usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution
dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by
a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the
legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from
facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the
House.[3]
Several states have therefore introduced bills which, if passed,
could begin the impeachment process.[4]

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Just what is a "non-binding resolution"?

> Legislative Masturbation

LOL! You beat me to it! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A vote to make a political statement, but which has no other meaning or
>> force of law.
>>
>
> It's also an oxymoron.

Not surprising given that the vote was made by real morons.

Matt