CBS "News" strikes AGAIN

Here we go again....

Tonight the CBS Evening "News" [sic] ran a story about the apparently
drunk pilot idiot who busted Philadelphia's airspace, buzzed a variety
of things and apparently was able to land his Cherokee despite be
hammered.

The CBS twist on the story? "We told you about the dangers posed by so
called general aviation...now this..."
They asked, "why weren't air force fighters scrambled to intercept and
shoot down this plane?"

Hmmmm. OK, then why don't we just get the Army to shoot anyone
suspected of drunk driving?

Frigging morons.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:26:47 -0800, David H wrote:

Here we go again....

Tonight the CBS Evening "News" [sic] ran a story about the apparently
drunk pilot idiot who busted Philadelphia's airspace, buzzed a variety
of things and apparently was able to land his Cherokee despite be
hammered.

The CBS twist on the story? "We told you about the dangers posed by so
called general aviation...now this..."
They asked, "why weren't air force fighters scrambled to intercept and
shoot down this plane?"

Hmmmm. OK, then why don't we just get the Army to shoot anyone
suspected of drunk driving?

Frigging morons.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying


If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

Yes, they do. The media, however, doesn't.

If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yes, they do. The media, however, doesn't.

If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

The same general public that, all glassy eyed, watches the media?

Yes, you have a point. Way too many swallow just about everything they
see hook, line, & sinker. But the media is the country is certainly
guilty of fostering ignorance, playing always to the lowest common
denominator, etc. They're masters at bringing out the worst in the masses.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...

Yes, they do. The media, however, doesn't.


If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?


The same general public that, all glassy eyed, watches the media?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
link.net...
Yes, you have a point. Way too many swallow just about everything they
see hook, line, & sinker. But the media is the country is certainly
guilty of fostering ignorance, playing always to the lowest common
denominator, etc. They're masters at bringing out the worst in the
masses.


See my response about our public "education" system.

They appeal to the audience that their advertisers want them to appeal to.
Couldn't we get Corporate America to start pressuring these broadcasters to
raise the level of discourse? The media machine depends on the advertisers'
dollars, and therefore works for them.



"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
link.net...
Yes, you have a point. Way too many swallow just about everything they
see hook, line, & sinker. But the media is the country is certainly
guilty of fostering ignorance, playing always to the lowest common
denominator, etc. They're masters at bringing out the worst in the
masses.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...

Yes, they do. The media, however, doesn't.


If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?


The same general public that, all glassy eyed, watches the media?

"Jordan" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:26:47 -0800, David H wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying


If the plane was shot down there'd probly have been alot of damage and
at least one fatality from the impact. Doesn't the general public have
any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

If they do they hide it very well.

Although it's not specifically stated as a right in the US
Constitution, the right to travel freely in your own country (without
"papers"), is generally believed to be a fundamental right. The right
to travel freely is also a benchmark for a measure of freedom in all
countries. Both Nazi Germany and the Communist system required
"papers" to travel from one city to the next. I dread the day when I
land at the airport, and a uniformed officer comes up to me and says,
"papers please". It will be a major loss of a fundamental right.

Now, things ARE different in war. But we can't have "continual" war,
as the "war on terrorism" or the "cold war". I can accept temporary
restrictions during a crisis (gasoline rationing in WWII, sugar
rationing, restricted travel, blackout curtains along the east coast
etc), but not permanent or semi-permanent ones. If we are in a cold
war, sorry, we HAVE to go back to having our fundamental rights and
take some risk of a terrorist attack, which, by the way, there is no
way of preventing with complete certainty.

There has been one terroist attack on the US. And it was terrible.
4000 people lost there lives. But there are over 60,000 deaths due to
car accidents a year. Just how much freedom are you willing to give
up?

The "homeland sucurity" advocates make the argument, "but yes, we
could have a nuclear attack, wouldn't you give up your freedom to
travel for preventing such attack?" BUT their security measures don't
make such a guarantee. With the draconian travel restrictions we give
up our freedom to travel and STILL are under a threat of attack.

There are things they can do. Baggage matching, baggage scanning,
linking visa data with Social Security data etc, to keep tabs on
visitors to our country. Most of these actions limit our freedom to
travel very little. So do those things. But don't start asking me for
"papers please". We can't go there.

While not enumerated in the Constitution, travel is a civil right
according to the Supreme Court. The applicable decision involved a black
Army officer who was murdered while traveling through a Southern state
and established freedom to travel as a constitutionally protected right.

Dave Reinhart


Doug wrote:

Although it's not specifically stated as a right in the US
Constitution, the right to travel freely in your own country (without
"papers"), is generally believed to be a fundamental right. The right
to travel freely is also a benchmark for a measure of freedom in all
countries. Both Nazi Germany and the Communist system required
"papers" to travel from one city to the next. I dread the day when I
land at the airport, and a uniformed officer comes up to me and says,
"papers please". It will be a major loss of a fundamental right.