If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
As far as the president is concerned, they are set by policy of the Secret Service. There is some feeling that the president could order the SS to reduce the size of the TFRs, but I don't know if that's true. I'm sure it's true, but not realistic. An example is the closing of Pennsylvania Ave., which many powerful people there don't like. Yet the SS view still prevails. In the case of the President, the managers of the SS are human, and since they firmly believe the airspace security is necessary, they don't want to potentially be in a situation where if something happened they would feel they failed to be persuasive enough. I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is now under Homeland Security. SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed, and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but sound good? F-- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"TaxSrv" wrote in message ... "G.R. Patterson III" wrote: I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is now under Homeland Security. SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed, and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but sound good? Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to put some adults in charge. Some parts of Washington are so restricted that businesses can't even bring in panel trucks or vans. Supplies have to be transferred to handcarts and carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales volume. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "TaxSrv" wrote in message ... "G.R. Patterson III" wrote: I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is now under Homeland Security. SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed, and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but sound good? Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to put some adults in charge. Some parts of Washington are so restricted that businesses can't even bring in panel trucks or vans. Supplies have to be transferred to handcarts and carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales volume. Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the story, but where is it? CJ, can you cite some specific examples of this 50% loss in sales that is directly attributable to the closing of the street? I would expect most of any loss to be attributed to the retraction in the economy we are just now coming out of. -- Jim Carter |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Carter wrote: If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we seeing some documentary evidence in the media. AP carried that story last week. The mayor of the District registered an official complaint with the Feds about it. George Patterson If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people he gives it to. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote:
Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to put some adults in charge. But it takes an adult to know an adult. I'll propose that both Clinton and Bush have exhibited character traits inconsistent with holding the office of Chief Adult of the U.S. Actually I think the problem boils down to politics of fear. Whether soccer mom's actually crouch and shelter the kids in the basement when Ridge does a terror alert presser. Or it's just the pols keeping the anxiety high, since personal and family saferty is such a gut issue. And unless terrorists completely go away, this could go on for years. And if there's no terrorist attack since 9/11 by, say, 2007, by golly our gov't is shining light of security effectiveness. Unassailable proof of that. Israelis have lived under this stuff for many years in a very serious way and still ride public busses. I've come accross few credible analyses which say they're more freaked out than we are, or pols seem to think we are. Fred F. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Carter" wrote in message m... Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the story, but where is it? To quote Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Which is kind of scary, when you think about it. Nevertheless, it was widely reported in AP. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040814_448.html is the ABC version, but you can find the article in many local newspapers. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story.
On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no reference to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials complaining: City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep" restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2) The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it did not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment. It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying to work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the problem is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the barricades to something more esthetically pleasing). Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here? -- Jim Carter "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Jim Carter" wrote in message m... Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the story, but where is it? To quote Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Which is kind of scary, when you think about it. Nevertheless, it was widely reported in AP. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040814_448.html is the ABC version, but you can find the article in many local newspapers. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story. On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no reference to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials complaining: City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep" restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2) The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it did not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment. It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying to work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the problem is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the barricades to something more esthetically pleasing). Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here? ---------------------- "But when the Homeland Security Department raised the terror alert warning level for high-profile financial targets on Aug. 1, and new roadblocks and checkpoints were put up near the Capitol shortly afterward, District of Columbia officials reacted with an unprecedented level of outrage." Sounds like major dissatisfaction to me. It also sounds like they are mostly concerned about changes made since Aug. 1, not those of the last 10 years, also they are also unhappy with those. "On streets immediately adjacent to the White House, the situation is even more restrictive. Shipments of food, office supplies and other goods now must be loaded onto handcarts and hauled into areas where trucks and panel vans are no longer allowed." You must have missed that paragraph, eh? "Driss Benjelloun, a Moroccan-born street vendor who sells jewelry two blocks from the White House, says tourists and commuters who used to walk by his table now avoid the area, reducing his sales by half. "Sometimes the streets are closed and you have to go around many blocks just to get over here," he said." You must have missed that one, too. "While previous closures have prompted loose commitments to consult with the city beforehand, federal officials concede that has rarely occurred. The dispute over the new Capitol roadblocks prompted an Aug. 9 meeting that produced an agreement for monthly meetings to discuss street-level security concerns and Capitol police agreed to allow city emergency vehicles to proceed through their checkpoints. White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said recently that city officials are being consulted. But few are satisfied. "This is a living city, and it simply cannot move if we have as many checkpoints and street closings as they have foisted on us," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district's nonvoting representative to Congress. Norton and others worry that when congressional staffers and large numbers of federal employees return to regular commuting in September, after the traditional August vacation, the city will face traffic gridlock." You must have missed these paragraphs as well, as they indicate that the Federal government has promised to work with the city, but has reneged on those promises. Now, why are you apologizing for this? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... "Jim Carter" wrote in message ... Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story. On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no reference to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials complaining: City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep" restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2) The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it did not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment. It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying to work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the problem is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the barricades to something more esthetically pleasing). Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here? ---------------------- "But when the Homeland Security Department raised the terror alert warning level for high-profile financial targets on Aug. 1, and new roadblocks and checkpoints were put up near the Capitol shortly afterward, District of Columbia officials reacted with an unprecedented level of outrage." Sounds like major dissatisfaction to me. It also sounds like they are mostly concerned about changes made since Aug. 1, not those of the last 10 years, also they are also unhappy with those. "On streets immediately adjacent to the White House, the situation is even more restrictive. Shipments of food, office supplies and other goods now must be loaded onto handcarts and hauled into areas where trucks and panel vans are no longer allowed." You must have missed that paragraph, eh? Nope, didn't miss that paragraph - see my original comments and you will find that I mentioned the streets adjacent to the White House were an exception. "Driss Benjelloun, a Moroccan-born street vendor who sells jewelry two blocks from the White House, says tourists and commuters who used to walk by his table now avoid the area, reducing his sales by half. "Sometimes the streets are closed and you have to go around many blocks just to get over here," he said." You must have missed that one, too. Yes, I did miss that comment from the street vendor. Even so however, I don't consider one comment from a source so susceptible to the vagaries of weather, traffic, season, economy, and the number of visitors to the city (not just his block) as something to base a judgment on that could apply to the entire city. "While previous closures have prompted loose commitments to consult with the city beforehand, federal officials concede that has rarely occurred. The dispute over the new Capitol roadblocks prompted an Aug. 9 meeting that produced an agreement for monthly meetings to discuss street-level security concerns and Capitol police agreed to allow city emergency vehicles to proceed through their checkpoints. White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said recently that city officials are being consulted. But few are satisfied. "This is a living city, and it simply cannot move if we have as many checkpoints and street closings as they have foisted on us," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district's nonvoting representative to Congress. Norton and others worry that when congressional staffers and large numbers of federal employees return to regular commuting in September, after the traditional August vacation, the city will face traffic gridlock." You must have missed these paragraphs as well, as they indicate that the Federal government has promised to work with the city, but has reneged on those promises. Now, why are you apologizing for this? Nope, didn't miss those paragraphs either. But then I also read the paragraph about the joint commission set up to work out the problems and that so far its only recommendation is to trade-out the concrete barriers for more esthetically pleasing trees, news-stands, etc. Yes, security has been increased since the September 11th tragedy, and yes the city and the federal governments didn't have anything in place to address the issues that really worked before then, but now they do. Apparently some people in D.C. don't agree with what their joint commission is doing and are still unhappy. Maybe that can't be helped. I guess my original concern that prompted my responding to these posts is that knowing the tendency of the press to exaggerate and sensationalize, we should understand we can't take what they write at face value. We need to critically review their writing and consider their comments from both the positive and negative points of view. I'm not trying to apologize for anything or to any one. Sure C.J., there are some things that could be done differently, but no matter what is done about a problem, not everyone will be happy or satisfied. In a representative government like ours, just because I'm not particularly satisfied about a solution doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do. I think way too many people are losing touch with that concept. -- Jim Carter |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Carter" wrote in message m... I'm not trying to apologize for anything or to any one. Sure C.J., there are some things that could be done differently, but no matter what is done about a problem, not everyone will be happy or satisfied. In a representative government like ours, just because I'm not particularly satisfied about a solution doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do. I think way too many people are losing touch with that concept. I think the point is that in Washington DC there is no representative government. It appears that Federal security agencies are simply doing whatever they like without considering the consequences to the local populace. After all, who represents the residents of Washington? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
NBC News Attempt To Discredit GA | Al Marzo | Aviation Marketplace | 6 | August 15th 04 03:10 PM |
NBC News Attempt To Discredit GA | Al Marzo | General Aviation | 2 | August 14th 04 04:58 PM |
08 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 8th 03 11:28 PM |