Bush Wants To Cut FAA Budget

Don't bother confusing Mr. Tom Fleischman with the facts.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

Let's just go look at what happened last week to LAX ARTCC. A computer
that
controls the communication switching has a built in self test (BIT)
that
needs to be reset every 30days, a "reset" of the computer so the
computer
knows it's still a computer. Some "maintenance" was not accomplished
in
time
so the 30day bit timer ran out and rather than flag a warning on day
29
the
system just shuts down at the end of day 30.

The poor computer maintainer will be fired.. not the FAA higher ups
that
bought the POS and approved it in the beginning.

Accepting a system with that kind of workaround is valid from
a system engineering perspective.

It's unclear to me why you use the term 'workaround' in this context.

because it is a workaround.

Exactly what is being worked around? The inability of FAA to think of
a warning bell?

no. The workaround is the use of a reset to prevent a failure.


From an ergonomic standpoint, a system that intentionally disables a
functioning critical system, resulting in the entirely avoidable
endangerment of hundreds of human lives, is a total failure.

Yeah, sure, the FAA deliberately designed such a system.

Larry, how many systems have you tested?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:17:08 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in jD83d.99902$yh.97342@fed1read05::

Hang on to your hats boys, we are in for a rough ride.

Naw. There's no need to train new ATC personnel for the future.
The resulting shortage of ATC staffing will be used as justification
to enable Boeing to take over ATC operations (can you say 'user fees').
Then US ATC will be based entirely on satellite communications.
Shortly after the next inevitable solar storm, all the airline flights
in the US will fall out of the sky... :-(


ATC could also be done by low-wage H1-B employees. If it is okay for the
high-tech industry then why not for other jobs.

You Libs are so humorous... God love ya.. Name one lie that George Bush
told? Name one thing on the last 20 years that John Kerry has done in
the US Senate? He sponsored a bill to gut the US intellegence by some 6
billion dollars. Not even Ted Kennedy could go along with that one!!
Even after a half dozen scotch and murky waters (Ted's favorite drink)
he couldn't go along with him. Now that's bad!!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Mooney purchaser

Tom Fleischman wrote:
In article , Bill Denton
wrote:


You will learn a lot more by reading than you will by running your mouth!



I have never exchanged word one with you before today, so why do you
feel it necessary to begin your discussion with me by being insulting.
It is so typical of right-wingers to think that it is appropriate to
behave this way.


You stated: "What he *did* vote for was a congressional resolution to give
the Prsident the power to use military force in Iraq *if* it could be shown
that Iraq posed a credible threat to the national security of the United
States."

The word "credible" is not used in the Resolution; the word used was
"continuing". Very different.

Contrary to your statement: "*if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States" there was no
such requirement. First of all, you didn't state who had to show it, but
that is immaterial, as shown in the following text from the Resolution.

"Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital
United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq
to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'
and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations".

I think that makes it obvious that it had been that the threat had been had
been recognized in the Resolution itself. And interestingly, part of the
threat was recognized by the Democratic Clinton Administration in 1998.



They stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States" because they were lied to by the
administration. That was the entire basis of the resolution.



The President did not have to show any threat to anyone prior to using
force, he only had to make the following notifications within 48 hours of
the exercise of said authority.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the
authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior
to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than
48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that--


Which HE FAILED TO DO.

kontiki wrote in message ...
Tom Fleischman wrote:

I have no problem with true conservatism. ...SNIP

LACK of pushing for any big government spending cuts). The fact is that
W IS doing what is needed on the terror front and is certainly much
more of a real person that Kerry is (or will ever hope to be).

Mind you, I think we've botched a lot of stuff in Iraq lately and I'm
not at all happy with GWB not speaking more directly to this. Honestly
I do wonder sometimes whther there's a pitcher of kool-aid being
passed around up there.

But, speaking as a Bostonian, I just don't believe a thing that comes
out of Kerry's mouth. Up until right after the first Gulf War he was a
lockstep liberal, which at least has the virtue of being consistent.
But from there out, the plot's been harder to follow than a David
Lynch movie.

The Reblican party today is sort of where the Democrat party was 35 years
ago (John Kennedy would be considered a conservative in todays world).
However... the Democrat Party is, for all practical purposes, Socialist
today. It will continue to move to the left so that one day soon it will
pop out on the right as communist.

The Dems today are basically comprised of blue lesbian sociology
professors and yuppie-hating union pipefitters. Their real problem is
that when one half of their members meet the other half, they're
shocked by what they see. As a blue-state agnostic city-dwelling
professional I may be a long way culturally from the Good 'ol Boys in
TX and WV, but I could drink Bud from the can and talk guns, hunting
dogs, and bass boats with them all afternoon long.

Still, I agree that if Iraq was under its own control and Osama was
slowly decaying in a 6' deep hole, I'd be tempted to vote for Kerry
and the ultimate form of true conservative government: complete
gridlock.

-cwk.

C Kingsbury wrote:

The Dems today are basically comprised of blue lesbian sociology
professors and yuppie-hating union pipefitters. Their real problem is
that when one half of their members meet the other half, they're
shocked by what they see.

An excellent observation on the true state of the Democrat party today.

As a blue-state agnostic city-dwelling
professional I may be a long way culturally from the Good 'ol Boys in
TX and WV, but I could drink Bud from the can and talk guns, hunting
dogs, and bass boats with them all afternoon long.

WHat are you doing up there? Come on down and join the rest of us in
the land where we still consider the US Constitution worthy of being
upheld.


Still, I agree that if Iraq was under its own control and Osama was
slowly decaying in a 6' deep hole, I'd be tempted to vote for Kerry
and the ultimate form of true conservative government: complete
gridlock.

Agreed! We had a few good years during the Clinton presidency because
the congress was too busy investigation his administration to actually
pass any more legislation. Especially the last few when Clinton was
playing hide the zorketa with Monica in the oval "orafice". Gotta love
it... )

Seriously though... the BEST thing we can do is turn Iraq into a
decent stable government (no matter how "democratic") in the middle
east. In the long run it will serve to stabilize the region and we
will benfit. Yes, it will be costly, but the alternative will be
costly also. Eeny Meeny Miney Moe.....

My comments are in the text...


"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , Bill Denton
wrote:

You will learn a lot more by reading than you will by running your
mouth!


I have never exchanged word one with you before today, so why do you
feel it necessary to begin your discussion with me by being insulting.
It is so typical of right-wingers to think that it is appropriate to
behave this way.

That's not an insult. It's simply a statement of fact. And what makes you
think I'm a right-winger? All I did was correct some totally erroneous
information you posted. I could be a right-winger, which I'm not, or I could
be a left-winger, which I'm not. I'm a centerist, who's only interested in
insuring that the debate is framed by the facts.



You stated: "What he *did* vote for was a congressional resolution to
give
the Prsident the power to use military force in Iraq *if* it could be
shown
that Iraq posed a credible threat to the national security of the United
States."

The word "credible" is not used in the Resolution; the word used was
"continuing". Very different.

Contrary to your statement: "*if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States" there was
no
such requirement. First of all, you didn't state who had to show it, but
that is immaterial, as shown in the following text from the Resolution.

"Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital
United States interests and international peace and security, declared
Iraq
to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations'
and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with
the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking
a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations".

I think that makes it obvious that it had been that the threat had been
had
been recognized in the Resolution itself. And interestingly, part of the
threat was recognized by the Democratic Clinton Administration in 1998.


They stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States" because they were lied to by the
administration. That was the entire basis of the resolution.

Obviously, you don't read very carefully! The information came from both the
Bush AND the Clinton Administrations. Are you saying that both the Bush
Administration and the Clinton Administration lied? Sounds like to me you're
pretty well up **** creek without a party.



The President did not have to show any threat to anyone prior to using
force, he only had to make the following notifications within 48 hours
of
the exercise of said authority.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the
authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall,
prior
to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later
than
48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker
of
the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate
his
determination that--

Which HE FAILED TO DO.

And that is an absolute lie! Both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate were notified
well within the statutory time limits. If you actually read things, you
would note that the resolution does not specify any particular method of
notification; it doesn't have to be by registered letter or anything.
President Bush could have invited them to his office for a formal
notification, or he could have simply sent them a note telling them to watch
CNN at some particular time when he would be making a speech that would
include the notification.

John Kerry has already put more than enough information out in the public's
face to cost him the election. Putting out these easily refutable lies, such
as you have done, do nothing to help his cause...

"H.P." wrote in message
. com...
Jimmy Carter is looking forward to a Kerry presidency; then Carter's would
be only next to worst.

If Kerry was President, then Jack Nicholson in "Mars Attacks" would look
good by comparison.

Why is cutting the budget of this can't-get-anything-done-on-time-or-budget
agency a bad idea? (Personally, I'm more in favor of cutting
totally-out-of-control Medicare though)

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
It amazes me that anyone, particularly anyone in the the aviation
community, would continue to support this nightmare of an
administration.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0916_1903.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...500288,00.html

On Nov. 2 let's dump this blackhearted, greedy, pathological liar,
dry-drunk blowmonkey and put a *real* pilot in the White House.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
Why is cutting the budget of this
can't-get-anything-done-on-time-or-budget
agency a bad idea? (Personally, I'm more in favor of cutting
totally-out-of-control Medicare though)

The articles referenced mention only a proposed budget "cut" for facilities
and maintenance. I am not sure how 12.6% becomes "almost 14%" but I somehow
doubt that the requested budget represents a cut at all. They probably are
only getting a smaller increase than what they asked for.