Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

Bob Fry wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:


Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?


Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion.

More likely that he will be fired for various forms of fraud such as
claiming to be an Indian on his employment application.

From: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410347

"Reaction to Churchill in Indian country has been quite the opposite.
Two founders of AIM, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt - for decades,
bitter critics of Churchill - released a statement denouncing him and
his 9/11 essay in the name of the AIM Grand Governing Council. According
to the Feb. 3 statement, AIM ''is vehemently and emphatically
repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic
literary and Indian fraud Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9/11
tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent peoples'
lives.''

The statement read: ''Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an
Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband ... He has
deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naive Indian community
members in Denver, Colorado as well as many other people worldwide.
Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of, the
American Indian.''

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee in Oklahoma repudiated
Churchill's one claim to tribal affiliation, an honorary associate
membership issued by a former chief in 1993. Chief George G. Wickliffe
said the Band ''has no association with Churchill in any capacity
whatsoever and considers his comments offensive,'' adding that his essay
''does not in any way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the
World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United
Keetoowah Band.''"

All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?



On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect. I don't doubt that Churchill chose
Eichmann for his comparison in an attempt to inflame, but apparently
he could have used the names of the German industrialists
"legitimately" targeted by the Allies with the same implications, and
no one would have taken offence.

The offence taken by the American public probably stems from the
general lack of knowledge of Eichmann's role in WW-II (coupled with
the emotional hysteria generated by the felling of the WTC towers); at
the sound of his name all anyone recalls is the gut wrenching images
of emaciated corpses stacked high like firewood created by the Nazis,
and the public's lack of knowledge causes them to believe, that
Churchill is implying that the WTC "technocrats" were directly
responsible for the same Holocaust. Of course, such a comparison
would truly be absurd.

Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
reaction is inevitable.

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.

After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.

Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?

(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")

If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

--

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...


Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
"USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
will be among those briefed and the association already is working
with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
demonstration.


*
http://sev.prnewswire.com/transporta...2012005-1.html



A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?

Larry Dighera wrote:




Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

Too bad there's no right to be heard.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:49 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...


Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
"USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
will be among those briefed and the association already is working
with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
demonstration.


*
http://sev.prnewswire.com/transporta...2012005-1.html


A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?


Given Mineta's statements:

"Shining these lasers at an airplane is not a harmless prank. It
is stupid and dangerous," said Secretary of Transportation Norman
Y. Mineta. "You are putting other people at risk, and law
enforcement authorities are going to seek you out, and if they
catch you, they are going to prosecute you."

"We are treating lasers in the cockpit as a serious aviation
safety matter," the Secretary said. "We must act now before
someone's reckless actions lead to a terrible and tragic
incident."

It certainly seems contradictory at best.

I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
thought.

Has anyone got a link to more information about the technicalities of
what the USAF is planning?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:17:22 -0700, Newps wrote
in ::



Jay Honeck wrote:

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

Apparently the public isn't paying very much:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...704862,00.html
State budget cuts to higher education have left a shell of a
public university system. CU gets only 7 percent of its budget
from state tax funds.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect.

It's not subtle at all.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
statements, above.

To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Larry Dighera" wrote

I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
thought.

I gotta agree. The point of safety , IMHO, comes more with the fast few
blinks of laser, vs extended blinding by Joe Q. public.
--
Jim in NC