NBC News Attempt To Discredit GA

"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--

"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.

"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

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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?

"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

"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?