Leaving the community

http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


David Brooks" wrote in message ...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:06:13 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:



Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?

Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.

I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
Powell,
he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.

I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
been embarrassed for himself.
Rich Russell

How do you know what Gen Powell personally believes?

It's quite possible, is it not, that his military training begat someone who
is a team player and follows orders?

Isn't the SecState supposed to be the spokesperson/conduit for his/her
administrations policies?

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

You are absolutely correct. I'm certain that his military training is
what kept him from "abandoning" his post. That doesn't, however,
change my original statement that he should have resigned. That is my
opinion, nothing more. I don't "know" what he thinks any more than
any of the other posters in this thread and many others "know" for a
fact that their opinions are correct. I have seen Secretary Powell on
TV and read enough of his statements to believe that my assessment is
correct. I've never seen anyone hedge his comments or look so pained,
at times, as he did.
Rich Russell

So, just for starters, who again owned that land you now live on before
your
ancestors STOLE it from them? And during building that oh so great
country,
whose labor did they STEAL by enslaving a whole race? Let me quote you
again:

That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

And slave-owners WERE scum, BTW.

BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic
fundamentalists.

There will always be conflicting versions of "right" and "wrong."

But I'll give the Islamo-Fascists this much -- at least they believe in
*something*, unlike folks who simply throw up their hands and explain away
evil by denying that right and wrong exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:06:25 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military and
my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
factories.

In this sir, you err. The discussion at the time was regarding
missinformation. Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
wife and their marriage publically.

It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.

Corky Scott

Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:

There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

If they actually killed the guy in order to eat him, they were guilty of
murder. It would seem that they apparently had the jury from the OJ Simpson
trial judge this case?

If they ate the guy *after* he died, they were guilty of nothing -- although
I suspect they might be warped for life after such an incident?

You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

You must be new here. Do some googling if you'd like to know my educational
background.

There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to
survive.
That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

You obviously haven't lived or worked in a lawless environment. I spent
seven years working in the inner city, doing (among other things)
collections. Until you've seen the way people live (and die) in an utterly
immoral, nearly lawless society, you are in no way qualified to discuss this
issue.

I can't comment about the desperately poor corners of the world, but in
America there is NO excuse for being a thief. Americans who steal are scum,
and deserve whatever maximum punishment society can arrange for them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
wife and their marriage publically.

It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.

Corky Scott

Yes, and Rome burned while Nero fiddled (or Clinton diddled, whatever).
Nobody knows what the results of his activities were on the world stage.

Allen

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on
the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but
they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better
pilot.

-- David Brooks
This is shocking. Could somebody send me the entire post by David Brooks. I
could not find it in Google.

A few days before the election I worked for the Democrats trying to get out
the vote here in NC. My partner in this effort was a retired screenwriter
who had escaped Germany before the shooting began. His parents foresaw what
was coming and sent him to the USA. They later died at Auschwitz. We talked
at length as we drove around distributing literature. He was in his teens,
he said, when Hitler began to rattle swords. He went on at great length
telling of parallels he now sees in this country --- the churches meddling
in politics and the great power of the evangelicals, unprovoked declaration
of war, the so-called Patriot Act, divisiveness and patriotic fervor, and on
and on. He was so convincing and so eloquent in his argument I thought a
couple of times I was going to gag.

Now I'd like to comment on the following words without regard to identity of
their writers:



..R. Patterson III" wrote in message
... Frank Stutzman wrote: In
rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:
Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige"
has been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.
So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Yes, and putting the clergy in charge of marriages is a violation of the
Establishment Clause. The marriage contract should be secular, not
religious. All enforceable contracts are matters of the state, not
religion. Some states even license "secular" ministers to perform marriage
ceremonies.

On the subject of marriages I cannot understand why the majoritarians who
voted for those stupid resolutions or state constitutional amendments
against gay marriages think it is so harmful to the institution of marriage
for gay partners to have rights of survivorship and other rights like
spouses have. What business is it of theirs? So, don't call it a
marriage. Call it something else but at least let gay people enjoy the
equal protection of the laws. They didn't ask to be gay. I cannot believe
the bigotry and hatred spewing out over this country like molten lava.




? Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids
Congress from passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

This is a misstatement of the law and represents the typical evangelical
buzzwords misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It
contravenes Jefferson's Letter to the Baptists at Danville, the Federalist
Papers, and a long line of recent Supreme Court decisions. It contradicts
the 14th Amendment which applies the First Amendment's prohibitions against
each and every state in this country and every subdivision thereof. If you
want citations I can provide them to show this poster is badly mistaken.
Take a look at the cases on religion and the Constitution's Establishment
Clause at findlaw.com if you need further understanding.

Allen,

Nobody knows what the results of his activities were on the world stage.


Huh? We were all there to witness it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay,

That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

There are some. Not all nations were founded on outright genocide. And the
notion isn't that crazy. Look up "humble" in a dictionary.

unlike folks who simply throw up their hands and explain away
evil by denying that right and wrong exist.


Which, just to take care of possibly hidden allegations, no one in this
thread did. You're thinking simplistic "right and wrong" again. The world is
more complex.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

The world isn't simple. Anyone trying to make it so is dumb or trying to
trick
you. And there is certainly no ultimate authority on what is right or
wrong.
BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic
fundamentalists.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding). I'm
poor compared to lots of people, rich to others. If I wandered onto Bill
Gates' estate and stole something, would it be alright?

By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?

-Trent
PP-ASEL