Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:16 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:
Well, it's not quite that simple. I agree that the restrictions on what
passengers can carry have gone overboard, but it's important to make
sure that they don't carry anything that could be used to damage the
aircraft catestrophically. Firearms definitely fall into that category.
I hope you're not referring catastrophic decompression being caused by
things a passenger might bring on board, like a gun or other implement.
http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000929.html
http://www.nfa.ca/journalist/skymarshal.html
It just doesn't happen.
I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are
full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be
catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be
difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are
located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention.
Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do
that again.
I can see security inspection concerns, but aside from that, why not?
It simply wouldn't be worth the hassle.
You say "It's not quite that simple." Uh, yes it is.
As I've shown above, that's incorrect.
That's a completely unfair characterization. The warning system has a
purpose, which is to make the public aware of possible threats and to
enlist their aid in watching for problems.
You left out that the public should be checking it's shopping lists. Bush
has told us that shopping is a very important thing to do. When they raise
the "terror alert" what is the message that the administration tells us?
Go shopping, but be more alert when you do. Or continue to go to public
(but not events where criticism might be aired) events, but to be "more
alert."
Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the
nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have
a reasonable discussion or not?
Rather than making sweeping criticisms motivated by your disdain for the
administration, why don't you propose some better ideas? "Effective
stuff" is not exactly specific or helpful, is it?
I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is
to secure the cockpits.
That's already been done.
No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings
as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. Quit telling us that "two oceans"
used to "protect" us.
What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone.
I suppose that "protection" is why the current
administration was hell bent on building a missile defense (What was Dr
Rice going to speak about on 9/11?). I notice the administration isn't
yelling quite so loud about that anymore.
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to
re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take
what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into
criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top
of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack
them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways.
It's time to take a deep breath and consider things calmly. Yes, a tragedy
occurred on 9/11, but we can eliminate that possibility entirely, something
the current administration with its Homeland stuff and the increased
"security" around airports has failed to do.
Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown
into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft
related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but
the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced.
In spite of all the Justice
Department's "efforts," not a single terrorist regarding 9/11 has been
charged by the US.
So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all
died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead
people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related
conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in
those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role?
Why is it that the current administration wants more
and more money for the Defense Department, yet denies funds for local first
responders?
I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease
or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both
capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're
not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in
one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one
aspect and not the entire picture.
Do you think that has anything to do with why the New York
Fire Department personnel will no longer pose with Bush?
Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that,
I truly feel sorry for you.
Americans are willing and capable of doing more than just being frightened.
Americans can understand fairly complex ideas that go beyond "them evil, us
good," even if the Bush crew can't.
What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on
creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of
Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration,
hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate
attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any
viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em.
If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain
some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the
Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is
wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments.