Saturday, January 24, 2004
It was reported yesterday that Mexico is still refusing to import beef from the U.S.A. due, ostensibly, to the mad cow disease scare.
Mexico benefits from NAFTA by exporting their goods to us, carried in their trucks across our borders. Mexico’s failed socialist economy can’t provide adequate jobs or government support for their citizens. Mexico insists that we should grant amnesty to the hordes of their citizens who violate our laws in order to take jobs in this country. Mexico does almost nothing to police our mutual border to stem the illegal drug trade. Mexico does nothing to stop other illegally traded contraband that crosses our border. Mexico’s border security policy seems to be based on the premise that if we want secure borders, it’s up to us alone to insure them. And since Mexico won’t help, and the Bush administration is proposing abdicating that responsibility as being too difficult, our southern border is dangerously exposed to those who wish us harm.
What does this have to do with beef exports to Mexico? I have a simple, inexpensive solution that may motivate the Mexican government to be more proactive about border security cooperation.
We string a single wire electric fence about one mile inside our border with Mexico. We put a large herd of several hundred thousand cattle between that fence and the border and let it be known that perhaps as many as a few hundred are infected with Mad Cow disease. We’ll also insist that any cattle caught on their side of the border be treated humanely and perhaps should be allowed to stay in their country. And since we simply can’t provide the resources to police the border, the Mexican government is just going to have to take responsibility for securing their side against potentially dangerous cattle that are illegally crossing it. And if they can provide enough resources to do that, then they can use those same resources for other border security measures.
Of course, it could backfire, and force our government to do the same to ensure the cattle don’t wander back through breaks in the fence caused by vandalism. But then both countries would have enough resources in place to control the border, and we wouldn’t have to grant amnesty for illegal human or bovine aliens.
I think I’ll invest in cattle futures!
Mexico benefits from NAFTA by exporting their goods to us, carried in their trucks across our borders. Mexico’s failed socialist economy can’t provide adequate jobs or government support for their citizens. Mexico insists that we should grant amnesty to the hordes of their citizens who violate our laws in order to take jobs in this country. Mexico does almost nothing to police our mutual border to stem the illegal drug trade. Mexico does nothing to stop other illegally traded contraband that crosses our border. Mexico’s border security policy seems to be based on the premise that if we want secure borders, it’s up to us alone to insure them. And since Mexico won’t help, and the Bush administration is proposing abdicating that responsibility as being too difficult, our southern border is dangerously exposed to those who wish us harm.
What does this have to do with beef exports to Mexico? I have a simple, inexpensive solution that may motivate the Mexican government to be more proactive about border security cooperation.
We string a single wire electric fence about one mile inside our border with Mexico. We put a large herd of several hundred thousand cattle between that fence and the border and let it be known that perhaps as many as a few hundred are infected with Mad Cow disease. We’ll also insist that any cattle caught on their side of the border be treated humanely and perhaps should be allowed to stay in their country. And since we simply can’t provide the resources to police the border, the Mexican government is just going to have to take responsibility for securing their side against potentially dangerous cattle that are illegally crossing it. And if they can provide enough resources to do that, then they can use those same resources for other border security measures.
Of course, it could backfire, and force our government to do the same to ensure the cattle don’t wander back through breaks in the fence caused by vandalism. But then both countries would have enough resources in place to control the border, and we wouldn’t have to grant amnesty for illegal human or bovine aliens.
I think I’ll invest in cattle futures!
Saturday, January 17, 2004
The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's devastating decision in McConnell v. FEC -- the so-called campaign finance case that has had such broad anti-free speech impact. That decision severely restricted broadcast communications, thus making it more difficult for associations to hold legislators accountable on issues.
For those who need an explanation, the McCain-Feingold Act prohibited organizations, except the media, from publicly mentioning an incumbent’s name or voting record within a month of a primary election or two months of a general election. President Bush signed the law, explaining at the time that he realized there were Constitutional concerns, but they would be redressed in the courts.
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather, every newsletter or alert would have to be published with the realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its vague criteria to determine that it was "impermissible."
For example, when several associations learned that a rider had been placed on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, they alerted their members to this provision which would have allowed the Department of Defense to confiscate and destroy ANY military surplus item that had ever been sold by the government.
Historical artifacts, uniforms, books, single-shot rifles and pistols from the early 19th Century, tents, boots, sleeping bags, scopes, airplanes, hats, sextants, old deactivated tanks or cannon that sit in parks, radios, parkas--and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been confiscated and destroyed by the feds.
The reason given by DoD was that they were concerned about things such as missile systems or nuclear components getting into the wrong hands, which raises the question of why didn’t they know to whom they sold these items in the first place? Still, it was easier to just say “any” and ignore the fact that it included taxpayer funded items that had been sold to taxpayers (in effect twice) by the government and to not worry about bureaucratic excesses under future administrations.
The alphabet groups generated a groundswell of nationwide opposition against the confiscation attempt. But they especially targeted their focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The message got through, and the Committee Chairman's office called the groups to discuss this problem after he received hordes of calls, postcards and e-mails from their members. The provision was removed, and rights of law-abiding owners of private property were preserved.
But had this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency could have RETROACTIVELY punished these organizations, stating that their activity would have been impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been facing reelection!
Obviously, this new regulation will have a chilling effect organizations communicating with their members to mobilize them for their respective causes. Then lawmakers could load up bills prior to an election, secure in the knowledge that organizations won't be able to let members (read voters) know about them in time.
And that brings us to this further assault by the Bush Administration on your First Amendment freedoms. This is encroachment on your right to peacably assemble, and to petition the government of redress of grievances. If you don’t know what your government is doing, you can’t take action to change it’s course. Of course you could always sue after the fact, and IF the court decides to hear your case, your government’s lawyers, supported by your tax dollars, will be there to oppose you.
I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote and passed the First Amendment.
For those who need an explanation, the McCain-Feingold Act prohibited organizations, except the media, from publicly mentioning an incumbent’s name or voting record within a month of a primary election or two months of a general election. President Bush signed the law, explaining at the time that he realized there were Constitutional concerns, but they would be redressed in the courts.
That was already obvious since Senator McConnell, and many of the organizations negatively affected had announced theirintention to bring suit. What President Bush didn’t say, of course, was that his administration's Justice Department would be opposing them in court. In other words, Mr Bush was actively supporting restrictions of freedom of speech and association, and opposing First Amendment guarantees.
Now, the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's ruling to include newsletters, e-mail alerts, and communications.
Put out for comment on December 23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one would notice -- as proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6, it creates a broad new set of ambiguous standards which groups must follow in order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Under the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague "balancing test" to determine whether communications with their memberships would be "permitted" by the government.
If the communication occurred close to an election, mentioned an officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted to put pressure on congressmen through constituents in each representative's district, all of these factors would push toward outlawing the communication.
Although the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law was repressive enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far beyond this suppresion of free speech and communication:
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other communications by organizations.
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not automatically exempt communications which occurred more than 60 days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain monetary threshold.
Now, the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's ruling to include newsletters, e-mail alerts, and communications.
Put out for comment on December 23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one would notice -- as proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6, it creates a broad new set of ambiguous standards which groups must follow in order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Under the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague "balancing test" to determine whether communications with their memberships would be "permitted" by the government.
If the communication occurred close to an election, mentioned an officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted to put pressure on congressmen through constituents in each representative's district, all of these factors would push toward outlawing the communication.
Although the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law was repressive enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far beyond this suppresion of free speech and communication:
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other communications by organizations.
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not automatically exempt communications which occurred more than 60 days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain monetary threshold.
-- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather, every newsletter or alert would have to be published with the realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its vague criteria to determine that it was "impermissible."
For example, when several associations learned that a rider had been placed on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, they alerted their members to this provision which would have allowed the Department of Defense to confiscate and destroy ANY military surplus item that had ever been sold by the government.
Historical artifacts, uniforms, books, single-shot rifles and pistols from the early 19th Century, tents, boots, sleeping bags, scopes, airplanes, hats, sextants, old deactivated tanks or cannon that sit in parks, radios, parkas--and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been confiscated and destroyed by the feds.
The reason given by DoD was that they were concerned about things such as missile systems or nuclear components getting into the wrong hands, which raises the question of why didn’t they know to whom they sold these items in the first place? Still, it was easier to just say “any” and ignore the fact that it included taxpayer funded items that had been sold to taxpayers (in effect twice) by the government and to not worry about bureaucratic excesses under future administrations.
The alphabet groups generated a groundswell of nationwide opposition against the confiscation attempt. But they especially targeted their focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The message got through, and the Committee Chairman's office called the groups to discuss this problem after he received hordes of calls, postcards and e-mails from their members. The provision was removed, and rights of law-abiding owners of private property were preserved.
But had this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency could have RETROACTIVELY punished these organizations, stating that their activity would have been impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been facing reelection!
Obviously, this new regulation will have a chilling effect organizations communicating with their members to mobilize them for their respective causes. Then lawmakers could load up bills prior to an election, secure in the knowledge that organizations won't be able to let members (read voters) know about them in time.
And that brings us to this further assault by the Bush Administration on your First Amendment freedoms. This is encroachment on your right to peacably assemble, and to petition the government of redress of grievances. If you don’t know what your government is doing, you can’t take action to change it’s course. Of course you could always sue after the fact, and IF the court decides to hear your case, your government’s lawyers, supported by your tax dollars, will be there to oppose you.
I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote and passed the First Amendment.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
On Tuesday, the Zogby Poll showed Howard Dean’s support in the Iowa Caucuses at 28%. By Wednesday, it had dropped to 24%.
What happened to make such a big difference in the way Iowans perceive Howard Dean in a single day?
Perhaps it was because that was the day Meathead and Moron came from California to tell Iowans to vote for Howard Dean.
“Meathead” was the empty-headed leftist character played by Rob Reiner in the TV sitcom “All in the family, and “Moron” is Martin Sheen, who pretends to be president in a TV show. Mr Sheen, a high school graduate whose hobby is getting arrested, referred to a two-term governor of Texas who is a Yale graduate and holds a Harvard MBA (no mean feat for a conservative on that campus) and was elected President of the United States, as a moron. Since he doesn’t know what the term means, I can apply that descriptive nickname to him without apology.
It seems that Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen felt they needed to educate those dumb Iowans who can’t possibly think for themselves. After all, if those hicks were smart, they wouldn’t be living in Iowa!
I don’t recall Iowans streaming to California to tell Californians for whom to vote for governor. Perhaps Iowans resent Californians coming to Iowa to tell them for whom to vote because those hicks in flyover country are just too ignorant or stupid (or moronic) to vote for the correct candidate.
By Thursday, with Meathead and Moron still stumping for Dean in Iowa, Dean’s rating had slipped to 21%.
Just coincidence? It may be, but can Dean afford to take the chance? On the other hand, it may be the Jimmy Carter endorsement that’s dragging him down. Or maybe it’s because Meathead and Moron are telling Iowans the truth about what Dean really thinks. Or maybe it’s the combination! At the very least, Dean’s damage control needs to tell Meathead and Moron to go back to California NOW! It may be they’re actually stealth agents for one of the other dwarfs! After all, if Dean’s opponents really want to hurt him, what better way than to send in, ostensibly on his behalf, a couple of clowns (whose job is to pretend they’re somebody else) to imply that the people whose support he’s asking for are too unsophisticated to decide for themselves?
Meathead and Moron, don't californicate Iowa!!
What happened to make such a big difference in the way Iowans perceive Howard Dean in a single day?
Perhaps it was because that was the day Meathead and Moron came from California to tell Iowans to vote for Howard Dean.
“Meathead” was the empty-headed leftist character played by Rob Reiner in the TV sitcom “All in the family, and “Moron” is Martin Sheen, who pretends to be president in a TV show. Mr Sheen, a high school graduate whose hobby is getting arrested, referred to a two-term governor of Texas who is a Yale graduate and holds a Harvard MBA (no mean feat for a conservative on that campus) and was elected President of the United States, as a moron. Since he doesn’t know what the term means, I can apply that descriptive nickname to him without apology.
It seems that Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen felt they needed to educate those dumb Iowans who can’t possibly think for themselves. After all, if those hicks were smart, they wouldn’t be living in Iowa!
I don’t recall Iowans streaming to California to tell Californians for whom to vote for governor. Perhaps Iowans resent Californians coming to Iowa to tell them for whom to vote because those hicks in flyover country are just too ignorant or stupid (or moronic) to vote for the correct candidate.
By Thursday, with Meathead and Moron still stumping for Dean in Iowa, Dean’s rating had slipped to 21%.
Just coincidence? It may be, but can Dean afford to take the chance? On the other hand, it may be the Jimmy Carter endorsement that’s dragging him down. Or maybe it’s because Meathead and Moron are telling Iowans the truth about what Dean really thinks. Or maybe it’s the combination! At the very least, Dean’s damage control needs to tell Meathead and Moron to go back to California NOW! It may be they’re actually stealth agents for one of the other dwarfs! After all, if Dean’s opponents really want to hurt him, what better way than to send in, ostensibly on his behalf, a couple of clowns (whose job is to pretend they’re somebody else) to imply that the people whose support he’s asking for are too unsophisticated to decide for themselves?
Meathead and Moron, don't californicate Iowa!!
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Bill Maher began his entertainment career as a comedian. His job was to use his talent to make people laugh, and he was good at it. In a very competitive industry, he was fortunate enough to gain national attention on TV, and he has been successful.
But his job was to make people laugh. He did so by saying silly things. Now he wants us to take him seriously. Why should we? He’s still saying silly things. What gravitas does he contribute to the national debate?
I looked up his biography on the internet. It was pretty sparse. Bill Maher graduated from an Ivy League School with a degree in English. He’s not an academic, he doesn’t publish for a think tank, and he’s not a journalist. He’s never been a government insider, never been a campaign strategist, never met a payroll, and never held elective office.
And, for whatever reason, he’s never served in the military. Despite all this, he feels that he’s qualified to comment on military matters.
He recently transformed his talents from just saying silly things into saying silly and outrageous things in hopes that people will take him seriously. Such as claiming the use of sophisticated weaponry by our military members is cowardly. How could he possibly know?
Last week, Bill Maher appeared on the “O’Reilly Factor” and made the outrageous and inaccurate claim that G. W. Bush was a draft dodger. I don’t know on what he bases this claim; I’ve heard it several times in Far Left rants with no proof or documentation. Maher provided no source or verification for this statement.
The term "draft dodger" goes back to the Civil War, and it meant that moneyed young men who were drafted paid other men to serve in their place. They never served a day in the military and were never in danger of being sent in harm’s way. This resulted in the draft riots that brought attention to the inequity of this system. The Selective Service System was later modified to prohibit men from avoiding the draft, but in the last century deferments were granted to those whom the government felt were needed elsewhere or were ineligible for several other reasons.
In WWII, deferments tended to be looked upon as a stigma, and those who could serve often enlisted instead of waiting to be drafted. Men found ineligible or deferred from military service for physical reasons, often felt uncomfortable with their status and found other ways to contribute to the national war effort.
Elitism returned during the Vietnam War. As the war became more unpopular, more young men found ways of using deferments to avoid the draft or any military service. Bill Clinton and Howard Dean apparently felt they were too important to serve their country (except as president, of course), and evaded the draft and military service.
Duriing Vietnam, the liberals argued for an end to an "unjust" draft and the war. They claimed that poor young blacks and hispanics were being sent in place of rich white men (read Republicans) who could afford deferments for college attendance, which could be extended into graduate and post-graduate work until the deferred were too old to be eligible to serve, or were married with children, which provided another form of deferment. The hypocrisy that a poor black or hispanic was likely to be called up in place of each white liberal people’s hero who ran away to Canada never seemed to register with the Left. Elitist liberals, clad in the denim worker uniform signifying solidarity with the proletariat, flocked to college campii, deferments in hand, apparently not feeling a twinge of betrayal of their worker class draft-eligible brethren.
I expect that at least some of Maher’s college instructors may have been in one or more of those categories. Regardless, they were supposed to have taught him something about basic academic research: you don’t claim something as fact that you can’t substantiate or verify. Apparently, he wasn’t paying attention in class.
It wasn’t until after the war when the Left saw an opportunity to skewer Dan Quayle, that somehow the term "draft dodger" came to include those who had served their nation in National Guard or Reserve components of the military during the Vietnam era. Since Dan Quayle was in the Indiana National Guard, and wasn’t called for Vietnam service, the liberals reasoned incorrectly, he must have been using the Guard to dodge the draft and active military service. Apparently they’ve extended that to Bush’s service as an interceptor pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Maybe that’s the basis of Bill Maher’s hollow indictment.
Well, Bill, I’ve got news for you. Not everybody who got drafted was sent to Vietnam,
and not everybody who joined the Reserves or National Guard avoided Vietnam service. But everybody who joined the Reserves or Guard served on active military service.
At the time of the Vietnam War, Bill, our country’s primary enemy was still the militarily powerful and nuclear armed Soviet Union and the bulk of our armed forces were aligned against them. The diversion of “Cold War” assets for Vietnam required augmentation and replacement at the individual and unit level to maintain the nation’s defensive requirements. Guard components were activated for Vietnam duty, and Reservists served alongside Regulars in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Bill, all Reserve and Guard personnel served at least some period of active duty--some for as little as six months, and some for as much as two years (the same term of active service for a draftee) or more, depending on the requirements of the respective service. Anybody who served on active duty in the military could be assigned wherever their respective service required them. All were subject to the same military discipline and judicial system.
Whether Cold War or hot, some aspects of military service are by nature more dangerous than others. Bill, Reservists and Guardsmen didn’t have to serve in Vietnam to give their lives for their country and to preserve freedom for you. Some Reservists lost their lives in submarines and in aircraft which operated in dangerous seas and skies, often near the Soviet Union. Some National Guardsmen lost their lives in humanitarian missions, overseas exercises, in pilot training, tank and combined arms maneuvers, or in air combat training. Some draftees sat out their tours of duty getting stoned in Korea and Germany or holding down typewriters at the Pentagon.
So, Bill, before you slander GWB again, and by implication millions of other Americans who, unlike you, served and sacrificed for their country, get your facts straight. Do the research that your Ivy League degree should have equipped you to do before you open your mouth and make more pointless annoying noise. Then perhaps thoughtful people might begin to take your pronouncements seriously, and you’ll have something important to add to the national debate instead of just braying like the other asses. Until you choose that course, you’re just another ignoramus making silly, thoughtless, hurtful, mean-spirited, slanderous statements that are taken at face value only by other ignoramii.
But his job was to make people laugh. He did so by saying silly things. Now he wants us to take him seriously. Why should we? He’s still saying silly things. What gravitas does he contribute to the national debate?
I looked up his biography on the internet. It was pretty sparse. Bill Maher graduated from an Ivy League School with a degree in English. He’s not an academic, he doesn’t publish for a think tank, and he’s not a journalist. He’s never been a government insider, never been a campaign strategist, never met a payroll, and never held elective office.
And, for whatever reason, he’s never served in the military. Despite all this, he feels that he’s qualified to comment on military matters.
He recently transformed his talents from just saying silly things into saying silly and outrageous things in hopes that people will take him seriously. Such as claiming the use of sophisticated weaponry by our military members is cowardly. How could he possibly know?
Last week, Bill Maher appeared on the “O’Reilly Factor” and made the outrageous and inaccurate claim that G. W. Bush was a draft dodger. I don’t know on what he bases this claim; I’ve heard it several times in Far Left rants with no proof or documentation. Maher provided no source or verification for this statement.
The term "draft dodger" goes back to the Civil War, and it meant that moneyed young men who were drafted paid other men to serve in their place. They never served a day in the military and were never in danger of being sent in harm’s way. This resulted in the draft riots that brought attention to the inequity of this system. The Selective Service System was later modified to prohibit men from avoiding the draft, but in the last century deferments were granted to those whom the government felt were needed elsewhere or were ineligible for several other reasons.
In WWII, deferments tended to be looked upon as a stigma, and those who could serve often enlisted instead of waiting to be drafted. Men found ineligible or deferred from military service for physical reasons, often felt uncomfortable with their status and found other ways to contribute to the national war effort.
Elitism returned during the Vietnam War. As the war became more unpopular, more young men found ways of using deferments to avoid the draft or any military service. Bill Clinton and Howard Dean apparently felt they were too important to serve their country (except as president, of course), and evaded the draft and military service.
Duriing Vietnam, the liberals argued for an end to an "unjust" draft and the war. They claimed that poor young blacks and hispanics were being sent in place of rich white men (read Republicans) who could afford deferments for college attendance, which could be extended into graduate and post-graduate work until the deferred were too old to be eligible to serve, or were married with children, which provided another form of deferment. The hypocrisy that a poor black or hispanic was likely to be called up in place of each white liberal people’s hero who ran away to Canada never seemed to register with the Left. Elitist liberals, clad in the denim worker uniform signifying solidarity with the proletariat, flocked to college campii, deferments in hand, apparently not feeling a twinge of betrayal of their worker class draft-eligible brethren.
I expect that at least some of Maher’s college instructors may have been in one or more of those categories. Regardless, they were supposed to have taught him something about basic academic research: you don’t claim something as fact that you can’t substantiate or verify. Apparently, he wasn’t paying attention in class.
It wasn’t until after the war when the Left saw an opportunity to skewer Dan Quayle, that somehow the term "draft dodger" came to include those who had served their nation in National Guard or Reserve components of the military during the Vietnam era. Since Dan Quayle was in the Indiana National Guard, and wasn’t called for Vietnam service, the liberals reasoned incorrectly, he must have been using the Guard to dodge the draft and active military service. Apparently they’ve extended that to Bush’s service as an interceptor pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Maybe that’s the basis of Bill Maher’s hollow indictment.
Well, Bill, I’ve got news for you. Not everybody who got drafted was sent to Vietnam,
and not everybody who joined the Reserves or National Guard avoided Vietnam service. But everybody who joined the Reserves or Guard served on active military service.
At the time of the Vietnam War, Bill, our country’s primary enemy was still the militarily powerful and nuclear armed Soviet Union and the bulk of our armed forces were aligned against them. The diversion of “Cold War” assets for Vietnam required augmentation and replacement at the individual and unit level to maintain the nation’s defensive requirements. Guard components were activated for Vietnam duty, and Reservists served alongside Regulars in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Bill, all Reserve and Guard personnel served at least some period of active duty--some for as little as six months, and some for as much as two years (the same term of active service for a draftee) or more, depending on the requirements of the respective service. Anybody who served on active duty in the military could be assigned wherever their respective service required them. All were subject to the same military discipline and judicial system.
Whether Cold War or hot, some aspects of military service are by nature more dangerous than others. Bill, Reservists and Guardsmen didn’t have to serve in Vietnam to give their lives for their country and to preserve freedom for you. Some Reservists lost their lives in submarines and in aircraft which operated in dangerous seas and skies, often near the Soviet Union. Some National Guardsmen lost their lives in humanitarian missions, overseas exercises, in pilot training, tank and combined arms maneuvers, or in air combat training. Some draftees sat out their tours of duty getting stoned in Korea and Germany or holding down typewriters at the Pentagon.
So, Bill, before you slander GWB again, and by implication millions of other Americans who, unlike you, served and sacrificed for their country, get your facts straight. Do the research that your Ivy League degree should have equipped you to do before you open your mouth and make more pointless annoying noise. Then perhaps thoughtful people might begin to take your pronouncements seriously, and you’ll have something important to add to the national debate instead of just braying like the other asses. Until you choose that course, you’re just another ignoramus making silly, thoughtless, hurtful, mean-spirited, slanderous statements that are taken at face value only by other ignoramii.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
In a recent debate among the candidates for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, Al Sharpton asked Howard Dean how many minorities were appointed to his gubernatorial Cabinet in Vermont. Dean bobbed and weaved for several minutes, but since Sharpton pressed the attack, finally admitted there were none.
Sharpton apparently feels that diversity is more important than representation. He must believe that it's more important to represent minorities where they don't exist than it is to respond to the needs of the resident population. Since 98% of Vermont’s population is native Euro-American, Sharpton was really saying Dean was wrong to make Cabinet appointments that were reflective of the state's population.
However, with regard to Vermont, he may have a point. Since Vermonters don’t elect Vermonters to their offices, why should they expect Cabinet members to be Vermonters?
After all, Howard Dean is from New York. And Vermont’s socialist Congressman, Bernie Sanders, is from New York. Apparently they can’t find enough home-grown talent to run Vermont without turning to New York.
Perhaps Vermonters should just ask to be annexed by New York, and save themselves the trouble of having to find New Yorkers who are willing to govern them.
And then Al Sharpton, who is from New York, could run for governor of Vermont after he doesn’t win the presidential nomination. Then he could make all his Cabinet appointments from minorities, who are so underrepresented in Vermont’s population.
Sharpton apparently feels that diversity is more important than representation. He must believe that it's more important to represent minorities where they don't exist than it is to respond to the needs of the resident population. Since 98% of Vermont’s population is native Euro-American, Sharpton was really saying Dean was wrong to make Cabinet appointments that were reflective of the state's population.
However, with regard to Vermont, he may have a point. Since Vermonters don’t elect Vermonters to their offices, why should they expect Cabinet members to be Vermonters?
After all, Howard Dean is from New York. And Vermont’s socialist Congressman, Bernie Sanders, is from New York. Apparently they can’t find enough home-grown talent to run Vermont without turning to New York.
Perhaps Vermonters should just ask to be annexed by New York, and save themselves the trouble of having to find New Yorkers who are willing to govern them.
And then Al Sharpton, who is from New York, could run for governor of Vermont after he doesn’t win the presidential nomination. Then he could make all his Cabinet appointments from minorities, who are so underrepresented in Vermont’s population.
It’s an unfortunate time for Nebraska football. Nebraskans who love, support, patronize, and follow the Huskers are now being made aware of an ugly fact. It’s no longer about their team, or their loyalty, or their sportsmanship, or their state school or their state pride. It’s no longer about fair play, or ethics, or citizenship, or courtesy, or community. It’s about money.
I suppose it was going to happen here sooner or later, just like everywhere else. It’s becoming apparent that the real purpose of state colleges is to be sports franchises.
Frank Solich is the last of a line of former Husker football players to coach Husker football. When you saw the Husker lineup, most of the hometowns listed were in Nebraska. Many players were second and third generation Nebraska team members. These guys were following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers. It’s sad to see that come to an end.
Solich had an impossible job to fill. For the fans, he was supposed to be the continuation of the legendary Tom Osborne, who had surpassed his predecessor, the legendary Bob Devaney. But Devaney and Osborne had their periods of ups and downs over a period of decades, not less than half a dozen seasons.
Poor Solich looked like he was under the gun every single game. He looked so tightly wound that if you touched him he would fly apart. Maybe given more time, he would have begun to relax. In his heart of hearts, he’s probably relieved to be out from under that pressure.
Solich was summarily fired by the NU Athletic Director after narrowly losing a home game to Kansas State. A week later, KState knocked #1 Oklahoma off. But that didn’t matter to the Athletic Director. He must have felt that loss was hurting the bottom line. Apparently paying off Solich’s multi-million dollar contract remainder was cheaper than allowing him to continue for another winning, but championless, season.
After a series of ineptly handled interviews and rejections, the NU Athletic Director finally got what he really wanted: a mercenary from out of state. Bill Calahan has no Nebraska background. He comes from the pro’s, whose sole object is to make money. And that’s what the Husker franchise will become.
Bill Calahan’s first actions are to get rid of the Tom Osborne legacy, the assistant coaches who helped build the National Championship teams that capped TO’s career. Bo Pelini, who as interim head coach, had the difficult task of pulling together a team demoralized by the timing and handling of Solich. He coached the team to a Bowl victory. He was first on the chopping block. Next was Ron Brown, the receivers’ coach for 17 years. Ron, who coached Matt Davison’s “immaculate reception” against a Missouri team which almost knocked the Huskers out of the National Championship race, is a Christian of deep inner peace. He loved his job and was dedicated to it, and didn’t seek the limelight.
Calahan’s getting rid of TO’s legacy for two reasons. First of all, he can’t live up to it any better than Frank Solich could. But more importantly, he will begin to field win-at-any-cost teams, with more mercenaries being brought in to the coaching staff and put on the playing field. They’ll be thugs from the hoods in the east and west coasts with no regard for Nebraska traditions; just a place to get found by the pro’s and the big money. There will be fewer and fewer Nebraskans on the field.
Husker fans will continue to be Husker fans, but I don’t think they’ll like what they see nearly as much as they used to. Because it will no longer be Nebraska football.
I suppose it was going to happen here sooner or later, just like everywhere else. It’s becoming apparent that the real purpose of state colleges is to be sports franchises.
Frank Solich is the last of a line of former Husker football players to coach Husker football. When you saw the Husker lineup, most of the hometowns listed were in Nebraska. Many players were second and third generation Nebraska team members. These guys were following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers. It’s sad to see that come to an end.
Solich had an impossible job to fill. For the fans, he was supposed to be the continuation of the legendary Tom Osborne, who had surpassed his predecessor, the legendary Bob Devaney. But Devaney and Osborne had their periods of ups and downs over a period of decades, not less than half a dozen seasons.
Poor Solich looked like he was under the gun every single game. He looked so tightly wound that if you touched him he would fly apart. Maybe given more time, he would have begun to relax. In his heart of hearts, he’s probably relieved to be out from under that pressure.
Solich was summarily fired by the NU Athletic Director after narrowly losing a home game to Kansas State. A week later, KState knocked #1 Oklahoma off. But that didn’t matter to the Athletic Director. He must have felt that loss was hurting the bottom line. Apparently paying off Solich’s multi-million dollar contract remainder was cheaper than allowing him to continue for another winning, but championless, season.
After a series of ineptly handled interviews and rejections, the NU Athletic Director finally got what he really wanted: a mercenary from out of state. Bill Calahan has no Nebraska background. He comes from the pro’s, whose sole object is to make money. And that’s what the Husker franchise will become.
Bill Calahan’s first actions are to get rid of the Tom Osborne legacy, the assistant coaches who helped build the National Championship teams that capped TO’s career. Bo Pelini, who as interim head coach, had the difficult task of pulling together a team demoralized by the timing and handling of Solich. He coached the team to a Bowl victory. He was first on the chopping block. Next was Ron Brown, the receivers’ coach for 17 years. Ron, who coached Matt Davison’s “immaculate reception” against a Missouri team which almost knocked the Huskers out of the National Championship race, is a Christian of deep inner peace. He loved his job and was dedicated to it, and didn’t seek the limelight.
Calahan’s getting rid of TO’s legacy for two reasons. First of all, he can’t live up to it any better than Frank Solich could. But more importantly, he will begin to field win-at-any-cost teams, with more mercenaries being brought in to the coaching staff and put on the playing field. They’ll be thugs from the hoods in the east and west coasts with no regard for Nebraska traditions; just a place to get found by the pro’s and the big money. There will be fewer and fewer Nebraskans on the field.
Husker fans will continue to be Husker fans, but I don’t think they’ll like what they see nearly as much as they used to. Because it will no longer be Nebraska football.
Friday, January 09, 2004
“The potential danger resulting from large gatherings of people has passed.” Dept of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on 1-9-2004 in announcing the reduction of the Terrorism Alert level from Orange to Yellow.
I wasn’t sure why large gatherings of people were a potential danger to the Department of Homeland Security. Then I realized that the chief of paranoia response wasn't talking about large gatherings being the threat, but being threatened. I have to admit it took me a moment.
Anybody who watched the preparations for New Year’s Eve celebrations throughout the country couldn’t help but become aware of the increase of security precautions taken at some of the major events, such as New York City’s Times Square and Las Vegas’ Strip. There were increased uniformed police presence, many armed with automatic weapons, rooftop sniper units, chemical and biological sniffing units strategically placed, helicopter patrols, jet fighter patrols, undercover nuclear scientists patrols, and overflight bans for general aviation and business aircraft.
Mr Ridge also responded to a question from a reporter that when state and local municipalites request reimbursement by the federal government for security costs, it “wouldn’t be nearly” the $1 billion a week that was being reported in the papers.
For what? Parties!! At least part of the requested reimbursements will be to offset the costs for security for these big New Year’s Eve gatherings. You can be sure that representatives and lobbyists New York City and Las Vegas will be pushing hard for federal money to cover the police overtime and other costs. And these parties benefit the hotels, bars, hot dog vendors, souvenir sellers, party favor providers, security providers, and the augmented cleanup crews the next day.
I don’t have a problem with these parties, and if I were so inclined, I would have attended. Last time I went out on New Year’s Eve, I paid a cover charge at the door. Cover charges are designed for two things: 1. To cover the additional expenses associated with a special event (among which is security), and 2. Crowd control. It weeds out those who are unwilling to pay from those who are choose to participate at a cost.
This time, all of us who elected not to attend are being hit with a cover charge to cover the expenses of those who attended. It’s going to come in the form of those requested reimbursements to which Mr Ridge referred. The mayors’ offices, Senators, Congresspeople, and lobbyists will all be there whining for their respective handouts claiming they just can’t afford all the additional costs associated with these events that are so integral to the success and profitability of their constituents. And when the money is forked over, it’s going to be coming out of our pockets.
It won’t happen, but this time I’d like to see them told ‘NO.” I’d like to see them reminded that these functions are optional, not mandatory. I’d like them to be told that if they want to continue these functions, then they need to start charging a cover charge to offset their expenses. I’d like them told that limiting attendence to those who pay provides greater screening opportunities to insure better security. I’d like them to be reminded these events benefit the few, not the many, and the costs shouldn’t have to be borne by those who elect not to participate. And I’d really like them to be required to reimburse those of us who are inconvenienced by having to circumnavigate their fiefdoms in order to travel from Point A to Point B.
But, as I said, it won’t happen.
I wasn’t sure why large gatherings of people were a potential danger to the Department of Homeland Security. Then I realized that the chief of paranoia response wasn't talking about large gatherings being the threat, but being threatened. I have to admit it took me a moment.
Anybody who watched the preparations for New Year’s Eve celebrations throughout the country couldn’t help but become aware of the increase of security precautions taken at some of the major events, such as New York City’s Times Square and Las Vegas’ Strip. There were increased uniformed police presence, many armed with automatic weapons, rooftop sniper units, chemical and biological sniffing units strategically placed, helicopter patrols, jet fighter patrols, undercover nuclear scientists patrols, and overflight bans for general aviation and business aircraft.
Mr Ridge also responded to a question from a reporter that when state and local municipalites request reimbursement by the federal government for security costs, it “wouldn’t be nearly” the $1 billion a week that was being reported in the papers.
For what? Parties!! At least part of the requested reimbursements will be to offset the costs for security for these big New Year’s Eve gatherings. You can be sure that representatives and lobbyists New York City and Las Vegas will be pushing hard for federal money to cover the police overtime and other costs. And these parties benefit the hotels, bars, hot dog vendors, souvenir sellers, party favor providers, security providers, and the augmented cleanup crews the next day.
I don’t have a problem with these parties, and if I were so inclined, I would have attended. Last time I went out on New Year’s Eve, I paid a cover charge at the door. Cover charges are designed for two things: 1. To cover the additional expenses associated with a special event (among which is security), and 2. Crowd control. It weeds out those who are unwilling to pay from those who are choose to participate at a cost.
This time, all of us who elected not to attend are being hit with a cover charge to cover the expenses of those who attended. It’s going to come in the form of those requested reimbursements to which Mr Ridge referred. The mayors’ offices, Senators, Congresspeople, and lobbyists will all be there whining for their respective handouts claiming they just can’t afford all the additional costs associated with these events that are so integral to the success and profitability of their constituents. And when the money is forked over, it’s going to be coming out of our pockets.
It won’t happen, but this time I’d like to see them told ‘NO.” I’d like to see them reminded that these functions are optional, not mandatory. I’d like them to be told that if they want to continue these functions, then they need to start charging a cover charge to offset their expenses. I’d like them told that limiting attendence to those who pay provides greater screening opportunities to insure better security. I’d like them to be reminded these events benefit the few, not the many, and the costs shouldn’t have to be borne by those who elect not to participate. And I’d really like them to be required to reimburse those of us who are inconvenienced by having to circumnavigate their fiefdoms in order to travel from Point A to Point B.
But, as I said, it won’t happen.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
I’m one of those citizens who served honorably in my country’s military and under my country’s flag, ready to do battle with her opponents, both foreign and domestic. As a commissioned officer, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I still take that oath seriously, even though I’m no longer on active duty. I’m still proud of our flag, and all the freedoms it represents.
When somebody burns or desecrates our national flag, it’s offensive to me. It’s insulting. It says, everything I defended is meaningless and irrelevant to the person who does this despicable deed. And it means they regard my freedoms to be of no value.
But I’m not comfortable with a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting desecration or destruction of our flag. I believe it runs counter to our First Amendment and Ninth Amendment freedoms, and I think our freedoms are more important than mere symbols.
The Constitution was created to charter a very limited central government. The Bill of Rights was devised to ensure that the rights of a free people would always be honored and respected by government. The amendment process has nearly always been used to expand the rights not specified in our founding documents. In only one case was it used to allow government the power to restrict or deny a right of one group of people, and that was later repealed, because we realized it was an inappropriate and discriminatory use of the amendment process.
If I were going to offer an amendment regarding our flag or other national symbols, it would probably be more along the lines of this:
“Our flag is our national symbol of our States unified by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Our nation’s monuments are symbolic of our rights and freedoms. Among our cherished rights is the right of dissent, which is expressed on occasion by violating our symbols of national unity and rights. Those who express their dissent in such an offensive manner are free so to do, and those who take offense are free to express their outrage short of depriving the offenders of life or liberty. Those who engage in the free expression of defense of our national symbols shall be absolved of any criminal or civil liability when their action may result in injury, but not deprivation of life or liberty, of the offensive parties involved. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation or by repeal or exception of restrictive legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Do you see how this is much more in keeping with the original Bill of Rights concept? It’s expanding, not restricting, the rights of all parties to express themselves in ways they deem appropriate. It defends the right of the flag-burners to express their viewpoint, and it permits those who disagree with their methods to beat the crap out of them!! Everybody’s freedom of expression is protected! Do we live in a great country or what?!
When somebody burns or desecrates our national flag, it’s offensive to me. It’s insulting. It says, everything I defended is meaningless and irrelevant to the person who does this despicable deed. And it means they regard my freedoms to be of no value.
But I’m not comfortable with a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting desecration or destruction of our flag. I believe it runs counter to our First Amendment and Ninth Amendment freedoms, and I think our freedoms are more important than mere symbols.
The Constitution was created to charter a very limited central government. The Bill of Rights was devised to ensure that the rights of a free people would always be honored and respected by government. The amendment process has nearly always been used to expand the rights not specified in our founding documents. In only one case was it used to allow government the power to restrict or deny a right of one group of people, and that was later repealed, because we realized it was an inappropriate and discriminatory use of the amendment process.
If I were going to offer an amendment regarding our flag or other national symbols, it would probably be more along the lines of this:
“Our flag is our national symbol of our States unified by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Our nation’s monuments are symbolic of our rights and freedoms. Among our cherished rights is the right of dissent, which is expressed on occasion by violating our symbols of national unity and rights. Those who express their dissent in such an offensive manner are free so to do, and those who take offense are free to express their outrage short of depriving the offenders of life or liberty. Those who engage in the free expression of defense of our national symbols shall be absolved of any criminal or civil liability when their action may result in injury, but not deprivation of life or liberty, of the offensive parties involved. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation or by repeal or exception of restrictive legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Do you see how this is much more in keeping with the original Bill of Rights concept? It’s expanding, not restricting, the rights of all parties to express themselves in ways they deem appropriate. It defends the right of the flag-burners to express their viewpoint, and it permits those who disagree with their methods to beat the crap out of them!! Everybody’s freedom of expression is protected! Do we live in a great country or what?!
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
For me, December 17, 2003, began the way so many do: in a hotel room in a city far from home. So my first flight experience of the day would consist of waiting in long airport TSA lines, subjected to scrutiny worthy of a potential criminal rather than a law-abiding citizen, hoping I would make my flight, dealing with people who didn’t know, understand, or care about their connection with two bicycle mechanics one hundred years previous. I was flying as a passenger in a half-empty state-of-the-art highly automated electronically controlled digitally displayed fanjet-powered small flying bus made in a foreign country.
The passenger across from me in the exit row responded to the flight attendant’s request about comfort with his responsibilities as an exit row occupant with a bored I’ve-done-it-all-before, then corrected himself with “well, not actually opened it.” I smugly one-upped him with a truthful “I’ve opened it” reassurance to the flight attendant. Mr Done-It-All had to be told to put his cell phone away, put his computer away, put his seatbelt on, and then got out of his seat as we began final approach. Maybe passengers should be required to have Certificates Issued By The Administrator that can be revoked for infractions.
As I deplaned, the young captain who looked like a stand-in for Mr Clean minus earring was standing in the doorway to the flight deck, thanking the passengers for the opportunity to earn his living while gaining experience until the big iron got well. “Happy Hundredth!,” I said, hoping to make a fraternal connection. “Thanks,” he replied, probably not listening to me and thinking it was a compliment on the flight.
I was determined not to let the day go past without acting as pilot-in-command, but I didn’t really have a plan in mind except to fly. The weather, unlike the rain-drenched skies of Kitty Hawk where the reenactment attempt was taking place (did they need special permission to fly within the confines of the traveling Presidential TFR?), was threatening, but remaining cooperatively VMC. The sky was darkening in the north and snow flurries turning to rain showers were forecast.
My own reenactment would be delayed by digging out the two feet of snow piled in front of the T-hangar door, and chipping away enough ice from the taxiway to get the plane out and on to dry pavement. After plugging in the engine heater and preflighting the plane, I shoveled and moved the big stuff, paid my bill at the FBO, went to town to check my mail and to get a sturdy ice chipper for the remaining obstacles. My plan took form as I worked. As I was chipping away ice lumps and trying to make a traction path from the hangar, I met the newest T-hangar tenant when he came over to introduce himself. He had the same idea in mind as me, and would be flying friends in his 1955 Cessna 310.
I noticed that the doors and taxiways of the north-facing hangars where he kept his plane were devoid of snow and ice. But in a twist of fate, the wind-deflecting hangars caused the snow eddies to swirl and accumulate on the south side of the buildings, much the same as the lee side of a snow fence. I knew that I was being tested, and it only increased my determination to get airborne (get-airborne-itis?). With my new acquaintance’s help, I pulled my plane from its hangar, slipping and sliding over the remaining stubborn ice patches.
After starting the engine and taxiing out, my plan was finalized. The Wright brothers’ first powered flight was in an aircraft weighing 625 pounds and with a 12 horsepower engine. The flight was launched into a headwind, lasted twelve seconds and covered a distance of 120 feet. My aircraft weighs almost four times theirs, my engine is 15 times more powerful, and I would be operating in a typically Great Plains crosswind environment from a paved runway. I had more than enough runway to get airborne, cut the power, and land. After the runup, with no traffic in the pattern, I announced my intention over unicom to do a “go and stop” (is that in the Aeronautical Information Manual glossary?) on the prevailing runway.
I lined up on the centerline, ran the power up, checked the gauges, and began the takeoff roll. Rotated on speed, and as soon as I was airborne, reduced to idle, landed, and taxied clear at the midfield intersection. I had done it! With the additional power and mass of my plane, I’m sure I exceeded those first flight statistics, but I felt at least a tenuous connection with what had occurred one hundred years ago. And I had honored in my own way the memory of the accomplishment of those two bicycle mechanics on that day which has meant so very much to my life.
I taxied back to the active runway, this time to take to the skies. I flew to the area west of the airport and checked in with Approach Control, who gave me flight parameters, and told me that the weather north of me had been reported as ceilings down to 2500’. I climbed to 4000’ and could still remain VMC, so I began to fly for fun. Wheeled and soared and swung! Nothing in particular, no defined maneuvers; climbing turns, descending spirals, steep turns, hanging on the prop, all within the limits of the laws of aerodynamics and the manufacturer’s limitations and the standard category airworthiness certificate, but satisfying the exhilaration of freedom to control the three axes of flight.
Turning toward the airport, I recognized a familiar voice that had taken over at the controller position. He’s a certificated pilot as well, and we had flown together a couple of times before. We exchanged no pleasantries, just the usual terse, cryptic verbiage of professionals communicating. When I reported the airport in sight, he cleared me to squawk VFR and change frequency. But when I acknowledged, I added “Happy Hundredth, Chip!” and he replied, “You too, Cole!” He understood what I meant.
The first rain splats began to hit my windscreen as I entered the pattern. Fortunately, the main event held off until I had the plane safely put away. As I was packing my nav bag, I discovered that I may have had one more thing in common with the two aeronauts who made this flight possible one hundred years ago. It appeared that in my haste to transition from commercial passenger to pilot in command, I may not have had on my person a Certificate Issued By The Administrator that proves to all suspiscious bureaucratic minds that I have indeed completed the required training and met the Federal Standards of wheeling, soaring and swinging, among other things. Well, perhaps it was ok for this flight on this day--a spiritual connection with those uncertificated aviation pioneers, if you will--but I’ll be sure to have a Certificate Issued By The Administrator on my person for the next hundred years.
But this day won’t ever happen again, either. The end of the first century of flight. The beginning of the second century of flight. Having spent a third of the first aviation century in pursuit of flight training, things aeronautical, and dreams made possible by two bicycle mechanics and many other courageous, talented, and visionary individuals, I owe them more than I can ever begin to repay. Celebrating the freedom of flight by flying today seemed more appropriate than attending any organized, hyped, televised, commercialized, quasi-political, TFR-shrouded, airport closing, airplane grounding event. I was living my dream, and the Wright dream.
Thanks again, Orville and Wilbur Wright!
The passenger across from me in the exit row responded to the flight attendant’s request about comfort with his responsibilities as an exit row occupant with a bored I’ve-done-it-all-before, then corrected himself with “well, not actually opened it.” I smugly one-upped him with a truthful “I’ve opened it” reassurance to the flight attendant. Mr Done-It-All had to be told to put his cell phone away, put his computer away, put his seatbelt on, and then got out of his seat as we began final approach. Maybe passengers should be required to have Certificates Issued By The Administrator that can be revoked for infractions.
As I deplaned, the young captain who looked like a stand-in for Mr Clean minus earring was standing in the doorway to the flight deck, thanking the passengers for the opportunity to earn his living while gaining experience until the big iron got well. “Happy Hundredth!,” I said, hoping to make a fraternal connection. “Thanks,” he replied, probably not listening to me and thinking it was a compliment on the flight.
I was determined not to let the day go past without acting as pilot-in-command, but I didn’t really have a plan in mind except to fly. The weather, unlike the rain-drenched skies of Kitty Hawk where the reenactment attempt was taking place (did they need special permission to fly within the confines of the traveling Presidential TFR?), was threatening, but remaining cooperatively VMC. The sky was darkening in the north and snow flurries turning to rain showers were forecast.
My own reenactment would be delayed by digging out the two feet of snow piled in front of the T-hangar door, and chipping away enough ice from the taxiway to get the plane out and on to dry pavement. After plugging in the engine heater and preflighting the plane, I shoveled and moved the big stuff, paid my bill at the FBO, went to town to check my mail and to get a sturdy ice chipper for the remaining obstacles. My plan took form as I worked. As I was chipping away ice lumps and trying to make a traction path from the hangar, I met the newest T-hangar tenant when he came over to introduce himself. He had the same idea in mind as me, and would be flying friends in his 1955 Cessna 310.
I noticed that the doors and taxiways of the north-facing hangars where he kept his plane were devoid of snow and ice. But in a twist of fate, the wind-deflecting hangars caused the snow eddies to swirl and accumulate on the south side of the buildings, much the same as the lee side of a snow fence. I knew that I was being tested, and it only increased my determination to get airborne (get-airborne-itis?). With my new acquaintance’s help, I pulled my plane from its hangar, slipping and sliding over the remaining stubborn ice patches.
After starting the engine and taxiing out, my plan was finalized. The Wright brothers’ first powered flight was in an aircraft weighing 625 pounds and with a 12 horsepower engine. The flight was launched into a headwind, lasted twelve seconds and covered a distance of 120 feet. My aircraft weighs almost four times theirs, my engine is 15 times more powerful, and I would be operating in a typically Great Plains crosswind environment from a paved runway. I had more than enough runway to get airborne, cut the power, and land. After the runup, with no traffic in the pattern, I announced my intention over unicom to do a “go and stop” (is that in the Aeronautical Information Manual glossary?) on the prevailing runway.
I lined up on the centerline, ran the power up, checked the gauges, and began the takeoff roll. Rotated on speed, and as soon as I was airborne, reduced to idle, landed, and taxied clear at the midfield intersection. I had done it! With the additional power and mass of my plane, I’m sure I exceeded those first flight statistics, but I felt at least a tenuous connection with what had occurred one hundred years ago. And I had honored in my own way the memory of the accomplishment of those two bicycle mechanics on that day which has meant so very much to my life.
I taxied back to the active runway, this time to take to the skies. I flew to the area west of the airport and checked in with Approach Control, who gave me flight parameters, and told me that the weather north of me had been reported as ceilings down to 2500’. I climbed to 4000’ and could still remain VMC, so I began to fly for fun. Wheeled and soared and swung! Nothing in particular, no defined maneuvers; climbing turns, descending spirals, steep turns, hanging on the prop, all within the limits of the laws of aerodynamics and the manufacturer’s limitations and the standard category airworthiness certificate, but satisfying the exhilaration of freedom to control the three axes of flight.
Turning toward the airport, I recognized a familiar voice that had taken over at the controller position. He’s a certificated pilot as well, and we had flown together a couple of times before. We exchanged no pleasantries, just the usual terse, cryptic verbiage of professionals communicating. When I reported the airport in sight, he cleared me to squawk VFR and change frequency. But when I acknowledged, I added “Happy Hundredth, Chip!” and he replied, “You too, Cole!” He understood what I meant.
The first rain splats began to hit my windscreen as I entered the pattern. Fortunately, the main event held off until I had the plane safely put away. As I was packing my nav bag, I discovered that I may have had one more thing in common with the two aeronauts who made this flight possible one hundred years ago. It appeared that in my haste to transition from commercial passenger to pilot in command, I may not have had on my person a Certificate Issued By The Administrator that proves to all suspiscious bureaucratic minds that I have indeed completed the required training and met the Federal Standards of wheeling, soaring and swinging, among other things. Well, perhaps it was ok for this flight on this day--a spiritual connection with those uncertificated aviation pioneers, if you will--but I’ll be sure to have a Certificate Issued By The Administrator on my person for the next hundred years.
But this day won’t ever happen again, either. The end of the first century of flight. The beginning of the second century of flight. Having spent a third of the first aviation century in pursuit of flight training, things aeronautical, and dreams made possible by two bicycle mechanics and many other courageous, talented, and visionary individuals, I owe them more than I can ever begin to repay. Celebrating the freedom of flight by flying today seemed more appropriate than attending any organized, hyped, televised, commercialized, quasi-political, TFR-shrouded, airport closing, airplane grounding event. I was living my dream, and the Wright dream.
Thanks again, Orville and Wilbur Wright!
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
As we were driving through the Central Plains, we noticed that many small towns served only by two-lane roads displayed ordinance signs prohibiting engine braking or the use of Jake brakes within the town limits.
Jake brakes are an engine braking system installed in semi-trailer tractors. Also known as compression release engine braking systems, they are an exhaust driven system that makes the diesel engine act as a compressor when decelerating . They are called Jake Brakes because Jacobs Vehicle Systems was the original manufacturer. Their purpose is to reduce the wear and tear on wheel brakes, which are used normally to decelerate the velocity of 80,000 lbs of mass on our public highways. They seem to be most often installed and used on independently owned and operated rigs, where pennies saved may mean the difference between continued operation and bankruptcy.
Prohibiting their use accelerates the wear on the wheel brakes, and may also mean the difference between operation of a defective rig by a nearly broke operator who is deferring maintenance, and one that is in compliance with safety standards.
We stopped at a park at the edge of one of these towns, and enjoyed the tranquility for several minutes before we began to hear a rhythmic thumping noise. It must have been several miles away, and it got progressively louder, indicating that it was approaching our location. Finally, an older car with after-market add-ons appeared, being driven by a male aged either late teen or early twentysomething, who will probably be in debt for life paying for them. We realized that what we had been hearing was his car stereo. It was one of those mega-thumping subwoofer equipped things that rattles windows and exposes the primary and collateral targets to physical as well as aural assault by violent, degrading, obscenity-laced thug and gangsta themes being electronically hurled at them and innocent bystanders. The car continued through town at full volume.
We hadn’t noticed any ordinance signs prohibiting these disturbances of the local peace and wondered why they were exempt in towns offended by the use of Jake brakes?
Jake brakes do make a racket when activated, and there are probably some less responsible operators who use them as much to announce their arrival as they do to reduce operating costs. And I expect that more than one of them was operated as short-burst blapping staccato decelerators between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM as they entered town.
The long coal and freight trains that pass through these towns operate their air horns at every road crossing day and night. It’s done for safety purposes. It hasn’t resulted in ordinance signs being posted next to the rail right-of-ways, and it may even be illegal to prohibit them. People who live there put up with it or move.
I won’t presume to tell small town residents how to live their lives. I’m just curious as to why they feel more strongly about short bursts of noise generated by some forms of safety equipment than they do about the sustained intrusive noise generated by so-called entertainment systems. I would think that signs prohibiting the use of Jake brakes and stereo systems between sunset and sunrise might be a better solution to maintaining the tranquility of rural life. Even the limited toleration of Jake brake noise would contribute more to highway safety than the most sophisticated car entertainment sytem.
Jake brakes are an engine braking system installed in semi-trailer tractors. Also known as compression release engine braking systems, they are an exhaust driven system that makes the diesel engine act as a compressor when decelerating . They are called Jake Brakes because Jacobs Vehicle Systems was the original manufacturer. Their purpose is to reduce the wear and tear on wheel brakes, which are used normally to decelerate the velocity of 80,000 lbs of mass on our public highways. They seem to be most often installed and used on independently owned and operated rigs, where pennies saved may mean the difference between continued operation and bankruptcy.
Prohibiting their use accelerates the wear on the wheel brakes, and may also mean the difference between operation of a defective rig by a nearly broke operator who is deferring maintenance, and one that is in compliance with safety standards.
We stopped at a park at the edge of one of these towns, and enjoyed the tranquility for several minutes before we began to hear a rhythmic thumping noise. It must have been several miles away, and it got progressively louder, indicating that it was approaching our location. Finally, an older car with after-market add-ons appeared, being driven by a male aged either late teen or early twentysomething, who will probably be in debt for life paying for them. We realized that what we had been hearing was his car stereo. It was one of those mega-thumping subwoofer equipped things that rattles windows and exposes the primary and collateral targets to physical as well as aural assault by violent, degrading, obscenity-laced thug and gangsta themes being electronically hurled at them and innocent bystanders. The car continued through town at full volume.
We hadn’t noticed any ordinance signs prohibiting these disturbances of the local peace and wondered why they were exempt in towns offended by the use of Jake brakes?
Jake brakes do make a racket when activated, and there are probably some less responsible operators who use them as much to announce their arrival as they do to reduce operating costs. And I expect that more than one of them was operated as short-burst blapping staccato decelerators between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM as they entered town.
The long coal and freight trains that pass through these towns operate their air horns at every road crossing day and night. It’s done for safety purposes. It hasn’t resulted in ordinance signs being posted next to the rail right-of-ways, and it may even be illegal to prohibit them. People who live there put up with it or move.
I won’t presume to tell small town residents how to live their lives. I’m just curious as to why they feel more strongly about short bursts of noise generated by some forms of safety equipment than they do about the sustained intrusive noise generated by so-called entertainment systems. I would think that signs prohibiting the use of Jake brakes and stereo systems between sunset and sunrise might be a better solution to maintaining the tranquility of rural life. Even the limited toleration of Jake brake noise would contribute more to highway safety than the most sophisticated car entertainment sytem.
Monday, January 05, 2004
We Americans pride ourselves on having the longest-lived and oldest sustained democracy, made so by a unique written Constitution. But in reality, our representative form of government began to die shortly after it was born. It’s demise began in 1803, when the Supreme Court under Justice John Marshall took under review the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
The details of the case are almost immaterial. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was defined by Article III of the Constitution. It permitted review only of cases “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” Marbury was asking that provisions of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 be enforced by the Supreme Court.
The Marshall Court said that the Act was unenforceable since the Legislature could not compel the Court to act outside the parameters established by Article III. In fact, under Article III, the Court didn’t even have the authority to hear the case, much less render a decision. If things had been left there, that would have been fine.
But the Court went on to say that there was a conflict between legislation and the Constitution, and therefore the Court felt it was obliged to decide in favor of the Constitution and declare the legislation void. It didn’t have the power to do this, because Article III didn’t grant it that jurisdiction.
Now see if you can follow this train of logic with me. The Supreme Court, a creation of the Constitution, says that it cannot be compelled by the Legislature to act outside the limits of the power granted to it in Article III. But the Court says it can ignore Article III on it's own and grant itself power over the decisions of the Legislature!
The Supreme Court violated the Constitution by granting to itself powers not authorized by the Constitution. It illegally claimed for itself the power of judicial review, whereby it would decide whether the will of the people expressed through their representatives would remain the law of the land.
And Congress, the voice of the people, never challenged it. After all, if Congress passed legislation restricting the Court to the limits of the Constitution, and that law was challenged, where would the arguments be heard? In the Courts?
So, since 1803, the will of the people, expressed through our representative form of government, guaranteed by our Constitution, has really been at the whim of the unelected members of the federal court system.
The details of the case are almost immaterial. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was defined by Article III of the Constitution. It permitted review only of cases “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” Marbury was asking that provisions of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 be enforced by the Supreme Court.
The Marshall Court said that the Act was unenforceable since the Legislature could not compel the Court to act outside the parameters established by Article III. In fact, under Article III, the Court didn’t even have the authority to hear the case, much less render a decision. If things had been left there, that would have been fine.
But the Court went on to say that there was a conflict between legislation and the Constitution, and therefore the Court felt it was obliged to decide in favor of the Constitution and declare the legislation void. It didn’t have the power to do this, because Article III didn’t grant it that jurisdiction.
Now see if you can follow this train of logic with me. The Supreme Court, a creation of the Constitution, says that it cannot be compelled by the Legislature to act outside the limits of the power granted to it in Article III. But the Court says it can ignore Article III on it's own and grant itself power over the decisions of the Legislature!
The Supreme Court violated the Constitution by granting to itself powers not authorized by the Constitution. It illegally claimed for itself the power of judicial review, whereby it would decide whether the will of the people expressed through their representatives would remain the law of the land.
And Congress, the voice of the people, never challenged it. After all, if Congress passed legislation restricting the Court to the limits of the Constitution, and that law was challenged, where would the arguments be heard? In the Courts?
So, since 1803, the will of the people, expressed through our representative form of government, guaranteed by our Constitution, has really been at the whim of the unelected members of the federal court system.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
It is an ongoing source of irritation to me that although it was commercial airliners that were used in the attacks of 9/11, the no-fly restrictions are imposed on general aviation, the privately-owned and business fleets of aircraft. Shortly after 9/11, we saw the "devastating effect" of what a small airplane can do when run into a building in Tampa--it broke windows. Our nuclear plants were designed and tested to withstand the impact of a fully-fueled Boeing 707, yet F-16's are scrambled when a single engine four-passenger plane "loiters" near a nuke plant. Navigation for general aviation aircraft around these points isn't particularly difficult; what's difficult is keeping track of the pop-up and in some cases mobile nature of Temporary Flight Restrictions areas where overflights are prohibited only for the least potentially threatening aircraft. As an example, F-16's were scrambled after a small plane engaged in pipeline patrol inadvertantly entered the traveling TFR surrounding a presidential motorcade in Pennsylvania. I would have thought it would be a security breach to publish the routing of a presidential motorcade in advance, but apparently this pipeline patrol pilot should have known about it while we kept it secret from Al-Qaeda.
I don't like entrapment. As far as I'm concerned, TFR's are like speed-traps in small towns, except the penalty isn't a fine. It means you can lose your vocation or at least your avocation. It means you can have your name added to a list for closer Federal scrutiny. It means that you can have some or all of your assets seized by the feds.
So what brought this up and where is it going? I found this story buried inside another story about airline security:
>>"Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Saturday that authorities have been discussing security with the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association during the playoff and college bowl season. NFL playoff games Saturday were in Baltimore and Charlotte, N.C., with contests Sunday in Green Bay, Wis., and Indianapolis. There were weekend bowl games in Boise, Idaho, and New Orleans.
>>NFL spokesman Joe Browne said security has been tight since the Sept. 11 attacks, and air space over stadiums is restricted by federal legislation. He said security for the Super Bowl, Feb. 1 in Houston, would be even more intense because of the international attention the event receives.
>>"The number one concern our fans have is the air space," he said. Spectators are less concerned about stadium security because "they see our tightened measures as they enter the gates and the parking lots."
Joe, I like football as much as the next red-blooded American male, but my life doesn't center around the Super Bowl or the play-offs, especially when they involve teams that don't interest me. When the NFL demands these federal no-fly security restrictions be imposed, who pays for them? Not the NFL. Who's inconvenienced by them? Not the NFL. Who profits from them? Not the taxpayers.
Here's my proposal. Since the big sports associations and their fans are so terrified of small airplanes, let's have them build a SuperDuperMegaHumongous Secure Sports Complex Dome City out in the middle of the country, 60 miles from the nearest airport. It could have lots of smaller complexes within it's boundaries for team sports of every kind that could go on 24/7, all under the gaze of state-of-the-art sports TV network stuff. It could even be the permanent US host of the Olympics.
It could have a single Prohibited Airspace umbrella like the White House or Area 51 where no commercial airline or general aviation air traffic could penetrate and would have to be circumnavigated. Entry and exit would be restricted to TSA-prescreened bus transportation only at a terminal on the edge of the prohibited zone. I'm sure it could be funded through any number of federal security programs, corporate welfare programs, and funds raised by selling off prime real estate stadium properties around the country that sit empty all week and off season, and which could be converted into productive and attractive facilities benefiting the host communities.
It could be serviced and populated by the sky-is-falling crowd, and those otherwise normal people to whom the occasional sound of freedom of the skies is more irritating than the constant roar of trucks, trains, jet-skis, loud tailpipes, and thumping mega-bass car stereos. And it would allay the fears of those NFL fans whose number one concern is the airspace.
I don't like entrapment. As far as I'm concerned, TFR's are like speed-traps in small towns, except the penalty isn't a fine. It means you can lose your vocation or at least your avocation. It means you can have your name added to a list for closer Federal scrutiny. It means that you can have some or all of your assets seized by the feds.
So what brought this up and where is it going? I found this story buried inside another story about airline security:
>>"Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Saturday that authorities have been discussing security with the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association during the playoff and college bowl season. NFL playoff games Saturday were in Baltimore and Charlotte, N.C., with contests Sunday in Green Bay, Wis., and Indianapolis. There were weekend bowl games in Boise, Idaho, and New Orleans.
>>NFL spokesman Joe Browne said security has been tight since the Sept. 11 attacks, and air space over stadiums is restricted by federal legislation. He said security for the Super Bowl, Feb. 1 in Houston, would be even more intense because of the international attention the event receives.
>>"The number one concern our fans have is the air space," he said. Spectators are less concerned about stadium security because "they see our tightened measures as they enter the gates and the parking lots."
Joe, I like football as much as the next red-blooded American male, but my life doesn't center around the Super Bowl or the play-offs, especially when they involve teams that don't interest me. When the NFL demands these federal no-fly security restrictions be imposed, who pays for them? Not the NFL. Who's inconvenienced by them? Not the NFL. Who profits from them? Not the taxpayers.
Here's my proposal. Since the big sports associations and their fans are so terrified of small airplanes, let's have them build a SuperDuperMegaHumongous Secure Sports Complex Dome City out in the middle of the country, 60 miles from the nearest airport. It could have lots of smaller complexes within it's boundaries for team sports of every kind that could go on 24/7, all under the gaze of state-of-the-art sports TV network stuff. It could even be the permanent US host of the Olympics.
It could have a single Prohibited Airspace umbrella like the White House or Area 51 where no commercial airline or general aviation air traffic could penetrate and would have to be circumnavigated. Entry and exit would be restricted to TSA-prescreened bus transportation only at a terminal on the edge of the prohibited zone. I'm sure it could be funded through any number of federal security programs, corporate welfare programs, and funds raised by selling off prime real estate stadium properties around the country that sit empty all week and off season, and which could be converted into productive and attractive facilities benefiting the host communities.
It could be serviced and populated by the sky-is-falling crowd, and those otherwise normal people to whom the occasional sound of freedom of the skies is more irritating than the constant roar of trucks, trains, jet-skis, loud tailpipes, and thumping mega-bass car stereos. And it would allay the fears of those NFL fans whose number one concern is the airspace.
