The Arrival Of Secret Law

FAS? Let me know when this claim is verified by a ligitimate news agency instead of an online tabloid. Until then, you're just spreading rumor and gossip, something forbidden by scripture.

 

The "big boys" love people who won't accept anyting unless it comes from them.

 

I attempted to verify it, but could find nothing. Hence, the conclusion is that the claim is likely false. However, it's YOUR claim, so YOU should be the one verifying it.

Tabloids like this, the NY Sun, the Inquirer, WND, etc, typically exploit, distort, or exaggerate the news to create sensations and attract readers. A legitimate news agency is one whose primary objective does to not operate as a tabloid does.

 

How is the Federation of American Scientists a tabloid??

"The Federation of American Scientists is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501c3 organization founded in 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists. Our founders were members of the Manhattan Project, creators of the atom bomb and deeply concerned about the implications of its use for the future of humankind. FAS is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose."

 

Teachnically, it's not a tabloid, it's an -zine. That is, an online and electronic magazine. The OP attempts to pass it off as a news agency, which it is not. I don't have an issue with FAS, but I have an issue with their e-zine being passed off as a news agency.

 

The bigger question is how do you throw WND in with those other groups. That is absolutely laughable. WND is admittedly conservative, but hardly tabloid. Most of their articles are links to other news services.

With respect to the link posted, I believe everything in that is true. There is nothing new about these extra searches based either on purchase patterns (e.g., one way ticket purchased with cash) or random searches. Several times that I have travelled, I have been singled out for additional searches.

Last spring, I was in Toronto and went to the top of the CN Tower. You had to go through an explosive tester in order to get on the elevator. As I went to the top, I thought about it and decided it was a good idea. And then when I got to the top and looked around, I realized I didn't care since it was a long ways down in the event of a terrorist incident.

The complaint about 9/11 was these guys carrying knives and cutters that were not detected. Now, a few years removed, people want to open the door back to that possibility. Most people get indignant because they know they have nothing. But you have to realize that I don't know that. And when I am flying beside you, I want the confidence and security of knowing that you don't have anything. Apart from me flying alone or checking everybody, the next best thing is a personal screening of everybody who gets on board. It saves a lot of funerals.

Then you have a guy saying he would not show government issued identity papers to travel in his own country. What an idiot. As everyone knows, you don't have to show government issued identity papers to travel. What a buffoon. Last weekend, I traveled more than 1500 miles through six different states and not one time did I have to show a government issued paper of any sort.

There are good reasons for the secrecy surrounding airport security. It makes it harder to breach since you don't know what they are looking for. There is an overriding public safety interest in the control of the airspace. Did you realize that airspace is already tightly controlled? You can only fly in certain places and at certain altitudes. You can only take off when they tell you to, and can only land when they tell you to (except in an emergency in which case you better have good reason). In fact, there are certain airports/runways that you cannot take off at or land at for various reasons. No one complains about the public nuisance or invasion of rights there. We all understand that it makes common sense (if you even knew that at all).

These are the types of laughable complaints that make fools out of people. If you don't want to be patted down or show proper identification, then drive. It is a simple solution. You can travel all you want. No one is taking away your "right to travel" (did anyone want to provide an actual substantiation of that "right"?). This is simple common sense, and as Will Rogers (I think) said, the problem with common sense is that it isn't that common.

If you think those additional searches are inconvenient, you ought to try jumping with no parachute out of an exploded plane and trying to dodge the plane parts and body parts on the way down ... if you survive the explosion. When you sit down and use some common sense, it is not all that bad to be patted down or to show a driver's license.

 

The reason I include WND is because they often take specifics detains in an overall story and expound on them to distort the overall story. They've made claims and cited manline sources (like the AP) for specifics. For example, they will post a story claiming that there are, say, 10 million illegal aliens in the US. They will then post a mainline reference that cites illegal aliens, and then post a separate unrelated reference that cites that there are 10 million immigrants (including legal immigrants). They then word the story in a manner that leads the reader to believe that there are 10 million illegal aliens in the US.

WND doesn't outright print an incorrect fact. They will instead word the story in a manner that will paint the picture they wish, twisting the fact as they go. Theire facts will be correct, but the truth of what the story presents will often be different from the actual truth. I have on two occaisions pointed out where this has happenned. In the last few months, I don't even bother to read a post if its OP starts with a WND reference.

To their credit, however, WND often gets it right. But they more often get it wrong.

 

I partially agree with Larry. People have come to view air travel like riding a bus. The Airlines re-inforce this idea with ridiculously low fares, which can't possibly cover the cost of buying and flying safe aircraft.

 

On this we agree.

Is the primary blame on the airlines, or on us consumers? We all want airline safety, but we don't want top pay for it. Then, when the airline says "okay, I'll give you a cheap fare, but you're gonna have to give something up", we say okay, and put on the "it can't happen to me" attitude.

 

That may be why you think what you do, and thus have what many would say is a distorted view of WND. They certainly present a conservative view of things, but that is no different than other major media outlets that often present a liberal slant on the same news. It is more often an issue of perspective rather than right or wrong.

PJ, I think those low fares are to stay in business. If they charged higher fares, I think they would soon go out of business because no one would fly. The discount airlines are cutting into chunks of major airlines and already we are seeing major struggles financially. Part of the problem is the high wages they are forced to pay; part of it is the landing fees etc. Part of it is the taxes. But overall, the FAA has a pretty solid maintenance program. I am far less worried about a safe aircraft than I am about safe pilots or terrorism.

 

The blame rests in a few places, it seems to me...

The government bails out the airlines when they operate at a loss. So, the airlines undercut fares to gain market share, at the expense of the taxpayer.

And, passengers are partly to blame, perhaps. More than once I've been sitting on a plane with mechanical troubles, and heard passengers tell the flight crew to "get this thing moving". What idiots.

 

PL, I prefer that my news have neither a conservative nor liberal slant. I know that this can be difficult to find at times, but it is possible, with discernment. When an agency like WND purposefully sets out to report somethign with a preset slant, it raises suspicion, imo.

 

That simply isn't out there. Most are liberal to very liberal. A few are more balanced. And a few are conservative. As a whole, the conservative are more accurate and less biased until you get to the whack sources.

 

But aren't those loans, not gifts? I think they have to be repaid.

And I don't think the passengers saying "Get this thing moving" is actually having any affect. No pilot is going to fly until the mechanic says go. It doesn't matter how intense the passenger pressure is. I think the passenger role is the demand for low fares, which is a perfectly legitimate demand. But there comes a "break even" point and business drops off. An airline could survive in a number of scenarios. For instance (as an example), pretend that that an airline needs $100,000 to survive for a year. They can get that off of one passenger. They can get it off of 100 passengers at $1000. They can get it off of a thousand passengers at $100. They can get it off of 100,000 passengers at $1. They can get it off of one million passengers at a $.01. The question for them is, Where does it meet? What is the highest price they can charge and still make money. They can gamble on the few and take a big risk. Or they can go for the bulk and risk not having enough passengers. They will have more passengers with the lower fares, but they will have to move a certain number of passengers.

The wierd thing about airline pricing is the 7, 14, and 21 day advance purchases vs. the walk up purchase. There is a benefit to purchasing early, but the plane is not cheaper to fly. And the airlines will often fly a plane with empty seats before offering a discount fare. For instance, I called for a lady in the church who was flying for hte first time to see her daugter before she went to Iraq. The two week fare on Northwest was about $200. Southwest was about $250 as I recall. The overnight fare on Northwest was $1150; Southwest was the same $250. I asked the NWA agent how many seats were available. She said that the plane was about 50% full. I asked her to sell me a ticket at the 200 price. She said she couldn't. Here was a prime example of losing money because of bad business practices. I could understand if there were one or two seats left. THey need to get top dollar. But they took a loss of a passenger and customer satisfaction and gave it to another airline and flew a plane half full. My uncle worked for USAir for about 30 years and commented on this numerous times. It was a dumb policy. If there are seats on the plane, fill them. You can't make money flying empty planes and 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The advantage that discount airlines have is that they have the same price no matter when you buy. If there is a seat available, you can have it.

 

There is a great direct flight from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Leaves around 7:00, gets to SF around 9:50. You can get up on the east coast and be in the office be in the office on the west coast before lunch time. Costs about $2200 round trip. You can get a flight from Harrisburg that goes through Philadelphia, taking the SAME AIRPLANE from Phila. to SF as the direct flight, for $1400. I asked "can I get the Allentown ticket and just skip the first leg?" Nope. It's worth $800 to them to make your life miserable.

There are other scenarios that make even less sense.

BUT...it seems to me that for the few flights that bring high ticket prices, there are lots of them that don't. And, on the others that I mentioned there are lots of people flying for a few huhndred bucks due to a weekend stay.

My point is, though, that overall, fares are too low to sustain safe flight and a profitable industry. And, that air travel has been trivialized.

You are right that the government bailouts are "loans"...but I'd bet that they don't have a payment schedule like your mortgage. Just my guess.

You are also right that a Captain is not going to listen to an idiot passenger who doesn't understand the difference between a taxi and a jet. But also I'd bet that the attitudes have a collective effect on the whole thing.

 

Hey American People, just look at your own laws, especially the USA Patriot Act(s). On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." Here is a preview of what it means:

Gag Orders and Increased Governmental Secrecy. USAPA II makes it even harder for the public to evaluate what the government is doing with its broad new powers. USAPA II allows gag orders for subpoenas that force third parties to turn over information about their friends, loved ones or customers while making it unlawful for them to tell anyone except their lawyers about the subpoena. In a similar vein, the law creates broad new exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for terrorism detainee information, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from warning the public about environmental dangers from chemical releases and reduces the ability of judges to force the government to present its evidence in open court.

Expanded Reach of Powers under the Control of Secret Courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted more than 20 years ago to handle the special problem of non-criminal investigation of foreign intelligence activities in the United States. For this limited purpose, Congress established an unprecedented secret court system. USAPA expanded the reach of FISA and the secret court dramatically, and USAPA II goes even further. Under USAPA II, the secret court will be able to authorize searches of individuals with no connection to foreign governments or even terrorist organizations. It will increase the length of surveillance and decrease court oversight from the already low levels set by USAPA.
==========

Does that sound legit enough for you? Can't accuse Congress of spreading rumours, can you?

Corinne