BACK * RushOnline.com * Sponsors * War Photos * Visitor Index

Page 2

The argument for goverment employees to search and monitor passengers in order to insure quality by providing tenure , vacations, retirement, etc assumes we will continue these pervasive actions even if they become unnecessary and the threat becomes even more minimal in the futuremonths and years. Many of us are avoiding flying not from fear , but to avoid the unpleasantness, inconvenience, delays, and other difficulties at airports. I, for one, don't plan on flying unless absolutely necessary, not because of fear, but the inefficiency and increasing incursions into my dignity and daily freedom from interference. I suspect there are many like me in spite of the conclusions made by politicians and the media. The new Patrick Henry policy- of give me safety , or give me death -ain't gonna fly..

Frank

* * *.

Dear sir:

About airplanes falling apart, I am a Boeing retiree. I worked for Boeing for 35 years. This is to let you know who I am.

What I want you to know is; In the seattle area, there is an old saying "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going. In the 60s Boeing airplanes were stress tested until the wings were literally torn off the plane. Every part of the plane was stressed to the limit. I cannot speak for the present time, but I imagine that most of it is done by computer models.

At some time in the past. I am not sure of the exact time. A 747 of flown by Japan Airlines, was crossing the Pacific. It hit air turbulence and dropped some 30,000 feet. The crew pulled it out of the dive just short of crashing. The comment of the crew was "I am very glad that it was a Boeing airplane. Can you imagine the stress levels on every part of that airplane? It is unimaginable!

Boeing is known for having the best airframes in the industry. I have flown on McDonald Douglas, (now Boeing), Lockheed and Airbus. It won't be that way in the future. I will only fly on US built planes. I won't comment any further.

Thank You
Marvin

* * *

Airline Security

Dear Rush, I am a new listener to your show and though I find your support overwhelmingly healthy most times of President Bush and that which we face as a nation right now, I thought after Friday's show it would be important to take a moment and express my concerns as you spoke of airline security.

Candidly I have never been an avid flyer, safety has always been the reason. Now however with your speaking and the nations quarrels over safety, I am rather amazed it has become politcal. It really is about safety of our lives, not politics. A gentleman called you from the airlines the other day disagreeing with you in a very polite way, discussing the federal take over in a positive way like these people
who could take airline security as a stepping stone to work with the FBI or the CIA or police work.

Your response was what does the police have to do with a stepping stone from a federal agency. The police you said are not a federal authority. You also said that competition is healthy to get the best security. Well Mr. Limbaugh I disagree, no offense, but this is not about competition! This is about setting a standard in security that would be the same at every airport across the country, not subject to
negotiations or contracts, or failed parts or people. People uniformly trained accross the country to meet a set of safety guidelines. The United States Governement does not hire out in a competitive way in the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

There is a standard set and they hire accordingly and they make everyone tow the line for national security, its not about Democrats and Republicans, its about the nations security as a whole, no matter what political offiliation they may have. The same should be so with airline security. You trust the Armed Forces to protect you, you trust the government there but wouldn't trust an extension of the armed forces being created for airline security because you say its the liberals trying to spend more money, that seems like a contradiction Mr. Limbaugh.

It should always be about safety and the Armed forces extending to a new branch for airline security would show the world and the terrorists we take safety seriously. It's not a contract over parts
like Boeing and United Technologies, its about people and a standard of excellence and safety that should be set as part of national homeland security. Anyway I thought I'd share my views with you in hopes to add some viewpoint and perspective. Take care and Godbless! L.A.Fowler

* * *

I listened with great interest to your discussion about airport workers. You nor your callers did not mention the main reason airport workers should stay in the private sector. Federal employees are subject to EEO guidelines.You must hire so many minorities regardless of their qualifications. I am a retired Fed. employee and my job was subject to some of the most under qualified supervisors in existence.

G. Moore

* * *

Dear Rush,
Thanks for your learned discourse on why u.s. airlines should stick with the same clowns who were providing airport security on Sept. 11. You make the arguement that the quality of security would not have mattered, since the hijackers were only armed with boxcutters and pocket knives, which were not prohibited. You may be interested to know that a 27 year old man from Nepal got past screeners at O'Hare International airport today, even though his carry on bags contained seven knives, a stun gun, and a can of pepper spray. The "professional" agents of Argenbright security let him right through. United Airline workers found the items in a hand search of his lugage at the gate. Argenbright was the same ace outfit who was providing security in Logan on Sept. 11. Their agents would seem to be unable to find warts on a frog.

Charles

* * *

Gephart shows his elitism

On Sundays Nov. 4th, Meet The Press, they showed a clip of Gephart saying "If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for the American people". I think it was a slip, but no one picked up on it.

The subject was security at the airports. Clearly, if the governement has it all, the supervisors have an interest in burying poor performance in their subordinates. Also, look at the INS (how good do they keep illegal people out), the CIA (which failed to identify the threat) and the security at the airports was under the FAA which repeatedly said it was good (despite private firms penetrating it easily (and many such reports). Also the FAA was given the requirement in 1996 to extablish standards for airport security (still to be provided).

Related - Despite the rhetoric, the screeners DID NOT FAIL on Sep 11th. All weapons used were allowed and legal to be carried on at the time. The failure was in the FAA not providing adequate (honest) aversight and not developing new standards (five years after being mandated to do so). So, the government failed and we are to believe giving the government full control of the solution will solve the problem???

Bob

* * *

Something very curious and "Alarming" happened to a co-worker last week. On a trip to NY with her 2 beautiful daughters ( 12 and 15 years old ) she was stopped at the gate just before boarding the plane. She was told that her "Companions," her 2 daughters, had been "Profiled" and would have to be checked. They searched these two girls and then let them board the plane. Now, this is perfectly fine if you ask me.. but the real disturbing part is that if they where really "Profiling" for suspected terrorists why the heck did they pick 2 little girls to search with very American last names? Who is doing this profiling? And why couldn't they have done the same with the 27 year old man who cleared security with 7 knives, a stun gun and tear gas??

Are these "profilers" minimum wage employees who couldn't get a job at McDonald's just like their airport security colleagues?

* * *

Monday Airplane crash

Dittoes from the fruited plains. Just a thought: Ok, so the terrorists weren't on the plane...the plane crashed because of "mechanical failure." Isn't it possible that the terrorists could have caused the "mechanical failure" by loosening a few bolts before the plane took off? Then, they just sit back, out of harms way (and off of the plane) and wait for vibration to loosen the bolts the rest of the way and down comes the plane. We say it's "mechanical failure." Remember, the perfect crime is never discovered.
Dan Post, Greeley, Colorado

* * *

PROFESSIONALISM = MONEY?

The point I wish to make is regarding the issue of making airport baggage screeners federal employees. Whether a good idea, or a bad idea, I've listened to people go on and on about how much they will, or will not, get paid. How the people may be 'wannabe' police or F.B.I. .

As good as you are, I'm suprised you let this go unchallenged. The best baggage screeners in the world are NOT the highest paid screeners in the world. The best are in Israel. It's a question of PROFESSIONALISM, not just money. Our armed forces are a good example. They're not the highest paid, but they're the best. Why?

Maby G.W. understands we need screeners who can be motivated to a professional standard, and that standard has to have some uniform requirements. Please note the exceptions of good people who dedicate themselves to their profession with pride in their work, regardless of pay. Not everyone's definition of success is to be a federal police officer, or wealthy.

Thanks for your program! You make us feel like we're not just an audience, we're your friends!
God Bless You.

Mark

* * *

I am sending this a personal experience I had regarding profiling and downright blatant discrimination. This is the letter I had to write to Delta Airlines so it lacks emotion though it was hard to control it at times. Any input would be appreciated. I hope that justice and the ideals of the United States (the ideals that our forefathers immigrated to this land for) do not take a back seatto paranoia. Also, I hope that you can better expose these Anti-American policies with your influence.

Thank you
Nauman
____________________________________________________
Where is the justice and normal everyday life that Americans are supposed to be conducting themselves with if you cannot pay for a plane ticket and fly with rights bestowed on any human? This past Tuesday I experienced the most emotional incident I have had to face with regard to judgment of my character. While traveling on a Delta Airlines flight 915 from Boston's Logan International Airport to Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, a friend and I were made to deplane. After clearing the initial security checkpoint and also entry on to the plane without ANY problems at all, my friend took his assigned 37A and I had 37B next to him. Since it was an early 7:15 am flight, there was practically no one on the plane and so I switched to the subsequent row directly behind him (38A) for a window seat. A short while later, a Delta supervisor, Tony Ipposito asked my friend for his identification and passport and nationality, then asked where he was born which was again America, so then he asked where his parents were from which is Pakistan. Then the same set of questions to me with the same answers.

Shortly after that, two Caucasian passengers left the plane and Mr. Ipposito was back,
asking us to follow him off of the plane, which we did, solely asking him why? Which he explained after we got off of the airplane; his reasoning being that a few passengers were scared since I moved away from my initial seat and thus was far away from my friend. And also since we did not make eye contact. But both of us were seated next to each other and talking for about twenty minutes before I moved. Then another Delta employee, Cynthia Ward, intercepted us outside and started to explain that the pilot had full right to refuse service to anyone and since the recent NYC American Airlines plane to the Dominican Republic went down a day earlier, everyone was scared of terrorists who are willing to die. While walking to a different terminal, two other Delta employees complained about
how this was unnecessary and discriminatory.

But then they put us on the next flight to Atlanta and said they were checking our immigration status with the State Police and the INS. As there were no problems, we were allowed to finally depart. There were no apologies, just hurried misdirected calls for understanding on our part.

We did nothing wrong to warrant any such extreme action. I just wonder if this is the extent this
paranoia and hysteria can take. I am truly saddened with the embarrassment, lack of respect and
infringements on our civil liberties. I hope that Delta will be able to remedy this serious situtation
in the future against any further cases of blatant discrimination to other innocent passengers.

Nauman

* * *

Baggage Screeners

Rush, you're wrong about the concern of the new law that the Gov is in charge of baggage at all the airports, NOW ALL OUR AIRLINES ARE AS SAFE AS OUR BORDERS. Boy are we lucky
William

* * *

congress voting themselfs a pay raise.

How did congress slip themselves a pay raise? This airport security bill that just passed is a perfect example of wasting our money. You will get the same type of people, you will just pay more for them. Congress is the perfect example. They are the same bunch of clowns, we are just paying more for them!

* * *

Please support and ensure our security over freedom of rights. We must compromise or we will risk more extreme terrorist acts which will eventually ruin the economy of our country. The hell with the ACLU and other extremists groups who do not represent the majority! Support tough profiling standards. For example; why in the hell are we wasting time in airports checking little old ladies, women, old men, etc, when we know who we should be concentrating on? Why in the hell would we want to check everyone? And random checks are not effective when dealing with people who are willing to comitt suscide. Why in the hell can't we use a little common sense? No wonder we have today's problems! If I happened to look like a wanted person, I would expect to be stopped and questioned, or I'd be greatly disappointed in our system. So a few innocent people are inconvenienced, so what? Isn't it worth it? Expel and keep questionable Muslims out of our country. Error on the safe side. Too much freedom is our weakness. Haven't we already educated, trained, and accommodated enough people who despise our ways and want to eliminate Christians and Jews? Wake up America, we are in a war against extreme fundamentalist Muslims who just happen to use terror as their weapon. Note; they are Muslims first, and terrorists second. It's not a minority terrorist group we're looking for, it's a minority Fundamentalist Muslim Islam Group. We should be taking action on Muslims with extreme views, not wait until they've participated in a terrorist act. It's much easier to find extreme Muslims than it is to find extreme terrorists! Look at who's causing most of the conflict in the world today. Also, why isn't the "good" Muslims taking a more active and visible role in ridding their religion of extremists? Could it be they support some of the views but not the methods? Look at what the Saudi Prince had to say about America when he tried to give New York City ten million dollars. Look a who is in the Al-Quida Group. Muslims in the mid east openly admit their dislike of America. Come on, let's be "extremely" preventative in addition to reactive, it's a matter of survival for civilization.

* * *

Preventing airplane hijacking

Dear Rush, (mega dittos)

It is very upsetting to me listening to the people in authority saying that this terrorist tragedy could not have been prevented. Or that it was "unimaginable". Clearly it was imaginable - Tom Clancy's book, etc. It is my opinion that our government and military have failed us by not incorporating safeguards into the design of the airplanes to absolutely prevent this possibility. Surely they knew of the possibility of terrorists doing just what they did, and if they had taken it seriously could have come up with ways to prevent it.

For example: 1) A secure locked door to prevent access to the cockpit from the main cabin, or 2) preventing access to the controls via computer password lockout.

The following describes some ideas relating to computer controls.

Airplanes (large commercial ones at least) could be equipped with Global Positioning Systems and a navigation computer which would be programmed before takeoff with their next flight path. The airplane would not be able to deviate markedly from the programmed flight path without the pilot entering a password. The pilot would not know the password, but would only be able to obtain this from ground control. The auto-pilot controls would override any attempt to deviate markedly from the pre-programmed flight destination, unless the password was obtained from ground control and entered. Thus, a hijacker could not take over control of the plane without permission from ground control.

Alternatively, if auto-pilot override is considered too difficult or dangerous (or as a first-pass partial solution), at least the plane should be able to detect its own marked deviation from its pre-programmed path and radio an SOS warning to the military. This would give an early warning so intercepting planes could be scrambled as soon as the plane deviated from its programmed course.

Another alternative would be to have the airplanes designed to be able to be flown under remote control from ground control. If the plane deviated markedly from the pre-programmed path, the on-board GPS and navigation computer would detect this and ground control would be immediately alerted and could take over the piloting of the plane, piloting it remotely, completely overriding the on-board controls. This would require that the ground override control could not itself be hijacked. Passwords could be required to come from multiple ground control locations which were extremely secure.

A self-destruct device should also be considered. This would need many fail-safes and perhaps only the President of the US would have the password or authority to activate it. If the above prevention methods should fail and it was clear that the plane was being flown into a building or such, the President could remotely activate the self destruction of the aircraft before collision. This could also be used in non-terrorist situations, where a mal-function of the airplane has occurred and it is clear the plane is going to crash into something critical.

Of course this is only a brief description of the ideas. I am a computer consultant and systems programmer of lifelong experience and understand the complexity of these proposals, but also realize that it is well within the realm of our current technological ability. Reliability would be addressed with redundancy in the hardware. Considering the expense which goes into the design of large commercial airplanes, this extra cost would be a drop in the bucket.

Sincerely,
John of Lompoc, CA

* * *

Dear Rush, in listening to your most recent broadcast, here in Vermont. Everyone is subject to Security. After having 4 sets of hardware and assortment of metal pins and plates, never was I offered such a card. Nor would I want one that could easily be forged that could replace metal in a Hip for that of a 45. cal. weapon. Also hand held wands can pinpoint the areas in question to eliminate full cavity searches. Best of Health to you and Best of luck as your personal endevors unfold....pete.

* * *

riday,
9/21/01
8:00 PM
approximately 2100 words

Since Bloody Tuesday I've heard several comments made by several different people carping about America's failure to first predict and then thwart the vile atrocities that befell our nation on that most odious of days. The grievances were, in the main, pertaining to and directed at our government's various institutions of information gathering - primarily the FBI and CIA, as well as (and maybe to a greater extent) the security personnel at the airport(s) involved. I can easily understand the outrage. I felt that way too.

Armchair quarterbacking, the day after the game, is a favorite American (probably worldwide) pastime. I know I've certainly done my fair share of condemning and challenging the sanity of yesterday's ship captains. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to play that game.

The comments that brought me, finally, to pen and pad were voiced by one Congresswoman Maxine Waters. She, along with Congressmen Jim Moran-Democrat-Virginia, John Mica-Republican-Florida, and Mike Castle-Republican-Delaware were invited guest of CNN's Crossfire and George Washington University. They were onstage at the university to sit in on a town meeting of sorts - to tender their opinions and to answer questions from Bill Press, Tucker Carlson, and the audience. As expected, the terrorist acts and President Bush's reaction to same was the subject of discussion.

During the session Ms. Waters proclaimed (with a gradual elevation of emotion, vindictiveness and volume) . .
" . . . we've got to do a better job of oversight of our intelligence community, whether
it is the CIA or the DIA or the FBI. They have been sacred cows. We have given them
all the money that they need to operate with. But we have not really done the oversight
to make sure they were doing what they were supposed to do.
As a matter of fact, there is no reason why we could . . . we should have had, people
in flight schools who only wanted to learn to steer airplanes, didn't want to learn to
land them, we should not have had people easily coming in and out of this country
with visas that simply said they were going to stay at some hotel. They should have
known. And they've got to do a better job, and no matter who coordinates all of this,
we've got to demand that our intelligence community do what we are paying them to do." . . . (Applause)
Like Ms. Waters and probably most other people I first had a tendency to presume that those persons and agencies assigned to ensure our security, airport and otherwise, were doing sloppy work at best and perhaps some of the terrorist may have even somehow infiltrated the system and been employed by the FBI, CIA, and/or the airport security teams. And I found it all to be unforgivable. And that presumption hasn't yet, for me, been totally eradicated and probably never will be. Laxness and negligence on the part of information gathering and airport security may well be the only culprits. Had all those mentioned above simply done as they are paid to do, as Ms. Waters implies/insinuates, the entire tragedy may have been averted.

But I've done some thinking since first having all those insecurities about our security - those feelings of righteous indignation toward all the people we mechanically and unconsciously trust to keep us, always, from harm's way.Given time to reflect upon how very easily a few (and a few per job is all it takes) suicidal fanatics, hell-bent on carrying out their job, can blend in with a crowd and the innumerable and diverse methods possible/available to inflict death, destruction, and mayhem upon the totally unsuspecting innocents . . I must now give some slight pause to assigning blame.

Could it be, I wonder, that all present rules, regulations, and safeguards were executed with precise accuracy? Perhaps the monsters, diabolical as they truly are, contrived heretofore-never-conceived modes of foiling the system. Locks only keep honest people out. The best laid schemes o' mice and men do, at times, go afoul. The cat burglar will always find a new passage/formula for getting inside. For each new, novel concept/method/endeavor for keeping drugs out of the country the cartel will invent two new modus operandi for getting those same drugs into the United States. Hundreds (or thousands) of billions have been wasted on the drug war and we remain at square one. We catch many but never all. They stay, most of them, always one step ahead of us.

We could become the most totalitarian, jack-booted, police state in the history of humankind and would yet be, to some extent, vulnerable to terrorism. We could strip-search every individual boarding the plane - even the crew - and still not guarantee, absolutely, that no harm would come. A well-trained assassin can fashion a lethal weapon from a hundred (or thousand) things you and I would never suspect, all made of non-suspicious, non-metallic material. There are hundreds of things which can be purchased in any five-and-dime store that can be made, by the expert assassin, to kill.

And consider this. The culprits, in no sense, need to board the plane(s) in the United States. Hundreds of airliners fly to many cities in the United States every day from numerous foreign countries. If we could do the impossible and perfect our own airport security that would have no bearing whatsoever on a zealous team of fanatics boarding a flight(s) from you-name-the-site to any one or several American cities. The villains can wait until very near the target before making their move - then do as was done on Bloody Tuesday.

So, finally, when we've done everything humanly possible to try to ensure no more September 11s (which will have brought upon us an unthinkable loss of liberties), and when the entire world of nations follows suit (an inconceivable notion) with America's Nazi airport tactics, the thugs will have masterminded sundry other ways of delivering death and destruction - all completely disassociated with travel. Remember Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing? And if, to prevent another like disaster, we totally disassemble every vehicle parked near any possible target they will simply do their evil deed while driving by.

Little old ladies and children of European/American descent (as opposed to mid-eastern appearance/characteristics) can be recruited into the ranks of the wicked. The utilization of willing, innocent-appearing women and children as methods of human carnage has been done before. Don't believe me, ask some Vietnam veteran.

And let us not even begin to ponder biological and/or chemical warfare and the many easy means of delivering same. Those scenarios are simply too abominable to even think on.

I would offer up, as a mode of rebuttal to Ms. Waters and all other like-minded persons, an excerpt from a column written by R. Emmett Tyrrell entitled "Stop tying their hands" and published September 21, 2001 in, among others, http://www.townhall.com

From that column . . .
. . . "For three decades, some American politicians and their supposedly liberal constituents have been passing legislation and regulations that hamper the ability of government to maintain American security against the kind of atrocities committed last week. Sen. Frank Church got the ball rolling with congressional hearings in 1975 that betrayed CIA agents and operations. He was applauded. Counter-Spy magazine listed the identities of American agents around the world. Church's florid description of the CIA reveals the mood of the era. He called it a "rogue elephant on the rampage."
The morally acute continued their work. The Carter administration all but eliminated agents on the ground intelligence gathering, relying on technology despite the protest of intelligence experts. Spy satellites cannot be sued for misbehavior. Nor do they engage in rough stuff.
Executive orders in 1976, 1978, and 1981 ended the American government's ability to engage in the use of assassination for national security purposes. They even curtailed our agents from contact with foreign agents who might engage in such projects on behalf of their own countries.
More recently, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., has authored legislation limiting our authority to work with individuals or intelligence agencies accused of human rights violations. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has authored similar legislation limiting our government from working with or supporting foreign military forces that may be accused of human rights violations. The evidence of human rights violations need not be especially probative. State Department bureaucrats can decide.
All of this high-mindedness has limited our security forces from doing their jobs -- jobs that would have prevented last week's vile acts . . . "

And from Malcolm Gladwell's essay in the New Yorker . . .

"Airport-security measures have simply chased out the amateurs and left the clever and the audacious."

Yes, Ms. Waters is most probably totally justified for her outrage. Most probably our system has become less than adequate and does indeed need a revamping. And I feel certain that, as I write this, the revamping has begun. I would hasten to venture that, today, the safest airports in the world are in America and are, most likely, tenfold safer than they were September 10, 2001.

Yet I wonder about Ms. Waters. Given the peculiar nature of politics and politicians (they do so much more than simply make strange bedfellows) one might wonder if her outrage was totally genuine. I'm probably wrong in questioning any American's loyalty at this time but I've seen her at her very best during and several times since the Congressional hearings on the criminal behavior of Bill Clinton preceding his imminent impeachment. To be a politician is to be, among many other things, an actor/actress. Some elected public servants though are, thank God, more inclined to be statesmen(statespersons?) than politicians. And while there is probably some politician in every statesman and some statesman in every politician there's a world of difference between the two. After the Oklahoma City bombing did Ms. Waters protest as forcefully against the Oklahoma police, the FBI, etc. as she did tonight? What would she have had to say on December 8, 1941? She and people like her are demanding perfection in an imperfect world. Personally, I'm glad we have, at the helm of the Good Ship America, people like George W. Blush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Condoleezza Rice (plus G.H.W. Bush as a most competent if perhaps somewhat reluctant foreign affairs consultant) instead of Ms. Waters and others of her ilk. Nothing they or anybody else can do can ever make this country absolutely immune from the evil men do. They can and will, however, make this place much safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001 - which was at the time one of the safest places on the globe. They can and will cause the would-be terrorist to think more than twice before doing or attempting to do his satanic iniquities. He may very well come to the profound conclusion that the dues his insane cronies will pay for his crime have become much too costly.

One other thing - Maureen Dowd, in her column of 9/18/01 (Ft.Worth Star Telegram - 9/16/01 I think in the New York Times) ranted and railed much as had Ms. Waters on Crossfire. She claimed our security system failed. She claimed that there have been plenty of warnings.
She claimed . . .
. . "We've known for a long time that the terrorist are coming at us. We've known for a long time that the CIA has spiraled into an identity crisis since the Cold War and has lost both its best James Bonds and its stoolies. We've known for a long time that the FBI is prone to bungling. Former Sen. Pat Moynihan, a longtime CIA critic, observed that Washington "was still worrying about intercontinental missiles when we had a wholly new set of threats, the fierce and unresolved Islamic antagonism over centuries of domination from the West."
"President Bush says we are in the first war of the 21st century. Until this point, he has inflexibly pushed his tax cut, the energy plan and missile defense, even when it was clear that they did not suit the times. We will soon see whether this shattering crisis will make him more supple, complex and clever. Can he, Cheney, Rummy and Condi move past the Cold War attitude and Star Wars obsession that has alienated the countries we will need to help us fight an enemy too shadowy to be stopped by a shield?
I've already addressed some of Ms. Dowd's complaints. The other obvious (obvious to rational people) error in her thinking is believing that because we now have faceless terrorist in our backyard all other threats are off the table; that all we need worry about in the future is the terrorist factor. I can just see Red China and North Korea (and who knows who else) licking their lips as they contemplate a totally stupid United States suddenly completely oblivious to all but terrorism and leaving its backside wholly and utterly imperiled to all other enemies both foreign and domestic. What has the woman been smoking? Maureen might ought to check her medicine chest. She had better lay off the hard stuff for a while. Bloody Tuesday didn't, in any way, negate our other enemies/threats. To think that it did is to live in LaLa land. It merely piled on extra threats and added to the argument for a strong defense.

B. R. Townley

* * *

I saw on the O'Reilly Factor last week a listing of the CEO salaries for all of the United States airlines and it made me sick as hell. I've tried finding them on the internet to run off a hard copy to share with my fellow Americans, but have failed.
I can't believe that nobody is questioning why CEO's are pocketing multi-million dollar annual paychecks and can't pay for a competent security system. The government's going to have to provide one, free of charge, off of my god damn tax dollars. Meanwhile, the silver-spooners are going to give-up a year's salary to help. The bastards should be charged with manslaughter.

Why aren't the CEO's being held accountable for their role in this tragedy? I've been hearing for years how many airlines are in the red and the grunts have to give up their wages to keep things afloat. I live in the Pittsburgh area and have been bombarded with the woes of US Airlines. Guess what their CEO makes - 12 million a year!!!!!!

No body and I mean no body should be making that kind of money. It's ludicrous. What can you do with that kind of money? These people can rape the consumer, dangle bull---- over their employees heads all of the time, cry for a bail out from the Feds, and not have to explain how they make this kind of money? Why if you can pay a CEO over a million a year and can't run a profitable, fair, and secure industry, something's wrong, terribly wrong and it should be scrutinized before tax dollars are donated toward allowing it to continue.

One of the foremost problems with the US is that we allow our executives to make way too much money in relation to the worker. We have in multiple industry, not just the airline, incompetent executives surrounded by their good-old boys regime making money hand-over-fist and screwing the middle class. NO CONSCIENCE AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Does anyone remember what happened to the RAILROADS? "He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it."

If the government's going to take over the security for the airlines, take over the whole g------ thing and throw the CEO's out on their a---- where they belong.

My 2 cents.

Donna

* * *

Check out the TSA web site (www.TSA.Gov) and look up their Press Release

(#118-02) for Oct 23 2002 under announcements/press releases. Scroll down to the last paragraph after the list of airports. Look at the figures on the racial make up of the screener force and draw your own conclusions. I love it where they say they are "REWARDED that ONLY 57% of their employees are white when the percentage of whites are 77.9% in the civilian work force".
Looks like the airport screener "thing" has turned into another minority jobs program. The public should know as the major liberal media won't say anything.

Regards, Bill .

* * *

New Phase of Airport Security

DELTA AIRLINES TO CHECK YOU CREDIT REPORT - Date: Sun, Mar 09 03:53 PM

I HOPE THIS INFORMATION WILL SPARK YOUR ATTENTION. ACCORDING TO A TRAVEL INDUSTRY ARTICLE IN THE TRAVEL WEEKLY MAGAZINE, DELTA WILL START CHECKING A TRAVELER’S TRAVEL RESERVATIONS, FINANCIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS.

CHECKING THE FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR A FREQUENT FLYER WILL SHOW MUTIPLE CHECKS ON THEIR CREDIT REPORT CAN AFFECT A PERSON CREDIT RATING. AS FAR AS I KNOW THE HIJACKERS HAD PERFECT CREDIT.

THE ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND ON WWW.TWCROSSROADS.COM/NEWS/NEWSWRAPPER.ASP. AND WAS WRITTEN BY ANDREW COMPART. ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE THE THIS FALLS UNDER THE COMPUTER ASSISTED PASSENGER PRE-SCREENING SYSTEM II (CAPSII).

PLEASE SPEAK OUT.

Shelby

* * *

Wow.

That about sums up the worthlessness of the majority of the comments on the airline safety page. Not only do most of the comments contain glaring contradictions, but they take into account about 1% of the facts. Of course, most of the people didn't actually spend the time to think about them.

Let me provide a few examples of what im talking about. The first comment comes from the genious, who tries to slander liberals like a classic Rush Limbaugh fan and make a terrible point. Lets just examine the glaring contradiction in this one. Dr. Watson, the author, tells us that ground based methods will only work if we impede on people's Constitutional rights. Then the good doctor cleverly puts in parenthasis, "the liberals are all for this." Yet he goes on to say that flight attendants should be armed and "shoot to kill first." Now this may just be me but wouldn't killing someone without knowing all the facts be taking away Constitutional rights. No, nevermind, I don't think life is one of the rights in the Constitution. And how about making people sit in their seats with their seat belts on. That wouldn't be intrusive, would it? While your plan might be a good idea Watson, and it is a good idea to strike a balance between liberty and safety, don't make a Limbaugh mistake and contradict yourself while you're slandering liberals.

Several other people make the same mistake as Watson. And then pretty much everyone else fails to take a minor detail into account, the cost of all the security procedures. Paying for training for flight attendants and pilots with guns or for air marshals, the increase in salary for flight attendants do to their increased responsibilties, and the cost of outfitting every plane with a bullet proof locked door and special anti-hijack programs for the cockpit wouldn't be cheap. And right now airlines aren't making much of a profit and the country is in a recession. But people don't think about that. They just say, "anything for safety" and don't consider the consequences.

And if I see one more person blame the airlines for 9/11 I'll probably shoot them. People at the airlines are working just like you and just like you they make mistakes. But because their mistakes more directly impact peoples lives everyone goes crazy. Everybody over reacts.

Dan the White

* * *

BACK TO: Page 1