"JohnH" wrote in message
...


I think federalizing the security folks was a Democrat-pushed idea that
the
administration caved under. Why? Heat of the moment, decisions based on
urgency
and pressure rather than objective analysis. The Dems love the idea of
thousands
of new AFGE members, and a bigger government.

Bull****.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


No, Chuck, I said, "I think federalizing the security folks was a
Democrat-pushed idea that the administration caved under." By this I meant
the
federalizing of the thousands of screening personnel at the airports.
Perhaps I
was unclear. I apologize. I think the Department of Homeland Security was
a good
idea, as long as it consolidated and made more efficient the operations of
the
agencies it subsumed.

Bull****.

The privately hired screeners were overwhelmingly incompetent. What would
YOUR solution have been, if YOU were king of the world? Take the CEOs of the
private security companies out for a round of golf and make them buy dinner
afterward, to punish them for being such slobs???

I think federalizing the security folks was a Democrat-pushed idea that
the
administration caved under. Why? Heat of the moment, decisions based on
urgency
and pressure rather than objective analysis. The Dems love the idea of
thousands
of new AFGE members, and a bigger government.

Bull****.

Don't be so hard on John H.

Millions of people sincerely believe that every good idea ever spawned
originated in the Republican party, and every lousy idea
originated with the Demomcrats. Should they have any doubt, they can tune in to
thier favorite radio station to be assured that their belief is well founded.

This even applies to glaring missteps made by the President. "He only went
along because of all the pressure from the (minority party) in Congress!"

To be completely fair, there are a lot of Democrats holding the oppopsite
perspective.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


No, Chuck, I said, "I think federalizing the security folks was a
Democrat-pushed idea that the administration caved under." By this I
meant
the
federalizing of the thousands of screening personnel at the airports.
Perhaps I
was unclear. I apologize. I think the Department of Homeland Security
was
a good
idea, as long as it consolidated and made more efficient the operations
of
the
agencies it subsumed.

Bull****.

The privately hired screeners were overwhelmingly incompetent. What would
YOUR solution have been, if YOU were king of the world? Take the CEOs of
the
private security companies out for a round of golf and make them buy
dinner
afterward, to punish them for being such slobs???



Was a bad idea! They hired the same people that were "incompetent" for the
present federal jobs. And if you think that making the jobs federal
instilled competence, you have not flown since.
Bill

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:54:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .


No, Chuck, I said, "I think federalizing the security folks was a
Democrat-pushed idea that the administration caved under." By this I meant
the
federalizing of the thousands of screening personnel at the airports.
Perhaps I
was unclear. I apologize. I think the Department of Homeland Security was
a good
idea, as long as it consolidated and made more efficient the operations of
the
agencies it subsumed.

Bull****.

The privately hired screeners were overwhelmingly incompetent. What would
YOUR solution have been, if YOU were king of the world? Take the CEOs of the
private security companies out for a round of golf and make them buy dinner
afterward, to punish them for being such slobs???

Were I king of the world - wow!

I would prevent the airplane from being used as a weapon. I would close the
(reinforced) cockpit doors and tell the flight crew to stay in the cockpit. We
would play the Israeli game. Pilots don't go back to save stewards. They fly the
plane.

I would attempt to stop only those weapons which could bring down the airplane.
This would include firearms, explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades (or their
equivalent). I would not waste my time with knives, box cutters, or any other
item which can be used as a weapon against only an individual. Individuals are
important, but no more so in the air than on the ground.

This would relieve the security personnel of the requirement to find each and
every little thing that can be used as a weapon against only individuals. Your
'incompetency' arguments were based primarily on news reports which should Joe
Lib taking forty-seven pairs of scissors and twelve box-cutters through
security.

The private security companies were not being held to any standards. Who
controlled them? I would have had no problems with the government becoming the
contracting officer and monitoring the security companies. Of course, this would
not have required doubling the strength of the AFGE.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On 25 Aug 2003 15:24:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I think federalizing the security folks was a Democrat-pushed idea that
the
administration caved under. Why? Heat of the moment, decisions based on
urgency
and pressure rather than objective analysis. The Dems love the idea of
thousands
of new AFGE members, and a bigger government.

Bull****.

Don't be so hard on John H.

Millions of people sincerely believe that every good idea ever spawned
originated in the Republican party, and every lousy idea
originated with the Demomcrats. Should they have any doubt, they can tune in to
thier favorite radio station to be assured that their belief is well founded.

This even applies to glaring missteps made by the President. "He only went
along because of all the pressure from the (minority party) in Congress!"

To be completely fair, there are a lot of Democrats holding the oppopsite
perspective.

Could you say, instead of 'a lot', that the number would be in the millions. You
seem to relish taking shots at those (Republicans) who listen to the radio. Do
Democrats not listen to the radio? Have you ever listened to the radio?

Here is a quote you can print and paste on the wall:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic
missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to
kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these
weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons
of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about
killing lots and lots of people." Dec. 16, 1998

Who said it?

Who, also in 1998, said that if Saddam Hussein was not stopped he would "rebuild
an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you
he'll use the arsenal."

Now, have a great day!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


No, Chuck, I said, "I think federalizing the security folks was a
Democrat-pushed idea that the administration caved under." By this I
meant
the
federalizing of the thousands of screening personnel at the
airports.
Perhaps I
was unclear. I apologize. I think the Department of Homeland
Security
was
a good
idea, as long as it consolidated and made more efficient the
operations
of
the
agencies it subsumed.

Bull****.

The privately hired screeners were overwhelmingly incompetent. What
would
YOUR solution have been, if YOU were king of the world? Take the CEOs
of
the
private security companies out for a round of golf and make them buy
dinner
afterward, to punish them for being such slobs???



Was a bad idea! They hired the same people that were "incompetent" for
the
present federal jobs. And if you think that making the jobs federal
instilled competence, you have not flown since.
Bill

I've flown since. Here in Rochester, the "upgrade" in the search procedure
was remarkable. Same at Charlotte, San Juan, O'Hare, LaGuardia and Boston.

Your comment contained the standard disdain for anything "federal". Like
it
or not, there is MORE consistency now, not LESS. It's out of the hands of
the parties who are LEAST able to decide what's good: The airlines.


I have a lot of disdain for making a lot of things Federal controlled!!!!!!
I have gone though security at Oakland and then taken the same baggage
through security at LAX. There they decide the nail manicure kit is now a
weapon. Standards? Crap! I can do more damage with a Bic pen than my 1"
Swiss Army knife. The 9/11 hijackers used Federal security procedures to
hijack the planes. The FAA told the pilots and crew to cooperate with
hijackers. Just because no one had used the plane as a weapon, they said to
go along and they will negotiate with the baddies when you ended up in
Bumlife country. If everyone got to carry their knives as we used to, you
think a hijacker with a boxcutter is going to survive more than 2-3 minutes?
As to Federal control, look what they have done to education in this
country. All the money taken from the states and then sent back at 40-60%
with multiple strings attached. Where has states rights gone? Has been
usurped via the above strings.
Bill

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


The private security companies were not being held to any standards. Who
controlled them? I would have had no problems with the government
becoming
the
contracting officer and monitoring the security companies. Of course,
this
would
not have required doubling the strength of the AFGE.


"Who controlled them?" They were controlled by the airlines. Remember,
before 9/11 how often you heard, in the news, "....airlines argue that
passengers won't put up with being inconvenienced by more stringent
security
checks"???



And the airlines were correct. Look at travel. Airline's are hurting as
the amount of travel has fallen drastically. The economy is part of it, but
the fact that it takes 3-4 hours at the airport a lot of the time has caused
people to drive to weekend vacations, etc. My daughters both live in the
Los Angeles area, and I have experienced my daughter driving from LA to
arrive at the house the same time as wife and I arrived back from flying.
It is 12 hours driving and $75 in gas vs 10 hours and $150 in airfair for
the round trip. Sometimes we fly, but lots of people are driving.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


The private security companies were not being held to any standards.
Who
controlled them? I would have had no problems with the government
becoming
the
contracting officer and monitoring the security companies. Of course,
this
would
not have required doubling the strength of the AFGE.


"Who controlled them?" They were controlled by the airlines. Remember,
before 9/11 how often you heard, in the news, "....airlines argue that
passengers won't put up with being inconvenienced by more stringent
security
checks"???



And the airlines were correct. Look at travel. Airline's are hurting as
the amount of travel has fallen drastically. The economy is part of it,
but
the fact that it takes 3-4 hours at the airport a lot of the time has
caused
people to drive to weekend vacations, etc. My daughters both live in the
Los Angeles area, and I have experienced my daughter driving from LA to
arrive at the house the same time as wife and I arrived back from flying.
It is 12 hours driving and $75 in gas vs 10 hours and $150 in airfair for
the round trip. Sometimes we fly, but lots of people are driving.

Maybe the economy. But, I'd love to see actual data to indicate that people
won't fly because of the security check process. Most of the people I've
spoken to who won't fly are more concerned with the fact that before 9/11,
there were already a host of problems with airline safety, and not just from
terrorism. 9/11 was the icing on the cake. Before that, we already had to
deal with design errors, excessive traffic & delays, outdated traffic
control systems, and crew members with attitude problems because of
seemingly endless labor disputes.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


No response to the rest of my post? You're too easy on me.

Exactly, the airlines controlled them and there were no standards.

Thank you.

John

The remainder didn't merit much response. As 9/11 proved, it's absurd to
theorize about what objects could be used as weapons. Therefore, it
accomplishes nothing to discuss nailclippers and who should or should not
have them. A terrorist could easily use his shirt to garrot someone and then
break their neck.

If you'd like to read something constructive, go he
http://www.secure-skies.org/