Originally this was reported as fireworks going off, but apparently this was a failed terrorist attack by a person with suspected terrorist ties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122501355.html?hpid=topnews
It has been reported that our vacationing president could not be disturbed with this information for nearly three hours after the plane landed. Oh well, Bush's fault.
(http://chicksontheright.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/blame-bush3.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on December 26, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
Originally this was reported as fireworks going off, but apparently this was a failed terrorist attack by a person with suspected terrorist ties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122501355.html?hpid=topnews
It has been reported that our vacationing president could not be disturbed with this information for nearly three hours after the plane landed. Oh well, Bush's fault.
(http://chicksontheright.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/blame-bush3.jpg)
Cite a source, Tony...oh wait, it's me, so unless someone else asks, you'll just ignore it. This was on the news yesterday and reports were that the President was getting real time updates in Honolulu and calling this a 'working vacation'. Or did you forget that's where he spent his childhood? It's not like the ranch where our previous president spent all or part of 490 days during his four year term. That's over 10 percent of his two terms.
(http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/freeper-alert.jpg)
Here's an interesting post (http://gizmodo.com/5434592/the-new-terrifying-no+electronics-us-flight-security-rules) on Gizmodo (a tech blog) summarizing some of the immediate TSA security responses. Short version: they range from keeping people in their seat for the last hour of a given flight to confiscating ALL electronics. The important thing seems to be that TSA is randomizing its policy for each flight, so that policy will vary all over the place. Also, these restrictions seem to be for international flights arriving in the US only, not domestic flights.
I also think it's interesting that so much information is being reported first-hand through Twitter.
WE:
According to ABC the terrorist had his explosive device sewn into his underwear (talk about a power wedgie):
QuoteThe plot to blow up an American passenger jet over Detroit was organized and launched by al Qaeda leaders in Yemen who apparently sewed bomb materials into the suspect's underwear before sending him on his mission, federal authorities tell ABC News.
Seriously though, think about the new searches coming down the pike.
anyone:
Another seriously, has Obama spoken out about this attack or the bravery of those on the flight wprho evented a potential disaster? Haven't heard yet.
It will be interesting to see Bruce Schneier's take on this once there's more information regarding the TSA's response.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/ (http://www.schneier.com/blog/)
He said that previous security measures have been little more than theater - exercises intended to provide the illusion of greater safety without actually doing so.
...and Tony, it's probably not a good idea for the nation's top law enforcement official to make comments early in the investigation.
Quote from: Ed W on December 26, 2009, 08:33:33 PM
...and Tony, it's probably not a good idea for the nation's top law enforcement official to make comments early in the investigation.
Come on Ed, you are kidding, right? Because a walk down to a very recent memory lane tells a different story (go to 1:50 for the money shot):
Incidentally, the terrorist has already been charged by the justice department (or perhaps is it too soon to charge anyone).
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/December/09-nsd-1383.html
Finally, how much time is necessary to offer praise to those that could be responsible for saving lives?
Once again we find that security theater is worthless and actual security would have prevented this fool from ever boarding the aircraft.
God forbid we use more of the nifty puffer machines rather than making people take off their shoes. That would make too much sense, however.
Instead, we will see more of the retardedness I've seen reported in the press.
I'm glad I drove to Florida this year instead of flying.
Quote from: nathanm on December 26, 2009, 11:46:17 PM
Once again we find that security theater is worthless and actual security would have prevented this fool from ever boarding the aircraft.
God forbid we use more of the nifty puffer machines rather than making people take off their shoes. That would make too much sense, however.
Instead, we will see more of the retardedness I've seen reported in the press.
I'm glad I drove to Florida this year instead of flying.
It was in his underwear, not his shoes. And last I flew, which was last summer, you had to take off your shoes. The problem here is that if we come up with a measure to stop these fanatics, then they will find another way around it. It's the way war goes (and in some sense we are at war here). If one side builds better armor, then the other will build better bullets. It's not a matter of how we fight this war, it's where. The terrorists are determined to do the fighting (if it can be called that) wherever civilian casualties will be the highest. Right now, it seems our best defense is to give up more of our personal liberties. We are currently loosing this fight. Either we hold that which is dear to us, which is our freedom and personal rights, which creates more holes for these terrorists to slip through our defensive lines at, or we give up what we fight to keep and allow things like the guy at the security gate when you go to fly grab your crotch to make sure you don't have explosives hidden there. We have technology to get around this, but that would mean some guy in another room seeing us completely naked on a screen. Either way, we loose. We need to change tactics and find a new way to fight this war. And pointing fingers and blaming administrations is not going to help anything. What Bush did, right or wrong, has been done, and can not be undone. What our current President does may be right, and may be wrong, but judging those decisions without knowing everything involved is fruitless, and trying to make everything he does out to be wrong is pointless.
Our DHS genius Napolitano claims that the prevention of the terrorist attack shows that the system worked. The "system" described by an evil conservative:
QuoteI suppose one can make that argument — if one assumes that the system includes allowing a man included on a no-fly list onto an airplane, allowing his visa to remain in force even after his own father informs the US that he's become a radical jihadi, assuming that any explosive said terrorist will smuggle onto the plane will fizzle out, and that only quick thinking by the other passengers on the plane kept the jihadi from trying it again while he barbecued his crotch.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/27/poll-the-system-worked/
Quote from: we vs us on December 26, 2009, 06:52:55 PM
The important thing seems to be that TSA is randomizing its policy for each flight, so that policy will vary all over the place.
By "randomizing" your policy you essentially have no policy,
or at least a universal excuse when something goes wrong.
TSA is for show. The "terrorists" won because they were able to bring not only a bomb but someone intent on detonating it onto an American flight.
The reason this didnt become a tragedy was due to better educated passengers who didnt sit back and wait for some government agency to save their lives.
Seems like it wasn't really thwarted. More like it failed. He did discharge it but it only succeeded in burning his hands and nuts. He was sitting over a fuel tank. Had it worked as planned the plane would have blown up on the runway.
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 11:55:38 AM
Seems like it wasn't really thwarted. More like it failed. He did discharge it but it only succeeded in burning his hands and nuts. He was sitting over a fuel tank. Had it worked as planned the plane would have blown up on the runway.
You are right. Those brave passengers that jumped on this guy and restrained him means nothing.
The first attempt failed. Any second attempt was thwarted by the passengers.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2009, 12:24:24 PM
The first attempt failed. Any second attempt was thwarted by the passengers.
Or the passengers prevented the first attempt from continuing. It doesn't matter though, because apparently courage is a four letter word to certain lefties on this board.
At this moment, there is another airliner on the ground in Detroit being searched because the flight crew radioed in that they have a "verbally abusive" passenger. CNN is showing video of all the luggage spread out on the tarmac for dogs to sniff, and deciding which bags they may wish to explode with a bomb squad robot.
Crying wolf, or just more TSA theater?
And what constitutes "verbally abusive"?
One recent example:
A federal prosecutor said Thursday that he will seek a retrial of a Tulsa man who is accused of interfering with flight attendants by persistently asking for a beer on an August airline flight.
A U.S. District Court jury failed to reach a verdict Thursday after deliberating nearly a full business day in the case of Joshua Seth Wrobel.
Jury foreman Michael Kotoff of Claremore said the jury was deadlocked 9-3 in favor of convicting Wrobel.
Wrobel, 33, was indicted Sept. 5 on a charge of intimidating flight attendants on an Aug. 19 Delta Air Lines flight from Atlanta to Tulsa.
The grand jury accused him of refusing to remain in his seat, verbally abusing flight attendants and approaching them "in a threatening manner" while demanding to be served alcohol.
But Wrobel attorney Robert "Skip" Durbin said during his closing argument Wednesday that there was no proof that his client walked up to the flight staff in such a way.
Trial testimony indicated that at one point Wrobel held up a hand and told one of the attendants to "shut up and get out of my face."
However, Durbin said Wrobel never threatened the attendants, did not touch them, did not raise his voice and did not use any profanity in making several requests for a beer.
Although his client perhaps should not have pressed the issue, Durbin said, "asking for a beer repeatedly does not constitute intimidation."
However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Neal Kirkpatrick told the jury that Wrobel was "boorish, obnoxious, rude and intimidating" as he insisted from the time he got on the plane that it was his right to be served a beer.
"The last time I checked," Kirkpatrick said, "the Constitution does not guarantee anybody a right to be served a beer on an airplane." The prosecutor said Wrobel's persistence had an intimidating effect and interfered with the flight attendants' duties.
He said any reasonable person would have been afraid as a "disheveled" Wrobel would not give up his quest for a beer on the sparsely populated, dimly lit nighttime flight.
Durbin said his client's appearance was the product of previously lost luggage and slow service at a restaurant in the Atlanta airport, which he said made Wrobel the last passenger to board the flight.
Kirkpatrick said earlier that Wrobel was questioned by authorities at Tulsa International Airport after the plane arrived, but Wrobel was allowed to go home that day.
FBI agents arrested him Sept. 22 in Tulsa County District Court, where Wrobel was making a court appearance in a drug case.
Durbin said Wrobel has been "wrestling with drug and alcohol problems and has made steps to overcome" them.
Kirkpatrick said in his Tuesday opening statement that the case is "a story of our time -- a story of what things are like in our country now."
Outside the jury's presence, he said the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were like "the elephant in the living room" which has led to a heightened state of security in the airline industry.
But U.S. Chief District Judge Sven Erik Holmes did not permit Kirkpatrick to mention the terrorist attacks during his closing arguments. The judge said there was no evidence that any of the flight attendants on Wrobel's plane viewed the situation as a terrorist act or thought Wrobel presented any threat to take over the aircraft.
However, after the verdict was read, the jury foreman said he thinks it is important that the authorities "set a precedent sometime. Make an example out of somebody, and make them pay."
Kotoff said he was one of the nine jurors who advocated a guilty verdict, but he said the three not-guilty holdouts held their ground.
Those who voted for Wrobel's acquittal did not think what happened on the airliner constituted breaking a federal statute, did not believe the flight attendants' version of events and did not think they would have been intimidated under the same circumstances, he said.
Durbin said during his closing argument that Wrobel did not deserve to be branded a felon for what happened on the plane.
After the verdict was read, Kirkpatrick said "it never was an easy case" and that not many like it have been charged in federal courts nationally.
"I'm glad we tried the case," he said, adding that taking it to trial "made the appropriate statement" -- that "we're not going to tolerate this kind of conduct on flights into or out of Tulsa."
In the immediate aftermath of the verdict, Kirkpatrick said he was unsure if he would take the case to trial again.
However, after later being told that the count was 9-3 in favor of guilty, Kirkpatrick said he hoped it would be retried "as soon as possible."
Kirkpatrick said a federal statute calls for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison for anyone convicted of the charge. However, sentencing guidelines that appear to apply would yield a sentence approximately in a six- to 12-month range, he said.
Durbin said he was disappointed in the mistrial because he thought the facts warranted an acquittal.
Still, "the government had a duty to prosecute the case," he said.
Quote from: guido911 on December 27, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Or the passengers prevented the first attempt from continuing. It doesn't matter though, because apparently courage is a four letter word to certain lefties on this board.
What kind of crap is this? I point out the obvious and because I lean left it implies I consider those who jumped him lacking in courage? He was stunned and his nuts on fire. I give them kudos for keeping it from going any farther but, c'mon Guido you're better than that. Save your venom for a real enemy.
The point is better made by Custosox. We are in a tough situation when we balance off the freedoms we fight for against the safety of our citizens. Especially when its not likely that giving up our freedoms means more safety. We could have tighter security, Bush in office, immediate elimination of all of our lefties and guess what....someone will figure out a way to blow up a freakin plane.
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 03:25:15 PM
What kind of crap is this? I point out the obvious and because I lean left it implies I don't consider those who jumped him lacking in courage? He was stunned and his nuts on fire. I give them kudos for keeping it from going any farther but, c'mon Guido you're better than that. Save your venom for a real enemy.
Venom? Your skin ain't that thin. I was responding to your post which focused more on criticizing the title of this thread ("failed" rather than "thwarted" terrorist attack) and giving zero credit to the heroic efforts of the passengers. Only after you were called on that (or felt guilted) is when you got around to giving "kudos" to them. Notwithstanding, you are correct and my attack was over the top.
Quote from: custosnox on December 27, 2009, 10:08:09 AM
It was in his underwear, not his shoes.
Exactly my point. Shoe removal is a security-theater reaction to Richard Reid.
Employing the correct solution in the first place would have nipped this attempt in the bud.
Quote from: guido911 on December 27, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
Venom? Your skin ain't that thin. I was responding to your post which focused more on criticizing the title of this thread ("failed" rather than "thwarted" terrorist attack) and giving zero credit to the heroic efforts of the passengers. Only after you were called on that (or felt guilted) is when you got around to giving "kudos" to them. Notwithstanding, you are correct and my attack was over the top.
Actually you sniped at me with two posts. In your zeal to hate on lefties, you sometimes fail to note when one is agreeing with you. On your reply to the thread entitled "Napolitano the moron", you play the opposite tack and criticize her for pretty much saying the same thing you entitled this thread! You're both spinning the story.
I'm glad the passengers responded in defense of their lives, but the attack was not thwarted by the brave passengers who jumped him. It was already failed by that time according to published reports. Nor was it thwarted by the complex security measures installed.
I only feel guilty that I continue to read posts from zealots on both ends of the spectrum that despise each other and use their skills to yank our country around like an untrained puppy on a chain.
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 11:55:38 AM
Seems like it wasn't really thwarted. More like it failed. He did discharge it but it only succeeded in burning his hands and nuts. He was sitting over a fuel tank. Had it worked as planned the plane would have blown up on the runway.
GREAT BALLS O' FIRE!!!!!
Well...somebody had to say it.
I'm so glad he lived through this so that as he's imprisoned for the rest of his life, everytime he goes to pee he has to look at the shriveled remains and wonder...."what was I thinking?"
Quote from: patric on December 27, 2009, 02:21:20 PM
At this moment, there is another airliner on the ground in Detroit being searched because the flight crew radioed in that they have a "verbally abusive" passenger. CNN is showing video of all the luggage spread out on the tarmac for dogs to sniff, and deciding which bags they may wish to explode with a bomb squad robot.
Crying wolf, or just more TSA theater?
And what constitutes "verbally abusive"?
As it turns out the other verbally abusive Nigerian passenger has been questioned and released after investigators determined he was not a threat.
However, there's this too:
Police say Ivana Trump has been escorted off a plane in Florida after she became belligerent when children were running and screaming in the aisles.
Authorities say the first ex-wife of billionaire Donald Trump cursed at the children Saturday, and when flight attendants on the New York-bound plane tried to calm her, she became even more aggravated. Her spokeswoman, Catherine Saxton, did not immediately return a telephone message...
She has not been charged in the incident at Palm Beach International Airport. Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies asked Trump to voluntarily exit the plane, but they said she refused. She was then escorted off.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144820/ivana_trump,_second_nigerian_man_escorted_off_airplanes?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144820/ivana_trump,_second_nigerian_man_escorted_off_airplanes?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet)
Anyone wanna bet that Ivana Trump gets better treatment than some disheveled guy demanding a beer? Money doesn't just talk. It shouts.
Jeez waterboy, I acknowledged my post was over the top. What do you want me to do, grovel at your feet? As for my Napolitano post, the purpose was not to make any point other than how stupid her belief that the "system worked" all the while there were failures in security leading up to the attack. You couldn't see that? Imagine for a moment the response if Bush would have said the "system worked" after 9/11 because the government managed to ground all the planes that were flying at the time or that lives were saved by well-trained first responders.
Quote from: guido911 on December 27, 2009, 06:32:28 PM
Jeez waterboy, I acknowledged my post was over the top. What do you want me to do, grovel at your feet?
I like that when women do it, but no men thank you very much.
I like the guy I saw on 60 minutes tonite describe, from an insiders point of view, that Osama and co. "are truly the dark forces of evil" and that unlike America, "they have no vision for the world". This battle is shaping up as a war entirely different than any we've had to fight before. I hope we're up to it and I hope it doesn't take a major catastrophe like 911 to pull us all together again.
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 07:51:09 PM
I like that when women do it, but no men thank you very much.
I like the guy I saw on 60 minutes tonite describe, from an insiders point of view, that Osama and co. "are truly the dark forces of evil" and that unlike America, "they have no vision for the world". This battle is shaping up as a war entirely different than any we've had to fight before. I hope we're up to it and I hope it doesn't take a major catastrophe like 911 to pull us all together again.
I know, you have to draw the line somewhere. Unfortunately your line is after talking at length about a terrorist's injured junk. :D
Sixty minutes? Is that show still on? I digress. How is what people are saying Obama any different than what people said about evil Bushco? Remember this Soros interview?
There are people, and there are people and they all like to talk and some sell books. I could link some video of Coulter, Beck or Limbaugh, but why? Bush was not an evil Nazi and Obama is not a racist empty suit. Those who say these things simply lose chunks of credibility with the rest of us who have opinions all over the political spectrum. I for instance differ from my more liberal friends in that I think Obama is correct in pursuing terrorism and its leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are learning how to battle these folks as we go. Find that on Huffpo.
Why are you on such a crusade to defend Bush and destroy Obama? Neither is worthy of such. You're looking for fairness and parity in politics? Really? You'll never persuade anyone that you're righteous unless they already lean your direction. Even family. Then what's the point? The best you could do is pique curiousity and bolster fringe website logons. As for me, I seldom click the links you, Ruf or FOTD wave around like red flags in the bull ring. Life's too short. I prefer a well reasoned discourse by well informed writers, seasoned with some real life experience, brevity and humor. I will investigate their views and consider their validity. Sometimes I find that here.
Anyway, hope you had a Merry Christmas. All of you.
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 09:13:15 PM
There are people, and there are people and they all like to talk and some sell books. I could link some video of Coulter, Beck or Limbaugh, but why? Bush was not an evil Nazi and Obama is not a racist empty suit. Those who say these things simply lose chunks of credibility with the rest of us who have opinions all over the political spectrum. I for instance differ from my more liberal friends in that I think Obama is correct in pursuing terrorism and its leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are learning how to battle these folks as we go. Find that on Huffpo.
Why are you on such a crusade to defend Bush and destroy Obama? Neither is worthy of such. You're looking for fairness and parity in politics? Really? You'll never persuade anyone that you're righteous unless they already lean your direction. Even family. Then what's the point? The best you could do is pique curiousity and bolster fringe website logons. As for me, I seldom click the links you, Ruf or FOTD wave around like red flags in the bull ring. Life's too short. I prefer a well reasoned discourse by well informed writers, seasoned with some real life experience, brevity and humor. I will investigate their views and consider their validity. Sometimes I find that here.
Anyway, hope you had a Merry Christmas. All of you.
One answer...Freeper. Card-carrying-member
Quote from: waterboy on December 27, 2009, 09:13:15 PM
I prefer a well reasoned discourse by well informed writers, seasoned with some real life experience, brevity and humor. I will investigate their views and consider their validity. Sometimes I find that here.
Anyway, hope you had a Merry Christmas. All of you.
Fair enough. But what about my joke?
I am not on any crusade, other than pointing out to you and others that what you perceive what Obama is going through is something entirely unique is in actuality no different than what happened to Bush and even worse to Clinton. Seriously, it's as if Obama is our first president. Now, have I been tough on Obama and his supporters? Yep, just as many in this forum were hard on the previous president. I do have a serious question for you; could you please direct me to a link where you went after those on this board that attacked Bush?
Quote from: guido911 on December 27, 2009, 09:34:59 PM
Fair enough. But what about my joke?
I am not on any crusade, other than pointing out to you and others that what you perceive what Obama is going through is something entirely unique is in actuality no different than what happened to Bush and even worse to Clinton. Seriously, it's as if Obama is our first president. Now, have I been tough on Obama and his supporters? Yep, just as many in this forum were hard on the previous president. I do have a serious question for you; could you please direct me to a link where you went after those on this board that attacked Bush?
I guess there are those who believe that Obama is being treated differently than other presidents. Not I. I have seen ten presidents in my lifetime unfairly attacked for a wide range of offenses from petty to criminal. It keeps the media happy. Historically, his treatment is tame compared to 19th century attacks. This one is concurrent with new technology and that magnifies the insanity. That's different.
I often remain silent when attacks are made from either side. Sometimes because I agree, sometimes because I don't feel strongly enough to take the time and sometimes because my input is only opinion and hard to defend. I think I have taken issue with FOTD on occasion but you're right, I'd be hard pressed to find the links. I do recall his first term as being less objectionable to me than the second when I perceived he lost control and became too partisan.
However, I have not "gone after" those who attack Obama either. Including you (i hope). As long as its not personal, indefensible or illegal I'm all for differing opinions. I even championed FB to remain till he got racist. I read your posts, and sometimes agree but in general you seem on some sort of anti-Obama jag. Lots of crazy links and inflammatory snipes. Truly, so does your "Moriarty".
Maybe its just that you can't stand hypocritical posting. Plenty of that around.
Quote from: Ed W on December 27, 2009, 05:06:43 PM
As it turns out the other verbally abusive Nigerian passenger has been questioned and released after investigators determined he was not a threat.
Turns out the passenger got air sick (which is apparently something Delta crew are unfamiliar with) and only became verbally abusive after the flight crew forced their way into the bathroom and dragged him out of the toilet in front of everybody.
A nice lawsuit against Delta should settle that. ;)
A sidebar to the Christmas day drama...
The "hero" that saved the Northwest flight sold his exclusive story to CNN for $10,000 in the form of licensing a blurry cellphone photo.
His agreed-to 5-minute interview did not include any mention that his heroic leap over the seats and heads of other passengers apparently took place after the Flight Attendants got water to put out the fire.
So do we give this guy his own reality show with the Balloon Boy?
http://jezebel.com/5434950/the-shady-mainstream-media-payday-of-flight-253-hero-jasper-schuringa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/jasper-schuringa-northwes_n_404247.html
What a shame.
Quote from: patric on December 27, 2009, 11:02:01 PM
Turns out the passenger got air sick (which is apparently something Delta crew are unfamiliar with) and only became verbally abusive after the flight crew forced their way into the bathroom and dragged him out of the toilet in front of everybody.
A nice lawsuit against Delta should settle that. ;)
Well, the new rules were in effect on this flight: EVERYONE must stay in their seats with nothing on their laps for the last hour of the flight. This passenger refused to do so. Sick or not, he must remain in his seat. The crew were well within their rights to demand he take his seat. If you are sick and must remain in your seat, this is why they have 'barf bags'.
And it wasn't the crew that dragged him out of the bathroom, is was the police that boarded the plane once they landed.
It truly amazes me how people still think in this day and age they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, defy rules and regulations, and THEN think there should be no repercussions. Sorry people! Everyone want's to do what they want, have all their freedom, not be told what to do by the government, but then blame the government when anything goes wrong. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 28, 2009, 08:53:07 AM
Well, the new rules were in effect on this flight: EVERYONE must stay in their seats with nothing on their laps for the last hour of the flight. This passenger refused to do so. Sick or not, he must remain in his seat. The crew were well within their rights to demand he take his seat. If you are sick and must remain in your seat, this is why they have 'barf bags'.
I got the impression it wasn't a "barf" issue. I'd rather he wasn't sitting next to me in that situation either.
Quote from: patric on December 27, 2009, 11:55:44 PM
A sidebar to the Christmas day drama...
The "hero" that saved the Northwest flight sold his exclusive story to CNN for $10,000 in the form of licensing a blurry cellphone photo.
His agreed-to 5-minute interview did not include any mention that his heroic leap over the seats and heads of other passengers apparently took place long after the Flight Attendants got water to put out the fire.
So do we give this guy his own reality show with the Balloon Boy?
http://jezebel.com/5434950/the-shady-mainstream-media-payday-of-flight-253-hero-jasper-schuringa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/jasper-schuringa-northwes_n_404247.html
What a shame.
So is he less of a hero because he got paid? I'm not sure I understand. I would think in this day and age most Americans would admire his opportunistic and capitalistic approach to heroism.
I think the more disturbing part is that media outlets will pay for this type of story because we, as a society eat this stuff up. We love a good hero! And then when it is exposed that he got paid for his story his actions are then discredited. That seems very hypocritical....
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2009, 09:02:12 AM
I got the impression it wasn't a "barf" issue. I'd rather he wasn't sitting next to me in that situation either.
Yeah, it's not a pretty picture no matter what the issue was. Personally I would want the crew and officials to err on the side of caution. Hmm, let's see....losing some dignity/privacy or losing your life. Unfortunately that is what air travel has been boiled down to, and will only get worse.
I guess they could always include a pair of 'depends' in that seat-back pocket. It might be hard to get them on while your seatbelt 'must remain fastened' though...
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2009, 09:02:12 AM
I got the impression it wasn't a "barf" issue. I'd rather he wasn't sitting next to me in that situation either.
+1
Sources say it turned out that the man may have had a case of explosive diarrhea due to food poisoning, but that he posed no threat to the plane.
http://new.wkzo.com/news/articles/2009/dec/28/nigerian-student-expected-court-alleged-terrorist- And at this point, the new rules supposedly called for a bathroom escort for people who couldnt wait the hour to visit the bathroom. Had they followed that procedure, they could have quickly confirmed the man's reason for being in the bathroom (although who would have really liked that duty?)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 28, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
Yeah, it's not a pretty picture no matter what the issue was. Personally I would want the crew and officials to err on the side of caution. Hmm, let's see....losing some dignity/privacy or losing your life. Unfortunately that is what air travel has been boiled down to, and will only get worse.
I guess they could always include a pair of 'depends' in that seat-back pocket. It might be hard to get them on while your seatbelt 'must remain fastened' though...
That you believe the only two options are losing your dignity or losing your life is a testament to the incredible power of the fear machine and it's constant insistence that nothing can be done to prevent terrorism without sacrificing dignity, which is utter bullshit.
By the way, as recounted, those are some moronic rules. As if someone couldn't attempt to blow up a plane before the last hour of the flight. ::)
When will the security theater stop and actual security begin?
Round three; Plane put on alert because passengers were watching a movie...
Police and federal agents greeted US Airways Flight 192 as it landed at Sky Harbor Airport after passengers reported two men on the plane were acting suspiciously on the trip from Orlando, Florida.
Transportation Security Administration spokesperson Suzanne Trevino said the two men were detained as K-9 units swept the plane. Nothing was found.
FBI spokesman Manuel Johnson said a combination of behavior caused passengers to be concerned, including the men talking loudly and one man standing up when the stay-seated light was on. Johnson said the men, described to the FBI by passengers as being "Middle Eastern" in appearance, were watching a movie clip of what appeared to be a suicide bomber.
It turned out to be the movie "The Kingdom," starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner. The 2-year-old film is about FBI agents investigating a mass murder in Saudi Arabia, according to the movie's Web site.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/28/michigan.airplane.disruption/
Quote from: nathanm on December 28, 2009, 10:41:57 AM
That you believe the only two options are losing your dignity or losing your life is a testament to the incredible power of the fear machine and it's constant insistence that nothing can be done to prevent terrorism without sacrificing dignity, which is utter bullshit.
By the way, as recounted, those are some moronic rules. As if someone couldn't attempt to blow up a plane before the last hour of the flight. ::)
When will the security theater stop and actual security begin?
I don't believe those are our only 2 options, but if given the choice...
Terrorism is an ongoing battle, with no one distinct enemy. The war on terror changes constantly, therefore our policies on how to combat terrorism should be constantly evolving. I absolutely agree we should be doing more, but with the perception of our privacy and freedoms 'threatened', many Americans are not willing to give anything up and just expect the government to take care of it with no inconveniences imposed.
Btw, this Nigerian terrorist was apparently properly screened in Amsterdam (under current regulations), and was never placed on the much more scrutinized 'no fly' list. There was not enough evidence to place him on the no fly list, nor was there enough to revoke his visa. Just because someone calls the govt and claims they think someone is a threat, is not enough of a reason to warrant that type of action.
Just so it's clear, I'm neither defending the current security policies or condemning them. There is always room for improvement. If you have better ideas on how to perform 'actual security' that
DO NOT involve sacrifice and some loss of privacy/dignity/freedoms for all parties involved (not just white Americans) then I'm sure everyone would love to hear them.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 28, 2009, 11:57:50 AM
Just so it's clear, I'm neither defending the current security policies or condemning them. There is always room for improvement. If you have better ideas on how to perform 'actual security' that DO NOT involve sacrifice and some loss of privacy/dignity/freedoms for all parties involved (not just white Americans) then I'm sure everyone would love to hear them.
As I already stated, the puffer machine would have detected this fool before he got on an aircraft. However, they chose not to install them en masse and only use them occasionally at best. Even at airports that have them they are often not used. Moreover, even when they are in use, current policy dictates that shoes be removed before passing through the puffer. Idiots.
Also, I just noticed this gem in the new security directive:
Quote
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
Excuse me? What does this have to do with preventing people from detonating explosives?
Edited to add: And personally, I'm not willing to give anything up (except flying itself, excluding on GA aircraft) until the TSA stops with the security theater and starts with the actual security, which need not include racism to be effective, by the way. Between the technological measures to detect explosives we have available but have chosen not to implement because it doesn't line the right contractor's pocket and the change in passenger attitudes which would prevent a hijacking, the vast majority of attacks become impossible.
Obviously, no system will ever be 100% foolproof, and we have to learn to accept that. Moreover, we need to stop handing these morons successes even from their failures. When we publicly respond to their idiocy, they have won. The way to defeat this scourge is to stop reacting. The tactic of terrorism is taken directly from that of four year olds. The whole point is to get attention, and every time they try, whether successfully or not, we give them what they seek.
Now we've got terrorists putting bombs in their underwear.
Are you a terrorist or just happy to see me?
The jokes just write themselves ...
But, seriously, the TSA is a joke because of all the stupid rules and regulations under the dubious guise of safety. Yes, some commonsense rules are needed. But stupid stuff such as banning hair gel and taking off shoes and confiscating people's personalized Zippo lighters and now banning the use of cellphones and laptops are all a charade.
The airline industry (which, admittedly, was negligently cavalier before 9/11) is teetering on the brink of ruin because people are going to get p*ssed from the ever-mounting rules and regulations, and will abandon air travel entirely. It's time that the dog-and-pony show gets jettisoned, and that people demand a little more freedom while traveling, terrorist risk be damned.
Let's face it -- you stand a better chance of being struck by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack. And lightning sure as hell hasn't kept people off the golf courses. It's time that folks realize the concept of "acceptable risk" and grow up a little.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 28, 2009, 01:00:50 PM
The airline industry (which, admittedly, was negligently cavalier before 9/11) is teetering on the brink of ruin because people are going to get p*ssed from the ever-mounting rules and regulations, and will abandon air travel entirely. It's time that the dog-and-pony show gets jettisoned, and that people demand a little more freedom while traveling, terrorist risk be damned.
While I don't believe people will "abandon air travel entirely" it has stopped me from taking a few fun trips. Too much of a hassle. So I see what you mean.
QuoteLet's face it -- you stand a better chance of being struck by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack. And lightning sure as hell hasn't kept people off the golf courses.
I stopped yelling "rat farts" at God while playing. It seems to have helped.
I don't really see the problem here. Just check all your bags and stop trying to bring weird crap that you aren't going to use in flight on the plane. Stuff like shaving razors and zippo lighters, I don't do this and I have zero hassle at any airport. Do you really need to use some kind of gel on a 4 to 5 hour flight? Do you really need to bring your own water on a plane when they serve it for you? Don't be a cheapskate and try to avoid the $15 baggage fee.
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
I stopped yelling "rat farts" at God while playing. It seems to have helped.
(http://paxarcana.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ratfarts.jpg)
Tony D'Annunzio: Another Rob Roy, Bishop?
Bishop: You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.
Judge Smails: Wrong, you're drinking too much your Excellency.
Bishop: Excellency, fiddlesticks, my name's Fred and I'm a man, same as you.
Judge Smails: You're not a man, you're a bishop, for God's sakes.
Bishop: There is no God...
Quote from: nathanm on December 28, 2009, 12:25:01 PM
As I already stated, the puffer machine would have detected this fool before he got on an aircraft. However, they chose not to install them en masse and only use them occasionally at best. Even at airports that have them they are often not used.
Even though the puffer machine may have caught this guy, it would not catch everything and is only used as a secondary advice. Apparently the puffers have been abandoned due to their unreliability, slowness and are too expensive to operate. They are now being replaced by the full-body scanners which are apparently more reliable but are currently being held up by- yep you guessed it - people complaining that their privacy is being invaded and they are too 'revealing'.
My point was, there is no such thing as a fool-proof system and terrorists
will find a way around any device or screening procedure, given time. There is a lot of trial and error that must happen, and we
will lose some of our dignity/privacy/freedoms along the way. It is inevitable. If it saves lives, then so be it.
Quote from: nathanm on December 28, 2009, 12:25:01 PM
Obviously, no system will ever be 100% foolproof, and we have to learn to accept that. Moreover, we need to stop handing these morons successes even from their failures. When we publicly respond to their idiocy, they have won. The way to defeat this scourge is to stop reacting. The tactic of terrorism is taken directly from that of four year olds. The whole point is to get attention, and every time they try, whether successfully or not, we give them what they seek.
I completely agree with you on this. The media needs to take the lions share of the blame here, however we are a country that has had fear shoved down our throats for so long now we don't even know how else to react and we just eat it up.
IMO, this non-reactionary approach is more effective, and I believe (and hope) is the reason that Obama has not addressed this situation as of yet with some knee-jerk speech.
Quote from: brianh on December 28, 2009, 01:26:30 PM
I don't really see the problem here. Just check all your bags and stop trying to bring weird crap that you aren't going to use in flight on the plane. Stuff like shaving razors and zippo lighters, I don't do this and I have zero hassle at any airport. Do you really need to use some kind of gel on a 4 to 5 hour flight? Do you really need to bring your own water on a plane when they serve it for you?
Yes.
For years, fliers have worried about everything from stuffy cabin air to bad meals. But what about the water? While airlines insist it's safe to drink, some little-noticed studies from Japan to the Netherlands have turned up some unfriendly bacteria in the tank water, including E. coli and the germ that causes Legionnaire's disease. U.S. researchers have tested it, too, with mixed results that suggest you don't know what you're drinking.http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB1036110025940498271.html
Quote from: patric on December 28, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
Yes.
For years, fliers have worried about everything from stuffy cabin air to bad meals. But what about the water? While airlines insist it's safe to drink, some little-noticed studies from Japan to the Netherlands have turned up some unfriendly bacteria in the tank water, including E. coli and the germ that causes Legionnaire's disease. U.S. researchers have tested it, too, with mixed results that suggest you don't know what you're drinking.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB1036110025940498271.html
Stick to vodka- makes the trip faster too. Just make sure you use the restroom at least one hour before landing!
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 28, 2009, 01:39:34 PM
I completely agree with you on this. The media needs to take the lions share of the blame here, however we are a country that has had fear shoved down our throats for so long now we don't even know how else to react and we just eat it up.
IMO, this non-reactionary approach is more effective, and I believe (and hope) is the reason that Obama has not addressed this situation as of yet with some knee-jerk speech.
Yeah, just ignore terror attacks, that'll make them stop--except of course for that whole "9/11" thing.
As I previously stated, we have had two terrorist attacks in this country in less than two months, so closing Gitmo, trying terrorists in our federal courts, and an international apology tour is sure paying off safety dividends. Obama's "non-reactionary approach" is freakin genius.
Quote from: guido911 on December 28, 2009, 03:37:56 PM
Yeah, just ignore terror attacks, that'll make them stop--except of course for that whole "9/11" thing.
As I previously stated, we have had two terrorist attacks in this country in less than two months, so closing Gitmo, trying terrorists in our federal courts, and an international apology tour is sure paying off safety dividends. Obama's "non-reactionary approach" is freakin genius.
Nobody said anything about ignoring terrorist attacks.
There's a first person account of the incident on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roey-rosenblith/over-detroit-skies_b_404255.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roey-rosenblith/over-detroit-skies_b_404255.html)
I was on my third in-flight movie when the screaming started, shattering my tired half-awake travel state. I had gone from watching Up to Inglorious Basterds and had decided to try rounding things off with Land of the Lost. That was when my fellow passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab decided to ignite his explosives 19 rows ahead of me.
Why is everyone trying to blame screeners in the United States and Obama and Janet Napolitano for not catching this guy before he got on the plane. If I am not mistaken he was screened in Nigeria first, then rescreened in Amsterdam. He was NEVER screened in the United States. He had not set foot on American soil when he tried to set off his bomb. He was not screened by anyone in the United States, just for a little clarification. Was he on no=fly lists in either of those countries? Were there American Passport control agents in either Nigeria or Amsterdam?
Quote from: joiei on December 28, 2009, 06:27:02 PM
Why is everyone trying to blame screeners in the United States and Obama and Janet Napolitano for not catching this guy before he got on the plane. If I am not mistaken he was screened in Nigeria first, then rescreened in Amsterdam. He was NEVER screened in the United States. He had not set foot on American soil when he tried to set off his bomb. He was not screened by anyone in the United States, just for a little clarification. Was he on no=fly lists in either of those countries? Were there American Passport control agents in either Nigeria or Amsterdam?
The TSA has 'international partners' in all major world airports- whatever that means, but they have no jurisdiction in foreign countries and can only 'issue directives' on new security measures. He wasn't on the no-fly lists, and there was not enough evidence to revoke his visa.
So in other words, the US, Obama and Napolitano had little, if anything to do with what happened with this guy being properly screened and boarding the plane in Amsterdam. But it's easier just to blame them anyway apparently.
Quote from: Ed W on December 28, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
There's a first person account of the incident on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roey-rosenblith/over-detroit-skies_b_404255.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roey-rosenblith/over-detroit-skies_b_404255.html)
I was on my third in-flight movie when the screaming started, shattering my tired half-awake travel state. I had gone from watching Up to Inglorious Basterds and had decided to try rounding things off with Land of the Lost. That was when my fellow passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab decided to ignite his explosives 19 rows ahead of me.
That's a yawner, let's hear from the little old lady sitting next to him who got powder burns on her knitting bag ;)
Quote from: joiei on December 28, 2009, 06:27:02 PM
Why is everyone trying to blame screeners in the United States and Obama and Janet Napolitano for not catching this guy before he got on the plane. If I am not mistaken he was screened in Nigeria first, then rescreened in Amsterdam. He was NEVER screened in the United States. He had not set foot on American soil when he tried to set off his bomb. He was not screened by anyone in the United States, just for a little clarification. Was he on no=fly lists in either of those countries? Were there American Passport control agents in either Nigeria or Amsterdam?
I hope you did not think I was blaming Napolitano for failing to stop the attack. My beef with her was that idiotic the "system worked" comment she made (which she has subsequently backed off of).
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 28, 2009, 07:11:09 PM
So in other words, the US, Obama and Napolitano had little, if anything to do with what happened with this guy being properly screened and boarding the plane in Amsterdam. But it's easier just to blame them anyway apparently.
I think it's along the lines of saying Bush didn't care about Katrina victims because he wasn't in N.O. immediately after the storm had moved on, staying out of the way and letting rescuers do their job with as little of a circus as possible. It's partisan hacks playing tit-for-tat.
I'd definitely expect lax security in Nigera, not Amsterdam though. I honestly don't see how TSA or HS had a thing to do with this if he boarded in Amsterdam, that falls squarely on the shoulders of the Dutch authorities and can't imagine what sort of stretch it takes to pass the blame to U.S. authorities unless they are soley responsible for training the screeners who let this guy past, or soley responsible for maintaining the terrorist database which apparently went un-heeded.
Nothing much to see here other than TSA coming up with more Draconian guidelines to let the terrorists and pranksters know they've screwed the poor air traveller yet again by creating more inconveniences.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2009, 07:28:48 PM
I think it's along the lines of saying Bush didn't care about Katrina victims because he wasn't in N.O. immediately after the storm had moved on, staying out of the way and letting rescuers do their job with as little of a circus as possible. It's partisan hacks playing tit-for-tat.
I'd definitely expect lax security in Nigera, not Amsterdam though. I honestly don't see how TSA or HS had a thing to do with this if he boarded in Amsterdam, that falls squarely on the shoulders of the Dutch authorities and can't imagine what sort of stretch it takes to pass the blame to U.S. authorities unless they are soley responsible for training the screeners who let this guy past, or soley responsible for maintaining the terrorist database which apparently went un-heeded.
Nothing much to see here other than TSA coming up with more Draconian guidelines to let the terrorists and pranksters know they've screwed the poor air traveller yet again by creating more inconveniences.
I will have to respectfull disagree with you in the Katrina comparison. That *was* a disaster- one of the worst natural disasters in this country's history where almost 2,000 people died and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone- right or left- that actually thought the Bush Administration handled it well. That was a complete and utter failure on a world-wide stage. And even if you dont believe that, it is still a bit callous and insulting to even compare the two events.
What we are talking about now was an attempted, but failed terrorist strike. No one died. Still incredibly important for national security, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.
I understand what you are saying about partisan hacks, but seriously, the Katrina tragedy (and aftermath and subsequent criticism) goes well beyond that and should not be so trivialized.
Quote from: patric on December 27, 2009, 11:55:44 PM
A sidebar to the Christmas day drama...
The "hero" that saved the Northwest flight sold his exclusive story to CNN for $10,000 in the form of licensing a blurry cellphone photo.
His agreed-to 5-minute interview did not include any mention that his heroic leap over the seats and heads of other passengers apparently took place after the Flight Attendants got water to put out the fire.
So do we give this guy his own reality show with the Balloon Boy?
http://jezebel.com/5434950/the-shady-mainstream-media-payday-of-flight-253-hero-jasper-schuringa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/jasper-schuringa-northwes_n_404247.html
What a shame.
Did you rip into Sully Sullenberger, the pilot that landed his plane in the Hudson, over his cashing in on fame. This doosh wrote a book and has a TV show Brace for Impact coming up. /sarc
This is kinda interesting. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236&page=1) In a post dated December 18th, ABC News's The Blotter blog posted this tidbit which went wholely unnoticed by anyone anywhere. Except maybe our friend with the explosive drawers.
QuoteObama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
Cruise Missiles Launched Thursday Hit Two Suspected al Qaeda Sites; Major Escalation of US Efforts Against Terrorists
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."
And yes, as you probably guessed, I found this link in the middle of this post (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/18/us-attacking-yemen-after-all/) on antiwar.com.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2009, 09:32:23 PM
This is kinda interesting. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236&page=1) In a post dated December 18th, ABC News's The Blotter blog posted this tidbit which went wholely unnoticed by anyone anywhere. Except maybe our friend with the explosive drawers.
And yes, as you probably guessed, I found this link in the middle of this post (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/18/us-attacking-yemen-after-all/) on antiwar.com.
Thanks. Good to know.
Quote from: guido911 on December 28, 2009, 08:16:38 PM
Did you rip into Sully Sullenberger, the pilot that landed his plane in the Hudson, over his cashing in on fame. This doosh wrote a book and has a TV show Brace for Impact coming up. /sarc
Did Sullenberger demand money before talking to the media?
Schuringa did.
Sullenberger shied from publicity, the Dutchman sought out the highest bidder on his Blackberry:
The post and times still talking about photo 2 what can you offer forit!? I feel bad dropping with you after you have been cool with us ...
Sent from my BlackBerry® on the MetroPCS Network
You might have to run it only for monday cuz abc wants to use it aswell for tv news and they stressed if we could hold off till monday with paper ? Would that work ...
Sent from my BlackBerry® on the MetroPCS Network
Others numbers are extremly higher
Sent from my BlackBerry® on the MetroPCS Network
They have exclusive rights for photo 1, that is a final, for photo 2
they are offering 3k, we are going with them soon if I don't hear back
from you on equal contract ... Thanks for all ...
Sent from my BlackBerry® on the MetroPCS Network
He burned his biscuits.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/29/article-1238802-07B7CD7D000005DC-652_634x286.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2009, 08:21:35 AM
He burned his biscuits.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/29/article-1238802-07B7CD7D000005DC-652_634x286.jpg)
Good, let's hope this means he can't reproduce.
His prison nickname is gonna be "Stubby."
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 02:56:46 PM
His prison nickname is gonna be "Stubby."
Ed wins post of the day!
Here's Uncle Hugo with your trophy:
(http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/chavecito-trophy.jpg)
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 02:56:46 PM
His prison nickname is gonna be "Stubby."
I don't think it's going to matter early on; I'm guessing he'll be the wide rec...never mind.
That's a very nice trophy! Thank you! It will look nice on the Shelf Of Honor next to the one from my employer. I received it for taking second place in a bicycle time trial way back when. Hugo's is kinda bigger, though. I hope the size disparity doesn't appear too incongruous.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4226143541_dd691f10b1_m.jpg)
(http://www.bbqblue.com.au/smoke_woods/site_files/images/burntsnag.jpg)
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 05:42:26 PM
That's a very nice trophy! Thank you! It will look nice on the Shelf Of Honor next to the one from my employer. I received it for taking second place in a bicycle time trial way back when. Hugo's is kinda bigger, though. I hope the size disparity doesn't appear too incongruous.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4226143541_dd691f10b1_m.jpg)
Your award should be a large ken doll.
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 05:42:26 PM
That's a very nice trophy! Thank you! It will look nice on the Shelf Of Honor next to the one from my employer. I received it for taking second place in a bicycle time trial way back when. Hugo's is kinda bigger, though. I hope the size disparity doesn't appear too incongruous.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4226143541_dd691f10b1_m.jpg)
Just put the big one far back on a deep shelf and the little one up close. That will help equalize the appearance. :)
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
While I don't believe people will "abandon air travel entirely" it has stopped me from taking a few fun trips. Too much of a hassle. So I see what you mean.
Pre-9/11 I took several trips a year for nothing more than the miles. There was no hassle and very little stress. Since they went nutso after the "London plot," I stopped doing that. I took one commercial flight last year and one this year. (you can't drive to an island)
One of my clients who used to fly about 150,000 miles a year commercially and only used his King Air for in-state flights decided to upgrade to a Lear and is now down to under 50,000 miles a year. Almost all of his commercial flying is international now. Since most of his trips are/were last minute, it's not much more expensive to avoid the hassle of flying commercial. That's the sort of thing that's seriously impacting the airlines' bottom line.
Granted, us mere mortals can't afford that luxury and thus will continue flying, but airlines aren't going to be profitable with the fares vacationers demand.
Quote from: brianh on December 28, 2009, 01:26:30 PM
I don't really see the problem here. Just check all your bags and stop trying to bring weird crap that you aren't going to use in flight on the plane. Stuff like shaving razors and zippo lighters, I don't do this and I have zero hassle at any airport. Do you really need to use some kind of gel on a 4 to 5 hour flight? Do you really need to bring your own water on a plane when they serve it for you? Don't be a cheapskate and try to avoid the $15 baggage fee.
I wasn't even going to mention the idiotic luggage fee, but since you mentioned it, airlines are incredibly stupid for encouraging infrequent travelers to slow the boarding process down by bringing carryons.
Maybe you don't realize this, but not checking bags literally saves you at least one and often two hours per direction. Additionally, while I have luckily never had my checked luggage completely lost, I've had it delayed by a day or two on a number of occasions.
It's not cool to show up unshaven and in your travel clothes to a meeting. ::)
Edited to add: When my chance of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane exceeds my chance of winning the lottery, I may reconsider my opinion, although it would probably have to rise to something on the order of my chance of dying in a car crash to force such a reconsideration.
I haven't had the misfortune to have to fly commercial for a while. It was fun in the 80s. During most of the 90s, I was lucky enough to fly with the boss in his Baron (piston twin engine airplane, this one pressurized) most of the time. Commercial still wasn't too bad. I have no desire to fly commercial now. Used to be for a 2 day trip I would carry on everything in two bags including my briefcase. Longer flights I would check one and be sure to carry-on at least one day's worth of clean clothes and a toothbrush.
Interesting, 58% of Americans have no problem waterboarding Stubby, the living Ken doll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information
Quote from: guido911 on December 31, 2009, 03:54:32 PM
Interesting, 58% of Americans have no problem waterboarding Stubby, the living Ken doll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information
Of course Rasmussen is gonna say that.
Isn't that why we have that pesky Bill of Rights? Maybe a lawyer could 'splain - in real simple terms - just how that works.
I thought the Patriot Act replaced the Bill of Rights.... my bad.
Perhaps we should let the people on the airliner that was almost blown up decide what to do with the hijacker and how to handle his interrogation, if there is one.
See? Now this is profiling we can believe in: (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/010310_statement.shtm)
QuoteJanuary 3, 2010
Today, the Transportation Security Administration issued new security directives to all United States and international air carriers with inbound flights to the U.S. effective January 4, 2010.
The new directive includes long-term, sustainable security measures developed in consultation with law enforcement officials and our domestic and international partners.
Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights.
Quote from: we vs us on January 03, 2010, 09:23:12 PM
See? Now this is profiling we can believe in: (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/010310_statement.shtm)
Pretty ridiculous, really, since the extra screening amounts to doing a secondary (patdown) on everybody coming to the US from seven or eight countries.
At least this has
some utility beyond theater, even if it's still weak sauce.
Is there just something about Northwest/Delta Detroit crews?
Today:
"A Toledo man who Wednesday yelled racial slurs and caused a Detroit flight from Miami to turn around is being held in a Florida jail today.
Mansor Mohammad Asad, 43, has been charged with threats against a public servant, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after the incident aboard Delta Airlines flight 2485, according to the Miami-Dade Police Department.
Witnesses told investigators that Asad yelled anti-Semitic references in Arabic. The pilot turned around as the plane was taxiing for take-off at 6:35 p.m., according to police.
Officers then escorted the Asad off and performed a safety inspection of the plane before it continued on to Detroit. But Asad chanted racial slurs, leading police to use a Taser to subdue him."
A TSA agent was arrested on January 3rd in Terminal One at LAX, a source told NBCLA. He had just gotten off duty and was behaving erratically, saying, "I am god, I'm in charge."
Meanwhile, a TSA Internal Affairs investigation turned up evidence of LAX TSA agents using drugs at an after-hours party.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Security-Agent-Arrested-at-LAX-80858482.html
Charles Gibson was blathering on this morning on ABC about this flight that was "almost brought down" by Mr. Crispy Sausage.
I didn't realize the plane was almost brought down ::) Hmmm, the media and their imagination. I don't recall them using the same frightening terminology with the shoe bomber and other similar instances. Is this to bolster the case for the war on terror now that their guy is in office?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 07, 2010, 01:08:30 PM
Charles Gibson was blathering on this morning on ABC about this flight that was "almost brought down" by Mr. Crispy Sausage.
I didn't realize the plane was almost brought down ::) Hmmm, the media and their imagination. I don't recall them using the same frightening terminology with the shoe bomber and other similar instances. Is this to bolster the case for the war on terror now that their guy is in office?
Well to be fair, what did anyone say when they talked about the shoe bomber? I can't remember if someone said "his Keds could've killed us all".
The media will use the strongest possible words to gain attention from the audience...my opinion.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 07, 2010, 01:08:30 PM
Charles Gibson was blathering on this morning on ABC about this flight that was "almost brought down" by Mr. Crispy Sausage.
I didn't realize the plane was almost brought down ::) Hmmm, the media and their imagination. I don't recall them using the same frightening terminology with the shoe bomber and other similar instances. Is this to bolster the case for the war on terror now that their guy is in office?
No, it's to do whatever gets them the most ratings. :) If anything, claiming that the plane was almost brought down makes "their guy" look
worse.
Back in reality, even if the bomb had gone off, the most likely outcome would have been an explosive decompression with some injuries and a few deaths of the people directly around the guy.
Of course, the most likely outcome of a WTC building being hit by an airplane was that a fire would burn for a while, then go out. Sometimes things happen in an unlikely manner, I suppose.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 07, 2010, 01:08:30 PM
Charles Gibson was blathering on this morning on ABC about this flight that was "almost brought down" by Mr. Crispy Sausage.
For some bizarre reason this song comes to mind when Mr. Crispy Sausage, Stubby, Ken Doll or whatever they call this moron (mild content):
Quote from: Conan71 on January 07, 2010, 01:08:30 PM
Charles Gibson was blathering on this morning on ABC about this flight that was "almost brought down" by Mr. Crispy Sausage.
I didn't realize the plane was almost brought down ::) Hmmm, the media and their imagination. I don't recall them using the same frightening terminology with the shoe bomber and other similar instances. Is this to bolster the case for the war on terror now that their guy is in office?
The media did the same for Bush after 9/11 and before the Iraq War.
Did the media report how long it took before Bush made a statement after the shoe bomber incident?
Bush Waited Six Days To Discuss Shoe Bomber With No GOP Complaintshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html
Oh, but I ferget..... when the MSM reports something that favors the Bush administration, it's "fair and balanced," but when the MSM reports something that favors the Obama administration, it's "liberal bias".....
Yeah, go ahead..... pull my finger. ::)
Quote from: USRufnex on January 07, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
Oh, but I ferget..... when the MSM reports something that favors the Bush administration, it's "fair and balanced," but when the MSM reports something that favors the Obama administration, it's "liberal bias".....
You're just a slow learner.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2010, 08:02:47 PM
You're just a slow learner.
Here's some old skool "liberal media bias" for you, courtesy of Sinclair Lewis.....
(http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/128980571627418374.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on January 07, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
Here's some old skool "liberal media bias" for you, courtesy of Sinclair Lewis.....
(http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/128980571627418374.jpg)
As I said.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2010, 09:18:40 PM
As I said.
Typical media bias whiners. :P
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/graph_cable.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on January 07, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
Here's some old skool "liberal media bias" for you, courtesy of Sinclair Lewis.....
(http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/128980571627418374.jpg)
Yep, a 45 year old mother of five is the fascist Sinclair Lewis was talking about.
Let me know when she stops LYING about death panels once Congress passes Romneycare.... mkay.
Quote from: USRufnex on January 07, 2010, 09:21:34 PM
Typical media bias whiners. :P
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/graph_cable.jpg)
The frequency of R or D Congressional Member visits on Cable News has little to do with:
QuoteOh, but I ferget..... when the MSM reports something that favors the Bush administration, it's "fair and balanced," but when the MSM reports something that favors the Obama administration, it's "liberal bias".....
Sure. Keep thinking that.
US: Air America on Ad Blacklist?
ABC document: Sponsors shun liberal network
October 31st, 2006
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14213
Then there's this quote from Rush circa 2003.....
"...the sponsors of these protests were not peace protesters at all. They are all talking about racism, environmental wackoism, feminism or other liberal causes. Very little about these protests was about the war in Iraq.
If they were for peace, they would give every dollar they raise to the U.S. defense department because it's the U.S. defense department that keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in the world and gives them the opportunity to have freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protesters and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro Marxists and communists." - Rush Limbaugh
Conservative and corporate induced media bias and political hackery exist on a daily basis, yet I've been treated to DECADES of incessant whining about liberal media bias.....
a couple of favorite Sinclair Lewis quotes.......
"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless."
"The trouble with this country is that there are too many people going about saying, ''The trouble with this country is...''"
Quote from: USRufnex on January 10, 2010, 09:09:27 AM
"The trouble with this country is that there are too many people going about saying, ''The trouble with this country is...''"[/b]
I don't remember you using this quote during the Bush II era.
I guess you don't remember using this quote during the Clinton era.
Feel free to enlighten me if I was wrong.
Because I remember giving George W Bush a great deal of goodwill after 9/11 and supported the invasion of Afghanistan... and I agreed more with Bush's centrist immigration policies than most Republicans did...
I guess you don't remember Ken Starr?
Or Limbaugh calling it the "Clinton hostage crisis" after Clinton won the election in 1992.... or "the largest tax increase in American history."
Or the rumors that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster?
Or the "swiftboat veterans for truth"?
I refuse to equivocate Bush's 2000 electoral college win with Obama's clear 2008 win.
Even then, this country united behind George W. Bush after 9/11... would Republicans unite behind Barack Obama if another attack happens....? God knows the Cheneys wouldn't...
And I won't equivocate Obama's first year with Bush's 6th year.
I will stand by my opinion that George W Bush was the worst American president since Jimmy Carter.
The idea that liberals will not defend this country is bogus, as Obama will prove in the coming years.
Quote from: USRufnex on January 10, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
I guess you don't remember using this quote during the Clinton era.
Feel free to enlighten me if I was wrong.
If you are referring to me using the quote from SL, consider your enlightened and wrong. I would not have said that, especially during the Clinton Admin. I'm sure others used it as SL died in 1951 (from alcoholism) and there was plenty of time for that quote to make the rounds. Yes, I looked him up on the Web as I am not a big Sinclair Lewis fan. I remembered his name but that was about all.
QuoteBecause I remember giving George W Bush a great deal of goodwill after 9/11 and supported the invasion of Afghanistan... and I agreed more with Bush's centrist immigration policies than most Republicans did...
That's kind of like saying some of my best friends are...
Quote
I guess you don't remember Ken Starr?
Or Limbaugh calling it the "Clinton hostage crisis" after Clinton won the election in 1992.... or "the largest tax increase in American history."
Or the rumors that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster?
Or the "swiftboat veterans for truth"?
Not everyone liked the Clintons. Exaggeration is part of politics. I don't remember anyone saying that Hillary Clinton herself killed Vince Foster. I only remember hearing the rumors that the Clintons had it done.
I think Kerry engaged in some questionable activities after his gig in Nam. He certainly had the right to toss his medals. I suppose the guys that went to Canada could claim to be patriots by not fighting in a war they didn't believe in.
Quote
I refuse to equivocate Bush's 2000 electoral college win with Obama's clear 2008 win.
duh
Quote
Even then, this country united behind George W. Bush after 9/11... would Republicans unite behind Barack Obama if another attack happens....? God knows the Cheneys wouldn't...
Depends on his response. I expect that even the Cheneys would would support an appropriate response from Obama to a major attack like 9/11. I don't believe the US would have rallied behind W if he said something like "We're really angry. Next time we will be even more angry."
Quote
And I won't equivocate Obama's first year with Bush's 6th year.
I will stand by my opinion that George W Bush was the worst American president since Jimmy Carter.
The idea that liberals will not defend this country is bogus, as Obama will prove in the coming years.
Let's hope he doesn't have to prove it.
equivocate... did you intend to use equate? My dictionary is a bit old but it defines equivocate as:
"to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid a direct answer or in order to mislead; hedge."
Quote from: USRufnex on January 07, 2010, 09:48:54 PM
Let me know when she stops LYING about death panels once Congress passes Romneycare.... mkay.
Oh I see, being a liar means your a fascist. Waiting for your fascism condemnation on Obama's "pass stimulus and unemployment will not get above 8%" or "I'll televise the health care negotiations on C-span" (summarized) lies. Or what about this Mussolini-level lie:
http://www.breitbart.tv/cadillac-tax-has-obama-told-a-jaw-dropping-lie-about-his-position/
Quote from: guido911 on January 10, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
Oh I see, being a liar means your a fascist. Waiting for your fascism condemnation on Obama's "pass stimulus and unemployment will not get above 8%"
I dare say there's quite a difference between the "death panel" claim and making a forecast about the future of the economy.
Quote from: nathanm on January 10, 2010, 01:16:52 PM
I dare say there's quite a difference between the "death panel" claim and making a forecast about the future of the economy.
Of course there is a difference. Palin (republican) said "death panels" and your guy said the other things. Noticed two other things about what your post, which by its silence concedes: 1) You appear to agree with ruf's position that lying=fascism, and 2) that Obama lied in at least those two other examples I gave. Oh, and that "forecast about the future of the economy" thing, it cost us about $1 trillion dollars. Did "death panels" cost us $1T?
If this all ties into "Terror Attack in the Skies Thwarted" somehow, please someone make the connection...
Quote from: patric on January 10, 2010, 01:41:42 PM
If this all ties into "Terror Attack in the Skies Thwarted" somehow, please someone make the connection...
Well duh, Sarah Palin is a fascist. It fits in all threads. Seriously, you make a fair observation.
Quote from: patric on January 10, 2010, 01:41:42 PM
If this all ties into "Terror Attack in the Skies Thwarted" somehow, please someone make the connection...
According to Conan, it's all about liberal media bias... according to the Gweed, it's all about Obama being a LIAR....
According to ME, all those issues and sniping about so-called "double-standards" are NON-STARTERS made up by a buncha chattering class partisans....
I used the pic of Sarah Palin to show what liberal bias actually is.... compare to teaparty Obama posters, rinse, repeat.....
(http://www.4vf.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/91fc7a45b9gn.cnn.jpg.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on January 10, 2010, 09:09:27 AM
Sure. Keep thinking that.
US: Air America on Ad Blacklist?
ABC document: Sponsors shun liberal network
October 31st, 2006
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14213
Then there's this quote from Rush circa 2003.....
"...the sponsors of these protests were not peace protesters at all. They are all talking about racism, environmental wackoism, feminism or other liberal causes. Very little about these protests was about the war in Iraq.
If they were for peace, they would give every dollar they raise to the U.S. defense department because it's the U.S. defense department that keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in the world and gives them the opportunity to have freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protesters and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro Marxists and communists." - Rush Limbaugh
Conservative and corporate induced media bias and political hackery exist on a daily basis, yet I've been treated to DECADES of incessant whining about liberal media bias.....
a couple of favorite Sinclair Lewis quotes.......
"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless."
"The trouble with this country is that there are too many people going about saying, ''The trouble with this country is...''"
What does any of this have to do with Charlie Gibson over-stating that this air liner was "almost brought down"?