southsider2k5

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) This may be where we fundamentally diverge here, but I for one would argue that in many cases, it is the governnment's responsibility to set a mandatory minimum level of safety in many spheres of private industry and life, just because it is the only entity large enough to both recognize a problem and deal with it. For example, automobile safety. The government does not necessarily have to mandate certain levels of safety in automobiles, and there are those who argue that the government shouldn't do so anyway, because autos with fewer safety features would be cheaper and more accessible. However, the government has, and I believe rightly, decided that it is going to be more detrimental to society to have cars on the road which are more of a threat to life than a certain level, so the government has been willing to mandate some level of safety precautions in those cars, thus while some people wind up being unable to afford cars because they'd have to pay for more safety features, as a whole, society benefits, because a great many lives are saved. This is the same deal. The government can judge based on the potential losses (very high, as we've all seen) that a specific standard of safety must be met by all of the airlines. It can enforce that level of safety itself, or it can leave it to the airlines. The last time it was left to the airlines, it failed dramatically. In response, the governmetn took away some control from the airlines, and increased that minimum level of safety required to something that hopefully has a better chance of maintaining security and saving lives, just as the government sometimes increases the safety requirements on cars in response to a new problem/invention. The funny part is I haven't actually said what I believe yet, mostly I am just making a case for another side of the coin that has not been pondered yet. One of the issues that has been addressed was personal freedoms, but no one really mentioned the rights of airlines to run their business how they see fit. Also the answer to the potential shortcomings is easy. If their product sucks, they could either fly another airline or drive, the same answer as any other industry.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) Americans don't vote for losers. Expain this then... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) Ah, but there is reason for the govenrment to be involved, because of what happens if a plane doesn't take the proper actions. In the event of another attack, who is it who spends the funds to do the cleanup, undertake the investigation, arrest the people responsible, etc.? Those tasks won't be done by the company. And furthermore, the defense of this country is the job of the government as well. So the government does have a real interest in making sure that the appropriate security measures are followed. Hypothetically it depends... If it is criminal in nature, then obviously the government steps in to handle the problems. If it is just something that happens, the company would have to face up to the scrutiny and investigations that any other company/industry would be subject to if their equiptment failed and caused harm, or if the court determines what the reasonable level of security that an airline would have to provide. Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that. The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules. You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce. But that is a horse of a different color.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) I knew I still had it in me. *Goldstar!* And even usage of green A++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204040/

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) Here's a nice little bit on El Al's security program, at least the un-classified portions of it, for anyone who's interested. Its a nice piece on Al Gore anyway

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) I love the in-depth, highly detailed replies and point-by-point refutations I'm getting today. Anyway, here's a summary of an FBI report on the actual psychological state of the 2 kids involved in Columbine. If we're going to bring that mess up, I think it's important. I think you are digging way to far into what YASNY was saying, and that is why he blew you off, I also think you really missed his point that the way your are brought up has a lot to do with the person you grow up to be.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Agreed. We also have the "I can kick the f***ing s*** out of you and your entire country so bring it on" mentality. This could be the next battle with the airlines. I wonder if one airline would have the balls to be the most restrictive and try to compete on that basis. Huge gamble, but it could really grab market share if it worked. I don't think it would, but who knows. Not a chance. People have the "I'm not hurting anything with my ...." mentality, and they won't stand for a 4 hour wait to get through security like there is in Israel. If American said we have a 4 hour wait, and United said they could get you on a plane in 30 minutes, American would be in bankruptcy before you can blink.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) I had a scoutmaster named Art for several years. Did you get naked in his name?

If you want to see "restrictions" read up on what it takes to get onto a plane in Tel Aviv. American's have it incredibly easy.

QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) Are you crazy? It looks like rain out there. yeah, you're right good call.

I am glad you posted this... Too many times we only hear when the Sox screw up, and it gives the impression that the organization is awful, when it isn't. keep the good stories coming!

Who is Art, and how does he get people to get naked for him?

QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) Say that to myface, you sonofab****! Meet me out by the horse tough guy

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:40 AM) That's weird. Why no papers or mags, but a book is OK? Good question, but I have no idea. I heard it on AM 780 this morning when they were talking about the restrictions.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) Yeah I would ABSOLUTELY hate to get stuck at Heathrow today. I mean a few months back I had to wait 2 hours at LAX to change terminals, check in, and get thru security, and it annoyed the hell out of me. Imagine just being stuck in a huge queue and not even moving for hours at all. I certainly hope the in flight movies are good choices for outgoing flights today when you can't take things like I-Pods and Laptops on your person either. No newspapers or magazines either, and one book.

I just found the next book I am going to check out http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/p...0471735132.html

Give my regards to (Lance) Broadway

QUOTE(shoota @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) I'd rather frappe my balls in a blender. Yeah, I am sure you are on both of their speeddials, what with the winning personality and all QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 07:50 AM) I hear he's a big fan of Kathy Bates. He's probably more of a Joan Cusak fan

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 07:46 AM) Yikes, that was this weekend? That's not good. Going to Saturday's game.... http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1243469

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) In 4th grade I was in terrible shape. Every week I'd wind up with 2-3 bad days. Eventually it went away, but that year was pretty darn bad. I can remember being on a field trip to Ft. Wayne (in Ft. Wayne) and spending the whole trip just lying down on a log because I couldn't get up. I still have the same reaction to Ft Wayne

Actually on a personal basis, I wonder how this affects Deploder's pending trip to the US this weekend. It sounds like things are crazy at Heathrow, with people being allowed no personal carry on bags, instead being handed a clear plastic bag in which only 7 items can be places, with a whole load of restrictions as to what is allowed, including no outside liquids of anykind.

Lieberman is going to lose a ton of democratic party support with the Lamont win. Pretty much he is going to have to find a lot of non-Democratic money and support in order to win. Personally I see his taking this late, and then dropping out and throwing his support to Lamont when he realizes he can't win.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm