A plane splashed down on Lake Michigan early Wednesday morning, prompting a passerby to call 911 and touching off an emergency rescue operation. But before rescuers responded, the plane took off.
The sea plane touched down around 8:30 a.m.
"It landed and took off before we got there," said Larry Langford, a spokesman for the Chicago Fire Department.
The plane was spotted in the lake a few blocks south of North Avenue, but it was not clear from the caller how far from shore the plane was.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating to make sure the pilot -- who is unknown -- followed all safety precautions and regulations. But because the airspace ther is uncontrolled, the landing was not illegal, said Elizabeth Cory, FAA spokeswoman.
Steve Whitney, president of Friends of Meigs Field and a sea plane pilot, said lake landings are rare because the water is too choppy. When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted air traffic controllers there, he said.
"Generally, Lake Michigan is kind of rough for sea plane operations," he said. "But if it is smooth, it is perfectly suitable."
Daley's making me feel about as safe as Bush is making me feel.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
DAMAGE CONTROL
EMILY HEADS FOR TEXAS. BUSH HEADS FOR A DECISION. WHO WILL DO MORE DAMAGE? See you in the morning!!!!!!!!!!
GATHERING INTELLIGENCE
Our intelligence gathering has been floundering in finding Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, Zarqawi, etc. Could it be because ---
The FBI has thousands of pages of records in its files relating to the monitoring of civil rights, environmental and similar advocacy groups, acknowledged by the Justice Department.
The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Greenpeace, are suing for release of the documents. The organizations contend that the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.
The ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said the disclosure indicates that the FBI is monitoring organizations that are engaging in lawful conduct.
"I know for an absolute fact that we have not been involved in anything related to promoting terrorism and yet the government has collected almost 1,200 pages on our activities," Romero said. "Why is the ACLU now the subject of scrutiny from the FBI?"
Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment.
Our government is protecting us from us! Boy, do I feel safer now. Make sure not to gather intelligence in any dangerous places . . . like our enemies. Now, go about your daily business and remember . . . WHAT ME WORRY?
The FBI has thousands of pages of records in its files relating to the monitoring of civil rights, environmental and similar advocacy groups, acknowledged by the Justice Department.
The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Greenpeace, are suing for release of the documents. The organizations contend that the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.
The ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said the disclosure indicates that the FBI is monitoring organizations that are engaging in lawful conduct.
"I know for an absolute fact that we have not been involved in anything related to promoting terrorism and yet the government has collected almost 1,200 pages on our activities," Romero said. "Why is the ACLU now the subject of scrutiny from the FBI?"
Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment.
Our government is protecting us from us! Boy, do I feel safer now. Make sure not to gather intelligence in any dangerous places . . . like our enemies. Now, go about your daily business and remember . . . WHAT ME WORRY?
Saturday, July 16, 2005
PISSED PRESS AND OTHER THINGS
The main stream press has finally gotten some teeth. They have never gone after Karl Rove the way they are now. And there were other times that they should have. But I guess it's better now than never. Poor White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who was thrown out there to do a verbal tap dance with the press. There was nothing he could say except, "I can not comment on that while there is an ongoing investigation." If I were him I would quit. I just hope the administration isn't able to stay undercover on this until a new story dominates the news. I'm sure they're hoping the Supreme Court Justice selection takes over soon.
The London bombing. Probably the most frightening thing about that instance is that the bombers were home grown. They've found that they were second generation British citizens of Pakistani decent. The youngest one was 19 years old, so he was only fifteen when 9/11 happened. That fact makes it very plausible that the same thing is happening here and the Iraq war seems to be what is fueling the anger. Bush keeps talking about how we're safer now and that taking the war to the terrorists makes us safer. There is no logic to that statement but he keeps saying it and a lot of people seem to be buying into it, though I think those numbers are dwindling.
The other day federal funding for mass tranportation protection was cut by about one-third. So we go fight a $300 billion dollar war in Iraq at the expense of homeland security. The war and the tax cuts absolutely make us less safe at home. My theory on the cut in protection for mass transportation is this. Bush gives his tax cuts and can't afford things as mass transit protection and leaves it in the hands of local government. Local government can't afford it so they are going to have to raise taxes. So Bush essentially can raise our taxes without raising our taxes.
If we didn't invade Iraq Sadaam would still be in power. Now that is not a good thing unless you put in the context of what's going on right now. When Sadaam was in power the borders were locked shut. We had Sadaam contained. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq doing their jobs. The analogy I've always used is that -- you have a hornets nest sitting in a tree filled with dangerous hornets but as hornets nests go you leave it alone and no problem. But when you foolishly recognize it as a pinata and whack it . . . well anyone short of an idiot knows what will happen.
By definition the National Guard is there to protect our borders in this country. Now imagine if we never went to Iraq and stayed with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. With all the troop strength that is in Iraq I'm pretty sure we'd have had him. Also Sadaam would be contained in Iraq and we could concentrate on securing our borders, increasing federal funding for local protections against terrorism and truly making us safer. Going back to the hornets nest analogy. It's like America is sitting on an open front porch and mischievous Boy George goes over and whacks the hornets nest. Naturally the hornets are pissed and they do what you would expect. But Boy George, who thought he was hitting a pinata with his $300 billion dollar stick can't afford the netting needed to protect us from the hornets. Had he left well enough alone we would have the netting and it would be protecting us from mosquitoes.
Other hornets nests that haven't been whacked but feel they could be and are preparing themselves -- North Korea, Iran, Syria, China . . . .
Have a nice weekend.
The London bombing. Probably the most frightening thing about that instance is that the bombers were home grown. They've found that they were second generation British citizens of Pakistani decent. The youngest one was 19 years old, so he was only fifteen when 9/11 happened. That fact makes it very plausible that the same thing is happening here and the Iraq war seems to be what is fueling the anger. Bush keeps talking about how we're safer now and that taking the war to the terrorists makes us safer. There is no logic to that statement but he keeps saying it and a lot of people seem to be buying into it, though I think those numbers are dwindling.
The other day federal funding for mass tranportation protection was cut by about one-third. So we go fight a $300 billion dollar war in Iraq at the expense of homeland security. The war and the tax cuts absolutely make us less safe at home. My theory on the cut in protection for mass transportation is this. Bush gives his tax cuts and can't afford things as mass transit protection and leaves it in the hands of local government. Local government can't afford it so they are going to have to raise taxes. So Bush essentially can raise our taxes without raising our taxes.
If we didn't invade Iraq Sadaam would still be in power. Now that is not a good thing unless you put in the context of what's going on right now. When Sadaam was in power the borders were locked shut. We had Sadaam contained. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq doing their jobs. The analogy I've always used is that -- you have a hornets nest sitting in a tree filled with dangerous hornets but as hornets nests go you leave it alone and no problem. But when you foolishly recognize it as a pinata and whack it . . . well anyone short of an idiot knows what will happen.
By definition the National Guard is there to protect our borders in this country. Now imagine if we never went to Iraq and stayed with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. With all the troop strength that is in Iraq I'm pretty sure we'd have had him. Also Sadaam would be contained in Iraq and we could concentrate on securing our borders, increasing federal funding for local protections against terrorism and truly making us safer. Going back to the hornets nest analogy. It's like America is sitting on an open front porch and mischievous Boy George goes over and whacks the hornets nest. Naturally the hornets are pissed and they do what you would expect. But Boy George, who thought he was hitting a pinata with his $300 billion dollar stick can't afford the netting needed to protect us from the hornets. Had he left well enough alone we would have the netting and it would be protecting us from mosquitoes.
Other hornets nests that haven't been whacked but feel they could be and are preparing themselves -- North Korea, Iran, Syria, China . . . .
Have a nice weekend.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
So, Are We Safer ?
In light of the bomb attacks on London I think it's worth re-thinking whether we are safer now than before we started the Iraq war. I always thought that that would not be the case even before we went to war.
I think it's fairly simple. We are attacked by al-Quaida. Al-Quaida and Osama bin-Laden are in Afghanistan. We wisely, and with worldwide support, go into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and bin-Laden. We are just about to get bin-Laden at Tora Bora and we stop and put most of our troops in Iraq. Now, I don't care how many times you say it we didn't take the war to the terrorists. The terrorists were not in Iraq before the war, but there sure are a hell of a lot of them there now.
Sadaam's in jail and Osama's -- on the run? -- well I haven't heard much about him lately. When was the last time Bush mentioned him? It's all Iraq all the time. So, if you look at this logically, we've put a country into chaos at the expense of $200 billion that became a training camp for terrorists. We, in fact, are subsidizing terrorism not eradicating it.
The logic that the administration uses is that we haven't been hit yet. But, that's the same logic as not having health insurance because I haven't had any use for it. It's kinda like taking those health insurance premiums and going to the casino and betting it all away. Basically, that's what's happening to the $200 billion in Iraq.
Think about what the $200 billion would do for homeland security in this country. If you think about it our borders are porous, our shipping docks are only about 5% inspected. Terrorists are able to purchase weapons and most transportation safety goes to airlines. So, if I'm a terrorist and I can easily get myself into this country, why attack immediately? Why not gather a plan together and hit a bunch of soft targets like they did in London?
Since we don't have the funds to protect those targets, thanks to that big casino we call Iraq, I think they would be able to coordinate something like London only on a larger scale. Imagine a situation like the one in London only they would be coordinated attacks in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, etc.
As Steve Chapman, a member of the editorial board for the Chicago Tribune, said "We may be distracted by Iraq, but the terrorists are not. If anything our messy occupation of a Muslim country works to the advantage of Islamic militants by inspiring new recruits every day".
Even in Iraq, the head of the U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency has said that despite all the insurgents we have killed, their numbers are growing. If our enemies are multiplying in Iraq, they are bound to be multiplying elsewhere, where the hazards they face are much less formidable.
We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place for far too long a time at far too great an expense, financially and in the cost of human life. It's like watching the Keystone Kops. As I'm writing this, there is a breaking story on NBC News about a bomb threat on the one of Chicago's El stations. It was a phoned-in threat, which I believe may be a hoax. But stuff like that'll certainly keep you on your toes. Be vigilant, I guess.
I think it's fairly simple. We are attacked by al-Quaida. Al-Quaida and Osama bin-Laden are in Afghanistan. We wisely, and with worldwide support, go into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and bin-Laden. We are just about to get bin-Laden at Tora Bora and we stop and put most of our troops in Iraq. Now, I don't care how many times you say it we didn't take the war to the terrorists. The terrorists were not in Iraq before the war, but there sure are a hell of a lot of them there now.
Sadaam's in jail and Osama's -- on the run? -- well I haven't heard much about him lately. When was the last time Bush mentioned him? It's all Iraq all the time. So, if you look at this logically, we've put a country into chaos at the expense of $200 billion that became a training camp for terrorists. We, in fact, are subsidizing terrorism not eradicating it.
The logic that the administration uses is that we haven't been hit yet. But, that's the same logic as not having health insurance because I haven't had any use for it. It's kinda like taking those health insurance premiums and going to the casino and betting it all away. Basically, that's what's happening to the $200 billion in Iraq.
Think about what the $200 billion would do for homeland security in this country. If you think about it our borders are porous, our shipping docks are only about 5% inspected. Terrorists are able to purchase weapons and most transportation safety goes to airlines. So, if I'm a terrorist and I can easily get myself into this country, why attack immediately? Why not gather a plan together and hit a bunch of soft targets like they did in London?
Since we don't have the funds to protect those targets, thanks to that big casino we call Iraq, I think they would be able to coordinate something like London only on a larger scale. Imagine a situation like the one in London only they would be coordinated attacks in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, etc.
As Steve Chapman, a member of the editorial board for the Chicago Tribune, said "We may be distracted by Iraq, but the terrorists are not. If anything our messy occupation of a Muslim country works to the advantage of Islamic militants by inspiring new recruits every day".
Even in Iraq, the head of the U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency has said that despite all the insurgents we have killed, their numbers are growing. If our enemies are multiplying in Iraq, they are bound to be multiplying elsewhere, where the hazards they face are much less formidable.
We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place for far too long a time at far too great an expense, financially and in the cost of human life. It's like watching the Keystone Kops. As I'm writing this, there is a breaking story on NBC News about a bomb threat on the one of Chicago's El stations. It was a phoned-in threat, which I believe may be a hoax. But stuff like that'll certainly keep you on your toes. Be vigilant, I guess.
Monday, July 04, 2005
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY 7-4-05
On this Independence Day I've been thinking about luck. I've always thought of it as a combination of knowledge and opportunity, that there was nothing that could be described as pure dumb luck. Something you have no control over.
But I'm wrong. This whole country is full of lottery winning lucksters just by virtue of being born in this country. Just by being born here you have the opportunity to exercise that other description of luck. Where do you think Bill Gates would be if he was born in Darfur? Odds are he would not only be poor but probably dead, not the wealthiest man in the world.
In this country, if you have a strong desire to be wealthy, you can do it. If you think you have a strong desire to be wealthy and your not, you only think you have a strong desire. I believe that because we have this freedom, we really are all where we want to be. There are those who would argue about one being more privileged than another. They'd be right but they miss my point. It's not a right to have something given to you -- education, money, family, etc. -- but you do have the right to pursue it to its full reward. And I believe that we all stop at the rewards that we want at any given time and are always able to pursue bigger rewards at a later time in life. In other words I think we are where we want to be in life. If you think you're not you misinterpret feedom as a handout, not an opportunity.
Having said that, I also believe that some of these freedoms are being chipped away. And most of us are too complacent to see it. The Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the Supreme Court.
The Patriot Act, with it's benign sounding name, allows government into our private lives way more than it was meant by our forefathers. We are sending our kids into a war that is killing them by the hundreds and moving into the thousands for a war that never should have been started. But it was also started on lies and ever changing reasons. The loss of freedom here is to our soldiers who can't get out of Iraq, serving multiple tours of duty their only option is to desert or die. By stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right wing judges we lose the freedom of checks and balances. That chips away at the freedom of your voice being heard. It creates a monopoly on the government.
I guess what I'm getting to is that we are a country of opportunity. If you want it you take it, if you don't, you don't. But let's not give up on the opportunity. And that's what I think. HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!
But I'm wrong. This whole country is full of lottery winning lucksters just by virtue of being born in this country. Just by being born here you have the opportunity to exercise that other description of luck. Where do you think Bill Gates would be if he was born in Darfur? Odds are he would not only be poor but probably dead, not the wealthiest man in the world.
In this country, if you have a strong desire to be wealthy, you can do it. If you think you have a strong desire to be wealthy and your not, you only think you have a strong desire. I believe that because we have this freedom, we really are all where we want to be. There are those who would argue about one being more privileged than another. They'd be right but they miss my point. It's not a right to have something given to you -- education, money, family, etc. -- but you do have the right to pursue it to its full reward. And I believe that we all stop at the rewards that we want at any given time and are always able to pursue bigger rewards at a later time in life. In other words I think we are where we want to be in life. If you think you're not you misinterpret feedom as a handout, not an opportunity.
Having said that, I also believe that some of these freedoms are being chipped away. And most of us are too complacent to see it. The Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the Supreme Court.
The Patriot Act, with it's benign sounding name, allows government into our private lives way more than it was meant by our forefathers. We are sending our kids into a war that is killing them by the hundreds and moving into the thousands for a war that never should have been started. But it was also started on lies and ever changing reasons. The loss of freedom here is to our soldiers who can't get out of Iraq, serving multiple tours of duty their only option is to desert or die. By stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right wing judges we lose the freedom of checks and balances. That chips away at the freedom of your voice being heard. It creates a monopoly on the government.
I guess what I'm getting to is that we are a country of opportunity. If you want it you take it, if you don't, you don't. But let's not give up on the opportunity. And that's what I think. HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Condi, come here. Make sure this can't be licked off
next election, no more purple finger. this time i mean business, right barney
Friday, July 01, 2005
POETIC JUSTICE & EMINENT DOMAIN
Cheers to Logan Darrow Clements, who registered his displeasure with the Supreme Court's decision to allow private property to be seized by the government for economic development by petitioning to have Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home condemned and a hote l built on its site. " Our hotel will better serve the public interest, as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue." Clements wrote officials in Weare, N.H., where Souter lives.
It's not likely Souter's home will ever be seized, demolished and turned over to developers. But it could be, legally, because Souter voted with the 5-4 majority to allow it -- probably not realizing he was deciding an issue cutting so close to home, literally. People will lose homes the way he could possibly lose his, which he likely will not. This was all to make a point, a very good point!!!!!!
It's not likely Souter's home will ever be seized, demolished and turned over to developers. But it could be, legally, because Souter voted with the 5-4 majority to allow it -- probably not realizing he was deciding an issue cutting so close to home, literally. People will lose homes the way he could possibly lose his, which he likely will not. This was all to make a point, a very good point!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)