"News Nuggets" By Ray Thomas

Josey1

Nuggets 09.27.01"News Nuggets" is Copyright c 2001 By Ray Thomas ARM THE PILOTS: The FAA boss said that until September 11, she wouldn't have even considered the idea of arming pilots, which is yet another illustration of my theory that politicians and bureaucrats ignore good ideas until somebody dies, and then they consider them. The Air Line Pilots Association is pressing for legislation that would allow pilots to carry firearms in cockpits. "I'd rather have the gun in the hand of the pilot than the gun in the hand of some guy... who wants to kill people," says one expert. It's amazing to me that they will trust a multi-million dollar aircraft and the lives of hundreds of passengers to a pilot, but will not trust them with a gun. Do they think that if this pilot "goes nuts" he can't kill everybody on the plane without a gun? It's going to happen. Now that somebody has died (almost 7,000 "somebodies"), they will take this good idea and run with it. But they need to go further: they need to allow those who are legally allowed to carry firearms off the plane to bring them aboard the aircraft. Again, if they're trusted to carry them anywhere, they ought to be trusted to do so on the plane. That way, any budding hijacker will not know who is armed, or if anybody is armed on the aircraft he wants to hijack. If he knows the pilot and crew are armed (in some way) he can plan for that. But it's those whom he knows nothing about who will kill him. (Source: Fox News, 9/25/2001) [092701-1] LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, IT DOESN'T MATTER: Whenever a government appointee finds him/herself with a problem in law enforcement, the first thing he/she does id demand more power, and to Hell with civil liberties. "It's a crisis!" Apparently our new Attorney General is no different. Ashcroft is pressing Congress on anti-terror moves. With many members of Congress reluctant to approve anti- terrorism legislation that plays fast and loose with protections for freedom and privacy, the attorney general is bringing pressure to bear to push through expanded powers. These expanded powers will still be in effect when terrorism is no longer a major problem in the world. Does anybody imagine that the usurpations of our rights that people have become accustomed to through the years will ever be rescinded? Don't hold your breath unless turning blue is your thing. Everybody (who wasn't a liberal or a gun-grabber) thought all our problems were over when we got Ashcroft approved as Attorney General Guess not. (Source: Wired, 9/25/2001) [092701-2] "BACKDOORS" ARE DANGEROUS: Terrorism attacks have renewed the debate over encryption software. Many politicians are calling for mandatory "backdoors" in encryption software to give government access to private messages. Privacy advocates point out that encryption experts defied such controls in the past, and can easily do so again. Even if such a thing wasn't patently unconstitutional, it doesn't work. Any halfway decent hacker can defeat such a thing. What's more, once it's there, any hacker can take advantage of it him/herself and get into systems that include it easily. I don't care what their "good excuse" is, they have no right to stick their noses into people's private business on their own authority, without having to give a convincing reason for it to a judge. Of course, you can bet they're going to "steamroller" the constitutional prohibitions if they can, and trample on one more right as they stampede toward a dictatorship, using the "war against terrorism" as their excuse. That, coupled with their useless "war on drugs," should just about do it. I'm glad I won't live to see the culmination of their efforts. (Source: CNN, 9/25/2001) [092701-3] THE OTHER SIDE: I've written several times about politicians who want to eliminate any kind of privacy for our communications on the Internet. Here's a story about a politician who shows some intelligence: One lawmaker calls for more Internet encryption. Contrary to the tack taken by his more authoritarian colleagues, Rep. Bob Goodlatte says that private use of encryption is a good thing, and that it shouldn't be compromised by government restrictions. He's right. The government shouldn't be allowed to snoop into our every communication without any oversight. With such powers, we won't need an outside agency to come in and take us over. We'll do it ourselves. It really bothers me when I see an entrepreneur work so hard to perfect something that will delete privacy. It reminds me of Kruschev's prediction that we would sell him the rope he uses to hang us. Him, or our own homegrown despots. (Source: CNN, 9/25/2001) [092701-4] YOUR PAPERS PLEASE! As U.S. legislators move to require Americans to carry identification documents, they stand poised to join the ranks of the majority of nations. Officials across the planet have grown accustomed to penalizing and even imprisoning people who fail to show their papers. I don't mind showing identification if needed. What I do object to is having a single federally-issued identification card that is required to be shown, not only when confronted by "authorities," but for every transaction, everywhere, which is what this will become. With the power to issue such a card comes the power to make you "an unperson" at will, just by canceling the card. From that point on you will have to become a criminal because the only way then to survive is to steal what you will be prevented from buying. People should think about what they're doing when they approve such things. (Source: Wired, 9/25/2001) [092701-5] FREEZE, YOU FOREIGN S.O.B.! Foreign students have now been targeted for scrutiny. Which is okay, right now, since there are probably lots of bin Laden people still living quietly in this country plotting their mischief. The terrorist attacks have increased monitoring of more than 500,000 foreigners studying at U.S. colleges and will make it harder for others -- particularly those from the Middle East -- to study here in the future. Critics fear racial profiling and the erosion of civil liberties. They're right. This is just the beginning. If some people have their way, no "foreigner" will ever again escape such scrutiny. Just the fact that he/she is not of American extraction (whatever that is), even if he/she is an American who has lived here and been a good citizen for years. Their very "foreignness" will be used against them and they will be discriminated against, by law. Even now, if any airline passenger refuses to travel in the same plane with someone who "looks" like a Muslim, the airlines must take that person off the plane. It doesn't matter if that action causes this person to miss the very reason for the trip, such as the wedding of a loved one -- or the funeral. Pretty soon, any Moslem will be subject to such things, by law. Maybe they won't have their own water fountains or be required to ride at the back of the bus (if they're allowed to ride at all), but they will be the subjects of institutionalized racism, all because a few fanatics of the same extraction killed a lot of people. (Source: Dallas Morning News, 9/25/2001) [092701-6] http://www.sierratimes.com/nuggets.htm