« June 2004 | Main | August 2004 »
An image of things to come?
A Boston College student leader who wears a turban and full beard in accord with his Sikh religion says he was detained and interrogated for seven hours Saturday night by Secret Service agents for doing nothing more than taking photographs of the campus. (Ralph Ranalli, Globe Staff) [Boston Globe: Local]
As usual, Dan Gilmor cuts to the chase. Once again this proves that copyright is not about the artists, but only about the large corporate entities that suck down their talents in order to make money and perpetuate their strangleholds on innovation and creation. This is why the Internet is such a threat to them - people like the brothers who created JibJab can bring a work to masses and totally circumvent their stranglehold.
The late, great Woody Guthrie is surely spinning in his grave today, in fury over what is happening with one of his most memorable songs, "This Land is Your Land."
But Guthrie would not be even slightly unhappy at the use of his immortal tune by the JibJab folks, whose brilliant satire of George Bush and John Kerry has become one of the most popular animations ever to hit the Web or any other medium.
No, Guthrie would be thrilled. He was a folk singer. Like all other folk singers he borrowed from others to create his art. As his son, Arlo, once said:
"We've heard some of the people talk about some of the songs he wrote tonight. And the truth is, he did steal old songs from other places. He took the old gospel songs, he took the old traditional ballads, and he put his words to them like we heard tonight. People still called it stealing. Plagarism, bad words like that, 'til Pete Seeger come along and renamed it the folk process. I think my dad's theory was that if you wanted people to be singing along with you on your new song, it'd be a hell of a start if they already knew the tune. Or even some of words."Woody Guthrie wrote scathingly of people who steal more with fountain pens than guns. He would have loathed the people who abuse copyright so much today, trying to restrict all kinds of fair use, of which parody is an absolutely protected example.
Guthrie wanted credit for what he wrote, but he had contempt for severe legal restrictions on what others might do with it. According to Pete Seeger, in this account (widely acknowledged in the folk world to be true) from the Museum of Musical Instruments, when Guthrie was singing on the radio in Los Angeles during the Depression, he'd mail mimeographed songs to listeners, and wrote on one:
"“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”I'll bet, therefore, that Woody would be horrified -- and angered -- by the behavior of an outfit called The Richmond Organization, which controls the copyright to his music. This humor-impaired crew has gone ballistic and has launched legal threats (CNN) at JibJab.
The Richmond Organization is dishonoring Woody Guthrie's memory, not that it seems to care. But it's giving us one more example of how the copyright system has abandoned common sense. [Dan Gillmor's eJournal]
This is truly pathetic. One of the most hilarious parodies the Psycho Sensei has ever seen, and the Copyright Cartel is screeching bloody murder, likely because they have no idea about humor, and would much rather stifle innovation than do what's good for everyone.
JibJab has gotten a lot of attention for its This Land is My Land parody. CNN is reporting that the copyright holders for the song aren't too happy about the parody (A JibJab Showdown). There is some question as to whether the flash animation is parody or satire. I argue it is parody (and therefore likely fair use) here: Parody or Satire? iRaq Posters, JibJab Animation, Fuse's Silhouette Ads.
Techdirt has an even better response, a quote on copyright by Woody Guthrie himself (JibJab Threatened Over Use Of Woody Guthrie Song):
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.
UPDATE 0215 PT
EFF has been contacted by JibJab and is considering their options (This Land Isn't Your Land).
When does the movie industry decline to assert its copyright, instead stating that the copying is fair use? When the copying is done by the Bush campaign, of course. From Roger Ebert's column:
Bruce Davis, executive director of the Oscars, replies: "... We are not enthusiastic about clips from our broadcast being used in political ads ... but we've been advised by our attorneys that the clip in the Bush ad is short enough, and oddly enough political enough, to be protected under the fair use doctrine.
"Fair use trumps copyright infringement. So while we're not happy about what we regard as a misappropriation of our material, there doesn't seem to be much that we can do about it beyond grousing in the columns of movie critics, when we get the chance."
So presumably publishing that Oscars clip of Napster creator Shawn Fanning is allowed too...
[Copyfight]My wonderous 12 year old daughter was in NH for a visit with her grandparents, and I was scheduled to go pick her up yesterday. Due to a really rotten head cold, I cancelled my trip, and then I talked to the Independence Air representative about making sure that child was ok as an unaccompanied minor on her way back. I was assured that the flight attendants would take her off the plane and keep her at the gate for me to go get her.
So I arrived at the gate, and there was a line to board the next aircraft. There were no humans around to talk to. I looked around, saw no child, and then had to search to find an employee. While it's great that so much of the Independence Air procedures are dealt with by touch screens and easy Internet check ins, once you need an employee, they're pretty tough to find. The employee was helping two people ahead of me, one of whom was very dense, despite his nice clothing, and had to be spoon fed what to do next. By the time I got to speak to the human, he said he'd sent an unaccompanied child to customer service at the end of the hall. He tried to call them, but they wouldn't answer the phone. I asked "the one up there?" pointing to the right. He said yes. So off I went down the hall.
When I got to the customer service desk indicated, it wasn't Independence Air's, and I was directed back down the other end of the terminal (i.e. I should have turned left, not right). As I was going back down there, I found child, wandering around the terminal unaccompanied.
Ok folks, my daughter is 12 years old. Little girls wandering around major airport terminals by themselves is something I find highly disturbing. She told me that no flight attendant had given her any help whatsoever, and she was allowed to deplane with everyone else, and given no direction on what to do next, such as "wait at the gate for your mother."
In addition, the way that I wound up at the gate at the first place was rather interesting. I went to the Independence Air counter and said that I wanted to pick up an unaccompanied child. The person asked the name, looked child up in the database to make sure she was a passenger, then called someone else, and spelled my name out for them. Then I was given a piece of xeroxed paper that was supposed to be my pass, with my name printed on it in pen, along with the reservation number.
So why is this interesting? Everyone else had a printed boarding pass that is relatively difficult to forge. I had a piece of paper, easily created by anyone. Name filled in, a random series of letters and numbers put on it, and then I would have access to the gates.
My conclusion here is that once again, annoying security is useless, and so easily circumvented. People who used to go to the gates to pick up their loved ones, are no longer allowed to for no real good reason, since the real bad guys can just print out a bogus pass on a piece of paper, and as long as the penned in name matches your photo ID, you're in. However, the important security of making sure that a 12 year old child is safe as an unaccompanied minor is ignored. That's security for you.
Quite interesting from morons.org.
9/11 Commission releases its final report saying that 'We must act' and adds 'We do not have the luxury of time!' What does Congress do? -- They all go on vacation!
Thursday, July 22nd was a busy day for Congress. Our distinguished House of Representatives in a fit of paranoia passed the Marriage Protection Act, one week after the humiliating defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate. Spurred by... [Morons Dot Org]
Sure, given that veteran controllers are already having such difficulty with helping flights deal with the ADIZ and the pop up instant Temporary Flight Restriction zones, passenger safety won't be jeopardized by replacing them with a bunch of rookies. And ketchup is a vegetable.
Federal officials said yesterday that they are preparing to deal with a nationwide wave of retirements by air traffic controllers over the next decade and that passenger safety will not be jeopardized. By Karin Brulliard. (By Karin Brulliard) [Washington Post: Nation and Politics]
But we CAN'T have constitutional protections for free speech and ensure that evil nasty terrorists don't get too close to the Fleet Center. *sigh*
US District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock walked under coils of razor wire and heavy black netting yesterday for a firsthand look at a ''free speech" protest zone across from the FleetCenter that prompted a lawsuit from activists who liken the space to a prison. (Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff) [Boston Globe: Local]
After some rather interesting aviation fun we have made it home. Besides the great security rant (see previous article) there were some other strange events that made the trip memorable. First and foremost was the infamous "sunbather incident." Seems a boat pulled up to the end of the active runway, and let people off to sunbathe in the jet blast. Silly airport decided that the safety of the nincompoops was in jeopardy, and shut down aircraft operations. Our Captain announced that we were number two for departure, after the fire truck went to the end of the runway and hosed off the sunbathers. Approximately 20 minutes later, we were allowed to depart, sunbathers having been vanquished.
On our way from Charlotte to IAD, we were flying an Airbus 319. if you're used to Boeing aircraft, you might become a bit concerned at the strange noises you hear on a 319. Lots of very strange noises coming from the cargo hold, lots of creaking, and on pulling up to the gate, it sounded for all the world like someone with a saw was trying to cut off the landing gear. After successfully navigating the vast sea of people who decide to cut in front of you then just stand in the middle of aisles, hallways, and other passageways, it was off to get the luggage. This took an eternity, during which we had plenty of time to try to scare up luggage carts. We soon found that there WERE none, even if you were willing to pay $3.00 in coins to rent one at the silly little stands. Luckily, a wonderful baggage handler came by and helped us load things, and pushed the cart ALL THE WAY to the new daily parking garage. What a wonderful person! Someone working hard for his money and being very pleasant about it. Of course he got a great tip.
"I don't mind more security, so long as we're safer." Have you heard this stupid statement over and over again on television when they walk up to Joe Average American in the airport? Ever wonder why someone would make such an inane statement? Likely because they don't travel very much, have showed up at the airport 5 hours in advance, and don't mind standing in line after line after line.
Do these lines make us safer? Are you kidding? Take, for example, our return trip home from Grand Cayman. We had spent a wonderful week with Cathy Church, and Jack and Sue Drafahl. It was a whirlwind of underwater photography, digital imaging, and other fun. Of course, this type of week is equipment intensive, and we have to carry multiple hundred pounds of luggage with us whenever we go, as well as a LOT of batteries. Thus began our first "fun with security."
The trip from Dulles to Charlotte to Grand Cayman was relatively painless and uneventful. The lines at security at Dulles weren't that long, and things moved relatively smoothly. This was not so bad. Arrival at Grand Cayman, clearing customs, etc. was no problem. On the way back, however, we were greeted with the airport lobby being literally PACKED with people. They were hand checking ALL of the checked baggage and making us remove batteries. Yes, batteries. We had to take the batteries out of our checked baggage and put them in our carry on baggage. Of course, this is after we had carefully packed everything we didn't need into our checked baggage.
Setting aside the insanity of making you take your batteries out of your checked baggage, think about what a tempting target many hundreds of people make in the Grand Cayman airport. They are stuck in line. There is nowhere to run. You can't possibly get away. You are completely trapped. And given that most of the people stuck there waiting for US flights happen to be American Citizens....you just have to stop and think for a moment. Is this "added security" a good idea, or a really lame one? I asked the security people why they were doing this. They said "FAA regulations." I, being the nasty person that I am, told them there was no such FAA regulation. The security person insisted that there was. I informed her that I was an attorney well versed in FAA regulations, and there was no such regulation to remove batteries from checked baggage. The supervisor came over and apologized, saying that it was a CAA regulation (Cayman's version of the FAA) and that this wouldn't dissuade people from vacationing at their lovely island. I suggested that perhaps they inform the hotels that this was the regulation so that divers who generally carry many battery powered things, could plan accordingly when they pack. I am not hopeful that this actually occurs.
So, once our bags were pawed through and everyone had to repack their stuff, we were herded into yet another line with no escape to wait for our carry on bags to be screened. This took much longer for us, since batteries come up black on the scanner, so they had to go through our carry ons to make sure they were actually batteries. Then, yet another line for exit immigration. LOTS of opportunity for bad guys to do bad things, as "security" is added to the process.
Upon arrival at Charlotte, we found US Customs and Immigration lines to be refreshingly short. Many lanes were open. We did find a surly officer, however. She stared at us, did not return smiles, did not return a "good afternoon," and merely scanned in our passports, stamped our form, and grunted that we could leave. More unhappy grumpy people populated customs, as we were basically growled at, and then left for the baggage recheck line.
So, after all of this, the entire group leaving customs and immigration was funneled into yet another line where, guess what? We had to go through security AGAIN. These bags that had already been screened had to be once again opened, laptops removed, shoes removed, bags opened and checked because of the batteries contained therein, after yet another line with dozens of people who were again sitting ducks for any type of attack. Charlotte must have some type of vortex of unhappiness, because the TSA people were also serious grumps.
What's the real point here? Why are American Citizens being put through this nonsense? And why are American Citizens who weren't trusted in the first place, suddenly trusted if they provide all of their personal information to the government in order to give them special travel status so that they can breeze through security? I truly don't understand this concept. Either American Citizens are trusted or they aren't. We obviously aren't, because otherwise, Americans who had cleared Customs and Immigration could be exempted from the process of going through security AGAIN to get their carry ons screened. So if we are inherently NOT trusted, then how can providing extra personal information change the fact that we aren't trusted?
So if American Citizens aren't trusted, why are foreigners trusted enough to be given basically a free pass into the country by the Bush Administration who wants to let illegals work and not throw their butts out? The "if you can sneak in through our porous borders, we will let you feel right at home" approach is most confusing after being treated like a non entity by grunting Customs Officers and surly TSA officials.
Are we more secure? Hell no. And what have we had to give up to obtain this still insecure joke that passes for security? I daresay we've given up too much. Travel is no longer fun, nor even pleasant. And it's definitely not worth the exchange.
Here we are in Grand Cayman at the Cathy Church Supercourse. This is an amazing class where you get your own dedicated dive boat with your own dedicated dive masters, and you can dive for hugely long periods of time (like 3 hours at a time) by handing up your BCD and they change your tank for you and shove you back in the water. They'll also change your batteries and/or film and/or digital cards, etc. It is marvelous and wonderous fun.
Today we went to the Balboa yet again where we shot natural light yet again. But, we learned something yet again too. Got to have a great deal of fun. Now hopefully we can sleep late tomorrow.
Not sure what's worse. The fact that this loser Riordan attacked a small child because of her name, or the fact that the scheduled protest was cancelled because they found out the girl was white. I'm just mind boggled.
LOS ANGELES - The head of the California NAACP is demanding state Education Secretary Richard Riordan resign for jokingly telling a preschooler that her name, Isis, meant "stupid dirty girl."
Riordan, the wealthy former Los Angeles mayor known for his support of public schools, startled even friends last week with the comments at a Santa Barbara library.
Alice Huffman, president of the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (news - web sites), said Riordan "is not suitable to lead education in our state" and should be removed.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites), his longtime friend, called Riordan's statement to the girl "unacceptable in any context" but gave no hint that his job was in danger.
But the issue has persisted. In an editorial Thursday, The Sacramento Bee said California "shouldn't have an education secretary who makes offensive, damaging remarks to young children for no apparent reason."
"He's the governor's top person on education, which means we would expect him to have some love and respect for children," Huffman said. "I think he is the wrong man for the job. There is no way for him to explain this away."
The conversation, videotaped by KEYT-TV, took place Thursday at a promotional event for summer reading at Santa Barbara's central library. The unidentified girl, who appeared to be a preschooler, asked Riordan if he knew that her name meant "Egyptian goddess."
Riordan replied, "It means stupid dirty girl."
After nervous laughter in the room, the girl again told Riordan the meaning of her name.
"Hey, that's nifty," he said.
A day later, Riordan issued a statement that said he "teased" the girl. "I immediately apologized to her, and I want to do so again for the misunderstanding," Riordan said.
Riordan, a venture capitalist who started a foundation supporting literacy, has a reputation for awkward — some might say insensitive — remarks and behavior.
As mayor, he once greeted hunger strikers outside his office eating a hamburger. In a speech to school administrators earlier this year, he told a story about a nun physically disciplining a student that startled some in the audience.
"There wasn't an uproar, but some people felt the comment was inappropriate," said Joseph Jones, assistant executive director of the Association of California School Administrators.
State Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, a Democrat who served on the Los Angeles City Council when Riordan was mayor, called the remarks to the girl "completely reprehensible" but said they were uncharacteristic for a man with a soft touch for children.
"I've been in dozens of situations with him with children — he's usually the grandfatherly guy," Goldberg said. "I've seen him say things he wished he could take back many times — but never around kids."
A group of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, planned to protest Riordan's remarks at the Capitol Thursday.
But the organizer, Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, canceled the protest after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.
Gee, it's only important to protest if it was a black child, but not a Pagan child, or perhaps an Egyptian child?!?
Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"
The girl is white, with blonde hair.
Dymally did not return telephone calls. His office issued a statement Wednesday calling Riordan's remarks to the girl "outrageous and irresponsible," then issued another statement Thursday saying, "To err is human; to forgive is divine."
"Race is not a factor in this issue," Dymally said, adding that Riordan had apologized a second time. "It is time for us to move on."
Given that Bush had no more experience when he became president (not vice president), this is almost funny. He gets two points for hypocrisy, though.Reuters: Bush Raises Issue of Edwards' Experience to Be VP. President Bush criticized Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards in his own home state on Wednesday by questioning whether Edwards has sufficient experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
So, anyone still think that having an ADIZ around the DC area is a useful and important thing? Anyone still think that it does anything except unfairly restrict the people who already obey the laws and who aren't the problem? Nice to see that the pilots have been right all along. Translations in Italics
Plane That Caused Capitol Evacuation Nearly Shot Down
Plane caught us with our pants down during a high security event because we thought that merely passing a law would be enough. Note that we said "nearly" because it actually would have reached the Capitol before we figured out what was up.
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2004; Page A01
The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense
Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16
fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out
to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president
Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal
security officials briefed separately about the incident.
We became confused because we couldn't figure out that someone on an approved FAA flight plan, was not a threat because he was doing exactly what he was told.
The tense incident June 9 ended after the twin-engine Beechcraft
King Air carrying Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) turned to land at
Reagan National Airport. But the close call caused officials
to reassess safeguards for the airspace around Washington and
prompted calls to expand the no-fly zone beyond its current
16-mile radius.
As usual, when presented with something that doesn't work, we decide to make it bigger, so that it STILL doesn't work, but it costs more money
Although many planes have violated restrictions imposed after
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the June 9 episode was
extraordinary because the aircraft penetrated so deeply into
the no-fly zone during a high-security event and remained
unidentified to air defense officials for several critical
minutes. Current and former homeland security officials said
the incident was a significant security breakdown.
This actually means that air defense officials STILL have not learned how to communicate with air traffic control and assess a threat as opposed to a legitimate user of the thusfar free air traffic control system
The episode, described by some officials as the closest the
government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington
since Sept. 11, 2001, will be the subject of two hearings on
Capitol Hill today. Civil aviation officials will testify before
a House subcommittee on aviation, and military officials have
been invited to a classified briefing before the House Armed
Services and Homeland Security committees.
In other words, let's almost shoot the Governor of Kentucky rather than check with Air Traffic Control, and then let's have a hearing where we don't even invite ATC, or "normal pilots" while we run in circles to make things even worse.
"Even without the communications breakdowns involved in
Governor Fletcher's flight, serious questions remain about
the adequacy of our air defense system," said Rep. Jim Turner
(Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on
Homeland Security. "Does the existing no-fly zone around our
nation's capital give sufficient time to intercept a terrorist
controlled flight?"
No, it doesn't, and guess what? Making it bigger won't change the simple fact that without shutting down any flights to Dulles, National, or BWI, and all general aviation fields throughout Maryland and Virginia, that fact will not change.
A spokesman for the commander of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Ralph
E. "Ed" Eberhart, would not comment on the handling of the
incident, saying that rules of engagement are classified. But
he and others pointed out that protocols were followed and that
the air defense system as a whole is providing unprecedented
security.
But wouldn't say that the aircraft, if it made a lawn dart approach into National (without flying the prescribed approach while being directed by ATC) could have veered slightly and taken out the White House, as could any aircraft flying into that airport.
"The fact that the plane landed without incident June 9
indicates that interagency coordination procedures developed
since 9/11 work," said the spokesman, Michael Kucharek.
In other words, we were pretty damn lucky that we didn't blow up the aircraft, the governor, and take out several people on the ground
A reconstruction, based in part on interviews with officials
who spoke on condition they not be named, has revealed new
details. Senior officials at two federal agencies who are
familiar with how the air defense system worked that day said
a fighter plane sent to intercept Fletcher's plane initially
could not make visual contact because of cloud cover.
Gee, you're saying that unless it's a beautifully clear day, I might get shot down despite following ATC instructions to the letter? How wonderful. I just feel SO safe.
As a result, Eberhart did not issue the order to shoot down
Fletcher's plane, according to the two officials, as well
as a third government official who was briefed later on the
incident. Interviews and a timeline prepared by congressional
investigators also show that Fletcher's plane turned to land
before it was identified.
Before it was identified by WHOM? Air Traffic Control already knew who it was. Why not just ASK them?
"They had the general on the phone, and he was in position
to make the call. . . . This was the closest we have come to
making that difficult decision, triggering a chain of events
that could be pretty horrific," one official said.
Triggering a chain of events that would reveal how woefully stupid the entire system of "defending the Capitol area" truly is.
The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified. Classified so that nobody will laugh hysterically Unveiled in January 2003, the system was created to track all flights and to intercept
aircraft that do not follow strict protocols. despite the fact that this aircraft DID follow all protocols It replaced the fighter patrols that guarded the nation's capital beginning Sept. 11, 2001, a defense that was costly and did not provide federal authorities with the tools to investigate whether there were patterns in the violations. And they might find that the only pattern in the violations is that most of the aircrafts were following ATC instructions
The defense system includes a no-fly zone that bars most air
traffic from a ring that extends 16 miles from the Washington
Monument -- the major exception being commercial flights to and
from National Airport. A larger restricted zone, the D.C. Air
Defense Identification Zone, extends to about 50 miles from
Washington and requires pilots to identify their aircraft,
activate identification beacons and stay in two-way radio
contact with air controllers.
And they think that something bigger would be better? Does it make sense that commercial traffic is not restricted and can be used as a much bigger "bomb" than any of our Cessna and Piper single engine planes.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement helicopters and Cessna
jets patrol the zone unarmed, while air defense artillery
on the ground and fighter jets on alert or on irregular air
patrols are poised to intercept an intruder.
And they expect that is going to work? Can they figure out that the current system is broken by being both too restrictive and useless at the same time?
On June 9, the Beechcraft King Air was flying with a broken
transponder, a device that transmits an identifying signal
picked up by ground controllers. After takeoff, the pilot, as
required, notified Federal Aviation Administration officials
in Ohio about the problem at 2:56 p.m.
Broken transponder? And they were allowed to depart the area? Why would the FAA allow an aircraft going to the most restricted airport in the country, fly around a defense zone with a broken transponder? Once they realized their mistake, why didn't they track the primary target better, and inform others of what was happening? Oh yeah, I remember....they're the FAA. Silly questions.
But the FAA failed to notify military and homeland security
officials, who monitored separate radar displays, about the
broken transponder. To everyone but the FAA, radar showed an
unidentified intruder entering restricted Washington airspace
at 4:24 p.m.
And nobody bothered to call anyone else and get the real story.
At 4:31, with the plane a minute or two from downtown
Washington, officials ordered the evacuation of the
U.S. Capitol, where thousands had gathered to await the arrival
of Reagan's coffin. The FAA reported to air defense authorities
that it was in contact with the plane three minutes later,
as the aircraft made the final approach to National Airport.
That's a neat trick. Evacuate the Capitol in 1 to 2 minutes? That's quite amusing. So let's see....3 minutes later, FAA finally tells the air defense authorities. That's one minute too late, eh?
The Beechcraft was traveling at roughly 240 miles per hour,
or four miles a minute. At that speed, it could have reached
the center of the no-fly zone in four minutes.
Makes no sense if it was one to two minutes from downtown, since the center of the no-fly zone is the Washington Monument, and flying at 240 miles per hour....you do the math.
Customs officials said it took their Black Hawk helicopter four
minutes to launch that afternoon, quicker than the designated
scramble time. Military fighters happened to be on intermittent
air patrols that day, but their standard scramble time from
the ground is 15 minutes.
Looks like another case of 2 minutes too late. Let's see....Blackhawk takes off after 4 minutes...then has to find the target, then has to ready aim and fire, etc. So the "standard" time is 15 minutes? Looks to me like 11 minutes too late.
For security officials, a key factor is how little time they had
to identify Fletcher's aircraft and make critical decisions. One
senior federal security official who has studied the incident
said the chances of shooting down the plane would have been
"50-50" given the time sequence.
Ring ring....Potomac approach control? Who is that unnamed aircraft? Oh, that's it's tail number. A database search says it's the Governor of Kentucky. Great. Thanks very much. *click*
The official said the current system is prepared to stop
a second assault, as was the case Sept. 11, not a first
attack. Expanding the restricted flight zone -- or a more
radical move, such as closing National Airport -- would be
required to provide a greater level of security, he said.
Sort of like the "dog gets one bite" rule? Makes lots of sense. NOT! Let's let the aircraft crash into the Capitol with a good 5,000 people outside lining up to see Reagan's pine box. But that's ok...cuz we're prepared against the second aircraft which might dent the White House front door like the last Cessna hitting it did.
Some House investigators are pushing the Transportation Security
Administration to improve coordination between a half-dozen
agencies. Officials at the TSA and the Pentagon have revived
calls for the FAA to expand the restricted flight zones,
which would build in more time to make and execute decisions.
No it would not. Not unless you shut down air traffic completely to the area, which the Senators and Congress critters would not allow. Not to mention would result in the basic evisceration of the entire General Aviation economy in the DC area along with all of the jobs that would be lost, the virtual "taking" of all of the aircraft in the area, etc. etc.
Close calls in the past have prompted changes. On June 19,
2002, a Cessna flew over the capital area before it could
be intercepted, prompting the evacuation of Vice President
Cheney from the White House. Military officials at the time
acknowledged that aircraft could reach targets in Washington
before they were intercepted by fighters on ground alert.
Authority for air patrols to shoot down a civilian aircraft,
once limited to the president, has been delegated to
the secretary of defense and his deputy; to Eberhart,
as NORAD commander; and to the commander of NORAD's
continental U.S. region in Florida, Air Force Maj. Gen. Craig
R. McKinley. McKinley has said orders to shoot down aircraft
are practiced "probably eight to 15 times a week."
A senior federal security official said the process involved
in firing ground-based air defenses operated by the Army or
Army National Guard is more complex and needs refinement. Some
military officials initially questioned the value of installing
short-range missile systems, saying the range and reaction
time made their use unlikely.
Why not install something like....uh...a telephone?
Customs agents with submachine guns are trained to shoot from
the Black Hawks and have authority to use lethal force if their
lives or the lives of others are endangered, said Charles
E. Stallworth II, director of air and marine operations for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Their bosses, however, are not trained in use of telephones.
Homeland security officials, although aware of limitations,
say the system in place is working well and has added layers
of protection unavailable on Sept. 11, 2001.
But they still haven't installed communications to ATC. Hmmm.
Randy Beardsworth, head of the Department of Homeland Security
directorate that includes the TSA and customs enforcement,
said advanced radar, computer databases and other tools used
by the multi-agency system provide an unprecedented early
warning system.
Unlike telephones, which cost a lot less and they could get less government funding for. Oh dear.
More than 2,000 aircraft "of interest" have been detected over
Washington airspace since January 2003, Beardsworth said. The
number of aircraft violating the no-fly zone fell from 164
in the six months before Jan. 20, 2003, to 30 after that date
through May, 14, 2004.
Mostly due to pilots getting fed up with the entire system and not flying much anymore.
All 30 intruders were successfully identified, Beardsworth
said. By comparison, another federal official said that two
years ago, military jets could identify and intercept only
about 40 percent of intruders in training drills.
Wouldn't it be nice if the military jets were equipped with radios with civilian air frequencies, so that the jet pilots could actually CONTACT the targeted aircraft and try to find out why they are, or at least inform them that they are being intercepted? Yes, that's right....most intercepted aircraft who have reported to other pilot groups say that the intercepting jets have made no attempt to make radio contact on either emergency or other frequencies, causing the intercepted aircraft operator to become completely confused in an already tense and dangerous situation.
Beardsworth, however, said he does not disagree with those
who say the system may not be geared to stop a determined
attacker. Like other security officials, he noted that the
system's limits are forced by political compromises between
security and civilian aviation interests.
The system's limits are forced by practical compromises between constitutional freedom, and a false sense of security.
Beardsworth said that shooting down hostile aircraft is the
responsibility of the Defense Department, not his agency.
"It's not my fault, man
"Our role is to help them by having a clear picture when they
have to make that tough decision," he said. "Can you imagine
how much tougher the decision would be if you didn't have the
ability to deter small craft from coming in, if you didn't
have the ability to fly out there, detect, identify and deter?"
It's just been so strange, watching George Dubya's choices of appointees, and how he constantly tries to sneak just one more fundamentalist into the fabric of decision making in the US. He's surrounded himself with "advisors" of backgrounds that even I think are strange. So we shouldn't be surprised at this one either.
One of the craziest Bush judicial apointees yet.
The nominee in question, Leon Holmes, for the federal court in the eastern district of Arkansas, is simply nuts. I really don't know how else to describe the guy. First off, Orrin Hatch and Rick Santorum are both wild about him. This alone should be... [Morons Dot Org
Is there ever going to be a time when parents figure out that overindulging their rich little brats will do nothing but produce evil snotty disgusting little adults?
As adult Washington works this summer, its children, the more affluent ones at least, will be sipping yak butter tea with Chinese nomads, sailing the Caribbean on million-dollar schooners, scuba diving in Hawaii and studying for the SAT -- in Australia. [Washington Post: Front Page]
Is there a glimmer of hope even in a moron such as Orrin Hatch, supporter of INDUCE copyright cruft, as well as other stupid stuff?
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican supporter of embryonic stem-cell research, said Sunday there is wide support in the Senate to ease the Bush administration's restrictive policy on the scientific work. [Wired News]
Gee, what an interesting way to do things. Not that the outcome of the election would have changed much, but think about the idea of democracy being advocated by those types of people.
The head of a firm consulted by the Republican party in New Hampshire has pled guilty to jamming Democrat party phone lines on Election Day...
Before the phrase "denial of service attack" conjured up thoughts of fat script kiddies on the Internet, it applied to telephone networks. If you call people repeatedly and hang up such that they can't use their phones normally, that's a denial of... [Morons Dot Org]