Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (3277)	10/28/2001 5:52:26 PM
From: Frank Pembleton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36161

Art, I hear you on the security issue, what other thing could we really ask for from government? The only way we can proper is to have a safe and secure environment, that's what I would like to think my tax dollars are being used for. If you really think about it, it's the only thing we should expect from our governments. On the subject of security in our transportation industries we essentially we have two choices, we can expand the size of government and literally add an army of new unionised employees to the public payroll or we can set a standard that the transportation industry must adhere to through the private sector. Isn't that what there doing in Europe? One more thing...I'm concerned about this so-called corporate bail-out that you've labeled "welfare." Wasn't what happened on 9-11 an act of war? I can't possibly understand why you'd be against any federal help in the clean up of WTC!? Regards Frank P.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (3277)	10/28/2001 6:13:08 PM
From: isopatch	Respond to of 36161

The answer IS NOT more and bigger government Art. Gov hamstrings the private sector. Then when the inevitable problems arise? They offer to solve to problem THEY created with....let me guess.... MORE GOVERNMENT. Energy industry is another classic example of decades of government and environmental over regulation, interference, and stupitidy. You've noticed that I'm sure. Bush's radio address and some of our posts here offer the right solution for accomplishing the major upgrade needed in airport security: Strict government standards with private ventors providing security equipment and staff. State and local gov can provide law enforcement officers needed. This is NOT a tiny state like Israel. It's a huge nation and it's sill to try and run everything from Washington. Cheers, Isopatch

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (3277)	10/28/2001 6:32:24 PM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

when such an important task as airport screening/checking/security is not being performed rigorously and aggressively, "a reasonable person" would want that employee moved out of the job/fired immediately. firing can't be done Immediately using federal employees due to federal employee protections. clearly this important task was not (and still is not being) done by security personnel that the airlines provided. so if we put our thinking caps on a bit, it seems reasonable that a private enterprise for airport screening/checking/security not under airline supervision/control but under federal employee oversight (quality control/birddoging) should fulfill the requirements. that is how i interpreted bush's federal employee rejection. as for your comments about israeli airport screener security, i have gone in and out of there at least six to eight times over many years. flying into the airport the checkers look older, and of course they have the customs people at the end of the trail. when entering the airport grounds, there is the entering vehicle checkpoint way outside the airport buildings (these have got to be police or military, because all vehicles stop there). when leaving the airport (to get On the planes) i have noticed that they all look young (or reasonably young). i don't know if they are government/private/military, but i have always figured that they were probably doing it as part of their military service and were not long term government employees. were you implying or stating that they Are federal civil service employees? i would be very surprised if they are. i don't have any comments on the political parts of your post.