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.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (50817)	9/23/2005 12:01:54 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

That's what the pilots train for constantly. The worse one I had that was similar, our nose gear broke, plus we lost our hydraulic fluid, so the pilot couldn't reverse engines when we landed, he had to use the power from the engines to steer the plane. They foamed the runway, and we landed at ORD with the firetrucks and ambulances lined up...we almost ended up in the lake at the end of the runway at ORD.. We had to evacuate on the runway. It was a flight from LAX to ORD, and we had quite a few celebrities on the flight..no one panicked, it was an orderly evacuation, one the Flight attendants also practice constantly. Our main problem was trying to keep some people from getting their luggage out of the overhead bins...with everyone piling up behind them..

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (50817)	9/23/2005 12:02:15 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Cornell Files Brief Against Solomon Amendment (Wants to Ban Military from Recruiting on Campus) Cornell Daily Sun ^ \| September 23, 2005 \| By Xiaowei Cathy Tang ITHACA NY--Cornell has filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief in support of law school professors and administrators who are challenging the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment in an upcoming Supreme Court case. The University joins Yale, Columbia, Harvard, New York University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Chicago in signing the 30-page document, which calls the amendment “an unconstitutional condition on federal funding.” Cornell announced its involvement in the brief on Wednesday. Passed in 1995, the Solomon legislation mandates that schools give military recruiters the same access to students and resources as they would for other employers, although the military’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is at odds with institutional non-discrimination policies. Universities that do not comply risk losing their federal funding. “The government ... incorrectly presumes that universities that do not wish to comply with funding conditions may simply decline federal assistance. In fact, rejection of federal funds is not a real choice for modern research universities,” the brief states. “Viewed in context ... the law is a command rather than an inducement,” the seven universities argued in the document. They continued that “... the conditions it imposes on receipt of a broad array of federal grants and contracts bear no relationship to that funding.” The amendment also threatens federal funding of academic research and academic freedom, which lie at the cornerstones of the nation’s economy, security and democratic society, the schools asserted. “Whether or not a particular school would choose to deliver ... a message [critical of the military’s hiring policy], the government’s contention that it may use the coercive power of federal funding to prevent a school from doing so should be rejected,” the document states. The Supreme Court will consider the arguments presented in the amicus brief in ruling on whether or not the Solomon Amendment violates First Amendment principles of free speech and expression. The amicus brief aids The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), the coalition of law schools that will be contesting the amendment in the upcoming Supreme Court case on Dec. 6. In November last year, FAIR won its case in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The court later stated that it would not put the ruling into effect but instead await a decision from the Supreme Court.