Why is the FAA all of a sudden so concerned about the spacing between plastic clasps on wiring in all of these airplanes? Why are they shutting so many planes down this week, when the immediate danger is almost nothing? Why was the FAA unconcerned at best, deliberately harmful at worst, only a few weeks ago?
Well. Why is this headline from the AP getting so little coverage? "Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations" (where "Harsh Interrogations" really means "Torture").
Diversion. Every politician uses diversionary tactics, e.g. releasing bad press late on a Friday. In this case maybe the administration thought they needed to truly clog up the news channels with something benign but something that dramatically affects thousands of citizens. It's not unimaginable.
Any congressman or woman who does not support immediate criminal investigations of the adminstration at the cabinet level should not be re-elected.
I truly get the impression that the current action by the FAA has nothing to do with the FAA or the safety of air travel. This may be an irrational theory, but are there any _rational_ theories for the current FAA fiasco?
6 comments:
The simpler explanation is that the opposition party likes whistleblowers who can embarrass the administration.
When you make non-Python posts on your blog, is there anyway to flag/filter them as such so that they don't appear at planetpython.org? I'm sure you can understand that (some) people don't want news commentary when they are looking for Python posts. Can it be done?
"When you make non-Python posts on your blog, is there anyway to flag/filter them as such so that they don't appear at planetpython.org?"
I hardly ever post about Python. Perhaps platpython.org should drop my blog.
"The simpler explanation is that the opposition party likes whistleblowers who can embarrass the administration."
In this case the whistleblowers were right, even if they have some relationship to the Democratic party.
If the administration's response to whistleblowers is going to be shutting down whatever industry then they've truly gone madder than ever. The next nine months could get really scary to think about what these madmen and women might do.
You might want to read these editorials and then reconsider your "diversion" theory:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787056112706437.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0412edit1apr12,0,6451542.story
A Democrat chairs the House Transportation Committee.
The WSJ could not resolve the first link, but the second link makes my point precisely: the FAA had been lax if not deliberately negligent in enforcing regulations against Southwest. Turns out some uppity-ups in the FAA have financial ties to Southwest.
And so congress excercises its obligation, asking why the FAA has been lax. The FAA's response is to get all out of whack and all but shut down air travel. Turns out the violations in question (plastic spacers) could have been caught long ago, could have been fixed gradually, and should not have shut down air travel altogether.
Congress makes the laws. The administration is responsible for enforcing them. In this case they've done a poor job, and dangerous even, and then they did a poor job, economically damaging even.
That has nothing to do with the Democratic party, or congress. That is an administrative choice. Whacky. And anyone pinning this on congress or the Democratics party (of which I am not a member, BTW) has to do better than the Tribune reference above.
Post a Comment