tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post1402497322615195261..comments2023-11-05T03:54:44.710-08:00Comments on Making it stick.: The Airlines and the News ChannelsPatrick Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02088461489050417591noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-14301879336435331222008-04-12T17:13:00.000-07:002008-04-12T17:13:00.000-07:00The WSJ could not resolve the first link, but the ...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Patrick Loganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088461489050417591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-8456980565694121512008-04-12T07:07:00.000-07:002008-04-12T07:07:00.000-07:00You might want to read these editorials and then r...You might want to read these editorials and then reconsider your "diversion" theory:<BR/><BR/>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787056112706437.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0412edit1apr12,0,6451542.story<BR/><BR/>A Democrat chairs the House Transportation Committee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-3457707121241711582008-04-11T19:12:00.000-07:002008-04-11T19:12:00.000-07:00"The simpler explanation is that the opposition pa..."The simpler explanation is that the opposition party likes whistleblowers who can embarrass the administration."<BR/><BR/>In this case the whistleblowers were right, even if they have some relationship to the Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>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.Patrick Loganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088461489050417591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-73785182468689774262008-04-11T19:10:00.000-07:002008-04-11T19:10:00.000-07:00"When you make non-Python posts on your blog, is t..."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?"<BR/><BR/>I hardly ever post about Python. Perhaps platpython.org should drop my blog.Patrick Loganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088461489050417591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-46911693510217428172008-04-11T18:49:00.000-07:002008-04-11T18:49:00.000-07:00When you make non-Python posts on your blog, is th...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5135517.post-8489999708922407762008-04-11T16:34:00.000-07:002008-04-11T16:34:00.000-07:00The simpler explanation is that the opposition par...The simpler explanation is that the opposition party likes whistleblowers who can embarrass the administration.jaroberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17726047827425261435noreply@blogger.com