gee-bug Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 Maybe an after effect of this tragedy is that this country (USA) will finally develop a reliable and comprehensive interstate passenger rail system. I'm not averse to flying, but most of the time I don't <i>need</i> to fly, it's just the only option. It has been a real eye-opener to see how the FAA shutdown and the new security regs have caused such turmoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuel_dilworth Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 I will not be drawn into personal attacks (that truly would be "flaming"), but I will comment on some questions, although perhaps they were meant rhetorically.<p> <em>"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."</em><p> That is very true (out of interest, who said that?). But I do not advocate doing nothing. I honestly feel there are better ways to get rid of terrorism than military oppression. It will take time, because anti-American feelings in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world, are at an all-time high (or were, until a few days ago). But by leading the way in showing love, and by doing so implementing such international policy changes as necessary to allow peace to prevail in the Middle East and elsewhere, I think the world could once again have hope. Maybe I�m naively optimistic, maybe I have too much faith in most of humanity�s inherent desire to do good, but I say, how on earth are we going to justify more killings without first at least <em>trying</em> to solve our disputes amiably!! I don�t say this with pride, but if everyone in this world shared my feelings there would have been no WTC disaster, and no war in the Middle East. On the other hand, most people in this thread seem to be able to justify military killings to themselves, if I am understanding correctly?<p> <em>Does he think Saddam would have left Kuwait if everyone would have sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing "Feelings?"</em><p> I would not compare independent terrorist acts to public military acts of a state. However, if you insist, no, I don�t think Saddam would have left Kuwait without military pressure being applied. At the same time, I don�t feel our respective countries� continued military presence there is doing any good, and it is certainly doing an awful lot of harm. We call Tuesday an "act of war", but our weekly bombings in the Middle East are merely "peace enforcement" (work that oxymoron out yourself). The terms don�t make a difference to the thousands of innocent lives snuffed out in both locations, though.<p> As is often the case when strongly different views are being expressed, people become polarized into the extreme ends of their argument. I live in Northern Ireland and have seen first hand more terrorism than most people will ever hear about. I hate terrorism with a passion stronger than you are able to comprehend. The events of Tuesday are vile beyond words, and I think it would be fair to say I am angered by them more than most Americans. But violence leads to hatred being ingrained, as is so clearly demonstrated by the situation in my country today, and when the new anti-terrorism coalition starts killing more innocent people in frustration at not getting the terrorists themselves, yet more hate will be entrenched.<p> I firmly believe that no one, not even the world�s superpower, has the sovereignty to undermine the sanctity of human life.<p> I can but pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tse_sung_wu7 Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 I, for one, tend to agree with what Dilworth is writing. I don't know of any military or technological way to win a war with people who are willing to attack civilian targets with suicide bombers. As it has been opined in a German daly, all you can do is try not to lose as badly. I think we need to understand how it is that the US has become so hated in some parts of the world that voices of reason have given way to acts of extremism. A similar debate is happening here in the US- those who want swift military revenge, and those who don't- at least not w/o further deliberation. I fear that our sorrow and disgust will turn only into rage. <p> This might be of interest to some- <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/ feature/2001/09/13/justice/index.html">an article in Salon</a> on how to treat Bin Laden, if he is the culprit, more as a criminal, not an enemy in war. <p> While I don't know exactly how relevant this discussion still is to the Leica Photog. space, I hope that everyone will help maintain the civility and goodwill that really characterizes it above and beyond other places in cyberspace. <p> May all beings be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kens Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 Uh...hasn't that been going on in recent years, subsequent to the US embassy bombings and other acts of terrorism attributed to this jerk? Do we really think issuing a US warrant for criminal indictment will cause the international community to spring into action with a global manhunt? The response up to now has been a resounding yawn. US civil and criminal enforcement stops at the US border. Noone beyond that border is obligated to so much as fart in response. <p> Now he/they have escalated and stepped over the line. Escalated response is inevitable. Who said escalation means flying missles? A few isolated right wing, red neck Senators/Representatives? Gimme a break. I've been hearing that kind of knee-jerk, irrational, and inconsequential rhetoric for 50 years. Think outside the box. <p> I'm amused that so many in Afghanistan are running for cover, because I don't think that's the form US response will take. At least I hope not. I'm hoping - as hinted at in carefully worded statements so far - that US leaders are themselves thinking outside the box now. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 Art: Thanks for the report from the trenches. I expect things will be in flux for weeks and months before a final policy becomes uniform at all airports. David Alan Harvey gets along with "one film, one camera, one lens." Travel light. <p> As to Mr. Dilworth, I'll stick to one comment. Either the pilot or the passengers of the flight over Pennsylvania, "overweight" or not, had the presence of mind to resist and at least limit the damage of that attack to themselves and an acre or so of corn, instead of (most likely) the heart of D.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 That story, with the cell phone call quote that "the men had taken a vote and were going to try and take back the plane" is one of the most inspiring stories (to me) that has come out of this whole thing. While there is some talk pointing to the possibility that the military might have shot down the plane over Pennsylvania. It really doesn't matter to me. The fact that those men decided to take action against the terrorists, knowing full well that they would likely die, is an example of true heroism. And it's something I will look up to until the end of my days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_karr Posted September 15, 2001 Share Posted September 15, 2001 Andy: <p> I checked my equipment and it all came through fine. I commonly travel with a Tamrac Expedition 3. It holds 6 lenses and a body and all of the other stuff that I carry. It is very heavily padded. It is also a back pack which helps when I am trekking into the wilds or running through an airport to make connections. <p> Your assessment is correct IMHO. As they checked in my flight, they were changing the rules as they went along. Probably just as well that I checked it. Some of my specialty filters often brought an inspection in the past. :) <p> Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted September 15, 2001 Author Share Posted September 15, 2001 Art: <p> Thanks for the confirmation. Also good point on the filters. Some like the Tiffen Enhancer have metallic coatings, and may create concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_karr Posted September 15, 2001 Share Posted September 15, 2001 Jack: <p> Advice from someone who travels by air a lot. If you take the offending filters and screw them onto a lens, they aren't picked up. We aren't talking about doing anything dangerous here. We are talking about not wasting your time or the time of the security people; they have more important things to do than go through our filter collections. The only thing is identifying the offending filters. The last time they picked-up my B+W orange filter. I don't know why. They did know where it was in the case. :) <p> Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Under the Code of Federal Regulations, film doesn't have to be x-rayed in US airports (except maybe film backs)! It does not matter what speed it is. It can all be hand checked if you like. Print out the regulations (49CFR1544.211(e)(4) to show the screeners! There is too much information on my page to put here. Here is how to avoid the X-ray machine Check my page on it! Here is your definate answer to x-raying in airports. There are links to all the relevant regulations for printing along with an explanation of the federal structure and tips to make things go easier: <a href="http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html">http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now