BrentAllen

Uh... McFly... that would be the paper plates and napkins the parents brought in for classroom parties...not the ones used in the cafeteria. Same with the cupcakes. Parents were told not to bring in those items, in those colors. Comprende? I can see having these discussions with you is not going to be easy. You really don't like Christians, do you? What - were you the one kid in your school or neighborhood who wasn't? Exactly where do your religious beliefs lie? If you tell me it has to do with Saturn, and you aren't aware of the human sacrifices, I'm going to be awfully disappointed! As for the poinsettias, I believe I included the proper title for the story: The LEGEND of the Poinsettia. Webster will explain what a legend is, better than me.

Beaver (I sure wish y'all would use your names, so I know who I'm talking to), I've been unhappy about these school policies long before Gibson and O'Reilly took on the issue. To me, it is more PC crap. You may call it silly, but to me, it sure is silly to ban the colors green and red. How offensive can those colors be?? How about that poinsettia - is it going to be trying to convert students to Christianity?? These policies are what are ridiculous! And yes, I am passionate about it. This is the same mentality behind the Zero Tolerance policies that end up causing an Eagle Scout to get expelled because he has some type of knife in his vehicle at school, which he forgot to take out after a weekend camping trip. In our case, one parent in a school of 700 students complains, and the administration folds like a house of cards. How can having Christmas ornaments for sale in the Holiday Store be offensive, or in violation of someone's rights?? This one parent complains, and they are removed. No one forced her kids to buy them, but she was allowed to prevent any other kids from doing so. These administrators have PhD's, but have lost all common sense! O'Reilly and Gibson have taken on the issue to correct the false impression that the Supreme Court has ruled you can't have Christmas in the classroom. There never has been any such ruling! As for businesses, it cracks me up how they choose to use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in their advertising - to be more inclusive - but then use "After Christmas Sale" the next day. I don't really have a problem with what they use in advertising, though it seems like they could at least acknowledge the reason for all the business they are receiving. My problem is when they insist their employees use Happy Holidays. Maybe it is good business - or maybe it is bad. From the news reports, there are plenty of shoppers out there upset over this, and some companies have changed policies, to include Merry Christmas in advertising/salutations. I'm not naive - they aren't doing this to "save Christmas" - they are doing it to make more money.

Gern, Could it be the anti-religion, anti-Christian liberals want to get rid of the symbolism first, so the substance will be forgotten later?

Cliff/Kudu, Urban Legend, say you? Sorry, but you spend too much time reading lefty blogs. The Plano schools did not allow green and red plates and napkins, and icing on cupcakes. Bill O'Reilly mispoke when he said the policy extended to clothing - he was wrong about that, just as you are wrong about the rest of the ban being urban legend. From here in Dunwoody, how much evidence do you want? The school, Austin Elementary, was our Chartered Organization until this month, when I (Cubmaster) had to move it the Austin PTA (thanks, ACLU). My wife, who happens to be the COR, is also a Third Grade teacher there. I have two kids who attend the school. I could be a wise acre and claim our kids aren't allowed to wear red and green clothing to school before "winter break", which is absolutely true, but that is because those colors aren't part of the school uniform. The rest of the story is true, and not some urban legend. Still waiting for the numbers on those Aztec webpages. I'm glad you now understand the "Merry Christmas" greeting and federal holidays issue. I'm curious - are you also nostalgic for the human sacrifices and slavery of Saturnalia?

My point about the airline employees saying Merry Christmas is not that they should be forced to, but that they should be free to do so, if they wish. I took the previous comment to insinuate the employees were instructed to say Happy Holidays instead, as employees are reportedly instructed to do at other companies, such as Target. For those companies and individuals who need a little further explanation about Christmas in this country, please note there is only one federal holiday for a religious date - Christmas. Also, note that 70 - 80% of the residents of this country describe themselves as Christian. An even larger percentage of the population celebrates Christmas. Yes, Hanukkah also started on 12/25 this year - the first of 8 days of that celebration. Do the airline employees wish the passengers Happy Thanksgiving, which is also a federal holiday? How about Happy New Year or Happy Fourth of July? So whether as a religious or secular holiday greeting, airline employees should be free to wish their passengers a Merry Christmas. Same with Target or any other PC-concerned company.

Cliff/Kudu, So that was your house decorated with the bound and hanging Santa this year. Nice. Must be real popular with the neighborhood kids. Sorry you have such a twisted notion of Christmas. With 564 websites, all with the exact same language on the legend of the poinsettia, it sounds like that is a pretty popular and well excepted version of the Christmas plant. How many websites can you find, all with the exact same language, that explain the Aztec history? Case closed. Why should the airlines say "Merry Christmas" on December 25th? For the same reason the federal government and most businesses are closed today. Can you figure that one out, or do I need to explain further? Merry Christmas!

Kudu, I'm so proud of you, being able to perform simple internet research, sitting in front of your little computer. Or do you maintain all this knowledge in your head, same as Cliff Claven? Out here in the real world, poinsettias are a beautiful gift we give in the celebration of Christmas. The administration at our school told teachers to get them out of their classrooms precisely because they are a symbol of Christmas ("too Christmassy") - not because some Aztec king liked them. If you can't understand this, please return to your one-way conversations with internet research. Or maybe you can re-educate the world on the history of the swastika, especially its relationship to Scouting.

Kudu, I'm so proud of you, being able to perform simple internet research, sitting in front of your little computer. Or do you maintain all this knowledge in your head, same as Cliff Claven? Out here in the real world, poinsettias are a beautiful gift we give in the celebration of Christmas. The administration at our school told teachers to get them out of their classrooms precisely because they are a symbol of Christmas ("too Christmassy") - not because some Aztec king liked them. If you can't understand this, please return to your one-way conversations with internet research. Or maybe you can re-educate the world on the history of the swastika, especially its relationship to Scouting.

Kudu, If that is an attempt at humor, stick to your day job. The Legend of the Poinsettia (which isn't found in the New Testament. Thought I'd save you a couple of days of searching) A charming story is told of Pepita, a poor Mexican girl who had no gift to present the Christ Child at Christmas Eve Services. As Pepita walked slowly to the chapel with her cousin Pedro, her heart was filled with sadness rather than joy. "I am sure, Pepita, that even the most humble gift, if given in love, will be acceptable in His eyes," said Pedro consolingly. Not knowing what else to do, Pepita knelt by the roadside and gathered a handful of common weeds, fashioning them into a small bouquet. Looking at the scraggly bunch of weeds, she felt more saddened and embarrassed than ever by the humbleness of her offering. She fought back a tear as she entered the small village chapel. As she approached the alter, she remembered Pedro's kind words: "Even the most humble gift, if given in love, will be acceptable in His eyes." She felt her spirit lift as she knelt to lay the bouquet at the foot of the nativity scene. Suddenly, the bouquet of weeds burst into blooms of brilliant red, and all who saw them were certain that they had witnessed a Christmas miracle right before their eyes. From that day on, the bright red flowers were known as the Flores de Noche Buena, or Flowers of the Holy Night, for they bloomed each year during the Christmas season. Today, the common name for this plant is the poinsettia.

I hunt, and I'm also a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals!). I started in college, deer and duck hunting. It was in my blood all along, it just took awhile to discover it. I've been lucky enough to have the privilege of hunting in Africa, in Namibia. Yes, the heads of the trophies are on the wall (greater kudu, oryx, spring buck, red hartebeast, zebra). The four horned trophies all made the Safari Club International record book. The hunting industry in Africa is well regulated, probably more so than here. Most countries in Africa get a huge percentage of their revenue from foreign hunters, so they have to keep the herds healthy - protect the golden goose, if you will. Taking trophies usually means taking an older animal out of the herd. Nothing wrong with that, as there are plenty of young bucks waiting in the wings to take over mating duties. Yes, it is good PC to slam "trophy hunters" these days, but most don't know what they are talking about. In some countries or states, hunting laws require the head of the animal to be taken out last - all the other meat parts must be carried out first. This is to discourage the "slob hunters" from ruining everything for the rest of us. The oryx made our best beef taste second-rate. I would have shot 10 of them, if I could have brought the meat back. Unfortunatly, the US does not allow any meat products into the country. But don't worry - nothing is wasted in Namibia! All the meat goes to feed the local natives in that poor country. And since they have so few natural resources, they find a way to use everything. Those here who don't hunt and don't think they have ever killed anything - how many animals lost their habitat when your subdivision was built? Which is worse - pulling the trigger yourself, or paying a mercenary to do it for you? At least that wild animal has a chance... As to the part about pulling the trigger and how you feel. Imagine being in a tree stand since a half hour before dawn - for the third day in a row. It's freezing cold, and you hope your shivering doesn't tip off your location. The first two days, you saw nothing, not even a squirrel. This morning, just as the light starts to bring the forest into view, you see a deer, moving like a ghost. It doesn't make a sound, and is so cautious, you are afraid you will be spotted if you blink your eyes. Your heart starts pumping so hard, you know the deer is going to hear it. The excitment builds like nothing I've experienced. The deer comes closer, moving into range, and broadside. You raise your weapon so slowly, you don't think it will ever get into position. You are still shaking, but you don't even feel the cold now. You force yourself to settle down, and make the shot. At that split second, all the days, weeks or months of work have finally paid off - you feel a huge sense of exhilaration, almost as if you just hit a game-winning grand slam in game 7 of the World Series, but different. The deer in hunted areas become so ellusive, you wonder if you will ever get a shot at one. It is much different than photo safaris in areas that aren't hunted, where you see plenty of game. Once the animal is down, I thank God for the animal and realize the real work starts now - field dressing and getting the deer to the processor. Sure, an animal dies in the hunt, but he is going to die at some point. I guess all I can really say is hunting is in my blood. Robert Ruark is much more eloquent - check out "The Old Man And The Boy" for some great reading.

War on Christmas isn't real? Then tell me what this is: Our public elementary school has instructed parents not to bring green and red paper plates or napkins to the "end of term party." (Can't say Christmas) Teachers must take home immediatly any poinettias they receive as gifts, and they can't bring any to school, because they are "too Christmassy." A parent complained there were Christmas ornaments being offered for sale in the school's "Holiday Store" so they were removed. (the store offers gifts for kids to purchase for their parents) Is that a war on Christmas, or just my imagination? DK - if MLK,Jr. went around telling everyone he was the one true Son of God, would people think he was a total nut job, or a great leader and teacher? Merry Christmas from Dunwoody!

Y'all don't like scenarios, so here is some reality. 2 Killed in Carjacking, Shooting by Don Plummer The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Category: News Center September 13, 2005 Kimberly D. Boyd took her son to preschool Monday morning, then dropped by a bank before heading to her office in north Cobb County. Minutes later, her routine was shattered, and sometime before 9:30 a.m. she was struggling for her life with a carjacker as her Toyota Sequoia raced south on U.S. 41. The kidnapping ended with the 30-year-old Acworth woman dead and the carjacker fatally shot by a passer-by. Boyd died instantly when her SUV was broadsided by a cement truck, police said. Within seconds, the man driving Boyd's car was also dead -- shot by Shawn Roberts, 31, who had seen Boyd fighting the man and followed the car, police said. "She was fighting for her life," Roberts, who lives in Acworth, told WAGA-TV. Roberts told police he was driving north on U.S. 41 about 9:30 a.m. when he saw a man beating a woman outside the SUV, just south of the Lake Allatoona bridge. He stopped and turned around on the four-lane road to help the woman, said Cobb Police Cpl. Dana Pierce. The carjacker pushed the woman back into the SUV and took off, with the doors still open. Roberts followed about two miles to Lake Acworth Drive, where the crash occurred, Pierce said. As Boyd's car turned east on Lake Acworth Drive, it was struck by the cement truck. Witness Bobby Williams said the truck had just started away from a traffic light and was traveling no more than 10 mph when it hit the SUV. Williams, owner of A2Z Auto Service at 4356 North Cobb Parkway, said he saw Roberts get out of his 2004 black Dodge Ram pickup and run toward the accident scene wearing a leather shoulder holster. "He looked official," Williams said, explaining that he thought Roberts might be a plainclothes police officer. "He hollered at [the carjacker], 'Stay where you are. Stay where you are.' " The carjacker ran toward a Raceway gas station on the corner and Roberts chased him. He told police the man turned a gun toward him, and he had to do something. "I shot and killed a man today," Roberts told WAGA-TV. "I don't feel good about it, but if I hadn't have done something somebody else would have died." Williams said he heard at least four, perhaps five, gunshots. "He [the carjacker] was five feet in front of me when he got hit," Williams said. "On TV, all that flailing around that goes on is not what happened. He dropped like a sack of potatoes." Monday night, Cobb police identified the dead man as Brian Clark, 25, who has family in Acworth. Police did not say whether Clark lived in the area. No charges were filed against the cement truck driver, who was not identified. Police questioned Roberts, who they said was not an off-duty officer, before releasing him without filing charges. "All I can say right now is to offer my condolences of the family of the woman," Roberts said when reached at his home Monday night in Acworth. "I'm postponing any comments just for a few days," he added, saying he was acting on legal advice. Boyd's family could not be reached Monday. Police are still unsure where the carjacking began, Pierce said. They are tracing possible routes from Allatoona Truck Rental, the business Boyd operated on Cherokee Street in Acworth, according to public records. Police said she left her office shortly after arriving there Monday morning. The first 911 call on the crash and shooting came in about 9:30 a.m. Police also were investigating the possibility that the gun in the carjacker's possession had been taken in a robbery, rape and carjacking in Acworth last Tuesday, said Cobb robbery squad Lt. Tom Arnold. "We're looking into that and whether the suspect in this assault is the same as in last week's attack in Acworth," Arnold said. Acworth police spokesman Wayne Dennard said his department also is investigating the possibility that the man killed Monday morning was the suspect in a rape last Tuesday. In last week's attack, a woman was assaulted as she left home and was forced inside, where she was beaten and raped before being forced to drive to a nearby bank to get money from an ATM, Dennard said. The woman instead ran inside the bank and her assailant drove away in her car, which was later found abandoned, he said. Late Monday, Boyd's SUV was driven on a flatbed into the Cobb crime lab impound building next to the medical examiner's office where the bodies of Boyd and her assailant were taken, Arnold said. Fingerprints were taken from the dead man Monday, Arnold said. Autopsies on Boyd and the man are to be conducted today. Police will compare the dead man's fingerprints and DNA to evidence recovered from last week's attack, Arnold said. Meanwhile, police revealed Tuesday that Clark had a criminal record. He pleaded guilty to committing statutory rape and child molestation in Cobb County in 2003 and received an 18-month prison sentence. Clark also had a forgery conviction in Cherokee County in 2004. Too bad Kimberly wasn't armed; good thing Shawn Roberts was. Why weren't the police there to protect Kimberly?? There were witnesses calling 911, the policer were notified, why couldn't they stop the crime and save her life??

Zahnada, I really don't care what you accept as being logical. You can't give a single reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own my handguns. I have never broken a law with mine, they have never been stolen. So I should give them up just so you can feel comfortable? Please show me where that is written in the Constitution. As for a scenario where I would want to use a firearm to stop a carjacker? How about if my kids are in the back. I guess you would just let the scum bag drive off with your kids. I guess they aren't worth that much to you. Sorry, but mine are worth fighting for. I happen to think firearms are the BEST way to protect my family. As I have mentioned elsewhere, if Mr. Bad guy just crashed through your window with an ax, how are you going to stop him? If you get a 911 call off, it is going to take 20 minutes for the police to arrive. How are you going to protect your family? Sounds like a ridiculous scenario? The idea of muslim extremists flying 2 jets into the World Trade Towers sounded pretty ridiculous - until it happened. BTW, the courts have ruled the police are NOT required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." The only fear and paranoia I see is from people like you who are afraid of law-abiding citizens owning guns. All the statistics prove your fears to be absolutely wrong. In every state where they have changed to laws to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, violent crime has gone down. So please show me all the handgun violence that is so prevalent, that I should be forced to give mine up. Hunt - I don't have to worry about the states; it's the feds who have been a problem. In 1987, there were 10 states that had Right To Carry laws, today there are 38. The states have been moving in the right direction, and all the "blood in the streets" the anti-gunners have been claiming we would see was all pure fiction and scare tactics. All those road-rage incidents that would turn into shoot-outs on the highways were pure liberal fiction. Again, you are welcome for the protection we give to all you non-gunowners; the bad guys still don't know you are an unarmed, defensless potential victims.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Zahnada, Your arguments show why it is so scary for people with a lack of knowledge of firearms and their use to be proposing gun restrictions. First, handguns are not designed and manufactured solely to kill people. A firearm is designed to shoot a projectile down a barrel, nothing more. It is up to the user to decide where that firearm is pointed. Handguns are used in competitions all over this country, as well as in the Olympics. There are plenty of people who own pistols solely for recreational shooting, others who own them for self-defense, and others who just collect. Being that we live in the USA, I believe law-abiding citizens are allowed to own and use them, guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment. If they aren't breaking the law, why should they be forced to give them up? Check the crime rates in England, since they got rid of their pistols - it is not what we should strive for. Second, some of us have carry permits, and carry in our vehicles. Imagine trying to stop a carjacker with a rifle or shotgun - not too easy, eh? Also, rifle ammunition is much more powerful than handgun ammo, and the chance of a round going through a wall and hitting a friendly is much higher. Ever wonder why the Police carry pistols, and rarely get the rifles out? Swinging a rifle around in a hallway is also pretty difficult, or around tight corners. Something that large is also hard to store safely but also kept handy. A pistol, on the other hand, is easy to secure in a way that the kids can't get to it, but I can retrieve it very quickly if needed. Finally, when I'm walking down the street, it would be pretty hard for me to carry a rifle. Your proposal would disarm all pedestrians, making them easy targets for bad guys in vehicles (bad guy in the back seat with a rifle or shot gun).

LongHaul, I don't even know where to begin with someone who thinks Michael Moore tells the gospel truth. You should really get some perspectives other than just the far, far left. First, the bin Laden family was not flown out of the country during the two days after 9/11. They were flown around IN the country, by the FBI, to gathering points, for their safety. And there were other flights during that period as well, mainly to get Saudi officials out of the country. Sorry, I won't go along with the "blame America first" crowd. You can choose sides, and so can I. I don't recall the Israelis saying they wanted to kill all Muslims, while the Palestinians and others have stated loudly and clearly their goal is to drive the Israelis into the sea. You can try to call it an occupation, but many of those lines were drawn back in the 1940's by the UN. Surely you think the UN is the great arbiter on the planet! Just for fun, let's say everything you posted is correct. We have a bunch of hacked-off Muslims ready to kill us. What does LongHaul recommend we do? Specifically. I keep asking these questions, but never get any answers.

Long-Haul, I love how the muslims over there hate us for our western ways, while they wear our latest fashions and footwear, and enjoy our latest technological advances. They claim to hate us because we are infidels, and killing us earns them special rewards with Allah. Do you have more insight into the problem? They were hating us and killing us long before we entered Iraq. World Trade Center bombing in 1993, USS Cole bombing. Why is that, exactly? Please tell us, with your infinite wisdom, how we should end this conflict and resolve all our differences? What concessions should the evil US make to build bridges with these wonderful, peaceful people? Should we destroy all of our Christian churches, and outlaw Christianity? The same with Judaism? I am so ready to hear how we can appease the righteous Al-Qaeda.

A scenario for Long Haul and P-S: Al-Qaeda operatives in the US just grabbed your sons. They threaten to behead them with a dull, rusty butcher knife on camera unless the US is completely out of Iraq in the next 48 hours. You know that isn't going to happen. The FBI grabs an operative who knows where the boys are being held. You two suddenly have a change of heart about torture, and you are ready to do some "information extraction" in any way that will work. Unfortunately, Congress has passed their law making any kind of torture illegal. How does that law Congress is proposing look now? We are not proposing torture be used regularly. We are saying Congress should not tie the hands of everyone for every circumstance, and that is what they are trying to do. Real life scenario. A Captain on the ground in Iraq is losing soldiers regularly to road-side bombs and ambushes. One of the locals point out this Iraqi who seems to know when they are going to happen, because he has been warning some to stay away from certain roads at certain times. The soldiers grab him and bring him in. The Captain is certain the Iraqi has intel, but won't talk. He takes the Iraqi outside his tent, points his sidearm at his head and says he will kill him if he doesn't talk. Mr. Iraqi is scared, but still won't talk. Captain throws him on the ground, puts sidearm in his face and threatens again. Iraqi still won't talk. Captain points firearm a foot away from Iraqi's head, and fires into the sand. Mr. Iraqi has a sudden change of heart, and starts telling about an upcoming ambush. The Captain's actions saved the lives of American soldiers. Unfortunately, this was considered torture and he was relieved of his command and brought up for Court Marshal. I have no problem with the Captain's actions. This is war, not capture the flag. I'm afraid Congress, sitting in their nice surroundings, wearing their nice suits, has no idea what they are doing with this proposal. They need to get out in the war zone before they take any action on defining torture.

P-S, The 43-1 statistics were thoroughly disproven. The author, Arthur Kellerman, made unbelievable conclusions and even math mistakes to arrive at those results. As an example, (Wikipedia) "In 1986, he published the study for which he is best known. It examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an intruder." He excludes all self defense gun uses which do not involve the DEATH* of an assailant (elsewhere shown to be 99% of all self defense incidents). Similarly, he defines "member of the household" and "acquaintance" such that it would include rival gang members and other intruders who are known to the victim. Even if the only gun involved in a fatal shooting was a gun brought by an intruder, he admittedly includes this in his proof of the risks of gun ownership. Further examination of his work is impossible because he refuses to completely release his source data for review." *Can you believe that? He only counts a successful gun defense as one where the intruder dies!?!? Can you say "bias"?? Go to Wikipedia and check out John Lott, Jr. to get another side of the story. His studies showed that more guns equal less murder, and that guns are only fired in 8% of the cases where a gun is used to deter a crime. You rarely ever hear about the other 92% where crimes are stopped with a gun - because it isn't fired and no one is hurt. P-S, you are welcome to your opinion; I just would like you to be informed before you make it.

Hunt, I find it interesting that liberals can read the 2nd Amendment, and in their interpretation, they cannot find anything to establish an individual right. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, they can read the 1st, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." and can jump to the conclusion that the amendment prohibits school prayer. How does having school prayer equate to having Congress make a law establishing a religion? Congress making a law is a pretty high bar to cross. Has any school asked Congress to pass a law establishing a religion? NO!! So yes, it is interesting to see how far liberals can jump when they want to, but yet how "conservative" they can be when it comes to guns. Tell you what - if you and all your liberal buddies are so convinced the 2nd is only about militias, and since we don't need militias in this day and age, y'all just get your representatives to propose abolishing the 2nd. If everyone is as anti-gun as y'all think, it should be a piece of cake.

I think the text is pretty clear - all able-bodied persons in the state are the militia. That includes you, assuming you are able-bodied. Nobody gets paid, the citizens are expected to show up ready to defend their state, if needed. Why would you get paid to defend your home? Sure, let' set licensing and testing before you can use your firearms. And when we get an anti-gun government in power, that makes the testing so impossible that no one can pass it, then what do we do? Sounds like a poll tax to me, and the constitutionality of those has long since been determined. The TSA was given the charge of training and testing pilots who wanted to carry weapons aboard commercial jets. The TSA never wanted to arm the pilots, so they have been foot-dragging the whole way. If congress wasn't strongly in favor of the arming plan, it never would have happened. Imagine a government that doesn't want the citizens to be armed. They could make the process so impossible that it would, in effect, be a gun ban. The SCOTUS has said you can't do that. Pilots Push for Gun Training Monday, March 14, 2005 WASHINGTON While the pace of training and deployment of armed pilots on commercial flights has picked up, supporters of the program say the Bush administration still is making it unnecessarily difficult for crews to take guns into the cockpit. Pilots who monitor the program estimate that between 4,000 and 4,500 have been trained and deputized to carry guns since the Federal Flight Deck Officer program (search) began in April 2003. That total is about three times as many as a year ago, yet a fraction of the 95,000 pilots who fly for U.S. airlines. David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (search), a group formed to lobby for guns in the cockpit, said tens of thousands of his colleagues are interested in the program. "We have an armed pilots program that's arming very few pilots," said Mackett, who hasn't signed up because of the way the program is run. He said many others won't join for the same reason. Mackett contends the Transportation Security Administration (search) isn't moving to get substantially more pilots trained to carry guns because it has never really wanted the program. TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield disputed that, saying agency chief David Stone fully backs the effort and that procedures have been changed to more quickly get pilots into the program. "I've got a pipeline with a couple of thousand applicants and we're running two full classes a week," Hatfield said. The TSA can train about 50 pilots per class. Hatfield said he couldn't disclose which procedures had been adjusted because of the program's sensitive security nature. The exact number of armed pilots is classified. No pilot has fired a weapon, either intentionally or accidentally, while on duty, according to TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley. The TSA initially opposed the program, worrying that introducing a weapon to a commercial flight was dangerous and that other security enhancements since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made it unnecessary. The agency reluctantly endorsed the idea when it was clear Congress was behind it. The Bush administration now wants to spend $7 million more on arming pilots in 2006 than the $25.3 million this year. The increase will mostly go toward retraining pilots who already carry firearms, according to a TSA spokeswoman, Amy von Walter. Pilots must volunteer, take a psychological test and complete a weeklong firearms training program run by the government to keep a gun in the cockpit. Mackett said it can take from two months to a year to get a gun from the time an online application is submitted. Some pilots never even hear back from the TSA, he said. Mackett said the psychological testing and background checks are unnecessary because pilots already have been carefully vetted by their airlines to be able to fly commercial jets. Hatfield countered that the requirements are needed because of the unique stresses of defending a plane from terrorists while trying to fly it. "All of the testing, including the psych portion, is designed to ensure we have the most capable candidates for this extremely demanding job," he said. "Unlike other law enforcement jobs, it's not just about making a life-or-death decision and waiting for backup. It's about making that decision and then turning around and flying the plane again." Another pilots' group, the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (search), gave the TSA a "D" for the guns-in-the-cockpit program as part of its annual "Aviation Security Report Card." Both pilot groups object to the requirement that pilots carry their government-issue semiautomatic guns in a lockbox when they're not in the cockpit and to store it in the cargo hold when they're traveling but not flying a plane. Coalition president Jon Safle said that forcing pilots to give up their guns is "just not a smart thing to do" and that it exposes the weapons to loss or theft. Last year, Congress failed to pass a bill that would speed the application and training process, allow pilots to carry guns in holsters and let those among them with military or law enforcement backgrounds carry guns immediately. Mackett said the pilots will try again this year.

Sure. Let's refuse to do anything that might be considered torture, while they are brutally cutting the heads of US citizens, filming it, and broadcasting it. I can go along with that. While we're at it, let's take the military's rifles away, and give them soda straws and sheets of paper. Our soldiers might get lucky and hit them in the eye! They fly planes into our buildings, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children, and we are worrying about humiliating them. We have lost.

As an American, I clearly remember watching the towers fall, and thinking this country is in real trouble. We were just attacked by a terrorist army that is not anchored in any one country, and does not identify itself by wearing a uniform. My initial thinking was this country did not have the guts to fight this battle. Winning would require taking the battle to the terrorists' backyard, wherever it may be - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Egypt. This country had gotten too soft, drifted too far to the left, and had become too politically correct to fight this battle. Even if we were to get started, we wouldn't have the stomach to see it through. The left would drag the country down and force us out of the battle, either because of their anti-war beliefs or because they could use the argument to win political points. I saw this all in the span of a few minutes, as those towers fell to the ground. The terrorist problem is clear to me. The political leaders in the middle east countries harbor the terrorist, either because they believe in their cause or because they fear them. Al-Qaeda is not restrained by any political boundaries - they go where they please. The only way to get rid of them is to go into those countries and clean house. Remove those political leaders who sympathize with Al-Qaeda, and convince the others they should fear/respect the US more than they do the terrorists. I could not think of any other way to rid the world of Al-Qaeda, and I knew they would not cease to hate us. We certainly were not going to negotiate with them. I did not think we could ever muster the resolve to take the first step, much less see any way we could possibly win. How do you fight an enemy who refuses to show itself (either in uniform or on the battlefield)? How do you fight an enemy that has free reign of the area, while we would be constrained by political boundaries (country borders)? How many of their operatives were already in this country, waiting to strike? Looked pretty hopeless to me. Then, we went into Afghanistan and won - drove out the Taliban. A small step, but in the right direction. Then we went into Iraq. Hindsight shows Saddam was living a lie, but he had fooled everyone - the US (Republicans, Democrats alike), the UN, Britain - everyone. Regardless, we are there and we are killing the terrorists. We are fighting in Iraq, instead of in the US. Sure, the terrorists are coming in from Syria and Iran - I say let them come. Kill then now in Iraq, instead of later in the US or somewhere else. Some will claim we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. I say they claimed to hate America before the war started. They attacked us, not only on 9/11 but also on the USS Cole and other locations. We were infidels before we ever entered Iraq, and we will always be. They will not stop hating us when we leave. If we were not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, would we even know where they were? Would we be able to get to them? We have removed a leader who gave sanctuary and free passage to the terrorists, as well as financial support. Regardless of whether anyone believes Saddam trained Al-Qaeda or not, we all know Saddam would never be our ally in this battle. He would never help us in any way. He was an evil dictator who is now gone, and we are building allies in the area. I have friends, 40 & 50 years old, who joined the Georgia 48th so they could go to Iraq. They left their families and friends behind and are risking their lives for this cause. They honestly believe if they don't win this battle now, their sons and grandsons will be fighting this war here in the states. I know students at North Georgia College who have done the same. Even though they are in a military college, they also joined the National Guard, so they could go fight. These are not mercenaries - these are decent men with strong families. You may not agree with them. You may not agree with the war. Can you at least consider they may be fighting for you? Can you understand that much of the political attacks against the president and the war might be helping the terrorists? Signs of weakness only emboldens the terrorists.

Beaver, I remember my history - reread my post. I commented on the 1996 bombing (when Republicans wanted to know strategy) and then (in 1998) when they were skeptical of the bombing the night before Monica's testimony. For your comparison to be valid, Republicans would have been in front of cameras demanding Clinton get a UN resolution authorizing the us of force. Republicans never did! They questioned his true motives (in 1998), which I think was entirely appropriate. They did not demand he seek UN approval, or even call for a Congressional vote. Yes, both parties have questioned the president, but the level to which the complaints and protests rose were entirely different - no comparison! If you can't see this difference, I suggest you check your alphabet - you sound more like a D than an I. Which brings up another point. Nearly everyone I have ever met who said they were an Independent usually turns out to be on the left, once a few questions are asked. All in the mold of "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffords. Just a personal observation. I used to be a Fox...

I fail to see how the two events come close to being similar. In 1996, the Republicans were asking Clinton to discuss the strategy with Congress and the American people. In 2002/2003, after the UN had already issued 4 resolutions against Saddam, the Democrats wanted another, so Bush went and got it. After Congress had already given Bush authority to act, they wanted yet another vote on the subject, and Bush gave it to them. How do those two compare? When Clinton decided to bomb Iraq the night before Monica was to testify, the Republicans were justifiably skeptical. I don't remember the Republicans ever demanding Clinton get approval from the UN before he launched any attacks in Iraq, or even in Bosnia. No, this comparison is apples to oranges.

I may be saying the same thing as Ed, but in a word - enthusiasm! No matter what you are doing, a little enthusiasm will go a long way towards building cooperation and getting the job done. Add A LOT of enthusiasm, and you can build a great team that others want to become a part of. Just a spark of enthusiasm can set off a wildfire!