Seriously, just FUCKING STOP.
I read this one today and just couldn't believe it guys:
A bipartisan group of senators will introduce legislation to stop the FAA from closing any control towers to meet its sequester cut requirements. "The Protect Our Skies Act, which is co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 18 Senators, would prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from closing any air traffic control towers, including those that are operated by the FAA," says a news release issued by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla), one of the bill's sponsors.(Via AvWeb) So, basically in your infinite stupidity you all went ahead and created a law that imposes budget cuts so draconian that they say it's inconcievable that it woud ever be allowed to go into effect, then when you pull the trigger on this massive bazooka pointed at the nation's head and realize essential services are getting cut as a result your answer (rather than doing something sane like passing a reasonable budget) is to start legislating agencies into an impossible situation: Cut your budget, but don't cut any of the services you provide. Frankly I'm not a huge fan of the tower closings (a bunch of towers at fields I would like to visit would be going away under the FAA's plan, and I think it would turn the airspace over Connecticut into a marvelous knot), but I'd rather the FAA make those cuts rather than wiping out more center and approach controller positions, eliminating maintenance inspectors, or countless other options with potentially more devastating safety implications than closing 150 towers. So my dear esteemed congresscritters, I would like to know two things:
- Exactly what economics program did you all flunk out of?
- Exactly when did you all become experts on the national airpsace system?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the FAA is a service agency, and those services are (a) essential, and (b) provided by people. If you want them to cut their budget they're going to have to cut the least essential of those services, and that - I'm sorry to say - pretty much means "Towers". The other option is to make deeper cuts to approach control and centers, which at least in my little corner of the airspace system are already working above capacity. You also seem to think you know better than the FAA how to run the nation's airspace. First you stomp your feet like petulant children and DEMAND that the FAA integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) into the airspace, now you pitch a hissy and try to micromanage the way they deal with this budget crisis you idiots created. Frankly - you're full of it, and messing with things you don't understand, so PLEASE just fucking STOP - you're making it worse! Just sit on your hands and resist the urge to try to legislate anything until your term is up and we can replace you with something more useful (like perhaps a stuffed wombat. No love, Me.
So anyone who knows me knows that I hate censorship in any form. I'm the guy that wears the "I Read Banned Books" shirt, and considers it to be a required reading list (yeah I'm still working my way through it myself).
So you can imagine I was just a little bit miffed when I found out that @violetblue's talk at BSides SF was apparently cancelled because it offended someone's delicate sensibilities (particularly since they can't have possibly known the content of said talk as it HADN'T BEEN GIVEN YET). I was even a little miffed at @BSidesSF for basically caving to PC-Pressure (unjustly as it turns out, so I'm glad I didn't lay into them), but I just quietly commented on the WTFery of such censorship and moved on...
...until tonight when I read @violetblue's blog post on what went down.
I fully expect this blog entry will piss some people off. Frankly I don't care. Try not to get any wharrgarbl on me if you feel the need to respond.
Continue reading "Political Correctness, Sensitivity, and Censorship in the Information Age"