From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Apr 10 09:28:19 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:28:19 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Govt Trying to shutdown small farmers? Message-ID: <49DF5783.3010901@CasaDelGato.Com> Another bill is making the rounds of various lists. This one does seem rather over-the-top. Do our legislators actually think things like this are good? ----- ttp://thefinalhour.blogspot.com/2009/03/hr-875-end-of-organic-farming.html HR 875: The End Of Organic Farming?Posted by Shattered Paradigm On Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Many small farmers and organic food activists are claiming that if H.R. 875 is passed, it will mean the end of organic farming in the United States. H.R. 875 was introduced by Democrat Rosa DeLauro in February. Her introduction of this bill represents a stunning conflict of interest, because her husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto. Monsanto is the world's biggest producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seeds, and they would GREATLY benefit if thousands of small organic farmers were put out of business, because organic farmers don't use Monsanto products. H.R. 875 is called the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 and you can find the full text of the bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875 This horrific bill would establish a "Food Safety Administration" within the Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate of this new department would be "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes." Section 3 of H.R. 875 defines what type of establishments would be subject to the regulations in this legislation. It that section, a "food production facility" is defined this way: The term 'food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation. So that would include..... *All organic farms *All small farms *All family farms *Even small family gardens if you sell any produce to your neighbor at all If you read this bill, you will see that it gives the government the power to regulate what is "safe" farming, and therefore if organic farmers are not using enough herbicide on their plants to be "safe" or they aren't following the same "quality control" procedures as the big guys they could be instantly put out of business. In addition, it loads small farmers with massive amounts of paperwork and administrative burdens that the big corporations can handle but they can't. That is how you put a horde of small competitors out of business - you get the government to pile on the rules and burdens and regulations until they collapse. That is why Monsanto desperately wants this bill. They hate the small farmers and they want to take them out of the picture. If you care about organic farming, please call Congress and tell them to stop this horrible bill. -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From steveg at swhi.net Fri Apr 10 10:37:45 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:37:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Govt Trying to shutdown small farmers? In-Reply-To: <49DF5783.3010901@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49DF5783.3010901@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <30086.144.183.224.2.1239377865.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Another bill is making the rounds of various lists. > This one does seem rather over-the-top. Do our legislators actually > think things like this are good? Well, yes, apparently they do, and so do a lot of people. Before reaching any conclusions, I would go read the bill instead of relying on this highly biased hype. Yes, the Representative may have a family interest, but there has been *lots* of public outcry over the many outbreaks of e. coli, salmonella, etc., etc., and the lack of effective regulation and enforcement, including the limited charter of the FDA to deal with the issue. So now Congress has a plan to fix it. (And BTW, the bill also has 41 other sponsors, from 21 states plus DC. I doubt that most of them have spouses employed by Monsanto.) The Bill is on THOMAS at . At a quick glance, I see nothing offensive in it *unless* you find offensive the basic concept of the government trying to ensure that the food supply in the public marketplace is safe. There is not one word in it about requiring use of pesticides or any chemicals - that, AFAICT, is just the paranoia of an organic food fanatic. "They hate us, so just watch, they will use this law to destroy us." Bah. Go read the bill instead. Pesticides remain the domain of the FDA. What it actually calls for is "regulations to establish *science-based minimum standards* for the safe production of food by food production facilities." Details of what the regulations are to include are at section 206(c). I will be rather startled if it turns out that "science-based minimum standards" means "you have to use chemical pesticides or we shut you down." Arguably the inclusion of every "farm" is overbroad. If you think so, write to your Member of Congress and suggest a viable alternative; or, more sensibly, wait for the new agency to exist and start promulgating the regulations, and then take advantage of the mandatory opportunity for public comment. - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Fri Apr 10 18:25:08 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:25:08 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Govt Trying to shutdown small farmers? In-Reply-To: <30086.144.183.224.2.1239377865.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <49DF5783.3010901@CasaDelGato.Com> <30086.144.183.224.2.1239377865.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: I think the current Congress is being prodded into action from major breakout problems experienced during the last four years with the distribution of spinach, nuts, melamine additives, and pistachios. The organic folks are *ticked* because none of these breakouts were problems originating from organic businesses, but they're still going to have to deal with the paperwork and added expense and hassle from inspectors. It looks like they're instituting inspections for growers and mass processors similar to health inspections for restaurants. Congress is in turn ticked at the nut biz bozo who KNEW he was shipping tons of infected product. Inspections at the nut factories discovered food processing facilities exposed to the open air via ceilings and roofs with gaping holes in them, where bird access was easy, and a staff apparently incapable of cleaning equipment and environs after a workshift. (The issue with salmonella and e coli is detection, the fact that you can't just look at the goods and clearly see the problem. If we can invent visual ways to detect these things, the bugs become easier to nail, and you can see where the bugs are coming from. You can walk through the produce section at the grocer and spot the salmonella infected greens all the way from the bananas. That would be cool!) From bentley at crenelle.com Fri Apr 10 18:48:14 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:48:14 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Govt Trying to shutdown small farmers? Message-ID: But wait, there's more...someone doesn't like Michelle Obama's garden being organic. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/first-ladys-organic-garden-concerns-chemical-companies-2009-04-09.html Michelle Obama planted an organic garden to promote fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet, but some chemical companies are worried it may plant a seed of doubt in consumers' minds about conventionally grown crops. "Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical," the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) wrote the first lady last month a few days after she and fifth-graders from a local elementary school planted the White House Kitchen Garden. From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Mon Apr 13 21:55:14 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:55:14 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. Message-ID: <49E3FB12.6070309@CasaDelGato.Com> This is the kind of legislation that makes me really wonder if our legislature does any thinking at all. http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009/04/hr669_nonnative_wildlife_invas.php *HR 669: The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act * Topic Categories: *Animalia* ? *Pets* ? *Politics* Posted on: April 13, 2009 9:54 PM, by *"GrrlScientist"* tags: House Resolution 669 , HR 669 , The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act , legislation , pets , politics A proposed new law, House Resolution #669 (HR 669), The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, is working its way through that political tangle known as the United States House of Representatives. This resolution was introduced to the congress on 26 January 2009 and is scheduled to be heard by the House of Representatives on 23 April 2009. The stated purpose of this bill is to prevent the introduction and the propagation of animals that are not native to the United States that are deemed to potentially be capable of harming the economy or the environment, people or native species or their habitats [free PDF ]. On the surface, HR 669 looks like a much-needed environmentally-friendly bill as publicly touted by the Nature Conservancy, an organization I've been a member of for most of my life. HR 669, if enacted into law, proposes to prevent or to potentially undo at least some of the environmental and economic damage caused by invasive bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish and invertebrate species. It will do this by preventing those who own those animal species from keeping or breeding them as well as preventing them from being sold, re-homed or relocated across state or national boundaries for any reason. Fortunately, there is a "Grandfather Clause" that would allow those of us who already have these potentially damaging animals to keep them [see Section 3f], although we still would not be allowed to re-home, sell or breed them nor would we be allowed to move them across either state or national boundaries for any reason [see Section 6]. Even though I strongly support the removal of /all/ free-roaming non-native exotic species by whatever (humane) means possible, I think HR 669 is both grossly misguided and poorly thought out. Here's why; 1. First, HR 669 starts out by automatically exempting most damaging and invasive exotic animals; The exceptions: cat (/Felis catus/), cattle or oxen (/Bos taurus/), chicken (/Gallus gallus domesticus/), dog (/Canis lupus familiaris/), donkey or ass (/Equus asinus/), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated /Anas/ spp.), goat (/Capra aegagrus hircus/), goldfish (/Carassius auratus auratus/), horse (/Equus caballus/), llama (/Lama glama/), mule or hinny (/Equus caballus/ x /E. asinus/), pig or hog (/Sus scrofa domestica/), domesticated varieties of rabbit (/Oryctolagus cuniculus/), or sheep (/Ovis aries/), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated. [Section 14.5(D)] Nowhere in HR 669 is there a formal definition of what constitutes "common and clearly domesticated," which leaves this phrase and its enforcement open to political pressures and litigation interpretations. 2. Species can be added to either the banned or approved lists based upon a vague and poorly-defined risk assessment process. 3. HR 669 calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following their addition to the "Preliminary Approved List." However, there is no mandate that these user fees are reasonable and affordable. As a result, these user fees can be made so cost prohibitive that they eliminate everyone, or nearly everyone from participating in the process, which can result in a few tax-exempt organizations or wealthy individuals using the law to enforce unnecessarily restrictive and poorly thought-out agendas on everyone. Oddly, these user fees are not made available to the USFWS until 36 months into the process, which makes me wonder how would the USFWS fund the first three years of work without the required user fees? 4. Further, there is no requirement anywhere in HR 669 that /any/ import permits are ever granted to anyone. Even if the required permits are granted, where will imported (captive-bred) animals be obtained? Critical habitat for nearly all wild species is declining worldwide, so many animals are becoming threatened or endangered in the wild and thus, they cannot be imported into the US anyway, in accordance with CITES laws. 5. There are literally tens of thousands of species of non-native birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates that are kept and bred in the United States (for example, there are more than 2,500 species of non-native freshwater and marine fish species in the aquarium trade /alone/). Quite simply, USFWS inspectors lack the necessary training to accurately and knowledgeably identify the majority of both native and non-native genera, species, and any potential or existing hybrids, nor would they be likely to know which species are native to specific regions of the United States; and further, these inspectors would be unlikely to be able to accurately identify and distinguish all those thousands of species, cryptic species and hybrids that are not native to the United States. 6. HR 669 could also result in particular species being listed as illegal in /all/ states when in fact, they possess the potential to become established in just one or two specific states. One such example is "my research parrots"; the lories (Loriinae). Lories are illegal in Hawaii because, as tropical nectarivorous/frugivorous parrots, they have the potential to become established there. However, lories lack this capability in the continental United States, yet under HR 669, the entire subfamily would be illegal. One way to address this shortcoming is to allow each state to enact their own prohibited species lists, such as those that already exist in California and Hawaii and most other states. 7. If enacted, HR 669 would be unnecessarily punitive because pet owners will not be allowed to bring any non-approved pets with them if they move to another state or country, nor will they be allowed to give or sell their non-approved pets to anyone else who can care for them. Thus, if a pet owner moves, dies or cannot continue keeping their pet for whatever reason, the only outcome for those pets is euthanization. 8. HR 669 will seriously damage the pet industry, which relies selling both animals and the supplies necessary to keep those animals to pet owners. The loss of profits and other economic damages would not only include pet stores, but would also extend to specialty veterinarians, feed stores, pet care providers (like me) who specialize in caring for exotics and pet boutiques. 9. HR 669 does not address the very real problem of invasive species that are all ready established and thriving throughout the United States, such as feral populations of domestic cats and dogs roaming freely through our cities and suburbs, feral pigs that are digging up Hawaii, and boa constrictors and other snakes slithering around Florida -- all of which have all been scientifically documented as extremely damaging to native species and their habitats. 10. HR 669 completely and inexplicably ignores the tremendous economic, environmental, and habitat damage caused by invasive exotic plant species, many of which are commonly cultivated as "ornamental plants," but which are either toxic or noxious. In principle, I agree with what HR 669 is attempting to do. It seeks to reverse already existing damages caused by invasive species and set up a process that would prohibit possession of those species that are likely to become pests if they escape. It is essential that this country adopts a scientifically-based approach to preventing further environmental damages from escaped exotic species. However, under existing federal laws, a species must be documented as being harmful before it is prohibited. But HR 669 instead operates under the assumption that every non-native animal species is "guilty until proven innocent." It requires that the government prove that any species added to the "approved" list of non-native species cannot become invasive in the US. Possession of any species not on the "approved" list will be prohibited. It takes time and money for the government to study any species and to make an accurate assessment. Considering the chronically dismal state of funding for basic scientific research, especially research into the natural history of non-native animal species, it is unlikely that most exotic species that are kept and bred in this country will be included on the approved list anytime soon. Further, the USFWS is required to complete major portions of the listing and regulation process within just 24 months of passage. Considering that it already takes an average of 4 years for USFWS to determine whether a species is harmful under the current Lacey Act, it is not clear how they will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within the prescribed time frame, particularly considering their lack of staff and funding. Of course, this situation effectively sets up the USFWS for failure and numerous lawsuits by activists. In short, while it is very important for the United States to address the very real issue of damages resulting from exotic species and preventing yet more invasive exotic species from becoming established in this country, HR 669 is not the bill that will produce these desired results. -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 22:47:45 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:47:45 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. In-Reply-To: <49E3FB12.6070309@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49E3FB12.6070309@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0904132047n4612a09fh99f0f66aab9b44c6@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 13, 2009 John G. Lussmyer wrote: > In short . . . . Too late. -- Bill Wilson "And it was long ago, and it was far away, and it was so much better than it is today." --Meatloaf From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Wed Apr 15 14:37:21 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:37:21 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. Message-ID: <49E63771.8090609@CasaDelGato.Com> This is the kind of legislation that makes me really wonder if our legislature does any thinking at all. http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009/04/hr669_nonnative_wildlife_invas.php *HR 669: The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act * Topic Categories: *Animalia* ? *Pets* ? *Politics* Posted on: April 13, 2009 9:54 PM, by *"GrrlScientist"* tags: House Resolution 669 , HR 669 , The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act , legislation , pets , politics A proposed new law, House Resolution #669 (HR 669), The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, is working its way through that political tangle known as the United States House of Representatives. This resolution was introduced to the congress on 26 January 2009 and is scheduled to be heard by the House of Representatives on 23 April 2009. The stated purpose of this bill is to prevent the introduction and the propagation of animals that are not native to the United States that are deemed to potentially be capable of harming the economy or the environment, people or native species or their habitats [free PDF ]. On the surface, HR 669 looks like a much-needed environmentally-friendly bill as publicly touted by the Nature Conservancy, an organization I've been a member of for most of my life. HR 669, if enacted into law, proposes to prevent or to potentially undo at least some of the environmental and economic damage caused by invasive bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish and invertebrate species. It will do this by preventing those who own those animal species from keeping or breeding them as well as preventing them from being sold, re-homed or relocated across state or national boundaries for any reason. Fortunately, there is a "Grandfather Clause" that would allow those of us who already have these potentially damaging animals to keep them [see Section 3f], although we still would not be allowed to re-home, sell or breed them nor would we be allowed to move them across either state or national boundaries for any reason [see Section 6]. Even though I strongly support the removal of /all/ free-roaming non-native exotic species by whatever (humane) means possible, I think HR 669 is both grossly misguided and poorly thought out. Here's why; 1. First, HR 669 starts out by automatically exempting most damaging and invasive exotic animals; The exceptions: cat (/Felis catus/), cattle or oxen (/Bos taurus/), chicken (/Gallus gallus domesticus/), dog (/Canis lupus familiaris/), donkey or ass (/Equus asinus/), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated /Anas/ spp.), goat (/Capra aegagrus hircus/), goldfish (/Carassius auratus auratus/), horse (/Equus caballus/), llama (/Lama glama/), mule or hinny (/Equus caballus/ x /E. asinus/), pig or hog (/Sus scrofa domestica/), domesticated varieties of rabbit (/Oryctolagus cuniculus/), or sheep (/Ovis aries/), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated. [Section 14.5(D)] Nowhere in HR 669 is there a formal definition of what constitutes "common and clearly domesticated," which leaves this phrase and its enforcement open to political pressures and litigation interpretations. 2. Species can be added to either the banned or approved lists based upon a vague and poorly-defined risk assessment process. 3. HR 669 calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following their addition to the "Preliminary Approved List." However, there is no mandate that these user fees are reasonable and affordable. As a result, these user fees can be made so cost prohibitive that they eliminate everyone, or nearly everyone from participating in the process, which can result in a few tax-exempt organizations or wealthy individuals using the law to enforce unnecessarily restrictive and poorly thought-out agendas on everyone. Oddly, these user fees are not made available to the USFWS until 36 months into the process, which makes me wonder how would the USFWS fund the first three years of work without the required user fees? 4. Further, there is no requirement anywhere in HR 669 that /any/ import permits are ever granted to anyone. Even if the required permits are granted, where will imported (captive-bred) animals be obtained? Critical habitat for nearly all wild species is declining worldwide, so many animals are becoming threatened or endangered in the wild and thus, they cannot be imported into the US anyway, in accordance with CITES laws. 5. There are literally tens of thousands of species of non-native birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates that are kept and bred in the United States (for example, there are more than 2,500 species of non-native freshwater and marine fish species in the aquarium trade /alone/). Quite simply, USFWS inspectors lack the necessary training to accurately and knowledgeably identify the majority of both native and non-native genera, species, and any potential or existing hybrids, nor would they be likely to know which species are native to specific regions of the United States; and further, these inspectors would be unlikely to be able to accurately identify and distinguish all those thousands of species, cryptic species and hybrids that are not native to the United States. 6. HR 669 could also result in particular species being listed as illegal in /all/ states when in fact, they possess the potential to become established in just one or two specific states. One such example is "my research parrots"; the lories (Loriinae). Lories are illegal in Hawaii because, as tropical nectarivorous/frugivorous parrots, they have the potential to become established there. However, lories lack this capability in the continental United States, yet under HR 669, the entire subfamily would be illegal. One way to address this shortcoming is to allow each state to enact their own prohibited species lists, such as those that already exist in California and Hawaii and most other states. 7. If enacted, HR 669 would be unnecessarily punitive because pet owners will not be allowed to bring any non-approved pets with them if they move to another state or country, nor will they be allowed to give or sell their non-approved pets to anyone else who can care for them. Thus, if a pet owner moves, dies or cannot continue keeping their pet for whatever reason, the only outcome for those pets is euthanization. 8. HR 669 will seriously damage the pet industry, which relies selling both animals and the supplies necessary to keep those animals to pet owners. The loss of profits and other economic damages would not only include pet stores, but would also extend to specialty veterinarians, feed stores, pet care providers (like me) who specialize in caring for exotics and pet boutiques. 9. HR 669 does not address the very real problem of invasive species that are all ready established and thriving throughout the United States, such as feral populations of domestic cats and dogs roaming freely through our cities and suburbs, feral pigs that are digging up Hawaii, and boa constrictors and other snakes slithering around Florida -- all of which have all been scientifically documented as extremely damaging to native species and their habitats. 10. HR 669 completely and inexplicably ignores the tremendous economic, environmental, and habitat damage caused by invasive exotic plant species, many of which are commonly cultivated as "ornamental plants," but which are either toxic or noxious. In principle, I agree with what HR 669 is attempting to do. It seeks to reverse already existing damages caused by invasive species and set up a process that would prohibit possession of those species that are likely to become pests if they escape. It is essential that this country adopts a scientifically-based approach to preventing further environmental damages from escaped exotic species. However, under existing federal laws, a species must be documented as being harmful before it is prohibited. But HR 669 instead operates under the assumption that every non-native animal species is "guilty until proven innocent." It requires that the government prove that any species added to the "approved" list of non-native species cannot become invasive in the US. Possession of any species not on the "approved" list will be prohibited. It takes time and money for the government to study any species and to make an accurate assessment. Considering the chronically dismal state of funding for basic scientific research, especially research into the natural history of non-native animal species, it is unlikely that most exotic species that are kept and bred in this country will be included on the approved list anytime soon. Further, the USFWS is required to complete major portions of the listing and regulation process within just 24 months of passage. Considering that it already takes an average of 4 years for USFWS to determine whether a species is harmful under the current Lacey Act, it is not clear how they will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within the prescribed time frame, particularly considering their lack of staff and funding. Of course, this situation effectively sets up the USFWS for failure and numerous lawsuits by activists. In short, while it is very important for the United States to address the very real issue of damages resulting from exotic species and preventing yet more invasive exotic species from becoming established in this country, HR 669 is not the bill that will produce these desired results. -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Wed Apr 15 14:52:02 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] =?windows-1252?q?You_Might_Be_a_=22Radicalized_Right-Win?= =?windows-1252?q?g_Extremist=22_If=85?= Message-ID: <49E63AE2.50501@CasaDelGato.Com> Are things like this worrying to anybody else? Have I read 1984 too recently? ---- excerpts from Townhall.com | 4/14/09 | Michelle Malkin Department of Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as "man-caused disasters"). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an* unquantified "resurgence" in "right-wing extremism activity*." On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report includes a sweeping definition of the threat: "Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly_ antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority_, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as_ opposition to abortion or immigration." _ Moreover, the report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over "disgruntled military veterans" -- a citation that gives us valuable insight into how DHS will define "hate-oriented" groups. The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a "hate group" for its stance on immigration enforcement. The report offers zero data, but states with an almost resentful attitude toward protected free speech: "Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent." -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Apr 17 14:30:01 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:30:01 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Testing Message-ID: <49E8D8B9.8010006@CasaDelGato.Com> Just seeing if this comes back to me via the list. Haven't seen anything in days... -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Apr 17 14:33:39 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:33:39 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. Message-ID: <49E8D993.20909@CasaDelGato.Com> This is the kind of legislation that makes me really wonder if our legislature does any thinking at all. As far as I can tell, anybody that is willing to pay for a lobbyiest, can get just about anything proposed (and quite possibly passed) as long as they make the summary sound good. The details don't have to have anything to do with the summary. http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009/04/hr669_nonnative_wildlife_invas.php *HR 669: The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act * Posted on: April 13, 2009 9:54 PM, by *"GrrlScientist"* tags: House Resolution 669 , HR 669 , The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act , legislation , pets , politics A proposed new law, House Resolution #669 (HR 669), The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, is working its way through that political tangle known as the United States House of Representatives. This resolution was introduced to the congress on 26 January 2009 and is scheduled to be heard by the House of Representatives on 23 April 2009. The stated purpose of this bill is to prevent the introduction and the propagation of animals that are not native to the United States that are deemed to potentially be capable of harming the economy or the environment, people or native species or their habitats [free PDF ]. On the surface, HR 669 looks like a much-needed environmentally-friendly bill as publicly touted by the Nature Conservancy, an organization I've been a member of for most of my life. HR 669, if enacted into law, proposes to prevent or to potentially undo at least some of the environmental and economic damage caused by invasive bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish and invertebrate species. It will do this by preventing those who own those animal species from keeping or breeding them as well as preventing them from being sold, re-homed or relocated across state or national boundaries for any reason. Fortunately, there is a "Grandfather Clause" that would allow those of us who already have these potentially damaging animals to keep them [see Section 3f], although we still would not be allowed to re-home, sell or breed them nor would we be allowed to move them across either state or national boundaries for any reason [see Section 6]. Even though I strongly support the removal of /all/ free-roaming non-native exotic species by whatever (humane) means possible, I think HR 669 is both grossly misguided and poorly thought out. Here's why; 1. First, HR 669 starts out by automatically exempting most damaging and invasive exotic animals; The exceptions: cat (/Felis catus/), cattle or oxen (/Bos taurus/), chicken (/Gallus gallus domesticus/), dog (/Canis lupus familiaris/), donkey or ass (/Equus asinus/), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated /Anas/ spp.), goat (/Capra aegagrus hircus/), goldfish (/Carassius auratus auratus/), horse (/Equus caballus/), llama (/Lama glama/), mule or hinny (/Equus caballus/ x /E. asinus/), pig or hog (/Sus scrofa domestica/), domesticated varieties of rabbit (/Oryctolagus cuniculus/), or sheep (/Ovis aries/), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated. [Section 14.5(D)] Nowhere in HR 669 is there a formal definition of what constitutes "common and clearly domesticated," which leaves this phrase and its enforcement open to political pressures and litigation interpretations. 2. Species can be added to either the banned or approved lists based upon a vague and poorly-defined risk assessment process. 3. HR 669 calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following their addition to the "Preliminary Approved List." However, there is no mandate that these user fees are reasonable and affordable. As a result, these user fees can be made so cost prohibitive that they eliminate everyone, or nearly everyone from participating in the process, which can result in a few tax-exempt organizations or wealthy individuals using the law to enforce unnecessarily restrictive and poorly thought-out agendas on everyone. Oddly, these user fees are not made available to the USFWS until 36 months into the process, which makes me wonder how would the USFWS fund the first three years of work without the required user fees? 4. Further, there is no requirement anywhere in HR 669 that /any/ import permits are ever granted to anyone. Even if the required permits are granted, where will imported (captive-bred) animals be obtained? Critical habitat for nearly all wild species is declining worldwide, so many animals are becoming threatened or endangered in the wild and thus, they cannot be imported into the US anyway, in accordance with CITES laws. 5. There are literally tens of thousands of species of non-native birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates that are kept and bred in the United States (for example, there are more than 2,500 species of non-native freshwater and marine fish species in the aquarium trade /alone/). Quite simply, USFWS inspectors lack the necessary training to accurately and knowledgeably identify the majority of both native and non-native genera, species, and any potential or existing hybrids, nor would they be likely to know which species are native to specific regions of the United States; and further, these inspectors would be unlikely to be able to accurately identify and distinguish all those thousands of species, cryptic species and hybrids that are not native to the United States. 6. HR 669 could also result in particular species being listed as illegal in /all/ states when in fact, they possess the potential to become established in just one or two specific states. One such example is "my research parrots"; the lories (Loriinae). Lories are illegal in Hawaii because, as tropical nectarivorous/frugivorous parrots, they have the potential to become established there. However, lories lack this capability in the continental United States, yet under HR 669, the entire subfamily would be illegal. One way to address this shortcoming is to allow each state to enact their own prohibited species lists, such as those that already exist in California and Hawaii and most other states. 7. If enacted, HR 669 would be unnecessarily punitive because pet owners will not be allowed to bring any non-approved pets with them if they move to another state or country, nor will they be allowed to give or sell their non-approved pets to anyone else who can care for them. Thus, if a pet owner moves, dies or cannot continue keeping their pet for whatever reason, the only outcome for those pets is euthanization. 8. HR 669 will seriously damage the pet industry, which relies selling both animals and the supplies necessary to keep those animals to pet owners. The loss of profits and other economic damages would not only include pet stores, but would also extend to specialty veterinarians, feed stores, pet care providers (like me) who specialize in caring for exotics and pet boutiques. 9. HR 669 does not address the very real problem of invasive species that are all ready established and thriving throughout the United States, such as feral populations of domestic cats and dogs roaming freely through our cities and suburbs, feral pigs that are digging up Hawaii, and boa constrictors and other snakes slithering around Florida -- all of which have all been scientifically documented as extremely damaging to native species and their habitats. 10. HR 669 completely and inexplicably ignores the tremendous economic, environmental, and habitat damage caused by invasive exotic plant species, many of which are commonly cultivated as "ornamental plants," but which are either toxic or noxious. In principle, I agree with what HR 669 is attempting to do. It seeks to reverse already existing damages caused by invasive species and set up a process that would prohibit possession of those species that are likely to become pests if they escape. It is essential that this country adopts a scientifically-based approach to preventing further environmental damages from escaped exotic species. However, under existing federal laws, a species must be documented as being harmful before it is prohibited. But HR 669 instead operates under the assumption that every non-native animal species is "guilty until proven innocent." It requires that the government prove that any species added to the "approved" list of non-native species cannot become invasive in the US. Possession of any species not on the "approved" list will be prohibited. It takes time and money for the government to study any species and to make an accurate assessment. Considering the chronically dismal state of funding for basic scientific research, especially research into the natural history of non-native animal species, it is unlikely that most exotic species that are kept and bred in this country will be included on the approved list anytime soon. Further, the USFWS is required to complete major portions of the listing and regulation process within just 24 months of passage. Considering that it already takes an average of 4 years for USFWS to determine whether a species is harmful under the current Lacey Act, it is not clear how they will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within the prescribed time frame, particularly considering their lack of staff and funding. Of course, this situation effectively sets up the USFWS for failure and numerous lawsuits by activists. In short, while it is very important for the United States to address the very real issue of damages resulting from exotic species and preventing yet more invasive exotic species from becoming established in this country, HR 669 is not the bill that will produce these desired results. -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 19:07:57 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:07:57 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. In-Reply-To: <49E8D993.20909@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49E8D993.20909@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0904171707y132b4793y314fea331479bbed@mail.gmail.com> On 4/17/09, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > In short . . . . Still too late. -- Bill Wilson "I was raised in a canebreak by an ol' mama lion; Cain't no high-toned woman make me walk the line." --Tennessee Ernie Ford From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Apr 17 19:29:31 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:29:31 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf0904171707y132b4793y314fea331479bbed@mail.gmail.com> References: <49E8D993.20909@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0904171707y132b4793y314fea331479bbed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49E91EEB.6060601@CasaDelGato.Com> Bill Wilson wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > On 4/17/09, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > >> In short . . . . >> > > Still too late. > Umm, too late for what? -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 22:17:52 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:17:52 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Another Federal "Kill all Exotic Animal Pets" bill. In-Reply-To: <49E91EEB.6060601@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49E8D993.20909@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0904171707y132b4793y314fea331479bbed@mail.gmail.com> <49E91EEB.6060601@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0904172017wab1bd78pecd20b5d0ce6238e@mail.gmail.com> On Apr 17, 2009 John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Umm, too late for what? To be considered short. -- Bill Wilson "I was raised in a canebreak by an ol' mama lion; Cain't no high-toned woman make me walk the line." --Tennessee Ernie Ford From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Apr 17 22:26:08 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:26:08 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law Message-ID: And this is a very hard case. Briefly: An immigrant from Haiti tried to kill his ex-girlfriend. When thwarted, he attempted suicide by drinking battery acid. He severely damaged his digestive system, so that he must be fed through a special tube. He was sentenced to twenty years for attempted murder, and recently was released after serving the minimum ten years of the sentence. The U.S. has a policy of automatically deporting aliens convicted of felonies. Haiti has a policy of imprisoning anyone deported there for crime. Haitian prisons are pretty primitive, and have no facilities for providing the special feeding this man requires. If this man is deported to Haiti, he will die of starvation in prison. The man has appealed the order for his deportation on the grounds that this would amount to torture, and U.S. law exempts from deportation any person who can expect to be tortured in the destination country. Should this man be allowed to remain in the U.S.? Or should he be deported? http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062496p.pdf is the en banc decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court in this case. http://volokh.com/posts/1239075220.shtml is a discussion of the case at The Volokh Conspiracy. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Apr 17 23:23:19 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:23:19 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49E955B7.5070005@CasaDelGato.Com> What about another possible question? Should we be paying to keep alive someone who has already tried to kill himself? Rich Rostrom wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > And this is a very hard case. > > Briefly: > > An immigrant from Haiti tried to kill his > ex-girlfriend. When thwarted, he attempted suicide by > drinking battery acid. He severely damaged his > digestive system, so that he must be fed through a > special tube. > > He was sentenced to twenty years for attempted murder, > and recently was released after serving the minimum ten > years of the sentence. The U.S. has a policy of > automatically deporting aliens convicted of felonies. > > Haiti has a policy of imprisoning anyone deported there > for crime. Haitian prisons are pretty primitive, and > have no facilities for providing the special feeding > this man requires. If this man is deported to Haiti, he > will die of starvation in prison. > > The man has appealed the order for his deportation on > the grounds that this would amount to torture, and U.S. > law exempts from deportation any person who can expect > to be tortured in the destination country. > > Should this man be allowed to remain in the U.S.? > > Or should he be deported? > > http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062496p.pdf > > is the en banc decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court > in this case. > > http://volokh.com/posts/1239075220.shtml > > is a discussion of the case at The Volokh Conspiracy. > -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From ignatz at dminet.com Fri Apr 17 23:27:04 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:26:08PM -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: > And this is a very hard case. > .. > Should this man be allowed to remain in the U.S.? > > Or should he be deported? I don't have any problem making the decision, and I would generally not be considered center or right-of-center. He tried to kill someone. He then inflicted the damage on himself. He was subsequently convicted. I wouldn't have kept him alive this long. I sure don't want him in the US, and don't care what happens to him. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sat Apr 18 15:42:19 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:42:19 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> References: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> Message-ID: Dave Ihnat wrote: >On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:26:08PM -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >> And this is a very hard case. >> .. >> Should this man be allowed to remain in the U.S.? >> >> Or should he be deported? > >I don't have any problem making the decision, and I would generally not >be considered center or right-of-center. > >He tried to kill someone. He then inflicted the damage on himself. He >was subsequently convicted. > >I wouldn't have kept him alive this long. I sure don't want him in the >US, and don't care what happens to him. That's pretty much my feeling too. However, there is a legal question: Can the United States, under the present statutory code, deport a person under circumstances such that the deported person will certainly die (and suffer considerably) as a result? The death and suffering will not be deliberately inflicted, but it is apparently inevitable. Can the U.S. legally act in the knowledge that its act will have such a result? -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From jazz at qnet.com Sat Apr 18 18:20:19 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:20:19 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: References: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> At 15:42 4/18/2009 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >Dave Ihnat wrote: > > >On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:26:08PM -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: > >> And this is a very hard case. > >> .. > >> Should this man be allowed to remain in the U.S.? > >> > >> Or should he be deported? > > > >I don't have any problem making the decision, and I would generally not > >be considered center or right-of-center. > > > >He tried to kill someone. He then inflicted the damage on himself. He > >was subsequently convicted. > > > >I wouldn't have kept him alive this long. I sure don't want him in the > >US, and don't care what happens to him. > >That's pretty much my feeling too. > >However, there is a legal question: > >Can the United States, under the present statutory code, >deport a person under circumstances such that the deported >person will certainly die (and suffer considerably) as a >result? > >The death and suffering will not be deliberately inflicted, >but it is apparently inevitable. Can the U.S. legally act >in the knowledge that its act will have such a result? But you don't know that. It seems highly probable, but it isn't a guaranteed thing. Haiti could pardon him, or give him some kind of alternate confinement. And is it settled that deportation from the US and to Haiti is required? I think so, but is there any discretion there? Not that any other nation would want to take him, but it is possible. In the worst case, he can go back to prison. California had a parole case like that once. The guy was going to be paroled back to his home town. They didn't want him. No one else did either. So he ended up living in quarters on the prison grounds until something could be arranged. Bill Taylor From bentley at crenelle.com Sun Apr 19 23:56:39 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:56:39 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: <200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> References: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> <200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: I would have looked at his case ten years ago to figure out what was going to have to happen with him, which would have been easy to figure out, and then worked on that brilliant mind of his. It seems he no longer desires to commit suicide, otherwise it would make no difference at all where he winds up and he wouldn't contest the deportation. So we can work with that. From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Mon Apr 20 07:01:12 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <67507.70510.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 4/19/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > It seems he no longer desires to commit suicide, otherwise > it would > make no difference at all where he winds up and he > wouldn't contest > the deportation. So we can work with that. If he realizes he'll be going somewhere where they can't feed him, d'ya think his suicidal urges might return? Miriam Solon From ignatz at dminet.com Mon Apr 20 09:05:52 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:05:52 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: <67507.70510.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <67507.70510.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090420140552.GB17598@dminet.com> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 05:01:12AM -0700, sarahksmom wrote: > If he realizes he'll be going somewhere where they can't feed him, > d'ya think his suicidal urges might return? Who cares? Seriously--I don't care what happens to this mook. We didn't want him in the country when he committed his crimes, we doubly don't want him now. He made his bed. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From par at richinn.com Tue Apr 21 16:18:33 2009 From: par at richinn.com (par at richinn.com) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:18:33 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony Message-ID: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Does anybody else find this ironic? The the supreme court ruled that police need to obtain a warrant to search the car of somebody arrested after leaving a known drug den. He was arrested for a simple "driving on a suspended license" so it was an invasion of his privacy to search his car since he was already handcuffed and in the squad car. But they are having a hard time deciding if they should put limits on strip searches of 13 year olds in school. I would tend to agree that the police should get a warrant to search his car. They had him in custody, had the car impounded and had what should have been probable cause. (they saw him at the drug house) I don't think the schools should be doing strip searches to find ibuprofin. If you have enough cause to believe there are illegal drugs then get the police, parents and court involved. Amazingly, the school's lawyer did not rule out the school performing cavity searches when asked by one of the justices. Peter Richardson From steveg at swhi.net Tue Apr 21 17:03:01 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:03:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Message-ID: <42950.144.183.224.2.1240351381.squirrel@www.swhi.net> par at richinn.com wrote: > But they are having a hard time deciding if they should put limits > on strip searches of 13 year olds in school. Are they having a hard time? I haven't heard. If so, I would suspect it's because of the longstanding deference given to schools and their need to provide for health, safety, and welfare of the students *without* sending the kids out on the street or calling in the cops at the drop of a hat. No, I am *not* saying that justifies the behavior in this case. The deference I refer to is often not justified. I am just speculating on what the complicating factors might be. That's what I do. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Tue Apr 21 17:38:23 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Message-ID: At 3:18 PM -0600 4/21/09, par at richinn.com wrote: >I would tend to agree that the police should get a warrant to search >his car. They had him in custody, had the car impounded and had what >should have been probable cause. (they saw him at the drug house) I don't understand why "they saw him at the drug house" would be probable cause. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From par at richinn.com Tue Apr 21 17:43:40 2009 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:43:40 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <42950.144.183.224.2.1240351381.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> <42950.144.183.224.2.1240351381.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421173811.02beca10@richinn.com> At 05:03 PM 4/21/2009, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >par at richinn.com wrote: > > > But they are having a hard time deciding if they should put limits > > on strip searches of 13 year olds in school. > >Are they having a hard time? I haven't heard. > >If so, I would suspect it's because of the longstanding >deference given to schools and their need to provide for >health, safety, and welfare of the students *without* >sending the kids out on the street or calling in the cops at >the drop of a hat. > >No, I am *not* saying that justifies the behavior in this >case. The deference I refer to is often not justified. I >am just speculating on what the complicating factors might >be. That's what I do. That is basically the way I read the articles. It also sounded (from the reports I read which have obvious bias) that they want to protect the school administrators from a civil law suit since they were following what they believed to be correct procedure. Part of the problem from my point of view is the whole "zero tolerance" rules that the schools have passed. A student should not have to hide a couple over the counter pain pills. If they are prescription pills then the student shouldn't have them. I have seen conflicting reports on this case as to what they were looking for. Peter Richardson From par at richinn.com Tue Apr 21 17:48:27 2009 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:48:27 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421174606.02ba4878@richinn.com> At 05:38 PM 4/21/2009, Ben Liberman wrote: >At 3:18 PM -0600 4/21/09, par at richinn.com wrote: > >I would tend to agree that the police should get a warrant to search > >his car. They had him in custody, had the car impounded and had what > >should have been probable cause. (they saw him at the drug house) > >I don't understand why "they saw him at the drug house" would be >probable cause. They searched his car for weapons and drugs. He is claiming that the search for drugs was illegal and his conviction for drug possession should be overturned. Peter Richardson From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 21 18:54:37 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:54:37 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Message-ID: Ben Liberman says: > I don't understand why "they saw him at the drug house" would > be probable cause. I wouldn't say *would* be, but *could* be. It might depend on how well they knew this drug house. They *might* be able to rationally say (a) he's not one of the dealers, and (b) in their experience everyone else who goes there goes to buy drugs, because otherwise it's not safe. "Either he bought drugs, or he failed to because went there without enough money, and we didn't hear the yelling that's typical when that happens." There might be other factors. But remember, "probable cause" is far less than "clear and convincing evidence." And of course this is just Peter speculating. He might be wrong. Stranger things have happened. In any event, my objection to what Peter said: >I would tend to agree that the police should get a warrant to search >his car. They had him in custody, had the car impounded and had what >should have been probable cause. - would instead be: That's a separate issue. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but there are two distinct questions here: (1) Can we get a search warrant, i.e., do we have probable cause? (2) Are we justified in searching his car "incident to arrest"? One does not depend on the other. You are not any more (or less) justified in doing one because you aren't justified in doing the other. The search "incident to arrest" serves two legitimate purposes: to safeguard the arresting officers and others, if there is a concern that the arrestee might be able to get to a weapon, and to prevent the arrestee from hiding or destroying evidence, if any, before the car is fully secured. It has nothing to do with whether there is probable cause. Yes, that's a traditional view and probably not the only one any court has applied, but the one I believe in. On that basis it's fair to say "they should be required to get a warrant," which is all Peter literally said, but not the implied "since they *could* get a warrant, they should not be allowed to search without one." - Steve G From par at richinn.com Tue Apr 21 19:14:26 2009 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:14:26 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421190620.02c98610@richinn.com> At 06:54 PM 4/21/2009, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Ben Liberman says: > > > I don't understand why "they saw him at the drug house" would > > be probable cause. > >I wouldn't say *would* be, but *could* be. It might depend >on how well they knew this drug house. They *might* be able >to rationally say (a) he's not one of the dealers, and >(b) in their experience everyone else who goes there goes to >buy drugs, because otherwise it's not safe. "Either he >bought drugs, or he failed to because went there without >enough money, and we didn't hear the yelling that's typical >when that happens." There might be other factors. But >remember, "probable cause" is far less than "clear and >convincing evidence." > >And of course this is just Peter speculating. He might be >wrong. Stranger things have happened. > >In any event, my objection to what Peter said: > > >I would tend to agree that the police should get a warrant to search > >his car. They had him in custody, had the car impounded and had what > >should have been probable cause. > >- would instead be: That's a separate issue. It's a bit >counter-intuitive, but there are two distinct questions here: > >(1) Can we get a search warrant, i.e., do we have probable >cause? > >(2) Are we justified in searching his car "incident to >arrest"? > >One does not depend on the other. You are not any more (or >less) justified in doing one because you aren't justified in >doing the other. The search "incident to arrest" serves two >legitimate purposes: to safeguard the arresting officers >and others, if there is a concern that the arrestee might be >able to get to a weapon, and to prevent the arrestee from >hiding or destroying evidence, if any, before the car is >fully secured. It has nothing to do with whether there is >probable cause. > >Yes, that's a traditional view and probably not the only one >any court has applied, but the one I believe in. > >On that basis it's fair to say "they should be required to >get a warrant," which is all Peter literally said, but not >the implied "since they *could* get a warrant, they should >not be allowed to search without one." I didn't say it, the court did. ----- Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police may conduct a warrantless vehicle search incident to an arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or the officers have reasonable belief that "evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle." ----- They were arresting him for driving on a suspended license so there would be no evidence pertinent to the offense, therefore the search without a warrant was not justified. Peter Richardson From sam.paris at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 20:21:13 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0904211821l37e0b837t37b52107d7db225c@mail.gmail.com> If I were him, and the court ruled that I should be deported, I would take the obvious solution: Commit another crime while still on US soil. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090421/292236c7/attachment.html From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 21 21:15:43 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: <200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> References: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com> <200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <05EF9F90DF82441DB3F9D5A12295ECB6@StevePC> Seems to me that as a matter of law this is a highly technical question and hardly worth debating. As a matter of ethics it is at least as hard but more worth debating. The law on deportation is quirky and is a compromise of a lot of conflicting interests, having to do with sovereignty, justice, immigration policy, efficient process, etc., etc. Congress has decreed that no one may be deported if the result will be torture - OK. Fair enough. The result in this case will not be torture; I have no problem with that as the legal conclusion. (I do think there is an important difference between grossly careless treatment and torture, and would not want our courts to pretend otherwise.) Congress did not say we don't deport anyone if they will go home to harsh, even dangerous, conditions. They could have, but didn't; and that would have been an extreme departure from traditional immigration policy, and the Circuit Court would have been out of line putting such words in their mouths. *Should* the law have a broader exception? Maybe, but nothing about this case demonstrates clearly what it should be. I have a hard time saying "the rule should be X" and believing I'd want to apply it in all cases. Whatever rule you come up with in this area, you have to deal with the prospects that (a) if it is somewhat harsh in some cases, it will be *extremely* harsh in others; but (b) the only way to distinguish them in advance is to label some foreign nations as meeting our standards for civilization and others not; and (c) if the law is relatively merciful, it will inevitably serve as an inducement to not only decent people but all kinds of lowlifes to try to get into the US and stay. None of the answers to the hard questions in this area are satisfying. In the words of a great thinker, "to summarize the summary: people are a problem." In that context, I have a hard time saying any particular legal structure is clearly wrong. Now . . . Getting away from the law and into morality, I have a hard time accepting the result here, although I also am not thrilled about the prospect of keeping him alive at taxpayer expense. I don't believe in the death penalty, but this is a case in which it might be more merciful. It would be nice if he'd just make things easy by dying of natural causes before being deported. My problem is: assume the court verdict in his criminal case was reasonable; that is, that for his attempted murder, 10 to 20 years in jail was the right penalty - not death. Assume also that merely because, in a state of despair after almost killing his girlfriend, the idiot tried to kill himself in a particularly dumb way, that also does not mean that our system of justice would impose the death penalty on him. He has already served the full penalty for his crime and leaves jail not only chastened and subdued but (through his own fault) badly crippled. Now assume that the Circuit Court's assumed facts are demonstrably correct - that he will almost inevitably die of starvation, in pain, in filthy, brutal conditions, as a direct consequence of the deportation. Morally - not legally - doesn't that make the deportation equivalent to voluntary manslaughter? Isn't the US choosing to have him die, and painfully? No, we don't want this guy in the US. But as a matter of social policy - as expressed through our criminal and other laws - do we want to bring about his slow and painful death? The court explicitly pointed out that: > Nothing herein prevents the government from granting discretionary relief to Pierre in the form of deferred action. Though we are bound to the specific intent requirement contained in the CAT, the government is not. I have to think that as a matter of clemency, maybe it should. I don't like that answer, I sure don't like what it could mean for immigration if it were viewed as some kind of policy precedent; but so far, at least, I like the other one less. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 21 21:25:01 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:25:01 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Hard Cases Make Bad Law In-Reply-To: <05EF9F90DF82441DB3F9D5A12295ECB6@StevePC> References: <20090418042704.GB9879@dminet.com><200904182343.n3INhae0014537@mail.zarquon.net> <05EF9F90DF82441DB3F9D5A12295ECB6@StevePC> Message-ID: <0EAA58E0AD4C425594639417C1821148@StevePC> I wrote: > Getting away from the law and into morality, I have a hard > time accepting the result here, although I also am not > thrilled about the prospect of keeping him alive at taxpayer > expense. - and - > He has already served the full penalty for his crime > and leaves jail not only chastened and subdued but (through > his own fault) badly crippled. FWIW, I note that logically - not as a matter of law - if he were allowed to remain in the US, presumably it would not be in jail, and therefore it is not obvious that any further taxpayer money would have to be spent on him. I'm not clear on the extent of his injury and resulting disability, but he might be able to work and pay his own way. I'd prefer to keep in in a permanent "parole" status, or in a minimum- security prison with work release, if that were somehow feasible. Legally, at least in the Federal system, I don't really see how it is. - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 07:12:47 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:12:47 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421190620.02c98610@richinn.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090421190620.02c98610@richinn.com> Message-ID: <49EF09BF.8010704@gmail.com> Peter Richardson wrote: > I didn't say it, the court did. > > ----- > Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police may > conduct a warrantless vehicle search incident to an arrest only if > the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or the > officers have reasonable belief that "evidence of the offense of > arrest might be found in the vehicle." > ----- > > They were arresting him for driving on a suspended license so there > would be no evidence pertinent to the offense, therefore the search > without a warrant was not justified. > Hummm. I'll have to keep this one handy. We have a couple of new state cops up here who have been known to ask to search a car because they "smell something funny".... with the implied threat that if you didn't let them, you'd be hauled in. Katie's friend told them "go ahead, you're actually about 5 years too late." Then stood there smiling while they dug thru a bag of dirty clothes from her potty-training son... and a pile of tissues from her cold the week before. She said "At least they were cute. Really cute until they had to stand in the snow stuffing shitty pants back into the duffle bag." Couple of days later they pulled me over because my car is loud... looked in the windows on the way to get license and registration... and were really surprised to be asked if they were married by a middle aged woman... until I said "I know a girl, you pulled her over the other night." As far as I know, the single one hasn't gone to check her out at work. As for the strip search of the 13 year old? If it were my child, and I wasn't called, there would be HELL TO PAY. I have no problem with searching lockers & backpacks, but if you lay your hands on my child, you'd better be prepared for trouble. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From sam.paris at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 07:38:01 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:38:01 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421173811.02beca10@richinn.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> <42950.144.183.224.2.1240351381.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090421173811.02beca10@richinn.com> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0904220538w6af64a0dp355f6df2496b92a2@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Peter Richardson wrote: > I have seen > conflicting reports on this case as to what they were looking for. According to the "Brief for Respondent"they were looking for 400 mg. ibuprofen tablets, the equivalent of two Advil. There's a ton of material on this case at Scotus Wiki Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090422/8d05c0ac/attachment.htm From steveg at swhi.net Wed Apr 22 09:24:02 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:24:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0904220538w6af64a0dp355f6df2496b92a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> <42950.144.183.224.2.1240351381.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090421173811.02beca10@richinn.com> <9e8a91ad0904220538w6af64a0dp355f6df2496b92a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36466.144.183.224.2.1240410242.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Sam Paris wrote: > According to the "Brief for Respondent" they > were looking for 400 mg. ibuprofen tablets, the equivalent of two > Advil. And according to other reliable reports, more specifically, Advil Extra Strength (which matches your generic description). It's prescription in the US, but not especially dangerous. Some news reports call it "over-the-counter," presumably meaning non-prescription, which is incorrect - unless they are writing in Canada, for instance. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Apr 25 17:48:13 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:48:13 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Supreme court V irony In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090421190620.02c98610@richinn.com> References: <20090421151833.4kdrkeix44w8g8w4@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090421190620.02c98610@richinn.com> Message-ID: <9FEB2CCC5E544FDB82EBE2EC7935AF61@StevePC> Sorry, this is a few days old. I said: > On that basis it's fair to say "they should be required to > get a warrant," which is all Peter literally said, but not > the implied "since they *could* get a warrant, they should > not be allowed to search without one." Peter said: > I didn't say it, the court did. > > ----- > Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police may > conduct a warrantless vehicle search incident to an arrest only if > the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or the > officers have reasonable belief that "evidence of the offense of > arrest might be found in the vehicle." No, as I read that they are not saying "since they *could* get a warrant, they should not be allowed to search without one." They are saying there was no basis for either a warrant *or* a warrantless search on one of the bases I originally gave, the one about concealing or destroying evidence, because they could not reasonably suspect there was evidence there to conceal or destroy. OTOH, if they had any reasonable basis to suspect that, that would not mean they had enough basis to get a warrant. They are separate questions. > They were arresting him for driving on a suspended license so there > would be no evidence pertinent to the offense, therefore the search > without a warrant was not justified. Agreed - but clearly not *because* they could get a warrant. Maybe the distinction is not as clear as it could be because of the factual situation. Let me give you three hypothetical examples. a. Car is stopped on an Interstate highway late at night, in the rain, by one highway trooper on a motorcycle. The stop is on suspicion that the driver and passenger might be wanted in a recent armed robbery. When stopped they act in a reckless and hostile manner, and one of the two is wearing a large hunting knife on his belt (which is dangerous but not illegal, and he surrenders on request). The trooper has to call in the stop information from his bike, and in the meanwhile wants to leave the two in their car (which he has temporarily disabled) rather than standing in the rain by the side of a high-speed road. However, immediately after stopping them, he had realized that they don't resemble the description of the robbery suspects at all. He has no basis to believe they have committed any other particular crime. In this case he is justified in searching the car for concealed weapons before putting them back in it, but has no probable cause to search it for evidence of crime. He won't even be requesting a warrant. b. Same situation as above, but the stop is on suspicion of DWI, because the car is being driven erratically. Driver and passenger are peaceable but apparently incapacitated in some way. Trooper does not smell or see alcohol, but now has reason (from their speech and behavior) to suspect the presence of illegal drugs. He still needs to confine them in the car. He is justified in first searching the car so that if there are (for instance) pills, suspicious powders, etc. they are not disposed of while he's not looking. Depending on the quality of his observations and other factors, he may or may not have enough for probable cause - i.e., he may or may not get a warrant when he asks a judge for one - but does have enough basis for a search "incident to arrest" so that if there is evidence of a crime, it doesn't disappear. c. Same as 'a' above, but the stop is by three troopers in two patrol cars. The suspects are immediately frisked, cuffed, and confined in the back of one of the patrol cars, with an officer guarding them. They do fairly closely match the description of the suspects and their car, and it is additionally suspected that their tires can be matched to tracks at the crime scene. The officers do appear to have probable cause, which means they can request a search warrant and expect to get one. In the meanwhile, there is no basis to search the car "incident to arrest" before getting the warrant - they can wait for it with no serious risk. Your quote about the 5-4 decision seems to be *partly* in line with well-established law; I'm not a criminal lawyer, but AFAIK it has been clear for many years that the warrantless search may not be conducted on the basis of weapons or destruction of evidence if the suspect can be kept safely away from the car. The specific reference to "evidence of *the offense of arrest*" rather than any offense may be new, and would explain the 5-4 ruling. Hmm. I've just gone and looked, and that wasn't quite it. There was a previous ruling, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454. I had forgotten how far that ruling went - too far, and it's now been clipped back. In that case the ruling was that a car search "incident to arrest" was OK although the suspects had been (technically) placed under arrest and moved away from the vehicle. The holding was that the "incident to arrest" search for drugs was OK, on the stated basis of an "assumption" "that articles inside . . . the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within 'the area into which an arrestee might reach.'" The ruling in the Belton case probably would not have gone this far except that it happened to be just like my scenario 'b' above - one arresting officer, night, thruway, suspected presence of drugs, but *four* suspects, who could not be effectively confined. Unfortunately the rule it announced was too broad, and it has been criticized for years. In this case the Arizona Supreme Court split over whether the Belton rule was really as broad as it seemed and needed to be followed. The US Supreme Court said it really did seem to be that broad, but in that case needed to be reconsidered - the suspicion of contraband in the car was enough to justify a search incident to arrest under Belton, but now *not* if there is no actual risk that the suspects can get to it. Time permitting I'll have to see what the four dissenting Justices objected to. - Steve G From martinigt at comcast.net Mon Apr 27 20:48:38 2009 From: martinigt at comcast.net (Marinna Martini) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:48:38 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] test Message-ID: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> Is anybody out there? Marinna From ignatz at dminet.com Mon Apr 27 20:54:25 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> References: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20090428015425.GA11568@dminet.com> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:48:38PM -0400, Marinna Martini wrote: > Is anybody out there? Dunno if I'm anybody, but I'm here... -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From ben at bl.com Mon Apr 27 23:35:50 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:35:50 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> References: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> Message-ID: At 9:48 PM -0400 4/27/09, Marinna Martini wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >Is anybody out there? Is this a trick question? -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From jazz at qnet.com Tue Apr 28 01:30:29 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:30:29 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... Message-ID: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> Of Air Force One. And you thought it might be nice if it were flying by the Statue of Liberty, with the New York skyline in the background. What a fantastic shot, right? So you arrange to fly past the monument with the FAA. And of course you have a fighter escort, because there is some slight chance the plane might be attacked. And the escort looks cool in the shot too, so why not. So the large four engine airliner flies low over New York City a few times, with a fighter following close on its tail. Everybody looked up... But they forgot to tell anyone in the city it was coming. In particular, none of the average residents of Manhattan. The ones who, the last time something like this happened, found themselves at ground zero of the largest attack since Pearl Harbor. They were somewhat nervous and reacted badly. Apparently 911 or the police knew, but it never got outside the senior managers who had been told by the FAA. I'll give Bloomberg credit. I heard the tape of him being interviewed afterward. He reacted a lot better than I predicted he would when I first heard the story. Bill Taylor ps. In other news, I see Fox News will broadcast its regular episode of Lie To Me on Wednesday, rather than President Obama's primetime speech. For once, the Fox Entertainment division and the news division are reflecting the same editorial values. Or maybe it is just a weird coincidence. From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Apr 28 03:11:57 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:11:57 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: I guess they have a lot on their minds, over there in the DoD. A bluntly-worded memo will definitely be dispatched once the emergency stack pops a bit. From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 06:37:54 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:37:54 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> Bill Taylor wrote: > But they forgot to tell anyone in the city it was coming. They told lots of people. Just not everyone. I can see both sides in this... I understand that they don't want anyone to be able to take a shot at AF1. I also understand the panic in NY. One of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect, *everyone* can see that it wasn't. > ps. In other news, I see Fox News will broadcast its regular episode > of Lie To Me on Wednesday, rather than President Obama's primetime > speech. For once, the Fox Entertainment division and the news > division are reflecting the same editorial values. Or maybe it is > just a weird coincidence. > Please tell me what Fox would have said if -- say- ABC had refused to broadcast a presidential news conference under Bush. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From embates at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 06:55:20 2009 From: embates at yahoo.com (Eric Bates) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ____________________________________________________________ >Bill Taylor wrote: >> But they forgot to tell anyone in the city it was coming. >They told lots of people. Just not everyone. I can see both sides in >this... I understand that they don't want >anyone to be able to take a shot at AF1. I also understand the panic in >NY. > >One of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but in >retrospect, *everyone* can see >that it wasn't. The most technologically savvy prez we've had never heard of photoshop? With deference to Babylon 5, this gets my nomination as the "Bonehead Maneuver." >> ps. In other news, I see Fox News will broadcast its regular episode >> of Lie To Me on Wednesday, rather than President Obama's primetime >> speech. For once, the Fox Entertainment division and the news >> division are reflecting the same editorial values. Or maybe it is >> just a weird coincidence. >> >Please tell me what Fox would have said if -- say- ABC had refused to >broadcast a presidential news conference >under Bush. Probably a lot of the same that we're hearing from ABC/NBC/etc. Used to be a time when the prez held a news conference rarely, to tell the public something important. With this incarnation, it seems there's one every other week or so. From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 08:05:17 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:05:17 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F6FF0D.20103@gmail.com> Eric Bates wrote: > > The most technologically savvy prez we've had never heard of photoshop? > With deference to Babylon 5, this gets my nomination as the "Bonehead Maneuver." > According to news reports, he was furious. The White House Office for Military Affairs apparently approved it. Why would the CEO have approved something like that? > > Probably a lot of the same that we're hearing from ABC/NBC/etc. > > Used to be a time when the prez held a news conference rarely, to tell the public > something important. With this incarnation, it seems there's one every other week > or so. > Funny. There have been 2 others. This will be the 3rd in 100 days. I don't think that a President of a country involved in 2 wars, a financial crisis and a possible pandemic is outside the bounds if he wants to talk to people 3 times in 3 months. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 08:16:33 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> Eric Bates wrote: > Probably a lot of the same that we're hearing from ABC/NBC/etc. > All I've seen other than the AP story on all the other networks is that they've asked PRIVATELY if the White House would work with them, in the future, to select a time where they're not trying to pay the bills. I hear no calls of unpatriotic or unamerican. I don't know about what's happening everywhere else in the country, but the hospitals up here are freaking out about swine flu... (no unnecessary visitors, no visitors sneezing or showing any symptoms of flu, and no visitors who've recently been to Mexico at all... ok, the last one I understand, but I think the closest possible swine flu diagnosis was in Detroit-- 600 miles away.) -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From embates at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 08:23:51 2009 From: embates at yahoo.com (Eric Bates) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <959718.62626.qm@web110710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >I don't know about what's >happening everywhere else in the country, but the hospitals up here are >freaking out about swine flu... (no unnecessary visitors, no visitors >sneezing or showing any symptoms of flu, and no visitors who've recently >been to Mexico at all... ok, the last one I understand, but I think the >closest possible swine flu diagnosis was in Detroit-- 600 miles away.) From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Apr 15 14:37:30 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:37:30 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Ann Arbor (Univ of Mich). About 40 miles away. From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 08:33:39 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:33:39 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <959718.62626.qm@web110710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> <959718.62626.qm@web110710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F705B3.2030504@gmail.com> Eric Bates wrote: > > From here? It's actually Livingston county (a touch west of Detroit), closer to > Ann Arbor (Univ of Mich). About 40 miles away. > There you go, you and hospitals around you, should be freaking out. But... well... sheesh. We're in allergy season up here. Sneezing is a fact of life. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 08:49:31 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 4/28/09, Eric Bates wrote: > Used to be a time when the prez held a news conference > rarely, to tell the public > something important. With this incarnation, it seems > there's one every other week > or so. I remember Kennedy holding lots of press conferences, Johnson fewer and Nixon even fewer still. I prefer to hear from the President more often than less often. It shows respect to the people he serves that he communicates in a forum over which he doesn't exercise total control of what will be asked. I like the fact that it gives journalists an opportunity to do their jobs in lifting up the corners of rugs flacks would rather not have disturbed. It is unfortunate that previous administrations did not make better use of this mode of public address. It at least gives the impression that this administration does not fear the press. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" > From: Eric Bates > Subject: Re: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... > To: "The Demagogue Dialogue Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 6:55 AM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > > ____________________________________________________________ > >Bill Taylor wrote: > >> But they forgot to tell anyone in the city it was > coming. > >They told lots of people. Just not everyone. I can > see both sides in > >this... I understand that they don't want > >anyone to be able to take a shot at AF1. I also > understand the panic in > >NY. > > > >One of those things that seemed like a good idea at the > time, but in > >retrospect, *everyone* can see > >that it wasn't. > > The most technologically savvy prez we've had never > heard of photoshop? > With deference to Babylon 5, this gets my nomination as the > "Bonehead Maneuver." > > >> ps. In other news, I see Fox News will broadcast > its regular episode > >> of Lie To Me on Wednesday, rather than President > Obama's primetime > >> speech. For once, the Fox Entertainment division > and the news > >> division are reflecting the same editorial values. > Or maybe it is > >> just a weird coincidence. > >> > >Please tell me what Fox would have said if -- say- ABC > had refused to > >broadcast a presidential news conference > >under Bush. > > Probably a lot of the same that we're hearing from > ABC/NBC/etc. > > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 08:53:59 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:53:59 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F70A77.7080201@gmail.com> sarahksmom wrote: > It is unfortunate that previous administrations did not make better use of this mode of public address. It at least gives the impression that this administration does not fear the press. > Amen. I remember watching Nixon press conferences about once a quarter-- and he answered questions, he didn't just make announcements. Ford did them too. Carter pretty much quit doing them during the Iran crisis and I don't remember Reagan doing them very often... Bush the first, Clinton and Bush the second rarely allowed themselves to be questioned without a preapproved script. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From jazz at qnet.com Tue Apr 28 09:14:16 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:14:16 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200904281415.n3SEFB32010602@mail.zarquon.net> At 04:55 4/28/2009 -0700, Eric Bates wrote: > >> ps. In other news, I see Fox News will broadcast its regular episode > >> of Lie To Me on Wednesday, rather than President Obama's primetime > >> speech. For once, the Fox Entertainment division and the news > >> division are reflecting the same editorial values. Or maybe it is > >> just a weird coincidence. > >> > >Please tell me what Fox would have said if -- say- ABC had refused to > >broadcast a presidential news conference > >under Bush. > >Probably a lot of the same that we're hearing from ABC/NBC/etc. > >Used to be a time when the prez held a news conference rarely, to >tell the public >something important. With this incarnation, it seems there's one >every other week >or so. Bush started out with relatively frequent appearances too. Then they got less and less as he spent time in office. I don't think it was quite at the rate Obama is going at the moment, but by the end he was barely going near a reporter. I'd be willing to concede that as they dig deeper into their jobs, they feel less need to get the message out and more need to put out the next fire. Or just take a short breather. Bill Taylor From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Tue Apr 28 09:31:46 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:31:46 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F71352.3040802@CasaDelGato.Com> sarahksmom wrote: > It shows respect to the people he serves that he communicates in a forum over which he doesn't exercise total control of what will be asked. I like the fact that it gives journalists an opportunity to do their jobs in lifting up the corners of rugs flacks would rather not have disturbed. Probably not "Total Control", but somehow I doubt they allow blindsiding him with a completely unapproved question. (That is, if the reporter ever wants to be invited back again.) From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Apr 28 09:52:20 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:52:20 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <200904281415.n3SEFB32010602@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200904281415.n3SEFB32010602@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <20090428145220.GE30225@dminet.com> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 07:14:16AM -0700, Bill Taylor wrote: > I'd be willing to concede that as they dig deeper into their jobs, > they feel less need to get the message out and more need to put out > the next fire. Or just take a short breather. I suspect I'm just cynical, but I figure given their druthers, no official would face the press. Ok, some may just get into their job, and figure after a few years the public knows what they're doing; but I think that's the exception rather than the rule. With Shrub, it was clear that he and his felt they had a mandate, especially in the second term, and it's well documented that Shrub's attitude was "it's my way or the highway". He flat-out didn't feel the need to explain himself. With less authoritarian and special-interest demagogic administration, I still expect they'd rather only talk to the public when they need to solicit support, but avoid having to answer questions about troubling issues such as wars. I can't fault the feeling--it's only human--but I can fault the tendency to act on it. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 15:50:08 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <49F71352.3040802@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 4/28/09, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Probably not "Total Control", but somehow I doubt they allow blindsiding > him with a completely unapproved question. > (That is, if the reporter ever wants to be invited back again.) How, then, do you explain Helen Thomas's longevity in the White House press corps? Nobody from the White House ever kept her out of the pool. The reaction of previous administrations to bad press has been to turn off the press conferences. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 15:56:00 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:56:00 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49F76D60.5020801@gmail.com> sarahksmom wrote: > How, then, do you explain Helen Thomas's longevity in the White House press corps? Nobody from the White House ever kept her out of the pool. The reaction of previous administrations to bad press has been to turn off the press conferences. > I was thinking of her too. I saw a little blurb interview with her on The Daily Show and she was answering the "funny" questions very seriously-- Basically she said that you can tell the TV reporters from the press reporters by how much preface there is to the actual question. TV Reporters have to explain for their audience while asking the question. Press reporters explain in the article. Until President Bush, she always asked the first question. I'd like to see them go back to that, she always had something pithy and important to ask about. (And GPTB, if you're listening, I'd like to be as mentally active as she is when I get to be her age.) Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Apr 28 16:28:38 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:28:38 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <49F76D60.5020801@gmail.com> References: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <49F76D60.5020801@gmail.com> Message-ID: Members of the previous administration are agog over how open and communicative the current one wants to be. I imagine they're darn near apoplectic when they're off camera. A lot of people still haven't gotten used to how quiet the Obama crew has been since November. The Obama campaign had a very active Twitter account, a hyperactive web site, and the whole team used their cells to message hundreds of times a day. Then when Obama won, the regular staff of the White House, the Secret Service, and various other intel and legal departments told them to lay off all of that. They didn't need the crew slipping up and telling the general public stuff that would potentially cause a problem ("Oh, we're driving down 12th Ave, we'll be on 8th Street in a minute..."), and any incoming and outgoing message has to wind up as part of the Record. If they hadn't backed off, it would be West Wing 24/7/365. The television show would not be able to compete even during its prime. From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 28 17:41:44 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:41:44 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <792948.12599.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5AD82E0DD51D40938977084A5C649389@StevePC> Miriam says: > I prefer to hear from the > President more often than less often. It shows respect to the > people he serves that he communicates in a forum over which > he doesn't exercise total control of what will be asked. In principle I totally agree. In practice, I find it hard to sit and watch/listen even when the President is a good speaker. I think I've developed an allergic reaction to political speech. - Steve G From martinigt at comcast.net Tue Apr 28 17:56:42 2009 From: martinigt at comcast.net (Marinna Martini) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] test Message-ID: <49F789AA.9020905@comcast.net> Don't mind me... checking those spam filters... From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 18:01:00 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:01:00 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> References: <200904280632.n3S6WKs9023659@mail.zarquon.net> <49F6EA92.2090309@gmail.com> <980404.95746.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <49F701B1.3000806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0904281601u601e4872ieb48e670584e5a0b@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > All I've seen other than the AP story on all the other networks is that > they've asked PRIVATELY if the White House would work with them, in the > future, to select a time where they're not trying to pay the bills. When I was a kid (late 60's/early 70's) the only time I remember seeing a presidential press conference was in the middle of the day. I only saw them when I was off school for some reason. In these days of nearly permanent and nearly limitless information storage, I think they should return to that daytime schedule. If the rest of us clueless zombies (no offense, Miriam) want to see it, we can watch it 24/7 online. Or we can TiVo it. -- Bill Wilson "I was raised in a canebreak by an ol' mama lion; Cain't no high-toned woman make me walk the line." --Tennessee Ernie Ford From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 28 18:14:24 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: References: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com><49F76D60.5020801@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael Brian Bentley says: > Members of the previous administration are agog over how open and > communicative the current one wants to be. and Dave Ihnat says: > With Shrub, it was clear that he and his felt they had a mandate, He flat-out didn't feel the need to explain himself. > > With less authoritarian and special-interest demagogic > administration, I > still expect they'd rather only talk to the public when they need to > solicit support, but avoid having to answer questions about troubling > issues such as wars. I'm inclined to the think there is an even more basic difference in philosophy. Obama and crew are process- oriented; they believe a good process yields good results. The idea of governing, to at least some of them, is to run a good government process, more than to have things "their way." This perspective obliges you to look at what a good process for governing is. Once you do that, if you look at it from anything other than a purely totalitarian point of view, it's easy to conclude that a good process for governing includes lots of communication and lots of input. (I'm not saying that is always or unquestionably the only good answer, but it's a very easy conclusion to reach - especially if you've read a bunch of modern political and management theory.) It's an "open source" philosophy. It's a techie philosophy: "how does this system work? How do I make it work better?" The Bush administration had no such orientation. Yes, they believed they had a mandate, but so does Obama. One key difference IMHO is that the Bush Administration *only* thought of its position vis-a-vis the public in terms of mandate, i.e. political ascendancy and/or authority, not in terms of a process, and thus not in terms of a process that included the people as a whole. It's an older point of view, to be expected from mainly older people. That's not to say they were looking at the question of what is a good process from a purely totalitarian point of view, but that AFAICT at the highest levels, that's not really what they were looking at at all. The questions "how does this system work? How do I make it work better?" are not ones they were asking in connection with Government at the highest levels. And if you're not thinking of the basic operation of governing the country as a process that can, and needs to be, *improved* in a political-neutral sense, but as a political contest, why communicate in an uncontrolled way, or any more than politically necessary, with outsiders? - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 19:20:03 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: <49F789AA.9020905@comcast.net> References: <49F789AA.9020905@comcast.net> Message-ID: <49F79D33.9060808@gmail.com> Marinna Martini wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Don't mind me... checking those spam filters... > I got it at Goglog, but not, apparently, at GT. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 28 19:26:58 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:26:58 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: <49F79D33.9060808@gmail.com> References: <49F789AA.9020905@comcast.net> <49F79D33.9060808@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mary wrote: > > Don't mind me... checking those spam filters... > > > I got it at Goglog, but not, apparently, at GT. I saw it in both places. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Apr 28 19:29:50 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: <20090428015425.GA11568@dminet.com> References: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> <20090428015425.GA11568@dminet.com> Message-ID: Marinna says: > Is anybody out there? If the problem is that you're not sure if you're getting all the mail, you can check - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 19:58:32 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:58:32 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] test In-Reply-To: References: <49F66076.1000901@comcast.net> <20090428015425.GA11568@dminet.com> Message-ID: <49F7A638.2090707@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > If the problem is that you're not sure if you're getting > all the mail, you can check > > We've had a lot of bounces from her and to her, stuff going in the bitbucket both on goglog and GT. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Apr 28 20:23:33 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:23:33 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] So lets say you needed a picture... In-Reply-To: References: <180545.48546.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com><49F76D60.5020801@gmail.com> Message-ID: Nicely described. It makes me think about what happened in the first few days after the Inaugural, during the stimulus package negotiations, when ObamaCo established their method for creating the bill and getting it passed. Republican conservatives had a heck of a time getting traction, much less dealing with what was going on. Lots and lots of chatter, much confrontational posturing... >I'm inclined to the think there is an even more basic >difference in philosophy. Obama and crew are process- >oriented; they believe a good process yields good results. >The idea of governing, to at least some of them, is to run a >good government process, more than to have things "their way." >This perspective obliges you to look at what a good process >for governing is. > > - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Apr 28 22:44:45 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:44:45 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO Message-ID: 1) Several thousand ethnic Tamils descended on Ottawa, Canada, recently. They demanded that the Canadian government *Do Something* about the conflict in Sri Lanka between the government (dominated by the Sinhalese majority) and ethnic Tamil insurgents (represented mainly by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). The Canadian Tamils staged massive demonstrations which severely disrupted life in Ottawa. http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/stuart_neatby/2585 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/04/21/ot-090421-tamil-ottawa-demonstration.html?ref=rss http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tamil+protest+cost+Ottawa/1539789/story.html 2) Russia is enacting a law declaring it a crime to describe as a crime any wartime action by any government that was part of the alliance against Hitler, _anywhere in the former territory of the USSR_. That is, jurisdiction is claimed over actions in the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Georgia. 3) 1,000 troops of the Chinese "People's Liberation Army" are stationed in Lebanon, as part of the UN "peacekeeping" force. 4) Two leaders of a dissident Mormon sect in British Columbia have been arrested and charged with polygamy. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/07/bc-blackmore-polygamy-charges.html There is some expectation that the court will find the law against polygamy unconstitutional. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Apr 29 06:38:51 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:38:51 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't get it. Is there a connecting thread here? Are you making a comment that I don't see? What do these items have to do with sex/gender orientation? - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Wed Apr 29 19:06:57 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:06:57 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The connecting thread is that they're under-reported news items of interest; that is, they're each a little strange or ironic. I had no idea about any of them. Russia has never stopped being a problem or a concern, has been climbing back up the authoritarian ladder for years and it begins to look like old times 'cept for the burgeoning industrialization of nearby China threatens to make Putin the richest man in the world. Which means that Russian economic ties with the rest of the world will likely force 'em to restrain themselves. Somewhat. From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Apr 30 00:26:56 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve G wrote: >I don't get it. Is there a connecting thread here? >Are you making a comment that I don't see? What do >these items have to do with sex/gender orientation? Nothing. That particular TLA has a rather different meaning to people who haven't worked as Federal employees for a long time. To witL S--- Going On Rich "GS-never" Rostrom -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From mbcrui at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 09:53:59 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:53:59 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F9BB87.3050205@gmail.com> Rich Rostrom wrote: > Nothing. That particular TLA has a rather different > meaning to people who haven't worked as Federal > employees for a long time. To witL > > S--- > Going > On > I haven't been a Federal employee since I was in the Navy, Rich, and I thought it meant Sex/Gender orientation too. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From par at richinn.com Thu Apr 30 10:01:22 2009 From: par at richinn.com (par at richinn.com) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:01:22 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: <49F9BB87.3050205@gmail.com> References: <49F9BB87.3050205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090430090122.8fp35izf4sccw444@richinn.com> Quoting Mary Cruickshank Peed : > Rich Rostrom wrote: >> Nothing. That particular TLA has a rather different >> meaning to people who haven't worked as Federal >> employees for a long time. To witL >> >> S--- >> Going >> On >> > I haven't been a Federal employee since I was in the Navy, Rich, and I > thought it meant Sex/Gender orientation too. > Well that just proves Rich's point. I've never been a federal employee and I could not come up with a single meaning for SGO. Pete From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Apr 30 17:56:22 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:56:22 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67388681AD0F4AB5A955B0A8B076BF47@StevePC> Rich Rostrom says: > >I don't get it. Is there a connecting thread here? > >Are you making a comment that I don't see? What do > >these items have to do with sex/gender orientation? > > Nothing. That particular TLA has a rather different > meaning to people who haven't worked as Federal > employees for a long time. Actually I've never heard the term I used in my job context. (FTM I've never seen/heard your version of the TLA either, but did figure out what you meant by it.) I was pulling your chain because I saw (and see) no particular relevance to the four news articles you posted. - Steve G