Gibson plants at nashville and memphis raided?

[Silenced Fred]

Does anyone seriously believe Obama is picking on Gibson just because Henry made donations to the republican party?

 

EDIT: Them's the rumours I's be hearing

[MrNylon]

Guitar woods will be the next prohibition for the G men. This is A RAID.

[Searcy]

Only if those guitars are Gibsons.

[MrNylon]

Only if those guitars are Gibsons.

 

Have to totally agree. Very blatant about as well. Gun Control, and now Guitar Control. Garbage Control next?

[stein]

Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, and Jimmy Fallon.......

Jimmy WHO??

[Searcy]

Have to totally agree. Very blatant about as well. Gun Control, and now Guitar Control. Garbage Control next?

 

Al Gore is working on the garbage control thing. I say (doing my best Britney Boy voice) "LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE!".

 

[TommyK]

Does anyone seriously believe Obama is picking on Gibson just because Henry made donations to the republican party?

 

EDIT: Them's the rumours I's be hearing

 

 

Now you're just trying to get this thread shut down.

 

But.

 

That's the buttle scut.

 

 

So, what is Al "the Pal" Gore, inventor of the Internet, doing to my garbage?

[Searcy]

 

 

So, what is Al "the Pal" Gore, inventor of the Internet, doing to my garbage?

 

Nothing, but if you'll but some garbage credits from him he'll pretend your garbage isn't there.

[milod]

Actually, behind the tragi-comic semi-political side of this is the truly frightening change in the legal culture of us Anglophones.

 

In the olden days, at least in theory you were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

That has pretty well gone by the board. There are increasing civil and criminal regulations where you pretty much can be found guilty at the stroke of the pen by a regulator. You then are assumed guilty unless you have the cash to get to court and prove yourself innocent.

 

It would be nice to suggest that's a matter of partisan politics; the problem is that it's a matter of entrenched bureaucracy that even a longtime U.S. Senator of the same party as holds the White House can't dig into with any degree of immediate satisfaction. You could make a good case that it's simply the culture of bureaucracy. Granted, when most in a given bureaucracy have one or the other more partisan perspectives, it's worse; but even when that's not the case, it's like an old plow horse that gets the bit in its teeth and won't follow directions.

 

For what it's worth, friends in the UK and in Oz have suggested the same trend holds sway there as well.

 

m

[damian]

Before the last raid, rather than draw straws, the Fish and Wildlife guys drew blanks.....(fret board blanks )... :unsure: ...

[martinh]

Actually, behind the tragi-comic semi-political side of this is the truly frightening change in the legal culture of us Anglophones.

 

In the olden days, at least in theory you were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

That has pretty well gone by the board. There are increasing civil and criminal regulations where you pretty much can be found guilty at the stroke of the pen by a regulator. You then are assumed guilty unless you have the cash to get to court and prove yourself innocent.

 

It would be nice to suggest that's a matter of partisan politics; the problem is that it's a matter of entrenched bureaucracy that even a longtime U.S. Senator of the same party as holds the White House can't dig into with any degree of immediate satisfaction. You could make a good case that it's simply the culture of bureaucracy. Granted, when most in a given bureaucracy have one or the other more partisan perspectives, it's worse; but even when that's not the case, it's like an old plow horse that gets the bit in its teeth and won't follow directions.

 

For what it's worth, friends in the UK and in Oz have suggested the same trend holds sway there as well.

 

m

 

 

Great post. I don't personally find much logic in the "Obama conspiracy" theories floating around the subject of Gibson's legal troubles, but your comments on the problem of legislative and law enforcement functions passing to administrative agencies is spot on. I do a lot of work in the administrative/agency law field, and there is the increasing reluctance of legislatures to actually pass legislation that means anything. Instead, some broad principles are stated, (which allows a sufficiently imprecise consensus to provide a majority for passage) and the actual rulemaking is shoved off to an agency. The legislation is practically meaningless, and the rule making battle, which is largely carried out safe from the public eye, is everything. The courts then give deference to the interpretations of the agency because of its "expertise" in its specific area.

 

This has very negative consequences: first, the less accountable power of agencies increases. Second, that power becomes easily manipulable dependant on which party appoints the head of the agency. Consequently, what is properly a congressional function (lawmaking) moves to the president because of the power to appoint agency heads. Third, it makes for an unstable situation in which no-one can rely on the "law" (e.g. the agency interpretations and enforcement priorities) because they may suddenly change depending on the priorities of whoever is in charge. Legislation that should only be changed by a very public vote in congress can be gutted, expanded or reversed 180 degrees in its meaning by an agency interpretation. Both parties perform the sort of manipulation to avoid the democratic law making process.

 

 

[cookieman15061]

Actually, behind the tragi-comic semi-political side of this is the truly frightening change in the legal culture of us Anglophones.

 

In the olden days, at least in theory you were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

That has pretty well gone by the board. There are increasing civil and criminal regulations where you pretty much can be found guilty at the stroke of the pen by a regulator. You then are assumed guilty unless you have the cash to get to court and prove yourself innocent.

 

It would be nice to suggest that's a matter of partisan politics; the problem is that it's a matter of entrenched bureaucracy that even a longtime U.S. Senator of the same party as holds the White House can't dig into with any degree of immediate satisfaction. You could make a good case that it's simply the culture of bureaucracy. Granted, when most in a given bureaucracy have one or the other more partisan perspectives, it's worse; but even when that's not the case, it's like an old plow horse that gets the bit in its teeth and won't follow directions.

 

For what it's worth, friends in the UK and in Oz have suggested the same trend holds sway there as well.

 

m

 

Hmmmmmm are we Venezuela yet?

[milod]

Martin & Cookie...

 

Actually I just had a discussion along these lines with reference to some local concerns.

 

I know that at times both major U.S. political parties have had a push for term limits, but I've always been against them.

 

Why? It's simple; when you don't have the grouchy old politicians of various perspectives looking over the bureaucrats and telling them when and how to jump, the bureaucrats end up telling the legislators where and how to jump.

 

Martin's comments above pretty well nail it.

 

But here's my concern in a more "political" sense. I think the dialectic between current political conservatives and more socialist elements adds to the problem.

 

When the socialists are in power, they give the legislation as Martin suggests. The regulatory agency then ramps up people and regulations to justify the expanded position and paycheck of the folks who have been de facto promoted into higher-ranking positions. They when the conservatives come into power, they're virtually impossible to change without almost tossing the baby with the bathwater. That's also politically impossible, so they just try to steer the bureaucrats enough for plausible denability.

 

Ditto regional issues where political party means almost nothing but the regional concern is a national minority.

 

Politics can be said to rule the situation, but it's not "party" politics as most of us generally understand it. It's internal bureaucracy politics.

 

That latter seems most likely to me to rule the current Gibson case. I would not be surprised if somebody's political views and friendships did not create the force behind the attacks. I doubt that at the national level it has been an issue. At least, not until now.

 

And now the problem is do you keep pushing to guarantee a "win" even when accusations of "politics" make sense to anyone of either party and cause potential future political problems? Or do you find a back door of, "Oh, we're sorry, we didn't know about this other variable" and try to get out quietly and duck another sort of criticism?

 

m

[cookieman15061]

Martin & Cookie...

 

Actually I just had a discussion along these lines with reference to some local concerns.

 

I know that at times both major U.S. political parties have had a push for term limits, but I've always been against them.

 

Why? It's simple; when you don't have the grouchy old politicians of various perspectives looking over the bureaucrats and telling them when and how to jump, the bureaucrats end up telling the legislators where and how to jump.

 

Martin's comments above pretty well nail it.

 

But here's my concern in a more "political" sense. I think the dialectic between current political conservatives and more socialist elements adds to the problem.

 

When the socialists are in power, they give the legislation as Martin suggests. The regulatory agency then ramps up people and regulations to justify the expanded position and paycheck of the folks who have been de facto promoted into higher-ranking positions. They when the conservatives come into power, they're virtually impossible to change without almost tossing the baby with the bathwater. That's also politically impossible, so they just try to steer the bureaucrats enough for plausible denability.

 

Ditto regional issues where political party means almost nothing but the regional concern is a national minority.

 

Politics can be said to rule the situation, but it's not "party" politics as most of us generally understand it. It's internal bureaucracy politics.

 

That latter seems most likely to me to rule the current Gibson case. I would not be surprised if somebody's political views and friendships did not create the force behind the attacks. I doubt that at the national level it has been an issue. At least, not until now.

 

And now the problem is do you keep pushing to guarantee a "win" even when accusations of "politics" make sense to anyone of either party and cause potential future political problems? Or do you find a back door of, "Oh, we're sorry, we didn't know about this other variable" and try to get out quietly and duck another sort of criticism?

 

m

 

Well said my friend, well said indeed.

[stein]

Now we are getting to some truth and actual info.

 

The last 2 postings by these "M"s are telling the story.

 

ALL of the facts around this case here revolve around loopholes and agendas by special interest. That is true no matter which side you take.

 

 

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY has been replaced with an importance to enforce the law. Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency has made a statement defending the action of the F&W, saying both, "let's not let this flounder on unintended consequences" (or something close) and also, "the intent is to go after those marketing and making a profit, not individuals" (again, forgive me for not making direct quotes).

 

These two statements miss the point: when the issue of the government confiscating guitars comes up as a concern, it is a matter of rights and if we as a people want that to happen. The fact the the government says they won't is NOT good enough when the question is should they have the RIGHT to.

 

Regardless of which side of the guilty/not guilty way this is taken from, the FACT of the matter is that Gibson was damaged significantly by the "investigation". The question we should all be asking about this, is it acceptable to enforce the law by damaging through investigations and raids?

[damian]

I'll bet there's a Fish and Wildlife guy with a nice wine cellar paneled in strips of rosewood....... :unsure: .....

[cookieman15061]

Now we are getting to some truth and actual info.

 

Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency has made a statement defending the action of the F&W, saying both, "let's not let this flounder

 

LOL Perfect.

[stein]

LOL Perfect.

Lol..my bad. I should learn to paste some time.

 

"Nobody wants this law to founder on unintended consequences". The context was her defending the F&W and the use of the law. She is attempting to address the issues from those opposed to the actions-both the fact that guitars could be taken and the damage to an American company.

 

She also says this is "the new normal", basically saying this is how it is going to be and there will be pains as companies adjust to the new law.

 

It is good to laugh sometimes. The comedy here is that I think the misquote here is actually closer to what Andrea Johnson was actually saying. It is not like I was trying to turn her words around and make it seem like she is saying something else.

[milod]

Yup. The "new normal."

 

Would that include the situation if somebody managing to close the doors on Gibson and then letting a bureaucrat try to explain why hundreds of workers are on unemployment and why there's no way to put the company back together again, even with management of different political affiliation?

 

I thought I heard that HenryJ was a guest in DC for the Thursday night "jobs" speech to Congress; Fox has continued a degree of coverage of the situtation, but not as obvious as that one shot at it. Ain't heard anything on CNN about it, but that may be my timing on channel surfing.

 

m

[stein]

As much as I try and avoid news and politics for my health, I have to admit this case has been educational for me in a big way.

 

I think for the most part, we don't really understand what is going on and what the government is doing until it hits home. We generally don't care until it affects us.

 

When I see how much it is costing Gibson, I have to ask how much resources and dollars the government is spending. And besides the efforts on the particular case and the 2 raids, how much effort and time and money has been spent on arguing and researching in order to get laws passed?

 

It saddens me to consider how this will affect Gibson, how much money and resources they have and what it will do to their ability to compete on the market. But I also consider how much resources the government has in order to punish Gibson and what THAT money could have been used for.

 

If all the agencies and resources that we have to regulate was used for something besides fighting, we would likely have enough to pay for all the things that seem too expensive now. We could have free trips to the hospital and build dams for the money we are spending to prevent both sides from getting what they want.

[Windmills Optional]

Yup. The "new normal."

 

Would that include the situation if somebody managing to close the doors on Gibson and then letting a bureaucrat try to explain why hundreds of workers are on unemployment and why there's no way to put the company back together again, even with management of different political affiliation?

 

I thought I heard that HenryJ was a guest in DC for the Thursday night "jobs" speech to Congress; Fox has continued a degree of coverage of the situtation, but not as obvious as that one shot at it. Ain't heard anything on CNN about it, but that may be my timing on channel surfing.

 

m

 

I did see that Henry J was to sit in the speaker's box for last night's speech as a guest of John Boehner. He was to be part of a group of 12 "job creators" Boehner was hosting, each of whom was supposed to highlight some regulatory issue the speaker was suggesting affects job creation.

[stein]

Yup. The "new normal."

 

Would that include the situation if somebody managing to close the doors on Gibson and then letting a bureaucrat try to explain why hundreds of workers are on unemployment and why there's no way to put the company back together again, even with management of different political affiliation?

 

I thought I heard that HenryJ was a guest in DC for the Thursday night "jobs" speech to Congress; Fox has continued a degree of coverage of the situtation, but not as obvious as that one shot at it. Ain't heard anything on CNN about it, but that may be my timing on channel surfing.

 

m

I suspect that a big part of the reason this is not reported in the "mainstream" media (whatever that is) has more to do with possible consequences than interest.

 

A real report on what is happening and why it is important would involve reporting on the government, who is behind it, and what the consequences are. It would involve facts that might prove damaging to an agenda or a political party. From the links I have read from both the reports by FOX and CNN, both reports seem to be lacking in obvious information that seems very available to them.

 

For the average person, it is a catch 22. In order to get actual news or facts, the only places to get such info would be from polarized or opinionated sources who would not be afraid to report them. But, getting an accurate report or account from an unbiased source is devoid of info in an effort to remain neutral.

[vourot]

If anyone is really interested , listen to this. A calm rational explanation. Its a little dry but if you care about having an INFORMED opinion then you really have to know the story.

 

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/podcast/podcast-41-cites-lacey-act-and-gibson-guitars-raid

[milod]

Here's my frustration. We had a meeting on an upcoming election whether or not to increase local taxes to support the school district after major cuts in per-student funding from both state and federal sources.

 

What frustrated me wasn't whether people were for or against, but rather some questions along the lines of "why didn't you let people know?"

 

Yet the issue had been covered extensively both in print and on line ever since it came up.

 

Stein's right: People don't really care about "government" until it's their sidewalk, their storm disaster or their job or hobby. Then it's like, "Why didn't anybody tell us?"

 

As an old newspaper business manager once told me, "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."

 

That's not an insult to Stein or anybody else on an individual basis. It's just that we as a culture are so bombarded by so much information from so many sources that we tend not to look at information on the things we do care about. I personally can't believe how ignorant people in general are today about their local governments, let alone things that affect them on a "state" and "national" level.

 

That then is translated into the appearance of apathy, it not its reality. It's then exploited by politicians - and admittedly the media - only when it becomes a "crisis" of some sort.

 

m <sigh>

[rct]

Same As It Ever Was, Milo.

 

rct