Gibson admits wrong doing

[zigzag]

Frankly my personal response is that I distrust any bureaucracy. Period. There seems to be something inherent in such groups that leads to actions that may be "legal" but ain't what fits my definition of honorable even if as individuals all involved are personally honorable.

 

And you know, it doesn't have to be that way all the time. It is funny how you can take a group of people who individually seem to have pretty good judgment and put them in some type of committee that will make a lot of really bad decisions. Sometimes, I'm not so sure that compromise is a good thing. Some times I think you just have to try stuff, and if it doesn't work, then you try something else.

[cookieman15061]

I have and I stand by what I said. Gibson is as guilty as the day is long. Perhaps some people do not understand what they are reading because the US Gov't is being quite generous here.

 

There are no underhanded political motives by the government here just Gibson's corporate spin to try and save face.

 

 

Thank you Perry Mason.

[Rus]

I don't get the argument that people must take the side of a private corporation against the Government. Can private corporations never do wrong? if a Corporation dumps toxic waste next to your kids playground, we are required to take the corporation's side? if a Corporation spies on your internet use, harvests personal data about you, and sells it - we are required to take the corporation's side? The people formed the government, and one of the functions the people gave it was to regulate the behavior of business entities for the public good by means of constitutional, democratically passed laws.

 

it's there to serve us, not to control us.

 

It has to do BOTH. A government that has no means of control is not a government, it's a failed state. A government cannot serve its citizens without some degree of control. The founding fathers absolutely understood that. What's the point of having a complex democratic process created by the constitution in order to pass laws if there is no means of enforcement? If I took your Les Paul by climbing in a window, do you seriously believe that the government could serve you (be getting it back) without controlling me ( arrest detention, fines etc?)

 

I think you're indulging in the fallacy that all power not ceded to the government actually remains in the hand of the "people" as a general wide-spread group. It doesn't. When government power breaks down it devolves to the next richest, meanest, best-armed group of citizens down the food chain. This is usually a minority, and even less concerned with the general welfare, (as opposed to its own aims) than the dreaded "government." To put it simply, if you do away with the EPA , the power to decide what can be dumped in the air and water does not revert to "the people" It reverts to whoever is dumping the toxic waste. You don't get a say.

Do away with the EPA and the people have more control, and get to keep more of the money that they've earned, and the power to decide what gets "dumped" does in fact revert to the people, as we can decide not to purchase products from companies that pollute. A company can only exist because customers give them money for goods or services. The company has to earn the customer's money by pleasing the customer, and the customer holds them accountable.

 

And no, the government doesn't have the right to control us; it's charged with protecting our God-given rights. If someone violates the rights of another, that's when the government has a use.

 

What do you guys want to be done? In what way has Gibson harmed you?

[Rus]

Have you ever heard of Goldman Sachs?

 

Left unchecked many (not all) corporations would be happy to take all your pension savings and give themselves a huge bonus. Watching over these corporate criminals IS the Government serving the peoples best interest.

 

Edit: And there are a lot of people who don't like seeing ultra-rich people getting fatter on the backs of workers who work their asses off for peanuts, or get laid-off due to down-sizing, or watch their jobs shipped out of the country, or watch their companies go belly up because of incompetent and over-paid executives.

HAHAHA. So you guys hate companies. I guess you think we didn't build our own companies.

 

We have employees to make us more money, and at the same time we provide jobs and lots of taxes and other benefits to our society. We're the ones that take the risk, and we're the ones that get the most profit from our own decisions and risk and hard work.

[MissouriPicker]

They were discussing this and some other legal affairs on Public Affairs Programming today. Two lawyers agreed that this was an issue that neither side cared to go any farther with, because Gibson didn't have unlimited money to spend on unending legal expenses and the federal government didn't wan't to appear as a bully on something they realized might be "questionable." They said it's pretty tough to prove malicious intent when trying to apply part of another country's laws to our own and that there is some confusion on exactly how The Lacey Act has been applied over the years. They both called Gibson "sloppy" and the feds as "over zealous." Neither of these guys was trying to make a bad guy out of either party. The topic that consumed most of the 1/2hr show was about who will pay for the damage done to Oakland during the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations..........I admit that sometimes I'm desperate for entertainment...lol

[Enmitygauged]

If they were guilty, the government wouldn't have been "quite generous". I don't get the people that take the government's side against a private corporation. They've probably never run, nor started a business in their lives. In business, it's not black and white, and there's a lot of gray area to our current overabundance of laws and regulations, and the government admitted this in their settlement with Gibson.

 

The people formed the government, and it's there to serve us, not to control us.

 

It appears as though the government was correct in its claims and as much as I hate to say Gibson were guilty. But Guilt in these modern times is a funny thing. Look at the Country you're presenting this case in. Its coming up an to an Election. Gibson the makers of the best guitars in the world has the backing of the music industry and media......all the stars that play Gibson. all baying for a change of government to over throw the oppressive administration ( not that it is) but thats what a the government was facing not a court case it would lose but a media war it was going to lose by a landslide. Obama could by no means afford that war.

[MissouriPicker]

Something more confusing to me than The Lacey Act is why some people in this thread are so anxious to make Gibson into some kind of evil entity. Unless they've got "inside" information on this issue that has not been made public they don't know anymore about this than anyone else.

[zigzag]

Rus, I am in favor of personal freedom to the extent that we should do no harm to others. Like it or not, most government regulatory agencies are created to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The EPA was created to reduce pollution by industry in the 1970s. Industry was not going to reduce pollution on its own. The same is true today. I was in industry in the '70s, and I saw the good done by the EPA. It is a necessary agency as long as it enforces the correct laws.

 

Laws were created to protect exotic woods and endangered animals and lands. Yes, governments do pass bad laws and government agencies do overstep their bounds. That is going to happen. But unregulated, human beings will encroach on others and do harm. Given a choice, not all humans will do the right thing.

 

I believe that Henry J willfully bought imported wood that he knew was quite possibly illegal, and I believe that he was aware of wood shipments that were intentionally mis-identified to suit his purposes. I also believe that the Henry J business model does not have the best interests of his customers, dealers, and workers at heart. In short, I believe, at the very least, Henry J is a bad businessman.

[stein]

I am at a loss why some are so wanting to label Gibson so guilty as well.

 

What I read in the settlement statement (appendix "A") is that this whole this is about the single stock (of which there were 4 shipments) or Madagasgar ebony from R.T. And of this particular stock, it is at best questionable, as the Govt. can't prove it was illegally harvested, and Gibson (R.T. as well) can't prove it wasn't.

 

Of this stock, the Govt. acknowledges THEY are aware that 1) Gibson did not know this wood was a problem until AFTER the first raid and 2) Gibson had nothing to do with any labeling of ANY of the woods coming into the country. 3) Gibson made efforts to be "complient" with the law. Again, this is what I am reading from appendix "A".

 

What the Govt. has on Gibson regarding this stock from this supplier is according to the Lacey act, it must have the full amount of paperwork with it as it comes. In this case, it followed the wood here.

 

To me, I call this a MISTAKE, but not GUILT. I see a big difference there. The difference is that a "mistake" is something that someone does wrong in the corse of trying not to break the law, and "guilt" is intentionally breaking the law.

 

It's turning into a mean, mean world folks. Mistakes will happen, especially as laws get more complex, and change at that. When we make mistakes, we should hope we are allowed to correct them, as opposed to being labeled "guilty" and having "mistakes" used as a reasoning to be made to pay fines or be the subject of judgement against you.

 

To those that are so wanting to label Gibson as "guilty" and accuse them of wrongdoing and be glad to see them hit with this fine, I hope you are not a bill collecter, lender, employer, or work for the IRS. I would hate to be on the other side of you.

 

I suggest this is part of the problem as opposed to the solution.

[stein]

The other side of this that hasn't really been addressed is the actions of the Govt. in this case. I still think we have a big problem.

 

If appendix "A" is truthful or close to it, what SHOULD have happened?

 

When the Govt. decided this wood was not good or not proven to be good, instead of informing Gibson of this, they took it. So instead of Gibson having the option of sending the wood back and getting refunded, they didn't have the option. Sinse the Govt. could not or would not provide PROOF to Gibson that the wood was in fact illegal, this prevented Gibson from having any real chance of getting refunded for the cost by the supplier, who "alledgedly" had no right to sell it.

 

I personally see something wrong with this right from the gate. The actions of the Govt. here result in putting the hit to the American business, when what they SHOULD have done instead is share the info to ASSIST the business in getting put right if in fact they are in possesion of something that should not have bees sold. I might also expect that IF the Govt. is in possesion of information that the wood is illegal, or is RESPONSIBLE for determining that it is illegal, they should have an obligation to share that (or get it) if they are to expect action by others.

 

I suggest that in the corse of attempting to FIND guilt on the part of Gibson, the Govt. failed to use the information it DID have to determine if Gibson was deserving of such action, or to use the evidence they had in Gibsons favor instead of against them. And they failed to meet any burdon of responsibility of whether or not thier action were harmful or helpful to the business they were targeting.

 

While we are so concerned with what "mistakes" Gibson may have made to allow this, no one seems concerned with the other side: what "mistakes" have the Govt. made in this? What restitution might they have to make? And should it be a consideration before they bust down the door?

 

I suggest, that it might be obvious to the Govt. that the wood was not something that could legally be sold, and that resulted from THEIR determination and footwork, then they have the ability to assist Gibson in getting thier money back. Especially if they were able to determine that Gibson didn't do it on purpose, and didn't know.

 

Who SHOULD our Govt. agencies be responsible to serve?

 

The issues of this case have NOT been solved as far as this happening to you or me, or anyone else, OR the issues of what the environmental laws are meant for in the first place. At least, there is a clause in it for Gibson that in the next 18 months, they get a phone call first.

[Guest farnsbarns]

I think some things may be being overlooked here.

 

Magagascar

 

The law states that Gibson must ENSURE the legitimacy of their entire supply chain. They failed to do that, relying instead on their supply chain to self regulate. Further, even when informed that the supply chain looked dubious, by an employee, they failed to act. Failing to ensure the legitimacy of their supply chain was illegal. Whether the response to that was reasonable or not the facts remain. Gibson broke the law and got caught doing so. The punishment they've ended up with is fairly lenient and I think it fits the crime.

 

 

India

 

Gibson where party to the incorrectly labelled imports, again, failing to ENSURE their supply chain was legitimate, and further to that, knowing it wasn't totally legit because they knew mis-labelling was in practice.

 

These laws require US companies to do the leg work in ensuring all is ligit because it is very hard for the US government to go after a German wood supplier. Seems reasonable to me.

 

In respect of the India situation, the US government conceded that, as an aside to mis-labelling, the law was insufficiently described and have allowed Gibson to continue imports unless the Indian authorities specifically say that the fingerboard blank exports are illegal. That sounds like a sensible course of action to me.

 

How the US government handled the raid and all that is one thing and opinion on that can be argued indefinitely but the bare naked facts are that Gibson did some stuff wrong and got a small (proportionate IMO) punishment for it in light of the fact that they recognised their errors and have agreed to changes in policy and procedure in order to prevent repetition.

 

Everyone wins, a lesson is learned on both sides. Let's all be happy!

[heymisterk]

Not really surprised,I didn't believe the pro union/anti union thing and, in my experience, when someone starts creating outrageous arguments, they're hiding something.

 

I think it important that people realize the latest raid at least was due to an Indian political law, not a conservation law. If the environ-mentalists start a witch hunt over this Henry is going to have a hard time convincing the lowest common denominator sheep that conservation has nothing to do with it.

 

I'd like to see Henry's next statement on it.

 

I resent this post, and it's part of what is wrong with sensible discourse of sensitive issues: A person can't be an environmentalist without being insane or an automaton.

 

Gibson did wrong; now they have to pay. Sometimes, there really is LESS to a story than people want to believe or hope.

 

I, for one, do believe that environmental stewardship has, for some reason, been demonized. I don't understand that. Environmentalists such as myself and those much more active than I aren't making money because they work to protect the planet. And those who do - through grants, foundations, non-profits - make diddly compared to their corporate counterparts.

 

We all love Gibson guitars, but we must be able to see past that love when the child needs to be disciplined...

[Guest farnsbarns]

I resent this post, and it's part of what is wrong with sensible discourse of sensitive issues: A person can't be an environmentalist without being insane or an automaton.

 

When did I say all environmentalists were insane or an automaton? By saying environmentalists I simply eluded to a sub group of environmentalists who react to everything as if it is an environmental issue.

 

I am certain the majority of environmentalists are perfectly sane, measured, balanced people.

 

I think your assumption that I called all environmentalists insane and this reaction must be borne in your own psyche. Feeling vulnerable about anything?

[zigzag]

...Feeling vulnerable about anything?

 

Unnecessary.

[Guest farnsbarns]

Unnecessary.

 

Ditto...

 

I resent this post, and it's part of what is wrong with sensible discourse of sensitive issues: A person can't be an environmentalist without being insane or an automaton.

 

Ditto too!

 

In fact, this entire forum is unnecessary, doesn't mean it's bad.

[heymisterk]

I do believe it's bad when you start labeling groups of people "mental" or "sheep" just because you disagree with their viewpoint. In terms of this issue - whether you agree or not - it certainly is an environmental issue.

 

Vulnerability has nothing to do with it; respect, kindness, and open-mindedness do.

 

I am an environmentalist, but I prefer to discuss issues with knowledge, not attack people with labels.

[Guest farnsbarns]

I do believe it's bad when you start labeling groups of people "mental" or "sheep" just because you disagree with their viewpoint. In terms of this issue - whether you agree or not - it certainly is an environmental issue.

 

Vulnerability has nothing to do with it; respect, kindness, and open-mindedness do.

 

I am an environmentalist, but I prefer to discuss issues with knowledge, not attack people with labels.

 

Woah there, who did i attack?

 

And I actually said (and you quoted me as such) that the second raid was over a political LAW as opposed to a conservation LAW. That is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

 

You're just taking offence for offence's sake now, no point in debating any further.

[heymisterk]

Rus, I am in favor of personal freedom to the extent that we should do no harm to others. Like it or not, most government regulatory agencies are created to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The EPA was created to reduce pollution by industry in the 1970s. Industry was not going to reduce pollution on its own. The same is true today. I was in industry in the '70s, and I saw the good done by the EPA. It is a necessary agency as long as it enforces the correct laws.

 

Laws were created to protect exotic woods and endangered animals and lands. Yes, governments do pass bad laws and government agencies do overstep their bounds. That is going to happen. But unregulated, human beings will encroach on others and do harm. Given a choice, not all humans will do the right thing.

 

I believe that Henry J willfully bought imported wood that he knew was quite possibly illegal, and I believe that he was aware of wood shipments that were intentionally mis-identified to suit his purposes. I also believe that the Henry J business model does not have the best interests of his customers, dealers, and workers at heart. In short, I believe, at the very least, Henry J is a bad businessman.

 

Here here.

[heymisterk]

Woah there, who did i attack?

 

Environmentalists whom you disagree with. You called them "mental" and "sheep." Please see your earlier post.

[Guest farnsbarns]

Environmentalists whom you disagree with. You called them "mental" and "sheep." Please see your earlier post.

 

No, you see, you're assuming that by saying environmentalists I am talking about all environmentalists. Environmentalists is a turn of phrase fairly common where I'm from, popularised by Jeremy Clarkson, used to describe those people who turn everything into an environmental issue, whether it is or not, to the detriment of any other issue, I'm sure you know the kind of people. But, your assumption was erroneous. I also never used the word sheep or even implied any sense of following a crowd in relation to environmentalists, rather, the lowest common denominator sheep that will likely follow the environmentalists, (not to be confused with environmentalists) that was entirely in your own head too.

 

The real irony here is I consider myself somewhat environmentalist. Everything is recycled in this house, my business is carbon neutral, (until it was stolen)we had 1 very small, twenty year old, very economical car blah blah.

 

You are simply reading what you want to read. I did clarify my use of the figure of speach "environmentalist" several posts up.

 

By saying environmentalists I simply eluded to a sub group of environmentalists who react to everything as if it is an environmental issue.

 

and...

 

I am certain the majority of environmentalists are perfectly sane, measured, balanced people.

 

I guess you didn't notice that.

 

Also, if you read the entire thread you'll see that I have stood on the side of "Gibson did some things wrong and got punished for it" side all the way through.

 

I guess you didn't notice that either.

[milod]

Yeah, I'm noticing that the India law also is "political" rather than environmental.

 

I think the involvement of using that country's law referencing trade and its local degree of manufacturing may have more to do with this than just "wood" or "Gibson."

 

Also, I have reasons to have a degree of certainty that there are also personal feelings involved in this one. I'm not so sure whence they arose, but...

 

As for "environmentalists," I've done more than a bit on some things that made sense in terms of overall ecosystems including humans. I've also seen "enviros" destroy thousands of square miles of forest and grazing land, not to mention some 1,000 or more jobs, and destroying communities by short-sighted and unrealistic gamesmanship with environmental law.

 

m

[heymisterk]

Yeah, I'm noticing that the India law also is "political" rather than environmental.

 

I think the involvement of using that country's law referencing trade and its local degree of manufacturing may have more to do with this than just "wood" or "Gibson."

 

Also, I have reasons to have a degree of certainty that there are also personal feelings involved in this one. I'm not so sure whence they arose, but...

 

As for "environmentalists," I've done more than a bit on some things that made sense in terms of overall ecosystems including humans. I've also seen "enviros" destroy thousands of square miles of forest and grazing land, not to mention some 1,000 or more jobs, and destroying communities by short-sighted and unrealistic gamesmanship with environmental law.

 

m

 

milod,

 

The personal feelings came out when Farns decided to express his by calling (certain, I guess) environmentalists "mental" and "sheep."

 

In terms of your last paragraph, I will respectfully say that I have seen mining, timber interests, and various forms of drilling completely destroy entire landscapes. To me, what is short-sighted and unrealistic is a belief that we can continue to pillage the earth of its natural resources indefinitely. Sorry my friend, but the only gamesmanship I have seen in my years as an environmentalist is the desire to leave a living planet for our children and grandchildren.

 

If that's crazy, put me in the asylum.

[heymisterk]

No, you see, you're assuming that by saying environmentalists I am talking about all environmentalists. Environmentalists is a turn of phrase fairly common where I'm from, popularised by Jeremy Clarkson, used to describe those people who turn everything into an environmental issue, whether it is or not, to the detriment of any other issue, I'm sure you know the kind of people. But, your assumption was erroneous. I also never used the word sheep or even implied any sense of following a crowd in relation to environmentalists, rather, the lowest common denominator sheep that will likely follow the environmentalists, (not to be confused with environmentalists) that was entirely in your own head too.

 

The real irony here is I consider myself somewhat environmentalist. Everything is recycled in this house, my business is carbon neutral, (until it was stolen)we had 1 very small, twenty year old, very economical car blah blah.

 

You are simply reading what you want to read. I did clarify my use of the figure of speach "environmentalist" several posts up.

 

 

 

 

and...

 

 

 

I guess you didn't notice that.

 

Also, if you read the entire thread you'll see that I have stood on the side of "Gibson did some things wrong and got punished for it" side all the way through.

 

I guess you didn't notice that either.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate your time.

[Guest farnsbarns]

As far as leaving a planet for our children and grandchildren, that'll only work if only a quarter of us have only one child for 2 generations. There are 8 billion of us and it's a matmatical certainty the the earth can only support 2 billion in the long term.

[milod]

The difference between an "environmentalist" and somebody who considers "environmental science" is that the latter considers long term ecology which, like it or not, includes the fact that we have doubled the human population just this past half century, and that humans are part of the environment.

 

Ecosystems change for numbers of reasons. Lately, it's IMHO largely due to expansion of human residential development and often ill-advised contrary attempts at controlling various systems for conflicting reasons.

 

Those over-populated forests to the south of me have been burning. Lives are risked and sometimes lost not to protect valuable natural resources, because tree disease already has destroyed that. No, it's to save rich city folks' mountain retirement hideaways.

 

The latest "funny" here came when one of leaders of the "Thou shalt not touch a tree, but for heaven's sake, make sure the forest fire doesn't burn my $!!!!!! house," guys figured how to improve his mountain views. Trees being taken down because of disease caused by tree overpopulation and fire danger had an extra one or two marked for removal...

 

There has to be a less harmful way to recognize that even two centuries ago humans - "native" as well as "European" - were making some major changes to ecosystems.

 

In North America's more populated areas, folks already destroyed much that remotely resembles pre-1490 systems. Now, without a vision that is systemic, scientific and a political consensus, "we" instead pick away at ecosystems in ways that are counterproductive for humans, flora and fauna - and the very earth itself.

 

That's my complaint: Lack of long-term vision by non-scientific sorts who grasp this or that cause and seem somehow to fail to see that systems are involved, not the well-advertised causes of the day.

 

But ... for the folks who make their living that way, causes of the day bring in more cash than long-term vision.

 

I was writing far too long for this forum and just erased examples I've documented for print media of results of all sides vesting into "causes of the day" rather than looking up from their dining room conversations.

 

Yet neither "The State," "The Wheels" nor "The saviors of the environment" could bring themselves to talk about such stuff after a couple of newspaper stories blew over.

 

Publicity of bad science ignoring work just a few miles away slowed them, but nothing really changed. It didn't fit the paradigm they'd invented and that they were vested into.

 

Yeah, I'm cynical.

 

EDIT: Farns, I believe sincerely that in essence, you're correct on long-term populations. I also believe unscientifically that the world until there's a population drop is not one I'd care to contribute to, nor to live in. No blood of my own goes into that increase.

 

m