Steve
I disagree, it was a darn good idea to present this to the list, your reply
to my comments is what a list is for.
Now, if Susan hears what I said she might just get with Istook and both of
them get something done.
You are entirely correct with what you have said, your just not near as
paranoid as me.
I hope that your view of the world is the correct one.
rikk
-----Original Message-----
From: islander [mailto:islander@midmaine.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:05 PM
To: Rikk Rogers
Subject: Re: [MV] S. 1428 response from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
Hell Rikk and others...
>Istook, from Oklahoma said straight up, he is against it and WILL do his
>best to get it REMOVED.
>He is in the conference and has the swing, at least more so than just a
>general member of the Senate.
Nothing personal, but I hate to burst your bubble as well. I've heard
politicians say the same stuff as Istook (strong, bombastic and no two
ways about it language) and yet when the chips fell they did NOT vote the
way they claimed they would or didn't do half what they claimed they
would before the vote was called. So just as you are skeptical of what
my Senator said, I am equally skeptical of what Istook said. Note that I
specifically did not say her letter was a fantastic one and that all our
problems were solved.
I only noted that it was on the positive side -> "The conference
committee needs to clarify the language included in Section 1062 so that
those individuals who own military equipment that does not pose a threat
to public safety will not be penalized." At this point ANY narrowing of
the language is better than the way it stands right now, agreed? You can
interpret "public safety" any way you wish, of course, but do not assume
that your interpretation is the only one or even the correct one.
Remember, both senators are politicians and therefore neither can be
assumed to be either truthful or a liar at this point. If you hear what
you want to hear that doesn't mean you are being told the truth. Actions
are the only thing that count, and neither you nor I can say squat at
this point about what either is REALLY doing about this because, to the
best of my knowledge, neither of us are privy to such factual information.
>With the reference to "public safety" that Susan made, and "would be
covered
>by this provision
>only if it is specifically designated as such"
You are misreading what she said, so I ask you to please reread what she
wrote. She first reminded me that the current language only refers to
stuff on the SME list. This is a fact, nothing more, which definitely
rules out all sorts of former DoD property being at risk. I think this
is responsible for her to point this out and I have no problem with it
since I have tried to do the same to this list myself. The "public
safety" issue can be read two ways -> legit or illegit interpretation.
Legit would be over things like thermonucelar weapons not being propperly
disposed of, the latter a 50 year old 4x4 vehicle with no statistically
significant basis for "public threat". My point here is that "public
safety" is not a euphamism for "fascist removal of honest, God given
citizen's rights and property". Yes, things can be done under the guise
of something like this, but it does not mean ALL actions under this are
wrong. Otherwise we would still be eating the vermin infested meat of
100 years ago or driving around in cars which explode when rear ended at
5mph.
> she is solidly shining you on.
Susan Collins is a ranking member on the same committee, meaning she
holds a great deal of authority over this. So we had better hope that
you are quite wrong.
>Sounds like to me she sees a need of some type for 1062 and will vote for
>some version.
Remember, the original intent of 1062 could in fact be legit. Apparently
the DoD has been rather shoddy about their liquidation procedures
(surprise surprise) and it apparently let stuff out of its grasp it
shouldn't have by law or good judgment. Now they want the legal
authority, specifically, to reclaim such materials. I am not talking
about 50 year old jeeps or OD socks, but weapons components that (in
theory) should in no way shape or form be in public hands without first
being rendered useless. At least that is the publicly stated reasoning
for this provision. For all I know this is in fact correct, and
therefore "legit". If the language is changed to reflect the legitimate,
and NARROW, needs in question, then I have NO problem with that. I
honestly hope that nobody here would seriously argue that no materials in
DoD possession pose a risk to public safety!
But the language as is sucks and I don't trust it any more than any of
you, even if I am not as convinced it will come to anything bad. Collins
has said she doesn't want it to remain as vague as it is either, which in
my book is on the positive side of things.
>Public safety is not the real concern here, the ability to collect
equipment
>is.
As worded, perhaps. However, I don't think either of us are informed or
qualified enough to know what the government's true intentions are or
what it might do years into the future. We can all speculate and cry the
sky is falling until we are all blue in the face, but in the end it all
just hot air until facts prove otherwise.
But like you and everybody else here, I would rather we didn't have to
run that risk. This language should be removed or hugely modified.
However, I am also not under any illusion that if there is a concerted
effort to take back our stuff that this will definitely not be the last
battle and that the odds are we will likely lose whatever they are after
in the end. So perhaps that is why I rather not assume the worst because
if the worst is going to happen, it WILL happen and the vast majority of
our fellow citizens won't care one bit. They will be too busy shopping
at Walmart and shoving their faces full of multi-thousand calorie fast
food meals to even notice.
>And more importantly the ability to be totally flexible in what the
>government can collect.
Again, you are totally correct. And I think the crux of Collins'
statement is that such vague language is not acceptable.
>BTW Public safety can cover both "air emissions" and "poor fuel mileage" if
>the government so designates.
>
>If public safety were a concern, there are plenty of laws that can be
>applied, and we all (House & Senate included) know it!
You are correct. But think about what you just said more carefully. If
they REALLY want our old stuff, why not just seize them under existing
laws? I am sure they could find dozens of different ways to do it.
>I'll say again, Istook in a short 2 sentence paragraph said he would work
to
>KILL 1062.
>Guess who has my vote!
Well, since you can't be a resident of two states at once I already know
which one has your vote :-) As for me, I prefer to judge people only
when there is enough evidence to do so. For all you or I know Collins is
working right now on killing the measure and Istook is instead busy
scoping out an intern for after the meeting. The point is unless you
know for a fact that this is correct or incorrect, I also ask you to
reserve judgment.
I knew it was a mistake to present something like this to this list.
Guess maybe I'll learn my lesson some time...
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:37:01 PST