 |
NEWS FROM THE ARCHIVES SPONSORED BY...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Cops, Helmets And Budgets Collide Organized by Rogue
CC: Ooops! Apparently disappointed and pissed off that they were unable to locate and bust "street racers" in Houston, the city cops offered K-Mart shoppers a texas-sized Blue Light Special and hauled in everybody they could find hanging around a K-Mart parking lot. Thirteen police officials have been suspended with pay in the wake of the arrests of 273 people at a Kmart and a burger stand, allegedly for loitering and trespassing. The police chief implied that officers should have refused the order to arrest people. The head of the police union seems to think the raid on hapless bystanders was justified because there are "no loitering" signs posted in the K-Mart parking lot. This appears to be a pretty good example of a complete absence of common sense on the part of the cops. Leadership on the scene of the debacle included two Captains, two Lieutenants and a raft of sergeants. It seems to us that a citation was the way to go in this case, but the boys in blue opted to "cuff 'em up" and haul the crowd off to Central Booking. The city is now bracing for an onslaught of well deserved lawsuits, one of which has already been filed for $100 million. So far, no reports on whether or not Homeland Security will be invoked as a defense or if the cops will simply claim this event was "for the kids." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1552982 ---------------------------- CC: If you think the arrests in Houston were an isolated bit of police over-kill, wait until you read this. A New Hampshire police chief thinks his department should be permitted to seize a college dorm under the state's forfeiture law because drugs were found there. He claims the dorm comes under the "Crack House" law. Good grief! http://www.free-market.net/rd/277493920.html --------------------------- CC: If you're still not sure of what the Patriot Act has done to decimate your civil liberties, this article gives a thumbnail sketch of how your personal freedom has gone down the shitter since last September. http://insightmag.com/news/262278.html --------------------------- CC: Before it happened, experts warned that the feds shouldn't be allowed to completely take over airport screening. They argued that private companies should be held to higher standards when hiring and training their employees. They foresaw major screw ups if federal employees - with federal supervisors - were to take over at the nation's airports. Well....... several billion dollars later, it appears the doomsayers were right. Not surprising is the fact that the feds are cutting corners and taxpayers are getting less service at a much higher cost. The following article details how an "elite team" of TSA baggage screeners are on the job protecting the traveling public after only 15 minutes of training. The manufacturer of the equipment they're using claims they should have had a minimum training period of 100 hours. The government claims there will be retro-training to bring the screeners up to speed. Meanwhile, we recommend taking the bus. http://www.free-market.net/rd/824854090.html ------------------------------------ CC: It's a rare occasion when we reprint a complete message from one of our subscribers. It isn't because we have a policy against it. Rather, few of you send us something we feel should be shared with, and can be used by, thousands of your fellow readers. The following letter is one of those items we think everyone will appreciate. Hopefully, it may inspire you to write your elected representatives and ask for help in keeping the NHTSA focused on the problem. ---- Dear Congressman Pastor, My name is Mitchell Elder. I have lived in Arizona now for almost 15 years. The Air Force brought me to Tucson to begin with and in three months I will retire with 21 years of active service. I plan on remaining here in Tucson to work and support my community as an active member of the civilian population along with the retired military here in Southern Arizona. In addition to my affiliation with the United States Air Force, I am also an ordained minister and an avid motorcycle rider with over 30 years experience in the saddle. I am very concerned about the NHTSA's current agenda concerning motorcycles and those of us who ride them. After spending 21 years in the military, protecting the rights of Americans to make their own choices in life, it disturbs me to see federal agencies attempting to legislate the daily lives of average taxpayers. The NHTSA's continued focus on legislating what riders wear is entirely the wrong approach to public safety. I do not require laws designed to protect me from myself. Further, the NHTSA's failure to support rider training, coupled with a dramatic increase in motorcycle sales, has only contributed to an increase in rider accidents and deaths. Unfortunately, the raw statistics are presented by the NHTSA in such a manner as to suggest that mandated rider clothing (i.e., helmets, bright colors, etc) is the answer. This does not address the basic problem: rider AND driver ignorance. I share the road with thousands of automobile drivers. Unlike me (I have attended annual motorcycle riding training on a regular basis since it was first made available) these drivers are never given additional training on how to safely share the road with other vehicles, including motorcycles. As a result, these drivers continue to pull out, and make left-hand turns in front of motorcycles "they just didn't see." They were never taught to look for us. So over the years, the burden has been placed on the victim (the rider). Now, the NHTSA wants to conduct more "safer crash" tests. This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. Since the NHTSA's agenda - as is clearly shown by their consistent track record - is to manufacture legislation designed to burden motorcyclists and the "synthetic" statistics to support said legislation, I fear that these tests will only go toward the creation of more ill-conceived rules that will not provide any measurable increase in safety for motorcycle riders but rather, will only serve to further burden them. In fact, the very idea of "safer crashes" is ludicrous. Why not focus on crash avoidance instead? I've crashed a motorcycle before - more than once - I've got the x- rays to prove it. My goal is always to avoid the accident in the first place and they only way I can effectively do that, is to ride defensively. It sure would be nice if I knew that the other riders and car drivers on the road had had some education as well. 
Congressman, the bottom line is this: if the NHTSA wants to perform a valuable public service, they should be focusing on education of riders and drivers, not legislation. They should be supporting equity on the highway, not placing burdens on a minority who simply choose an alternate form of transportation. They should be recognizing that overall, motorcyclists are better educated users of the roads and are more alert and aware than operators of other vehicles, instead of treating us like pariah and attempting to legislate us out of existence. Motorcyclists are not the enemy, ignorance is. Please urge the NHTSA to address the real issues: rider and driver education and training, and leave the personal choices of individuals (rider clothing and gear) exactly where they belong - to the individual. Thank you so much for your time. I hope I can count on your support to protect the rights of individuals to choose freely how they will live their own lives. Sincerely, Mitchell Elder
-------------------------------------
CC: Recently I was asked to participate in yet another charity run to help raise money for the victims of the World Trade Center disaster. I declined and the sponsor's immediate reaction suggested that he thought I was a heartless bastard. Well, I probably am. But beyond my natural tendency to gravitate toward helping critters (because they, unlike humans, cannot help themselves when they're in a disaster situation), I have a problem with increasing what I can only define as the "windfall profits" that came from that horrible event. Maybe because of my current economic situation I'm a bit jealous, but I don't think that's all of it. Perhaps your own feelings after you read the following article might better explain my position. Keep in mind, as you read this, that the family of a serviceman killed in Afghanistan will receive a flag, $200 toward his funeral and a very meager survivor's benefit. ---- ENRICHING SURVIVORS WAS A COSTLY MISTAKE
Last week, the federal Victim Compensation Fund announced its first 25 awards to families of those who were killed on Sept. 11. The amounts offered were not uniform, but after taking into account the mandatory deductions for life insurance policies and pensions, the average award came to $1.36 million. That much income would ordinarily be taxable at the highest rate -- currently, 38.6 percent. Thanks to legislation passed in January, however, the victims' families will receive their awards tax-free. The same law also exempted Sept. 11 victims retroactively from income tax liability for 2000 and 2001. Any taxes they already paid will be refunded. Last week's awards were actually on the low side; according to Kenneth Feinberg, the special master overseeing the fund, the average net payout will ultimately be around $1.5 million. That is roughly 36 times the median US household income, and is considerably more money than the vast majority of American families will ever see. No amount of money, of course, could ever replace a murdered loved one. But as an expression of sympathy and support for those who suffered a devastating loss in the terrorist attacks, the federal victims fund was munificent in the extreme. It was also a mistake. The American people didn't need the government's help to demonstrate their compassion for the families of the Sept. 11 victims. Well before the law creating the federal compensation fund was passed, tens of millions of Americans had donated hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of those affected by the attacks. By now, the total raised by private charities is estimated at a mind- boggling $2.7 billion, more than half of which has already been distributed. This torrent of private relief has not merely ensured that survivors can meet their mortgage payments and put food on the table. It has turned many of them into millionaires. USA Today reports that relatives of the New York police officers who died on Sept. 11 are receiving an average of $929,000 in charitable funds. The families of firefighters and ambulance crews are getting $1,037,000. All of these gifts are tax-free. (Surviving spouses of most rescue workers also receive a lifetime pension equal to the victim's salary, plus a federal death benefit of $259,000 for public safety officers killed in the line of duty.) To be sure, not every victim's family has been enriched as lavishly as those of the emergency workers killed at Ground Zero. The charitable gifts received by other families have averaged only $146,000. But "only" $146,000 is hardly trivial, especially when it comes with no strings attached, when it is not taxed, and when it is in addition to any insurance, pension, or Social Security benefits the family is entitled to. And when more than $1 billion remains to be distributed. Add to all this the billions of dollars' worth of goods and services that have been donated to the victims' families -- from free financial planning for life by top Wall Street firms to the hundreds of free slots at children's summer camps nationwide to the free gifts Tiffany's will distribute next week at a baby shower for the 103 widows who have given birth since last September. Never has the extraordinary generosity of ordinary Americans been more evident than in the months since Sept. 11. It wasn't necessary for the government to get in on the act, let alone to shower the victims' families with seven-figure jackpots. Those who lost a child, parent, or spouse in the attacks last fall suffered a terrible tragedy, and the hearts of decent people everywhere went out to them. But tragedy strikes American families every day, and their grief is not eased with million-dollar fortunes from the Treasury. Why should the families of Sept. 11 have been treated differently? The Victims Compensation Fund was created in part to protect the airlines from being bankrupted by wrongful-death litigation; survivors who accept money from the fund are barred from filing suit. But the airlines were not to blame for the horrors of Sept. 11. Their losses that day, both human and financial, were staggering. If Congress wanted to shield them from catastrophic lawsuits, the way to do it was to cap their liability at $0.00, not to bribe the victims' families with million-dollar awards. With such huge sums of money at stake, the congressional fund has predictably led to feuds and ill will, as relatives of the dead fight over the federal largesse. It has inflamed greed, too. Many families now insist that the planned awards are not lucrative enough; others gripe that after insurance and pension proceeds are deducted, they will get nothing. ("Nothing," in this case, means a quarter of a million dollars, which Feinberg says is the minimum payment guaranteed to virtually every victim's family.) Meanwhile, a corrosive precedent has been set for the future. The next time innocent victims die in a terrorist attack, their relatives will expect a handsome government payment. The next time *any* catastrophe strikes -- terrorist or otherwise -- there will be a clamor for federal compensation. But the worst consequence of all is that after the next disaster, fewer people will give willingly to private charity. Why donate to help stricken fellow Americans, they will reason, if Uncle Sam is going to make them rich anyway? A Pandora's box has been opened. It will not easily be closed. ---------------------------------------
CC: With all of the rhetoric flying around about attacking Iraq (and the not-so-surprising news that Iraq is digging in, moving equipment and readying for the assault), we're wondering why Congress just doesn't simply reinstate the CIA's authority to terminate with extreme prejudice. It seems to us there is a lot less risk, at least in the numbers of potential US casualties, to unleash a team of well trained special ops professionals on Sadaam. Uh, wait a minute......we forgot. The US doesn't have anyone so trained these days. Congress cut the CIA's balls off years ago, thinking it's not nice to over-throw the governments, or kill the leaders, of hostile nations. Yep, sure makes sense to announce an impending attack well in
advance and then commit tens of thousands of troops to go after an
army on high alert. We suppose it just isn't politically correct to use
the element of surprise these days. Too bad the Japs didn't play by
the same rules sixty-odd years ago.
More From The Archives........
Send Bikernet your local news, and we'll
get it up for the world to see.
Bikernet
Law Chart organized by state...
Search Bikernet.com using 
Bikernet.com - Est. January, 1996
Bikernet.com 200 Broad Ave, Wilmington, CA 90744 Phone (310) 830-0630 E-Mail Bandit E-Mail Sin Wu
|
|||
is
a registered trademark of