Monday, November 22, 2010
Blog will continue Tuesday
I've been on travel and visiting friends with no computer connection. Blog will resume Tuesday, God willing and the snow don't fly!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
1 Cop Fired, 3 Suspended In Fatal Shooting Of Unarmed Black Man That Led To Nearly A Year Of Protests, Tension
Huffington Post: 1 Cop Fired, 3 Suspended In Fatal Shooting Of Unarmed Black Man That Led To Nearly A Year Of Protests, Tension
According to this article, a black man came out of a building with his fingers interlaced behind his head...and three cops - they dont specify race of the cops but presumably white - shot him dead.
If the events are as this article relates...the cop who did the shooting is guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
But it gets more stupid than that. Apparently they left the man's body on the ground, untended, for 30 minutes, while he bled to death, while they waited for a "gun control officer" to arrive, so he could check the body to see if the man had a gun.
What is this, Unions run rampant? It's just like unions at an office building. The Union that moves computers can't unplug the computers - that's the electrician's job.
And the saddest thing of all of course is that the police union is planning on fighting these punishments, saying the cops did nothing wrong. That's sort of similar to a case a few years ago, where some cops tasered a black guy on a porch. He'd had his hands in his pockets, so when he fell to the ground, he still had his hands in his pockets. THey ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets, but of course he couldn't move as he'd just been shocked with a taser. So a cop shot him dead.
Having said that, riots aren't the answer. Clearly, police need to be better trained. When there's five cops and one unarmed man, there's no need to shoot the man, there's no need to beat him with a billy club, just learn some ju-jitsu moves to hold him immobile. For big strong cops that should be easy!
306
According to this article, a black man came out of a building with his fingers interlaced behind his head...and three cops - they dont specify race of the cops but presumably white - shot him dead.
If the events are as this article relates...the cop who did the shooting is guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
But it gets more stupid than that. Apparently they left the man's body on the ground, untended, for 30 minutes, while he bled to death, while they waited for a "gun control officer" to arrive, so he could check the body to see if the man had a gun.
What is this, Unions run rampant? It's just like unions at an office building. The Union that moves computers can't unplug the computers - that's the electrician's job.
And the saddest thing of all of course is that the police union is planning on fighting these punishments, saying the cops did nothing wrong. That's sort of similar to a case a few years ago, where some cops tasered a black guy on a porch. He'd had his hands in his pockets, so when he fell to the ground, he still had his hands in his pockets. THey ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets, but of course he couldn't move as he'd just been shocked with a taser. So a cop shot him dead.
Having said that, riots aren't the answer. Clearly, police need to be better trained. When there's five cops and one unarmed man, there's no need to shoot the man, there's no need to beat him with a billy club, just learn some ju-jitsu moves to hold him immobile. For big strong cops that should be easy!
306
vPortland Mayor Sam Adams joined black leaders to support a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting death of a black man by a white police officer during a news conference Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, in Portland, Ore.
PORTLAND, Ore. — A Portland police officer was fired and three others were suspended in connection with the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer, officials said Tuesday.
The discipline follows nearly 10 months of protests and tension between police and black leaders over the death of Aaron Campbell, 25, who was shot in the back Jan. 29 as he ran away from police.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has called Campbell's death an "execution."
All four officers signed disciplinary letters on Monday and Tuesday. Officer Ryan Lewton was reprimanded for using a bean-bag gun without indications of violent behavior from Campbell, who emerged from his apartment walking backward with his hands on his head.
Officer Ron Frashour, a sniper who fired the lethal shot, was terminated for not complying with department policies on the use of deadly force. He has said he thought Campbell was reaching for a weapon, but police investigators determined that he was not reasonable in reaching that conclusion.
Sgts. Liani Reyna and John Birkinbine were reprimanded for communications failures. Both of them, along with Lewton, were suspended for two weeks without pay for unsatisfactory performance.
A Multnomah County grand jury found no criminal wrongdoing in the shooting, but said police training, command and communication were inadequate. Campbell's family has filed a federal lawsuit against the city and the four officers.
"This was a difficult decision because ultimately, I believe each Bureau member involved was attempting to do their best to resolve a complex situation," police chief Michael Reese said Tuesday. "However, as chief, I must address the significant issues that were brought forth."
Portland Mayor Sam Adams said "the discipline we have handed down is warranted."
The police union representing more than 900 Portland officers condemned the punishments, saying the officers did nothing wrong and were being used as scapegoats to minimize political fallout.
Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner said the officers will meet soon with union leaders and a lawyer to decide whether to file appeal the discipline to an independent arbiter.
"Today we can say that the rank-and-file of the Portland Police Bureau have lost faith in their leaders," the organization wrote on its website. "Disciplinary decisions cannot and should not be made for reasons of political expediency."
The Campbell incident began when police responded to a call for a welfare check at a Portland apartment complex. Campbell was distraught over his brother's death, had been drinking and had threatened suicide to his girlfriend, even taking out a .22-caliber pistol and pointing it at his head.
The girlfriend and her three children, including two of Campbell's, were removed from the scene and a police officer was negotiating with Campbell, hoping to end the standoff without incident.
Campbell emerged from the apartment with his hands on his head as Reyna, the police supervisor in command, was briefing her superiors around the corner of the building. One officer reacted by firing beanbags, another released a police dog and a third – Frashour – fired the fatal shot.
Campbell was unarmed, but police left him lying on the ground for more than 30 minutes before a special weapons unit arrived to confirm there was no weapon.
The state medical examiner's office said it was unlikely Campbell would have survived even if he had gotten immediate attention.
The Rev. Allen Bethel, president of the Albina Ministerial Alliance, which has criticized police conduct in the incident, welcomed Frashour's firing but said he'd like to have seen tougher suspensions for the other three officers.
"It does show that the bureau is beginning to take a look at these things that are being done and willing to hold the officers in the bureau responsible for the actions that have gone forth," Bethel said.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wade Phillips - I regret to say...
I like Wade Phillips, I wanted him to do well, but truth to tell he probably should have been fired a few week ago. The Cowboys are 1-7 and looked really bad in their last game against the Green Bay Packers on national TV.
I'm watching them play today with their new coach, Jason Garrett and the announcers mentioned that Garrett had instituted some NEW rules - players had to be on time for meetings, and they had to dress in suits and ties when flying.
And I'm thinking of everything announcers and people had ever said about Wade Phillips - that he was the nicest guy in the NFL...and I guess niceness didn't include discipline.
I guess he assumed grown men would just naturally know enough to be on time for team meetings, and to dress appropriately when travelling.
But you'd've thought Phillips, after his first three or four games this season, would have figured out he needed to instill some discipline in his team...but I suppose after four years of letting his team do whatever they wanted, he couldn't suddenly do an about face and start acting like a coach.
Anyway. this just goes to show that discipline is necessary. The Cowboys are playing a lot better today!
I'm watching them play today with their new coach, Jason Garrett and the announcers mentioned that Garrett had instituted some NEW rules - players had to be on time for meetings, and they had to dress in suits and ties when flying.
And I'm thinking of everything announcers and people had ever said about Wade Phillips - that he was the nicest guy in the NFL...and I guess niceness didn't include discipline.
I guess he assumed grown men would just naturally know enough to be on time for team meetings, and to dress appropriately when travelling.
But you'd've thought Phillips, after his first three or four games this season, would have figured out he needed to instill some discipline in his team...but I suppose after four years of letting his team do whatever they wanted, he couldn't suddenly do an about face and start acting like a coach.
Anyway. this just goes to show that discipline is necessary. The Cowboys are playing a lot better today!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The power cord is part of the receiver!
We have recently moved from Yorktown, VA, where we had 3 TVs hooked up to satellite. When my dad asked what needed to be brought to our new location in Cheyenne, WY, he was told, just bring the receivers.
So, he just brought the receivers. Wihtout the power cords.
Well - I was in charge of packing my own room and so of course I brought my power cord, but now the satellite guy is here and we've got two boxes and no power cords, and the boxes are so old that he doesn't have the right kind of power cords to fix them, so we'll have to go get them.
So my dad is all annoyed, saying, Why didn't they specify you had to bring the power cord to the receiver, as well as the receiver.
And I said, the power cord is part of the receiver.
And my dad said, Well, why didn't they say that then.
Well, at this point I just gave it up as a bad job, because to continue on would have been to point out that he was just stupid. Of course the power cord is part of the receiver, there's no need for them to specify that - except apparently to someone who is 78 years old.
So I just said, "I don't know," which my dad interpreted as, "You're right, they should have specified it," when of course what I really meant was, "They shouldn't have had to specify it. It's the electronic equivalent of not putting hot coffee between your legs, a no brainer.
I can see where he's coming from. We'd have to bring our computers in to a computer shop once in a while, and there all you had to bring in was the tower, they had the cords and the monitors to hook up to any computer.
But receivers are different. The power cords for them are not interchangeable. (Would that they would be - seems kind of dumb that they're not, but I suppose it's a different voltage, or something.)
Whatever the reason, the point is that when you're bringing your electronics, you bring the power cords, and any other connectors!
So, he just brought the receivers. Wihtout the power cords.
Well - I was in charge of packing my own room and so of course I brought my power cord, but now the satellite guy is here and we've got two boxes and no power cords, and the boxes are so old that he doesn't have the right kind of power cords to fix them, so we'll have to go get them.
So my dad is all annoyed, saying, Why didn't they specify you had to bring the power cord to the receiver, as well as the receiver.
And I said, the power cord is part of the receiver.
And my dad said, Well, why didn't they say that then.
Well, at this point I just gave it up as a bad job, because to continue on would have been to point out that he was just stupid. Of course the power cord is part of the receiver, there's no need for them to specify that - except apparently to someone who is 78 years old.
So I just said, "I don't know," which my dad interpreted as, "You're right, they should have specified it," when of course what I really meant was, "They shouldn't have had to specify it. It's the electronic equivalent of not putting hot coffee between your legs, a no brainer.
I can see where he's coming from. We'd have to bring our computers in to a computer shop once in a while, and there all you had to bring in was the tower, they had the cords and the monitors to hook up to any computer.
But receivers are different. The power cords for them are not interchangeable. (Would that they would be - seems kind of dumb that they're not, but I suppose it's a different voltage, or something.)
Whatever the reason, the point is that when you're bringing your electronics, you bring the power cords, and any other connectors!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
There's a sign on a road in Cheyenne, Wyoming
If you drive north up Warren Avenue/Greely Highway, you'll drive through the center of Cheyenne. As you pass 22nd Avenue, there's a great big, huge, easily visible and legible sign that says Post OFfice This Way.
There's only one problem. There isn't a post office on that road and there hasn't been one on that road for 3 years.
Yet the sign is still there, directing newbies to the city to turn there, in full authority of an official sign.
I've lived in Cheyenne for about a month, and got tricked by that sign a couple of weeks ago. I'd had my mail forwarded to my new address, but after one day's receipt of mail, nothing for two weeks. So I tried to find the post office to ask what was going on. Now - if I'd never seen any signs directing me to the post office, I would have looked up the address on the web. But in my driving down this particular road, which I do every day, I'd always seen that sign, and I think I was justified in thinking, "No need to look up the address. I'll just follow this sign."
(As for the mail problem, the woman from whom I bought this house decided to go to Mexico for a vacation. She still hasn't found a new home (I won't go into the issues of that - but it's nice to know she can afford to go to Mexico for two weeks, before she finds a new home to live in) so she put a hold on the mail. All of it. Those with her name on it as well as mine.
So I got that sorted out.
But it just makes me shake my head.
There's only one problem. There isn't a post office on that road and there hasn't been one on that road for 3 years.
Yet the sign is still there, directing newbies to the city to turn there, in full authority of an official sign.
I've lived in Cheyenne for about a month, and got tricked by that sign a couple of weeks ago. I'd had my mail forwarded to my new address, but after one day's receipt of mail, nothing for two weeks. So I tried to find the post office to ask what was going on. Now - if I'd never seen any signs directing me to the post office, I would have looked up the address on the web. But in my driving down this particular road, which I do every day, I'd always seen that sign, and I think I was justified in thinking, "No need to look up the address. I'll just follow this sign."
(As for the mail problem, the woman from whom I bought this house decided to go to Mexico for a vacation. She still hasn't found a new home (I won't go into the issues of that - but it's nice to know she can afford to go to Mexico for two weeks, before she finds a new home to live in) so she put a hold on the mail. All of it. Those with her name on it as well as mine.
So I got that sorted out.
But it just makes me shake my head.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Who knew fish farms would be a bad idea?
Anyone with common sense...
Underwater Times: Large-Scale Fish Farm Production Offsets Environmental Gains; 'Creates Large Scale Problems'
SAANICH, British Columbia -- Industrial-scale aquaculture production magnifies environmental degradation, according to the first global assessment of the effects of marine finfish aquaculture (e.g. salmon, cod, turbot and grouper) released today. This is true even when farming operations implement the best current marine fish farming practices.
Dr. John Volpe and his team at the University of Victoria developed the Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI), an unprecedented system for objectively measuring the environmental performance of fish farming.
"Scale is critical," said Dr. Volpe, a marine ecologist. "Over time, the industry has made strides in reducing the environmental impact per ton of fish, but this does not give a complete picture. Large scale farming of salmon, for example, even under even the best current practices creates large scale problems."
The fish farming industry is an increasingly important source of seafood, especially as many wild fisheries are in decline. Yet farming of many marine fish species has been criticized as causing ecological damage. For instance, the researchers' found that the relatively new marine finfish aquaculture sector in China and other Asian countries lags in environmental performance.
Dr. Volpe added, "The fastest growing sector is Asia, where we found a troubling combination of poor environmental performance and rapidly increasing production."
With support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, Dr. Volpe and his team developed GAPI, which uses 10 different criteria to assess and score environmental impacts. Incorporating information such as the application of antibiotics and discharge of water pollutants, GAPI allows researchers to gauge which farmed species and countries of production have the best or worst environmental performance. The researchers examined the environmental impact of marine fish farming per ton of fish produced and the cumulative environmental impact for each country producing a major farmed species.
"GAPI provides a valuable tool for developing environmentally responsible fish farming. Governments can use GAPI to inform policies and regulations to minimize the environmental footprint of fish farming. Farmers can use it to improve production practices. And buyers can use it to compare and select better, more environmentally friendly seafood options," said Chris Mann, senior officer and director of the Pew Environment Group's Aquaculture Standards Project, which collaborated on the work.
Underwater Times: Large-Scale Fish Farm Production Offsets Environmental Gains; 'Creates Large Scale Problems'
SAANICH, British Columbia -- Industrial-scale aquaculture production magnifies environmental degradation, according to the first global assessment of the effects of marine finfish aquaculture (e.g. salmon, cod, turbot and grouper) released today. This is true even when farming operations implement the best current marine fish farming practices.
Dr. John Volpe and his team at the University of Victoria developed the Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI), an unprecedented system for objectively measuring the environmental performance of fish farming.
"Scale is critical," said Dr. Volpe, a marine ecologist. "Over time, the industry has made strides in reducing the environmental impact per ton of fish, but this does not give a complete picture. Large scale farming of salmon, for example, even under even the best current practices creates large scale problems."
The fish farming industry is an increasingly important source of seafood, especially as many wild fisheries are in decline. Yet farming of many marine fish species has been criticized as causing ecological damage. For instance, the researchers' found that the relatively new marine finfish aquaculture sector in China and other Asian countries lags in environmental performance.
Dr. Volpe added, "The fastest growing sector is Asia, where we found a troubling combination of poor environmental performance and rapidly increasing production."
With support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, Dr. Volpe and his team developed GAPI, which uses 10 different criteria to assess and score environmental impacts. Incorporating information such as the application of antibiotics and discharge of water pollutants, GAPI allows researchers to gauge which farmed species and countries of production have the best or worst environmental performance. The researchers examined the environmental impact of marine fish farming per ton of fish produced and the cumulative environmental impact for each country producing a major farmed species.
"GAPI provides a valuable tool for developing environmentally responsible fish farming. Governments can use GAPI to inform policies and regulations to minimize the environmental footprint of fish farming. Farmers can use it to improve production practices. And buyers can use it to compare and select better, more environmentally friendly seafood options," said Chris Mann, senior officer and director of the Pew Environment Group's Aquaculture Standards Project, which collaborated on the work.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Amazon
I got a bad shock a couple of weeks ago...took me a while to get over it.
A year or so ago, I discovered that Amazon was allowing people to publish their blogs on the Kindle. People who did so receieved a 30% commission.So, if a person's blog cost 99 cents to subscribe to, the author would receive 30 cents for each one. If the blog cost $1.99, the blogger would receive 60 cents.
However, the blogger has no control over how much Amazon charges for the blogs. And they ALL start at $1.99.
After a while, some blogs drop to 99 cents...no one knows why, while some stay at $1.99.
So it was with me. I had established somewhat of a blog publishing empire. I published 10 blogs...indeed, more than that, as I figured quantity of blogs would help my income.
I had three successful blogs. After about 5 months, one of them had 70 subscriptions. It cost 99 cents, and had done so for about a week after I'd started it, so I was quite happy with getting 30 cents per sub.
Of my other two blogs, one had over 90 subs, and was $1.99. THe other had over 160 subs, and also cost $1.99
So, to recapituatle, I had 2 successful blogs that were earning me 60 cents a piece, and I continued to get subscriptions every single day.
Then, a week or so ago, mid-month, I saw to my horror that my two very successful blogs had been reduced in price to 99 cents. So my income was reduced in half. For the month of September, I earned $170, in October, my income will be $90. I'd anticipated getting 1000 subs by early next year, which would have earned me $600. Now, it will be $300. That's a loss of $300.
Well, I was mad enough to spit. The more so because my 7 blogs that have 1, 2, 3 or 4 subs...still cost $1.99!!!!!
I emailed Amazon's "help desk" and requested, astringently, that my blog prices be put back to $1.99, but I was refused.
So, it's taken me a week or so to recover from my fury. I'm still in the process of shutting down my blogs - I'm not going to help Amazon - at least the Kindle portion of it - earn any money. (The more so because they've also cost themselves money by reducing my prices!)
My one very popular blog, The Rush Limbaugh Report, continues to get subscriptions. I am allowing it to continue for a while - hell, I need the money, even if it is half of what I should be getting - but as soon as my desktop publishing books take off, I'll dump these things.
A year or so ago, I discovered that Amazon was allowing people to publish their blogs on the Kindle. People who did so receieved a 30% commission.So, if a person's blog cost 99 cents to subscribe to, the author would receive 30 cents for each one. If the blog cost $1.99, the blogger would receive 60 cents.
However, the blogger has no control over how much Amazon charges for the blogs. And they ALL start at $1.99.
After a while, some blogs drop to 99 cents...no one knows why, while some stay at $1.99.
So it was with me. I had established somewhat of a blog publishing empire. I published 10 blogs...indeed, more than that, as I figured quantity of blogs would help my income.
I had three successful blogs. After about 5 months, one of them had 70 subscriptions. It cost 99 cents, and had done so for about a week after I'd started it, so I was quite happy with getting 30 cents per sub.
Of my other two blogs, one had over 90 subs, and was $1.99. THe other had over 160 subs, and also cost $1.99
So, to recapituatle, I had 2 successful blogs that were earning me 60 cents a piece, and I continued to get subscriptions every single day.
Then, a week or so ago, mid-month, I saw to my horror that my two very successful blogs had been reduced in price to 99 cents. So my income was reduced in half. For the month of September, I earned $170, in October, my income will be $90. I'd anticipated getting 1000 subs by early next year, which would have earned me $600. Now, it will be $300. That's a loss of $300.
Well, I was mad enough to spit. The more so because my 7 blogs that have 1, 2, 3 or 4 subs...still cost $1.99!!!!!
I emailed Amazon's "help desk" and requested, astringently, that my blog prices be put back to $1.99, but I was refused.
So, it's taken me a week or so to recover from my fury. I'm still in the process of shutting down my blogs - I'm not going to help Amazon - at least the Kindle portion of it - earn any money. (The more so because they've also cost themselves money by reducing my prices!)
My one very popular blog, The Rush Limbaugh Report, continues to get subscriptions. I am allowing it to continue for a while - hell, I need the money, even if it is half of what I should be getting - but as soon as my desktop publishing books take off, I'll dump these things.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Update on Colorado's Road Workers
I'd meant to amend this entry several days ago, but time got away from me.
I'd posted how Colorado road workers were out on a Sunday, blocking a 6-mile stretch of road, despite the fact that the road looked quite fine.
Well...that's because it was fine. It had just been laid, as I found out the next day. I encountered more delay going up the highway on the holiday Monday, but this was road workers pouring concrete in another lane.
So I came to the conclusion that the lane closure that had irritated me the other day must have been because "they" want a newly poured concrete road to set undisturbed for 48 hours or more, before trucks start driving over it.
Now, as Terry Pratchett puts it in Thief of Time, (although I'm paraphrasing because that book is now hiding somewhere in my new house), New information calls for a new conclusion, but does not render incorrect the old conclusion, based on the knowledge had at the time.
In other words, just because I was wrong in the previous case about road workers being paid triple time for no good reason, isn't to say that they don't on average get paid a heckuva lot for standing around doing very little. (3 supervisors to 1 worker, etc.)
I'd posted how Colorado road workers were out on a Sunday, blocking a 6-mile stretch of road, despite the fact that the road looked quite fine.
Well...that's because it was fine. It had just been laid, as I found out the next day. I encountered more delay going up the highway on the holiday Monday, but this was road workers pouring concrete in another lane.
So I came to the conclusion that the lane closure that had irritated me the other day must have been because "they" want a newly poured concrete road to set undisturbed for 48 hours or more, before trucks start driving over it.
Now, as Terry Pratchett puts it in Thief of Time, (although I'm paraphrasing because that book is now hiding somewhere in my new house), New information calls for a new conclusion, but does not render incorrect the old conclusion, based on the knowledge had at the time.
In other words, just because I was wrong in the previous case about road workers being paid triple time for no good reason, isn't to say that they don't on average get paid a heckuva lot for standing around doing very little. (3 supervisors to 1 worker, etc.)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Brett Favre
Brett Favre has not said, "It's a lie" when asked about the allegations made against him by a few women in New York. So, although I had initially hoped that it wasn't true, I'm beginning to think that it is.
(How fascinating that the women involved didn't decide to complain until two years later. Had Favre refused to pay blackmail to them?)
Anyway, his actions aren't as bad as Tiger Woods, as far as having relations with over 30 women, but they are as stupid.
Here's a guy with a wife and kids, in the public eye, making money in endorsements, and he sends text messages and photos to women in the New York Jets organization? And he doesn't expect this to come out and tarnish his image.
It's just stupid!
(How fascinating that the women involved didn't decide to complain until two years later. Had Favre refused to pay blackmail to them?)
Anyway, his actions aren't as bad as Tiger Woods, as far as having relations with over 30 women, but they are as stupid.
Here's a guy with a wife and kids, in the public eye, making money in endorsements, and he sends text messages and photos to women in the New York Jets organization? And he doesn't expect this to come out and tarnish his image.
It's just stupid!
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Colorado Road Workers
It's Sunday.
Earlier this afternoon, I drove into Colorado from Texas, on North 287. A little ways into the state, I came across traffic ahead of me come to a complete stop. Fortunately, I'd just filled up the car with gas and both my mom and I had had our bathroom break (hint: any time you have the chance to go to the bathroom, do so!) so it wouldn't have mattered how long we would have had to sit there, it was just annoying.
Suddenly cars zoom past us on the other side (it's a two lane road)...and I'm thinking...what is this, is one lane blocked off or something? In other words, I had an intimiation of what was going on, but I couldn't believe it was going on on a Sunday.
Finally, we got to go forward, and my suspicious proved correct. A 6 and 1/2 mile lane of traffic was blocked off, and so there were stop/go flagmen at each end. Pressumably they'd hold up one side for 30 minutes ,then the other side for 30 minutes, to let traffic on either side go through.
On a Sunday.
But it was more than that. Down the center of the road were large orange barrels, marking off the lane into which we were not supposed to go.
And that lane was pristine. No one was working on it then, and it had not been worked on. People could have driven over it easily. (Indeed, I could see no reason for them to repair it if that indeed was what they were planning to do, it looked perfect.)
So. The road was not dug up. There was no reason in the world why both lanes couldn't have been open on a Sunday. Today's modern drivers are perfectly capable of avoiding the center median with large orange barrels running down it.
Yet the lane was closed off and drivers were being inconvenienced, and for what? So about 20 highway "workers" could get Sunday overtime (or is Sunday double time) pay for standing around doing nothing?
On this 6 mile stretch of road, there was 1 flagman at the point where I started, and we passed two flagmen, one at about 2 miles each, and I had no idea why he was there with his little stop and go sign since obviously no one was going to stop driving. But perhaps it's union rules, if flagmen are used they have to be deployed every two miles whether they are needed or not.
At the end of the lane where we were allowed to get back into our own lane in order to continue on normally, there was a flagman, there was a flagman relaxing in a truck, and a flagman talking to him. All these guys getting paid needlessly on a Sunday.
In addition, there was no equipment anywhere. If the road was going to be torn up, why wasn't the equipment sitting on the side of the road, ready to roar into use on Monday? (And what exactly was wrong with the road, anyway!??? Because it looked great - brand new, not a pothole to be seen.)
It just makes no sense.
Earlier this afternoon, I drove into Colorado from Texas, on North 287. A little ways into the state, I came across traffic ahead of me come to a complete stop. Fortunately, I'd just filled up the car with gas and both my mom and I had had our bathroom break (hint: any time you have the chance to go to the bathroom, do so!) so it wouldn't have mattered how long we would have had to sit there, it was just annoying.
Suddenly cars zoom past us on the other side (it's a two lane road)...and I'm thinking...what is this, is one lane blocked off or something? In other words, I had an intimiation of what was going on, but I couldn't believe it was going on on a Sunday.
Finally, we got to go forward, and my suspicious proved correct. A 6 and 1/2 mile lane of traffic was blocked off, and so there were stop/go flagmen at each end. Pressumably they'd hold up one side for 30 minutes ,then the other side for 30 minutes, to let traffic on either side go through.
On a Sunday.
But it was more than that. Down the center of the road were large orange barrels, marking off the lane into which we were not supposed to go.
And that lane was pristine. No one was working on it then, and it had not been worked on. People could have driven over it easily. (Indeed, I could see no reason for them to repair it if that indeed was what they were planning to do, it looked perfect.)
So. The road was not dug up. There was no reason in the world why both lanes couldn't have been open on a Sunday. Today's modern drivers are perfectly capable of avoiding the center median with large orange barrels running down it.
Yet the lane was closed off and drivers were being inconvenienced, and for what? So about 20 highway "workers" could get Sunday overtime (or is Sunday double time) pay for standing around doing nothing?
On this 6 mile stretch of road, there was 1 flagman at the point where I started, and we passed two flagmen, one at about 2 miles each, and I had no idea why he was there with his little stop and go sign since obviously no one was going to stop driving. But perhaps it's union rules, if flagmen are used they have to be deployed every two miles whether they are needed or not.
At the end of the lane where we were allowed to get back into our own lane in order to continue on normally, there was a flagman, there was a flagman relaxing in a truck, and a flagman talking to him. All these guys getting paid needlessly on a Sunday.
In addition, there was no equipment anywhere. If the road was going to be torn up, why wasn't the equipment sitting on the side of the road, ready to roar into use on Monday? (And what exactly was wrong with the road, anyway!??? Because it looked great - brand new, not a pothole to be seen.)
It just makes no sense.
Don't put Super Glue Near Your Eyedrops!
Winnipeg Free Press: US woman mistakenly uses super glue instead of eye drops
I'll have to track down a Phoenix report on this, because some details are left out. My dad had cataract surgery on both eyes. And 24 to 48 hours after the operation, he could see just fine. So this woman must have had pretty bad eyesight for some other reason, if she'd had cataract surgery a year ago.
But the main point is - why does she keep her superglue in among her eye drop bottles?
Tip: Keep SuperGlue out of the reach of children and people who can't see very well.
PHOENIX - A woman accidentally glued an eye shut when she mistook super glue for her eye drops.
KSAZ-TV says Irmgard Holm of Glendale had cataract surgery a year ago. She was reaching for what she thought was one of her half-dozen eye drop medications. The burning sensation told her immediately something was seriously wrong.
Holm says the eye drops and the super glue bottles are nearly identical.
After putting super glue in her eye, Holm says she tried washing it out. But the quick-drying substance did what it was supposed to and sealed her eye shut.
Holm got to the hospital and staff cut off the hardened glue covering her eye. Once the eye was opened, doctors washed it out to prevent major damage, KSAZ-TV reported.
I'll have to track down a Phoenix report on this, because some details are left out. My dad had cataract surgery on both eyes. And 24 to 48 hours after the operation, he could see just fine. So this woman must have had pretty bad eyesight for some other reason, if she'd had cataract surgery a year ago.
But the main point is - why does she keep her superglue in among her eye drop bottles?
Tip: Keep SuperGlue out of the reach of children and people who can't see very well.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
It's always something
I learned further details about our little house problem today.
Originally, we were scheduled to close Oct 1. That got pushed back to Oct 8. So the woman who owned the house had an extra week to finish moving out of her house - but she didn't.
In addition, the reason why the closing is now pushed back 2 WEEKS is because the woman owed back taxes on the house, and she needs a form from the IRS proving that she's going to pay them - or that she'll give partial proceeds of her payment from us to the IRS, or whatever.
(Seems to me, we should have just been able to pay the back taxes and take over the property!)
Anyway, that's also something we didn't find out until yesterday. So fortunately the garage is clear, and my da has started unpacking tings into the garage, but whn my mom and I arrive we are going to have to stay for 2 weeks in BAQ (military quarters for retirees) because of this delay.
I think the woman should have to reimburse us for this extra expense, but apparently taht's not going to happen.
But I must say I am not impressed with the efficiency of this woman or her realtor, or our realtor come to that!
Originally, we were scheduled to close Oct 1. That got pushed back to Oct 8. So the woman who owned the house had an extra week to finish moving out of her house - but she didn't.
In addition, the reason why the closing is now pushed back 2 WEEKS is because the woman owed back taxes on the house, and she needs a form from the IRS proving that she's going to pay them - or that she'll give partial proceeds of her payment from us to the IRS, or whatever.
(Seems to me, we should have just been able to pay the back taxes and take over the property!)
Anyway, that's also something we didn't find out until yesterday. So fortunately the garage is clear, and my da has started unpacking tings into the garage, but whn my mom and I arrive we are going to have to stay for 2 weeks in BAQ (military quarters for retirees) because of this delay.
I think the woman should have to reimburse us for this extra expense, but apparently taht's not going to happen.
But I must say I am not impressed with the efficiency of this woman or her realtor, or our realtor come to that!
Friday, October 8, 2010
A closing date should be a closing date
My dad arranged to buy a house in Cheyenne, WY. He did it long distance - my sister lives in Cheyenne and she scoped out houses and talked with the realtor, etc. My dad decided on one, and we've had such a hassle getting the loan. I won't go into that, except to say that the process of buying a house, even when you have the money to buy it flat out, is just a pain.
But, the closing on the house was supposed to take place on Oct 8. And the people from whom we've bought the house have known that we've bought the house and were expecting to move in on Oct 8.
So you'd think that they would have had all their furniture and other stuff out of the house at least a week ago.
But, not so.... they are still moving out.
That may not necessarily be stupid as just inconsiderate....but, no...really, it's stupid as well. Unless they needed the downpayment money that wouldn't be delivered until the 8th to fund their move, I suppose....
Nevertheless, it's annoying, as my Dad showed up on Oct 8 with a truck full of our household goods from VA, and he can't start unpacking them yet. And each day he has to keep that truck is costing him money.
So I'm hoping he'll be able to deduct the daily cost of keeping that truck from his payment to the original house owners, because it's their fault that he's paying extra money each day.
But, the closing on the house was supposed to take place on Oct 8. And the people from whom we've bought the house have known that we've bought the house and were expecting to move in on Oct 8.
So you'd think that they would have had all their furniture and other stuff out of the house at least a week ago.
But, not so.... they are still moving out.
That may not necessarily be stupid as just inconsiderate....but, no...really, it's stupid as well. Unless they needed the downpayment money that wouldn't be delivered until the 8th to fund their move, I suppose....
Nevertheless, it's annoying, as my Dad showed up on Oct 8 with a truck full of our household goods from VA, and he can't start unpacking them yet. And each day he has to keep that truck is costing him money.
So I'm hoping he'll be able to deduct the daily cost of keeping that truck from his payment to the original house owners, because it's their fault that he's paying extra money each day.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Baseball uniforms without names!
I'm watching the San Francisco Giants vs the Atlanta Braves, and the Giants have no names on the backs of their jerseys. So I, who follow such teams as the Minnesota Teams (damn those Yankees!)and the Seattle Mariners, have no idea who these guys are and it sure would help me ID these guys if their names were on their jerseys.
Same thing with the Yankees. Of course everyone knows what Jeter and Alex Rodriguez looks like, and probably A-Rod as well, and probably Andy Pettite...but what about the other guys?
It's just not baseball, of course. In women's college basketball, Pat Summitt took the names off the back of her team's jerseys a few years ago, as an exercise in team building, apparently. Apparently there'd been some friction because Candace Parker had been getting so much press, and the other young ladies were jealous. So she takes off the names, so casual fans who tune in to watch the game are harmed. Everyone will know who Candace Parker is, but the rest of the team? They are effectively reduced to a supporting cast.
I believe the names are back on the jerseys this year for the Lady Vols, however. Thank you, Pat Summitt!
Same thing with the Yankees. Of course everyone knows what Jeter and Alex Rodriguez looks like, and probably A-Rod as well, and probably Andy Pettite...but what about the other guys?
It's just not baseball, of course. In women's college basketball, Pat Summitt took the names off the back of her team's jerseys a few years ago, as an exercise in team building, apparently. Apparently there'd been some friction because Candace Parker had been getting so much press, and the other young ladies were jealous. So she takes off the names, so casual fans who tune in to watch the game are harmed. Everyone will know who Candace Parker is, but the rest of the team? They are effectively reduced to a supporting cast.
I believe the names are back on the jerseys this year for the Lady Vols, however. Thank you, Pat Summitt!
Misleading Headlines Do A Disservice to Article
This was the headline on Yahoo News about the attempt to rescue the 33 Chilean miners who have been trapped underground for almost a month now:
Chile list says which miners should go first, last
Now that headline makes you think, doesn't it, that the list is a list of specific miners - perhaps the wealthiest ones get to go first, or ones with kids or something.
But no so, it's a list that decribes personalities - the types of people who will be rescued to start with, and so on down the line.
It actually makes a heckuva lot of sense and shows a lot of professionalism.
Here's the article:
By MICHAEL WARREN and EVA VERGARA, Associated Press Writer Michael Warren And Eva Vergara, Associated Press Writer – 55 mins ago
SAN JOSE MINE, Chile – Before 33 trapped Chilean miners can begin their passage to the outside world, still more people will join them down below to make their journey as smooth as it can be.
These men — an elite group of three paramedics with the Chilean navy's special forces and 13 rescue experts with the state-owned mining company Codelco — will work in shifts during the 48 hours it could take to evaluate the men and strap them into the escape capsule for their 15-20 minute ride to the surface.
And the paramedics will be empowered to change a list, already prepared, that suggests the order of the miners' rescue.
The list is based on daily examinations of the miners' physical and mental health and strength of character during more than two months of captivity, Cmdr. Renato Navarro, the Chilean navy's submarine chief, told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The first one up should be someone capable of handling a frightening setback in the narrow shaft, and describing how the next ones up might avoid problems, Navarro said.
"The most able miners will leave first — those who can better describe to the next how they might avoid the potential problems that the capsule might encounter. Then those with illnesses or who suffer from one problem or another. And finally the last to surface are the strongest physically or in terms of their character."
Navarro would not reveal the list's suggested order, since it may change before the miners are pulled out if a miner suffers a health setback, and since the paramedics who descend into the mine will ultimately make their own judgment calls. "The paramedics will have the last word," he said.
Among the most physically fit of the miners is Edison Pena, an athlete who said he has been running 10 kilometers a day down below.
Next come those with chronic illnesses, like Jose Ojeda with diabetes and Jorge Galleguillos with hypertension, and those who are older, like Mario Gomez, the oldest at 63.
Last up will be those considered most capable of handling the anxiety of being left behind as their comrades disappear one by one.
Candidates include the paramedic Yonny Barrios, or Jose Henriquez, who has been leading twice-daily prayer sessions. But many people believe the last miner up will be shift supervisor Luis Urzua, whose disciplined leadership was credited with keeping the men alive on an emergency food supply during their first 17 days without contact from the outside world.
"It could be Urzua, but it's still not confirmed. The concept of a captain being the last one to abandon ship could be applied," Navarro acknowledged.
Those who know Urzua are sure he'll insist on going last.
"He's going to prefer that his team leaves ahead of him," said Robinson Marquez, a neighbor and former coworker of Urzua's who describes him as extremely patient and calm.
"He's going to make sure that all of the men leave, and leave well," added Robinson's wife, Angelica Vicencio, who has led a nightly vigil outside the Urzua home in Copiapo.
"He's a very good guy — he keeps everybody's spirits up and is so responsible — he's going to see this through to the end," she said.
When the last trapped miner goes up the shaft, two men will be left behind, and then one. Navarro said it will most likely be one of the paramedics, since they are trained to handle even their own medical emergencies, should one arise.
These paramedics — Sgt. Roberto Ros Seguel, Corp. Patricio Roblero Abarca and Sgt. Cristian Bugueno Olivares — have long experience treating trauma victims, aiding escapes from confined spaces and surviving hostile situations.
"They're among the best in Chile when it comes to rescues," Navarro said.
While the "Plan A" and "Plan C" drills have been slowed by efforts to keep them on target, "Plan B" resumed Thursday with fresh drill bits carving through the final 291 feet (89 meters).
Mining Minister Laurence Golborne said the "Plan B" shaft should reach the miners' cavern some 2,000 feet (624 meters) underground by Saturday, or possibly even late Friday, and that the rescue could begin anywhere from two to 10 days later, based on a technical evaluation of the risks involved.
The countdown hinges on whether they use steel piping to line the walls of the shaft. It could reduce the risk of a rock fall or other obstruction jamming the capsule, but inserting straight pipe of half-inch-thick steel through a curved and fractured section of the shaft also risks clogging the hole or knocking rock loose. If sections of the pipe break apart, it could set back the rescue significantly.
Golborne said the finished shaft will be thoroughly examined with a video camera, and only then will engineers decide whether to leave the shaft unreinforced, insert steel part way or encase the entire shaft, a process that would delay the rescue for another 10 days.
"They are all possible alternatives," Golborne said. "There are risks and benefits we have to think about."
Chile list says which miners should go first, last
Now that headline makes you think, doesn't it, that the list is a list of specific miners - perhaps the wealthiest ones get to go first, or ones with kids or something.
But no so, it's a list that decribes personalities - the types of people who will be rescued to start with, and so on down the line.
It actually makes a heckuva lot of sense and shows a lot of professionalism.
Here's the article:
By MICHAEL WARREN and EVA VERGARA, Associated Press Writer Michael Warren And Eva Vergara, Associated Press Writer – 55 mins ago
SAN JOSE MINE, Chile – Before 33 trapped Chilean miners can begin their passage to the outside world, still more people will join them down below to make their journey as smooth as it can be.
These men — an elite group of three paramedics with the Chilean navy's special forces and 13 rescue experts with the state-owned mining company Codelco — will work in shifts during the 48 hours it could take to evaluate the men and strap them into the escape capsule for their 15-20 minute ride to the surface.
And the paramedics will be empowered to change a list, already prepared, that suggests the order of the miners' rescue.
The list is based on daily examinations of the miners' physical and mental health and strength of character during more than two months of captivity, Cmdr. Renato Navarro, the Chilean navy's submarine chief, told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The first one up should be someone capable of handling a frightening setback in the narrow shaft, and describing how the next ones up might avoid problems, Navarro said.
"The most able miners will leave first — those who can better describe to the next how they might avoid the potential problems that the capsule might encounter. Then those with illnesses or who suffer from one problem or another. And finally the last to surface are the strongest physically or in terms of their character."
Navarro would not reveal the list's suggested order, since it may change before the miners are pulled out if a miner suffers a health setback, and since the paramedics who descend into the mine will ultimately make their own judgment calls. "The paramedics will have the last word," he said.
Among the most physically fit of the miners is Edison Pena, an athlete who said he has been running 10 kilometers a day down below.
Next come those with chronic illnesses, like Jose Ojeda with diabetes and Jorge Galleguillos with hypertension, and those who are older, like Mario Gomez, the oldest at 63.
Last up will be those considered most capable of handling the anxiety of being left behind as their comrades disappear one by one.
Candidates include the paramedic Yonny Barrios, or Jose Henriquez, who has been leading twice-daily prayer sessions. But many people believe the last miner up will be shift supervisor Luis Urzua, whose disciplined leadership was credited with keeping the men alive on an emergency food supply during their first 17 days without contact from the outside world.
"It could be Urzua, but it's still not confirmed. The concept of a captain being the last one to abandon ship could be applied," Navarro acknowledged.
Those who know Urzua are sure he'll insist on going last.
"He's going to prefer that his team leaves ahead of him," said Robinson Marquez, a neighbor and former coworker of Urzua's who describes him as extremely patient and calm.
"He's going to make sure that all of the men leave, and leave well," added Robinson's wife, Angelica Vicencio, who has led a nightly vigil outside the Urzua home in Copiapo.
"He's a very good guy — he keeps everybody's spirits up and is so responsible — he's going to see this through to the end," she said.
When the last trapped miner goes up the shaft, two men will be left behind, and then one. Navarro said it will most likely be one of the paramedics, since they are trained to handle even their own medical emergencies, should one arise.
These paramedics — Sgt. Roberto Ros Seguel, Corp. Patricio Roblero Abarca and Sgt. Cristian Bugueno Olivares — have long experience treating trauma victims, aiding escapes from confined spaces and surviving hostile situations.
"They're among the best in Chile when it comes to rescues," Navarro said.
While the "Plan A" and "Plan C" drills have been slowed by efforts to keep them on target, "Plan B" resumed Thursday with fresh drill bits carving through the final 291 feet (89 meters).
Mining Minister Laurence Golborne said the "Plan B" shaft should reach the miners' cavern some 2,000 feet (624 meters) underground by Saturday, or possibly even late Friday, and that the rescue could begin anywhere from two to 10 days later, based on a technical evaluation of the risks involved.
The countdown hinges on whether they use steel piping to line the walls of the shaft. It could reduce the risk of a rock fall or other obstruction jamming the capsule, but inserting straight pipe of half-inch-thick steel through a curved and fractured section of the shaft also risks clogging the hole or knocking rock loose. If sections of the pipe break apart, it could set back the rescue significantly.
Golborne said the finished shaft will be thoroughly examined with a video camera, and only then will engineers decide whether to leave the shaft unreinforced, insert steel part way or encase the entire shaft, a process that would delay the rescue for another 10 days.
"They are all possible alternatives," Golborne said. "There are risks and benefits we have to think about."
Monday, October 4, 2010
Drivers in Tennessee and Arkansas!
Actually, I probably shouldn't single out drivers in Tennessee and Arkansas, as stupid and inconsiderate drivers exist everywhere. It's just that I've just been driving through those two states, and for the first time on the trip came across some rude drivers.
One of course was a taxi driver, who couldn't wait 30 seconds while I figured out if the speed of traffic would allow me to merge onto the highway from an access road.
The other guy...well...the initial problem was my fault, as I did get onto a highway with too slow of a speed, because somehow I hadn't seen this big ol pickup truck coming. So I quickly veer onto the shoulder, to give him the opportunity to zoom past me, which he could have done with ease. Instead, he slowed down and stayed behind me, so I assumed he was slowing down to allow me to get back on the highway. So I veer back on the highway, into his lane, and then he honks angrily, moves into the left hand lane and zooms past me, gives me the finger, and peals away. And I'm wondering - why didn't you just zoom past me in the left lane to begin with? Jerk.
When you're a driver from one state going into another state, and you've got the tell-tale license plate that identifies you as a newbie, you'd think other drivers would give you some slack. Every state has its own laws about u-turns, for example. Lots of cities have very weird traffic patterns, and their on-ramps and off-ramps are confusing, not to mention their frontage roads.
On Friday, I drove through Dallas on 30W, right about 4 o'clock or so. 5 lane highways in both directions, with the HOV lanes seemingly permanently blocked off with concrete blocks, and nobody working construction anywhere. We were in bumper to bumper traffic. There, at least, I came across a few drivers who reacted to my turn single and allowed me to change lanes, which I thought was very kind. But driving in Dallas in rush hour is not a fun activity, and I really wonder what they are doing with this road construction. Indeed, I think that whole day, driving down 30W from Arkansas into Texas and onward toward Burlington, there were lanes blocked off for construction and no construction going on. Even if it was a Friday, you'd think they'd work up until about 5 o'clock - if they were actually working...
One of course was a taxi driver, who couldn't wait 30 seconds while I figured out if the speed of traffic would allow me to merge onto the highway from an access road.
The other guy...well...the initial problem was my fault, as I did get onto a highway with too slow of a speed, because somehow I hadn't seen this big ol pickup truck coming. So I quickly veer onto the shoulder, to give him the opportunity to zoom past me, which he could have done with ease. Instead, he slowed down and stayed behind me, so I assumed he was slowing down to allow me to get back on the highway. So I veer back on the highway, into his lane, and then he honks angrily, moves into the left hand lane and zooms past me, gives me the finger, and peals away. And I'm wondering - why didn't you just zoom past me in the left lane to begin with? Jerk.
When you're a driver from one state going into another state, and you've got the tell-tale license plate that identifies you as a newbie, you'd think other drivers would give you some slack. Every state has its own laws about u-turns, for example. Lots of cities have very weird traffic patterns, and their on-ramps and off-ramps are confusing, not to mention their frontage roads.
On Friday, I drove through Dallas on 30W, right about 4 o'clock or so. 5 lane highways in both directions, with the HOV lanes seemingly permanently blocked off with concrete blocks, and nobody working construction anywhere. We were in bumper to bumper traffic. There, at least, I came across a few drivers who reacted to my turn single and allowed me to change lanes, which I thought was very kind. But driving in Dallas in rush hour is not a fun activity, and I really wonder what they are doing with this road construction. Indeed, I think that whole day, driving down 30W from Arkansas into Texas and onward toward Burlington, there were lanes blocked off for construction and no construction going on. Even if it was a Friday, you'd think they'd work up until about 5 o'clock - if they were actually working...
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Kroger Ltd.: Typo on Ochocinco cereal sends callers to sex line
It's too bad the article didn't print the two phone numbers, I'd like to see if it was really a typo or if some ad designer at Kroger's was playing a game.
Either way, whoever is supposed to proofread ad copy should be fired.
Typo on Ochocinco cereal sends callers to sex line:
CINCINNATI -- Charity-minded callers are getting intercepted by a phone-sex line because of a typo on Chad Ochocinco's cereal boxes.
The phone number is supposed to connect callers to Feed the Children, which benefits from sales of the Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver's cereal. But the box has the wrong toll-free prefix, meaning callers get a seductive-sounding woman who makes risque suggestions and then asks for a credit card number.
Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. said Thursday it was pulling all Ochocinco cereal boxes from its grocery shelves because of the error. Some local stores had them on special display after the launch about a month ago.
Pittsburgh-based PLB Sports Inc., which specializes in limited-edition products featuring star athletes and their favorite charities, apologized for the error in a statement Thursday. The statement said the boxes will be re-issued with the correct toll-free number.
Ochocinco told WCPO-TV that the number was clearly a mistake and he's sure that the maker will fix the problem.
As of Thursday afternoon, he hadn't mentioned the error in any of his frequent messages on the Twitter social media site. On Wednesday, he had urged fans to go to his website to order the cereal and "Start your day with a lil suga!!!"
Either way, whoever is supposed to proofread ad copy should be fired.
Typo on Ochocinco cereal sends callers to sex line:
CINCINNATI -- Charity-minded callers are getting intercepted by a phone-sex line because of a typo on Chad Ochocinco's cereal boxes.
The phone number is supposed to connect callers to Feed the Children, which benefits from sales of the Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver's cereal. But the box has the wrong toll-free prefix, meaning callers get a seductive-sounding woman who makes risque suggestions and then asks for a credit card number.
Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. said Thursday it was pulling all Ochocinco cereal boxes from its grocery shelves because of the error. Some local stores had them on special display after the launch about a month ago.
Pittsburgh-based PLB Sports Inc., which specializes in limited-edition products featuring star athletes and their favorite charities, apologized for the error in a statement Thursday. The statement said the boxes will be re-issued with the correct toll-free number.
Ochocinco told WCPO-TV that the number was clearly a mistake and he's sure that the maker will fix the problem.
As of Thursday afternoon, he hadn't mentioned the error in any of his frequent messages on the Twitter social media site. On Wednesday, he had urged fans to go to his website to order the cereal and "Start your day with a lil suga!!!"
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Various travel stupidities...
I don't know if these count as stupidities or just cheapness, but they are annoying nevertheless.
I'm driving my elderly, deaf, mobilility-challenged mother to Wyoming via Texas, so she can visit her sister who lives there. So this is not a picnic.
I'm currently driving through the state of Tennessee, on W40.
My mom wanted to stop at some souvenir shop to pick up a cup or something. I didn't want to do this in Nashville, which is a large city. I'm using Yahoo driving directions and I don't want to get too far off the beaten track. Too many one way streets and strange dead ends and traffic in big cities. So, I figured I'd get her one in a small city.
So we're driving along, and I see a sign for a particular city. There's also a blue sign that says "Tourist Info." So I'm thinking, well, I'll go to this "Tourist Info" place, and maybe they'll have cups and t-shirts on sale.
So, I get off the interstate and follow the signs. There's exactly one. Just as the exit road comes to the city road, there's a sign pointing to the right. So I turn, and expact to see a Tourist Info building on my right, within a mile or so. Not so. I'm driving, and I'm driving, and I don't see anything. Finally I figure out that it must be in the middle of the city - and frankly I don't have time to spend 15 minutes driving into a city to find a Tourist Info place that may or may not have what I want. Also, it's taking me further from the highway, and since I have a bad sense of direction, this makes me nervous. What if, as I get further into the city, there's yet more arrows pointing to yet more roads, until I'm thoroughly confused?
So I turned around while I had a chance and got back on the highway.
What they should have, on these tourist info signs, is the mileage of how far away the attraction or tourist info place is.
Why do I say attraction?
Well, a similar thing happened an hour or so later. I see a sign that says, Tennessee's largest independent book store, next exit. So I take that exit. And then, nothing. No more signs. And I'm driving past an outlet mall, but then, nothing but grass on either side of the road. So, is this road going to take me deep into a city to find this bookstore? How deep into the city? I wanted to spend 30 minutes browsing in a book store, I don't have 30 minutes to waste looking for the place, first.
If the mileage had been on the sign, I could have made my decision then, did I have time to go to it.
So that's pretty annoying. And of course it can't be changed -- that would cost money the state probably doesn't have. But you'd think they'd have put the mileage on these signs when they first did them.
Bait and Switch
Then, as I was driving down this road that had the outlet mall, I see a sign that says "Tourist Info." Now, when you see a sign like that, you think you're going to get a big building with a clerk who can give you touirst info. Or, if its inside a mall like this was supposed to be, you'd still get a clerk.
No so. What I saw were two small racks, one empty, one full of brochures. The one that was empty said "This space for rent." So soon, this "Tourist info" place will only have one rack!
But in any event, it was underwhelming. When you have two state-put-up blue signs saying "Tourist Info" you're expecting more than a single 5 X 5 rack of brochures.
What I'm thinking is that there was a large tourist info office in there, but that it closed and the two racks were put there so the city wouldn't have to take down the blue signs. But, it was underwhelming. And, there was no brochure for the Sherlock bookstore, so that establishment struck out again.
I'm driving my elderly, deaf, mobilility-challenged mother to Wyoming via Texas, so she can visit her sister who lives there. So this is not a picnic.
I'm currently driving through the state of Tennessee, on W40.
My mom wanted to stop at some souvenir shop to pick up a cup or something. I didn't want to do this in Nashville, which is a large city. I'm using Yahoo driving directions and I don't want to get too far off the beaten track. Too many one way streets and strange dead ends and traffic in big cities. So, I figured I'd get her one in a small city.
So we're driving along, and I see a sign for a particular city. There's also a blue sign that says "Tourist Info." So I'm thinking, well, I'll go to this "Tourist Info" place, and maybe they'll have cups and t-shirts on sale.
So, I get off the interstate and follow the signs. There's exactly one. Just as the exit road comes to the city road, there's a sign pointing to the right. So I turn, and expact to see a Tourist Info building on my right, within a mile or so. Not so. I'm driving, and I'm driving, and I don't see anything. Finally I figure out that it must be in the middle of the city - and frankly I don't have time to spend 15 minutes driving into a city to find a Tourist Info place that may or may not have what I want. Also, it's taking me further from the highway, and since I have a bad sense of direction, this makes me nervous. What if, as I get further into the city, there's yet more arrows pointing to yet more roads, until I'm thoroughly confused?
So I turned around while I had a chance and got back on the highway.
What they should have, on these tourist info signs, is the mileage of how far away the attraction or tourist info place is.
Why do I say attraction?
Well, a similar thing happened an hour or so later. I see a sign that says, Tennessee's largest independent book store, next exit. So I take that exit. And then, nothing. No more signs. And I'm driving past an outlet mall, but then, nothing but grass on either side of the road. So, is this road going to take me deep into a city to find this bookstore? How deep into the city? I wanted to spend 30 minutes browsing in a book store, I don't have 30 minutes to waste looking for the place, first.
If the mileage had been on the sign, I could have made my decision then, did I have time to go to it.
So that's pretty annoying. And of course it can't be changed -- that would cost money the state probably doesn't have. But you'd think they'd have put the mileage on these signs when they first did them.
Bait and Switch
Then, as I was driving down this road that had the outlet mall, I see a sign that says "Tourist Info." Now, when you see a sign like that, you think you're going to get a big building with a clerk who can give you touirst info. Or, if its inside a mall like this was supposed to be, you'd still get a clerk.
No so. What I saw were two small racks, one empty, one full of brochures. The one that was empty said "This space for rent." So soon, this "Tourist info" place will only have one rack!
But in any event, it was underwhelming. When you have two state-put-up blue signs saying "Tourist Info" you're expecting more than a single 5 X 5 rack of brochures.
What I'm thinking is that there was a large tourist info office in there, but that it closed and the two racks were put there so the city wouldn't have to take down the blue signs. But, it was underwhelming. And, there was no brochure for the Sherlock bookstore, so that establishment struck out again.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Military (In)Justice - This Needs to Be Fixed
Not guilty, but stuck with big bills, damaged career
By Stan Godlewski for USA TODAY
Robert Morris, then a lieutenant colonel, was cleared on charges of conspiring to divert government medical gear for his non-profit. His mother, Lillian, 86, mortgaged her house to help him pay legal bills.
A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.
Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.
The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.
RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series
But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.
The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.
USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.
The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."
It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.
And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.
The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.
"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."
USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:
• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.
• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.
• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.
An anonymous tip
The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.
Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.
Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.
Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.
Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"
During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."
The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.
Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.
Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."
The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.
The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."
The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.
Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.
Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.
Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."
A compromise in Congress
Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.
As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.
Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."
Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.
Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.
Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.
A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."
The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.
The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.
Law not a deterrent
Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.
Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.
A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.
An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."
Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.
He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."
Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.
Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.
Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."
Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.
A bargaining chip
Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.
Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.
A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.
Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.
Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.
The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.
Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.
"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.
Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."
By Stan Godlewski for USA TODAY
Robert Morris, then a lieutenant colonel, was cleared on charges of conspiring to divert government medical gear for his non-profit. His mother, Lillian, 86, mortgaged her house to help him pay legal bills.
A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.
Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.
The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.
RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series
But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.
The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.
USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.
The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."
It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.
And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.
The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.
"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."
USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:
• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.
• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.
• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.
An anonymous tip
The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.
Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.
Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.
Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.
Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"
During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."
The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.
Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.
Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."
The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.
The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."
The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.
Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.
Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.
Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."
A compromise in Congress
Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.
As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.
Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."
Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.
Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.
Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.
A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."
The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.
The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.
Law not a deterrent
Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.
Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.
A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.
An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."
Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.
He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."
Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.
Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.
Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."
Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.
A bargaining chip
Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.
Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.
A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.
Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.
Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.
The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.
Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.
"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.
Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."
What Would You Do To Own an Emerald Worth $3 Million?
I don't know if the people involved in this lawsuit are all stupid, but I do know this. By the time the dust settles, none of them will have any money. It will all have been paid to their lawyers.
Los Angeles TImes, Sept 25: Trial begins in tussle over giant emerald
The 840-pound emerald became his, Anthony Thomas says, when he forked over $60,000 to a pair of Brazilian miners back in 2001.
He may never have physically received the behemoth, but the proof was on a piece of paper filled out at a hotel party, since destroyed in a house fire. He didn't bother notarizing documents or memorializing agreements, the San Jose businessman says — that's just the way the Brazilians did business.
Nine years later, Thomas stands among at least half a dozen men claiming ownership of the giant stone, known as the Bahia Emerald. Thomas took the stand Friday in the first day of a trial in the legal dispute over the gem, one of the largest of its kind, valued at one point at $372 million.
"Mr. Thomas is the only person who has ever paid a cent for the Bahia Emerald," his attorney, Jeffrey Baruh, told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Kronstadt. The terms under which his client bought the stone were "very straightforward," he argued.
Attorneys for the others claiming ownership of the emerald contended that Thomas' story was ludicrous and inconsistent.
"His story is inherently unbelievable," attorney Steven Haney told the judge, saying that Thomas was simply trying to "throw his hat in the ring." Haney represents a man who footed the bill for the emerald to be shipped to the United States.
Attorney Browne Greene, who represents a group of investors who say the stone became theirs through business deals, said Thomas' credibility had been "significantly impeached" in deposition testimony. He questioned Thomas' contention that the bill of sale was "mysteriously lost in a mysterious fire."
Thomas' is the first claim Kronstadt will weigh. After deciding whether Thomas has rights to the emerald, he will hear evidence from other parties claiming ownership. In the meantime, the giant gem sits in an evidence locker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which took possession of it after it was reported stolen in late 2008.
Thomas, who made his money in the construction business, said in a deposition that he first heard of the emerald on a trip to Brazil, where he was buying a different emerald, one about 50 pounds. At the time, he thought that emerald was the largest in the world, he said.
But when he got there, the Brazilians told him they had something even bigger. They took him to see it at a carport somewhere in Sao Paolo, where he took photos with his arms around the stone. Thomas said he agreed to pay $60,000 for it.
"There was no bartering back and forth on what the price was," he said. "They said this is what they wanted for it, and I agreed to it and that was it."
After he returned to the United States, he wired the money to a bank in Florida, then went back to Brazil, where he signed a document labeled "bill of sale" with the Brazilians. The emerald was to be shipped to him in San Jose, but the people who were supposed to arrange it told him it was stolen, Thomas testified.
He also testified that he told the Santa Clara County district attorney's office about the emerald, but was told there was nothing it could do because the gem was outside its jurisdiction.
Attorneys seized on the years that passed between Thomas' alleged purchase and his involvement in the Los Angeles lawsuit.
"From 2001 to 2009, he essentially sits on his sofa and hopes the emerald appears," Haney said.
Outside court, one of the investors claiming ownership accused Thomas of "clouding up" the title to the stone.
"We needed to put it through laundry," Idaho-based businessman Kit Morrison said. "Unfortunately, this court is the laundry."
The trial is expected to resume next month.
Los Angeles TImes, Sept 25: Trial begins in tussle over giant emerald
The 840-pound emerald became his, Anthony Thomas says, when he forked over $60,000 to a pair of Brazilian miners back in 2001.
He may never have physically received the behemoth, but the proof was on a piece of paper filled out at a hotel party, since destroyed in a house fire. He didn't bother notarizing documents or memorializing agreements, the San Jose businessman says — that's just the way the Brazilians did business.
Nine years later, Thomas stands among at least half a dozen men claiming ownership of the giant stone, known as the Bahia Emerald. Thomas took the stand Friday in the first day of a trial in the legal dispute over the gem, one of the largest of its kind, valued at one point at $372 million.
"Mr. Thomas is the only person who has ever paid a cent for the Bahia Emerald," his attorney, Jeffrey Baruh, told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Kronstadt. The terms under which his client bought the stone were "very straightforward," he argued.
Attorneys for the others claiming ownership of the emerald contended that Thomas' story was ludicrous and inconsistent.
"His story is inherently unbelievable," attorney Steven Haney told the judge, saying that Thomas was simply trying to "throw his hat in the ring." Haney represents a man who footed the bill for the emerald to be shipped to the United States.
Attorney Browne Greene, who represents a group of investors who say the stone became theirs through business deals, said Thomas' credibility had been "significantly impeached" in deposition testimony. He questioned Thomas' contention that the bill of sale was "mysteriously lost in a mysterious fire."
Thomas' is the first claim Kronstadt will weigh. After deciding whether Thomas has rights to the emerald, he will hear evidence from other parties claiming ownership. In the meantime, the giant gem sits in an evidence locker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which took possession of it after it was reported stolen in late 2008.
Thomas, who made his money in the construction business, said in a deposition that he first heard of the emerald on a trip to Brazil, where he was buying a different emerald, one about 50 pounds. At the time, he thought that emerald was the largest in the world, he said.
But when he got there, the Brazilians told him they had something even bigger. They took him to see it at a carport somewhere in Sao Paolo, where he took photos with his arms around the stone. Thomas said he agreed to pay $60,000 for it.
"There was no bartering back and forth on what the price was," he said. "They said this is what they wanted for it, and I agreed to it and that was it."
After he returned to the United States, he wired the money to a bank in Florida, then went back to Brazil, where he signed a document labeled "bill of sale" with the Brazilians. The emerald was to be shipped to him in San Jose, but the people who were supposed to arrange it told him it was stolen, Thomas testified.
He also testified that he told the Santa Clara County district attorney's office about the emerald, but was told there was nothing it could do because the gem was outside its jurisdiction.
Attorneys seized on the years that passed between Thomas' alleged purchase and his involvement in the Los Angeles lawsuit.
"From 2001 to 2009, he essentially sits on his sofa and hopes the emerald appears," Haney said.
Outside court, one of the investors claiming ownership accused Thomas of "clouding up" the title to the stone.
"We needed to put it through laundry," Idaho-based businessman Kit Morrison said. "Unfortunately, this court is the laundry."
The trial is expected to resume next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)