Over the past several days, voters throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have filed complaints of incidents aimed at suppressing voter turn out in heavily Democratic and African American neighborhoods. Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate. This is very serious and complaints have come about robo-calls telling people their voting place has changed, telling people that if they registered in another state they will be arrested, and Fliers  being passed out. This is again very serious. Wide spread PROOF of voter suppression in action.     There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia’s voters from exercising their right to vote tomorrow. In addition to reports that have been received by the Democratic Party of Virginia, these local election officials have been receiving reports from concerned voters," said Jack Young, co-chair of Promote the Vote. Documented incidents of suppression incidents include:     1) Calls that Voting will Lead to Arrest.     Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online at: www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav     2) Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling Voters that their Polling Location has Changed.     3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION… (and then in smaller print): Don’t Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win."     4). Voter Machine Problems     a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim’s name is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb.     b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim’s name split on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next.     c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

Response:

Cool…that will negate all the democratic votes by dead people and people in jail. Love this country.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >     Over the past several days, voters throughout the Commonwealth of > Virginia have filed complaints of incidents aimed at suppressing voter > turn out in heavily Democratic and African American neighborhoods. > Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean > Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate. > This is very serious and complaints have come about robo-calls telling > people their voting place has changed, telling people that if they > registered in another state they will be arrested, and Fliers  being > passed out. This is again very serious. Wide spread PROOF of voter > suppression in action. >     There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around > the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being > employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia’s voters from exercising > their right to vote tomorrow. In addition to reports that have been > received by the Democratic Party of Virginia, these local election > officials have been receiving reports from concerned voters," said Jack > Young, co-chair of Promote the Vote. > Documented incidents of suppression incidents include: >     1) Calls that Voting will Lead to Arrest. >     Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, > he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online > at: www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav >     2) Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling > Voters that their Polling Location has Changed. >     3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for > by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call > the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag > line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION… (and then in smaller print): Don’t > Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win." >     4). Voter Machine Problems >     a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim’s name > is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb. >     b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim’s name split > on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next. >     c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide > a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

Here’s another sleazy method lying, cheating retardicon authoritarian slimeballs are having to resort to: Using robo-calls to repeatedly call voters really late at night and really early in the morning while pretending to be a voice for the democratic candidate knowing the voter will get irriated and have a lack of sleep and most likely not bother to go vote. The retardicons have always known they’re outnumbered, so the only way they can win is to cheat. And what do we get as a nation when they win? Look at what’s already happened in the last 6 years. Corporate deregulation while the government sticks its nose in our private lives, that illegal obscene invasion and now futile occuapation of a country that never attacked us, high rises in the cost of living, gasoline and healthcare (they know what part of the body they’ve got us by), the shredding of our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, our biggest export being our jobs, trying to combine the church with the state, trying to make Duhbya the emperor of a feudal system by eliminating the middle class. NOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD VOTE FOR ALL OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN SHIT? NO ONE, OF COURSE. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE TO CHEAT.

Response:

> NOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND > WOULD VOTE FOR ALL OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN SHIT? > NO ONE, OF COURSE. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE > TO _BREAK_INTO_SONG_.

Lyrics to song written and sung by John Ashcroft: "Let the eagle soar, Like she

Even in the communist nation of Canada, they couldn’t stop a lone gunmen from mass murder in Montreal a few days ago. Tighten the borders now, who knows what nutjob will pass through from Canada next?

Response:

> Even in the communist nation of Canada, they couldn’t stop a lone > gunmen from mass murder in Montreal a few days ago. > Tighten the borders now, who knows what nutjob will pass through from > Canada next?

dude, have you been reading the American newspapers lately??? No I guess not. In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years: 79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims) 86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners 29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1  Legal guns, no licence required 20 Apr 1999   Littleton, CO, USA  13 + 2 Not legal guns 28 Apr 1996  Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns 13 Mar 1996  Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member 16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required 13 Nov 1990         Aramoana, New Zealand  13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner 18 Jun 1990      Jacksonville, FL, USA    9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required 06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada  14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required 19 Aug 1987  Hungerford, England  16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member 20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA  14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required 18 Jul 1984  San Ysidro, CA, USA  21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required 01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA   16 + 1  Legal guns, no licence required

Response:

> > Even in the communist nation of Canada, they couldn’t stop a lone > gunmen from mass murder in Montreal a few days ago. > Tighten the borders now, who knows what nutjob will pass through from > Canada next? > Hmmm, > What is this? a kettle calling a pot black? What happened in Conumbine > down there? Crazy nut case no one could predict or prevent. Cops > responded swiftly and put him away so what are you talking about? > Tighten the borders? Not for this one. > Tony > P.S. You call your most dependable neighbor/ally a communist?

Thank god for America. Where else would "WE" get all of our guns and Still a little lost about the Communist thing though. I always thought we were the terrorist playground country…  ;>)

Response:

did courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Even in the communist nation of Canada, they couldn’t stop a lone > gunmen from mass murder in Montreal a few days ago. > Tighten the borders now, who knows what nutjob will pass through from > Canada next? >dude, have you been reading the American newspapers lately??? No I >guess not. >In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during >the past 35 years: >79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 >victims) >86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun >owners >29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1  Legal guns, no licence required >20 Apr 1999   Littleton, CO, USA  13 + 2 Not legal guns >28 Apr 1996  Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns >13 Mar 1996  Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member >16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required >13 Nov 1990         Aramoana, New Zealand  13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed >gun owner >18 Jun 1990      Jacksonville, FL, USA    9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence >required >06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada  14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required >19 Aug 1987  Hungerford, England  16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member >20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA  14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required >18 Jul 1984  San Ysidro, CA, USA  21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence >required >01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA   16 + 1  Legal guns, no licence required

Not only that, the dude can’t fucking count.  If 1 dead victim at Dawson College is mass killing I guess he/she/its country’s excursion in Iraq is genocide which would make the US war criminals. — Ken Wilson

Response:

courageously avow: > Even in the communist nation of Canada, they couldn’t stop a lone > gunmen from mass murder in Montreal a few days ago. > Tighten the borders now, who knows what nutjob will pass through from > Canada next? >Hmmm, >What is this? a kettle calling a pot black? What happened in Conumbine >down there? Crazy nut case no one could predict or prevent. Cops >responded swiftly and put him away so what are you talking about? >Tighten the borders? Not for this one. >Tony >P.S. You call your most dependable neighbor/ally a communist?

Don’t worry.  This nut job pops in and out using all sorts of aliases. Typical gutless wonder, can’t post a real e-mail connect and won’t go fight for the war he/she/it believes in.  I suspect he/she/its sister has bigger cajones and more testosterone than this floater. — Ken Wilson

Response:

Canadian- Radial Engineering. They produce excellent guitarist gear, yes!

Response:

Man, it’s not just Gordon Lightfoot from Canada that parted my hair as a player. Does anyone have a short (or long) list of other 6 stringers that hit the soul? Thanks! Marc

Response:

It’s sort of a quiet part of the Zen of being a player- Why pay someone else to get in touch w/ your wood ? mvm Electric Guitar Set Ups and Action Adjustments Information and topics covering electric guitar repair and adjustments. www.fretnotguitarrepair.com/Electric_Guitar_SetUp.htm Acoustic Guitar Action and Set-Up’s – Increase Playability How a set up effects the playability of your guitar or mandolin. www.fretnotguitarrepair.com/Repairs2.htm Setting Up Your Electric Guitar If you are not clear on these instructions, take your guitar to a qualified technician. SETTING THE ACTION/STRING HEIGHT: … www.icepoint.com/guitar/Setting%20up%20your%20electric%20guitar/ Basic Guitar Setup Tips The usual cost for a full guitar setup – regulating the nut, adjusting the truss rod, and setting the action and intonation shouldn’t run you over $35.00… mysite.verizon.net/jazz.guitar/guitarsetup.htm Acoustic Guitar Central: Action Hero, page2 If your action still feels wrong and the neck has been properly adjusted, it is time to look at the … Setting up your own guitar can be very satisfying… www.acousticguitar.com/issues/ag83/shoptalk.asp Guitar Set Up Overview Why pay lots of money to keep your guitar set-up when you can do it yourself?… and action are set up for optimum playability, saving you even more money. users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/setuptut.htm Electric Guitar Maintenance and Guitar Set up MediaWebSource.com – Presents: Guitar Resource. Maintenance and Set up … Bridge Adjustment (Electric Guitar)- The string action can be raise or lowered by… mediawebsource.com/guitar/setup.htm Electric Guitar Set Up Electric Guitar Set Up. Do your own Electric Guitar Set Up. Electric Guitar … 2) You have to check the action of the guitar, looking at the height of the … www.adirondackguitar.com/Resources/set_up.htm Acoustic Guitar Set Ups For an acoustic guitar to work properly, it is very important that the gap between the strings and the frets (called the ‘action’) is set correctly… www.sheehans.com/help/agtrsetup.asp?page=agtr Epinions.com – Learn to set-up your guitar!! Fender and others! What is a set-up? What is the action? Set-ups and action are very much related, with the set-up taking in all aspects of the adjustabilities on a guitar, …www.epinions.com/content_3778650244

Response:

Canada brings a wonderful pool of comedians, musicians and actors into the American soup. Nature bless her people. mvm

Response:

Canadian Gov, like American Gov, is: *Gov.* The best of each of her people’s produce a wondrous mix of all that being human can positively bring to bear. Here’s to the GOOD. mvm

Response:

avow: >Man, it’s not just Gordon Lightfoot from Canada that parted my hair as a >player. Does anyone have a short (or long) list of other 6 stringers >that hit the soul? Thanks! Marc

Great Canadian guitarists? Danny Gatton and Lenny Breau come to mind.  Unfortunately both are now deceased.  :-( — Ken Wilson

Response:

> avow: > Man, it’s not just Gordon Lightfoot from Canada that parted my hair as a > player. Does anyone have a short (or long) list of other 6 stringers > that hit the soul? Thanks! Marc > Great Canadian guitarists? > Danny Gatton and Lenny Breau come to mind.  Unfortunately both are now > deceased.  :-(

Time invested working your own chops could displace time wasted whining about things you’ll never control, -like the going’s on in Washington D.C. mvm *This kindly ASSumes you’re even a musician of _any_ kind….

Response:

> avow: > Man, it’s not just Gordon Lightfoot from Canada that parted my hair as a > player. Does anyone have a short (or long) list of other 6 stringers > that hit the soul? Thanks! Marc > Great Canadian guitarists? > Danny Gatton and Lenny Breau come to mind.  Unfortunately both are now > deceased.  :-(

Music of Canada – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Several important musicians of international stature were born and raised in Canada. These include the pianist Glenn Gould, violinist Lara St. John, … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Canada Canada’s Walk of Fame – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia2.12 Writers (Literature, Press, Music, Screen) … Those that are eligible for Canada’s Walk Of Fame must be born in, or have spent much of their early … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada’s_Walk_of_Fame National Anthem: O CanadaLavall

Friday, August 4, 2006

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead?

Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President > Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said > Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more > than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a > presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not > enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the > study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and > to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will > consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial > review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more > forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It > urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he > can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Hmmm, My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by >> claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, >> presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the >> panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and >> members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a >> device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, >> said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws >> enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, >> which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew >> Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to >> which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says >> he can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. > Hmmm, > My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

That was once true.

Response:

> My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these issues. The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a couple of years ago. It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much tidier that way.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law. > Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, > simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these > issues. > The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his > constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can > issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide > if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the > authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of > the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements > literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s > use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl > Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a > couple of years ago. > It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives > the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re > going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the > notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to > ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it > nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Hi, Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full independence. In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness. Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance. Still Supereme court has final say. If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government. AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he >> can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. >Hmmm, >My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

I thought they were using the golden rule, he who owns the gold … — Ken Wilson

Response:

> Hi, > Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full > independence.

understanding is nobody can be above the law, now you’re saying that the party in power should be able to ignore the supreme court if it doesn’t like being found unconstitutional?  And you have the nerve to criticize Bush’s signing statements? > In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness.

In other words kiss their ass. > Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance.

Bull, it was a bribe paid to Quebec to get them to go along with the repatriation of the constitution. > Still Supereme court has final say.

Sure, you can point to examples of that with no problem. > If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government.

Yeah, fat chance, when was the last time that was done. > AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Since when do you want details, you’re the sweeping generalizations based on little or no information specialist.

Response:

And the fool settles in with agreement to the name of the thread… American Bar Association says "Bush undermining rule of law"* This is how the thief-in-chief got to disgrace the office he was NOT elected into…sub-simian proletariates like dead gas here, who think bearing 270 is East, etc. Enjoy his continued self-immolation. tick tick, 11 tick tick ‘08.  :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Response:

 I wonder what WWII would have been like if MSNBC and CNN followed US forces  through D-Day to VE day: "The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name. That target, an island on a canal in the northern Salahuddin province, was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp. The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060721/D8J0K0F03.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I wonder what WWII would have been like if MSNBC and CNN followed US > forces >  through D-Day to VE day: > "The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on > Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, > referring to the target by its code name. > That target, an island on a canal in the northern Salahuddin province, > was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp. The soldiers said > officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained > that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come > under fire from insurgents. > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060721/D8J0K0F03.html

well god did that too.  When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it.  They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.   (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)      Bible Quote for March 30 Destruction of Ai     Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged. Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land.  You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." So Joshua and the army of Israel set out to attack Ai.  Joshua chose thirty thousand fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Hide in ambush close behind the city and be ready for action. When our main army attacks, the men of Ai will come out to fight as they did before, and we will run away from them.  We will let them chase us until they have all left the city. For they will say, ‘The Israelites are running away from us as they did before.’  Then you will jump up from your ambush and take possession of the city, for the LORD your God will give it to you.  Set the city on fire, as the LORD has commanded.  You have your orders."  So they left that night and lay in ambush between Bethel and the west side of Ai.  But Joshua remained among the people in the camp that night.     Early the next morning Joshua roused his men and started toward Ai, accompanied by the leaders of Israel.  They camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city.  That night Joshua sent five thousand men to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.  So they stationed the main army north of the city and the ambush west of the city.  Joshua himself spent that night in the valley.  When the king of Ai saw the Israelites across the valley, he and all his army hurriedly went out early the next morning and attacked the Israelites at a place overlooking the Jordan Valley.  But he didn’t realize there was an ambush behind the city.  Joshua and the Israelite army fled toward the wilderness as though they were badly beaten,  and all the men in the city were called out to chase after them.  In this way, they were lured away from the city.  There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not chase after the Israelites, and the city was left wide open.     Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city."  Joshua did as he was commanded.  As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city.  They quickly captured it and set it on fire.  When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers.  When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai.  Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped.  Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.     When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside.  So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.  Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua.  So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day.  Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate.  They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today.   (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

Response:

>  I wonder what WWII would have been like if MSNBC and CNN followed US > forces through D-Day to VE day

I wonder what you’d be like with a brain.

Response:

: >  I wonder what WWII would have been like if MSNBC and CNN followed US : > forces through D-Day to VE day : I wonder what you’d be like with a brain.  a delivery boy for the HBTRC ?

Response:

>  a delivery boy for the HBTRC ?

   Better an employee than a volunteer !    I guess I’ll be transporting what is left of you around town some    day in a cooler with dry ice ? —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

: > : >  a delivery boy for the HBTRC ? : > :    Better an employee than a volunteer ! :    I guess I’ll be transporting what is left of you around town some :    day in a cooler with dry ice ?  By the time I die, there won’t be anything left of my brain, at least not if I have my way : : —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- : http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups : —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

I actually met this slimeball myself.  He lives in Bangor, Maine where my wife & I used to live.  My wife knew Tobin when they both went to Bates College, you know one of those "liberal" Northeast colleges. This guys is typical of the Karl Rove, "New" Republican thinking, i.e., the end justifies the means. I believe he’s up for sentencing & could get 5 years in prison. Former RNC New England Regional Director Convicted In New Hampshire Phone Jamming Case -http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_crm_672.html. "WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a four-day trial, a jury in Concord, New Hampshire today convicted James Tobin, the former New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee, of charges stemming from a scheme to disrupt phone service to five Democratic Party offices and a firefighters’ ride-to-the-polls program on Election Day 2002, the Department of Justice announced today." Federal judge lowers sentence for man who testified against Tobin – http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/02/06/federal_ju… Mr Soul

Response:

> "New" Republican thinking, i.e., > the end justifies the means.

That typifies YOUR approach! Too late to play that game, you have been caught.

> The clause was not right above his signature, so please stop lying.

I will NOT let YOUR LYING go any more. PROVE the location of the CLAUSE. You know damn well that it was on a page PREVIOUS to the one that Franken signed, you LYING FOOL. You have admitted that the clause was IN the Agreement, so it was either BEFORE or AFTER Franken’s signature. PROVE the location of the CLAUSE. PROVE it you LYING ASSHOLE.

Response:

> > "New" Republican thinking, i.e., > the end justifies the means. > That typifies YOUR approach!

Nope. Yours.

Response:

You need to calm down.  Have you considered mediation? Mr Soul

Response:

>You need to calm down.  Have you considered mediation?

…or meditiation, or even medication…        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

Do you notice the level of detail he goes to investigate Democrat’s and/or calling liberals liars? Mr Soul

Response:

Boy they’re dropping like flies today – Ex-governor [Republican] convicted of racketeering – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12356536/. Too bad & I kind of liked this guy, given his position on the death penalty. Mr Soul

Response:

From an indy’s observation……Franken was hilarious on SNL, but like all hollywood types, should have stayed there, no one listens to their spewing, well actually they DO listen, but those types have no effect on the outcome of anything thank goodness. They are entertainers, the only thing they are good at is entertaining, so shut up and entertain. But come to think of it, the spewing is entertaining as well. Listening to an actor or musician rant on politics is the same as having to watch commercials in a movie friggin down.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> "New" Republican thinking, i.e., >> the end justifies the means. >That typifies YOUR approach! > Quit changing the subject, asshole.  What, no comments on widespread > Republican corruption and dirty tricks, subversion of democracy?  All you > can do is bring up Al Franken… who isn’t even a politician or an elected > official.

Response:

More on this – http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_phone_jam…. Tobin actually made two dozen calls to the WH during a period of 3 days around the election.  I wonder who he called there? The RNC has spend over $2 million defending this guy. Mr Soul

Response:

> You need to calm down.  Have you considered mediation?

Too funny! We are still waiting for you to verify your latest LIE. > I’ve already said where the clause is – can you read?

Back in Feb you stated that there was NO such clause. You then posted a link and told me to find it. I found it. Then you admitted to the existence of the clause, but denied what it meant. It means what it says since amazingly, WORDS mean things! Two days ago, you said that the clause was in the middle of the Agreement. I called you on that and you later admitted that it was NOT in the middle. I them stated that the clause was above Franken’s signature. Then…

> The clause was not right above his signature, so please stop lying.

I will NOT let YOUR LYING go any more. PROVE the location of the CLAUSE. You know damn well that it was on a page PREVIOUS to the one that Franken signed, you LYING FOOL. You have admitted that the clause was IN the Agreement, so it was either BEFORE or AFTER Franken’s signature. You made the claim now PROVE the location of the CLAUSE.

Response:

> Do you notice the level of detail he goes to investigate Democrat’s > and/or calling liberals liars?

The level of detail is purely to expose you, and your lies. We are still waiting for you to verify your latest LIE. > I’ve already said where the clause is – can you read?

Back in Feb you stated that there was NO such clause. You then posted a link and told me to find it. I found it. Then you admitted to the existence of the clause, but denied what it meant. It means what it says since amazingly, WORDS mean things! Two days ago, you said that the clause was in the middle of the Agreement. I called you on that and you later admitted that it was NOT in the middle. I them stated that the clause was above Franken’s signature. Then…

> The clause was not right above his signature, so please stop lying.

I will not let your lying by go any more. PROVE the location of the CLAUSE. You know damn well that it was on a page PREVIOUS to the one that Franken signed, you LYING FOOL. You have admitted that the clause was IN the Agreement, so it was either BEFORE or AFTER Franken’s signature. Time to verify your claim and PROVE the location of the clause.

Response:

> clause

Boring. And stupid. Give up. You’ve lost.

Response:

Have you consider green tea?  I would stop injusting all caffeine if I were you.  I would also consider yoga in place of swing dancing.  My guess is that dancing just jazz’s you up. Mr Soul

Response:

Show us one conservative and/or Republican that you have paid such careful attention to the details.  You won’t be able to find any because there are none.  You are as biased and partisan as they come and if you would just admit, we could all let the aminosities drop. Mr Soul

Response:

"injusting" should read "ingesting".  Man – I need a spell checker on Google.

Response:

> Show us one conservative and/or Republican that you have paid such > careful attention to the details.

There haven’t been any Conservatives lying in this forum. That has grown to be the sole claim to fame for YOU, Pixie, and Playon. We are still waiting for you to verify your latest LIE. > I’ve already said where the clause is – can you read?

Back in Feb you stated that there was NO such clause. You then posted a link and told me to find it. I found it. Then you admitted to the existence of the clause, but denied what it meant. It means what it says since amazingly, WORDS mean things! Two days ago, you said that the clause was in the middle of the Agreement. I called you on that and you later admitted that it was NOT in the middle. I them stated that the clause was above Franken’s signature. Then…

> The clause was not right above his signature, so please stop lying.

I will not let your lying by go any more. PROVE the location of the CLAUSE. You know damn well that it was on a page PREVIOUS to the one that Franken signed, you LYING FOOL. You have admitted that the clause was IN the Agreement, so it was either BEFORE or AFTER Franken’s signature. Time to verify your claim and PROVE the location of the clause.

Response:

[snip] >There haven’t been any Conservatives lying in this forum. That has grown to >be the sole claim to fame for YOU, Pixie, and Playon.

[snip] ROTFLMAO — there goes the very last wisp of Wheaton’s credibility, gone up in a microscopic puff of smoke…        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Back in Feb you stated that there was NO such clause.

I doubt if I really said that, unless I was confused about what clause we were talking about. > Time to verify your claim and PROVE the location of the clause.

No – you need to do that.  You claimed that Franken signed his name right below the clause & that is NOT true. I guess that makes you aaaaaa LIAR? Mr Soul

Response:

Don’t love you Wheaton?!?!  There’s no arrogance with him. Mr Soul

Response:

> Back in Feb you stated that there was NO such clause. > I doubt if I really said that, unless I was confused about what clause > we were talking about.

You are a vast reservour of doubt and confusion as you prove daily. > Time to verify your claim and PROVE the location of the clause. > No – you need to do that.

> The clause was not right above his signature, so please stop lying.

I asked you verify THAT claim, and you have NOT.

Response:

> There haven’t been any Conservatives lying in this forum

If that wasn’t such a pathetic (and untrue) statement it’d be hilarious.

Response:

> ROTFLMAO — there goes the very last wisp of Wheaton’s credibility, gone > up in a > microscopic puff of smoke…

Please do point out any Conservative that has been lying in this forum as of late, especially with the frequency of Mr Soul, Pixie, and Playon. Also, when there are any posts by anyone Conservative, there are plenty of posters from the Left that go charging in. How many from the Left charged in to correct Gore received a majority of the votes? Not only was that false, others on the Left jumped into affirm that fallacious statement. There are many, many more, but that is enough to make the point. There was a time that there was a certain well known Right Winger that started OT Threads and I did correct a few comments in those, but as of late, have you seen anyone Conservative posting who went unanswered?

Response:

That’s correct – doubt & confusion when it comes to understanding you. Mr Soul

Response:

You’re an asshole.  I admitted that I got the Gore figure wrong, so no-one needed to CHARGE in.  However, I didn’t see any "conservative" come in & dispell you misleading statements about voting for the majority who voted against Gore.  That was plain not true & you bloody know it. In your world, only liberals lie which of course it just not true. Mr Soul

Response:

> You’re an asshole.

You are just tired of getting called on your crap. I admitted that I got the Gore figure wrong, so > no-one needed to CHARGE in.

You made that claim in different YEARS, both times wrong, and both times I corrected you. The problem is not that you were wrong, it is your memory. I’ll correct you and you forget the correction and later DEMAND that I provide info that I had earlier provided at your request. It happens amazingly often. However, I didn’t see any "conservative" > come in & dispell you misleading statements about voting for the > majority who voted against Gore.  That was plain not true & you bloody > know it.

1) I was having some fun at your expense. 2) It was accurate. > In your world, only liberals lie which of course it just not true.

Not true as I have corrected on both sides of the fence but with OT Threads running Lefty 10 to 1, the targets will be a bit skewed.

Response:

The American Conservative January 30, 2006 Issue All the President

One War Lost, Another to Go By Frank Rich The New York Times, November 20, 2005          If anyone needs further proof that we are racing for the exits in Iraq, just follow the bouncing ball that is Rick Santorum. A Republican leader in the Senate and a true-blue (or red) Iraq hawk, he has long slobbered over President Bush, much as Ed McMahon did over Johnny Carson. But when Mr. Bush went to Mr. Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania to give his Veterans Day speech smearing the war’s critics as unpatriotic, the senator was M.I.A.          Mr. Santorum preferred to honor a previous engagement more than 100 miles away. There he told reporters for the first time that "maybe some blame" for the war’s "less than optimal" progress belonged to the White House. This change of heart had nothing to do with looming revelations of how the new Iraqi "democracy" had instituted Saddam-style torture chambers. Or with the spiraling investigations into the whereabouts of nearly $9 billion in unaccounted-for taxpayers’ money from the American occupation authority. Or with the latest spike in casualties.        Mr. Santorum was instead contemplating his own incipient political obituary written the day before: a poll showing him 16 points down in his re-election race. No sooner did he stiff Mr. Bush in Pennsylvania than he did so again in Washington, voting with a 79-to-19 majority on a Senate resolution begging for an Iraq exit strategy. He was joined by all but one (Jon Kyl) of the 13 other Republican senators running for re-election next year. They desperately want to be able to tell their constituents that they were against the war after they were for it. ______ See cartoon: ‘Elephants on strike’ <http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/05/11/images/18bradenton.jpg> ______      They know the voters have decided the war is over, no matter what symbolic resolutions are passed or defeated in Congress nor how many Republicans try to Swift-boat Representative John Murtha, the marine hero who wants the troops out.       A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last week found that the percentage (52) of Americans who want to get out of Iraq fast, in 12 months or less, is even larger than the percentage (48) that favored a quick withdrawal from Vietnam when that war’s casualty toll neared 54,000 in the apocalyptic year of 1970.       The Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, writing in Foreign Affairs , found that "if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline." He observed that Mr. Bush was trying to channel L. B. J. by making "countless speeches explaining what the effort in Iraq is about, urging patience and asserting that progress is being made. But as was also evident during Woodrow Wilson’s campaign to sell the League of Nations to the American public, the efficacy of the bully pulpit is much overrated."      Mr. Bush may disdain timetables for our pullout, but, hello, there already is one, set by the Santorums of his own party: the expiration date for a sizable American presence in Iraq is Election Day 2006.       As Mr. Mueller says, the decline in support for the war won’t reverse itself. The public knows progress is not being made, no matter how many times it is told that Iraqis will soon stand up so we can stand down.      On the same day the Senate passed the resolution rebuking Mr. Bush on the war, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported that "only about 700 Iraqi troops" could operate independently of the U.S. military, 27,000 more could take a lead role in combat "only with strong support" from our forces and the rest of the 200,000-odd trainees suffered from a variety of problems, from equipment shortages to an inability "to wake up when told" or follow orders.      But while the war is lost both as a political matter at home and a practical matter in Iraq, the exit strategy being haggled over in Washington will hardly mark the end of our woes. Few Americans will cry over the collapse of the administration’s vainglorious mission to make Iraq a model of neocon nation-building.       But, as some may dimly recall, there is another war going on as well – against Osama bin Laden and company.      One hideous consequence of the White House’s Big Lie – fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 – is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That’s already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll.       Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America’s will and resources to confront that expanded threat.      We have arrived at "the worst of all possible worlds," in the words of Daniel Benjamin, Richard Clarke’s former counterterrorism colleague, with whom I talked last week. No one speaks more eloquently to this point than Mr. Benjamin and Steven Simon, his fellow National Security Council alum. They saw the Qaeda threat coming before most others did in the 1990’s, and their riveting new book, "The Next Attack," is the best argued and most thoroughly reported account of why, in their opening words, "we are losing" the war against the bin Laden progeny now.      "The Next Attack" is prescient to a scary degree. "If bin Laden is the Robin Hood of jihad," the authors write, then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "has been its Horatio Alger, and Iraq his field of dreams." The proof arrived spectacularly this month with the Zarqawi-engineered suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman. That attack, Mr. Benjamin wrote in Slate "could soon be remembered as the day that the spillover of violence from Iraq became a major affliction for the Middle East." But not remembered in America. Thanks to the confusion sown by the Bush administration, the implications for us in this attack, like those in London and Madrid, are quickly forgotten, if they were noticed in the first place. What happened in Amman is just another numbing bit of bad news that we mentally delete along with all the other disasters we now label "Iraq."      Only since his speech about "Islamo-fascism" in early October has Mr. Bush started trying to make distinctions between the "evildoers" of Saddam’s regime and the Islamic radicals who did and do directly threaten us. But even if anyone was still listening to this president, it would be too little and too late. The only hope for getting Americans to focus on the war we can’t escape is to clear the decks by telling the truth about the war of choice in Iraq: that it is making us less safe, not more, and that we have to learn from its mistakes and calculate the damage it has caused as we reboot and move on.      Mr. Bush is incapable of such candor. In the speech Mr. Santorum skipped on Veterans Day, the president lashed out at his critics for trying "to rewrite the history" of how the war began. Then he rewrote the history of the war, both then and now. He boasted of America’s "broad and coordinated homeland defense" even as the members of the bipartisan 9/11 commission were preparing to chastise the administration’s inadequate efforts to prevent actual nuclear W.M.D.’s, as opposed to Saddam’s fictional ones, from finding their way to terrorists. Mr. Bush preened about how "we’re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes" even as we were hearing new reports of how we outsource detainees to such regimes to be tortured.      And once again he bragged about the growing readiness of Iraqi troops, citing "nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces." But as James Fallows confirms in his exhaustive report on "Why Iraq Has No Army" in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, America would have to commit to remaining in Iraq for many years to "bring an Iraqi army to maturity." If we’re not going to do that, Mr. Fallows concludes, America’s only alternative is to "face the stark fact that it has no orderly way out of Iraq, and prepare accordingly."      That’s the alternative that has already been chosen, brought on not just by the public’s irreversible rejection of the war, but also by the depleted state of our own broken military forces; they are falling short of recruitment goals across the board by as much as two-thirds, the Government Accountability Office reported last week. We must prepare accordingly for what’s to come. To do so we need leaders, whatever the political party, who can look beyond our nonorderly withdrawal from Iraq next year to the mess that will remain once we’re on our way out. Whether it’s countering the havoc inflicted on American interests internationally by Abu Ghraib and Guant

Posted on Wed, Oct. 12, 2005 Sectarian resentment extends to Iraq’s army By TOM LASSETER Knight Ridder Newspapers BAGHDAD, Iraq

Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections of 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the handwiring a bit. I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking for! They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but it rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They also have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I received an email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have been shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day or so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them a good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone else using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com Mikey

Response:

Whoa, pretty friggin’ cool!  Nice find.  I think I’ll order one, after I hear back from the dudes who build ‘em. LV – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, > I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when > I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections of > 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in > indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I > could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check > voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of > being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side > quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my > boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would > allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the > handwiring a bit. > I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product > called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking for! > They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but it > rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They also > have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I > ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I received an > email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have been > shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day or > so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them a > good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone else > using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com > Mikey

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, > I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when > I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections of > 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in > indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I > could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check > voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of > being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side > quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my > boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would > allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the > handwiring a bit. > I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product > called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking for! > They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but it > rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They also > have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I > ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I received an > email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have been > shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day or > so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them a > good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone else > using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com > Mikey

Cool. Mine cost about $35 to build 17 years ago. Nice find. John

Response:

Cradles and Bassinets These mini cribs are made to keep newborns close to the parents’ bed or to simply offer parents an additional place to safely put a baby down to sleep. Cradles rock back and forth and either sit on the floor or hang from hooks on a stand; bassinets don’t rock but are often on wheels, so you can move your baby from room to room. Cradles and bassinets can provide a small, secure-feeling space for babies fresh from their small, secure-feeling wombs. And most look incredibly charming. But you certainly can put a newborn baby in a full-size crib and save yourself the $100 to $400 a cradle costs (bassinets run about $50 to $150)–as well as $50 or so in miniature sheets. In addition, because cradles have the ability to rock, you need to be aware that they can tip to one side when the baby moves around, potentially leaving the baby pressed against a blanket or bumper and thereby at risk for suffocation. If you do opt to buy a cradle or bassinet, there are a number of things to look for:      * If the bassinet is made of wicker, be sure it doesn’t have any sharp edges or points on the inside.      * Cradle bars (or slats) should not be more than 2 3/8 inches apart.      * Never use a thin, soft mattress that is too small for the cradle, as it can cause suffocation if the baby’s face gets wedged in the gap between the side of the cradle and the edge of the mattress.      * Cradles should have rocking pins, which help to prevent them from tipping to one side. If your cradle doesn’t have a pin to stop the rocking motion, you can jerry-rig one. If the cradle sits on the floor, just put two small pieces of wood under the rocker after your baby has fallen asleep. If the cradle hangs from a stand, you can tie the cradle to its base to prevent it from rocking while your infant’s sleeping–making sure, of course, that no strings are left within her reach. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recommends that you follow manufacturer’s guidelines on the weight and size of babies who can safely use these products and offers the following safety considerations: Bassinets and Cradles     1. Bassinet/Cradle has a sturdy bottom and a wide base for stability.     2. Bassinet/Cradle has smooth surfaces–no protruding staples or other hardware that injure the baby.     3. Legs have strong, effective locks to prevent folding while in use.     4. Mattress is firm and fits snugly. http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,6137,00.html http://www.adirondackfurniture.com/cradle.html http://www.dreamtimebaby.com/cradbas.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Whoa, pretty friggin’ cool!  Nice find.  I think I’ll order one, after > I hear back from the dudes who build ‘em. > LV > Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, > I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when > I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections of > 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in > indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I > could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check > voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of > being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side > quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my > boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would > allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the > handwiring a bit. > I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product > called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking for! > They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but it > rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They also > have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I > ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I received an > email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have been > shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day or > so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them a > good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone else > using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com > Mikey

Response:

> I’ll be able to give them a > good workout this week and will post my findings to the group.

PLEASE DO!!!!   Specifically, I’d like to know how long it takes to set up for each amp (like going from a Twin to a JCM 800 and back to a Princeton, e.g.)   When in the "board-up" position, how much room is there underneath for tubes?  How ’bout tubes with in-line bias probes? (mine add about 2") This could be really cool!!!! –Mike  Mike Schway           |   [Picture your favorite quote here]  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, > I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when > I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections > of 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in > indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I > could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check > voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of > being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side > quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my > boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would > allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the > handwiring a bit. > I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product > called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking > for! They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, > but it rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. > They also have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and > PCB. I ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I > received an email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board > cradles have been shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them > in the next day or so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be > able to give them a good workout this week and will post my findings to > the group. Anyone else using these?  Here’s their URL: > www.chassi-swing.com > Mikey

Correction to the above. The board cradles will flip 360 degree’s, but the chassis cradles don’t. They’ll allow for a nice working angle, but aren’t able to rotate an entire 360. No problem there for me but I needed to make the correction after Jeff at chassi-swing emailed me. Mikey

Response:

> Whoa, pretty friggin’ cool!  Nice find.  I think I’ll order one, after > I hear back from the dudes who build ‘em. > LV

Yeah Baby! I’m thinking that these may be able to save me some time when handwiring. Should also be a big help when it comes to inspecting solder joints and such. Maybe they’ll also help my lower back as well!  LOL Jeff’s been very responsive, I don’t think you’ll have to wait too long to get a reply. Mikey

Response:

These cradles…..will ROCK!  LOL

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Cradles and Bassinets > These mini cribs are made to keep newborns close to the parents’ bed or to > simply offer parents an additional place to safely put a baby down to > sleep. Cradles rock back and forth and either sit on the floor or hang > from hooks on a stand; bassinets don’t rock but are often on wheels, so > you can move your baby from room to room. > Cradles and bassinets can provide a small, secure-feeling space for babies > fresh from their small, secure-feeling wombs. And most look incredibly > charming. But you certainly can put a newborn baby in a full-size crib and > save yourself the $100 to $400 a cradle costs (bassinets run about $50 to > $150)–as well as $50 or so in miniature sheets. In addition, because > cradles have the ability to rock, you need to be aware that they can tip > to one side when the baby moves around, potentially leaving the baby > pressed against a blanket or bumper and thereby at risk for suffocation. > If you do opt to buy a cradle or bassinet, there are a number of things to > look for: >     * If the bassinet is made of wicker, be sure it doesn’t have any sharp > edges or points on the inside. >     * Cradle bars (or slats) should not be more than 2 3/8 inches apart. >     * Never use a thin, soft mattress that is too small for the cradle, as > it can cause suffocation if the baby’s face gets wedged in the gap between > the side of the cradle and the edge of the mattress. >     * Cradles should have rocking pins, which help to prevent them from > tipping to one side. If your cradle doesn’t have a pin to stop the rocking > motion, you can jerry-rig one. If the cradle sits on the floor, just put > two small pieces of wood under the rocker after your baby has fallen > asleep. If the cradle hangs from a stand, you can tie the cradle to its > base to prevent it from rocking while your infant’s sleeping–making sure, > of course, that no strings are left within her reach. > The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recommends that you follow > manufacturer’s guidelines on the weight and size of babies who can safely > use these products and offers the following safety considerations: > Bassinets and Cradles >    1. Bassinet/Cradle has a sturdy bottom and a wide base for stability. >    2. Bassinet/Cradle has smooth surfaces–no protruding staples or other > hardware that injure the baby. >    3. Legs have strong, effective locks to prevent folding while in use. >    4. Mattress is firm and fits snugly. > http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,6137,00.html > http://www.adirondackfurniture.com/cradle.html > http://www.dreamtimebaby.com/cradbas.html > Whoa, pretty friggin’ cool!  Nice find.  I think I’ll order one, after > I hear back from the dudes who build ‘em. > LV >> Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until >> now, >> I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis >> when >> I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections >> of >> 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in >> indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that >> I >> could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check >> voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of >> being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side >> quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my >> boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that >> would >> allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up >> the >> handwiring a bit. >> I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a >> product >> called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking >> for! >> They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but >> it >> rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They >> also >> have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I >> ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I >> received an >> email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have >> been >> shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day >> or >> so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them >> a >> good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone >> else >> using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com >> Mikey

Response:

> Cool. > Mine cost about $35 to build 17 years ago. > Nice find. > John

They look really good, solid hardwood, should take a beating. I should get them in the next day or so, and I already have a chassis and a couple of boards waiting, so we’ll see how they do. If they can save me some time then they’ll definitely be worth it to me. And if I don’t have to constantly lean as far over my work bench, I’m sure my back will be thanking them as well. Mikey

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ll be able to give them a > good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. > PLEASE DO!!!! > Specifically, I’d like to know how long it takes to set up for each amp > (like going from a Twin to a JCM 800 and back to a Princeton, e.g.) > When in the "board-up" position, how much room is there underneath for > tubes?  How ’bout tubes with in-line bias probes? (mine add about 2") > This could be really cool!!!! > –Mike

I’ll definitely let you know how they do. As soon as I saw them, I kinda knew that they were what I’d been looking for. You shouldn’t have any tube clearance issues, based on this pic: http://www.chassi-swing.com/main/products.asp?i=cc2b Jeff’s site mentions a 4-1/4" tube clearance, but since you can set the cradle on an angle like in the pic, you can have the tubes angled away from your bench. Or, I guess you could put a block or two underneath, to raise the entire cradle assembly up as much as you need. Mikey

Response:

> Correction to the above. The board cradles will flip 360 degree’s, but the > chassis cradles don’t. They’ll allow for a nice working angle, but aren’t > able to rotate an entire 360. No problem there for me but I needed to make > the correction after Jeff at chassi-swing emailed me.

I’m a little confused about the chassis vs board swing.  From the pix, it looks like the PCB cradle has a different base as the chassis swing, yet the board holder is an option on the big unit.  Let us know. You’re mentioning saving your lower back.  I’m looking forward (no pun intended) to it helping my neck and shoulders! Dang, this is gonna be good! (I hope, I hope!) –Mike  Mike Schway           |   [Picture your favorite quote here]  

Response:

> I’m a little confused about the chassis vs board swing.  From the pix, > it looks like the PCB cradle has a different base as the chassis swing, > yet the board holder is an option on the big unit.  Let us know.

The cradle that holds the boards is an attachment. It uses the same base. You would just remove the chassis cradle from the base, and substitute the board cradle in its place. > You’re mentioning saving your lower back.  I’m looking forward (no pun > intended) to it helping my neck and shoulders! > Dang, this is gonna be good! (I hope, I hope!) > –Mike

I’m hoping as well!  LOL  Just being able to angle the chassis so that I can get to the board without having to bend all the way over my bench to get inside the chassis will be a big help. Plus, there’s some soldering that I want to do while the board is either angled or in a more vertical position. I’m thinking there may be several benefits to this setup. I’ll just have to try them to see how everything works. I’ll give em’ a good workout and will post my findings so other builders will know what’s up before deciding to order. Mikey

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Cool. >Mine cost about $35 to build 17 years ago. >Nice find. >John > They look really good, solid hardwood, should take a beating. I should get > them in the next day or so, and I already have a chassis and a couple of > boards waiting, so we’ll see how they do. If they can save me some time then > they’ll definitely be worth it to me. And if I don’t have to constantly lean > as far over my work bench, I’m sure my back will be thanking them as well. > > Mikey

Indispensable for fast, efficient work on large projects. John

Response:

> They look really good, solid hardwood, should take a beating. I should > get them in the next day or so, and I already have a chassis and a couple > of boards waiting, so we’ll see how they do. If they can save me some > time then they’ll definitely be worth it to me. And if I don’t have to > constantly lean as far over my work bench, I’m sure my back will be > thanking them as well. > Mikey > Indispensable for fast, efficient work on large projects. > John

I remember when I got my digital soldering station. Man, what a timesaver that was! And soldering quality rose significantly. Hopefully, these cradles will give the same type of benefits. Mikey

Response:

There’s a pharmacists’ strike in Mulay’s town, obviously….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Cradles and Bassinets >These mini cribs are made to keep newborns close to the parents’ bed or to simply offer parents an additional place to safely >put a baby down to sleep. Cradles rock back and forth and either sit on the floor or hang from hooks on a stand; bassinets don’t >rock but are often on wheels, so you can move your baby from room to room. >Cradles and bassinets can provide a small, secure-feeling space for babies fresh from their small, secure-feeling wombs. And >most look incredibly charming. But you certainly can put a newborn baby in a full-size crib and save yourself the $100 to $400 a >cradle costs (bassinets run about $50 to $150)–as well as $50 or so in miniature sheets. In addition, because cradles have the >ability to rock, you need to be aware that they can tip to one side when the baby moves around, potentially leaving the baby >pressed against a blanket or bumper and thereby at risk for suffocation. >If you do opt to buy a cradle or bassinet, there are a number of things to look for: >     * If the bassinet is made of wicker, be sure it doesn’t have any sharp edges or points on the inside. >     * Cradle bars (or slats) should not be more than 2 3/8 inches apart. >     * Never use a thin, soft mattress that is too small for the cradle, as it can cause suffocation if the baby’s face gets >wedged in the gap between the side of the cradle and the edge of the mattress. >     * Cradles should have rocking pins, which help to prevent them from tipping to one side. If your cradle doesn’t have a pin >to stop the rocking motion, you can jerry-rig one. If the cradle sits on the floor, just put two small pieces of wood under the >rocker after your baby has fallen asleep. If the cradle hangs from a stand, you can tie the cradle to its base to prevent it >from rocking while your infant’s sleeping–making sure, of course, that no strings are left within her reach. >The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recommends that you follow manufacturer’s guidelines on the weight and size of >babies who can safely use these products and offers the following safety considerations: >Bassinets and Cradles >    1. Bassinet/Cradle has a sturdy bottom and a wide base for stability. >    2. Bassinet/Cradle has smooth surfaces–no protruding staples or other hardware that injure the baby. >    3. Legs have strong, effective locks to prevent folding while in use. >    4. Mattress is firm and fits snugly. >http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,6137,00.html >http://www.adirondackfurniture.com/cradle.html >http://www.dreamtimebaby.com/cradbas.html > Whoa, pretty friggin’ cool!  Nice find.  I think I’ll order one, after > I hear back from the dudes who build ‘em. > LV >> Just thought I’d share a cool product that I stumbled upon. Up until now, >> I’ve been using a pair of homemade chassis blocks to hold the chassis when >> I’m wiring up the circuit, switches, etc. These were just short sections of >> 2×4’s, screwed to the same lengths of 4×4’s, and then covered in >> indoor/outdoor carpet. These would hold the chassis high enough so that I >> could install the power and preamp tubes, which would allow me to check >> voltages, bias and so on. But, I’ve always wanted to have some method of >> being able to move the chassis around or flip it over to the other side >> quickly. I can do it manually, but it’s just a pain. Same thing with my >> boards. I just wanted something that would hold the board, but that would >> allow me to move the board around to get to the other side to speed up the >> handwiring a bit. >> I was surfing the net one evening and came across this link for a product >> called chassi-swing. This is one of those things that I’ve been looking for! >> They make a hardwood chassis cradle that not only holds the chassis, but it >> rotates so you can get to the other side of the chassis quickly. They also >> have an attachment that will hold circuit boards, both PTP and PCB. I >> ordered a full set of cradles for both the chassis and boards. I received an >> email from Jeff at chassi-swing that my chassis and board cradles have been >> shipped and are on their way. I should be getting them in the next day or >> so. Since I just started another DRRI rebuild, I’ll be able to give them a >> good workout this week and will post my findings to the group. Anyone else >> using these?  Here’s their URL: www.chassi-swing.com >> Mikey

Response:

Chicago pharmacists strike Walgreens drugstores Some 1,200 pharmacists at 400 Chicago-area Walgreen Co. stores walked off the job July 7 to protest low staffing levels and increased workloads that they believe could endanger the safety of customer-patients. According to the National Pharmacists Association