Friday, April 30, 2010

[socialactionfoundationforequity:2515 Eradicate Manual Scavenging ISP IV April 2010

Buzz It

Manual Scavenging: Must be eradicated Right away

 

 

Ram Puniyani

 

Indian society is riddled with many evil practices, some of which tantamount to atrocity on one or other section of the dalit/deprived sections of society. One such atrocity is the manual scavenging; the removal of human excreta by humans, with the minimum aid of brooms, metal scarpers and buckets. This practice was officially supposed to have been banned in 1993 by the Government of India. Official lapses and apathy apart, the surveys by the activists working against this practice show that even now over 14 lakhs of scavengers are still suffering ignominy and nearly 95% of these workers are women. These scavengers are the untouchables section of dalits, who have been trapped in this occupation as a birth based work. The States have not taken the act of abolition of this practice seriously and even till 1999-2000 many a States had not notified the act. It is in this light that the social action group Safai Karmachari Andolan has given a call for abolition of this atrocity by the end of 2010.

 

The manual scavenging is an offshoot of the untouchability practiced in India. Many feudal societies have seen the birth based hierarchy of caste but the Indian caste system has been legitimized through Holy Scriptures to make it a religious phenomenon. Many a factors have contributed to emergence of caste; Race, class and religion. Currently the race theory does not find much favor with the serious scholars of caste. The major contributing factors have been the economic and religious. In his famous phrase Ambedkar points out that "caste is not a division of labor; it is a division of laborers". He puts more emphasis on the ideological and religious factors. In his analysis these factors are interwoven as civilizational factors which influenced and resulted in social changes leading to formation of caste system.

 

The evolution of caste society was a slow process. Its continuance was secured by making it hereditary. The primitive taboo on eating together and intermarriage became caste law, which in turn led to marriage limits and elaborate rules of endogamy and exogamy. The continuance of caste system depended on vast network of sub-castes, which were connected with occupations. This sub-caste – jati – came to have more relevance and became the basis of functioning of Hindu society. As caste became hereditary with close connection between occupation and sub-caste, it resulted in an automatic check on individual moving up in the hierarchy of castes

 

Untouchablity is the outcome of this caste system and manual scavenging is the subhuman expression of the same, that being amongst the worst of atrocities perpetrated by the upper caste on the low castes. This is the key concept inherent in purity-pollution, and rebirth theories which were used to enslave the low caste and keep them tied to the subhuman occupation. Khalid Akhtar (Hardnews Media, March 2008) points out that the earliest references to it are found in Narada Samhita and Vajasaneyi Samhita. In Narada Samhita one of the 15 duties listed for untouchables, one is the removal of human excreta. In Vajasaneyi Samhita, Chandalas are referred to as slaves engaged in the disposal of human excreta.  Even other dalits look down upon them and all the avenue of social interaction in any form were denied to them.

 

Excavations at Lotha in Gujarat show that Harappan civilization did have water based sanitation system. The toilets were connected by drains and had manholes and chambers. With the decline of Harappan civilization this technology went into oblivion.

 

The system of manual scavenging continued in medieval times as well. While the Muslim kings did introduce different techniques at places. As such the communal politics, as is its wont, is trying to propagate that since the Muslims used Burqua, women could not go out to jungles, they introduced manual scavenging. This is another way of putting the blame of internal problems to external source. This is far from truth. Observation and research into the Mughal forts' sanitation system shows that they had small outlets in the bathing rooms of Mughal forts which were used as toilets. The waste from these toilets was carried by gravitational force to the ramparts with the help of water. This technique has been seen in the Red Fort in Delhi, in the palaces of Rajasthan, in Hampi, Karnataka and in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

 

The British did claim that they have come here, carrying the "White Man's Burden" of civilizing the East, but as far as retrograde social practices were concerned they were unconcerned about those. In the case of manual scavenging they put their seal of approval on this by systematizing it and creating the posts of scavengers in army, railways, municipalities and big towns. Barring few places they did not put the sewer lines in most of the places, as they observed that already the system of scavenging is in place. Due to industrial changes, end of craftsmanship and pauperization of a section of society, some of them forced to join in this work.

 

Ambedkars' rebellion against caste and his prescription on 'Annihilation of caste' and Mahatma Gandhi's efforts to eradicate untouchabilty, experiments with new designs of toilets, had a minimal effect on the total social situation, as the social transformation has been painfully slow. After partition the untouchables from Pakistan were not permitted to come to India and Indian Government did not try much for the safe passage of this group to India. And here the situations continued as it has been due to which the life was a total humiliation for this section of society persisted. During last many decades the pressure of the social movements is forcing the State authorities to abolish this practice and rehabilitate the scavengers. As usual the State response has been half baked and there is a lack of effectivity in the same. The step of the social movements to do all, advocacy, campaign and other pressures, to ensure that this practice is put to rest is very significant.

 

One knows that the popular opinion and efforts of all sensitive people to end this are needed at this point of time to remove this blot on Indian society, irrespective of its sanction by the Holy Scriptures and traditional practices. Enough is enough, this atrocity on a section of our society has to be stopped forthwith, they need to be rahabilitated to the life of dignity, come what may.

--

Issues in Secular Politics

IV April 2010

www.pluralindia.com

response only to ram.puniyani@gmail.com

 

 

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 26 new messages in 4 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Was your mother a prostitue ??? - 17 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2d52929d4377e50e?hl=en
* Holmes crap is starting... - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2241577d45e9979d?hl=en
* Santonio in the news.... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/20776e5fd056484c?hl=en
* Classic Belichick Quotes on the Draft - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/febf7036472e6cdd?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Was your mother a prostitue ???
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2d52929d4377e50e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:15 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:sa2dnRyPA6FQiEbWnZ2dnUVZ_sUAAAAA@giganews.com...
> papa.carl44 wrote:
>> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
>> news:rrednXbIUpfDcUfWnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> If
>>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
>>>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
>>>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
>>> one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
>>> effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
>>> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
>>> saying a lot.
>>
>> The Division is corrupt????? Or the people who have the political power
>> to manipulate the Division??? Are you saying the actual agents in harms
>> way, on the border are corrupt?????
>
> Yeah, it's a huge problem down there.
>
> People tend to forget that drug mules also tend to be illegal immigrants.
> Granted, those aren't the kinds of people we're talking about here, but
> agents on the take are agents on the take. The mexican cartels are
> extremely powerful. So much so that they completely overpower the local
> mexican governments. It's like the friggin wild west down there, and US
> border patrol is being dragged into it.
>
> On a related note, I found this recent article interesting.
>
> http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/mcallen-109590-agents-mexican.html

My only question to you would be, have you been there to observe this for
yourself? My son is a federal agent and works to get rid of corruption,
that's been part of his job...works with those people you are talkiing
about. He has a very different view on things and what has gone on. He
tells me they are grossly understaffed, and many underpaid for what they do
too. My only point is the "woo woo" people ( my new description of a lot of
the idiots who shoot their mouths off to make themselves appear important )
have no clue what the on the ground conditions are. If we wanted to control
the border, and it really was a priority it could and would get done. If
they legalized pot, licensed the growers and treated it like alcohol and
tobacco they could make enough money to pay for the whole deal. I do not
think pot is a harmless substance, but I also know it is not as dangerous as
alcohol in terms of health issues. On top of that, my professional
experience taught me that it is ingrained in our culture to such and extent
that it is not going to be eliminated and they fortune being spent on
dealing with it is a waste of time and money. That effort would also stop
some of the smuggling. If we can not secure that border, we have NO freakin
business being in Afghanistan or anywhere else telling peopel we are going
to secure places like that....that is pure logic and I don't think you can
refute that. It is simple....if we can not even secure our own border we
need to get the Hell out of a distant, foreign region with impossible
terrain...how could we possibly secure that??????


== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:19 pm
From: MZ


Remy McSwain wrote:
> In news:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com,
> MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>> But they haven't. It's already very difficult for many of them
>> to get jobs. And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
>> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
>>
>> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
>> difficult for them to get jobs. So, although nobody explicitly
>> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
>> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
>
> Again, we funadmentally disagee. First of all, you're talking about
> jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
> only one component. Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
> sole solution. Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
> them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so. One
> of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
> that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
> numbers even after remedial measures are put in place. IOW, if we
> had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
> level. So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
> arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
> we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
>
> That's not how it works. If we severly punished emplyers at any
> level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
> it would drop significanty. So as more and more illegals are driven
> to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
> and more of them could be deported. Moreover, no matter how bad
> things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
> of getting either a job, or social services.

I understand. You're talking about it becoming a deterrent. But,
again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
an *effective* deterrent. The savings you'd get from having fewer
illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
have to have a broad sweeping investigation. The more cost effective
(but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
sort. Random sweeps and targeted raids. That's similar to what's in
place now. So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
unless you put more feet on the ground.

The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
be to simply make the penalties stiffer. That makes all the sense in
the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.


>> Have you spent much time near the border? It's not
>> one-dimensional. If you mean you would treat it as a
>> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine. What
>> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
>> two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
>> miles away from the border.
>
> I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
> present implementation. IMO, that's faulty logic. The reason it's
> a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
> a sieve because we cannot secure it.
>
>> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
>> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
>> defensive line. :)
>
> Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
> the game accordingly.

All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
coming through. The government clearly feels that, given their current
workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
the border. They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
there is at the level of single patrol agents. And if you don't have
that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.


== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:22 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:955c6029-6291-4cc7-ac13-7da5c5b2613d@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:54 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:38 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 10:05 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>> <SNIP>
> >>>>> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
> >>>>> just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While
> >>>>> his
> >>>>> tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
> >>>>> don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob
> >>>>> out
> >>>>> to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez
> >>>>> has
> >>>>> caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
> >>>>> manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
> >>>>> or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
> >>>>> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
> >>>>> end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
> >>>>> me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
> >>>>> mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
> >>>>> the guy he was dealing with.
> >>>> Figures. Now it's Dez's fault. Bitch deserved it.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> I don't know if I would say it is his "fault". Still... It follows
> >>> the pattern. Dez is not a team guy or a company guy... He appears to
> >>> be a "me guy" to the exclusion of considering consequences.
> >>> Honestly Mark...How can you know what kind of connection Ireland and
> >>> Dez made ??? May be Dez was being candid and Ireland felt Dez was
> >>> giving him the latitude to be open about what was on his mind. How
> >>> do you know Ireland did not ask Dez in a sympathetic tone... Something
> >>> like this... "Dez... When I think about what you've had to overcome to
> >>> get here... Growing up without a strong healthy family unit around
> >>> you. Not a lot of money. And I understand your mother might have
> >>> been involved in drugs and prostitution. Is that true ??? Did you
> >>> have to live through that ??? Was your mother a prostitute ???"
> >>> You just never know what unwritten agreements and understandings were
> >>> reached in that interview. I'm taking Irelands part in this one
> >>> because they sent the mob after him with little substance in what was
> >>> sure to be an explosive reaction based on two words "mother" and
> >>> "prostitute". You had every commentator out there including Golic on
> >>> the Mike and Mike show advocating violence. When they say stuff
> >>> like... I would not have held it against him if he bent Ireland into a
> >>> pretzel... Heck sake... They were not even there and it is a fair
> >>> subject to bring up. Also... Ireland has NEVER been reported to be
> >>> anything other than a skilled and accomplished professional. I don't
> >>> get it. Flippin' media.
> >> Dez was angry. Ireland admitted wrongdoing. Both parties seem to
> >> agree. Yet you take the opposite stance. Like I said, figures.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mark... Dez was angry, but Dez appears to be unstable. Dez might get
> > angry if you don't use enough superlatives about his skills. Ireland
> > reacted to what had to be terrifying pressure being all of a sudden
> > put on him by the media mob. He issued the obligatory response to get
> > the hot poker pulled out of his ass.
>
> Dez has a history of having his mother called a whore.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark... That is a very interesting tid-bit. How does Dez react to
that ??? Can you get inside his head, break his concentration and take
him out of his game ??? No one is gonna cry foul for Dez if DB's bark
in his face about his mother being a "whore". Would you say that you
would be impressed if you found out Dez worked it out with himself and
was in control and confident ??? Just a thought.

You need to think before you say some of this stuff?????? Do you think it's
OK to trash talk that way??? Can I come to your office and ask you stuff
like that? In a game you can pop the guy and make his words come out his
ass....YOU are the guy who said you didn't want that behavior taken from the
game to the rest of life.


== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:24 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JuednQilE7CUakfWnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In news:cb245e57-21b7-42a9-b24d-fb8b9105ffc5@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
> Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you
>> are just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable.
>> While his tact can be questioned, I can also understand the
>> motive he had. I don't think this small matter calls for a
>> foaming at the mouth mob out to separate Ireland from his
>> livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has caused his first NFL
>> distraction.
>
> Certainly, he's involved in the distraction, but I hardly think it's fair
> to say that he caused it. I guess that depends upon whether or not you
> regard the question as justified. If you do, then I guess you could say
> the player is causing it. If you don't, then I guess you could say that
> Ireland caused it. Therefore, I think the issue of 'causing a
> distraction' is a bit of a red-herring.
>
>> He presented this whole thing in a manner that
>> makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little or no
>> consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
>> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In
>> the end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for
>> sure. To me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much
>> his tact. His mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was
>> not enough aware of the guy he was dealing with.
>
> I disagree, and, apparently, so does Ireland if we take him at face value.
> He called the kid to apologize, and he then did so publicly. Maybe we
> could speculate that he was forced to do it somehow, and that he's not
> being sincere, but that would be sheer speculation. If you don't want to
> speculate about the exact context of the interview, then you can't very
> well now speculate about what went into the apology.
>
> Inquiring into the very personal background of a specific person who is
> not at all involved in the agreement to be reached between an employer and
> employee is very well outside the bounds of reasonableness, IMO.

EXACTLY

>It also says nothing about the kid anyway.

And it does say a lot about the person who asked it and how he truly views
the people who make money for him.


> It's not like he chose his mother, or chose what she's does or has done.
> If the team has questions about the_kid's_character, or his decision
> making process, then look at_those_factors instead of judging him by an
> association he played no role in having. Unless, of course, you want to
> make the case that the kid should've estranged his own mother for the sake
> of an NFL contract.
>


== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:18 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cb245e57-21b7-42a9-b24d-fb8b9105ffc5@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:30 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfWnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Innews:4bd9f7a7$0$14674$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com,
> > Deadmeat <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/29/2010 12:55 PM, Michael wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 12:34 pm,
> >>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> <SNIP>
>
> >>>> Do you realize your double standard is really a "plantation
> >>>> mentality" ? They are paying him to play football and that has
> >>>> a different set of ethical standards than if they were going
> >>>> to pay him to be an executive...you can treat the "player" one
> >>>> way and the "executive caliber" another, and higher way?- Hide
> >>>> quoted text -
>
> >>> As of right now, I'm not convinced the question that Ireland
> >>> asked was off base considering the circumstances and the job he
> >>> was applying for.
>
> >>http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/13327/wiley-on-ireland-team...
>
> >> Wiley agrees with you.
>
> > I know that it's very important for the team to figure out whether or
> > not
> > a guy in going to be trouble. But you can choose your friends, but you
> > can't choose your mother. IOW, it's fair game to ask about the guys
> > friends because it tells a lot about the choices he makes. But to ask
> > about his mother, or her background?
>
> > Another issue in asking about friends is that the question wouldn't be
> > about any specific person. To ask 'do you have any drug dealing friends'
> > is not to ask about the behavior of any specific person. But to ask
> > about
> > the guys mother is to ask him to reveal something personal about a very
> > specific person.
>
> > If that could possibly be of any relevance at all, then the question
> > should've been whether or not the kid is regularly exposed, either
> > through
> > family or friends, to inappropriate life circumstances, or to ask him to
> > explain his life's circumstances. And even if the kid's mother WERE a
> > prostitute, it seems to me the responsible thing for the team, and the
> > NFL
> > to do would be to help them both extricate themselves from that world,
> > and
> > not essentially banish them to it.
>
> > It's just a nutty, nutty question on so many levels that they guy ought
> > to
> > be severely reprimanded. At least he had the balls to admit his
> > stupidity, and call the kid directly, and then apologies publicly. I'll
> > give him a little credit against all of his discredits for at least that
> > much.
>
> Good response. I also agree that Ireland's apology is in order and to his
> credit.
>
> I can't help but thinking the core of this issue has ramifications in
> other
> areas of our current culture.
>
> Such as, "Where are you papers?" Even if the individual has lived here for
> their entire life.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While his
tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob out
to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has
caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
the guy he was dealing with.

Like I said...you miss what I said. If he asked a stupid question like that
of any potential employee at any level he needs to be dealt with harshly.
The places I worked would have fired him. End of discussion for my part.


== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:20 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f6da9eed-91ec-4d09-9e62-c9cf9d738e7a@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:38 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:05 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> >>> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
> >>> just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While his
> >>> tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
> >>> don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob out
> >>> to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has
> >>> caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
> >>> manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
> >>> or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
> >>> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
> >>> end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
> >>> me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
> >>> mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
> >>> the guy he was dealing with.
> >> Figures. Now it's Dez's fault. Bitch deserved it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I don't know if I would say it is his "fault". Still... It follows
> > the pattern. Dez is not a team guy or a company guy... He appears to
> > be a "me guy" to the exclusion of considering consequences.
>
> > Honestly Mark...How can you know what kind of connection Ireland and
> > Dez made ??? May be Dez was being candid and Ireland felt Dez was
> > giving him the latitude to be open about what was on his mind. How
> > do you know Ireland did not ask Dez in a sympathetic tone... Something
> > like this... "Dez... When I think about what you've had to overcome to
> > get here... Growing up without a strong healthy family unit around
> > you. Not a lot of money. And I understand your mother might have
> > been involved in drugs and prostitution. Is that true ??? Did you
> > have to live through that ??? Was your mother a prostitute ???"
>
> > You just never know what unwritten agreements and understandings were
> > reached in that interview. I'm taking Irelands part in this one
> > because they sent the mob after him with little substance in what was
> > sure to be an explosive reaction based on two words "mother" and
> > "prostitute". You had every commentator out there including Golic on
> > the Mike and Mike show advocating violence. When they say stuff
> > like... I would not have held it against him if he bent Ireland into a
> > pretzel... Heck sake... They were not even there and it is a fair
> > subject to bring up. Also... Ireland has NEVER been reported to be
> > anything other than a skilled and accomplished professional. I don't
> > get it. Flippin' media.
>
> Dez was angry. Ireland admitted wrongdoing. Both parties seem to
> agree. Yet you take the opposite stance. Like I said, figures.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark... Dez was angry, but Dez appears to be unstable. Dez might get
angry if you don't use enough superlatives about his skills. Ireland
reacted to what had to be terrifying pressure being all of a sudden
put on him by the media mob. He issued the obligatory response to get
the hot poker pulled out of his ass.


So you can diagnose people without ever meeting them? Pressure???? He
created the pressure. Life is supposed to be about consequences...that's
what you said regarding Santonio and others...now good old GM Ireland has
some consequenses....tough.


== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:25 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Deadmeat" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:4bdb1674$0$10941$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> On 4/30/2010 12:34 PM, Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 9:13 pm, Deadmeat<no...@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2010 7:48 PM, Tutor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 12:12 pm, Deadmeat<no...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2010 5:03 PM, Johnctx wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Tutor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 12:22 pm, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Good question ???
>>>
>>>>>>> Ireland was just trying to find out if Dez had anything in common
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the large majority of Dolphin fans.
>>>
>>>>>> You are only a prostitute if you are paid.
>>>
>>>>> Your mom tell you that?
>>>
>>>> Is it true that the great thing about South Florida prostitutes is
>>>> that they had a South Florida education, so they can't count to see if
>>>> you shorted them on their service fees?
>>>
>>> Obviously, you're speaking from experience, so yes, you are right, we're
>>> just lucky that way.
>>>
>>> I guess the NY hookers don't have to worry about change when they can
>>> only get two bits. (That means 25 cents in case you didn't know. And
>>> you didn't.)
>>
>> Really? Spitzer only paid 25 cents for his flings? What was the big
>> deal?
>
>
> Don't know. I don't really pay attention to what goes on in NY.

:-) That's why your "DEAD" meat. Most action on earth....most important
city on Earth...why pay attention?


== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:27 pm
From: MZ


papa.carl44 wrote:
> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
> news:sa2dnRyPA6FQiEbWnZ2dnUVZ_sUAAAAA@giganews.com...
>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
>>> news:rrednXbIUpfDcUfWnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> If
>>>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
>>>>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
>>>>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>>>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
>>>> one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
>>>> effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
>>>> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
>>>> saying a lot.
>>> The Division is corrupt????? Or the people who have the political power
>>> to manipulate the Division??? Are you saying the actual agents in harms
>>> way, on the border are corrupt?????
>> Yeah, it's a huge problem down there.
>>
>> People tend to forget that drug mules also tend to be illegal immigrants.
>> Granted, those aren't the kinds of people we're talking about here, but
>> agents on the take are agents on the take. The mexican cartels are
>> extremely powerful. So much so that they completely overpower the local
>> mexican governments. It's like the friggin wild west down there, and US
>> border patrol is being dragged into it.
>>
>> On a related note, I found this recent article interesting.
>>
>> http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/mcallen-109590-agents-mexican.html
>
> My only question to you would be, have you been there to observe this for
> yourself? My son is a federal agent and works to get rid of corruption,
> that's been part of his job...works with those people you are talkiing
> about. He has a very different view on things and what has gone on. He
> tells me they are grossly understaffed, and many underpaid for what they do
> too. My only point is the "woo woo" people ( my new description of a lot of
> the idiots who shoot their mouths off to make themselves appear important )
> have no clue what the on the ground conditions are. If we wanted to control
> the border, and it really was a priority it could and would get done. If
> they legalized pot, licensed the growers and treated it like alcohol and
> tobacco they could make enough money to pay for the whole deal. I do not
> think pot is a harmless substance, but I also know it is not as dangerous as
> alcohol in terms of health issues. On top of that, my professional
> experience taught me that it is ingrained in our culture to such and extent
> that it is not going to be eliminated and they fortune being spent on
> dealing with it is a waste of time and money. That effort would also stop
> some of the smuggling. If we can not secure that border, we have NO freakin
> business being in Afghanistan or anywhere else telling peopel we are going
> to secure places like that....that is pure logic and I don't think you can
> refute that. It is simple....if we can not even secure our own border we
> need to get the Hell out of a distant, foreign region with impossible
> terrain...how could we possibly secure that??????

No, I'm not in the business. I don't see corruption or any of that. I
read the news stories that's all. And I talk to the locals. And yes I
agree with your son that they're understaffed and probably underpaid.
This is evident from the raw numbers alone -- we've got lots of
territory and not so many actual on-the-ground patrolmen. There's also
a fairly high turnover rate, which suggests that the pay isn't great
considering how tough the job is.

But I disagree with you about how easy it would be to get it to work.
The US has a horrible track record with enforcing these sorts of broad
scale campaigns. Alcohol prohibition, the drug war, illegal handguns,
intellectual property violations, etc. They've sunk a ton of resources
into these things, and the results have been laughable. Then people
say, "yeah but we just need a little more money..." No, when you spend
billions and billions of dollars to try to stop these things, and you
haven't even put a dent in the problem, you need a hell of a lot more
than "a little more money" to fix it.


== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:02 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 30, 4:24 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 2:13 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>> Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
> >>> recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
> >>> Deployment costs a lot of money.  Like I said, it would be the largest
> >>> project in human history.  IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
> >>> player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
> >>> a zillion times over.
> >> Well... I think  you are grossly overestimating things.  Not a zillion
> >> times over.  Lets do our own crude study and cost estimate.  How long
> >> is the boarder from Southern Cal to the bottom of Texas at the
> >> gulf ???  Figure this first.   Lets call 100 miles of boarder a
> >> "century post".  We'll afford say, 20 observers in towers, ten armed
> >> guys driving in cars,  one dispatcher, one "combat intelegence center
> >> guy" to look at an electronic map of the entire boarder for
> >> "happenings" and to communicate with other posts and one singe
> >> "century" manager to over see the his century post. Now.. Lets figure
> >> the salary and benifits for those 33 people in a century.  Well give
> >> 40k a year to the observers, 60k to the armed men, 40k a year to the
> >> dispatcher, 50k a year to the CIC guy and 100 a year to the head
> >> "Centurion" guy.  So... $1,590,000 in moneys paid for each 100 miles.
> >> Just man power.  Not for the patrol cars, training, buildings,
> >> electroinic stuff like computers and networks.  We can do that next.
> >> So...  Lets take $1,590,000 and x's it by how many "century posts"
> >> would be needed.  This should shed a bit of light on things.  I'll
> >> look into the boarder lengts when I het home from work.  I'm too busy
> >> to do it now :-)
>
> > OK.. Forget about work.... It's Friday...
>
> > The US-Mexico boarder is 3,169 miles long.  That would mean you need
> > 32 "century posts".
>
> hahahaha  do you know how long a mile is?
>
> >  So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
> > would be $50,880,000.  Not a daunting number.  Now.. I forgot one
> > thing.  We'll need three shifts for each post.  Tripple that to
> > $152,640,000.  That's peanuts.  Now, I know there are a lot of other
> > expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
> > about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
> > would take.  Just good organization of a well thought out system.  I
> > got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
> > British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
>
> Michael, you live in la la land.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You think it would be the most monumental undertaiking in history to
close a boarder and I live in la la land.


== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:10 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:24 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 30, 2:13 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
>>>>> recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
>>>>> Deployment costs a lot of money. Like I said, it would be the largest
>>>>> project in human history. IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
>>>>> player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
>>>>> a zillion times over.
>>>> Well... I think you are grossly overestimating things. Not a zillion
>>>> times over. Lets do our own crude study and cost estimate. How long
>>>> is the boarder from Southern Cal to the bottom of Texas at the
>>>> gulf ??? Figure this first. Lets call 100 miles of boarder a
>>>> "century post". We'll afford say, 20 observers in towers, ten armed
>>>> guys driving in cars, one dispatcher, one "combat intelegence center
>>>> guy" to look at an electronic map of the entire boarder for
>>>> "happenings" and to communicate with other posts and one singe
>>>> "century" manager to over see the his century post. Now.. Lets figure
>>>> the salary and benifits for those 33 people in a century. Well give
>>>> 40k a year to the observers, 60k to the armed men, 40k a year to the
>>>> dispatcher, 50k a year to the CIC guy and 100 a year to the head
>>>> "Centurion" guy. So... $1,590,000 in moneys paid for each 100 miles.
>>>> Just man power. Not for the patrol cars, training, buildings,
>>>> electroinic stuff like computers and networks. We can do that next.
>>>> So... Lets take $1,590,000 and x's it by how many "century posts"
>>>> would be needed. This should shed a bit of light on things. I'll
>>>> look into the boarder lengts when I het home from work. I'm too busy
>>>> to do it now :-)
>>> OK.. Forget about work.... It's Friday...
>>> The US-Mexico boarder is 3,169 miles long. That would mean you need
>>> 32 "century posts".
>> hahahaha do you know how long a mile is?
>>
>>> So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
>>> would be $50,880,000. Not a daunting number. Now.. I forgot one
>>> thing. We'll need three shifts for each post. Tripple that to
>>> $152,640,000. That's peanuts. Now, I know there are a lot of other
>>> expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
>>> about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
>>> would take. Just good organization of a well thought out system. I
>>> got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
>>> British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
>> Michael, you live in la la land.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You think it would be the most monumental undertaiking in history to
> close a boarder and I live in la la land.

Billions of dollars and counting, and the border is a sieve. But you
can do it with $500M and maybe some ham sandwiches. Yes. La la land.


== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:11 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 30, 5:15 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "MZ" <m...@nospam.void> wrote in message
>
> news:sa2dnRyPA6FQiEbWnZ2dnUVZ_sUAAAAA@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > papa.carl44 wrote:
> >> "MZ" <m...@nospam.void> wrote in message
> >>news:rrednXbIUpfDcUfWnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> Michael wrote:
> >>>> If
> >>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
> >>>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
> >>>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
> >>> We don't have the money for that.  To TRULY close the borders would be
> >>> one of the greatest expenditures in human history.  And even then its
> >>> effectiveness would be questionable.  Border patrol is probably the most
> >>> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
> >>> saying a lot.
>
> >> The Division is corrupt????? Or the people who have the political power
> >> to manipulate the Division???  Are you saying the actual agents in harms
> >> way, on the border are corrupt?????
>
> > Yeah, it's a huge problem down there.
>
> > People tend to forget that drug mules also tend to be illegal immigrants.
> > Granted, those aren't the kinds of people we're talking about here, but
> > agents on the take are agents on the take.  The mexican cartels are
> > extremely powerful.  So much so that they completely overpower the local
> > mexican governments.  It's like the friggin wild west down there, and US
> > border patrol is being dragged into it.
>
> > On a related note, I found this recent article interesting.
>
> >http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/mcallen-109590-agents-mexic...
>
> My only question to you would be, have you been there to observe this for
> yourself?  My son is a federal agent and works to get rid of corruption,
> that's been part of his job...works with those people you are talkiing
> about.  He has a very different view on things and what has gone on.  He
> tells me they are grossly understaffed, and many underpaid for what they do
> too.  My only point is the "woo woo" people ( my new description of a lot of
> the idiots who shoot their mouths off to make themselves appear important )
> have no clue what the on the ground conditions are.  If we wanted to control
> the border, and it really was a priority it could and would get done.  If
> they legalized pot, licensed the growers and treated it like alcohol and
> tobacco they could make enough money to pay for the whole deal.  I do not
> think pot is a harmless substance, but I also know it is not as dangerous as
> alcohol in terms of health issues.  On top of that, my professional
> experience taught me that it is ingrained in our culture to such and extent
> that it is not going to be eliminated and they fortune being spent on
> dealing with it is a waste of time and money.  That effort would also stop
> some of the smuggling.  If we can not secure that border, we have NO freakin
> business being in Afghanistan or anywhere else telling peopel we are going
> to secure places like that....that is pure logic and I don't think you can
> refute that.  It is simple....if we can not even secure our own border we
> need to get the Hell out of a distant, foreign region with impossible
> terrain...how could we possibly secure that??????- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How much foreign and military aid do we give away ??? I think over six
billion alone to help the Israelis with their security issues. They
use some of that to help them secure their boarders. Mark is right in
a sense that it will take a lot of money to do it. More than what I
was saying. BUT... No way is it imposible to accomplish and no way
will it cost the trillions of dollars Mark thinks it will. I agree
with you Papa. Job one is OUR boarder. If we have money and human
resources left over after we take care of business at home, then we
can spred around the bonus cash to our "friends" overseas.


== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:17 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 30, 5:19 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Remy McSwain wrote:
> > Innews:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com,
> > MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> But they haven't.  It's already very difficult for many of them
> >> to get jobs.  And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
> >> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
>
> >> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
> >> difficult for them to get jobs.  So, although nobody explicitly
> >> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
> >> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
>
> > Again, we funadmentally disagee.  First of all, you're talking about
> > jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
> > only one component.  Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
> > sole solution.  Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
> > them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so.  One
> > of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
> > that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
> > numbers even after remedial measures are put in place.  IOW, if we
> > had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
> > level.  So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
> > arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
> > we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
>
> > That's not how it works.  If we severly punished emplyers at any
> > level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
> > it would drop significanty.  So as more and more illegals are driven
> > to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
> > and more of them could be deported.  Moreover, no matter how bad
> > things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
> > of getting either a job, or social services.
>
> I understand.  You're talking about it becoming a deterrent.  But,
> again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
> ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
> an *effective* deterrent.  The savings you'd get from having fewer
> illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
> have to have a broad sweeping investigation.  The more cost effective
> (but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
> sort.  Random sweeps and targeted raids.  That's similar to what's in
> place now.  So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
> unless you put more feet on the ground.
>
> The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
> be to simply make the penalties stiffer.  That makes all the sense in
> the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Have you spent much time near the border?  It's not
> >> one-dimensional.  If you mean you would treat it as a
> >> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine.  What
> >> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
> >> two-dimensional problem.  They nab most of the illegals several
> >> miles away from the border.
>
> > I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
> > present implementation.  IMO, that's faulty logic.  The reason it's
> > a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
> > a sieve because we cannot secure it.
>
> >> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
> >> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
> >> defensive line.  :)
>
> > Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
> > the game accordingly.
>
> All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
> coming through.  The government clearly feels that, given their current
> workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
> the border.  They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
> there is at the level of single patrol agents.  And if you don't have
> that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Holey smokes, Mark... One more time... I want the government OUT of
the business. If it is run in the private sector it would cost the
american tax payer less for a better job. Yes, it would still be
funded by tax money, but it would be administrated and staffed by
professionals and not criminal slobs with their palms out to be
greased. And please dont tell me that is impossibe to keep people from
taking bribes. Go watch how a casino is run. I am telling you with
a budged of under 3 billion the US-Mexican boarder can be closed so
long as it is not a Federal Government opperation.


== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:21 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:19 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Remy McSwain wrote:
>>> Innews:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com,
>>> MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> But they haven't. It's already very difficult for many of them
>>>> to get jobs. And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
>>>> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
>>>> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
>>>> difficult for them to get jobs. So, although nobody explicitly
>>>> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
>>>> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
>>> Again, we funadmentally disagee. First of all, you're talking about
>>> jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
>>> only one component. Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
>>> sole solution. Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
>>> them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so. One
>>> of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
>>> that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
>>> numbers even after remedial measures are put in place. IOW, if we
>>> had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
>>> level. So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
>>> arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
>>> we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
>>> That's not how it works. If we severly punished emplyers at any
>>> level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
>>> it would drop significanty. So as more and more illegals are driven
>>> to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
>>> and more of them could be deported. Moreover, no matter how bad
>>> things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
>>> of getting either a job, or social services.
>> I understand. You're talking about it becoming a deterrent. But,
>> again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
>> ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
>> an *effective* deterrent. The savings you'd get from having fewer
>> illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
>> have to have a broad sweeping investigation. The more cost effective
>> (but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
>> sort. Random sweeps and targeted raids. That's similar to what's in
>> place now. So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
>> unless you put more feet on the ground.
>>
>> The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
>> be to simply make the penalties stiffer. That makes all the sense in
>> the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Have you spent much time near the border? It's not
>>>> one-dimensional. If you mean you would treat it as a
>>>> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine. What
>>>> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
>>>> two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
>>>> miles away from the border.
>>> I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
>>> present implementation. IMO, that's faulty logic. The reason it's
>>> a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
>>> a sieve because we cannot secure it.
>>>> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
>>>> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
>>>> defensive line. :)
>>> Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
>>> the game accordingly.
>> All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
>> coming through. The government clearly feels that, given their current
>> workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
>> the border. They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
>> there is at the level of single patrol agents. And if you don't have
>> that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Holey smokes, Mark... One more time... I want the government OUT of
> the business. If it is run in the private sector it would cost the
> american tax payer less for a better job. Yes, it would still be
> funded by tax money, but it would be administrated and staffed by
> professionals and not criminal slobs with their palms out to be
> greased. And please dont tell me that is impossibe to keep people from
> taking bribes. Go watch how a casino is run. I am telling you with
> a budged of under 3 billion the US-Mexican boarder can be closed so
> long as it is not a Federal Government opperation.

I don't know why you think a private contractor would do much better
(not the private SECTOR... there's a difference -- namely, in the
market). What is it, specifically, about the private contractor that
you think would change things?


== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:26 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 30, 7:10 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 4:24 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 30, 2:13 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>>> <SNIP>
> >>>>> Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
> >>>>> recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
> >>>>> Deployment costs a lot of money.  Like I said, it would be the largest
> >>>>> project in human history.  IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
> >>>>> player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
> >>>>> a zillion times over.
> >>>> Well... I think  you are grossly overestimating things.  Not a zillion
> >>>> times over.  Lets do our own crude study and cost estimate.  How long
> >>>> is the boarder from Southern Cal to the bottom of Texas at the
> >>>> gulf ???  Figure this first.   Lets call 100 miles of boarder a
> >>>> "century post".  We'll afford say, 20 observers in towers, ten armed
> >>>> guys driving in cars,  one dispatcher, one "combat intelegence center
> >>>> guy" to look at an electronic map of the entire boarder for
> >>>> "happenings" and to communicate with other posts and one singe
> >>>> "century" manager to over see the his century post. Now.. Lets figure
> >>>> the salary and benifits for those 33 people in a century.  Well give
> >>>> 40k a year to the observers, 60k to the armed men, 40k a year to the
> >>>> dispatcher, 50k a year to the CIC guy and 100 a year to the head
> >>>> "Centurion" guy.  So... $1,590,000 in moneys paid for each 100 miles.
> >>>> Just man power.  Not for the patrol cars, training, buildings,
> >>>> electroinic stuff like computers and networks.  We can do that next.
> >>>> So...  Lets take $1,590,000 and x's it by how many "century posts"
> >>>> would be needed.  This should shed a bit of light on things.  I'll
> >>>> look into the boarder lengts when I het home from work.  I'm too busy
> >>>> to do it now :-)
> >>> OK.. Forget about work.... It's Friday...
> >>> The US-Mexico boarder is 3,169 miles long.  That would mean you need
> >>> 32 "century posts".
> >> hahahaha  do you know how long a mile is?
>
> >>>  So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
> >>> would be $50,880,000.  Not a daunting number.  Now.. I forgot one
> >>> thing.  We'll need three shifts for each post.  Tripple that to
> >>> $152,640,000.  That's peanuts.  Now, I know there are a lot of other
> >>> expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
> >>> about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
> >>> would take.  Just good organization of a well thought out system.  I
> >>> got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
> >>> British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
> >> Michael, you live in la la land.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You think it would be the most monumental undertaiking in history to
> > close a boarder and I live in la la land.
>
> Billions of dollars and counting, and the border is a sieve.  But you
> can do it with $500M and maybe some ham sandwiches.  Yes.  La la land.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark.... The point of my excercise was to get some actual perspective
on the size of the boarder and how many people you need to do the job.
I did use the word "CRUDE" I'm only trying to show you that your
view of it being the most monumental task in world history is badly
out of allignment. How may people do you think you need to watch over
100 miles of boarder ??? Are you expecting whordes of peple to make a
mad rush at one time.


== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:33 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 30, 7:21 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 5:19 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Remy McSwain wrote:
> >>> Innews:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com,
> >>> MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>>> But they haven't.  It's already very difficult for many of them
> >>>> to get jobs.  And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
> >>>> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
> >>>> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
> >>>> difficult for them to get jobs.  So, although nobody explicitly
> >>>> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
> >>>> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
> >>> Again, we funadmentally disagee.  First of all, you're talking about
> >>> jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
> >>> only one component.  Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
> >>> sole solution.  Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
> >>> them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so.  One
> >>> of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
> >>> that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
> >>> numbers even after remedial measures are put in place.  IOW, if we
> >>> had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
> >>> level.  So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
> >>> arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
> >>> we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
> >>> That's not how it works.  If we severly punished emplyers at any
> >>> level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
> >>> it would drop significanty.  So as more and more illegals are driven
> >>> to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
> >>> and more of them could be deported.  Moreover, no matter how bad
> >>> things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
> >>> of getting either a job, or social services.
> >> I understand.  You're talking about it becoming a deterrent.  But,
> >> again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
> >> ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
> >> an *effective* deterrent.  The savings you'd get from having fewer
> >> illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
> >> have to have a broad sweeping investigation.  The more cost effective
> >> (but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
> >> sort.  Random sweeps and targeted raids.  That's similar to what's in
> >> place now.  So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
> >> unless you put more feet on the ground.
>
> >> The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
> >> be to simply make the penalties stiffer.  That makes all the sense in
> >> the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.
>
> >>>> Have you spent much time near the border?  It's not
> >>>> one-dimensional.  If you mean you would treat it as a
> >>>> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine.  What
> >>>> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
> >>>> two-dimensional problem.  They nab most of the illegals several
> >>>> miles away from the border.
> >>> I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
> >>> present implementation.  IMO, that's faulty logic.  The reason it's
> >>> a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
> >>> a sieve because we cannot secure it.
> >>>> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
> >>>> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
> >>>> defensive line.  :)
> >>> Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
> >>> the game accordingly.
> >> All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
> >> coming through.  The government clearly feels that, given their current
> >> workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
> >> the border.  They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
> >> there is at the level of single patrol agents.  And if you don't have
> >> that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Holey smokes, Mark... One more time... I want the government OUT of
> > the business.  If it is run in the private sector it would cost the
> > american tax payer less for a better job.  Yes, it would still be
> > funded  by tax money, but it would be administrated and staffed by
> > professionals and not criminal slobs with their palms out to be
> > greased. And please dont tell me that is impossibe to keep people from
> > taking bribes.  Go watch how a casino is run.   I am telling you with
> > a budged of under 3 billion the US-Mexican boarder can be closed so
> > long as it is not a Federal Government opperation.
>
> I don't know why you think a private contractor would do much better
> (not the private SECTOR... there's a difference -- namely, in the
> market).  What is it, specifically, about the private contractor that
> you think would change things?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It would be built fresh from the ground up. A tailor made system. No
old habbits. No culture of palms being greased. Award the job to the
CONTRACTOR that demonstrates the best plan.


== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:37 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:10 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 4:24 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2:13 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
>>>>>>> recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
>>>>>>> Deployment costs a lot of money. Like I said, it would be the largest
>>>>>>> project in human history. IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
>>>>>>> player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
>>>>>>> a zillion times over.
>>>>>> Well... I think you are grossly overestimating things. Not a zillion
>>>>>> times over. Lets do our own crude study and cost estimate. How long
>>>>>> is the boarder from Southern Cal to the bottom of Texas at the
>>>>>> gulf ??? Figure this first. Lets call 100 miles of boarder a
>>>>>> "century post". We'll afford say, 20 observers in towers, ten armed
>>>>>> guys driving in cars, one dispatcher, one "combat intelegence center
>>>>>> guy" to look at an electronic map of the entire boarder for
>>>>>> "happenings" and to communicate with other posts and one singe
>>>>>> "century" manager to over see the his century post. Now.. Lets figure
>>>>>> the salary and benifits for those 33 people in a century. Well give
>>>>>> 40k a year to the observers, 60k to the armed men, 40k a year to the
>>>>>> dispatcher, 50k a year to the CIC guy and 100 a year to the head
>>>>>> "Centurion" guy. So... $1,590,000 in moneys paid for each 100 miles.
>>>>>> Just man power. Not for the patrol cars, training, buildings,
>>>>>> electroinic stuff like computers and networks. We can do that next.
>>>>>> So... Lets take $1,590,000 and x's it by how many "century posts"
>>>>>> would be needed. This should shed a bit of light on things. I'll
>>>>>> look into the boarder lengts when I het home from work. I'm too busy
>>>>>> to do it now :-)
>>>>> OK.. Forget about work.... It's Friday...
>>>>> The US-Mexico boarder is 3,169 miles long. That would mean you need
>>>>> 32 "century posts".
>>>> hahahaha do you know how long a mile is?
>>>>> So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
>>>>> would be $50,880,000. Not a daunting number. Now.. I forgot one
>>>>> thing. We'll need three shifts for each post. Tripple that to
>>>>> $152,640,000. That's peanuts. Now, I know there are a lot of other
>>>>> expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
>>>>> about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
>>>>> would take. Just good organization of a well thought out system. I
>>>>> got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
>>>>> British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
>>>> Michael, you live in la la land.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> You think it would be the most monumental undertaiking in history to
>>> close a boarder and I live in la la land.
>> Billions of dollars and counting, and the border is a sieve. But you
>> can do it with $500M and maybe some ham sandwiches. Yes. La la land.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Mark.... The point of my excercise was to get some actual perspective
> on the size of the boarder and how many people you need to do the job.
> I did use the word "CRUDE" I'm only trying to show you that your
> view of it being the most monumental task in world history is badly
> out of allignment. How may people do you think you need to watch over
> 100 miles of boarder ??? Are you expecting whordes of peple to make a
> mad rush at one time.

Michael, you're treating things like a football game with well-defined
rules. You're living in the hypothetical world. The real world does
not work that way. According to your model, there are presently more
than enough INS agents to pull off what you would pull off. Yet it
doesn't work. Them's the facts. Therefore, your model is broken. Time
to adopt a new one.


== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:38 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:21 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 5:19 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Remy McSwain wrote:
>>>>> Innews:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbWnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com,
>>>>> MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>>> But they haven't. It's already very difficult for many of them
>>>>>> to get jobs. And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
>>>>>> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
>>>>>> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
>>>>>> difficult for them to get jobs. So, although nobody explicitly
>>>>>> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
>>>>>> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
>>>>> Again, we funadmentally disagee. First of all, you're talking about
>>>>> jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
>>>>> only one component. Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
>>>>> sole solution. Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
>>>>> them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so. One
>>>>> of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
>>>>> that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
>>>>> numbers even after remedial measures are put in place. IOW, if we
>>>>> had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
>>>>> level. So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
>>>>> arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
>>>>> we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
>>>>> That's not how it works. If we severly punished emplyers at any
>>>>> level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
>>>>> it would drop significanty. So as more and more illegals are driven
>>>>> to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
>>>>> and more of them could be deported. Moreover, no matter how bad
>>>>> things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
>>>>> of getting either a job, or social services.
>>>> I understand. You're talking about it becoming a deterrent. But,
>>>> again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
>>>> ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
>>>> an *effective* deterrent. The savings you'd get from having fewer
>>>> illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
>>>> have to have a broad sweeping investigation. The more cost effective
>>>> (but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
>>>> sort. Random sweeps and targeted raids. That's similar to what's in
>>>> place now. So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
>>>> unless you put more feet on the ground.
>>>> The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
>>>> be to simply make the penalties stiffer. That makes all the sense in
>>>> the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.
>>>>>> Have you spent much time near the border? It's not
>>>>>> one-dimensional. If you mean you would treat it as a
>>>>>> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine. What
>>>>>> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
>>>>>> two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
>>>>>> miles away from the border.
>>>>> I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
>>>>> present implementation. IMO, that's faulty logic. The reason it's
>>>>> a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
>>>>> a sieve because we cannot secure it.
>>>>>> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
>>>>>> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
>>>>>> defensive line. :)
>>>>> Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
>>>>> the game accordingly.
>>>> All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
>>>> coming through. The government clearly feels that, given their current
>>>> workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
>>>> the border. They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
>>>> there is at the level of single patrol agents. And if you don't have
>>>> that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Holey smokes, Mark... One more time... I want the government OUT of
>>> the business. If it is run in the private sector it would cost the
>>> american tax payer less for a better job. Yes, it would still be
>>> funded by tax money, but it would be administrated and staffed by
>>> professionals and not criminal slobs with their palms out to be
>>> greased. And please dont tell me that is impossibe to keep people from
>>> taking bribes. Go watch how a casino is run. I am telling you with
>>> a budged of under 3 billion the US-Mexican boarder can be closed so
>>> long as it is not a Federal Government opperation.
>> I don't know why you think a private contractor would do much better
>> (not the private SECTOR... there's a difference -- namely, in the
>> market). What is it, specifically, about the private contractor that
>> you think would change things?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It would be built fresh from the ground up. A tailor made system. No
> old habbits. No culture of palms being greased. Award the job to the
> CONTRACTOR that demonstrates the best plan.

I use the word "specifically" and you speak in vague terms..

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Holmes crap is starting...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2241577d45e9979d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:27 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Glenn Greenstein" <lexa695@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:79746093-ffdf-407e-988a-6e7bda3cf73f@t21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 1:52 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> If the story is true, this guy must really be braindead. Rookie camp
> started today, and
> Holmes is acting like he's readying himself for Kindergarten. The guy
> plainly doesn't get
> it. The Jets may need to hire a chaperone for this guy.
>
> Report: 'Disruptive' Jets receiver Holmes escorted off flight in
> Pittsburgh
> NYPOST.COM STAFF
> Last Updated: 1:38 PM, April 30, 2010
> Posted: 12:00 PM, April 30, 2010
>
> New Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes had to be escorted off a plane
> Thursday night at
> Pittsburgh International Airport, according to television station WPXI.
>
> The report says, "Investigators said it the incident happened shortly
> after 9 p.m. They
> said Holmes wasn't arrested but was escorted off the plane for what
> investigators call
> being a 'disruptive passenger.'"
>
> Holmes was on a flight from Newark to Pittsburgh.
>
> KDKA TV in Pittsburgh reports, "Holmes was apparently told he had to turn
> off his iPod,
> but he refused -- at which time he was removed from the flight. After he
> spoke with
> officials, he said he understood and was allowed back on the plane."
>
> Sources told The Post that Holmes was on his way to Las Vegas to see the
> Floyd
> Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight.
>
> Jets coach Rex Ryan said today he has not spoken to Holmes but planned to
> call him.
>
> "Sounds like it was kind of blown out of proportion by some media
> outlets," Ryan said.
> "Don't think it's as big as it was made out to be."
>
> Ryan did say, "Yes, he should have turned off his iPod."
>
> Holmes, 26, is suspended for the first four games of this coming season
> for violating the
> NFL's drug policy.
>
> The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII was traded by the Steelers to the Jets this
> month in exchange
> for a fifth-round draft pick. After the trade, Steelers president Art
> Rooney II said,
> "Clearly, Santonio is a very talented football player, but his multiple
> violations of
> league policies and the additional off-the-field problems led us to
> conclude that it would
> be in the best interest of our organization to part ways."
>
> This winter, Holmes was involved in an altercation in a Florida night club
> when he was
> accused of throwing a glass at a woman. WPXI says, "In 2008, Holmes was
> arrested for
> possession of marijuana, and he was involved in a domestic violence
> incident in 2006. The
> misdemeanor charges were dismissed."
>
> At his introduction with the Jets, Holmes said repeatedly he was ready to
> take
> responsibility for his behavior.
>
> "I'm just accountable for my actions, and right now, I'm accountable for
> what happened and
> I'm ready to move forward to start a new career here with the Jets,"
> Holmes said on April
> 12.
>
> Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum said then the Jets made the deal with Pittsburgh
> "with our eyes
> wide open."
>
> "We understand there are significant risks, but we thought the price was
> reasonable and
> the risk was reasonable," Tannenbaum said.
>
> Tannenbaum said the Jets were willing to gamble on Holmes because the club
> feels it has a
> strong support system in place and that a player of Holmes' caliber would
> not have been
> available without off-field issues.

Some how I don't think not powering down an Ipod on a plain when asked
to are grounds for dismissal, I mean I have seen people making phone
calls during take off and not get escorted off a plain even after they
ignored the attendant and continued the conversation.

Me too....so what else is happening here?


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:36 pm
From: Glenn Greenstein


On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Deadmeat <no...@home.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/2010 2:40 PM, Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 1:52 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com>  wrote:
> >> If the story is true, this guy must really be braindead.  Rookie camp started today, and
> >> Holmes is acting like he's readying himself for Kindergarten.  The guy plainly doesn't get
> >> it.  The Jets may need to hire a chaperone for this guy.
>
> >> Report: 'Disruptive' Jets receiver Holmes escorted off flight in Pittsburgh
> >> NYPOST.COM STAFF
> >> Last Updated: 1:38 PM, April 30, 2010
> >> Posted: 12:00 PM, April 30, 2010
>
> >> New Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes had to be escorted off a plane Thursday night at
> >> Pittsburgh International Airport, according to television station WPXI.
>
> >> The report says, "Investigators said it the incident happened shortly after 9 p.m. They
> >> said Holmes wasn't arrested but was escorted off the plane for what investigators call
> >> being a 'disruptive passenger.'"
>
> >> Holmes was on a flight from Newark to Pittsburgh.
>
> >> KDKA TV in Pittsburgh reports, "Holmes was apparently told he had to turn off his iPod,
> >> but he refused -- at which time he was removed from the flight. After he spoke with
> >> officials, he said he understood and was allowed back on the plane."
>
> >> Sources told The Post that Holmes was on his way to Las Vegas to see the Floyd
> >> Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight.
>
> >> Jets coach Rex Ryan said today he has not spoken to Holmes but planned to call him.
>
> >> "Sounds like it was kind of blown out of proportion by some media outlets," Ryan said.
> >> "Don't think it's as big as it was made out to be."
>
> >> Ryan did say, "Yes, he should have turned off his iPod."
>
> >> Holmes, 26, is suspended for the first four games of this coming season for violating the
> >> NFL's drug policy.
>
> >> The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII was traded by the Steelers to the Jets this month in exchange
> >> for a fifth-round draft pick. After the trade, Steelers president Art Rooney II said,
> >> "Clearly, Santonio is a very talented football player, but his multiple violations of
> >> league policies and the additional off-the-field problems led us to conclude that it would
> >> be in the best interest of our organization to part ways."
>
> >> This winter, Holmes was involved in an altercation in a Florida night club when he was
> >> accused of throwing a glass at a woman. WPXI says, "In 2008, Holmes was arrested for
> >> possession of marijuana, and he was involved in a domestic violence incident in 2006. The
> >> misdemeanor charges were dismissed."
>
> >> At his introduction with the Jets, Holmes said repeatedly he was ready to take
> >> responsibility for his behavior.
>
> >> "I'm just accountable for my actions, and right now, I'm accountable for what happened and
> >> I'm ready to move forward to start a new career here with the Jets," Holmes said on April
> >> 12.
>
> >> Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum said then the Jets made the deal with Pittsburgh "with our eyes
> >> wide open."
>
> >> "We understand there are significant risks, but we thought the price was reasonable and
> >> the risk was reasonable," Tannenbaum said.
>
> >> Tannenbaum said the Jets were willing to gamble on Holmes because the club feels it has a
> >> strong support system in place and that a player of Holmes' caliber would not have been
> >> available without off-field issues.
>
> > Some how I don't think not powering down an Ipod on a plain when asked
> > to are grounds for dismissal, I mean I have seen people making phone
> > calls during take off and not get escorted off a plain even after they
> > ignored the attendant and continued the conversation.
>
> Well, if he was on a "plain" then it wouldn't have been a problem.
> However, it was on a plane...

Yeah, I noticed that after I hit send. Shoot me.


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 3:28 pm
From: Ritchie


On Apr 30, 2:40 pm, Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:52 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > If the story is true, this guy must really be braindead.  Rookie camp started today, and
> > Holmes is acting like he's readying himself for Kindergarten.  The guy plainly doesn't get
> > it.  The Jets may need to hire a chaperone for this guy.
>
> > Report: 'Disruptive' Jets receiver Holmes escorted off flight in Pittsburgh
> > NYPOST.COM STAFF
> > Last Updated: 1:38 PM, April 30, 2010
> > Posted: 12:00 PM, April 30, 2010
>
> > New Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes had to be escorted off a plane Thursday night at
> > Pittsburgh International Airport, according to television station WPXI.
>
> > The report says, "Investigators said it the incident happened shortly after 9 p.m. They
> > said Holmes wasn't arrested but was escorted off the plane for what investigators call
> > being a 'disruptive passenger.'"
>
> > Holmes was on a flight from Newark to Pittsburgh.
>
> > KDKA TV in Pittsburgh reports, "Holmes was apparently told he had to turn off his iPod,
> > but he refused -- at which time he was removed from the flight. After he spoke with
> > officials, he said he understood and was allowed back on the plane."
>
> > Sources told The Post that Holmes was on his way to Las Vegas to see the Floyd
> > Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight.
>
> > Jets coach Rex Ryan said today he has not spoken to Holmes but planned to call him.
>
> > "Sounds like it was kind of blown out of proportion by some media outlets," Ryan said.
> > "Don't think it's as big as it was made out to be."
>
> > Ryan did say, "Yes, he should have turned off his iPod."
>
> > Holmes, 26, is suspended for the first four games of this coming season for violating the
> > NFL's drug policy.
>
> > The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII was traded by the Steelers to the Jets this month in exchange
> > for a fifth-round draft pick. After the trade, Steelers president Art Rooney II said,
> > "Clearly, Santonio is a very talented football player, but his multiple violations of
> > league policies and the additional off-the-field problems led us to conclude that it would
> > be in the best interest of our organization to part ways."
>
> > This winter, Holmes was involved in an altercation in a Florida night club when he was
> > accused of throwing a glass at a woman. WPXI says, "In 2008, Holmes was arrested for
> > possession of marijuana, and he was involved in a domestic violence incident in 2006. The
> > misdemeanor charges were dismissed."
>
> > At his introduction with the Jets, Holmes said repeatedly he was ready to take
> > responsibility for his behavior.
>
> > "I'm just accountable for my actions, and right now, I'm accountable for what happened and
> > I'm ready to move forward to start a new career here with the Jets," Holmes said on April
> > 12.
>
> > Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum said then the Jets made the deal with Pittsburgh "with our eyes
> > wide open."
>
> > "We understand there are significant risks, but we thought the price was reasonable and
> > the risk was reasonable," Tannenbaum said.
>
> > Tannenbaum said the Jets were willing to gamble on Holmes because the club feels it has a
> > strong support system in place and that a player of Holmes' caliber would not have been
> > available without off-field issues.
>
> Some how I don't think not powering down an Ipod on a plain when asked
> to are grounds for dismissal, I mean I have seen people making phone
> calls during take off and not get escorted off a plain even after they
> ignored the attendant and continued the conversation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not the point. The point is that he has got to learn to follow
the rules just like others have to. He is not special, I already wish
he wasn't here. If its the airlines rule not to have devices on then
he should do what he is told. I wish he would have been arrested so
that Tanny, Ryan and Woody would have realized the mistake they made
by bringing this moron here. This guy is going to be nothing but
trouble unless he grows the hell up. Typical street/thug mentality.
And no I wouldn't like or cheer for him even if he caught the winning
TD in a SB for the Jets. I would cheer for Sanchez or whoever the QB
that threw the TD was.


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 3:37 pm
From: Deadmeat


On 4/30/2010 5:36 PM, Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Deadmeat<no...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2010 2:40 PM, Glenn Greenstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 1:52 pm, buRford<buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>>> If the story is true, this guy must really be braindead. Rookie camp started today, and
>>>> Holmes is acting like he's readying himself for Kindergarten. The guy plainly doesn't get
>>>> it. The Jets may need to hire a chaperone for this guy.
>>
>>>> Report: 'Disruptive' Jets receiver Holmes escorted off flight in Pittsburgh
>>>> NYPOST.COM STAFF
>>>> Last Updated: 1:38 PM, April 30, 2010
>>>> Posted: 12:00 PM, April 30, 2010
>>
>>>> New Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes had to be escorted off a plane Thursday night at
>>>> Pittsburgh International Airport, according to television station WPXI.
>>
>>>> The report says, "Investigators said it the incident happened shortly after 9 p.m. They
>>>> said Holmes wasn't arrested but was escorted off the plane for what investigators call
>>>> being a 'disruptive passenger.'"
>>
>>>> Holmes was on a flight from Newark to Pittsburgh.
>>
>>>> KDKA TV in Pittsburgh reports, "Holmes was apparently told he had to turn off his iPod,
>>>> but he refused -- at which time he was removed from the flight. After he spoke with
>>>> officials, he said he understood and was allowed back on the plane."
>>
>>>> Sources told The Post that Holmes was on his way to Las Vegas to see the Floyd
>>>> Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight.
>>
>>>> Jets coach Rex Ryan said today he has not spoken to Holmes but planned to call him.
>>
>>>> "Sounds like it was kind of blown out of proportion by some media outlets," Ryan said.
>>>> "Don't think it's as big as it was made out to be."
>>
>>>> Ryan did say, "Yes, he should have turned off his iPod."
>>
>>>> Holmes, 26, is suspended for the first four games of this coming season for violating the
>>>> NFL's drug policy.
>>
>>>> The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII was traded by the Steelers to the Jets this month in exchange
>>>> for a fifth-round draft pick. After the trade, Steelers president Art Rooney II said,
>>>> "Clearly, Santonio is a very talented football player, but his multiple violations of
>>>> league policies and the additional off-the-field problems led us to conclude that it would
>>>> be in the best interest of our organization to part ways."
>>
>>>> This winter, Holmes was involved in an altercation in a Florida night club when he was
>>>> accused of throwing a glass at a woman. WPXI says, "In 2008, Holmes was arrested for
>>>> possession of marijuana, and he was involved in a domestic violence incident in 2006. The
>>>> misdemeanor charges were dismissed."
>>
>>>> At his introduction with the Jets, Holmes said repeatedly he was ready to take
>>>> responsibility for his behavior.
>>
>>>> "I'm just accountable for my actions, and right now, I'm accountable for what happened and
>>>> I'm ready to move forward to start a new career here with the Jets," Holmes said on April
>>>> 12.
>>
>>>> Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum said then the Jets made the deal with Pittsburgh "with our eyes
>>>> wide open."
>>
>>>> "We understand there are significant risks, but we thought the price was reasonable and
>>>> the risk was reasonable," Tannenbaum said.
>>
>>>> Tannenbaum said the Jets were willing to gamble on Holmes because the club feels it has a
>>>> strong support system in place and that a player of Holmes' caliber would not have been
>>>> available without off-field issues.
>>
>>> Some how I don't think not powering down an Ipod on a plain when asked
>>> to are grounds for dismissal, I mean I have seen people making phone
>>> calls during take off and not get escorted off a plain even after they
>>> ignored the attendant and continued the conversation.
>>
>> Well, if he was on a "plain" then it wouldn't have been a problem.
>> However, it was on a plane...
>
> Yeah, I noticed that after I hit send. Shoot me.

I know, it was a mistake, plane and simple.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:14 pm
From: A J

>
> Well, if he was on a "plain" then it wouldn't have been a problem.
> However, it was on a plane...

First, I must thank the spelling police for their diligence (sp?)

Having said that, I agree with Glenn, this seems almost contrived.

I have been reprimanded, personally, for failing to cease cell phone
use,
but I've never been escorted.

I must say, it's curious to me that, apparently, the flight originated
in Newark,
I believe, but it wasn't until Pitt that the problem arose.

He wasn't arrested, so he committed no crime. he was only made to take
the
perp walk, so to speak.

I guess he respected all regulations in N J, but decided to behave
differently
in Pittsburgh.

I'm not sure exactly where the truth lies, but I have to think this is
being
hyped, to at least some degree.

I also see a benefit to the Pitt organization as the Pitt fans read
this chronicle with their
morning coffee.

Politics, possibly?

Just my opinion.............

A J


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 4:34 pm
From: buRford


On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:52:57 -0400, buRford <buRford@buR.ford.com> wrote:

>If the story is true, this guy must really be braindead. Rookie camp started today, and
>Holmes is acting like he's readying himself for Kindergarten. The guy plainly doesn't get
>it. The Jets may need to hire a chaperone for this guy.
>
>
>Report: 'Disruptive' Jets receiver Holmes escorted off flight in Pittsburgh
>NYPOST.COM STAFF
>Last Updated: 1:38 PM, April 30, 2010
>Posted: 12:00 PM, April 30, 2010
>
>
>New Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes had to be escorted off a plane Thursday night at
>Pittsburgh International Airport, according to television station WPXI.
>
>The report says, "Investigators said it the incident happened shortly after 9 p.m. They
>said Holmes wasn't arrested but was escorted off the plane for what investigators call
>being a 'disruptive passenger.'"
>
>Holmes was on a flight from Newark to Pittsburgh.
>
>KDKA TV in Pittsburgh reports, "Holmes was apparently told he had to turn off his iPod,
>but he refused -- at which time he was removed from the flight. After he spoke with
>officials, he said he understood and was allowed back on the plane."
>
>Sources told The Post that Holmes was on his way to Las Vegas to see the Floyd
>Mayweather-Shane Mosley fight.
>
>Jets coach Rex Ryan said today he has not spoken to Holmes but planned to call him.
>
>"Sounds like it was kind of blown out of proportion by some media outlets," Ryan said.
>"Don't think it's as big as it was made out to be."
>
>Ryan did say, "Yes, he should have turned off his iPod."
>
>Holmes, 26, is suspended for the first four games of this coming season for violating the
>NFL's drug policy.
>
>The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII was traded by the Steelers to the Jets this month in exchange
>for a fifth-round draft pick. After the trade, Steelers president Art Rooney II said,
>"Clearly, Santonio is a very talented football player, but his multiple violations of
>league policies and the additional off-the-field problems led us to conclude that it would
>be in the best interest of our organization to part ways."
>
>This winter, Holmes was involved in an altercation in a Florida night club when he was
>accused of throwing a glass at a woman. WPXI says, "In 2008, Holmes was arrested for
>possession of marijuana, and he was involved in a domestic violence incident in 2006. The
>misdemeanor charges were dismissed."
>
>At his introduction with the Jets, Holmes said repeatedly he was ready to take
>responsibility for his behavior.
>
>"I'm just accountable for my actions, and right now, I'm accountable for what happened and
>I'm ready to move forward to start a new career here with the Jets," Holmes said on April
>12.
>
>Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum said then the Jets made the deal with Pittsburgh "with our eyes
>wide open."
>
>"We understand there are significant risks, but we thought the price was reasonable and
>the risk was reasonable," Tannenbaum said.
>
>Tannenbaum said the Jets were willing to gamble on Holmes because the club feels it has a
>strong support system in place and that a player of Holmes' caliber would not have been
>available without off-field issues.


Mea Culpa!
I did what I normally don't do... jump to conclusions, based on a media report.
Turns out Holmes did comply with the request to turn off his iPod.

... walkin' off with tail between legs (a softball) ...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Santonio in the news....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/20776e5fd056484c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:32 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article
<4cfa13ad-e43e-4b2f-9aed-d4e3b3327ead@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote:

> A few sorces including 1050 ESPN reporting an incident involving
> Santonio. Innitial reports say he refused to turn of an electronic
> device while on a flight to Las Vegas. Police spoke with him and
> filed a report after he left the aircraft.
>
> Obviously, Santonio things rules are for the rest of us and not him.
>
> This guy is gonna be nothing but trouble.

Strike two.

I think not.

Worth a number five pick but unlikely he will get it in time.

harlan


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 3:28 pm
From: Ritchie


On Apr 30, 1:51 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> A few sorces including 1050 ESPN reporting an incident involving
> Santonio.  Innitial reports say he refused to turn of an electronic
> device while on a flight to Las Vegas.  Police spoke with him and
> filed a report after he left the aircraft.
>
> Obviously, Santonio things rules are for the rest of us and not him.
>
> This guy is gonna be nothing but trouble.

Agreed 1000%!!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Classic Belichick Quotes on the Draft
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/febf7036472e6cdd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:47 pm
From: Glenn Greenstein


On Apr 30, 5:11 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Innews:3a544f75-cece-4f82-8128-a6c17ab93557@y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
> Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 1:27 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Glenn Greenstein wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 11:06 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Innews:40cd0c03-f228-4c45-99fb-c22e0df7a321@i10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>
> >>>> Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Innews:6919f352-1657-45d4-bedc-62a3877a6c77@i10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>
> >>>>>> Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:53 pm,
> >>>>>>> Boy...@BOS001428.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--
> >>>>>>> so-tickle-me wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Glenn Greenstein <lexa...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>> The reason you are a fan and why you even watch games is
> >>>>>>>>> to be entertained. the draft and all the little things
> >>>>>>>>> written and said to fans by the media and the CS is also
> >>>>>>>>> done pure and simply for entertainment value so it is
> >>>>>>>>> fair to say that BB is in the entertainment business as
> >>>>>>>>> much as he is in the pro-football business. I want to be
> >>>>>>>>> entertained.
>
> >>>>>>>> How is this true? Its a coach's job to entertain us with
> >>>>>>>> his words? Is it the player's job to do the same when
> >>>>>>>> they are being interviewed as well?
>
> >>>>>>>> The thing I want is a very serious football player that is
> >>>>>>>> ready to do whatever it takes to win on Sunday. And then,
> >>>>>>>> with that, I'm entertained. I'm entertained because of
> >>>>>>>> the rawness of the competition, not because Chad ocho
> >>>>>>>> cinco does something funny after catching a ball.
>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Galen Boyer
>
> >>>>>>>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
> >>>>>>>> n...@netfront.net ---
>
> >>>>>>> And what you just described is entertaining and I
> >>>>>>> personally am entertained by that, not when a HC thinks he
> >>>>>>> is so far above everyone in an ivory tower that he answers
> >>>>>>> a question in a way that makes you think he thinks
> >>>>>>> everyone in the audience and in the room are so far
> >>>>>>> beneath him that he can throw you any kind of crumbs and
> >>>>>>> you will say "Thank you sir, may I have another".
>
> >>>>>> WOW! I have a feeling that you're very easily offended. The
> >>>>>> fact that he doesn't want the public to know more than he
> >>>>>> does may well be for many different reasons. Why would you
> >>>>>> assume that it's because he thinks he's above everyone else?
>
> >>>>> Actually Remy, I think you have been immersed in BB's shit so
> >>>>> long that you can't tell when he is being rude or not. There
> >>>>> are ways of telling you something without belittling someone.
> >>>>> Stating the obvious when you answer a question is rude unless
> >>>>> you think you are speaking to a moron. When BB was asked how
> >>>>> the draft went, what would have been wrong with answering
> >>>>> like this. "It was fine. As you all know the draft takes a
> >>>>> few years to realize how you did but we made what we felt
> >>>>> were the best choices for the team".
> >>>>> See what I mean. That is also stating the obvious and give
> >>>>> zero insight to what the Pats were thinking going in and how
> >>>>> they did but without stating the obvious.
>
> >>>> OK, Glenn. I frankly don't see how your wording would've been
> >>>> any less insulting by your own standards. Either stating the
> >>>> obvious is rude because it assumes that the audience is too
> >>>> ignorant to see that it's a non-answer in disguise, or it's
> >>>> not. Therefore, I could make just as good a case that your
> >>>> wording is just as insulting.
>
> >>>> Anyway, I'm done beating this one around. As Galen said, when
> >>>> you take the whole body of the guys work on EEI, and on All
> >>>> Patriots Access, and in other forums, he comes off as
> >>>> anything but condescending. He's entertaining, humorous, and
> >>>> very informative.
>
> >>>> But if passionate fans of arch-rival teams who envy the three
> >>>> SB rings he's earned partially at their team's expense, while
> >>>> it's been forever since their own team has even gotten to the
> >>>> game where they can win one for themselves, want to see him
> >>>> as condescending, then I guess they can find a way to do it.
> >>>> :-)
>
> >>> Oh, I just love it when you Pat fans play the jealousy card. I
> >>> should be telling you that is getting old as well. How long
> >>> has it been since your team won a playoff game let alone a SB?
>
> >> You must be a hoot at parties. Lighten up, Glenn. This is all
> >> about "entertainment", remember? It's not about health care,
> >> education, or war. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!
>
> > Yeah, you accuse me of having ring envy and I should lighten up.
>
> Glenn, I didn't 'accuse' you of anything.  I suggested some aspect
> of human nature in a very lighthearted way.  Maybe you should stop
> thinking that everyone is out to insult or attack you in some way.
> BB wasn't insulting you by refusing to answer questions that he
> either thinks are silly, or because he doesn't want to divulge
> certain information.  I wasn't "accusing" you of anything at all
> except to boast a little bit about the Pats 3 rings, and that maybe
> your view of BB would be skewed a little by the fact that the 3 X SB
> winning Pats are an arch-rival of the Jets.  It's just human nature,
> and even then, I said it all in the spirit of the fun that people
> have with "entertaining" sports.
>
> If that offended you, then I'm not really sorry.  Instead, maybe you
> should just realize that the whole "my team is better than your
> team" is just a good natured part of the "entertainment" value of
> sports.  After all, I didn't say nothin about yo Momma, did I?
> REally, Glenn.  Accused?  Really?

Remey, I'm going to give you a pass here. You are new to this place
and probably don't know the majority of Pat fans that come here are
assholes who make boasts of how great the Pats are and how the Jets
are just a bunch of slugs. We even have a nice contingent that bash NY
itself, one in particular that says he doesn't even consider NY part
of the USA.
If you are going to be a good contributing poster, then I welcome you
and hope to have a lot of good give and take with you as I do with
MZ.
Sorry if I misjudged you, it's just I'm a rude fucking NYer ;-)
Oh, and I still think BB is a conceded ass :-p


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC