Think it's bad on Amtrak? You should see what they do to private pilots departing the southwestern states for destinations in the North and Midwest. Many innocent folks have been greeted at gunpoint upon landing at their destination or a fuel stop along the way. It's profiling and Gestapo tactics pure and simple.
Norm
Take this for what it's worth...
I used to have a lot of friends and aquaintances in the law enforcement community. The word was the DEA personnel were the bottom of the barrel as far as Federal law enforcement were concerned, i.e. they were the ones who couldn't make it in the FBI, the BATF, the Secret Service, and other agencies.
Not that the local cops I knew had much use for the Feds anyway. Their opinions went like this:
The FBI: Great lawyers and scientists, lousy cops.
The BATF: Great bookkeepers, lousy cops.
The others didn't matter.
Again, take it for what it's worth. And if I've offended anyone I sincerely apologize, just passing on what I heard years ago.
We're also only hearing one side of the story, as well.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Most of these type actions revolve around the concept of 'civil forfeiture' which is being used against 'organized' drug operations - with dire consequences to civil liberties of innocents. This is happening in all forms of transportation - public and private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don't believe that there can be any doubt that the impact of enforcement in the war on drugs has become in every way worse than the evil it was designed to irradicate.
Based on numerous accounts over time, I've come to the conclusion that some "law enforcement officers" (I use the term loosely in this case) view civil forfeiture laws as a bank from which they can make withdrawals. Need some money for some new wizbang? Just bust some "suspicious" individual and keep what he's got - fancy car, wad of cash in his wallet, you-name-it.
It doesn't matter that he pays his employees in cash and just came from the bank after picking up the payroll (which used to be a very common practice). If he's carrying a large amount of money, he "must" be a drug dealer...
That's not to say that all LEOs are similarly corrupt - but it only takes a few to besmirch the reputations of the many.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It requires an adjustment in your thinking. But suppose -- just suppose -- the federal government has become our active enemy. That would make their various cops, in whatever department, its enforcers -- and also our enemies.
A couple of happenings in the 1990s -- Ruby Ridge, Waco -- changed forever the way I look at federal cops. They're no better than the political hacks, imperfectly trained in the Bill of Rights, who direct them.
Amtrak? The least of our police problems.
Well let's not go TOO far! I for one don't consider Federal law enforcement personnel "the enemy."
This is not to excuse the ones that are lacking in common sense, are "badge heavy", have too much of a "us versus them" worldview, or are what we used to call in the Marines "overly motivated." Every big organization's bound to have some losers in it who just slip through the cracks.
The thing is, when those losers are discovered they've got to be firmly dealt with, at least for the benefit of all the other concientious ones.
By the way, I'm surprised Amtraks own police put up with intrusions from other agencies. "Hey, this is OUR turf! Beat it!"
dakotafred It requires an adjustment in your thinking. But suppose -- just suppose -- the federal government has become our active enemy. That would make their various cops, in whatever department, its enforcers -- and also our enemies. A couple of happenings in the 1990s -- Ruby Ridge, Waco -- changed forever the way I look at federal cops. They're no better than the political hacks, imperfectly trained in the Bill of Rights, who direct them. Amtrak? The least of our police problems.
Waco was kicked off by a bunch of ATF "wannabe" macho knuckleheads who were trying to prove they were just as good as any other law enforcement agency. The guy they were after went to the ice cream shop every day, for pity's sake. ATF created a mess which the FBI tried to clean up, and that wasn't handled well either. It was embarrassing to be a Fed in those days.
dakotafredIt requires an adjustment in your thinking. But suppose -- just suppose -- the federal government has become our active enemy. That would make their various cops, in whatever department, its enforcers -- and also our enemies
To what extent have the results of all this policing been effective? Any statistics?
Firelock76The thing is, when those losers are discovered they've got to be firmly dealt with, at least for the benefit of all the other concientious ones.
That's really the worst part of it. When there is police wrongdoing, it is generally reviewed from within, and (seemingly) 99% of the time they cover their own, with determinations that involved officers acted within their "duty".
Sorry, But I've been the victim of "probable cause"less searches too often to believe that "just a few bad eggs" cause most of the problems.
Assembling probable cause from facts that were only discovered during a wrongful search, is a standard of operation which the judges seem only too happy to overlook if it gets them a nice juicy statistic.
I have no issues with searches or enforcement.. its the world we live in now and these folks have a job to do. Some could be a little friendlier though.. but what the heck.. I don't let it ruin my day. It's a tough call.. if the bad guys all had horns and fangs it would be so much easier.
Ulrich I have no issues with searches or enforcement.. its the world we live in now and these folks have a job to do. Some could be a little friendlier though.. but what the heck.. I don't let it ruin my day. It's a tough call.. if the bad guys all had horns and fangs it would be so much easier.
But when the bad guys wear badges.......
It's amazing how many people are willing to surrender their rights in order to gain some apparent safety. I can remember talking with a person who liked the arrangement in a Fascist state since he wouldn't have to worry about crime.
Not surrendering anything. Just choosing my battles. If its a search by a police officer or someone else who is clearly identified as law enforcement I'll put up with the inconvenience. What's the alternative? Getting mad and arguing won't change anything and will likely make matters worse. It's not as if I'm searched every day either.. I've gone through it a handful of times in 15 years. I don't object to airport searches either for the same reason. I think the longest search lasted 10 minutes..I was in a rental car in SC and a state trooper pulled me over. He asked for my license and passport.. asked me about my business in the US and then sent me on my way.. big deal.
BaltACD Ulrich I have no issues with searches or enforcement.. its the world we live in now and these folks have a job to do. Some could be a little friendlier though.. but what the heck.. I don't let it ruin my day. It's a tough call.. if the bad guys all had horns and fangs it would be so much easier. But when the bad guys wear badges.......
It's possible. We're all shaped by our experiences. I haven't met any bad ones yet but I'm not in touch with the police on a daily basis either. It's a tough call sometimes.
I agree with you about choosing your battles, but what if you had a large amount of cash on you when you were stopped in SC and the state trooper claimed it looked like drug money and confiscated it before sending you on your way? No other evidence, no arrest, just loss of your cash until you go to court and prove it was not drug money. When do you start your battle?... Before, during or after the fact?
Do it after the fact and you must spend a lot of time and money. Do it during and you face jail time for interference with official acts (or worse if the officer is trigger happy). Better to do it BEFORE by bringing the events that HAVE happened to the lime-light and get the Constitution enforced.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Good planning goes a long way... which is why I tend not to travel with alot of unexplained cash on me. I would look at someone with alot of cash on hand as suspicious too, and I'm not even in law enforcement. You tip the odds in your favor by anticipating problems and making sure the obvious questions are answered. Thus, unlike that lady in the article, I've got my passport with me.. along with my drivers' licence and any documentation that might show what I was doing in SC. Now even that might not be enough in some circumstances..
For what it's worth:
I was a juror. The suspect had $500 cash, the prosecutor said in his closing argument that that was an enormous amount to carry. I usually withdraw $200 when I visit an ATM, so I don't consider $500 enormous, just large.
I remember reading of a case where the cops confiscated a few tens of thousands in cash, and found traces of cocaine in the money, used that as indication that it was drug money. I can't remember the reason the judge tossed out that evidence, but maybe it was something on the lines of http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090816-cocaine-money.html "Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with cocaine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject."
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
That much cash will raise suspicion. 500 is alot to have on hand. I can't even remember the last time a spent cash...everything is debit or credit.
When I take a trip, I expect to leave cash as tips in hotel rooms and in diners, and I expect to possibly have to pay taxi fare in cash--for example,in New Orleans this spring I had to pay cash. So, before leaving, I withdraw what I feel may be necessary (I used to get Travelers Checks, but not every bank or credit union office now has them available, nor does every hotel accept them now).
Johnny
Travelers' checks...now that takes me back! A lot of folks today wouldn't have a clue as to what they were or how to use them. We probably still have the accompaying paperwork somewhere...We have never been accosted, frisked, searched, or asked embarrassing questions. We haven't flown, so that whole rigmarole hasn't affected us. On Amtrak, you know the security is there (why, one time a dog and her handler walked right past me!), but they do their job with competence and without inconveniencing people that don't deserve it. I've never felt insecure on an Amtrak ride, and on our grueling ride home we saw an unruly passenger peacably calmed down, but watched for the rest of the trip. (She was a piece of work...)It is usually easy enough to get the cash you need, so you don't have to supply yourself for an entire trip like you once did. We hit the savings account for cash every so often...normally we'd be knocking over ATMs, but our bank has no branches in California. But the banks keep our money until we need it...Do I sound idealistic? I hope not...but for us, this is reality.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I keep a Canadian quarter in my pocket in case my wife sends me to the store and I need a shopping cart.
UlrichI have no issues with searches or enforcement.. its the world we live in now and these folks have a job to do.
I'd like to see them make it a little more equitable.
For instance, whenever a cop asks to search me wih no probable cause, if he finds nothing then I should be allowed to search him in return. just for the annoyance factor and to see how they like having 30 minutes of their time wasted by a moron who can't tell the difference between probable cause and unfounded suspicion.
Jeez, if having $500 dollars or more in your pocket can get you in trouble I'd better watch myself. I've got at least that much, if not more on me when I go to an antique or train show.
I always pay cash at those things. It's instantly recognizable and always welcome.
PS: I tip in cash too. Us workin' stiffs have to look out for each other.
Here is a linked story posted in the Atlantic Magazine that expolres a side of the traveler searches on AMTRAK.
Linked @ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the-dea-harasses-amtrak-passengers/393230/
[snipped] "...Last year, theAssociated Press reported that the DEA “paid an Amtrak secretary $854,460 over nearly 20 years to obtain confidential information about train passengers, which the DEA could have lawfully obtained for free through a law enforcement network.” (This was reportedly done so that the DEA could avoid sharing seized assets with Amtrak police, which hints at how lucrative such seizures are.)
Around the same time, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request after getting reports about Amtrak passengers having their rights violated. “This type of targeting constitutes a significant invasion of personal privacy,” an attorney wrote in the accompanying memo. “It suggests that Amtrak is sharing the travel-related data of thousands of its passengers who have engaged in no wrongdoing...”[snip]
One aspect of these searches is the potential for the 'capturing agency' to gain,for its budget, the confiscatory aspect of the cash money found in the 'drug searches'.
Firelock76 Jeez, if having $500 dollars or more in your pocket can get you in trouble I'd better watch myself. I've got at least that much, if not more on me when I go to an antique or train show. I always pay cash at those things. It's instantly recognizable and always welcome. PS: I tip in cash too. Us workin' stiffs have to look out for each other.
I have emergency cash stowed away in my office in case my wife kicks me out and I have to Motel 6 it. Hasn't happened yet, but I believe in being prepared. Nothing (I'm told) like a trip to the dog house without some ready cash just in case. I'm not too worried about the cops.. I don't look like a user/dealer and seem to have a natural way of putting people (including the police) at ease..
UlrichI have emergency cash stowed away in my office in case my wife kicks me out and I have to Motel 6 it.
If you read emergency preparedness recommendations, most suggest having enough of everything (including cash) to get by for at least three days. For a family of four, that could amount to a fair amount of money, especially if you are faced with an evacuation situation where your cache at home isn't going to work out.
I could see someone keeping a stash of cash at work (assuming they have a place they can secure it) in case they aren't going to be able to hook up with their family right away in an emergency.
A good many folks have cash stowed in various places around their homes just so they have it available if they need cash and the bank isn't an option.
And there's a fellow I once knew who routinely had a grand in his wallet.
When I worked for Amtrak, I never saw an Amtrak Police Officer unduly harrass a passenger. Officers with dogs for drug or explosives detection were never intrusive. However, it appears that DEA officers are an entirely different story, and need to be reined in.
This whole issue involves serious Constitutional concerns regarding illegal search and seizure, invasions of privacy, etc. And since when is it up to the accused to prove his innocence? I thought it was up to his accusers to prove his guilt.
Whether or not you would personally carry a "large" (whatever that is) amount of cash, is irrelevant. The relevant point is that there is nothing inherently illegal about doing so, and the individual's reasons for doing so are nobody else's business unless there is OTHER probable cause for believing the cash has something to do with illegal activity. The exisence of the cash, in itself, is not proof of anything.
Tom
You're right ACY, maybe dead right. There's nothing illegal about carrying large amounts of cash or in acting in any manmer that might otherwise arouse suspicion. Just as there's nothing illegal about walking through a dangerous neighbourhood at 2:00 am. It's really nobody's business. But if I insist on walking through a dangerous neighbourhood at night and I'm attacked does it really matter if I was in the right when my throat was slit for 50 bucks? Personally I'd never want to be dead right like that. In the same way we need to anticipate and prepare. Our law enforcement people are imperfect, as are our laws and enforcement methods. In the long term we can change things through our political process. But in the here and now we need to be smart and practical instead of possibly dead right.
Ulrich ---
Yes, it would be foolish to carry money around in a very unsecured area where you might fall prey to a criminal.
But can you extend this logic to say you would be foolish to carry money around in a public area where you might fall prey to a law enforcement officer?
Not according to what they taught me in 5th grade.
Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate. None of us has any control over external events... heck, I don't even have control over what goes on in my own home alot of the time. All we really can do, from a realistic and practical standpoint, is to acknowledge reality and to stack the odds in our favor by taking actions that would minimize an unpleasant experience with imperfect people that include some in law enforcement. I do that by making sure I don't carry alot of cash on me, by making sure I'm clean and presentable, by making sure that I have more than enough documentation on me at all times to quel suspicion. Of course, none of that is foolproof.. I could still be thrown in jail or interogated. All I'm saying is that we can't change the world, we can only stack the deck in our favor by how we respond and by how we conduct ourselves.
zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5 Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free".
http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5
Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free".
Two observations:
1. The 'war on drugs' has been an almost total failure.
2. The police abuse described in the article is similar though milder to the harassment young minority males experience almost every day.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5 Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free". Two observations: 1. The 'war on drugs' has been an almost total failure. 2. The police abuse described in the article is similar though milder to the harassment young minority males experience almost every day.
I agree wholly with both points.
I couldn't believe it when suspending constitutional rights just because of suspicion of drugs was proposed, and besides innocent people being victimized, it has been used as an excuse after abuses have occurred ("We thought he was on drugs"). I think a lot of our stupid laws have been passed because politicians tend to fall all over themselves trying to prove that "I'm tougher on crime than you are."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
Not complaining; just an observation.
Not political..simply an interesting exercise in avoiding problems by accepting reality and only attempting to control what's actually within our control.
Norm48327Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason.
schlimm Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll. It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason.
Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
Agree 100%.
We'd damn well better be willing to "get political" about law enforcement, including on Amtrak and this forum, before we've abdicated our Fourth Amendment rights.
Carrying too much cash constitutes "probable cause"? The cops had better get that codified if they expect the rest of us to take it seriously (instead of our concluding cops are out of control). It sure would have been news to the Founders -- and to everyone else who came before credit cards and ATMs.
Norm48327 schlimm Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll. It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason. Agree 100%.
I've never had any problem ignoring him when I want to. I'm not sure why you guys have any problem with his or anyone else's posts. It's just like a bad TV program, I change the channel, or turn it off and read a book.
dakotafred We'd damn well better be willing to "get political" about law enforcement, including on Amtrak and this forum, before we've abdicated our Fourth Amendment rights. Carrying too much cash constitutes "probable cause"? The cops had better get that codified if they expect the rest of us to take it seriously (instead of our concluding cops are out of control). It sure would have been news to the Founders -- and to everyone else who came before credit cards and ATMs.
Unfortunately, the passage of any law by an elective political body ( at whatever level one chooses, is a patently political act, so politics are a major function of our real and functional daily lives.
Here is an intersting story from a google search: http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens
"Cops Can Confiscate Money And Property From Law Abiding Citizens"
"...How are they able to do this? Simple: large sums of money mean drug trafficking. Obviously. I mean who would carry $6,000 in a briefcase under the seat unless they were going to use it to buy a bunch of coke?.." [snipped]
Essentially, anyone could find themselves on a legitmate errand, and having large sums of cash in their custody; in the current legal environment, crossing paths with a government agent ( pick your own law enforcement entity) find themselves under suspicion pf some criminal activity. Subsequently, have the money in their custody, confiscated. The legal issues then become the responsibilitry, and costs, the burden of the injured pary to prove their innocence....
I don't agree that this conversation has turned into a political conversation, at least not in the sense of partisan politics. I'm not aware that either of the major parties has weighed in on the subject. Even the Libertarians are mostly silent. So no statement of opinion on this forum can be construed as support or opposition in respect to any party or viable candidate as far as I know.
Or am I missing something? I might make a political endorsement here, turning it into a political discussion, if I could figure out whom to support. Then would the moderators would have to shut it down?
Something of a conundrum.
You may support me as supreme ruler of the universe.
zugmann You may support me as supreme ruler of the universe.
I would, but I don't need a co-ruler.
samfp1943The legal issues then become the responsibilitry, and costs, the burden of the injured pary to prove their innocence....
And there lies the rub - constitutionally, you're innocent until proven guilty by the charging party. The problem with the whole forfeiture thing is that even once you're proven innocent, you're still "guilty" in the sense that the property that was seized is not returned to you...
zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5
I finally actually read the article.
While traveling on Amtrak from Chicago to Toronto the train was boarded by U.S. Customs agents
Do customs agents usually check outbound trips? Did the person mean Toronto to Chicago, or Canadian customs agents?
U.S. Customs Inspectors wouldn't care when he was leaving the United States. He was probably inspected by Canadian Customs at Sarnia, and their inspection procedure is not out of line.
Anyone actually consider the reason is because drug smugglers DO use Amtrak a lot. There's no TSA, no baggage searched before boarding. Its easy to move small amounts across country. For what its worth we were on a train where a drug mule was arrested in our car. He was a young single male traveling with a large bridal shower present...odd but the problem was that you could smell the weed! One of the passengers tipped off the crew. So when we pulled into Albuquerque the cops came in, questioned each passenger till they get to the perp, then they arrested him. The Amtrak personal told us the smuggling was a big problem, still is.
Have fun with your trains
In 1993 I drove from Toronto to Denver to take part in the Union Pacific Challenger fan trip... (a wonderful experience I might add, but I digress). On my way back through Canada Customs the agent asked me if I had bought anything while in the US that I wished to declare. I answered NO.. I hadn't bought a blessed thing other than food and gas the entire week I was there. The agent told me flat out that I was lying and told me to pull my car over to the inspection area. Four hours later... they had gone over my car with a fine toothed comb and found nothing. So much for innocent until proven guilty. But all in good stride.. I made it home a little later than anticipated but no harm done. Funny thing was that a month or so later I again made a trip to the US, and on my way back into Canada I had stupidly forgotten about a tenpack of beer I had left on the back seat of my car. The agent spotted the beer and laughed.. "can I have one of those?" he said.. I said sure.. take two. He took the beers and waved me through.. asked me nothing and wished me a nice day. It all depends on who you get.
The railroad police issue may be important, but it's not quite the same as the DEA's acting without probable cause, confiscating private property without proof of criminal activity, and denial of the basic right to the presumption of innocence.
There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to trespass on railroad property, so the railroad police seem to be, in general, on more solid legal ground.
Judging by the large amount of graffitti vandalism on railroad property I highly doubt that the railroad police are widely feared.
ACY The railroad police issue may be important, but it's not quite the same as the DEA's acting without probable cause, confiscating private property without proof of criminal activity, and denial of the basic right to the presumption of innocence. There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to trespass on railroad property, so the railroad police seem to be, in general, on more solid legal ground. Tom
I really know nothing about the behaviors of rail police, but private police don't get carte blanche with constitutional civil rights just because an alleged perp is on private property.
Not suggesting they do, or that they should. And neither should DEA.
Ulrich Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ...
Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ...
This and other posts by Ulrich on this thread are mature and common-sense. They describe the way a grownup negotiates an imperfect world ... knowing when to bend a principle for the sake of convenience.
But sometimes we must hold onto first principles. In the case of cash: Without a warrant, how does a cop get into your billfold or briefcase in the first place? I know we can be compelled -- except at the polls -- to show identification. But after that?
Is it enough if the cop spots a wad of bills in your wallet as you produce your driver's license? If so, that's an argument for carrying ID separately from your cash.
I would opine that in some areas/agencies, law enforcement is less law enforcement than it is a revenue source.
We've all heard of ticket quotas and how some municipalities rely on the income from traffic tickets for a part of their income. The folks who seize cash, vehicles, etc, often use the income from those seizures to buy the bells and whistles of their business.
And that right there is the problem. Take away that "benefit" and I'd imagine that such seizures would drop to near zero.
dakotafred Ulrich Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ... This and other posts by Ulrich on this thread are mature and common-sense. They describe the way a grownup negotiates an imperfect world ... knowing when to bend a principle for the sake of convenience. But sometimes we must hold onto first principles. In the case of cash: Without a warrant, how does a cop get into your billfold or briefcase in the first place? I know we can be compelled -- except at the polls -- to show identification. But after that? Is it enough if the cop spots a wad of bills in your wallet as you produce your driver's license? If so, that's an argument for carrying ID separately from your cash.
The Des Moines Register did an article a month or so back about state and local law enforcement using civil forfeiture in Iowa. IIRC, most of those seizures came about after someone was pulled over for a moving violation. The officer would ask if they could search the vehicle. The people thought since they had nothing to hide, it was OK to allow the officer to do the search.
Jeff
About 16 years ago, I took the Maple Leaf from NY to Toronto. At Niagra Falls, the train stopped and the train was searched, we were asked to move one car back while a sniffer dog went through the car including the overhead baggage racks. After we crossed the border, canadian customs came through and asked for our ID. There were no problems, and we departed for Toronto. As we rolled across Ontario, I got into a conversation with the crew and asked why as we were leaving the US did we get such an intensive search by the US. I was told that Canadian customs had found drugs on an earlier train and the US officials felt like they had been shown up and were not going to let that happen again.
Usually the customs posts are within sight of each other. You can bet that for every Canadian that is put through the ringer an equal amount of Americans are also put through and vice versa. They are watching each other. I've seen this at more than one border crossing.
[quote user="tree68"]
[/quote]
Larry(tree68):
There are any number of localities where 'Enfrocement activities" can be spotted on passing major highway routes (many Interstate junctioning areas). Officers just sitting in parked units 'monitoring' the passing parade of vehicles (usually they are 'profiling' the traffic on what have become 'known drug corridors'...Maybe it is the law enforcements 'successes' that have identified these routes as 'known drug corridors(?).
Memphis,Tenn has been one of those areas for a number of years, as well as Georgia in any number of rural locations. The 'success rate' is cataloged in local media, particularly when a notable 'bust' takes place. Large sums of money 'found'(confiscated) will be noted to fund local department needs in the continued "War on Drugs". The confiscated drugs (?) Who knows?
As long as the stream of Cash and Vehicles can be converted into ways to be used in the 'War on Drugs'; these activities will apparently continue to be a fact of daily life(?).
On a lighter note:
I've noticed, on this thread and others, how the advent of a certain restorative drug has changed the way many of us spell 'Niagara.'
Sam,
The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment was still in effect.
Whoops, My error, Should have typed Niagara. Dropped an a there. I forgot that Canadians like to say "a".
Norm48327The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment was still in effect.
Sure it is, in print anyway.
In practice the way it usually plays out usually follows one of two paths.
1) if the unmerited search yields no worthwile discovery, you are allowed to continue on your way and have a hard time proving your experience materially "harmed" you.
2) If they discover a prosecutable violation, you are cast into the posiion of "criminal" trying to explain that you are the victim of a bum rap. Not much sympathy for criminals these days. Even if the crime you are connected with ends up being something entirely different than what the investigation was originally seeking.
Norm48327 Sam, The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment was still in effect.
Norm: You are absolutey correct!
Maybe it is just my take on the current 'situation', but it seems that our current 'Administration(s?) seem to have been able to load it into wheelbarrows and they roll it around to where ever theyseem to want to use it; dump it out, using their 'interpretations' of what they think it now means. Since as a country we are not teaching American Government ( Social Studies?), and the History that is being 'taught' seems to be loosing a lot in the translation; between what History is being taught and the "History" taught to previous generations......
Wayne:(Firelock 76)
Equally, I also have a respect for Federal Law Enforcement Officers. Many of them are efficient, hardworking, and deserve the respect their offices and commitment deserve.
Personally, I would lay much of the 'problems' with "Government". It has grown much beyond what it was intended by the Founding Father's. I may be missinformed, but I think that government service was to be a priviledge and duty for citizens to participate in; and then return to their normal lives and functions, after a period of 'Service'. It seems that it functions now as a vehicle to get those Government Employees to survive twenty years and retire to a pension after completion of their employment.
My perception is sort of showcased in the VA. The government promises all who enter the uniformed services; a 'social contract' that if injued in that service, the individual will be cared for and made as 'whole' as possible; to live as useful life as they are able. The VA does a reasonable job of fulfilling that'social contract' with Vets who need those services. Except, in my opinion, The Bureaucrats seem to adopt a megalomaniacial view of their duty...The Veterans become the means by which the Bureaucracy grows itself by strength of its employment numbers...thus requiring more money for itself....shorting the pool of funds needed to provide for the veteran's medical needs. But that is just 'my take' on it.
Sam, are you a veteran? The VA has certain problems, going beyond or outside what you are complaining about. Rather than my teling you about them, find yourself a veteran who had a dissability caused by combat. He or she may have had good service, but surely knows someone close who has had problems with the VA. Orhe or she may have had some.
I get the American Legion Magazine regularly and keep up with this sort of thing. And there are many dedicated people in the VA who are truly devoted to helping ex-service people with medical problems.
And the magazine has other items of great interest to me.
Dave:
Please check your PM's !
["...And there are many dedicated people in the VA who are truly devoted to helping ex-service people with medical problems..."]
Dave, We certainly agree on that!
samfp 1943: I found your comments about American government and American history interesting. I can assure you that American government is most definitely still taught in our schools, usually in a far more interesting way than many of us studied it. Although government is frequently a one-semester course it is increasingly being coupled to a one-semester macro economics course. As far as American history goes, it's still being taught, too. Nowadays, however, people want their version of US history to be taught, and you'd be surprised at how many interpretations of US history there are.
Although I was technically a social studies teacher for 37 years I always taught history and sometimes government, so I know whereof I speak. The quality of the teaching has improved, too. Remember the old joke: What's the first name of every social studies teacher? Coach! And don't forget to turn on the projector (or video machine these days).
By the way, what would you teach your students about Amtrak? The building of the railroads (are you going to include the slave labor that built so many in the South)? The Jim Crow railroad laws? The mangling and deaths of countless immigrants because their lives were cheaper than air brakes and other safety features? The issues in the 1877 strike and the Pullman strike? Or will we stick to safe topics like the transcontinental railroad and the land grant system?
See? Even railfans can't agree on what should be taught about our interest-area. Now imagine trying to teach this nation's history in a way that satisfies everyone and offends no one.
I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE POST. I THINK SAM, ALSO A VETERAN, WOULD AGREE ALSO. IT IS A TOUGH JOB BEING A FAIR AND HONEST PERSON IN DEMOCRACY, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY AND ONE OF THE PRICES OF FREEDOM.
This topic is sure starting to go "off the rails", but it seems to be somewhat pertinent to the line of the Thread's context.
NKP guy:
I would not argue with with you about your teaching and experiences in that field and areas of your espertise. Particularly, in your longevity of teaching the mentioned subjects ! That kind of tenaciousness certainly deserves a high respect.
My exposures to subjects being taught currently, are based on experiences with my own kids in schools, and more recently with my grand kids; mot to mention the teachers who are friends and family members. I cannot count my own education experiences which were in parochial schools.
All the areas you mentioned, have their own levels of historical interest, and as such deserve mention within their social context. A wide exposure to events which helped to shape the American society deserve some study and mention.
My limited experiences seem to indicate that educators and academics have 'stratified' the historical record to the extent that a lot of the 'history' being taught these days; while schools and teachers pick and choose the elements of the areas of history to be taught. Some students can miss the elements of the earlier periods ( pre-history, ancient, middle ages,etc.) The late modern period, will start with either WWI, with the end of WWII or the times between that time frame and the Korean War; sometimes referred to as a ;Conflict, Police Action, or even a 'civil war(?)... Just ask the Veterans who fought there: they sometimes refer to it with the adjective of 'forgotten' War(?).
ROGER ADAYUnfortunately there is no consensus on "an unreasonable search or seizure". It's up to the courts to decide in the long run. Everything has changed post-911.
I would also opine that there used to be a certain "honor among thieves" that doesn't exist any more.
Several here have responded with commentary that falls loosely along the lines of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about"
While that may very well be true, I believe that there is a much bigger issue at play here. The bill of rights protections were incorporated by our founding fathers because they recognized the perils that absolute power poses to any free society.
Allowing the authorities to overstep their bounds, even when under the auspices of extending "protection", is still a "power grab" no matter how you dress it up.
In a free society, power should ultimately rest with the people. Not with a privileged few claiming they must do what they do because it is the "good fight" they are fighting. If the people continue to relinquish power, step by step it eventually will lead to tyranny.
Convicted One Several here have responded with commentary that falls loosely along the lines of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about" While that may very well be true, I believe that there is a much bigger issue at play here. The bill of rights protections were incorporated by our founding fathers because they recognized the perils that absolute power poses to any free society. Allowing the authorities to overstep their bounds, even when under the auspices of extending "protection", is still a "power grab" no matter how you dress it up. In a free society, power should ultimately rest with the people. Not with a privileged few claiming they must do what they do because it is the "good fight" they are fighting. If the people continue to relinquish power, step by step it eventually will lead to tyranny.
I'm in complete agreement with you on that.
23 17 46 11
edblysardThe concept that the government knows better how to manage our lives and livelihood better that we know how to do so for ourselves is one of the most frightening concepts there is.
But to play devil's advocate: the government is us. It's not some mystical majestic force from antoher dimension. It's made of people. And god knows there are enough regular people that can't be trusted to manage anything.
Somewhere there's a balance.
[quote user="zugmann"]
But to play devil's advocate: the government is us.
[quote]
WAS us. Now it's professional politicians.
To quote Pogo (Walt Kelly): April 22, 1970 (Earth Day):
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
[quote user="Norm48327"]
And they are elected by the members of the public that take the time to vote.
It's more complicated than that. Those who vote do so on the basis of information provided by the candidate and the news media, who might or might not give the voter an accurate view of the candidate, or his opposition, or the issues at hand. Excessive and unbalanced campaign spending throws the equation off, too. Often, two candidates have views that are so similar that the voter feels he has little real choice. Money favors the candiudate who favors money. Potential voters at the bottom of the income scale often believe that no candidate will be able, let alone willing, to do much to help them, so why bother voting?
It's way too complicated for glib answers.
Yes, Democracy seems a poor form of Government, until one realizes the others are worse.
"I've said it before, people! Democracy does not work!"
-Kent Brockman, famed newscaster
daveklepper Yes, Democracy seems a poor form of Government, until one realizes the others are worse.
It always amuses me that everyone complains about the government, but only about 20% even bother to vote. I think American Idol may have had a better participation rate.
We get the government we deserve. Period.
In the last few years... errr check that... last few decades, I have been voting for the least offensive candidates and having a hard time determining which are the least offensive.
As for "American Idiot"... ummm... I mean "Americal Idolatry"... dain'g... I mean that TV show that garners more attention than a pretzeldental debate... I wonder how many of yesteryear's stars would have even made it past the auditions to get onto the show... would Elvis have been on? How about Lawrence Welk?
Hmmmm... maybe we ought to have a TV show named "American Candidate" and get candidates for political office to come out on stage, give a speach and then get critiqued by some ne'er-do-well 'judges' and let the audience cheer and jeer and then wait through interminable advertisements for sexual dysfunction cures while people vote using their smartaleckphones.
phooey... this is all off topic, forget I posted it.
I'm all for it. Candidates run their campaigns on paid commercials and 3 30 minute debates that are moderated and scripted beyond all hope.
It would be nice to see a weekly hour-long TV show devoted to the candidates facing real questions and tests. Of course nobody would watch it, but it would be nice..
zugmann edblysard The concept that the government knows better how to manage our lives and livelihood better that we know how to do so for ourselves is one of the most frightening concepts there is. But to play devil's advocate: the government is us. It's not some mystical majestic force from antoher dimension. It's made of people. And god knows there are enough regular people that can't be trusted to manage anything. Somewhere there's a balance.
edblysard The concept that the government knows better how to manage our lives and livelihood better that we know how to do so for ourselves is one of the most frightening concepts there is.
edblysardEspecially those branches involved with internal security.
But who else will protect us from the boogeymen?
Wanswheel, sort of a "Nuff said" isn't it?
edblysard zugmann edblysard The concept that the government knows better how to manage our lives and livelihood better that we know how to do so for ourselves is one of the most frightening concepts there is. But to play devil's advocate: the government is us. It's not some mystical majestic force from antoher dimension. It's made of people. And god knows there are enough regular people that can't be trusted to manage anything. Somewhere there's a balance. Was us…for the most part all we the people do is elect titular heads of branches of a self-sustaining entity. Especially those branches involved with internal security.
A little more than "titular." The political identification of the president can have everything to do with the behavior of the bureaucracies, our real ongoing government. Look at the actions of State, Justice, Internal Revenue and EPA under Obama. I think we can be assured they would have been otherwise with a President McCain or Romney.
zugmann the government is us. It's not some mystical majestic force from antoher dimension.
Not to veer too deeply into the political end of this. But I really disagree in concept with what you say there. The "people" who have the most success getting elected seem to be the ones funded by big money interests. And they rest in servitude to that master once empowered.
Don't know if your familiar with an old US marine general named Smedley Butler, but he is noted for his "War is a Racket" posture where he eventually concluded that in the many campaigns he had served ...his ultimate role was more of an enforcer for Wall Street than "White Knight in service to Democracy "
First, how great to see Gen. Smedley Butler ("the fighting Quaker") mentioned on this website. This exemplary Marine Corps officer and patriot was adored by all Marines, including my grandfather (served 1907-1913), who was wounded at the Battle of Leon (Nicaragua) with the Expeditionary Force in which Gen. Butler played a part. Gen. Butler later played a key role in keeping the 1932 Bonus Marchers peaceable and in good temper.
Our government: Thanks to the same political party that doesn't support Amtrak, we Americans equate money with free speech and neither can be regulated or made equal by the Federal government because that would be heresy to them. More money equals more speech. The same party's Justices on the Supreme Court sealed our doom a few years ago with the Citizens United decision. Now unlimited money is the rule along with a 48 month campaign season.
This state of affairs didn't happen to us overnight. Like water torture or the frog in the boiling pot, we got used to it one step at a time. Now it's too late. Nothing short of a catacylsm will change or improve politics or government in this country.
All bow down to King Money! Money is freedom! Money is democracy!
I'm sure of one thing, if the Founders had any idea that one day there'd be a political class in this country they'd have written term limits into the Constitution in a heartbeat! Chances are it never entered into their minds because in those days serving in the Congress or the Senate or in a cabinet position was a pain in the neck! Most served because it was an honor to have your neighbors select you to go and it would have been considered bad taste to refuse.
To serve in those early days congressmen and senators had to leave their professions either unattended or in the hands of others, hopefully competant. It was a nightmare to travel. Lodgings in the various capitals (New York, Philadelphia, then Washington) were iffy at best. The pay wasn't that great and the benefits were nil. Most men at the time did one or two terms at the most then went back to private life.
Sure can't say that's the case now, can we?
I'm hoping the young veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan get into politics, 'cause we've damn sure got a leadership deficit with the crowd that's in there now. Those young men and women vets are products of the best leadership factory going! Maybe they can turn it around. The current crowd's hopeless.
NKP guy Our government: Thanks to the same political party that doesn't support Amtrak, we Americans equate money with free speech and neither can be regulated or made equal by the Federal government because that would be heresy to them. More money equals more speech. The same party's Justices on the Supreme Court sealed our doom a few years ago with the Citizens United decision. Now unlimited money is the rule along with a 48 month campaign season.
Ah, but which party's PACs outspent the other's in 2012 (and other) election cycles? The record shows the Democrats have more fat cats, and fewer individual contributors, than the Republicans.
Democrats love 5-4 Supreme Court decisions when they go their way, as in the first Obamacare case. Then you hear no complaints about who appointed whom.
As long as anybody is spending money -- for speech -- on campaigns, how do you disqualify somebody else's? And I doubt NKP Guy would admit his vote is decided by TV money rather than by long conviction. I certainly wouldn't. To assume somebody else's vote is so easy to obtain is rather insulting to our whole idea in this country.
We get the government we deserve?
No, sincere and conscientious voters get the government the nonvoters and political hacks and liars and grifters give us.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that this thread is political (well, sort of...) but we are doing a petty good job of talkign about everything but trains....
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
KBCpresident I wouldn't go as far as saying that this thread is political (well, sort of...) but we are doing a petty good job of talkign about everything but trains....
Not many forums in the world where you can discuss politics without someone resorting to juvenile name-calling. So we have that going for us...
Very true.
It does seem, watchign the news now and then, that the police seem to be fighting (and not always winning) a major PR battle. How much longer do you think you can tell a child that the policeman is her friend without someone piping up?
The USA has the best form of government that money can buy.
With the Super Pac's and their financiers it is being bought as we speak - if we thought the 2012 Presidential election and 2014 off year elections were bad for political smear advertising - just wait for 2016 - I pity the 'primary' states and the advertising that they will have to endure - even worse than Viagra, Cialis, Humira and all the other prescription drugs that are being advertised, only to be followed up by advertising for the general election.
You left out the "Non-attorney spokesperson" advertising goading people into "entitlements" for badgering their dorktors into prescribing the previously advertised snake-oils.
I wonder if we could get some 'non-attorney spokespersons" to follow the political adverts? "Did you or a loved one lose a freedom , suffer a debilitating tax or even DIE! because they voted for Senator Porkbarrel B. Grafty? Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe to see if you are entited to a mere pittance of what we will get sueing in your name."
Semper Vaporo Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe to see if you are entited to a mere pittance of what we will get sueing in your name."
Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe to see if you are entited to a mere pittance of what we will get sueing in your name."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees those things for what they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJMeTR227h8
Excerpt from Unsung Partner Against Crime: Harry J. Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1962 by John C. McWilliams
In the federal realm of law enforcement only the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) can claim active and continued participation in all of the aforementioned criminal activities. Yet the Narcotics Bureau (as it became known) never has received the attention given to the FBI. Nor has its administrator, Harry J. Anslinger, been accorded his rightful place as a skillful bureaucrat and law enforcement officer. Appointed at the Bureau's inception in 1930, Anslinger remained in that position until 1962—a leadership that spanned five presidential administrations. Through his office he almost single-handedly shaped federal drug policies and built a reputation for effectiveness, efficiency, and a no-nonsense approach to the enforcement of anti-drug laws.
Anslinger's upbringing in Pennsylvania provides a few clues to his personality. He was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on May 20, 1892, the eighth of nine children of Robert and Christiana Anslinger, both immigrants who had emigrated to America in 1881 and settled in Altoona after brief stays in New York and Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. Robert Anslinger was trained as a barber, but he gave up that trade in 1892 to find steadier employment with the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The Altoona Harry Anslinger knew was a bustling, prospering town where the opportunity to work in the local industries was often more enticing to school-aged boys than earning high school diplomas. Harry was not unlike many young men at that time who wanted to quit school to make money, and at the end of the eighth grade he followed his father and went to work.for the railroad. Although he did not attend classes in the traditional sense, neither did he drop out of school. Beginning in the ninth grade, at the age of fourteen, he completed his course requirements as a part-time student in the morning session. In the afternoons and evenings he worked for the railroad.
Anslinger kept up with his studies and, though he never received a high school diploma, he enrolled at the Altoona Business College in 1909 and also received tutoring at nights during the next two years. In 1912 he requested and was granted a furlough from the Pennsylvania Railroad so that he could enroll at the Pennsylvania State College. There he entered a two-year associate degree program consisting of engineering and business management courses. On weekends and during vacations he continued to work for the railroad as a utility employee. While in State College, he indulged his hope of one day becoming a concert pianist and earned tuition money as a substitute piano player for silent movies in a downtown theatre.
Anslinger claimed that two incidents during his youth strongly influenced his career as a narcotics commissioner. The first was a traumatic experience he had when learning about the agony of addiction. In his book, The Murderers: The Story of the Narcotics Gangs, which he co-authored with Will Oursler, Anslinger vividly recounted how as a twelve-year-old he once visited a neighboring farm house and heard the shrill screams of a woman on the second floor. Later he learned that she was addicted, like many other women of that period, to morphine, a drug most medical authorities did not yet recognize as dangerous. Soon her husband ran down the stairs and sent him to town to pick up a package at the drugstore. Within minutes after the husband administered the drug, the woman's screams stopped and she was again at ease. Harry Anslinger never forgot those anguished screams of the woman suffering the pains of addiction. Nor did he forget that the morphine she required was sold to a naive twelve-year-old boy—no questions asked. In 1906, however, in the absence of any federal anti-drug legislation, this indiscriminate selling of narcotics was not unusual.
Anslinger's experience may well have been exaggerated, but he was convinced that there was a need for strict regulation and control over the use of narcotics. He also remained steadfast in his belief that enforcement and a punitive approach to narcotics—even though "post hoc justification"—were necessary to eradicate the problem of drug addiction. Anslinger's exposure to the kind of men he worked with on the railroad also later affected his behavior as a narcotics commissioner. Working his summer vacations away from Penn State on a "Pennsy" construction crew landscaping flower beds, he often came into contact with Italian immigrants. Occasionally he would overhear them talk, in broken English, of a "Black Hand." Although he did not know precisely the nature of the organization, he could sense from the context of their conversation that it was a kind of extra-legal society brought from the old country. The Italians did not discuss it openly or in a casual manner; rather, they spoke of it in awe. They referred to it as an invisible government that effected a mutual protection for its members and enforced it with violence and brutality.
Anslinger's work on the Pennsylvania Railroad so impressed division superintendent G. Charles Port that when the latter was called to Harrisburg by Governor Martin G. Brumbaugh to head the state police, he asked Anslinger to accompany him. In September 1916 Anslinger went to the state capital, where he was responsible for reorganizing a department and a field force of 2,500 personnel. Eventually he was appointed deputy fire commissioner in charge of arson investigations. He remained in Harrisburg a year—until the United States entered the war in Europe to "make the world safe for democracy."
Semper Vaporo You left out the "Non-attorney spokesperson" advertising goading people into "entitlements" for badgering their dorktors into prescribing the previously advertised snake-oils. I wonder if we could get some 'non-attorney spokespersons" to follow the political adverts? "Did you or a loved one lose a freedom , suffer a debilitating tax or even DIE! because they voted for Senator Porkbarrel B. Grafty? Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe to see if you are entited to a mere pittance of what we will get sueing in your name."
Nominated for best post in thread.
Please, let's not talk about Republicans vs Democrats as if there was any difference. I like Robert Mann's description of Washington politics as "World Wrestling Federation in business suits."
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/10/congress_and_its_dysfunction.html
We need to change back to a democracy instead of the current corporacracy.
Going back more or less to the original subject, I just want to say that I find it amusing that when something terrible happens, you hear criticism of security, "Why didn't you find out about them and stop them?" Then, when it's revealed that they are collecting data, it's "That's an invasion privacy!"
NKP guyFirst, how great to see Gen. Smedley Butler ("the fighting Quaker") mentioned on this website. This exemplary Marine Corps officer and patriot was adored by all Marines, including my grandfather (served 1907-1913), who was wounded at the Battle of Leon (Nicaragua) with the Expeditionary Force in which Gen. Butler played a part. Gen. Butler later played a key role in keeping the 1932 Bonus Marchers peaceable and in good temper.
General Butler also gained fame for whistle-blowing on the alleged "Business Plot" of 1933. He claimed he was approached by Gerald P. MacGuire, who told him that a group of businessmen (many in J.P. Morgan, others possibly including Prescott Bush), supposedly backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to have a coup to overthrow FDR and establish a fascist dictatorship. A House committee confirmed parts of his story, other parts not.
Paul of Covington Please, let's not talk about Republicans vs Democrats as if there was any difference. I like Robert Mann's description of Washington politics as "World Wrestling Federation in business suits." http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/10/congress_and_its_dysfunction.html We need to change back to a democracy instead of the current corporacracy.
While I agree we need to get corporations out of the governing process (part of the deep state), I'm not sure Robert Mann would see the Democratic Party and GOP as equally bad, at least not the LSU journalism professor Mann.
schlimm NKP guy First, how great to see Gen. Smedley Butler ("the fighting Quaker") mentioned on this website. This exemplary Marine Corps officer and patriot was adored by all Marines, including my grandfather (served 1907-1913), who was wounded at the Battle of Leon (Nicaragua) with the Expeditionary Force in which Gen. Butler played a part. Gen. Butler later played a key role in keeping the 1932 Bonus Marchers peaceable and in good temper. General Butler also gained fame for whistle-blowing on the alleged "Business Plot" of 1933. He claimed he was approached by Gerald P. MacGuire, who told him that a group of businessmen (many in J.P. Morgan, others possibly including Prescott Bush), supposedly backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to have a coup to overthrow FDR and establish a fascist dictatorship. A House committee confirmed parts of his story, other parts not.
NKP guy First, how great to see Gen. Smedley Butler ("the fighting Quaker") mentioned on this website. This exemplary Marine Corps officer and patriot was adored by all Marines, including my grandfather (served 1907-1913), who was wounded at the Battle of Leon (Nicaragua) with the Expeditionary Force in which Gen. Butler played a part. Gen. Butler later played a key role in keeping the 1932 Bonus Marchers peaceable and in good temper.
So this is where the line in the Jerry McGuire film 'Show me the money!' came from?
Schlimm,
You've likely heard it before.
Politicians (of all stripes) are like a bunch of bananas. They hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among 'em.
Although this really wouldn't apply much to rail travel, except in the cases of going in to Canada...there is a Federal regulation on traveling with an excess of $10,000 cash internationally. There's procedures for reporting and such that need to be followed...and talking about people carrying large amounts of cash on them. I see many people daily in my line of work with substantial amounts of cash on them when travelling, and I'm talking anywhere from $1000 - $5000(a few have had more). There's no way in the world I would go on vacation and take that kind of cash with me, you're just inviting a criminal to mug you and potentially kill you. You can contact your credit card company and instruct them you're leaving the country and want to charge in the local currency, they will then do the conversion for you...normally at a lower rate than the cash exchange rate...but that's going outside the scope of this conversation.
schlimmGeneral Butler also gained fame for whistle-blowing on the alleged "Business Plot" of 1933. He claimed he was approached by Gerald P. MacGuire, who told him that a group of businessmen (many in J.P. Morgan, others possibly including Prescott Bush), supposedly backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to have a coup to overthrow FDR and establish a fascist dictatorship.
Fully Detailed in this fine book:
schlimm Paul of Covington Please, let's not talk about Republicans vs Democrats as if there was any difference. I like Robert Mann's description of Washington politics as "World Wrestling Federation in business suits." http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/10/congress_and_its_dysfunction.html We need to change back to a democracy instead of the current corporacracy. While I agree we need to get corporations out of the governing process (part of the deep state), I'm not sure Robert Mann would see the Democratic Party and GOP as equally bad, at least not the LSU journalism professor Mann.
True, but I like to read many columns from both ends of the spectrum, and there are valid points from both ends. It's the message that I wanted to bring up, not the messenger.
Professor Mann is and has been a strong Democrat for years, working with the campaigns of a number of Democratic pols in Louisiana in the past.
The message, not the messenger.
Schlimm, we don't disagree here. My first sentence was my own opinion, and I should have put it in a separate paragraph. I was not attributing it to Robert Mann. I read columns from the left and right, and both sides come up with comments that I agree with.
Trains. Railroads. Streetcars. Sailboats. Hopefully that will help sassify the moderators. Surprisingly they haven't seemed to be too worried after 5 pages of very few comments that are railroad related.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.