AndyBoyd

You may want to have your meds adjusted, dude.

I wondered about that myself. I have no idea. Unless I missed it, the editorial does not explain how they found out. Pure speculation follows: apparently under OR law, OR state police must pre-approve gun purchases in that state -- the police must have told his co-workers he bought the guns.

In the article, there is a link to an editorial by a local newspaper that defends the police actions. It seems the guy had been acting out at work, yelling at people to the point where they were frightened. When he was placed on leave, state troopers escorted him from the building. When some of his co-workers found out he had purchased guns, they left their homes to hide in a hotel. Giving the cops the benefit of the doubt, the guy at least appeared to be unstable, and people were scared he might go postal. Having said that, sending in the SWAT team in the middle of the night seems like an overreaction. And I question how "voluntarily" he submitted to custody and gave up his weapons. But suppose the cops had done nothing, and he shot up the office the next day? But it's hard to justify the SWAT team dragging the guy off in the middle of the night for a "voluntary" mental health exam, not to mention confiscating his property. Seems like there could have been a less invasive or aggressive way to assess the potential threat.

An old friend of mine whom I will not name got grounded at a big DZ for consistently pulling low.

Jack will be back. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/05/25/24-finale-leads-to-24-movie/

Now you'd think that would have been covered in Helmet Design 101. That's the reason a lot of people wear Factory Divers. It's the reason I wear one. (Well, I wear a helmet when I do 4-way.) You never have to worry about a visor popping up in freefall. Make sure the visor is installed with a little gap by the nose and also up by the forehead, and breath through your mouth. It won't fog if you do that. The other option is simply to take the visor out and wear goggles.

A thrill ride from Day 1 to the very end. One of my all-time favorite shows. I once watched 7 straight episodes of Day 4 on DVD. My only regret was that the cougar did not actually maul Kim.

I agree. I did not assert that we should simply give money to Mexico with no strings attached. That would indeed be . I do think that it should be a long-term priority of the USA's to invest/loan money in the Mexican economy. Given our cash crunch, we don't have to invest heavily right now. I'm just saying that given the interest everyone has (including me) in securing our borders, a long-term investment strategy designed to eventually improve Mexico's economy would gradually decrease the incentive many Mexicans have to cross the border illegally. It looks like the fog is lifting. Off to the DZ. You will have to continue the conversation without me this weekend.

Are you going for the understatement of the year award? Why is it our responsibility? I didn't say it was our responsibility. What I said was, it might be in our long term interest to help Mexico with its economy. If you want less Mexicans crossing the border illegally, you've got to eliminate their motivation to do so. Why do you think we hardly ever hear about illegal immigrants from Canada?

So logically, all those that are in favor of the Mexican influx of immigrants, and the Mexican goverments support of illegal immigration, they are actually in favor of making Mexico our next welfare project. Let me just toss this out there as an idea to chew on. Or chew up, as people may well disagree strongly with this suggestion. It seems clear that the basic reason behind the illegal immingration problem is that Mexico's economy is in such a shambles that people there cannot find sufficient work to support themselves and their families. They come here (illegally in many cases) because they want to work. Would the best way to fix our immigation problem be to spend some $$ to help jumpstart Mexico's economy, and remove the primary incentive for illegal immigration? In other words, would "making Mexico our next welfare project" ultimately help to secure our borders? I completely understand that America is a bit short on cash right now, but my view is that this is the only real long-term solution to the immigration problem. Heightened border enforcement, walls, laws like Arizona's are short-term fixes at best in my opinion. If we really want the illegal immigration problem to get better, we've got to help Mexio out of the mess it is in. This ought to be a long-term priority of the USA's.

No different than LA breaking its contracts with Arizona based companies/services in its boycott. That's a fair point. My only response is pure speculation. The article quoted in the original post refers to "future" contracts. LA could simply not renew present contracts that may have an expiration date. This would not be breach. But if the AZ power compnies breach their contract(s) to supply power to Cal. cities this summer, they will likely get the crap kicked out of them in the lawsuits that are sure to follow. But you are right -- if LA breaches present, binding contracts it has with AZ cities, it will get sued as well and probably lose. Any other lawyers who know more about this than I do, your input would be helpful.

I certainly do not know any of the details, but my guess is that the AZ power companies have entered into contracts with Cal. cities to supply power. The power companies would almost certainly be in breach of contract if they cut off the power supply without the cities' consent. The power companies would lose millions in a lawsuit. Whoever this AZ politician is, he knows this. His "threats" are pure political BS.

You used the most offensive racial slur possible to describe the President of the United States, and you did it in an open, public forum. You cannot justify that in any way, shape, or form, nor can anyone else. It is now incredibly obvious to everyone who reads and interacts on this forum what kind of person you are, and what sorts of beliefs you hold. There can be no serious debate as to whether your comment was absolutely abhorrent. You have no credibility left whatsoever, and it would be best if you simply crawled back under whatever rock you came out from.

It does seem that BP was the more culpable party, but as far as I am concerned all 3 of these companies were in this together. The oil may have spread to Key West already. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_rig_leak

Thanks for the links. Not exactly Big Oil's finest moment. I suppose I will be accused of being a "tree hugger" or worse by the more conservative posters here, but that's fine. This has the potential to be an absolutely catastrophic environmental disaster. It's amazing that BP, Transocean, and Halliburton could be so careless. There are more important things in the world than corporate profits.

A legend. RIP.

Awesome. Slayer Rules.

We have seen this before. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3793209;page=unread#unread Cops are apparently terrified of dogs.

OK, after taking some time to do some actual work the past few days, I have taken a look at the recent amendment to this law, and I have to admit that it assuages some of my concerns. According to the amendment, a lawful "contact" is no longer enough to justify an inquiry into someone's immigration status. An actual "stop, detention or arrest" is now required. And race can no longer be used as a factor in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that an individual is an illegal alien. The Hispanic crime victim in my earlier hypothetical situation could not be questioned as to his/her immigration status under the new amendment as I read it. I am still concerned with potential abuses of the law, and I would not go so far as to say that I support it, but with the amendments, the law looks a lot better to me. See, folks, I can be reasonable.

A change in the law already: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100501,0,2712336.story

Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? nope. certainly would seem to reduce the reporting of crimes in the illegal's community... oh wait... they're already afraid of the cops and don't report many crimes or talk to police. I see your point. I really do. As I've said elsewhere. Part of the point here is to make residency in the state undesirable for illegals (as subset of which are people who will cooperate with Mexican organized crime). The goal of which would be to reduce the Mex org crime traffic in the area. That may or may not be the result. Is yet to be determined. I've made phone calls to judges and prosecuters informing them that a defendant was an illegal immigrant. The response was always "sorry... nothing we can do". I've been personally effected by illegal immigration and crime associated with some of the immigrants. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do. I get that it sucks for the illegal immigrants that aren't causing problems here. They fix my roof. They build my fence. They do the landscaping in my neighborhood. And the ones that I know that went through the process to get legal are pissed at the ones who aren't. OK, now that we're playing nice, I'll admit that I completely understand the frustration folks in AZ must have over the illegal immigration issue. AZ is at the forefront of the immigration problem, and the federal government has done absolutely nothing to fix it, and the problem is getting worse. I get the motivation behind the law. I just worry that there will be practical problems with its implementation.

Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers?

That's twice I've asked you to define what you mean by "contact" and twice you've refused to do so. That's the reason this discussion is in a "grey area," as you put it. We can't have a coherent conversation if you won't define your terms. See you at the DZ.

where "contact" for an officer doesn't mean walking past someone on the street. Andy and others.... please understand the terminology difference. Well, what does it mean, then? Does "contact" mean arresting someone? Interviewing a crime victim or witness? Detaining a suspect? Talking to the girl behind the counter at the dount shop? It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to define a key term, then scolds others for not understanding what he meant by that term. I can't read your minds, guys. If you refuse to define what you mean by "contact" I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because it's pointless. If you want to define what you mean by that term, I'll be happy to continue to talk.

Your question is a fair one. This new proposal has flown under the radar with all the media focused on the AZ law. It probably should be getting more attention. I think it's a bad idea for the reasons stated by the ACLU in the article.