muff528

As far as this goes... I was confused for several reasons. 1) As early as 1852? Well, we have Black Founders... and without one black man specifically... we would not have won the Revolutionary War. 2) who had every right to despise the country, "got it". Well, not really... he has a right to despise the South. And if you read it in its entirety, he makes that clear. My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the "standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ," is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains. "I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just. " 3) The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass. With the beginning of the post... I was confused and wasn't sure, if that was direct at me, somehow. But... all is well. We were on the same page. I think the initial "Yes" in my response may have been confusing. I meant that "Yes", I agree with your post. By the time I read your post and all the attachments and then posted my response I'd forgotten that the title of your thread asked a question and you may have taken that to be an answer to that question. 1852 (before the 13th Amendment was even imagined) ...when Douglass gave that speech he understood (in agreement with the abolitionists that he named) that the protections affirmed by the Constitution applied to everyone. (i.e., he "got it", IMO) As a former slave he did have a right to despise the US, south and north. But he defends the motives of the framers of the Constitution in that speech and accuses those who otherwise interpret the Constitution to be "slanderers" and "impostors". But one thing to consider is that he likely was trying to "will" or advocate an interpretation that opposed slavery which was in conflict with the "slavery-is-OK" interpretation of the day. He was trying to advance a case for abolition and the "unconstitutionality" of slavery. His description of life as a slave and the all-men-are-created-equal interpretation was a powerful message taken together. That argument, IMO, was the most important part of that speech and I believe it contained the main point of that address. I simply used his phrase to try to point out that the present-day institutions that published that speech and left out the main message (slavery is unconstitutional) are slandering Douglass's memory and are, themselves, impostors. Not directed at you at all. I still maintain (in agreement with his argument) that the Constitution did not need to be amended to abolish slavery ...all it needed was an a enlightened and honorable Supreme Court and a will to enforce it. IMO the 13th Amendment is an erosion of the strength of the Constitution to provide a framework that ensures everyone's (including those who were enslaved) unalienable rights. I know the 13th (and other constitutional twists and kinks) are now part of the Constitution.

WOW! Sweet finish!

I was picturing little pancake sammiches filled with smoked salmon and topped with fish eggs.

Plastics. ROTFLMAO! Wonder how many here will get the reference. What's that you say?

Looks like SOS ...French-style.

Maybe my French is rusty, but what was wrong with her? Sigh... I'm surrounded by a bunch of philistines...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine Wow! ...that is disgusting!

Sigh. If you must know, God plays a 1963 Gibson SG, tuned to Open E, usually slide (glass only, of course). I'll see your open-tuned, glass-slide, SG-playing God and raise you my hillbilly, bluegrass, flat-picking God. Old Carter family religious tune or the Asian version, if you prefer.

The divide is not so much over differences in which way to skin the cat. It's more like differences in which cat should be skinned.

What a Joker you are More like this

Wow! ...read some of the comments! Makes the nanothermite nutters look sane slightly less irrational.

You really need to be sure if it was 3 times or 4. from here: "......if a bat flies three times around a house, it is a death omen." But maybe that's only in the UK.

Vlad Lestat Guano Spike Adam Angel Armand Masterson

????!! I'm pretty sure that the cabin is pressurized ...if not to 1 atmosphere at least to some standard. IDK

I've read/heard exactly that. Hmmmm ....might be time to begin hitting the local Goodwill and Salvation Army stores and yard sales and scarf up and hoard all the rosewood I can find. Mahogany and teak, too. I'll just make sure I get receipts ...proper documentation and all in case I get raided.

+1, finding a substitute for the wood would be a better choice for Gibson, remove the speculation and maybe even get to use it as a marketing tool, promoting their green product - everyone else does.... Yep, one of the articles I read says that guitar buyers as a group tend to be generally more environmentally tuned in than the overall population and are beginning to shun rosewood guitars. I don't know if that was a fabricated "observation" or if it was based on actual data. Since this thread started I've seen several guitar-related sites where players are beginning to look for instruments made from less exotic species. Some are going as far as refusing mahoganies, too (OTOH, I wonder if the tons of legal pre-ban rosewood furniture that is already out there in homes and offices is being looked at by instrument makers as a "new" source ...even if it is for small parts like fingerboards, bridges, etc and maybe for the occasional back or sides. If imports are totally banned the prices/values of these pieces could spike.)

> good god how fast ois that thing spinning around it's star? Once a year ....just like all the other planets. Im' not a rocket scientist but a mass that heavy > spinning that fast would in theory twist and churn the > fabric of space right? Space was built to take it. Ripstop, I think.

Probably fortunate for Richard that he and Liz passed on before this one was discovered. Just sayin'

I agree. And that line should be that the government proves that the possession of the wood is illegal, and not that items are summarily confiscated unless it can be proven the wood it NOT illegal. Wow. It's really rare that I disagree with you this much, but you're way wrong here. The laws about these kinds of products are really specific. Because there is no way to prove what is illegal and what is legal from the items themselves, there is a very strict and specific requirement for provenance (the paperwork that proves it is legal). Possession of the controlled items (especially by a manufacturer like Gibson) without the correct paperwork is a crime. Like ivory mentioned above (also including endagered furs like tiger or snow leapord) even consumer possession without the proper provenance can get sticky. Crossing international borders without it is dangerous. You may or may not agree with the necessity for the laws protecting the environment. You may or may not agree that corrupt governments make the laws inneffective. But the laws requiring proper documentation are pretty clear. The article in the OP calls it a "paperwork problem" and implies that it was a minor detail. No. The lack of proper paperwork is the crime. And it's not a minor one either. "Proper documentation" will not ensure that rosewood harvested in Madagascar was done so legally. "Historically, logging and exporting in Madagascar have been regulated by the Malagasy government, although the logging of rare hardwoods was explicitly banned from protected areas in 2000. Since then, government orders and memos have intermittently alternated between permitting and banning exports of precious woods. The most commonly cited reason for permitting exports is to salvage valuable wood from cyclone damage, although this reasoning has come under heavy scrutiny. This oscillating availability of Malagasy rosewood and other precious woods has created a market of rising and falling prices, allowing traders or "timber barons" to stockpile illegally sourced logs during periodic bans and then flood the market when the trade windows open and prices are high." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging_in_Madagascar It should not be Gibson's responsibility to figure out which is which when no one can. Maybe Gibson can be guilty of not having proper documentation but I don't see how they can be guilty of using illegal lumber unless they have been proven guilty. Not here, anyway. However, Gibson can (and probably will) stop using these woods in the interest of environmental conscientiousness ...and survival of the company as a manufacturer. It really does their company no long term good to depend on an increasingly hard-to-get resource for whatever reason.

The lines have been drawn with respect to these hardwoods. Illegal deforestation is just that ...illegal. My problem is that the burden of proof that illegal rosewood is being used in products should lie with the feds ...not with the manufacturers who are following the rules. If Gibson knowingly solicited and imported illegal wood then bad on them! But the feds need to prove the wood is illegal. Gibson shouldn't have to prove that it is not. The problem for Gibson (and probably others) seems to be that it is intermittently legal to export rosewood from Madagascar. Looks like it is ultimately imported into the US from China. Gibson must rely on the scruples of 2 or 3 (or more) foreign governments for it's supply of presumably legal hardwood. I think Gibson, et al. are held to a "reasonable" responsibility under the Lacey Act to ensure that they are not using illegal imports. With respect to rosewood from Madagascar, it is impossible to know which tree was harvested legally and which was not. IMO, it is the responsibility of that gov't to oversee their industry and their exports ...not the end user. Question 1: Knowing that the government of Malagasy is corrupt and that China has a less-than-steller record of moral ethics in it's exports, should Gibson drop that source for wood? Does that knowledge meet the "reasonable" condition? Is it reasonable to expect Gibson, a company, to "police" or second-guess the ethics of foreign governments? Or is it our government's responsibility, through foreign policy and trade agreements, to predetermine what is a legal import and what is not? Question 2: Does the Lacey Act prevent the import of species which are endangered or protected (as defined by US government agencies) regardless of the legality (or illegality) as determined by the exporting country? Question 3: Are my guitars (or any other rosewood items or artworks that I may have) that predate the 1992 ban on Brazilian rosewood now considered contraband because I can't prove that any rosewood components were, in fact, incorporated into the items before 1992? Same with ivory. I have some examples that predate that ban. Also, other types of artwork that were banned after they were made.

Probably don't want to get too close, though!

That's what you all say!

I dunno. If I haven't made a mistake with the gazintas it looks like the diamond planet's diameter is about 2500 times bigger than it's star. And with a "year" lasting a little over 2 hours! Amazing stuff!

Agreement here. 1966 J-45 Cherry Sunburst Late 40's L-48 1939 Recording King Archtop All gone now

(approximately) Now that's a rock!

The feds wouldn't have moved on it had the goody-goody environmentalists not bitched!!! Chuck Cut the feds some slack ....they are using "Enviro-Bubble" to wrap up the confiscated "contraband". They certainly know better than to fall under the wrath of the enviro-nazis.