Hey, leave 'Troll outta this!! She didn't say anything!!

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

*waves to Boner*

Not trying to silence anyone. I just want to know what your point is when you post this stuff. I feel the same way when anyone to the left posts anti-conservative things. What are you trying to accomplish? You know what's going to happen: and endless debate where neither side concedes defeat.

Don't put words into my mouth.

JV's favorite.

>where you know there's a lot of really smart liberals.

Is there an oxymoron in that sentence?

>where you know there's a lot of really smart liberals.
Is there an oxymoron in that sentence?

I didn't say it! (see the (almost) hidden text in my message replying to that one...) I was a good Dawg on that one!

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

No more so than in "compassionate conservative."

No more so than in "compassionate conservative."

Cute. Very cute.

Humor aside, I've never liked the term "compassionate conservative", because it implies that other conservatives aren't compassionate in the first place... which is not true, we're as compassionate as anyone else, AND we want people to be free, also.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

>which is not true, we're
>as compassionate as anyone else,
>AND we want people to
>be free, also.

Now that's funny.

yep. I have to bow out of this thread because my sides hurt. I seem to have ODed on irony. Didn't think it was possible.

Won't last though. Tastes great. Less filling.

...is inherent in a thread that ends up like this one, isn't it?

LAST EDITED ON 05-06-03 AT 02:35 PM (EST)

yeppers, ain't no such thang ... we're just a bunch of dummies who don't know enough to get upset when the prez has a good time near the oval office

good thing we ain't smart enuf to figure out the current prez went awol or did coke or we might use it against him

I so love being underestimated

Edited because I really wanted to mention that I was just taking lessons from my Commander in Chief

yeppers, ain't no such thang ... we're just a bunch of dummies who don't know enough to get upset when the prez has a good time near the oval office

good thing we ain't smart enuf to figure out the current prez went awol or did coke or we might use it against him

(((Tech)))

You amuse me endlessly, Tech

::runs off to go be stupid with the other liberals::

JV's favorite.

You know I am just going to pull out this pic whenever you pull out that one.

I should give credit where credit is due: http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

"Nasty? How can you say that? I'm 8 pounds of total lovin'!"

As well you should.

*waves to the Katt*

And I think Mr. Ashcroft deserves a great deal more abuse than he has received on these boards. The Bill of Right Defense Committee agrees, and has produced a sign on letting calling for his removal.

A few reasons:

Mr. Ashcroft is a major proponent of this administration's penchant for secrecy inappropriate in a free society. Example: He issued FOIA guidance that many sources have argued effectively negated the act passed by Congress. He, in effect, told agencies that the DOJ would support their withholding of records in total contradiction to the letter and spirit of the law that he is supposed to uphold.

His civil rights record, since the beginning of his reported history, is abysmal. This was a major issue before his confirmation. He has used his predeliction to selectively enforce laws as he sees fit. Example: He is the subject of a class action suit on behalf of Middle Eastern men unlawfully detained after the September 11 events. Folks defend Mr. Ashcroft's behavior as being in support of the Patriot Act when the truth is that he has been behaving in this way for all of his political life.

He has no respect for state law if it doesn't agree with his personal views. Example: Oregon voters approved doctor assisted suicide but Mr. Ashcroft decided that any doctors who tried would be federally prosecuted. States right, when convenient.

You know I could go on with this all day with issues like his support of the death penalty even when applied to children, his infusion of the Department of Justice with his particular religious practice, the differential impact of his personal abortion views on law enforcement, etc., etc. The man is ignorant, extremist, and, to paraphrase Mr. Bush The Younger, a divider not a uniter. As I said earlier, he begs for ridicule. And if you want to talk about a double standard you need only look to Mr. Ashcroft's tenure at the Department of Justice for a definition of the term.

"Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True

I do urge people to actually click the links in the post above and get the full story.

For example, the DOJ lost the appeal in the Oregon law. It was decided in the Court (where it should be) ... now has Ashcroft prosecuted a doctor since losing the appeal? You'll have to show me, IF he has. But that doesn't mean he was wrong to challenge the law in the first place.

Also, the class action suit on behalf of the middle eastern men, has that been resolved? If so, which way? Other similar cases have been upheld (i.e. Ashcroft won) by the Supreme Court.

The FOIA memo estabishes guidelines, but doesn't violate the law. If indeed "many sources have argued effectively negated the act passed by Congress" is the case, then that should be decided by the Courts. I personally see no violation of the law in it. And the link about "told agencies that the DOJ would support their withholding of records" is simply opinion, just like many of the posts on this board.

Just because his administration of the Department of Justice isn't liberal enough for his detractors doesn't make him "ignorant", nor does it cause him to "beg for ridicule". At least he upholds the law, unlike the previous Attorney General and her President's many willful violations of absolute written statute law AND Court rulings. I'll take Ashcroft over Janet Reno ANY day, and thank God that Ashcroft and not Reno is Attorney General in this time of war and crisis for the Nation.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

simply opinion, just like many of the posts on this board.

Including yours, yes?

Including yours, yes?

Well, DUH!

Of course, my opinions just happen to be right!

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Of course, my opinions just happen to be right!

Right like "left and right", I hope you mean, Dawg

JV's favorite.

Right like "left and right", I hope you mean, Dawg

Uh, well... um... I guess that's just a matter of opinion, also, eh wot?

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Of course, my opinions just happen to be right!

And mine are left! Well duh.

"Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True

>Of course, my opinions just happen to be right!
And mine are left! Well duh.

You just walked in late to the party wearing the same dress as JSlice. Ooooh, major faux pas! (j/k)

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Must be a southern problem or something out of the 1950s. We just admire each others taste, hug recognizing the intrinsic sisterhood in the event, smile nicely, and move on.

"Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True

>For example, the DOJ lost the appeal in the Oregon law.
> It was decided in the Court (where it should
>be) ... now has Ashcroft prosecuted a doctor since losing
>the appeal? You'll have to show me, IF he has. But that doesn't
>mean he was wrong to challenge the law in the first place.

At the time, I argued (and I still believe) that DOJ was wrong to challenge the law in the first place. Court cases have real costs in time and uncertainty. In my opinion, Ashcroft should have used prosecutorial discretion instead of trying to EXPAND the powers of the federal government.

When DOJ devotes resources to a case like this, it has to either leave something else undone or seek to hire more staff.

Ashcroft has been a federal officer for too long, because he has forgotten about the costs of trying to make social policy in the courts. Even local school boards learn about the costs of pointless litigation, as this story about a religious-oriented Harry Potter restriction in a school library illustrates.

Why spend the money to fight local democratic initiatives?

At the time, I argued (and I still believe) that DOJ was wrong to challenge the law in the first place.

I'm so glad you said this before I did. So much more beleivable coming from AyaK.

Why spend the money to fight local democratic initiatives?
Well, duh, because he don't like what them dumb-ass states is doing. How dare a state government legislate intrastate health and welfare! Oregon is acting as if the Constitution gives it the right or something. Bah!

First, I'm on Oregon's side in this particular case.

I understand what you're saying about the DOJ being wrong to challenge the law. And if and when we get Attorney General AyaK (about the time we have President SurvivinDawg ), I'm sure your discretion will be the better part of valor. However, to me, the money isn't the issue, and almost never is in legal cases (what price justice?, etc.). If Ashcroft thought the state initiative was a violation of Federal law, and had some basis in Law to support that, then I don't object to his bringing it to Court, even if I don't agree with his side of the case. What I *would* object to is if he tried to prosecute a doctor AFTER the Court rules. As long as he goes with the Court's decision, then hey! he had his day in court, etc.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I see what you're saying, Dawg, but I don't agree. When you bring a case as the head of DOJ, it isn't just "your" day in court. It's the US government. It may not seem like a big difference, because we know the personalities and the issues involved, but it is a big difference.

That's why AG is a tough job; you don't just represent yourself, you represent the whole US. It was tough for Janet Reno to grasp the difference, and it doesn't seem to be any easier for John Ashcroft.

Where are the modern-day Elliot Richardsons and Bill Ruckelshauses (two loyal Republicans who understood the difference) when you need them?

As I recall Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned his post one Saturday evening after the then President gave him an order he was unwilling to execute. He died a true hero.

General Ashcroft can't reach the laces on his shoes.

General Ashcroft can't reach the laces on his shoes.

Take the personal cheap shots at the man while you can...

*Dawg grabs a DAW and goes to review the Juanita Brodderick interview tape.*

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

while you can

You expect my imminent arrest or ??

I just can't understand why so many men are obsessed with another man's sexual behavior.

as I suspected, but I don't get making it so obvious . . .

...let's be serious for a moment. Womanizing could get so bad that it compromises national security, as it did with JFK (see Taylor Branch's bio of MLK to read how Hoover blackmailed Booby Kennedy over his older brother's indiscretions with a woman suspected of being an East German agent).

And Billy-boy DID lie under oath. Sorry, but any lawyer would tell you that that's a BIG deal.

But, then again, I voted for the guy twice, so I clearly didn't think anything except the lying under oath was a big deal.

I hardly call "forcible rape" (what happened to Juanita Brodderick by Bill Clinton) the same as "womanizing"... but I digress. The reason I hit the "reply" button is this:

A member of the Starr Grand Jury once said that if the Jury had been asked, they would've returned a perjury charge. But Starr never asked...

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

LAST EDITED ON 05-06-03 AT 11:51 PM (EST)

Juanita Brodderick's claim of rape is, of course, very problematic at best and downright unbelievable at worst. Even at the time, it didn't ring true, considering her long-standing denials of it and her previous affidavit denying it. Plus, it doesn't seem consistent with what we know about Slick Willie: he preferred "mouth action," to put it as politely as I can.

Let's put it this way: her credibility is higher than Baghdad Bob's. How much higher has to be left up to each individual reader.

Edited for spelling

rofl ... nicely put

I think you can say bj in the fine print.

I believe Juanita Brodderick's story completely. NBC (who conducted the interview of her that I still have on tape) tried as hard as they could to disprove it in any way. They could not.

I believe Bill Clinton was a forcible rapist, and that Brodderick is not the only woman he has raped. Clinton can sue me if he thinks I'm slandering him.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

So...did you believe Anita Hill, too?

Anita Hill's testimony was PROVED, I say again PROVED to be false, and she should have been brought up on perjury charges. So no, I don't believe her.


Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Now that is one of the biggest loads that I have ever heard on this board.

I know Anita Hill and I know better.

You expect my imminent arrest or ??

Uh, no... unless you have something you want to confess?!?!

What I meant was that Ashcroft won't be in office forever... January 20, 2009 is right around the corner.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Nothing to confess today, but after I read Pynchon's forward to the new version of 1984 my head may be spinning enough to invent something.

"Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True

>Take the personal cheap shots at the man while you can...

OK, can I take one?

"John Ashcroft was so unresponsive to the voters as a Senator that the people of Missouri decided they needed someone more likely to follow their wishes ...

... so they elected a dead man."

************
I can just imagine the lead on his obituary:

"John Ashcroft, the only U.S. Senator ever defeated for re-election by a corpse, died today at ..."

Ha ha.

All joking aside, AyaK, this is one of three cases I cite to show where the Democrats have subverted the Courts (or, more accurately, have used the Courts to subvert written law) to attempt to change the outcome of elections.

And these three examples are why I believe that the Constitution is in much more mortal jeopardy from the Democratic Party, and those of the Liberal (and similar ) political philosophy than it (the Constitution) will EVER be danger from John Ashcroft.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Yeah, but how about Karl Rove?

Yeah, but how about Karl Rove?

Take message 106, insert "Karl Rove" for "John Ashcroft", and you have my answer.

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

*raises hand
one of the ones that voted for a dead man and proud of it

(c) 2003 GeorgiaBelle Creations,Inc. All rights reserved
Celebrity Mole PTTE Champion

Truly something to be proud of...*rolls eyes*

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

given a choice between Ashcroft and a dead man...well, I voted for the dead man too

didn't vote for the widow when she was up for reelection though, was disappointed that she became merely a cog

I wrote in Frank Zappa for President.

-- JV

Now see, I can respect that.

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

Not today, I won't. Continue to ignore the obvious if you like.

double standard

To quote Inego Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That's all I have to say about that.

Fester <-- all this talk of apples and oranges has made him hungry...but not for bait.

As someone who is going into the international education, I have a lot of problems with this statement:
then these same people start screaming when foreign students come under scrutiny, never mind that the Sept. 11th terrorists came in under student visas. Poor guy just can't win.

I don't have a problem that the foreign students are coming under scrutiny, it's just the way the they did it. Yes, the system desperately needed to be changed, but could have been done a little more user-friendly-yes! I have a raging headache, so I'm articulting this argument poorly. I wrote a whole 10 page paper on the problems universities are having implementing SEVIS. This guy said it alot better then I can: (Feel free to flame away!)

http://www.acenet.edu/washington/letters/2002/06june/ins.sevis.cfm
Letter to the INS Regarding SEVIS

June 14, 2002

Director
Regulations and Forms Services Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street, NW, Room 4034
Washington, DC 20536
RE: Comments on Proposed Rule: "Retention and Reporting of Information for F, J, And M Nonimmigrants: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)" INS No. 2185-02 (RIN 115-AG55).

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of the higher education associations listed below, I am writing to offer comments on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Proposed Rule No. 2185-02, published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2002.

The higher education community is fully committed to assisting the INS and other federal agencies in efforts to improve the monitoring and tracking of international students on our campuses. We take seriously our responsibility to improve national security and we believe that SEVIS represents the single most important step the federal government can take to improve the retention and reporting of information on international students and exchange visitors. We support the prompt implementation of this system and pledge to work cooperatively with the INS in these efforts. Our goal is to make the system effective and efficient, and the comments below are directed to that end.

We commend the Department of Justice, and the INS in particular, for their efforts to implement SEVIS under the demanding timetable mandated by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. We especially appreciate INS's efforts to share information with the higher education community and to create a system that will meet Congress's intent. To this end, this letter addresses four issues on which comments were specifically invited: 1) the feasibility of a January 30, 2003 compulsory deadline for schools to begin reporting under SEVIS; 2) the costs to campuses of bringing equipment and systems into compliance with SEVIS; 3) the correlation of designated school officials (DSOs) to the size of an institution's F-1 population; and 4) the training and certification of DSOs.

The proposed compliance deadline of January 30, 2003 is unlikely to prove workable, a view shared by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). We believe a compliance deadline should be set 180 days after the Inspector General certifies that SEVIS is fully operational and software is available for purchase.
Reference: Proposed Rule 214.2(f)(1)(iii); 214.2(m)(1)(iii).

Issue: The proposed rule sets January 30, 2003, as the mandatory compliance date for the electronic retention and reporting of information regarding F, J, and M nonimmigrants.

We strongly support INS's desire to implement SEVIS as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice recently stated that it "questions whether INS will be able" to fully implement SEVIS by the January 30, 2003 deadline. (OIG Report, May 20, 2002, p. 15.) The report cites school recertification, basic training of campus and government officials, and delays in implementation of batch processing capability as reasons INS is "not likely" to meet the January 30, 2003 target. (See id. at 157-8, 164-5.)

We believe that three interrelated steps must be accomplished before SEVIS can be considered operational and institutions can be reasonably expected to meet a compliance deadline.

First, the specifications and the interface for batch processing must be finalized. The batch mode will be critical to the ability of schools with large international populations to comply with SEVIS. Over 80% of foreign students (more than 444,000) are enrolled in 449 institutions of higher education with international student enrollments of over 250 individuals. Entering individual student data is an unworkable proposition for these institutions. Schools with smaller international enrollments also view batch processing as the best way to ensure the accuracy of data submissions.

At present, batch processing is not expected to be operational before fall 2002. Only when it is fully functioning can potential vendors be expected to finalize and make available software for purchase by institutions. Only after purchasing software or modifying existing information systems can institutions begin to convert and load data sets in batch mode — a process we estimate will take individual institutions between 3 to 9 months to complete after software acquisition.

Second, the operating software for SEVIS must be made available for purchase, installation, and testing by all institutions in advance of the compliance deadline, including the technical assistance and training in the use of the software that vendors will provide. Once SEVIS is totally operational, vendors will develop or refine software and make it available for purchase and installation to an estimated 3,500 colleges and universities (and an unknown number of other certified schools and programs). As the Inspector General's Report notes, INS must also have resources in place to offer assistance and training — before and after SEVIS goes live — for those DSOs, information technology specialists, and others who may require assistance to report and maintain information in the database. (See OIG Report at 181.)

Third, adequate technical training and infrastructure at INS is necessary to ensure that the SEVIS web site is fully interactive for campuses before SEVIS can be said to have gone "live." Interactivity does not mean the creation of a web site that an individual user can reach. Rather, to be "fully operational" the system must be thoroughly tested and shown to be capable of batch interfacing by all certified institutions. Adequate technical assistance must be available to ensure timely access for campuses across the country.

Recommendation: In lieu of picking a January 30, 2003 deadline at this point, we recommend that a compliance date be set at 180 days after the Inspector General certifies that, based on benchmarks similar to those outlined above, SEVIS is fully operational. Colleges and universities will work to meet the deadline INS ultimately sets for compliance. It is impossible, however, to make an estimate as to how long it will take institutions to comply with a system that does not yet exist. Certification by the Inspector General should follow expeditiously once that office ascertains that the steps outlined above have been completed.1

Costs associated with SEVIS compliance will vary significantly for campuses. A chief concern that institutions share is to avoid implementing SEVIS twice.
Reference: N/A

Issue: INS asks what monetary impact will result from SEVIS implementation. The short answer is that the impact will be substantial, will vary from institution to institution, and will be paid from institutional funds.

Colleges and universities recognize their significant role in ensuring the effectiveness of the SEVIS database. All are prepared to pay the costs of purchasing and implementing software systems or modifying existing information technology systems of their own.

Institutions with large nonimmigrant student populations that opt to develop in-house systems, such as Johns Hopkins University, have estimated their initial costs at up to $500,000 (based on 4000-5000 hours of expected IT effort). These figures do not include future training, software licenses, staffing, and other attendant maintenance costs. Costs for institutions that purchase systems will vary substantially as well ‚ estimates ranging from $15,000 to $25,000 for start-up software, plus significant yearly maintenance, IT staffing, and server costs.

Our chief concern is that institutions avoid implementing (and therefore paying for) SEVIS twice. This requires that a fully operational system be in place before institutions design their interfaces, or purchase and install software from vendors. "Fully operational" means a system that has been thoroughly tested and demonstrated to be capable of batch processing by campuses across the country. (See supra.)

Recommendation: Because anticipated costs of implementation and compliance are substantial and will vary considerably based on the size of each institution's nonimmigrant student and visitor populations, we strongly endorse certification by the Inspector General that SEVIS is fully operational before a compliance deadline for SEVIS interface is established. If SEVIS implementation is hastened without adequate assurance that INS has a fully functioning system in place, the costs to institutions will increase substantially.

International student enrollments vary significantly among institutions. Campuses should have flexibility in determining the number of designated school officials (DSOs) needed to handle such students.
Reference: 8 C.F.R. 214.3; Proposed Rule 214.3(l)

Issue: The proposal to continue a five-person limit on the number of DSOs that can be employed by an institution — regardless of whether the institution is an elementary school, a high school, a small college, or a multi-campus research university — and to add an additional category of "Administrative School Officials" (ASOs) will not alleviate the administrative burdens institutions will face in implementing and maintaining the SEVIS database.

The suggested new category of administrative school officials (ASOs) is unlikely to provide adequate support for large institutions during "crunch" periods (e.g., the beginning and end of a school term) when large sets of data must be updated and closely reviewed by DSOs. Moreover, we believe that creating a new regulatory category that must continually be distinguished from DSOs will be a complex and low-benefit effort.

Recommendation: The rule should be changed to prescribe no fixed number of DSOs. As long as institutions comply with the extensive guidelines that surround the retention and reporting of information on F, J, and M visa holders, any determination as to the number of DSOs required by a particular school should be left to the school itself. Under the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2002, institutions will be subject to frequent and extensive review by the INS to determine the timeliness and quality of data entered into the system. (See Sec. 501 and 502.) An institution's failure to maintain the SEVIS database will result in loss of authority to issue I-20s or admit international students. (See Sec. 502.) Since schools will have every incentive to employ only competent and qualified DSOs, it should be left to their discretion to hire adequate numbers to serve their needs.

We do not endorse the creation of a new ASO category, which will add unnecessary complexity to the rule and will not assist efforts to operationalize and maintain the system.

Voluntary training programs are presently available for campus DSOs. INS should not mandate or seek to implement a certification program for DSOs at the present time.
Reference: N/A

Issue: Adequate training will be essential to assist DSOs in using the new SEVIS database. As noted above, institutions will have strong incentives to ensure that DSOs are adequately trained and perform their functions properly.

Already, there are voluntary programs that provide DSOs with up-to-date training and information. In particular, NAFSA: Association of International Educators has made training available to its 8,000 members, which include DSOs at most institutions of higher education in the United States. So far as we know, no one has called into question the quality of training available or the competence of those presently offering the training.

We hesitate to recommend that INS adopt additional training or certification requirements at this time. Nonetheless, we endorse the Inspector General's report language that "he INS should develop a timetable for implementing training and an implementation plan for carrying out the training." (OIG Report at 181.) Voluntary training opportunities for DSOs should be made available well in advance of the mandatory compliance deadline. We strongly encourage INS to devote adequate resources to offer and sustain such programs.

Recommendation: Rather than asking INS to design and implement yet another mandatory program, we suggest that schools should continue to obtain training through voluntary programs. Nor should INS seek to establish a mandatory certification process at this time. If either of these issues needs to be revisited, it can be done at a later time.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. The higher education community remains committed to bringing SEVIS into operation as expeditiously as possible. We urge the Department of Justice to revise the Proposed Rule in light of these comments. Please contact me if we can be of further service.

Sincerely,
David Ward
President, American Council on Education

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 If the INS prefers to specify a date for implementation, we recommend that the agency consider the Master Calendar provision of the Higher Education Act, whereby colleges and universities by statute are given an eight-month period between issuance of specifications by the Department of Education and the date by which institutions are expected to bring systems into compliance. (See 20 U.S.C. 1089.) If, as promised by INS, final batch processing specifications and software are available by October 1, 2002, the higher education community would suggest a June 1, 2003 deadline for implementation. Should this second course be adopted, INS's effort to make SEVIS go live at 70,000 schools (as opposed to the 7,000 that are affected by the Higher Education Act) over an eight-month period will be more difficult.

A Kyngsladye Original
"I believe the most important single thing, beyond discipline and creativity,
is daring to dare" Maya Angelou

Well, she certainly spoke for me...

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

Are you on the court? Or a police officer involved in the case?

If not, that's sure a huge stretch for "personal".

LAST EDITED ON 05-07-03 AT 01:13 AM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON 05-06-03 AT 10:13 PM (EST)
My deleting of a retort here has caused some problems. My response back was something I have a problem with, it is called reacting before thinking. I am working on that little problem. But basically I used a five letter word that starts with the letter T. I realized that no one deserves to be called that pulled it. That is it folks. Was not the big deal it turned out to be.

"Now I will believe that there are unicorns..." William Shakespeare; "The Tempest"

I just want to pipe up and say that of the Texans that I know personally, a significant fraction are either abysmally stupid or have significant chemical or psychological "issues."

Present company excepted, of course, as I've never met any of the Texan contingent here.

-- JV

(yes, smoking way too much rope and ESPECIALLY still sporting a mullet into the 21st century *are* significant issues. So's skipping Mother's Day with your kids to go to softball practice and have dinner with your GF.)

Well, I must hang with a different crowd of Texans, because I don't know anyone who smokes rope (I don't even know what that means), has a mullet, is "abysmally stupid", or has any more 'chemical or psychological "issues."' than anyone from any of the other 49 states.

Maybe you need to hang out with a higher class of people, JV.

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

That would have been my ex-wife's family and friends, in case you didn't get the reference.

and rope==hemp

-- jv

Ah. Nope, I did miss the reference, sorry.

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

LAST EDITED ON 05-06-03 AT 08:35 PM (EST)

...since Rehnquist became CJ, this Court has often granted summary orders where the facts are clear, as they are here.

Quoting from the slip opinion (deleting references, and the comments inside {{}} are mine):

"Detectives immediately tried but failed to obtain a warrant to question Kaupp. {{In a footnote, the court explains that the detectives didn't think they had probable cause to arrest Kaupp, so that asked for a special warrant which didn't require probable cause, but the DA's office denied it.}} Detective Gregory Pinkins nevertheless decided (in his words) to "get <Kaupp> in and confront him with what <the brother> had said." In the company of two other plain clothes detectives and three uniformed officers, Pinkins went to Kaupp's house at approximately 3 a.m. on January 27th. After Kaupp's father let them in, Pinkins, with at least two other officers, went to Kaupp's bedroom, awakened him with a flashlight, identified himself, and said, "We need to go and talk." {{The officers appear to have been armed and had their guns drawn at this point, although that is disputed in the record by one of the officers.}} Kaupp said, "Okay." The two officers then handcuffed Kaupp and led him, shoeless and dressed only in boxer shorts and a T-shirt, out of his house and into a patrol car. The state points to nothing in the record indicating Kaupp was told that he was free to decline to go with the officers." He was then taken to a police station interview room.

The Texas appeals court held that Kaupp consented to talk to the officers when he said "OK" after he was rousted out of bed; it said that the subsequent handcuffing and INVOLUNTARY removal to the police station didn't change the consentual nature of the interview. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to even hear the case ... which is how it ended up in the Supreme Court.

Now, had the officers gotten an arrest warrant, they would have been free to roust the suspect in the middle of the night, handcuff him, and take him to the police station for questioning. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Kaupp's use of the word "OK" made this distiguishable from a conventional arrest. The Texas courts felt that it did. Do you?

**************************

It's not as easy of a case as it sounds from my description (which may reveal my own bias in the matter). There is a substantial body of law that permits police to move you to the police station without changing the interview into a custodial one. There is a substantial body of law regarding consent and what is required to "break" consent. The problem here is that the Texas court looked at one factor at a time instead of looking at the whole picture.

I always like to refer to some cases as "bad facts" cases, and this is one. The Texas police had two HUGE bad facts: they had been turned doen in their request for a "pocket warrant" to pick Kaupp up for questioning, and they had decided that they didn't have probable cause for an arrest warrant. Nevertheless, they did something that seems almost identical to an arrest. If the Supreme Court did NOT reverse, then why would police ever worry about getting an arrest warrant?

The real question here is why the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't even hear the case. One possible implication is that Texas police do so many crazy things that this one seemed minor by comparison. I hope that's not the real reason, of course.

Yeah, they grow 'em so smart in Texas that even the Supreme Court tells 'em they're dumb.

Wow, now we're going to call Texans "dumb" because the Supreme Court rightly found a legal case to be in error and in need of overturning. Geez, in what state has this NOT happened? And they do seem to get most of the cases right, way too many to enumerate here.

Of course, the level of pure hatred by some liberals for Dubya is such that some people will look for ANY straw to grasp to attack him (and his state), and even (in England) declare shame at being from that state.

GOD.BLESS.TEXAS! Right, Nailbone?

Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Um, them's libruls ... and it is distain. He isn't worthy of hatred.

Hard to have respect for a Commander in Chief who went awol.

Hard to have respect for a Commander in Chief who went awol.

You're making this easy, TN!

Just as it is impossible to have respect for the previous commander in chief, who was a draft dodger, put "I loathe the military" in writing, and (coincidentally, I'm sure) liked to fire cruise missles at aspirin factories in Sudan the day Monica Lewinski was giving testimony to the Starr Grand Jury.

Glad to see Monica has moved on to better things, like "Mr. Personality".

Wag the dog! Wag the dog! Oops, shouldn't bring up "dogs" like that... personal attack on myself!


Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Technically, he deserted, he didn't go AWOL.

LAST EDITED ON 05-07-03 AT 09:45 AM (EST)

Thanks, Tech, I 'ppreciate that. Wanna let me know where you're from so I can take pot shots at your home state?

(I expected better...guess I'm just another dumb Texan.)

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

I was born in Washington DC as was my father before me and his father before that and his father. His father was born in Pennsylvania and was a Colonel in the Pennsylvania regiment in the civil war. He emmigrated to Washington DC to work in the first Johnson administration. Need to go back any farther, because I can take you through the revolution if you wish?

"Half of Tech's charm is that sometimes I have no idea what she's talking about" -- True

Great story, Tech. So, does that mean that your family never voted in a presidential election until 1964?

LAST EDITED ON 05-08-03 AT 05:46 PM (EST)

My family moved to Maryland, within sight of the District of Columbia, in 1957. The first presidential election in this century that my paternal relatives voted in was in 1960.

The family is filled with politial lore.

Someone's been at Tbogg...

>Someone's been at Tbogg...
>
What's Tbogg?

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

It's a librul blog.

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/

You said it Boner...these people are nutZZ.

End of Round 43,276!

Everyone back to your respective corners, grab a beverage of choice and watch some crazy daw make an ass of themselves on national tv. And breathe.

really really nuts

my first 100

Congrats on your first #100, TN!

As you are queen of all DAWs, I find it hard to believe you have never gotten 100. I, myself, genteel and kind of heart, have reached the 100 post on 3 such occasions.

But what I am really here to say is, where the frick are the orange tic tacs? And if you don't mind, I could use some cheetos over here...crunchy of course. Thank you .

Just when you least expect it...ICECAT.

The Orange TicTacs are in my Car (seriously)

The Texans are nuts ( sorry Nail)

And how many times can Sapphire Lady flame in her posts then delete the content?

Just asking

>The Orange TicTacs are in
>my Car (seriously)

Orange tictacs rule.

>The Texans are nuts ( sorry
>Nail)

speaking as a native Coloradan, exposed to Texans regularly, I agree.

>And how many times can Sapphire
>Lady flame in her posts
>then delete the content?

She learned from the best.

>
>speaking as a native Coloradan, exposed
>to Texans regularly, I agree.
>
>
A Coloradan calling Texans nuts???? Pot...kettle...

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

At least Texans are reasonably predictable.

{smile}

Well, this is true....

(c) 2003 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.
Royal Liaison to Illicit Activities, SB Video Historian (StS)
- Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.

LAST EDITED ON 05-07-03 AT 00:26 AM (EST)

Long time no chat, chicky!!!

Never had an orange Tic Tac...still holding out for Supes.

Texans....loony,but so much fun.

What you can't see doesn't count, I suppose.

Miscellaneous Ramblings
--can't see her own butt, so it must not be there either