BurningbirdLast Friday the 13th was a lucky day for those who love physics — The online html version of Volume 1 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP) was released! Now anyone with Internet access and a web browser can enjoy these unique lectures for free. They look beautiful.
Good news, and confusing news.
Judge Armijo enjoined the USDA from providing inspectors for horse meat processing to Rains Natural Meats, which is good news. However, she did so in a rather baffling order.
Unlike the earlier Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) associated with Valley Meat and Responsible Transportation, the TRO related to Rains is given a termination date of Oct. 4, with the Magistrate Judge then determining whether to extend it beyond this date. The Judge extended the TRO for the other two plants until October 31, 2013, when she expects to have her decision in the case.
So the TRO for one plant ends earlier than the TRO for the other two plants—all for the same case. And the Magistrate Judge is the one to determine if the evidence is such that the TRO should be extended for Rains, when Judge Armijo was the one to determine the length of the TRO based on the legal merits for the other two plants.
I’m reminded again that I’m not a lawyer, because I don’t see any good and logical reason why Judge Armijo would have Judge Scott determine whether the TRO should extend beyond that date, when she didn’t do so with Valley Meat and Responsible Transportation. Perhaps there’s some hidden logic that requires legal training in order to assess the reasoning for issuing such an inconsistent order.
Or perhaps I just need to hit my head against the wall a dozen times in order to understand.
In the meantime, the USDA FSIS sent me a CD with the documents associated with the Administrative Record index for the case. There’s no direct link between the index and the documents; you’ll have to look up the document number in the left column of the index, and then search for the document in the ordered file list.
Interesting reading, even if the USDA did get a little heavy handed with the redactions.
We have confirmation that Rains Natural Meats was attempting to start up horse slaughter operations on Monday.
Bruce Wagman just filed an emergency motion to ensure that Rains Natural Meats is included in the Temporary Restraining Order issued by Judge Armijo. It’s unfortunate that the TRO isn’t against the USDA rather than the USDA in context with all these companies. The action really is against the USDA.
If you look at the attachment for the motion, you can see that Rains was demanding inspectors by the 23rd, and planned to start operation as soon as possible. He actually wanted inspectors today.
You can directly access the court documents for Front Range Equine Rescue et al v. Vilsack et al. The emergency motion is docket number 156. Judge Armijo has asked the defendant for an expedited response to the emergency motion by Friday at noon. In addition, there’s a Monday, September 23, hearing on the Missouri case that’s currently prohibiting the Missouri DNR from issuing wastewater discharge permits to Rains Natural Meats. In my previous writing I outlined how Rains was going to attempt to get around this order.
Previous writing: Will the first horse meat plant open in Missouri September 23?
update
Evidently the pod people arrived today, stealing legislator bodies, because both the gun nullification and tax cut bills did not survive a veto override attempt. A half dozen bills did survive including a silly law created specifically for one powerful corporation, Doe Run.
earlier
Today is what’s known as Missouri Veto Day. This is the day when Missourians learn whether our state resumes a normal life or continues being fodder for much head shaking and laughter.
This special session of the Missouri legislature was organized to address several vetoes by Governor Jay Nixon. Among the many bills entering the override sweepstakes, two in particular stand out: HB 253, the latest in Rex Sinquefield’s social experiment to see how one can go about buying a state; and HB 436, otherwise known as That Damn Gun Nullification bill.
HB 253 is the granddaddy of “starve the government” bills. It’s a massive tax cut that benefits corporations and the affluent, while severely restricting desperately needed cash flow. Since Missouri also has a balanced budget amendment enshrined in our Constitution, this bill forces Missouri to dramatically cut education and other necessary services—and Missouri isn’t a particularly generous state to begin with. We’re thinking of changing our motto from “Show me” to “Send help”.
Nixon vetoed the bill, and haven’t we had fun since. You can’t watch news without seeing 10 or more of the Sinquefield funded ads accusing Nixon of various nefarious acts by not supporting the bill. I thought this crap was over after the election, but no, here in Missouri, we like political doggerel fed to us 24×7.
Veto supporters did manage to scrape together enough money to produce one ad, which I saw once. Most of the effort to support the veto came about by Nixon doing the boots-on-the-ground, press the flesh, eat ham at the fair, grass roots effort…and talk to every single reporter from anything even remotely resembling a publication. Heck, he even talked to webloggers.
(I found it humorous when State Rep. Holly Rehder compared what Nixon did in his grass roots campaign to the Nazi propaganda machine. That’s like saying Hitler rose to power by kissing baby cheeks and eating Leberkäse.)
Then there was the visit by Rick Perry, Texas Governor. Missouri’s Chamber of Commerce decided the best way to convince people to call their representatives and demand a veto override was by bringing in a man who ran ads telling businesses they should leave Missouri and go to Texas. Texas, where their lack of regulation is only matched by their spiffy highway system.
Missouri can proudly lay claim to having the only Chamber of Commerce actively trying to send business elsewhere.
There is one good thing about HB 253: no one has doubted the sanity of the people who support it. We may wonder about their fiscal responsibility, empathy to the average person, foresight and intelligence, but HB 253 supporters seem to be sane. The same cannot be said for HB 436 supporters.
There’s all sorts of good reading in HB 436, but my favorite part is the following:
Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Any Missouri citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section shall have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting such enforcement.
According to this bill, not only can our sheriffs arrest ATF agents for enforcing federal laws, anyone busted in the state based on these same laws can sue the ATF agents. In what reality is this a good idea? Even the NRA isn’t embracing this puppy.
Fortunately, whatever sanity is lacking in Jefferson City can be found elsewhere in the state. Every major law enforcement organization in the state is against this bill, including the rural-reflecting Sheriff’s Association:
The sheriffs’ association – particularly influential in rural Missouri — announced early Friday that the bill “violates the sheriff’s oath of office.”
…The Sheriffs’ Association says that several provisions also “would serve to hamstring the sheriffs and their deputies from enforcing or participating in all federal, drug, and violent gang task forces currently operating in the state.”
In addition, the association said, “language in the bill would expose all local law enforcement” to legal liability as authorities try to enforce any state laws regarding firearms violations.
Our Attorney General, Chris Koster, wants nothing to do with this bill. He sent a letter to the legislature reminding them of what happens when states attempt to nullify federal law. Of course, if the state implements the law and when it gets thrown out in court, Missouri legislators can just whip up another bill making it illegal for federal courts to operate in the state.
The photo for my newest book comes from Shutterstock. It’s not a perfect photo. It’s a little dark, a little blurry and out of focus. But no other image worked for the book. When I saw it, I knew this was the image I wanted for my cover. Authors get funny that way, which is why publishers rarely let us anywhere near the cover.
Thankfully, O’Reilly’s Director of Brand Management and expert on all things book covers, Edie Freedman, kindly volunteered to help me pummel the photo into shape. She also helped educate me on what makes a good book cover. For instance, I didn’t know about needing to leave space on all sides of the cover page. I also wasn’t aware that when you’re a relatively unknown author, as I am, you want to put your name at the top of the page; get a little name recognition going. She helped polish away many of the photo’s distractions, and find a font that, I think, really makes the cover snap—especially in smaller sizes, which is what shows up on Amazon pages.
The cover image is probably the only photo I’ll be using from Shutterstock in my book. Most of the images will come from the court case and investigations the book covers. The others are coming from photos at Flickr made freely available for use with a Creative Commons license. You can use a photo in a book, as illustration, if the CC license permits noncommercial use.
Some of the photos are from folks who have attended the Ringling Brothers circus or the associated animal walks. Others, though, come from the Circus collection of the Boston Public Library. This wonderful institution has not only uploaded extraordinary graphics and photos to its Flickr account, it kindly allows people like me to use the photos in a non-commercial setting (such as within a book for editorial or illustrative purposes). My favorite set of theirs is, of course, the one related to the circus.
I’ve always been reluctant about the Creative Commons license, not the least of which, the licenses are a bit confusing. For instance, it took me the longest time to figure out that using a photo as illustration within a book that isn’t focused on selling said photo is not a commercial use of the photo. Or at least, that’s the interpretation I’ve seen most frequently given, and the one I’m sticking with.
I can now see, though, why having a licensing scheme such as the Creative Commons is so helpful. It wasn’t necessary to have older photos and circus posters in the book…but the added color and history makes it more lively.
I was so grateful to the Boston Public Library that I decided to upload all of my photos to my new Flickr account and offer them for use. The CC license I picked is very open, other than I restrict commercial use because I don’t have model releases for people and buildings and don’t want to hassle with the potential content copyright issues.
I’ve already had one of my photos used in a Missouri Department of Tourism pamphlet, for illustrative purposes. I don’t claim to be the best photographer in the world, and most of my photos are ordinary. But you never know when one of your photos might help someone, so I just uploaded them all, let folks use them or not.