today on the ziggy and scott show-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_mFzqchC_8

This raises some interesting questions [at least interesting to me]. In summary the residents of a small barrier island are being forced into smaller and smaller area / out of business in some cases due to federal efforts to protect a small little known bird called the piping plover.

At what point do the needs of people outweigh the needs of animals? Is this conservation gone too far or is this reasonable? Do the people need to leave or will the birds just have to adapt to the changing face of the island? Is it reasonable to protect one specices from another [as in the policy displayed here where agents kill fox to protect the bird] or is that in and of itself upsetting the natural balance of predator / prey relationshiops? What if all human intervention stopped AND the piping plovers were still unable to survive? What is the value of a piping plover? Thoughts?

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.***

Hey how's everyone doing? I know we have a huge audience and I just want to thank you all for tuning in.

That's an amazing story Scott. It reminds me of the spotted owl debacle in the great Pacific Northwest. I am a conservative but I love the environment and I'm all for protecting habitats and all but it really does get out of hand, especially when, as the man who was a science techer in the video said, science is no longer based on scientific studies but solely on politics. Damn shame. Reminds me that there was a similar uproar about some rat in the Central Valley in CA (a farmer ran over one with his machinery in his own field and faced prosecution for killing it because it was endagered).

I am very impressed with the residents interviewed in the documentary...all very intelligent and articulate people who seem to understand the issues better than those in charge.


There is always the possibility that a species will just go the way of the Dodo no matter what we do.

What killed me was the fact that when they closed the island to humans and vehicles etc, it caused more vegitation which was pushing the beachy birds further into an area where they were more likely to be killed by preditors (I think I understood that correctly).


Scott you are starting to sound more like a conservative the more I get to know you. What I do love about you is your fair and impartial way of looking at things.


Your disclaimer is freaking hilarious so I'm going to use it too. You've been on quite the comic roll lately.

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.*** Edited to add: Batteries not included.

The non existant producers of this show wish for me to remind the audience that this is a participation program. Your comments are welcomed.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/08/john-stossel-entrepreneur-government-protectionism-libertarian-new-york/


The topic today is government business regulations...do they help or hurt? #1 is absurd. I think when it comes to caskets...who really cares? If you are in one you are dead. The box won't matter all that much. #2 I agree with the government's effort to regulate. Ever taken a cab in an urban area? Do you want to hop in a car with just any stranger or do you feel better knowing that at least an effort was made to be sure that the car has working brakes and is not driven by a paroled serial rapist. #3.....yea... I get it sort of. You are providing a service sort of like a spa. You should have to maintain reasonable standards of sanitation. #4 Sounds abusive on its surface but why are those regulations in place? If every business had someone standing out there it would clog up the street. If a local branch of the Nazi party wanted to stand there with recruitment signs then people would not be so supportive. It is a case of we want rules to apply to everyone that is not us.
In general it is the cumbersom government regulations that make sure the car you drive has working seat belts, crumble zones, and a collapsable steering column that does not impale you on a low speed impact like the cars of old. It makes sure that there are working exits to the movie theater when you pack in there with 400 other people to watch a show. It reasonably ensures that the food you eat is safe, etc. etc. etc. Are the regulations abused at times. Most certainly they are. However.. in the vast majority of cases they actually help a great number of people.
***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

I think there is way too much regulation. Carly Fiorina who is running against one of our many state disgraces, Barbara Boxer, was talking on the radio this morning about how in CA we actually just run people off with regulations that try to start businesses here. It's really true. It's like making sure the needle they will insert into the arm of the guy being executed is sterile. Really? #1 - was totally absurd. #2. I get that one, but the guy is right - they are making it easier for him to go on welfare than start his own business. There must be a compromise somewhere. But common carriers do hold a higher level of responsibility under the law so public safety trumps his wants or needs. #3 - totally disagree. It's braiding, non-invasive no autoclave for sanitation necessary. Get OUT - that's total overregulation. #4 - complete BS. Hey didn't that create a whole new job - yes - the sign spinner. Some of those guys are awesome and entertaining.

You can't even have a bake sale anymore because you might be shut down by the health department for not having a license. On and On. Lemonaide stands have been shut down for the same reason. It's out of control.

Less government all around.


***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

Cohost Ziggy pointed out in an unrealted segment on a differnt thread yesterday that tendency for people in general to favor talking about largely irrelavent topics while avoiding real issues. This is a clip from the cnn home page today. My comments are in red.

Don't miss

Living amid desolation and hope Imam: Radicals win if project moved
6:58

Okay. This is both timely and newsworthy.

Douglas taking life one day at a time

Sad as it is, the man has cancer. Is this really the # 2 story on the cnn homepage?

Lady Gaga's eye trend isn't 100% safe

Really? In the middle of a recession, approaching mid term elections with our nation fighting a war on two fronts and tensions heating up over Iran THIS is what cnn puts first?

What Kanye made us forget about VMAs

I don't consider Kayne West or the VMAs.

LIVE: Afghanistan war worth it?

Thank you. This is news.

Navarrette: Get real, Mexico, it's a cartoon

Someone is offended.

Live chat: How to take better pictures

This of course is something everyone must know.

So out of the 6 stories in my estimation 2 are front page worthy. 1 may lead to a story and the other 3 are mental junk food. YES we tend to focus on the trivial.

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

I just looked on Yahoo -
1. Boyband member loses battle with lukemia
2. Giant Goldfish photo - real or fake?
3. Great Hair products...
4. One of the three Iran hostages to be set free.

Nothing really newsworthy is trending.

But heaven forbid if you want to talk about some real issues on my particular Facebook - you aren't being "fun".

America is obsessed with the trival. It's all that game's fault.

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/convictions-hard-get-cases-blackwaters

Here is a new case worth watching. It raises several issues. Is it appropriate to charge someone with murder in a war zone? I think in some cases .. probably. In this case.. I am not so sure.

Is hindsight alone enough to make something a crime? If they had known THEN what they know NOW would they have acted differently? Perhaps or perhaps not. Does it even matter? They reacted to a situation using the best inforamtion they had at the time.

Also the car was not stopped on scene. How can anyone say with certainty NOW what was in that car at the time or the intentions of the drivers.

Thoughts?

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

A Louisianna Judge appointed by Bill Clinton is being impeached for being your basic crook on a pretty grand scale.

Did you know that Federal Judges are appointed and cannot be taken out of office unless by the impeachment process?

The idea is that they should rule on what they think is right and not by public pressure to get re-elected. Does that really work?


I think most activist-type decisions are made by Federal judges who know they basically can't be fired even for egregious decisions because it takes a lot for the impeachment process to kick in. Here - it took the FBI to uncover this guy's wrongdoings.

With our moral fabric tattered and torn in this country - I think there needs to be a change in the longevity of Federal Judges...we need a comporomise so that they don't make decisions without any consequences for their actions. What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/13/senate-begins-impeachment-trial-federal-judge/?test=latestnews

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

Scott wrote:http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/convictions-hard-get-cases-blackwaters

Here is a new case worth watching. It raises several issues. Is it appropriate to charge someone with murder in a war zone? I think in some cases .. probably. In this case.. I am not so sure.

Is hindsight alone enough to make something a crime? If they had known THEN what they know NOW would they have acted differently? Perhaps or perhaps not. Does it even matter? They reacted to a situation using the best inforamtion they had at the time.

Also the car was not stopped on scene. How can anyone say with certainty NOW what was in that car at the time or the intentions of the drivers.

Thoughts?

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

Well you sure know how to get my blood boiling - remember it's still morning here!!! I have to carry the heart palpatations around all day

Utterly reDONKULUS; why is the government even bring these charges? Afghans also fired so why didn't we haul their asses back here to be co-defendants?

I say it is perfect self defense - an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to counter deadly force.

That's the thing - hindsight DOESN'T count - you have to convict the person on what was happening at the time and say whether the common man could objectively see what they saw as necessary. But there's the hitch...no regular man can understand being in a war zone so I don't think our domestic laws can properly handle these cases.

Repeal that God Awful law that allows charges to be brought in a time of war.

Another Government waste of time and money. They will be acquitted.

ziggy wrote:A Louisianna Judge appointed by Bill Clinton is being impeached for being your basic crook on a pretty grand scale.

Did you know that Federal Judges are appointed and cannot be taken out of office unless by the impeachment process?

The idea is that they should rule on what they think is right and not by public pressure to get re-elected. Does that really work?


I think most activist-type decisions are made by Federal judges who know they basically can't be fired even for egregious decisions because it takes a lot for the impeachment process to kick in. Here - it took the FBI to uncover this guy's wrongdoings.

With our moral fabric tattered and torn in this country - I think there needs to be a change in the longevity of Federal Judges...we need a comporomise so that they don't make decisions without any consequences for their actions. What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/13/senate-begins-impeachment-trial-federal-judge/?test=latestnews

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***

From the perspective of someone NOT residing in the 9th circuit I think leave the sytem as it is. There is a mechanism to remove bad judges. It is impeachment. It may be slow and hard to do but.. it does exist. I think that the need to keep the judicary a seperate branch of government with judges that are free to rule on the basis of law without fear of POLITICAL consequences outweighs the concern that a few problem people may abuse the system. I believe judges like the one accussed in the article are the minority. I suspect it is like police. It is HUGE news when an officer does something wrong and it is widly reported BUT that does not mean that is the norm.

Reside in the Ninth circuit without losing your mind... I dare you!

In a follow to an earlier story...
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/jury-hung-murder-trial-former-blackwater-workers

The former blackwater employees were not found guilty. Since the jury could not agree on a decision the prosecution will retry the case.

Opinion question. This is legal but should it be? The governemnt had the chance to present the evidence, a jury had a chance to deliberate, the could not agree so the government gets a do over.

I have mixed feelings personally. A unamious decison may be important to weed out any cooks that make it to jury duty. You don't want decisions made by people with extreme views so I think the idea is that if everyone on the jury agrees then the decision is reasonable.

But what do you do with complex cases like this were it is difficult if not impossible to get consensus? What if the next jury cannot agree? Thoughts?

I can't figure out why the federal prosecutors have such a hard on for this case. Equally split isn't even close. They should not be wasting our money to re-try a case that imo the military should have jurisdiction over. If we are in a country to wage war and part of that effort is hiring private contractors (but for the war the contractors would not even be in the country)then I can't understand how our pencil neck geek federal prosecutors think they should decide, or that even our domestic jury CAN decide what conditions are like in an atmosphere of the constant fear of death, IEDs and car bombs and come to a fair conclusion. It just seems the military should have a branch to handle these trials and issues relating to the contractors hired to assist military action.

Enough is enough, they lost their battle now they should just drop it.

Also today on the ziggy and Scott show - ARGGGGG here's what's wrong with AMERICA!!!

A cop stages an arrest of a 15 year old to tell him he better quit having sex with his stepdaughter who is 14. He basically puts the old scare into him and then that little shit's parents go on National TV and crucify this cop. The cop also tells the kid to stay in school, get good grades, be respectful (oh yeah and advises him that having sex with a 14 year old girl is against the law).

My parents would have been thrilled if somebody did that to us (and in fact it did happen because we lived in smalltown USA back in the day)

Raise your hand if you think San Jose cop should get a free pass on this because that little punk needs to learn a lesson and so should his parents.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/exclusive-parents-speak-sons-fake-arrest/story?id=11734203

They did not have an emoticon raising only 1 hand.
Here is an alternative. Give parents $10,000.00 for suit agains city. Cop goes to sensativity classes for a couple weekend. Boy is charged, goes to juvi until he is 18ish gets out and registers as a sex offender. Everyone wins?????
The parents are idiots. The cop did them a favor.

We are all adults. We know teenagers have sex. Is it something positive. Do we as a society want to encourage it? Is anyone better off becuase they had sex at 14 or 15?

Yes - we need more fast thinkers like Mr. StepDad cop - he has a lucky step daughter if he cares that much.

There will be a lawsuit - count on it. Maybe I will become a defense attorney and make mincemeat out of people like these money grubbing worms who procreated a little pansy. I'm so mean lately. I should take estrogen.

There will be a lawsuit. City will settle. Terms will be confidential. Still think if parents want to sue..fine. Kid get prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. Kid will be convicted. Terms not confidential. RSO.

Did the officer act fully appropriately? No. Does he care about his stepdaughter? Apparently he does. Did he do the kid a favor by not really putting him in the system? Yes.

This is like suing the officer that caught the underage college students drinking and made them pour out their beer and go home rather than writing them for DIP. When you are doing the wrong thing AND someone does you a favor leave it alone.

***The Ziggy and Scott Show is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entirely fictional Ziggy and Scott Enterprises. Opinions expressed on the show are a largely unorganized effort to generate conversation while forum participants await further developments in the Sam McCroskey case. They may or may not represent opinions of real individuals. Sold by weight not volume. Some assembly required. Results may vary.Batteries not included.***