Federal Raid was a Setup? (sorry if repost)

[espdeangibson]

Strassel: Stringing Up Gibson Guitar - WSJ.com

Apparently, the federal raid of the gibson factory in august was a setup, and that's all I could read 'cause I'm not a subscriber.

[River side]

Sure it was.

It was a conspiracy to get you to pay more for a guitar with a baked maple fretboard than you would for one with rosewood.

[GuitarToneFreak]

I'm confused, I thought the mean ol' gubmint did it to be assholes because they hate Americans having jobs, and because Henry was a repub?

[River side]

I though it was about boosting the X because it had a good fretboard (if nothing else.)

[nauc]

if you copy and paste a WSJ article title into Google News, a lot of times you can read the entire article

so heres the full WSJ article...

"On a sweltering day in August, federal agents raided the Tennessee factories of the storied Gibson Guitar Corp. The suggestion was that Gibson had violated the Lacey Act—a federal law designed to protect wildlife—by importing certain India ebony. The company has vehemently denied that suggestion and has yet to be charged. It is instead living in a state of harassed legal limbo.

Which, let's be clear, is exactly what its persecutors had planned all along. The untold story of Gibson is this: It was set up.

Most of the press coverage has implied that the company is the unfortunate victim of a well-meaning, if complicated, law. Stories note, in passing, that the Lacey Act was "expanded" in 2008, and that this has had "unintended consequences." Given Washington's reputation for ill-considered bills, this might make sense.

Only not in this case. The story here is about how a toxic alliance of ideological activists and trade protectionists deliberately set about creating a vague law, one designed to make an example out of companies (like Gibson) and thus chill imports—even legal ones.

The Lacey Act was passed in 1900 to stop trade in illegal wild game. Over the years it has expanded, and today it encompasses a range of endangered species. It requires American businesses to follow both U.S. and foreign law, though with most Lacey goods, this has been relatively clear. Think elephant tusks, tiger pelts or tropical birds.

That changed in 2007, when an alliance of environmentalists, labor unions and industry groups began pushing for Lacey to cover "plant and plant products" and related items. Congress had previously resisted such a broad definition for the simple reason that it would encompass timber products. Trees are ubiquitous, are transformed into thousands of byproducts, and pass through dozens of countries. Whereas even a small U.S. importer would know not to import a tiger skin, tracking a sliver of wood (now transformed into a toy, or an umbrella) through this maze of countries and manufacturing laws back to the tree it came from, would be impossible.

Furniture maker Ikea noted that even if it could comply with the change, the "administrative costs and record-keeping requirements" would cause furniture prices to "skyrocket." The wood chips that go into its particleboard alone could require tracking back and reporting on more than 100 different tree species.

Which is exactly what the Lacey expanders wanted. The drive was headed up by a murky British green outfit called the Environmental Investigation Agency. The EIA is anti-logging, and, like most environmental groups, understands that the best way to force developing countries to "preserve" their natural resources is to dry up the market for their products. They would prefer that wood be sourced from the U.S. and Europe, where green groups have more influence over rules.

The EIA was joined by labor unions such as the Teamsters and industry groups such as the American Forest and Paper Association. As Mark Barford of the Memphis-based National Hardwood Lumber Association told one news outlet: "We need the protection of the Lacey Act. . . . Our small, little companies cannot compete with artificially low prices from wood that comes in illegally. . . . This is our Jobs Act."

While everyone can be against "illegal" wood, what this crew understood was that the complexity of complying with an expanded Lacey Act would discourage companies from importing even legal wood. They went to Sen. Ron Wyden, of the well-timbered Oregon, who dutifully introduced legislation.

Mr. Wyden cleverly attached it to the wildly popular 2008 farm bill, guaranteeing its passage. Even then, some lawmakers sought to ensure that companies weren't unfairly ensnared. In October 2008, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter sent a letter to the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division (whose career staff is notorious for pursuing a green agenda), asking it to clarify whether any companies acting in good faith would be granted some protection from the law. The division has never clarified.

And so Gibson has been trapped, as intended. The company, after all, is not accused of importing banned wood (say, Brazilian mahogany). The ebony it bought is legal and documented. The issue is whether Gibson ran afoul of a technical Indian law governing the export of finished wood products. The U.S. government's interpretation of Indian law suggests the wood Gibson imported wasn't finished enough. Got that?

The EIA, which helped author the Wyden legislation, happens to have spent years publicly targeting Gibson for buying foreign wood. Oh, to see the Justice Department's communications with outside groups.

Gibson was picked because it is famous and, sure enough, its travails have scared importers away from an array of foreign wood products. Tennessee Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Jim Cooper are now working to give companies some protection and reduce paperwork. On cue, the EIA is howling that Congress is "gutting" Lacey.

Congress would be better off doing just that—repealing the expansion in its entirety. The provision does nothing to stamp out illegal logging—the products from which were already clearly no-nos. This isn't environmental protection; it's hostage-taking."

[stratlt]

Originally Posted by espdeangibson

Strassel: Stringing Up Gibson Guitar - WSJ.com

Apparently, the federal raid of the gibson factory in august was a setup, and that's all I could read 'cause I'm not a subscriber.

Full story:

STRASSEL::Stringing Up Gibson Guitar – WSJ

[EasyAce]

Originally Posted by nauc

if you copy and paste a WSJ article title into Google News, a lot of times you can read the entire article

so heres the full WSJ article...

No surprise there. Ms. Strassel (I am a faithful reader) never fails to instruct, delight, and prick where merited. The only surprise should be that it took this long for the nation's largest organised crime family (hint: it ain't the Mafia) to set Gibson up in the first place.

[River side]

[Bountyhunter]

It's nice to know that the Feds have nothing more important to worry about than some chunks of wood. I for one can't think of one damn thing that would be a better use of time and money.

[River side]

Originally Posted by Bountyhunter

It's nice to know that the Feds have nothing more important to worry about than some chunks of wood. I for one can't think of one damn thing that would be a better use of time and money.

Pose, pose, pose.

There's tons of waste in the world of LE - witness the turnout over a couple of rock throwers.

Glad no one had paintball gun going, or else the whole dang state would have had to wait it out before another stop-sign got run:

SAN BERNARDINO: Rock throwing leads to big police showing, arrests | Breaking News | PE.com - The Press-Enterprise

[Bountyhunter]

But did they have AR-15's and flame throwers? They did when they went after Henry and the wood chunks. Or did they?

[dawgchamp]

<snipped the already-cited story>

[River side]

OK, back to the OP.

Does this guy have any evidence, or is this an OP-ED piece?

[espdeangibson]

Well, Gibson linked it on facebook, that's how I heard of it.

[Funkwire]

Originally Posted by River side

OK, back to the OP.

Does this guy have any evidence, or is this an OP-ED piece?

Well, this thread is getting perilously close to a political discussion. Which is fine...but doesn't really belong in a guitar forum, IMO.

This was printed in the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is no fan of the current White House Administration. Make of that what you will.

What I find interesting is this passage from the article:

"The Lacey Act was passed in 1900 to stop trade in illegal wild game. Over the years it has expanded, and today it encompasses a range of endangered species. It requires American businesses to follow both U.S. and foreign law, though with most Lacey goods, this has been relatively clear. Think elephant tusks, tiger pelts or tropical birds.

That changed in 2007, when an alliance of environmentalists, labor unions and industry groups began pushing for Lacey to cover "plant and plant products" and related items. Congress had previously resisted such a broad definition for the simple reason that it would encompass timber products."

Umm...no. The Lacey Act was expanded to include timber back in 1981. The person who signed that bill? That well-known, liberal tree-hugger, Ronald Reagan. Funny how THAT isn't mentioned...

[dspelman]

Originally Posted by espdeangibson

Strassel: Stringing Up Gibson Guitar - WSJ.com

Apparently, the federal raid of the gibson factory in august was a setup, and that's all I could read 'cause I'm not a subscriber.

You're also not much of an investigator, nor do you spend much time digging for information or taking a critical look at your information sources <G>.

First, note that this was on the "Opinion" page of the Wall Street Journal. Virtually anything can be published there without corroboration of any kind, as it can on any "Opinion" page in any newspaper. It's not even an Editorial, which would suggest that it reflects the position of the newspaper (even though she is an editor and columnist) -- it was shuffled to the Opinion section because there IS no backup.

Second, note that WSJ virtually defines "conservative bastion" when it comes to newspapers. If I were Henry J, this is the very first paper I would whine to. Any liberal view allowed in the WSJ is virtually guaranteed to be followed by sarcasm on an editorial level. They recently welcomed Timothy DeSpain (a felon convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy and sentenced to four years probation), a treasurer at Enron, back to the energy sector, where he's at the helm of a $100 million dollar project involving shale oil transportation. What the hell?

Third, take a look at the author, (Kimberley Strassel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) who has a record of being anti-government regulation (particularly where those regulations affect women), anti-environment ("environmentalists should be HAPPY about nuclear power, because it doesn't pollute!") and over-the-top pro-Sarah-Palin (she believes that Sarah is unfairly put upon by people who demand too much of her mentally, and that she represents the good "plain-jane" conservative at the heart of America).

The WSJ has long exited the realm of responsible journalism, but remains a useful barometer of partisan thought, something like Al Jazeera.

[dspelman]

Originally Posted by EasyAce

No surprise there. Ms. Strassel (I am a faithful reader) never fails to instruct, delight, and prick where merited. The only surprise should be that it took this long for the nation's largest organised crime family (hint: it ain't the Mafia) to set Gibson up in the first place.

I read Ms. Strassel (along with much of the WSJ) but, sadly, have quite a different opinion of her. Surprisingly, it's not because of her politics, which are her own to stew in, but because of her complete lack of balance, her tendency to "skim" an issue rather than delve into it, and her "press release" journalism, which blithely accepts whatever is handed to her as gospel. Her previous experience was a BA at Princeton and a stint in the Real Estate section at WSJ. "Independent thought" or "in-depth research" is not likely to appear as an attribute on her resume.

Respecting Kimberly as a "journalist" is like respecting Jimmy Page as a dentist.

[AngryHatter]

Since Murdoch owns WSJ it has lost all credibility.