They Blame it on a Volunteer! Pu leaz!

[FUNdamental]

From the morning's Washington Post.

Remember "Boxgate," the incident last week at a St. Louis warehouse in which President Bush touted small business and things made in America? And the problem was, he was standing behind a bunch of boxes that had tape over the words "Made in China"?

Seems the person who did this, said by the White House to be an "overzealous volunteer," may have committed a federal offense.

Covering up the "Made In" labels is against the law, a violation of venerable Title 19, Chapter 4, Subtitle II, Part 1, Sec. 134.11, which "requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently" as possible, "in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser . . . [the] name of the country of origin of the article."

Further, "any person who, with intent to conceal the information . . . defaces, destroys, removes, alters, covers, obscures, or obliterates any mark required under the provisions of this chapter shall -- (1) upon conviction for the first violation . . . be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . ." A year in the slammer?

This is enforced by Customs, now part of the Department of Homeland Security. Might be a good place for Secretary Tom Ridge to start. Or wait! Is Ken Starr busy? Didn't Watergate begin with some tape on a door?

COMMENT: I can't believe a "Volunteer" would be that knowledgeable on how to best construct a photo op to obscure the words printed on boxes. It took a keen political eye, and knowledge of the theme of the President's speech to see the inherent dangers of having the words "Made in China" capturable by the press cameras. Also, do they allow "volunteers" to be this intimate with props so close to where the President will be standing? If a "volunteer" did do the illegal act, then, we can only conclude the "volunteer" must have been under the direct supervision of someone very close to the Presidential Press Secretary.


__________________

Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 02.14.2003
Use coupon code C073412340313 to save $10 off of your purchase of $75 or more at Art.com.

Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 01.31.2003
Save 10% off of your purchase at REI.com with coupon code DS4SUB.

[jeskibuff]

Much ado about nothing.

If this is the best scandal the Democrats can come up with, they need to get a little more imaginative.

[chippers21]

Absolutely ridiculous. And who cares? Scandal? The American people became immune to scandal with Clinton.

[mayfly]

ho hum

to bad we can't all be on the same side, instead of being our own worse enemies.

[jsalba]

Yeah, silly matter.. but also interesting fact about the boxes.

[jeskibuff]

Well, it's just a legalistic approach anyway, pursued by people who don't know how or why rules or laws are in place, just intent to blindly enforce them. The law is there for a purpose and to temporarily cover the labels just because the photo location was poorly chosen is not a punishable breach of the law by any imagination. To imply that it is a federal violation is just a simple-minded approach to the whole thing.

[NaomiMarie]

yawn

[chippers21]

just a bit of "cosmetic surgery" to prevent mixed messages.

Actually someone was really thinking. Deserves praise, not prosecution.

[FUNdamental]

Originally posted by jeskibuff
Well, it's just a legalistic approach anyway, pursued by people who don't know how or why rules or laws are in place, just intent to blindly enforce them. The law is there for a purpose and to temporarily cover the labels just because the photo location was poorly chosen is not a punishable breach of the law by any imagination. To imply that it is a federal violation is just a simple-minded approach to the whole thing.

Are you claiming this concealment wasn't illegal under the spirit of the law? Are you saying Al Kamen of The Washington Post is reporting "Simple minded" pieces?

The point was this administration should admit they made a mistake, and not blame the error on an unknown and unknowable "Volunteer."

To deflect fault on someone else is arrogant. Dale Carnegie said "When you are wrong, admit it quickly and adamantly." If they are this quick to place fault on someone else for this type of infraction, then what does this behavior tell us about other more important accusations they make?

[jeskibuff]

Originally posted by FUNdamental
Are you claiming this concealment wasn't illegal under the spirit of the law? Are you saying Al Kamen of The Washington Post is reporting "Simple minded" pieces?

The point was this administration should admit they made a mistake, and not blame the error on an unknown and unknowable "Volunteer."

To deflect fault on someone else is arrogant. Dale Carnegie said "When you are wrong, admit it quickly and adamantly." If they are this quick to place fault on someone else for this type of infraction, then what does this behavior tell us about other more important accusations they make?

I'm saying that anyone who thinks there is any basis for pursuing prosecution of this "volunteer" is utterly simple-minded, desiring to make mountains out of molehills. Yup...Al Kamen of The Washington Post is reporting on garbage...it's a stupid story without any value.

You made the supposition that this volunteer could not have had the "brilliance" to conceal the labels. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflicting message here. Volunteers are usually over enthusiatic and want to go that extra mile to be recognized as someone worth noting...someone of value. Is it that much of a stretch to believe they couldn't have thought it up themselves?

Anyway...already TOO MUCH energy expended on this NON-STORY. Put it to bed.

[FUNdamental]

You can reach Michael Getler, the ombudsman at the Washington Post at [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], and tell him Mr. Kamen is reporting on "garbage." I am sure, he, and everyone else at the newspaper, will take your interpretation of his piece seriously.

As for the administration allowing a "Volunteer" to handle props that will be close to the President, I don't buy it. The administration knew exactly what they wanted in the photo op, and to place the blame on an unknown is hypocrisy at its finest.


__________________

Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 01.31.2003
Click through to save $20 off of your purchase of $200 or more in the electronics store at Buy.com.

[jeskibuff]

To each his own.

May your home be stormed by ATF agents the moment you rip off a mattress tag!

[jsalba]

Originally posted by jeskibuff
To each his own.

May your home be stormed by ATF agents the moment you rip off a mattress tag!

[teraberry]

It's amazing how superficial this story is in the scope of things. Ranks right up there with "dumb Melissa" (or whatever her name is) using a word incorrectly. Get a life.

[FUNdamental]

Originally posted by jeskibuff
To each his own.

May your home be stormed by ATF agents the moment you rip off a mattress tag!

Now you are being ridiculous. As the consumer of the merchandise, I have every right to rip off or destroy the tag of my mattress, the law clearly states I can. To infer otherwise is a gross and flamboyant misinterpretation of the law. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Read your mattress tag, it states lucid the restrictions for the merchandiser/ distributor/retailer, followed by the words "Except by the consumer." The "Except for..." indicates once the consumer purchases and takes procession of the product, the consumer can do what the consumer wishes. The law does not state before the product is purchased and taken delivery by any consumer, certain people have the right to obfuscate the printed manufacturing origin.

BTW, When writing the ombudsman of the Post, please include your full name, city you live in, and phone number for verification. If you don't, they usually don't take your comments seriously. The Post many times prints the comments to the ombudsman and attributes full credit to the author of the complaint.