tech+info+resources underground

The numbers of Gouldian Finches have decreased rather rapidly during the 20th century. Their habitat has been reduced or altered. Early research showed a parasite called air sac mite, was responsible for the decline of the Gouldian. However, this idea has been ruled out. In general, The Gouldian Finches are susceptible to diseases and viral infections. Their beautiful colors mean that they are easily caught by predators. Fires are listed as the number-one threat to the natural populations. The total number of Gouldian finches all in all is not low, however, because they are among the most popular pet birds, and are bred in captivity for the pet trade.

Actions have been taken and are underway to implement a recovery plan to recover and conserve its natural habitats, such as building protective fencing to prevent damage by cattle. Attempts at reintroduction have so far proved unsuccessful; it was also suggested to develop management guidelines for land-holders about appropriate land management, promoting the recovery program and Gouldian Finche conservation.

Although often bred in a colony in captivity, in the wild The Gouldian Finches are not a colony bird. However, out of the mating time of year it gathers in flocks often a mixed flock consisting of Longtail Finches, Masked Finches and Gouldians. This is probably a defence against predation. Flocks used to consist of up to 1000″2000 individuals. During the breeding season they are usually found on rough scree slopes where vegetation is sparse. In the dry season they are more nomadic and will move to wherever there is food and water.

Eating horse meat is considered legal in some countries, and under certain circumstances, is necessary. However, most countries in the free world would rather see the horse on its hoof in the farm rather than on the hook in some cold slaughterhouse. In the United States, federal laws prefer the former.On September 2006, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act won by a 263-146 landslide vote in Congress. Propelled by US Democrat Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky of Illinois, the act was designed to permanently ban horse slaughter in the United States. However, the US Senate failed to vote on the act before the end of the 109th Congress. Montana Senator Conrad Burns held up the act.Prior to the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, there were several legislations created to protect American horses. The Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 were passed to prevent people from capturing, branding, harassing, and killing wild horses. However, several provisions were changed in the act. One of which was ordering the Bureau of Land Management to sell “excess” horses in livestock auctions.United States-based slaughtering operations have been shut down. Unfortunately, there are no laws stopping the transportation of live horses from the Unites States to other countries where they can be legally slaughtered.

Learn more about Trilegiant on the Internet Retailer site.

America Online and Trilegiant Announce New Marketing Agreements.

Trilegiant has a company profile on LinkedIn.

Watching the hearings on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., I could see the fear in the faces of the leaders of women and minorities groups who were testifying. Judge Alito will be a very conservative member of the Supreme Court. If he had served on earlier courts that increased rights of women and minorities, the outcomes probably would not have been as favorable to women and minorities. The progress made by women and minorities could take a step backwards when Judge Alito is confirmed (a foregone conclusion).

The judge has a good memory. He bragged about his membership in a Princeton University group (that favored the children of Princeton University graduates over minority quotas on a job application) but now conveniently forgets about his involvement with that group. Examination of the groups records do not mention Samuel Alito, Jr. It is in his favor that they don’t. But why would this Judge with all of his integrity brag about his membership if he had not made a contribution to the group?

As the minority and women panel testified, Judge Alito will not rule against them because of his lack of integrity. He will rule against them because he is politically conservative. He will interpret the law according to his views, as does every other justice of the Supreme Court. In doing this, he will be fair according to his interpretation of the law. He will study past precedents and if the opportunity presents itself, he will overrule if he can interpret the law according to his political beliefs. That is a fact of life and that is why presidents have always tried to stack the Court.

If a minority discrimination case against Wal-Mart came to the Supreme Court, how would Judge Alito rule? (The senators seem to like these hypothetical cases.) He would rule according to law and his political thinking.

I believe that he favors big business. I believe that he does not favor minorities over the rest of the population.

Let’s see now, how would that case come out?

If Judge Alito can be fair and within Court guidelines (to make judgments only based on law rather than personal opinion) he likely would favor Wal-Mart. The fact that Wal-Mart has an unfavorable public image would not be considered by Judge Alito.

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware thinks the hearings are of little value and that the confirmation should be carried out on the floor of the Senate. I think it is a good warm up before the big show. (I also think that the members of the House and Senate should be seated according to their seniority, the old guys in back where they can sleep and the new guys up front where they can learn. That way Democrats would have to sit next to Republicans. A nudge in the ribs might make some senators and representatives think better.)

The Supreme Court needs to be balanced.

Over time it is on the average.

It’s the blips that kill us.

The End

John T. Jones, Ph.D. (tjbooks@hotmail.com, a retired VP of R&D for Lenox China, is author of detective & western novels, nonfiction (business, scientific, engineering, humor), poetry, etc. Former editor of Ceramic Industry Magazine, Jones is Executive Representative of International Wealth Success. He calls himself “Taylor Jones, the hack writer.”

More info: http://www.tjbooks.com

Business web site: http://www.bookfindhelp.com (IWS wealth-success books and kits and business newsletters / TopFlight flagpoles)

“Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety.” — Ben Franklin, 1776

In the wake of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks around the world, there is a real temptation to allow the government to take away some of our most precious rights in exchange for greater security. We must resist this temptation. In order to have a free society, there are certain prices that have to be paid. One of those is the possibility that someone will take advantage of our freedom and use it as an opportunity to endanger us. So what if they do? Giving up any part of our freedom is not the answer. In fact, that’s exactly what the terrorists want. When we do that, they win.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act is a step in the wrong direction and could represent a slippery slope toward further erosion of our rights. Write your Representative and Senators and ask them to repeal the U.S.A. Patriot Act and avoid passing similar legislation in the future. If we don’t do something soon, the U.S. could soon have policies similar to many communist, fascist, and Islamic fundamentalist countries, all under the guise of greater security!

People have accused me of being “obsessive and overzealous” on this issue but that’s okay with me. Ask some of the senior citizens in Cuba who have been under Castro’s repressive regime for 45 years how they feel now. I bet many of them wish they would have been a little more “obsessive and overzealous” about their freedom in 1959, instead of standing by passively when the communists took over. Look what it’s gotten them!

If some of those currently under Islamic rule in the Arab world were free to say what they thought about their situations now, I bet many of them would tell you they wish they would have been a little more “obsessive and overzealous” about protecting their freedom instead of sitting by passively and letting the Islamic fundamentalists take over.

What about North Korea? Could a few more “obsessive and overzealous” defenders of freedom have prevented that country becoming the communist threat to the world that it is today?

What about Nazi Germany? Could Hitler’s rise to power have been nipped in the bud if his opponents had been a little more “obsessive and overzealous” instead of being so timid? Could we have used a few more “obsessive and overzealous” defenders of civil liberties in Germany when six million Jews were losing their lives?

What if George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers would have just given in to England’s demands instead of being so “obsessive and overzealous” about their freedom? And Patrick Henry? Surely he was an “obsessive and overzealous” person if there ever was one. Why he was even “obsessive and overzealous” enough to say “give me liberty or give me death” and really mean it!

There are plenty of well-meaning but misguided and fearful individuals out there who are lobbying Congress to limit our First and Second Amendment, habeas corpus, and other rights even further. We must let our voices be heard or the voices of those people will be the only ones they hear. It only takes a few minutes to make a difference. Of course, it doesn’t take any time at all to sit back and let your rights completely erode. The choice is yours.

“I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” — Barry Goldwater, 1964

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.