Re: Senate Report for July 23, 2003

responses inline, sections snipped

this is not a true statement

Sen. Enzi is constrained by his Office with respect to what is legal, appropriate or expeditious for him to 'officially' endorse, and only 'official' endorsements or directions can be communicated to TRA/NAR/Kyte. John Wickman is Sen. Enzi's confidante, and will communicate actions that while sanctioned by Sen. Enzi, cannot be corroborated by his office for the reasons stated. TRA/NAR insistence on ignoring John W.'s lead in this respect is both wasteful and tiresome. Hence my submission of the NAR BoD agenda item.

perhaps your legal team is not sufficiently imaginative perhaps TRA/NAR commitment is limited perhaps you do not get what the stakes really are

while we are on the subject, are there any other possible strategies you would like to broadcast to our viewers?

that is, based on what your are privileged to hear. You have a marked disability to read between the lines.

what weight limits are you considering there?

why should not all affected Americans participate democratically in the process? Why should NJ/NY resident's degree of enthusiasm be the only measure the Senators have of our interest?

but since I do not want to see HK724 move forward, I agree that as few people as possible should write

as will I ;o)

this testimonial is very nice. You do not want to know what he didn't say, let me leave it at that.

there is certainly no point in alienating possible allies, and some strokes may actually be in order. But TRA/NAR would be far more useful (and far less overhead) if they could follow instructions from John W. and stop second guessing everything. You will simply not be able to get corroboration on many action items, and in those instances your failure to participate (and advice to members against cooperating) undermines Sen. Enzi's effectiveness in some strategies.

- iz

iz,

John Wickman's first attempt gets eviscerated in committee and we are supposed to believe that he can do better the second time?

Pardon my skepticism.

I fully support the actions of the National Association of Rocketry in this because they represent my interests. John Wickman does not.

Dave

Well, Iz, there's always the option of YOU cooperating a little, just as you ask of the NAR. You (the Wickman Elite) and your Secret Inner Club (sic) tell no one what is going on, then complain about the results of that secrecy.

You don't have to post it here, but if it would help the Cause, you might let one or two of the NAR higher ups in on some of the Super Secret Plans, if it would be beneficial.

Comments like, "You do not want to know what he didn't say, let me leave it at that.", are only FUD. And, "But TRA/NAR would be far more useful (and far less overhead) if they could follow instructions from John W. and stop second guessing everything.", is simply elitist.

John may have the right intentions, but his PR sure needs some work.

Iz, this is just completely naive. This is like arguing that the first person to run for President should automatically get elected, and anyone else who has a different opinion should just keep it to themselves. That is not democracy; that is not how our political system works. If TRA/NAR have a different approach, each person must judge that approach vs Wickman's approach (which at the time is completely unknown and sounds like a snake oil promise) and chooe for themselves.

If this bill isn't "the only game in town", what else is there?

I don't buy it. Regardless of his friendship with the Senator, John Wickman is merely a private citizen -- he's not on Enzi's staff. Anything Enzi can tell him can be told to any other citizen.

So now you're blaming TRA/NAR for the failure of Enzi's bill?

What difference does it make, since the only "strategies" Mark listed were those that are not good options?

That's quite an assumption you're making.

I want to know, and I want proof that he said it.

I don't blindly follow anyone, and I don't think NAR/TRA should either.

Since nobody has said BRANDT lately I feel that I should point out that it's Cracker Jack, not Cracker Jacks.

problem with the rest of your post. It seemed quite logical.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

-- ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.

You think that's bad, you could have the priviledge of having The Iz invading your NAR sections's Yahoo discussion group with the same "stuff" (often the same posts verbatim).

Kind of hard to explain to the ten year olds (and their moms) why The Iz wanted legislation and harassed the NAR to support it, now he doesn't want legislation and harrasses the NAR for supporting it, but he will soon have new legislation and will no doubt harass the NAR for some as yet unknown reason...

Where do I git me one o' them?

Jeff Vincent - Rocket Cynic(Tm) (comes from reading RMR for 9+ years)

TRA/NAR/Kyte had a hand in that, that is clear

Kyte announced previous to the introduction of a "substitute bill" and vote what the limits would be. They were dead on.

TRA had access to the DOJ "letter of lies" to Sen. Hatch, and did not think it helpful to forward it to John W., nor respond authoritatively themselves.

John W. had called for all rocketeers to fax the SJC members, and the leaders in specific. TRA/NAR encouraged the members of only the leaders states to fax, disenfranchising all other members.

when John W. called for action on several occasions, TRA/NAR countered with a "take no action until we get confirmation", costing several days delay before they ultimately conceded that TRA/NRA members should participate. But even then, they limited the call to only specific states.

and so on and so forth

as they undermine John at every turn, TRA/NAR/Kyte can take a share of the credit for the SJC outcome

it was elsewhere commented that TRA/NAR do precisely what they are elected to do, to pursue the interests of those organizations. They have no incentive to safeguard rocketry at a scope outside that which NFPA codes mandate their oversight. This is not surprising, and I have said as much many times.

John W. has been appealing to individual rocketeers, to do what is needed to safeguard rocketry at all levels, and the larger concerns of technological competency at a national level that consumer rocketry contributes to.

Unfortunately, TRA/NAR have actively lobbied against member participation. They would have been less of an impediment if they had simply took no "official" position outside of their area of concern, and left members to make their own decisions. - iz

(snip)

This is where I believe NAR/TRA (I belong to both) are not looking out for the interests of their members, especially those certified L2 and above. I didn't elect these leaders to accept ANY weight limits on non-explosive, non terrorist-friendly sport rocket propellants. A 0.9 lb. weight limit leaves out the AT J570 and all AT 54 mm motors (other than the J90, J180, and J460) and larger. This is true of other motor manufacturers as well. I feel I am being sacrificed on the altar of politikal expediency just so people who fly smaller stuff can get a regulatory break. Perhaps NAR might do such a thing (I doubt it) but with TRA being an HPR organization, they shouldn't even consider any weight limit that effects sport rocketry. Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with flying smaller rockets but I'm one of those who gets my jollies out of more powerful rockets (cars too - maybe someone will lend me a Ferrari Enzo). So what about me? Aren't my dues as important? Don't the leaders represent me too? Don't my opinions matter? Why sell me down the river? It's just not right to sacrifice some flyers so that others can get instant minor relief. I know flyers and vendors are hurting but I just do not see the need to rush and settle for peanuts. If we can't get the legislation we want in this session of congress, so what? Wait and try again next year. Yea, we may have to live with more regulation for a while if NPRM 968 stays as proposed, but the fear of that ought not cause us to panic and accept the obscenely low weight limit H-K is offering. I also agree with what others have said about getting H-K through the Senate and trying to do much better in the House. I am neither a lawyer nor a politician but this strategy seems to me to be a political non-starter, regardless of who suggested or supports it. After 40 years of watching congress, at BEST we'll end up with H-K and at worst we'll end up with NPRM 968. Please KILL the phony H-K "rocket relief" bill! After all, if one thing doesn't work out the USA way used to be to try something else (without insulting or demeaning ANYONE who tried the first way). It seems to me that this Administration, DOJ, ATFE, Congress etc., etc. are SO paranoid that in this climate we have "0" chance of getting ANY substantial relief (.9# is NOT substantial) from the politikal system. I know I'm cynical but if, as we've been told, H-K is the only thing that will politically "fly," let's quit wasting time and money on politics and re-double our efforts to get REAL relief in the courts. And if that fails (APCP is NOT explosive) then welcome to the PRA (Peoples Republik of Amerika). Larry Lobdell Jr.

and

Larry, thank you for the thoughtful and intelligent reply. Thanks also for not taking the easy shots that my rant provided.

Ok, for the record, I am against any limits. Really I am.

But I'm getting tired of the content-free rah-rah from one side and the constant bashing of the NAR/TRA leadership.

Ted

Fred, you can't agree with my post on one hand and then say I don't know "Jack"? ;)

-John

Fred Shecter wrote:

Cracker Jack,

I'm in basically the same boat as you. I'd really, really like to be able to fly up to M without any ATFE involvement. No, I would not sell out those who fly bigger than M just so I can fly.

BUT - and here is the important point - what would you choose if you could have an exemption of 0.9 pounds, vs. 62.5g? What if those were the ONLY choices that certain key politicians (not scientists) would allow? I'd pick

0.9 pounds. To pick 62.5g is actually to sell out most of the L1 crowd, just to be a theoretically correct purist.

What else would you suggest? An entirely new bill would have to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee again, and would face exactly the same opposition that killed the first bill.

A whole bunch of rantings without actually addressing the question. Which was: >

I'll take the exemption that is already on the books.

Bob

I understand what you're saying but I think we're making a BIG mistake by assuming there are ONLY two choices - either 62.5g. or .9# - and we have to pick one. We don't have to pick either and thus sell out someone. Hatch and Kohl may be adamantly opposed to us, and they may be on the Judiciary committee, but they are still only 2 out of 100 senators. They are important, but they are the only "game in town" only if we refuse to take the time needed to get real relief. There have to be other ways in Washington to get something done (special interest groups certainly "find" those ways and so can we). But this takes TIME, and it seems to me we're in too much of a rush to be patient and take the TIME to do this right the first time. I firmly believe that our desire for "instant gratification" as displayed by the "either

62.5 g. or 0.9# mentality" WILL come back to bite us, and hard. That is why I believe it is better for us to let H-K S.764 die until we can get the support needed to pass real relief. I understand the implication of doing so - we may have to live with 62.5g. for a while, but most likely that will be temporary. If we take the bait offered (0.9#), it is very likely that we will have to live with that permanently. And if the lawsuit is ever settled in our favor, that will surely give us a much-needed boost in the pursuit of legislation, as well as freedom (till the next fight) to fly all kinds of rockets. Don't give up too soon. Way back when my high school had a cheer that went "Ra! Ra! Ra! Fight! Fight! Fight!" It's too soon to wave the white flag. BTW, Pres. Bush has influence over both Ashcroft and Hatch so why not write to him and ask him to "call off the dogs" before they destroy our hobby, and take with it hundreds of small rocketry businesses and two generations of potential scientists and engineers. And remind him Ben Franklin said, People who give up liberty for security get neither! Larry Lobdell Jr.

I haven't been misled. I know TRA does not support the H-K bill or its weight limits, but TRA is still trying to get it passed in the Senate.

I think they are trying to get this monstrosity passed in the hope that a companion bill in the House will be better. But consider that what you just said makes the same point I did only in different words. If the House passes a better bill, that bill will be in essence similar to a new bill and it will face strong opposition both in a conference committee and on the Senate floor. Kohl will scuttle a compromise House-Senate bill just as certainly as he will kill a new bill. So what will we have we gained? Not much. Unless people think a permanent 0.9# exemption for APCP is a good thing.

So what do I suggest? Let the H-K "bill" die. It doesn't even come close to Sen. Enzi's original. Has the government ever de-funded a program it started? Realistically, there is little chance that a rocketry exemption bill once passed will be changed for the good in the future. So Be Smart. Be Patient. Wait. (Poor) legislative relief does not have to become a reality this session. Work behind the scenes to convince many more Congresspeople to openly and actively work for the preservation of our hobby. Write the President of the USA. Pray for (and financially support) a speedy and positive resolution of the lawsuit so we will have more ammunitiion as we continue the fight. And don't even risk getting stuck with something no one (including NAR/TRA) wants. Larry Lobdell Jr.

So either way, we're screwed.

And that will accomplish... what?

Maybe not, but what chance would we have in the next session if they've already scuttled us in this one? How likely is it that anyone in Congress is going to have any interest in rehashing the same issue all over again -- an issue that is, to them, a dead issue?

Fat lot of good that's done so far, especially when so many politicians kowtow to the few who are never going to change their minds.