0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:01 pm
Foxfyre
Foxfyre wrote:
Me too. My fingers don't always type what I'm thinkng. And as many times as I've had to say: "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" too.


Hah! it was my turn to nit pick. Next time it's yours.

BBB :wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:03 pm
I think my spelling gets worse with age. Some words that I used to know how to spell suddenly don't just pour out of my fingertips anymore.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:07 pm
Duck
FreeDuck wrote:
I think my spelling gets worse with age. Some words that I used to know how to spell suddenly don't just pour out of my fingertips anymore.


Get thee to your doctor to treat your leaking fingertips. You don't want to be a drip, do you?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:30 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now it seems that it has been mostly since the government started bailing people out financially after major disasters, that many more people started building below sea level, on flood plains, in fire prone canyons, on unstable hillsides, and on major fault lines. It is something to think about.

I made the same argument to BBB in one of her threads. She answered it wasn't so, and I consulted the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, written when the federal government was about the size I would like it to shrink back to. Here is what the article had to say about levees and flooding.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:

The city site is almost perfectly level; there is an exceedingly slight slope from the river toward the tidal morasses that border Lake Pontchartrain. The elevation of the city plain is only 10 ft. above the sea, and its lower parts are as much as 10-12 ft. below the Mississippi at high flood water. About 6 m. of heavy levees or dykesin some parts rising clear above the city plain, but backed by filled-in areas graded down from the shores where the traffic of the water-front is concentratedprotect it from the waters. The speed of the current reaches, in times of high water, a rate of 5 in. an hour. Along the immediate front of the principal commercial quarter, this current, losing some of its force by change of direction, deposits its alluvium in such quantities as to produce a constant encroachment of the shore upon the harbour. At its widest part this new land or batture, with wharves, streets and warehouses following eagerly after it, has advanced some 1500 ft. beyond the water-line of the middle of the 18th century.

[...]

Among the many floods from which the city has suffered those of 1849 and 1882 were the most destructive.

Source

It would surely be nice to have a quantitative comparison, but qualitatively the article confirms what FreeDuck said. People must have settled in the frequently-flooded parts of New Orleans long before FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:54 pm
I don't doubt that's true Thomas. Of course people built near the sea and along the rivers and along the fault lines, etc. when they stood to lose everything in the event of an 'act of God'. There is no more fertile land anywhere than on a wild river delta or flood plain so I'm sure those have been farmed for as long as people have been in the area.

But realistically, in 1911 there weren't concentrations of even 10's of thousands, much less millions of people in those high risk areas. I wonder what part, if any, government plays in creating such concentrations?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:02 pm
September 12, 2005
All the President's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed to everyone that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which earned universal praise during the Clinton years, is a shell of its former self. The hapless Michael Brown - who is no longer overseeing relief efforts but still heads the agency - has become a symbol of cronyism.

But what we really should be asking is whether FEMA's decline and fall is unique, or part of a larger pattern. What other government functions have been crippled by politicization, cronyism and/or the departure of experienced professionals? How many FEMA's are there?

Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.

The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. "The budget has been cut," he said, "and inept political hacks have been put in key positions." That sounds familiar, and given what we've learned over the last two weeks there's no reason to doubt that characterization - or to disregard his warning of an environmental cover-up in progress.

What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency's coziness with drug companies, and the agency's top official in charge of women's health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency's head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds.

Then there's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose Republican chairman hired a consultant to identify liberal bias in its programs. The consultant apparently considered any criticism of the administration a sign of liberalism, even if it came from conservatives.

You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn't worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn't really believe in the agency's mission. But you can't say that about my other two examples.

Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.

The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department's expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. "There is no policy," an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. "If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber?" So the best and brightest have been leaving.

And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists?

In 2004 Reuters reported a "steady exodus" of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?

Let's not forget that the administration's first choice to head the department was Bernard Kerik, a crony of Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Kerik's nomination would have gone through if enterprising reporters hadn't turned up problems in his background that the F.B.I. somehow missed, just as it somehow didn't turn up the little problems in Michael Brown's résumé. How many lesser Keriks made it into other positions?

The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's.

E-mail: [email protected]

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But realistically, in 1911 there weren't concentrations of even 10's of thousands, much less millions of people in those high risk areas. I wonder what part, if any, government plays in creating such concentrations?

According to Britannica, the population of New Orleans then was 339,075 people, not much fewer than today. It would sure be interesting to see a 1911 city map.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:28 pm
Wow that many? Yes it would be interesting to see a 1911 map.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:30 pm
Here's a 1912 New Orleans map but is site protected so can't be copied and pasted

http://pages.tias.com/8600/PictPage/1922585144.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:35 pm
Here's a 1903 map

http://i17.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/ca/8e/18_1_b.JPG
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:43 pm
McTag wrote:
Lash wrote:
They neither deserve, nor will they recieve, courtesy on this point under any circumstances again. I will consider any requests in that vein by them as a personal invitation from now on.

They have obliterated personal courtesies.


I nearly choked, when I read Lash writing about extending personal courtesies.

What's it to be, Lash, No More Ms Nice Person? Very Happy

While that is funny--when asked, I have always --to this point-- taken requests by thread starters seriously. I have left a thread when asked by a thread starter; and when the Democrats asked me and my ilk (haven't used ilk in three days) to give them space after they lost the election, I did so immediately.

So, did the ilk.

Yet, it has been apparent that we are the only ones to take such courtesies seriously.

I was just giving public notice that I shall in the future, behave as they do on this matter. Hate to lose that last semblance of propriety, but when in Crete...

You know, mock the cretins...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:08 pm
It also shouldn't surprise us that although Dick Cheney has stayed on vacation in Wyoming through all of this, his company, Halliburton http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/12559971.htm, has already obtained a multi-million-dollar contract to profit from Hurricane Katrina's cleanup.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It also shouldn't surprise us that although Dick Cheney has stayed on vacation in Wyoming through all of this, his company, Halliburton http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/12559971.htm, has already obtained a multi-million-dollar contract to profit from Hurricane Katrina's cleanup.


From your own link...
"It is a familiar role for KBR, which under longstanding contracts has delivered the engineering equivalent of first aid to the Navy and other military and government agencies after natural disasters for more than 15 years"

So,since they have had the contract that long,why are you crying about it now?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:13 pm
mm, Because they are getting those contracts without bids. In some quarters, it's called "conflict of interest" when a member of the administration is involved.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, Because they are getting those contracts without bids. In some quarters, it's called "conflict of interest" when a member of the administration is involved.


So,they should bid on a contract they ALREADY HAVE???
Your own link says they have had the contract for over 15 years.

BTW,Cheney does not run Halliburton now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:20 pm
Each new job should be put out to bid. Only in that way can the citizens be assured of fair play for all Americans.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:24 pm
However, since the democratic leadership is not complaining about this system of long-term contracts to one company, there isn't much one citizen can do. But the democrats are a bunch of pussy cats that doesn't have any bark.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 09:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Each new job should be put out to bid. Only in that way can the citizens be assured of fair play for all Americans.
Yeah, that would probably speed things up. Rolling Eyes

cicerone imposter wrote:
However, since the democratic leadership is not complaining about this system of long-term contracts to one company, there isn't much one citizen can do.
Sure there is; one could whine, cry, and generally wield silly accusations while chasing shadows and shouting at the rain. Use your imagination (a little less :wink:)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 11:25 pm
Bush vacation. Gotta love the guy; he knows how to enjoy himself no matter what, when or where.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/BushVaca.jpg
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 11:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush vacation. Gotta love the guy; he knows how to enjoy himself no matter what, when or where.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/BushVaca.jpg


That is a funny pic. Will have to print that one out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/01/2025 at 01:58:24