OT: Have we become that stupid ..

Page 7 of 16  

snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

That may or may not be. But that's not what we were talking about.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Sep 2005 11:09:08 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Among other places (none of whom were Rush or 700 club), it was in an AP story on FoxNews web page this weekend (I don't save cites, and I've got other things to do now). It was couched in a slanted attempt at blame-Bush, but read, "traditionally the federal government defers deploying the National Guard until requested by the state governor ..." Also in several stories were comments regarding the fact that the governor had lost contact with her observers in the city, but failed to request the Guard until contact could be re-established (sounds like a good plan in an unpredictable disaster, doesn't it? "If you don't hear from us, assume everything's fine")

For a commodity such as oil, that's only a short-term gain. If you are in for the long haul, the money is in keeping the oil flowing.
... snip

It's not the oil rigs -- it's the refinineries that have been affected. It's 25% of US *refining* capacity -- that *is* on shore.

As I indicated, over the weekend, it appears that the governor of LA didn't request the other states' NG troops until 2 days into the disaster. Some more comments from that article point out that the fed has mobilized NG without state request as during the 9/11 attacks, but that was done as a matter of national security, not to interfere in what is essentially a state's issue.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thanks. AFAIK the President has always had the authority to Federalize and use the NG even over the local governor's objection, as when the Ohio National Guard was sent to Guatamala (for training) over the objections of Governor Celeste.
The President can act independently of the State Governors in disaster relief, using other assets of the Federal Government in additon to NG, consider the possiblity of the State Governor being a casualty. But I quite agree that the President should defer to the Governor leaving it to the local officials to coordinate relief, barring exceptional circumstances. It appears that the La Governor was so incompetent that the situation had become 'exceptional' by the time action finally was taken.

You miss the point. Like gold, the world's oil is not all owned by one person, one company, or one nation. Goldfinger wasn;t about to contaminate his own gold, he was spoiling someone else's.
*Some* oil companies have kept the oil flowing at that higher price Saudi Arabia has not cutback, indeed has increased production. I'm sure the Sauds aren't anxious to see Iraq back in full production.
I don't know, maybe nobody knows how much oil Iraq was exporting, openly or secretly in violation of the UN sanctions before the invasion but that stopped when we invaded and it is not clear how much has resumed since.

Both the refineries AND the rigs were affected. If the refineries were protected, production would still be down until the rigs were back up to capacity.
But that is beside the point. If Bush and his cronies were invested in the affected refineries you'd have a good point. Otherwise, and especially if they are invested in refineries further inland, or say, in New Jersey, the nutcase conspiracy theory is not debunked though it remains a nutcase conspiracy theory.
Still, it would be nice to know where our leaders have there money invested. Last I heard, the much-maligned Jimmy Carter was the first and last President to put his personal assetts into a blind trust when he was president.

I quite agree that the La Governor deserves the bulk of the criticism. However I do not think that Bush is getting more than he deserves so much because he is Bush, rather he is getting it more so because he is President. People blame everything on the President.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fred,
Where did you get that info? I DAGS and it seems that Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all had their investments in blind trusts. I didn't look back any farther than that.
-- Al Reid
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Reid wrote:

When Carter was elected President his people made a big deal about setting a precedent by putting his assets into a blind trust. Even my former office mate who describes himself as the world's best Republican opined that Jimmy Carter's biggest flaw was that he was too honest.
When Reagan was elected the question of putting his assets into a blind trust was asked at a press conference (maybe it was a spokesman answering the quwestion, not Reagan himself) and the answer was no. That was the last I had heard on the subject.
What search terms did you use, "blind trust" and $president?
Very happy to be proven wrong in this one.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Either you, or they, were misinformed. About it setting a precedent, I mean.
I'm currently in the middle of Dwight Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change", in which he desribes placing his assets into a blind trust in 1952. It's not clear whether this took place pre- or post-election, but certainly it was before inauguration. [Eisenhower, D.D., "The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956", Doubleday, New York, 1963, pp 111-112]
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Eisenhower may have been the best president in my lifetime though I'm not quite old enough to remember him. I may not live long enough to ever have another one as good.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

First saw Ike at the Waldorf Astoria, about 1949 or 1950, as he was getting ready to assume the presidency of Columbia U. I was too young to vote when he got elected, but I'd have voted for him. Next time around, he came into Kaneohe Bay with HMX-1 in 1960, and I got a glimpse again. By that time, I was old enough to vote, but he was retiring. In fact, I did vote, for the first time, from Kaneohe in '60.
He was, I believe, the last president we had who truly had the interests of the country as a guiding light. I'm not sure there are any politicians left with his vision, ability and courage, though it's possible that Mark Warner (current governor of VA) comes nearest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:
: Thanks. AFAIK the President has always had the authority to : Federalize and use the NG even over the local governor's objection, : as when the Ohio National Guard was sent to Guatamala (for training) : over the objections of Governor Celeste.
: The President can act independently of the State Governors in : disaster relief, using other assets of the Federal Government : in additon to NG, consider the possiblity of the State Governor : being a casualty.
have a look at this, and follow the link to the National Disaster Response Plan, which ws produced by Homeland Security last winter.
None of which they actually followed in the face of said disaster.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/4/171811/1974
But I quite agree that the President should : defer to the Governor leaving it to the local officials to : coordinate relief, barring exceptional circumstances. It : appears that the La Governor was so incompetent that the : situation had become 'exceptional' by the time action finally : was taken.
Why did it take so goddamn long for the Dept of Homeland Security to do *anything*?
Very illuminating discussions here, particularly the interviews with Brown and Chertoff (toward the end)::
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/4/171811/1974
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

But she did request Federal Assistance on August 27:
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/musings.php?p 3
It appears that while the Governor and President were haggling over who should have control over the NG, FEMA did nothing despite the language in the appicable laws stating that after the President declares an event of National significance the feds take the initiative.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Somebody said ...

It's important to recognize that there is a reason New Orleans is located where it is. As an important shipping point, the inconvenience associated with its low elevation was offset by the value of the location. Sometimes life is like that, the best places for a particular purpose aren't always the safest for other reasons.
Now, California on the other hand .... :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL... Being in Houston we may be seeing more than the rest of the country. Anyway the Today Show interviewed the Deputy Chief of Emergency Preparedness in New Orleans Sunday morning. IIRC that was his title. When asked how they were doing in preparation for the storm, he said every one was getting out of town just fine. Most of his answers centered around the roads going out of town. Finally the interviewer bluntly asked if New Orleans was prepared for a storm this big. His answer was NO, we have just been hoping that this day would never come. Yeah, that will keep the storms away. Wish in one hand and Shi_ in the other and see which fill up the fastest. Actually it looks like the citizens of New Orleans are having to watch their city fill up the fastest. God help them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amen, My personal favorite was the group Blaming Bush for the Storm for not Combating Global Warming better, to blame Bush for the lack of funding is silly as well, Congress has just as much say in that as he dose, along with that, lets say Bush was Solely Responcable and he GAVE 2x what they asked for, that money wouldn't have done anything to prevent this, they wouldn't even be done planning the improvements yet. This may sound bad but OUR FEDERAL $$$$ are better spent protecting all of us, like how about securing the border?
if there was a failure anywhare here it was the state readyness plan, to blame Bush for the Nation Guard not being there ready is honestly silly, Guards men are under state controll so the question should be why didn't the governor had the National guard ready? why didn't the local goverment have a better Evac plan, it's not like it hit out of the blue, they had over 24 hours to preap, to blame the feds for the local leatership haveing there heads up there ass is like a 35 year old guy living off his parents blaming them for him being a dumb ass that can't hold down a job. place the blame where it belongs
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

--
Richard Clements

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Blame Kerry and all the Liberal Democrats.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:40:02 -0600, Richard Clements

recently - what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain:
2004:
Army Corps request: $11 million Bush request: $3 million Approved by Congress: $5.5 million
2005:
Army Corps request: $22.5 million Bush request: $3.9 million Approved by Congress: $5.7 million
2006:
Bush request: $2.9 million
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been thinking about this the past two days. Do we close New Orleans and make it an underwater park? Move the people out? What about the fishermen and orange growers that keep us fed? Maybe we should keep the farms but run them from a distance.
While I don't see myself building a house 6 feel below sea level and only a few hundred yards from the sea. it would seem difficult to just close down some of those areas completely. OTOH, I don't want subsidize either through taxes or insurance premiums, a beach front multi-million dollar home because the owner likes the view. Screw him, he is on his own.
Oh, and what do we do about the guys that harvest the cypress trees? (slyly getting on topic)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

How about a 20 year sunset on FEMA - reduction in budget (inflation adjusted) of 5% per year. This gives people plenty of time to decide whether they (and their insurers) wish to take the risk that a major hurricane/earthquake/ mudslides/fires in 20 years is 100% *their* problem. Allow FEMA to continue excusively for true "emergencies" like one-of-a-kind natural disasters, terror attacks, and so forth. The natural ebb/flow of the market would determine whether the risk of running a farm 6 feet below sea level was worth the reward ....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Actually, far more farm land is lost to urban expansion than is taken out of production owing to more efficient operations. Much of this has been prime land.

That's the <last> thing we want to do...spread the urbanites around to pollute up what little open land we have left. The yuppie migration to Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc., is bad enough already.
The other problem in those areas is there isn't enough water to support current populations in most of them already, what more adding more... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Hang on a second. What you say may be true in some/many cases, but it does not negate my point. Even *with* the loss of farm land (for all reasons), American farmers continue to produce food in abundance. So much so, that some estimate that the American farmer alone produces enough food to feed the entire planet at a subsistence level. The point is that farm land is being freed up precisely because it is *not* needed to feed us.

But we don't have "little open land". We have LOTS. I grew up in Alaska - a state with 1/3 the land mass of CONUS with only about 1 Million residents. Similar low population densities can be found in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, N/S Dakota, Northern Minnesota. The problem is not a lack of land, the problem is getting people to move somewhere where they have to be more-or-less self-sufficient ...

More specifically, there *is* water, but it is in very deep/expensive wells. This is still cheaper than paying to rebuild coastal cities every decade or two (I suspect).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I disagree on the cause for it and the use of the term "freed up"...that farming in the US still manages to hang on despite all attacks is a credit to those of us who continue to provide for the many who don't have a clue as to where there substinence came from...
...

Depends on the definition of "open"...desert and mountains accounts for a <major> fraction of the uninhabited land. Very little is arable and an even smaller fraction has adequate supplies of potable water.

The problem is that which follows, mostly...

That is simply not true in the first place and in the second such aquifers (such as the Ogallala here) are non-renewing in terms of human lifespans, so there's absolutely no difference in utilizing them than in drilling for and pumping oil. It is simply not sustainable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.