Why reconstructing Iraq will cost dozens of billions to tax payers...
assurancetourix
------------ excerp ----------------------
The Myth: Iraqis, prior to occupation, lived in little beige tents set
up on the sides of little dirt roads all over Baghdad. The men and
boys would ride to school on their camels, donkeys and goats. These
schools were larger versions of the home units and for every 100
students, there was one turban-wearing teacher who taught the boys
rudimentary math (to count the flock) and reading. Girls and women sat
at home, in black burkas, making bread and taking care of 10-12
children.
The Truth: Iraqis lived in houses with running water and electricity.
Thousands of them own computers. Millions own VCRs and VCDs. Iraq has
sophisticated bridges, recreational centers, clubs, restaurants,
shops, universities, schools, etc. Iraqis love fast cars (especially
German cars) and the Tigris is full of little motor boats that are
used for everything from fishing to water-skiing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people choose to ignore
the little prefix ‘re' in the words ‘rebuild' and ‘reconstruct'. For
your information, ‘re' is of Latin origin and generally means ‘again'
or ‘anew'.
In other words- there was something there in the first place. We have
hundreds of bridges. We have one of the most sophisticated network of
highways in the region: you can get from Busrah, in the south, to
Mosul, in the north, without once having to travel upon those little,
dusty, dirt roads they show you on Fox News. We had a communications
system so advanced, it took the Coalition of the Willing 3 rounds of
bombing, on 3 separate nights, to damage the Ma'moun Communications
Tower and silence our telephones.
Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to
rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was
going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc.
Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent
engineering company in Baghdad- we'll call the company H. This company
is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My
cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours
talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone
who'll listen.
As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from
the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing
the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his
team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it
wasn't too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary
tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth,
expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they
tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and
designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors,
travel expenses, etc.
Let's pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let's pretend he hasn't been
working with bridges for over 17 years. Let's pretend he didn't work
on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first
Gulf War. Let's pretend he's wrong and the cost of rebuilding this
bridge is four times the number they estimated- let's pretend it will
actually cost $1,200,000. Let's just use our imagination.
A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American
company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!
Something you should know about Iraq: we have over 130,000 engineers.
More than half of these engineers are structural engineers and
architects. Thousands of them were trained outside of Iraq in Germany,
Japan, America, Britain and other countries. Thousands of others
worked with some of the foreign companies that built various bridges,
buildings and highways in Iraq. The majority of them are more than
proficient- some of them are brilliant.
Iraqi engineers had to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991
when the ‘Coalition of the Willing' was composed of over 30 countries
actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond recognition. They had
to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings that were originally
built by foreign companies, they had to get around a lack of raw
materials that we used to import from abroad, they had to work around
a vicious blockade designed to damage whatever infrastructure was left
after the war… they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to
be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war.
Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings
and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new
bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced… things were
functioning. Everything wasn't perfect- but we were working on it.
And Iraqis aren't easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made
functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an
intricately designed dome, something unique… not necessarily classy or
subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable
homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old ‘Baghdadi'
buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes…
mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous
Faberge eggs… all done by Iraqis.
My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu'alaq Bridge over the
Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a
British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up
on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again,
exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise.
One of the art schools decided that although it wasn't the most
sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most
glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with
hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over
the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the
bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and
look down into the Tigris.
So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are
going to want billions of dollars, why aren't the Iraqi engineers,
electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of
people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq… no one
is being given a chance.
---------------------
Rob
"assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a43e0ef7.03082...@posting.google.com...
> http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
>
> ------------ excerp ----------------------
>
> The Myth: Iraqis, prior to occupation, lived in little beige tents set
> up on the sides of little dirt roads all over Baghdad. The men and
> boys would ride to school on their camels, donkeys and goats. These
> schools were larger versions of the home units and for every 100
> students, there was one turban-wearing teacher who taught the boys
> rudimentary math (to count the flock) and reading. Girls and women sat
> at home, in black burkas, making bread and taking care of 10-12
> children.
I dont know where you think that is a myth. Intelligent Americans we know
that Iraq is not some backwards, desert wasteland like Afganistan is. Heck,
if I remember correctly, and I may not, but didnt the people from present
day Iraq more or less invent Math, or greatly refine it?
More than worrying about who's rebuilding the bridges, why not worry about
whos blowing up the UN and the Mousqes.
> after the war. they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to
> be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war.
>
> Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings
> and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new
> bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced. things were
> functioning. Everything wasn't perfect- but we were working on it.
>
> And Iraqis aren't easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made
> functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an
> intricately designed dome, something unique. not necessarily classy or
> subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable
> homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old 'Baghdadi'
> buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes.
> mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous
> Faberge eggs. all done by Iraqis.
>
> My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu'alaq Bridge over the
> Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a
> British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up
> on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again,
> exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise.
> One of the art schools decided that although it wasn't the most
> sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most
> glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with
> hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over
> the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the
> bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and
> look down into the Tigris.
>
> So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are
> going to want billions of dollars, why aren't the Iraqi engineers,
> electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of
> people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq. no one
David Lo
consistent with other things we have seen over there (in Iraq).
Here's the gist of a news story I read a few months ago: A certain
Iraqi entrepreneur reportedly needed only a few hundred dollars a
month to run his daily post-saddam news broadcast business using only
salvaged or beat-up equipment. Here in the US, even a local TV
station costs at least hundreds of thousands a month to operate.
In general, it should be clear to everyone by now that everything
should cost much less in Iraq than here.
Another story I read in the news a few months ago that is relevant
here concerns an American who drove around in Iraq hoping to round up
a subcontract to feed our GIs. He was thinking that if he could clear
10 cents per meal per soldier, a deal involving, say, 20,000 soldiers
fed over 6 months, it would amount to in excess of a million USD in
half-a-year, something he called ``real money''. He would simply
be working as a middleman.
See, food services are clearly not as big contracts as those for
reconstruction. But one thing is clear. The level of profits our
reconstruction businessmen have in mind is certainly not anything less
than millions in the bank. So it's about a hundred-fold at the
minimum as costly to have Americans to manage (as middlemen) the
re-construction as would have be to have locals do it.
It also shows the greedy side of GW Bush's war against Iraq. Destroy
their country, then use their oil to fatten the bank accounts of a few
of us who get the nod for this charade called reconstruction. As long
as it's ``real money'', it's real cool, never mind the Middle East is
in flames and Europe is burning up too, because the environment has yet
to figure out how to restore itself after having been bombarded by
huge amounts of explosives, each time always unleashed in a very, very
short time (and likewise in Afghanistan a year before).
And these environmental effects are cumulative.
lo yeeOn
In article <a43e0ef7.03082...@posting.google.com>,
Robin
Kellog Brown & Root Services is a worldwide engineering and construction
contractor, servicing major projects in the public and private sectors for
more than 60 years. Brown & Root is headquartered in Houston, Texas, and
maintains permanent offices around the world.
In 2001 the company took in $13 billion in revenues, according to its latest
annual report. Currently, Brown and Root estimates it has $740 million in
existing U.S. government contracts (approximately 37 percent of its global
business).
From 1962 to 1972 the Pentagon paid the company tens of millions of dollars
to work in South Vietnam, where they built roads, landing strips, harbors,
and military bases from the demilitarized zone to the Mekong Delta. The
company was one of the main contractors hired to construct the Diego Garcia
air base in the Indian Ocean, according to Pentagon military histories.
In the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to privatize routine army
functions under then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney.
KBR has provided the bulk of logistics services for the Army since 1992.
Whenever US troops venture abroad, Brown and Root builds the barracks, cooks
the food, mops the floors, transports the goods and maintains the water
systems before and after the soldiers arrive.
When Cheney quit his Pentagon job, he landed the job of Halliburton's CEO.
Cheney increased Halliburton's government business prior to being elected
vice president. This included a $2.2 billion bill for a Brown and Root
contract to support US soldiers in Operation Just Endeavor in the Balkans.
Brown & Root's services for the $452 million rapid deployment Naval facility
in Diego Garcia, the $1.06 billion Maneven project in Venezuela, and the
$1.26 billion Chevron project in Mississippi, along with numerous other
public and private projects around the world.
Brown & Root has significant interest and presence in Turkey, including
design engineering and construction management of a 306 mile, 18 inch crude
oil pipeline from Batman to Dortyol, and the installation of twin 30 inch
subsea pipelines for natural gas across the Sea of Marmara.
November 2001, Brown and Root was paid $2 million to reinforce the U.S.
embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract with the State Department,
according to the New York Times. More recently Brown and Root was paid $16
million by the federal government to go to Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, to build a
408-person prison for captured Taliban fighters, according to Pentagon press
releases.
December 2001, Brown and Root secured a 10-year deal named the Logistics
Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon, which has already
been estimated at $830 million.
I
Examples of overspending by contractors include flying plywood from the
United States to the Balkans at $85.98 a sheet and billing the army to pay
its employees' income taxes in Hungary.
A subsequent GAO report, issued September 2000, showed that Brown and Root
was still taking advantage of the contract in the Balkans. Army commanders
were unable to keep track of the contract because they were typically
rotated out of camps after a six-month duration, erasing institutional
memory, according to the report.
The GAO painted a picture of Brown and Root contract employees sitting idly
most of the time. The report also noted that a lot of staff time was spent
doing unnecessary tasks, such as cleaning offices four times a day.
Pentagon officials were able to identify $72 million in cost savings on the
Brown and Root contract simply by eliminating excess power generation
equipment that the company had purchased for the operation.
Brown and Root has been also been investigated for over billing the
government in its domestic operations. In February 2002, Brown and Root paid
out $2 million to settle a suit with the Justice Department that alleged the
company defrauded the government during the mid-1990s closure of Fort Ord in
Monterey, California.
WorldCom
By Ted Rall
NEW YORK--WorldCom Inc., recently and hilariously accused of rerouting
phone calls to avoid paying connection fees to other phone companies (who
was running the joint, frat dudes?), ranks with Enron in the annals of
modern corporate debauchery. After an $11 billion accounting scandal sunk
the infamous telecommunications conglomerate into bankruptcy, the U.S.
General Services Administration banned federal agencies from doing business
with WorldCom. So how is a proscribed "company that has demonstrated a
flagrant lack of ethics"--the words belong to Senator Susan Collins (R-ME),
chairperson of the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee--poised to land a
$900 million Pentagon (news - web sites) contract to build a cell phone
system for occupied Iraq?
"I was curious about it, because the last time I looked, MCI has never built
out a wireless network," comments Len Lauer of Sprint.
Indeed, WorldCom's MCI division never figured out how to build a cell
network in the U.S., and ultimately gave up trying. But who needs experience
when you have tasty political connections? Before 2000 WorldCom donated
equally to Democrats and Republicans in order to land cell service contracts
with U.S. occupation armies in Haiti, Kosovo and Afghanistan (news - web
sites). Now it's leveraging a $45 million deal with the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) into a Halliburtonesque sweetheart contract to
build the first national mobile phone network in Iraq, where more than 2
million new customers are expected to sign up right away.
The Pentagon's rush to protect WorldCom from a scrappy Bahraini-based
competitor, Batelco, which has built cell networks in the Middle East, has
exposed yet another unholy alliance between corporate America and the Bush
Administration. Demonstrating the brand of lightening-quick entrepreneurship
traditionally treasured by free-market-loving Americans, Batelco raced into
Iraq after the U.S. invasion and installed cell towers throughout Baghdad.
With half of land lines out of service and Saddam's 1990 plan to build cell
towers stymied by U.N. trade sanctions, Baghdadis welcomed the new service.
But the CPA shut down Batelco and threatened to confiscate its $5 million of
equipment. Now the CPA is now prohibiting companies more than 10 percent
owned by foreign governments from bidding on civilian cell business in
U.S.-occupied Iraq. That eliminates Batelco and most other Middle East-based
telecommunications companies and, according to analyst Lars Godell of
Forrester Research in Amsterdam, leaves MCI with "a head start."
Ordinary Iraqis, meanwhile, are back in the pre-Alexander Graham Bell era.
Companies like Vodafone, T-Mobile and NTT DoCoMo of Japan all have more
experience of "setting up green field operations in developing countries
[than MCI]," says Godell. He adds that the Bush Administration's decision
not to seek competitive bids "confirms the worst suspicions" of European
cellular companies. Fortunately for them, being American means never having
to say you're sorry.
Old-fashioned influence-buying, coupled with inside-the-Beltway cronyism, is
MCI's not-so-secret weapon in the fight over Iraqi spoils. As recently as
June 2002, a week before the big accounting scandal broke, The Washington
Post reported that WorldCom contributed $100,000 to a GOP fundraising gala
featuring Bush--"enough to be listed on the program as a vice chairman of
the event." Before becoming attorney general, John Ashcroft (news - web
sites) cashed a $10,000 WorldCom check for his losing Senate race. And the
University of Mississippi's Trent Lott Leadership Institute, named for the
racist GOP Senator, received $1 million from WorldCom. With Republicans
controlling Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House, WorldCom no
longer needs to be an equal-opportunity corrupter.
WorldCom's rivals, furious at being cut out of Iraq, are lashing out. "We
don't understand why MCI would be awarded this business given its status as
having committed the largest corporate fraud in history," says AT&T
spokesman Jim McGann. "There are many qualified, financially stable
companies that could have been awarded that business, including us."
Motorola's Norm Sandler, noted that the Iraq gig had never been offered for
competitive bidding: "We were not aware of it until it showed up in some
news reports."
Perhaps MCI-WorldCom will overcome its lack of experience, $5.5 billion in
post-bankruptcy debt and an extensive criminal record in order to provide
the people of occupied Iraq with affordable, crystal-clear cellphone service
that never drops calls or loses voicemail for hours at a time. But sleazy
back-room deals with Halliburton and MCI-WorldCom belie America's supposed
faith in the transparency of free markets and their relationship to
spreading democracy. They do more damage to our tattered relationship with
the people of Iraq than any suicide bomb. And they prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that George W. Bush's commitment to fight corporate fraud is just
another lie.
*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
Preemptive war against tyrannical
dictators is not a comprehensive
strategy for addressing the threat
of terrorists, tyrants, and
technologies of mass destruction
pose in the 21st century.
*************************************
aniram
The logical deduction that one can make after reading it is that some
people/government creates a profitable economy by destroying and
rebuilding others.
I am sure that someone will say that why should the US has to pay for
the cost of war. If the oil can pay for the reconstruction, let the
Iraqi uses their oil for rebuilding. Unfortunately, if the country was
not destroyed in the first place, the iraqi oil can be used for
something else (and at their own will rather than decisions made by
Washington).
assurance...@yahoo.ca (assurancetourix) wrote in message news:<a43e0ef7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
>
> ------------ excerp ----------------------
>
> The Myth: Iraqis, prior to occupation, lived in little beige tents set
> up on the sides of little dirt roads all over Baghdad. The men and
> boys would ride to school on their camels, donkeys and goats. These
> schools were larger versions of the home units and for every 100
> students, there was one turban-wearing teacher who taught the boys
> rudimentary math (to count the flock) and reading. Girls and women sat
> at home, in black burkas, making bread and taking care of 10-12
> children.
>
> The Truth: Iraqis lived in houses with running water and electricity.
> Thousands of them own computers. Millions own VCRs and VCDs. Iraq has
> sophisticated bridges, recreational centers, clubs, restaurants,
> shops, universities, schools, etc. Iraqis love fast cars (especially
> German cars) and the Tigris is full of little motor boats that are
> used for everything from fishing to water-skiing.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people choose to ignore
> the little prefix ?re' in the words ?rebuild' and ?reconstruct'. For
> your information, ?re' is of Latin origin and generally means ?again'
> or ?anew'.
> when the ?Coalition of the Willing' was composed of over 30 countries
> actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond recognition. They had
> to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings that were originally
> built by foreign companies, they had to get around a lack of raw
> materials that we used to import from abroad, they had to work around
> a vicious blockade designed to damage whatever infrastructure was left
> after the war? they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to
> be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war.
>
> Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings
> and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new
> bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced? things were
> functioning. Everything wasn't perfect- but we were working on it.
>
> And Iraqis aren't easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made
> functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an
> intricately designed dome, something unique? not necessarily classy or
> subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable
> homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old ?Baghdadi'
> buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes?
> mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous
> Faberge eggs? all done by Iraqis.
>
> My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu'alaq Bridge over the
> Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a
> British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up
> on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again,
> exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise.
> One of the art schools decided that although it wasn't the most
> sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most
> glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with
> hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over
> the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the
> bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and
> look down into the Tigris.
>
> So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are
> going to want billions of dollars, why aren't the Iraqi engineers,
> electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of
> people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq? no one
Rob
"aniram" <anir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8269733.03083...@posting.google.com...
> A very interesting article!
>
> The logical deduction that one can make after reading it is that some
> people/government creates a profitable economy by destroying and
> rebuilding others.
>
> I am sure that someone will say that why should the US has to pay for
> the cost of war. If the oil can pay for the reconstruction, let the
> Iraqi uses their oil for rebuilding. Unfortunately, if the country was
> not destroyed in the first place, the iraqi oil can be used for
> something else (and at their own will rather than decisions made by
> Washington).
Unfourtunately, that other something, would have been, and has been, mostly
building palaces for sadam.
David Lo
Rob <hoo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"aniram" <anir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:f8269733.03083...@posting.google.com...
>> A very interesting article!
>>
>> The logical deduction that one can make after reading it is that some
>> people/government creates a profitable economy by destroying and
>> rebuilding others.
>>
>> I am sure that someone will say that why should the US has to pay for
>> the cost of war. If the oil can pay for the reconstruction, let the
>> Iraqi uses their oil for rebuilding. Unfortunately, if the country was
>> not destroyed in the first place, the iraqi oil can be used for
>> something else (and at their own will rather than decisions made by
>> Washington).
>
>Unfourtunately, that other something, would have been, and has been, mostly
>building palaces for sadam.
One needs to be quantitative here. King Solomon probably spent more
on his palaces, considering that he was reported to have 600 wives and
300 concubines. Besides, a war wreaks so much destruction onto the
people and the environment, it is not something you want to nickel and
dime about, even if you can make money (millions and billions) off of
it.
lo yeeOn
E.E.Bud Keith
"David Lo" <acou...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bir41n$kfp$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <lemdnVwqn9s...@comcast.com>,
> Rob <hoo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"aniram" <anir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:f8269733.03083...@posting.google.com...
> >> A very interesting article!
> >>
> >> The logical deduction that one can make after reading it is that some
> >> people/government creates a profitable economy by destroying and
> >> rebuilding others.
> >>
> >> I am sure that someone will say that why should the US has to pay for
> >> the cost of war. If the oil can pay for the reconstruction, let the
> >> Iraqi uses their oil for rebuilding. Unfortunately, if the country was
> >> not destroyed in the first place, the iraqi oil can be used for
> >> something else (and at their own will rather than decisions made by
> >> Washington).
Sure your right just think how lovely everything would be in Iraq with
Saddam keeping the money from the oil and
taking care of the citizens by throwing them in jail and killing them. But
what the hell liberals could then complain about how terrible Bush was for
leaving that country to the tender mercies of there lovely dictator.
The problem with Liberals is they do nothing but whine, if you do somthing
they whine if you nothing they whine. The point is nothing pleases Liberals
that is except there leaders turning this country into another Socialist
paradise.
ehollo
to represent anybody from the opposing party. When did you support anything
Clinton did? Too many people here
are surprised that politics is corrupt-
on both sides. Constructive criticism
of any president, no matter your
registered party, is healthy for America.
That why it is called a DEMOCRACY.
"E.E.Bud Keith" <bud...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8L6dnfj4qa6...@comcast.com...
Diego Gastor
However, I find nothing to backup the story about the New Diyala Bridge contract.
Diego Gastor
Diego Gastor
> > A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American
> > company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
> > bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!
Where do you read about this in the media.
It' must be a misunderstanding on the part of "river"
http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/