Bush Strums as New Orleans drowns
Daniel Silevitch
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=bush+guitar&c=news_photos
Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
singer.
While I don't expect Bush to be slinging sandbags on a levee, is it too
much to ask that he at least cancel fluff appearances on the day after a
massive hurricane trashed the Gulf Coast and New Orleans is becoming the
Atlantis of our time?
-dms
Keith F. Lynch
> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
> singer.
You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
Or are those only for use during city-wide fires rather than
city-wide floods?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Daniel Silevitch
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
>> singer.
>
> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
Stringed instrument; close enough.
> Or are those only for use during city-wide fires rather than
> city-wide floods?
I read there have been some fires; gas leaks and downed electrical lines
and the like. What a mess (drastic understatement, that).
-dms
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:slrndha9hu....@bardeen.local:
> On 30 Aug 2005 23:35:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
>>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
>>> singer.
>>
>> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
>
> Stringed instrument; close enough.
How about, cough cough, ahem ahem, a lyre?
>> Or are those only for use during city-wide fires rather than
>> city-wide floods?
>
> I read there have been some fires; gas leaks and downed electrical lines
> and the like. What a mess (drastic understatement, that).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Ulrika O'Brien
oyþ@earthlink.net says...
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:slrndha9hu....@bardeen.local:
>
> > On 30 Aug 2005 23:35:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
> >>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
> >>> singer.
> >>
> >> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
> >
> > Stringed instrument; close enough.
>
> How about, cough cough, ahem ahem, a lyre?
Now, I thought we'd cleared up all those misunderestimations about Mr.
Bush being a lyre. He was perfectly clear that Saddam Hussein
personally planned the 9/11 attacks and was seconds away from launching
a nukeyoolar attack on Alpharetta, so help me Jeeeezus.
--
Were it not air, it would not burn. -Graydon Saunders
Ulrika O'Brien*fwa*instigator at large
Steve Coltrin
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
>> singer.
>
> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
A balalaika would be a better choice, though I think I'd recommend
an Appalachian dulcimer.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Tom Cruise can kiss my ass
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
David G. Bell
<Xns96C2E605BF2...@207.217.125.201>
oy兀earthlink.net "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:slrndha9hu....@bardeen.local:
>
> > On 30 Aug 2005 23:35:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
> >>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
> >>> singer.
> >>
> >> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
> >
> > Stringed instrument; close enough.
>
> How about, cough cough, ahem ahem, a lyre?
Two in one presidential photo-op would confuse the voters. You remember
what happened when Tony Blair visited.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Bateau
You whiney americans act like it's never rained before. Grow up.
Joe Ellis
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
... and last year when he went to Florida after the hurricanes people
bitched because they thought he was too soon on the scene and his
presence with attendant security was "disruptive" to the rescue effort.
Any excuse to gripe, I suppose.
Do you _really_ think there is ANYTHING at all that ANY President can do
from Washington that _can't_ be done from ANYWHERE in the world in this
day and age? Get a grip.
The convoys of aid started rolling into NOLA last night. You can write
off downtown, below sea level. With at least two levees broken, there's
no way to stop the water before the whole thing floods. Efforts are best
directed to getting the survivors out.
My take on this: the city is gone. No one should be allowed to rebuild
residences in the city, and only port facilities be rebuilt. It was
stupid to build a major city below sea level, in a swamp, in a known
hurricane zone in the first place - to rebuild it in this location only
compounds the error.
Richard Eney
And, of course, these are the only things happening in the world.
Jesus. You hate the man's politics and now he's being faulted for dissing
acts of nature.
-- Dick Eney
Daniel Silevitch
> In article <slrndha8l9....@bardeen.local>,
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> I swear to God, you couldn't make this up:
>> http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=bush+guitar&c=news_photos
>>
>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
>> singer.
>>
>> While I don't expect Bush to be slinging sandbags on a levee, is it too
>> much to ask that he at least cancel fluff appearances on the day after a
>> massive hurricane trashed the Gulf Coast and New Orleans is becoming the
>> Atlantis of our time?
>
> ... and last year when he went to Florida after the hurricanes people
> bitched because they thought he was too soon on the scene and his
> presence with attendant security was "disruptive" to the rescue effort.
> Any excuse to gripe, I suppose.
>
> Do you _really_ think there is ANYTHING at all that ANY President can do
> from Washington that _can't_ be done from ANYWHERE in the world in this
> day and age? Get a grip.
Did you read what I wrote? I said "I don't expect Bush to be slinging
sandbags on a levee". I expect him to (a) be working behind the scenes
to expedite the motion of people/supplies to the region and (b)
projecting a public appearence of leadership; addressing the country to
urge people to give to the Red Cross or other charities, etc., would be
a good start. It's symbolic, yes, but it's part of the job. I agree that
his place is not in Louisiana, but in DC or his ranch in Crawford or
somewhere else with decent communications.
Yukking it up with a country singer is not on the list. He could at
least _try_ to look concerned for a few days. Would it have killed him
to cut off one more day from his vacaction and come back to Washington
on Saturday, when it became clear that _some_ chunk of the coast was
going to get trashed?
I hope he likes the guitar, nicely ornamented with a Presidential seal
(really; look closely at the pictures).
> The convoys of aid started rolling into NOLA last night. You can write
> off downtown, below sea level. With at least two levees broken, there's
> no way to stop the water before the whole thing floods. Efforts are best
> directed to getting the survivors out.
>
> My take on this: the city is gone. No one should be allowed to rebuild
> residences in the city, and only port facilities be rebuilt. It was
> stupid to build a major city below sea level, in a swamp, in a known
> hurricane zone in the first place - to rebuild it in this location only
> compounds the error.
That would be the smart thing, but I think we're too bloody-minded a
species to do that. My guess is that no matter how many gigabucks it
will end up costing and how many decades it takes, New Orleans will be
rebuilt.
-dms
Kip Williams
> Did you read what I wrote? I said "I don't expect Bush to be slinging
> sandbags on a levee". I expect him to (a) be working behind the scenes
> to expedite the motion of people/supplies to the region and (b)
> projecting a public appearence of leadership; addressing the country to
> urge people to give to the Red Cross or other charities, etc., would be
> a good start. It's symbolic, yes, but it's part of the job. I agree that
> his place is not in Louisiana, but in DC or his ranch in Crawford or
> somewhere else with decent communications.
>
> Yukking it up with a country singer is not on the list. He could at
> least _try_ to look concerned for a few days. Would it have killed him
> to cut off one more day from his vacaction and come back to Washington
> on Saturday, when it became clear that _some_ chunk of the coast was
> going to get trashed?
>
> I hope he likes the guitar, nicely ornamented with a Presidential seal
> (really; look closely at the pictures).
Hey, that's not all Bush has been doing. After the levees were breaking
and water started to rise, he was off talking up the Iraq war again to
hand-picked audiences. Priorities.
Kip W
Daniel Silevitch
Show some respect for the dead. That's all I'm asking the President to
do. Apparently, it's too much to ask.
-dms
Andrew Stephenson
spco...@omcl.org "Steve Coltrin" writes:
> begin fnord
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
> >> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
> >> singer.
> >
> > You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
>
> A balalaika would be a better choice, though I think I'd
> recommend an Appalachian dulcimer.
Morebe topical: an oud (or 'ud).
--
Andrew Stephenson
Daniel Silevitch
Update: I am informed that in addition to a 'Fiddle while Rome burns'
moment, our President also had a 'Let them eat cake' moment on Monday:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0125-515h.html
(mind the wrapping. Note that this is straight from the White House
press office.)
Any guesses on what he'll do to complete the trifecta?
-dms
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
Iraq.
Priorities.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
Il mio romanzo online: http://homepage.mac.com/afdd/Senza.html
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Hey, that's not all Bush has been doing. After the levees were breaking
>>and water started to rise, he was off talking up the Iraq war again to
>>hand-picked audiences. Priorities.
Everybody's chest-deep in the big muddy, and the damn fool says to press on.
> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
> Iraq.
>
> Priorities.
True. I was just looking at the documentation from June of last year on
one of those commie web sites that insists on pointing out things like that.
Don't they know that by not clapping, THEY KILLED TINKERBELL???
Kip W
James Nicoll
Aren't most of the people dying in NOLA democrats? So for Bush
undermining the levees to support his war in Iraq is a win-win.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Joe Ellis
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
> Iraq.
Cite?
Daniel Silevitch
Try this one:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
"When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people,
Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project,
or SELA.
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with
carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building
pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250
million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the
Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New
Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
[...]
"On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that
the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland
security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay.
Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are
doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue
for us." "
[...]
"The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The
Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to
dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be
opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration
proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's
chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth
of what local officials say they need." "
-dms
Dave Weingart
>> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
>> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
>> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
>> Iraq.
>
>Cite?
If you want, I can track down the original Times-Picayune articles
as well, but it should be a Small Matter Of Googling to do so.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Girando e girando, cascando e cascando
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Nel mondo delle elfi sognando
http://www.weingart.net/
ICQ 57055207
Joe Ellis
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:53:51 GMT, Joe Ellis <synth...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > In article <1h268c6.145grfgwmdxv0N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> > ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> >
> >> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
> >> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
> >> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
> >> Iraq.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> Try this one:
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_i
> d=1001051313
>
> "When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people,
> Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project,
> or SELA.
>
> Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with
> carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building
> pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250
> million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the
> Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New
> Orleans continued to subside.
--- yet they think that just piling more dirt on top of the levees would
have helped? Reality check time, folks... This is a rather significant
hint that it's time to give it up as a bad job. Yet another indicator
that the city should NOT be rebuilt on site, and the futility of
continuing to throw money down the drain to "improve" levees that simply
aren't going to be enough.
> Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
> trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
> pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
> the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
> least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
> specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
> hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
Nine articles in the space of a year... We get more urgency about
someone embezzling $10,000 from a high school athletic booster fund than
that. Sounds like it wasn't a particularly big story at the paper,
either.
> [...]
>
> "On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
> Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that
> the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland
> security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay.
> Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are
> doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue
> for us." "
"It appears..."... "I suppose..." - in other words, he doesn't know.
>
> [...]
>
> "The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The
> Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to
> dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be
> opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration
> proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's
> chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth
> of what local officials say they need." "
Hmmm... some convenient snippage there... I wonder what was in those
ellipses?
Never heard of "Newhouse News Service"... Interesting though... they
don't cover _news_, they, by their own statement, cover "issues".
See:
http://www.newhousenews.com/about.html
That's a pretty good indicator of someone with an axe to grind.
See also their list of papers... not exactly a roll call of the best in
journalism...
Well, the claim was that the President _transferred_ funds. NONE of the
above items show that.
Yes, budgets were cut... but spending was cut across the board, so
picking out any single project is rather disingenuous. There still has
been no evidence offered that money was "transferred".
You might want to note, as well, that the President has little to no
control over the actual individual items in the budget - that authority
lies with Congress, not the executive branch.
Doug Wickstrom
<slrndhba92....@bardeen.uchicago.edu>
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
The dead are mostly in Harrison County, Mississippi, and there
are thousands of active duty Navy and Air Force pre-positioned
there for hurricane relief. Well, that's not why they're there,
but that's what they do every time there's a hurricane. This
time, the Air Force lost a lot of their own homes -- the base
housing area is "95% destroyed" according to the base commander.
The base runway is damaged, and the 53rd WRS, the "Hurricane
Hunters," cannot use its entire length. The physical damage
along the Gulf Coast may turn out to be worse than Camille, even
if the death toll isn't.
I do have to wonder at people who thought they'd be safe staying
in buildings that were built on the sites of buildings that were
destroyed by Camille. At the same time, I remember walking past
old homes that survived Camille, and I wonder at the power of a
storm that could destroy them, too.
As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
to stop the tide from coming in.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"I'm worried that the universe will soon need replacing. It's not holding a
charge." --Edward Chilton
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Kip Williams
> As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
> went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
> to stop the tide from coming in.
All things considered, I don't think we have to worry about him doing that.
Kip W
Pete McCutchen
How, exactly, is it disrespectful to keep a prior appointment?
I'm listening to country music right now. Is that disrespectful?
He's flying back to Washington right now and will address the country.
I confidently predict that he'll say something like "this is bad, but
we'll pull through, because we're Americans. The federal government
is doing all this nice stuff for the people." Those who take comfort
from that sort of thing will find it comforting, while those who
viscerally hate him will undoubtedly find some nit to pick.
Personally, I don't particularly care.
In terms of specific actions that the government ought to be taking,
the Army Corps of Engineers ought to try to fix the levee; the Coast
Guard rescues people who are stranded, and FEMA and the National Guard
helps with refugees. All backstopped by the military.
So far as I can tell, that's all happening.
There are all sorts of good reasons to criticize President Bush. Why
pick a petty, stupid, inconsequential one? Do you have any specific
complaints that actually tie in to actual decisions of the President?
--
Pete McCutchen
Andrew Plotkin
>
> > Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
> > trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
> > pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
> > the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
> > least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
> > specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
> > hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
>
> Nine articles in the space of a year... We get more urgency about
> someone embezzling $10,000 from a high school athletic booster fund than
> that.
And thank the gods they didn't write more articles, or you might be
forced to care.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
Joe Ellis
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> Here, Joe Ellis <synth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
> > > trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
> > > pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
> > > the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
> > > least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
> > > specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
> > > hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
> >
> > Nine articles in the space of a year... We get more urgency about
> > someone embezzling $10,000 from a high school athletic booster fund than
> > that.
>
> And thank the gods they didn't write more articles, or you might be
> forced to care.
It would seem that _their_ caring is at issue here... I'm sure they care
now, but it seems they weren't all that worried until last Sunday.
Charlton Wilbur
DS> Show some respect for the dead. That's all I'm asking the
DS> President to do. Apparently, it's too much to ask.
You know, I think he's an idiot, I can't stand his politics, I didn't
vote for him either time and would gladly vote against him given
another chance --
but there ARE other things going on in the world, and everything can't
come to a complete stop while we beat our breasts and wail about New
Orleans.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~creswell/auden.html
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Dave Weingart
>As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
>went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
>to stop the tide from coming in.
I certainly would. He'd stain the carpet. Doing it out at his
ranch in Crawford would be better.
Paul Ciszek
In article <NtudnW3aqeb...@comcast.com>,
Yeah, he can usually find an underling to fall on their sword in his place.
--
Please reply to: | "When the press is free and every man
pciszek at panix dot com | able to read, all is safe."
Autoreply has been disabled | --Thomas Jefferson
Seth Breidbart
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
>went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
>to stop the tide from coming in.
That would depend on whether he managed to hit the sharp end.
Seth
Pete McCutchen
On Monday, was it clear that the scope of death and disruption was
going to be as great as it's been?
In any case, if he'd stiffed McCain and not posed with the cake, you
could accuse him of being mean to his sometimes-rival.
--
Pete McCutchen
Marilee J. Layman
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The dead are mostly in Harrison County, Mississippi, and there
>are thousands of active duty Navy and Air Force pre-positioned
>there for hurricane relief. Well, that's not why they're there,
>but that's what they do every time there's a hurricane. This
>time, the Air Force lost a lot of their own homes -- the base
>housing area is "95% destroyed" according to the base commander.
>The base runway is damaged, and the 53rd WRS, the "Hurricane
>Hunters," cannot use its entire length. The physical damage
>along the Gulf Coast may turn out to be worse than Camille, even
>if the death toll isn't.
The Armed Forces Retirement Home up here is getting ready to take in
their brethren from down there.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Well, he could *trip* and fall on the sword.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
Weingart) wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, nims...@comcast.net said:
>>As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
>>went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
>>to stop the tide from coming in.
>
>I certainly would. He'd stain the carpet. Doing it out at his
>ranch in Crawford would be better.
And that's a new carpet in the Oval Office!
--
Marilee J. Layman
David Friedman
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:12:37 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
> <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >Update: I am informed that in addition to a 'Fiddle while Rome burns'
> >moment, our President also had a 'Let them eat cake' moment on Monday:
> >
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0
> >125-515h.html
> >
> >(mind the wrapping. Note that this is straight from the White House
> >press office.)
>
> On Monday, was it clear that the scope of death and disruption was
> going to be as great as it's been?
As best I recall, Monday looked like a near miss, with New Orleans
flooding no worse than on several previous occasions. Then the levee
broke--after what was left of the hurricane had mostly passed.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
> went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
> to stop the tide from coming in.
No, no, I for one would honor him highly for it.
A simple "You know, there might be something in this whole envi...
envo... nature preservation thing after all" would do, though.
Joe Ellis
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:12:37 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
> <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >Update: I am informed that in addition to a 'Fiddle while Rome burns'
> >moment, our President also had a 'Let them eat cake' moment on Monday:
> >
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0
> >125-515h.html
> >
> >(mind the wrapping. Note that this is straight from the White House
> >press office.)
>
> On Monday, was it clear that the scope of death and disruption was
> going to be as great as it's been?
No. Sunday it was only a Cat 3. Early Monday was cat 3-4. It topped out
at Cat 5 just as it was making landfall. Extraordinarily bad timing, and
rather unusual behavior for a hurricane.
Joe Ellis
> Here, Joe Ellis <synth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
> > > trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
> > > pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
> > > the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
> > > least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
> > > specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
> > > hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
> >
> > Nine articles in the space of a year... We get more urgency about
> > someone embezzling $10,000 from a high school athletic booster fund than
> > that.
>
> And thank the gods they didn't write more articles, or you might be
> forced to care.
You know, you're a smug, self-righteous little twit with delusions of
humanity.
In case _you_ care, I _had_ a cousin who lived in Bay St. Louis. She's
not there anymore... because the entire town is gone. Not just flooded,
with a chance to leave as the water slowly rises - GONE. Erased from the
face of the Earth. It _used_ to be halfway between Biloxi and New
Orleans... ground zero for the eye wall. She was deluded enough to think
that sprinkling holy water around the foundation of the house and the
property line would be enough to protect her from a fucking category
five hurricane, and that a house on a hill 25 feet above sea level and
less than a mile from the ocean in three directions would protect her
from a 40 foot storm surge.
As a result of the complacency those articles encouraged by being afraid
to justifiably scare the shit out of people, her body is probably
bloating somewhere out in the Gulf of Mexico.
I do care. Spare me your bleeding heart guilt trips and platitudes.
You're just an asshole.
Daniel Silevitch
I think you're misremembering. The National Hurricane Center has all of
their advisories online at
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/refresh/KATRINA+shtml/145512.shtml?
The first Gulf Coast hurricane warnings went out on Saturday afternoon
(Advisory 18a); strength was given as Cat 3.
Sunday morning (Advisory 22, 8 AM) reads
"THE PURPOSE OF THIS SPECIAL ADVISORY IS TO REVISE THE INTENSITY OF
KATRINA TO CATEGORY FIVE."
That advisory ends with
"NEVERTHELESS...KATRINA IS EXPECTED TO BE A DEVASTING CATEGORY FOUR OR
FIVE HURRICANE AT LANDFALL."
-dms
Joe Ellis
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Interesting... that's not what the press up here in Ohio was telling us.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> Did you read what I wrote?
Why would someone who opposes you read what you wrote? Much easier to
fashion strawmen to knock down.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> You know, you're a smug, self-righteous little twit with delusions of
> humanity.
No, that would be you and all the other monsters still supporting this
incredibly corrupt administration.
No matter how many people get killed, no matter how many trillions of
dollars are flushed down the toilet, you will support them as long as
your own personal bread is buttered and you will NEVER EVER admit you
were wrong to support him.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
> went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
> to stop the tide from coming in.
And others here would still worship him if he personally killed
everybody in their family in front of them.
They put up a fuss if he took all the movable property as well.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> There are all sorts of good reasons to criticize President Bush. Why
> pick a petty, stupid, inconsequential one? Do you have any specific
> complaints that actually tie in to actual decisions of the President?
How about
1) Sending so much of our National Guard abroad slashing our ability to
respond to disasters
2) Slashing disaster preparedness and Army Corp of Engineer funds to
spend the money on Iraq
You can look it up, but I doubt you will because it is so much easier
to just claim that I'm crazy.
David Friedman
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
Providing another example of the pattern of "he disagrees with me, I'm
obviously right so there can't be any good reason to disagree with me,
so it must be because he is a bad person."
Michael J. Lowrey
> There are all sorts of good reasons to criticize President Bush. Why
> pick a petty, stupid, inconsequential one?
On this point, Pete, I agree with you. He seems to think it's
undignified to keep such appointments in the face of national horror; I
think he's being a little oversensitive.
> Do you have any specific
> complaints that actually tie in to actual decisions of the President?
Hell, yeah! Completely aside from the troops and equipment that are in
Iraq instead of the States, there's this:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1001051313
"When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people,
Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control
Project, or SELA.
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with
carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building
pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250
million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the
Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New
Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
[...]
"On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that
the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland
security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay.
Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are
doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue
for us."
[...]
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Kip Williams
> In case _you_ care, I _had_ a cousin who lived in Bay St. Louis. She's
> not there anymore... because the entire town is gone. Not just flooded,
> with a chance to leave as the water slowly rises - GONE. Erased from the
> face of the Earth. It _used_ to be halfway between Biloxi and New
> Orleans... ground zero for the eye wall.
I had no idea. I can only guess what you might be going through. I'm
sorry about your cousin, and I apologize for any additional stress I
might have placed on you in arguing with you. If there's any chance at
all of good news, I hope you get it.
Kip Williams
Steve Coltrin
Look, I'll _buy_ you a carpet, okay?
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Tom Cruise can kiss my ass
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
David G. Bell
<synthfilker-A8D8...@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>
synth...@sbcglobal.net "Joe Ellis" wrote:
> In article <slrndha8l9....@bardeen.local>,
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> > I swear to God, you couldn't make this up:
> > http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=bush+guitar&c=news_photos
> >
> > Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
> > photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
> > singer.
> >
> > While I don't expect Bush to be slinging sandbags on a levee, is it too
> > much to ask that he at least cancel fluff appearances on the day after a
> > massive hurricane trashed the Gulf Coast and New Orleans is becoming the
> > Atlantis of our time?
>
> ... and last year when he went to Florida after the hurricanes people
> bitched because they thought he was too soon on the scene and his
> presence with attendant security was "disruptive" to the rescue effort.
> Any excuse to gripe, I suppose.
>
> Do you _really_ think there is ANYTHING at all that ANY President can do
> from Washington that _can't_ be done from ANYWHERE in the world in this
> day and age? Get a grip.
There's a lot that can be done with modern communications, including
video conferencing.
As any long-term Usenet-user knows, not everyone copes well without
direct personal contact. The President is at the top of a pyramid of
information about what is happening, what needs to be done, and what can
be done. A big chunk of that pyramid is in Washington.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <df4u71$d6l$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > > Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
>> > > trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
>> > > pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
>> > > the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
>> > > least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
>> > > specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
>> > > hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
>> >
>> > Nine articles in the space of a year... We get more urgency about
>> > someone embezzling $10,000 from a high school athletic booster fund than
>> > that.
>>
>> And thank the gods they didn't write more articles, or you might be
>> forced to care.
>
>humanity.
>
>not there anymore... because the entire town is gone. Not just flooded,
>with a chance to leave as the water slowly rises - GONE. Erased from the
>face of the Earth. It _used_ to be halfway between Biloxi and New
>that sprinkling holy water around the foundation of the house and the
>property line would be enough to protect her from a fucking category
>five hurricane, and that a house on a hill 25 feet above sea level and
>less than a mile from the ocean in three directions would protect her
>from a 40 foot storm surge.
>
>As a result of the complacency those articles encouraged by being afraid
>to justifiably scare the shit out of people, her body is probably
>bloating somewhere out in the Gulf of Mexico.
I'm sorry for your loss.
On the other hand, if she really thought holy water was going to keep the house
safe, I don't think there's a heck of a lot the Times Picayune could have
done for her.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <1125541408....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>obviously right so there can't be any good reason to disagree with me,
>so it must be because he is a bad person."
Actually, _two_ examples, considering Joe's response to Andrew.
-- Alan
nomadi...@hotmail.com
I think the claim is, to paraphrase, "You criticized him yesterday for
one thing, so you can't criticize him again today for something else.
It just isn't sporting."
Dave Weingart
>I had no idea. I can only guess what you might be going through. I'm
>sorry about your cousin, and I apologize for any additional stress I
>might have placed on you in arguing with you. If there's any chance at
>all of good news, I hope you get it.
I just want to say that I admire you greatly for this, Kip.
Dave Weingart
>In any case, if he'd stiffed McCain and not posed with the cake, you
>could accuse him of being mean to his sometimes-rival.
You could, but it's doubtful that we'd have even heard about it.
And, personally, I *expect* the President to be in the thick of things
and pass up fluff when there's something important going on.
I mean, if Bush were a President that I admire* (and I do not), and if
he were scheduled, say, to meet my son's track team and shake their hands
and do a photo op and some natural disaster came along and he couldn't,
I'd *understand it* -- sure, I'd be disappointed, but I wouldn't
fault him for it.
*This clause is there because I'd as soon spit on the ground and
and turn away if I were to meet him -- I cannot honestly say that
I have the slightest desire to meet GWB.
Dave Weingart
>Interesting... that's not what the press up here in Ohio was telling us.
That's what NOAA was telling the rest of the country. It wasn't exactly
a secret.
David Friedman
win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing)
wrote:
I don't think so, actually. Joe's response was a personal attack, but it
doesn't carry the same implication, at least to my eye, that everyone
with position X holds it for bad reasons as Mark's does.
Joe was commenting on a particular post by a particular poster. Mark was
commenting on everyone still supporting the Bush administration.
Danny Low
<dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Did you read what I wrote? I said "I don't expect Bush to be slinging
>sandbags on a levee". I expect him to (a) be working behind the scenes
>to expedite the motion of people/supplies to the region and (b)
>projecting a public appearence of leadership; addressing the country to
>urge people to give to the Red Cross or other charities, etc., would be
>a good start. It's symbolic, yes, but it's part of the job. I agree that
>his place is not in Louisiana, but in DC or his ranch in Crawford or
>somewhere else with decent communications.
Bush did all this. He officially declared the area a federal disaster
area so FEMA and the military could start sending people and aid to
the region. He flew over the area and made a speech about the
disaster. So he did both the practical and the symbolic acts that you
say that he should have done.
So the "fluff" was IN ADDITION to all this. It seems to me that you
went to a lot of effort to find something very obscure and trivial to
criticize Bush with even though he was doing exactly what you said he
should be doing.
Danny
real e-mail address is dl...@fanfotography.com
Danny Low
>No, that would be you and all the other monsters still supporting this
>incredibly corrupt administration.
>
>No matter how many people get killed, no matter how many trillions of
>dollars are flushed down the toilet, you will support them as long as
>your own personal bread is buttered and you will NEVER EVER admit you
>were wrong to support him.
So Bush is responsible for catgeory 5 hurricanes? with such totally
emotional and utter stupid and foolish statements like this, it is no
wonder that Bush won re-election with a bigger margin. If Bush is
dumb, then his opponents are dumber.
Danny Low
Winston - SSRL Central Computing) wrote:
>I'm sorry for your loss.
>
>On the other hand, if she really thought holy water was going to keep the house
>safe, I don't think there's a heck of a lot the Times Picayune could have
>done for her.
This last statement says you are not sorry at all. It is quite a
cruel, mean and vindictive statement. You are a complete asshole for
writing this statement.
Pete McCutchen
Those claims may or may not be true, but at least they're within
spitting distance of an actual policy argument. Now, I think that
those arguments could wait a few days, but they aren't crazy on their
face.
I don't know the exact numbers on the National Guard -- how many are
deployed overseas and how many are left. It's self-evident that
somebody who's in Iraq can't be in Louisiana at the same time. Still,
logistical limitations being what they are, there's a maximum number
of National Guard units which can be usefully deployed. I honestly
don't know whether the number deployed now is near that maximum. And
I doubt you do, either.
As for the bit about disaster preparedness and Army Corps of Engineers
funding, I don't know the numbers. However, I'm certainly willing to
believe that money is misallocated. One side effect of Bush's
unwillingness to veto any spending bill, even with thousands of pork
barrel projects earmarked to various congressional districts is that
spending has gone nuts. I wouldn't be surprised if the spending orgy
didn't include the Army Corps of Engineers. Particularly since many
environmentalists types are quite hostile to levees and such.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>> As for the President, some here would find fault with him if he
>> went into the Oval Office and fell on his sword for having failed
>> to stop the tide from coming in.
>
>And others here would still worship him if he personally killed
>everybody in their family in front of them.
There are Bush-worshipers in the world -- folks who play for "their
team" and defend Bush no matter what. Just as the Atrios/Daily Kos
crew reflexively hates the guy, no matter what he does?
But where are the people "here" who worship him no matter what he
does? I mean, I've criticized Bush for his free spending, for No
Child Left Behind, for the steel tariffs, for his position on
detaining American citizens apprehended on American soil without
trial, and for all sorts of other things. It seems to me that the
folks around here fall into two categories: those who loathe him
without reservation or reason, and those who sometimes agree,
sometimes disagree, but who think that some modicum of balance and
fair-mindedness is in order.
--
Pete McCutchen
Del Cotter
Michael J. Lowrey <ora...@execpc.com> said:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> There are all sorts of good reasons to criticize President Bush. Why
>> pick a petty, stupid, inconsequential one?
>
>On this point, Pete, I agree with you. He seems to think it's
>undignified to keep such appointments in the face of national horror; I
>think he's being a little oversensitive.
>
>
>> Do you have any specific
>> complaints that actually tie in to actual decisions of the President?
>
>Hell, yeah! Completely aside from the troops and equipment that are in
>Iraq instead of the States, there's this:
>
>http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/
>article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
[quoting the article]
>Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
>trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
>pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
>the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
>least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
>specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
>hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
That result, and Bush's personal mark on it, is foreshadowed by this
article from 2002:
For Bush, secrecy is a matter of loyalty
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/03/14/usat-secrecy.htm
" The fear of retribution is well placed. Mike Parker, a former
Republican congressman from Mississippi, lost his job as head of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last week. His offense? Being too candid
before the Senate Budget Committee, administration officials say.
" Aside from saying under oath that Bush budget cuts will have a
"negative impact" on the corps, Parker told senators, "After being in
the administration and dealing with them, I still don't have warm and
fuzzy feelings for them."
" A furious Daniels sent a transcript of Parker's comments to the White
House. Parker was given 30 minutes to decide whether to resign or be
fired. He resigned.
That's just an example in an article about Bush's governing style. It's
only in retrospect that the words "Army Corps of Engineers", "Bush
budget cuts", and "negative impact" come back like a boomerang to the
current catastrophe of mismanagement.
A natural disaster has two components, only one of which is natural. And
consider: if this had been a dirty bomb, the contingency plans for
getting people out and sheltered, and food, water, and medical care in,
would have been almost identical. So what has the "National Security"
president been doing for the last four years, if not equipping the
country to handle just such an attack as this?
--
Del Cotter
NB Personal replies to this post will
send email to d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Please send your email to del2 instead
Tim McDaniel
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>And, personally, I *expect* the President to be in the thick of things
>and pass up fluff when there's something important going on.
I don't. What the hell is *he* supposed to do about a natural
disaster? He's got N layers of subordinates, and state and county
adjuncts, who (were supposed to have) planned for all this, and who
are (ought to be) busy doing their jobs. If he starts calling around
to talk to people who are doing important work, or demanding briefings
from them, he's interfering with their work.
OK, I *can* see a couple of functional things he can do.
- Washington political things. Congress is going to be called into
special session to vote on an appropriations bill to pay for the
rescue and recovery efforts.
- Adjudication. FEMA says this, the Army Corps of Engineers says
that, Homeland Security washed their hands of it: the Prexy needs to
make a decision, and ideally say "and <whoever> is in charge of this
function now".
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Tom Stern
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:08:06 +0100 (BST), db...@zhochaka.org.uk
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>On Wednesday, in article
> <Xns96C2E605BF2...@207.217.125.201>
> oy兀earthlink.net "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
>> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed in news:slrndha9hu....@bardeen.local:
>>
>> > On 30 Aug 2005 23:35:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> >>> Before heading back to Washington, President Bush decided to keep a
>> >>> photo-op date, receiving (and playing with) a guitar from a country
>> >>> singer.
>> >>
>> >> You'd think he could at least choose a fiddle.
>> >
>> > Stringed instrument; close enough.
>>
>> How about, cough cough, ahem ahem, a lyre?
>
>Two in one presidential photo-op would confuse the voters. You remember
>what happened when Tony Blair visited.
aRJay
<ki...@comcast.net> writes
>Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>
>> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, that's not all Bush has been doing. After the levees were
>>>breaking
>>>and water started to rise, he was off talking up the Iraq war again to
>>>hand-picked audiences. Priorities.
>
>Everybody's chest-deep in the big muddy, and the damn fool says to press on.
>
>> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
>> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
>> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
>> Iraq.
>> Priorities.
>
>True. I was just looking at the documentation from June of last year on
>one of those commie web sites that insists on pointing out things like
>that.
>
>Don't they know that by not clapping, THEY KILLED TINKERBELL???
>
A Disney fan is discovered.
The original Tinkerbell is a nasty piece of work who arranged the
attempted murder of an innocent child.
P.S. My condolences on the loss of what seems to have been an
interesting city. It is unfortunate that it was built in such an
unsustainable position. No doubt it will be restored though the cost
will be enormous.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
Pete McCutchen
<ora...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a
>trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending
>pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at
>the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At
>least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005
>specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of
>hurricane- and flood-control dollars."
>
>[...]
>
>"On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
>Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that
>the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland
>security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay.
>Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are
>doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue
>for us."
>
>[...]
Two points.
First, it's not clear that money allocated in the 2004 and 2005 budget
would have resulted in projects which would have been complete by now.
It's possible they'd have finished in, say, 2009. Recall that,
according to your own source, they've been working on this since 1995.
That is, six years of work which took place before Bush took office
was apparently not sufficient.
Second, even if the work had been done and completed there's no
guarantee that it would have prevented this particular incident. It
might have, or it might not have. We don't know at this point, and I
doubt that anybody really knows.
That said, it's quite possible that funds were misallocated, and that
more should have been spent on this. That's a valid policy argument.
Now, the funds could have come out of the defense spending, but a
dollar is a dollar. It makes just as much sense to say that we should
have spent less on the new medicare entitlement, or No Child Left
Behind, or the Dr. Seuss museum, or the ludicrous farm bill, or any
number of other things. So criticizing spending decisions is
certainly legitimate.
Personally, I'd rather wait until rescue operations are complete to
start up with this sort of thing, but your point isn't batshit insane,
or stupidly petty.
--
Pete McCutchen
Kip Williams
> In article <J9ednaQjq5S...@comcast.com>, Kip Williams
> <ki...@comcast.net> writes
>
>> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey, that's not all Bush has been doing. After the levees were breaking
>>>> and water started to rise, he was off talking up the Iraq war again to
>>>> hand-picked audiences. Priorities.
>>
>>
>> Everybody's chest-deep in the big muddy, and the damn fool says to
>> press on.
>>
>>> Hey hey hey, let's not slag the President here. He did think this
>>> through in advance. Long before Katrina struck he was transferring funds
>>> slated for levee maintenance and disaster preparadness to the war in
>>> Iraq.
>>> Priorities.
>>
>>
>> True. I was just looking at the documentation from June of last year
>> on one of those commie web sites that insists on pointing out things
>> like that.
>>
>> Don't they know that by not clapping, THEY KILLED TINKERBELL???
>>
> A Disney fan is discovered.
>
> The original Tinkerbell is a nasty piece of work who arranged the
> attempted murder of an innocent child.
Well, it's true I liked the Disney version, but I was thinking of the TV
production with Mary Martin when I said that. However you did it, you
have stumbled upon the truth, and I own up.
Kip W
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <00A4922E...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>doesn't carry the same implication, at least to my eye, that everyone
>with position X holds it for bad reasons as Mark's does.
>
>Joe was commenting on a particular post by a particular poster. Mark was
>commenting on everyone still supporting the Bush administration.
>
Ah. I see your distinction. (I think I generalized a reading of Joe's post
into "Andrew and everyone who agrees with him", but - without going back and
checking - I don't think he actually said that.)
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>On 31 Aug 2005 19:23:28 -0700, Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>incredibly corrupt administration.
>>
>>No matter how many people get killed, no matter how many trillions of
>>dollars are flushed down the toilet, you will support them as long as
>>your own personal bread is buttered and you will NEVER EVER admit you
>>were wrong to support him.
>
>emotional and utter stupid and foolish statements like this, it is no
>wonder that Bush won re-election with a bigger margin.
I'm not holding a brief for Mark's style of argument, but he doesn't actually
say that Bush is responsible for category 5 hurricanes. (A case could be made
that Bush or Bush administration choices resulted in there being less
mitigation of the effects of the Cat 5 Hurricane than there could have been,
through both the loss of wetlands and providing much less money than the
Army Corps of Engineers requested for strengthening the levees, so there might
be some responsibility _there_.)
>If Bush is dumb, then his opponents are dumber.
Isn't this a nonsequitur to anything Mark said? Mark referred to a "an
incredibly corrupt" administration, not a dumb one.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:34:26 GMT, win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan
>Winston - SSRL Central Computing) wrote:
>
>>
>>On the other hand, if she really thought holy water was going to keep the house
>>safe, I don't think there's a heck of a lot the Times Picayune could have
>>done for her.
>
>cruel, mean and vindictive statement. You are a complete asshole for
>writing this statement.
You may well be right.
(About the asshole part, I mean.
I _am_ sorry for his loss, as I'm sorry for everybody's losses. I don't think
grief and woe ought to give you a free pass on spraying venom in the wrong
direction, but if I were a better person I might have let that go by for
now.
Kip did much better than I did.)
-- Alan
Kathleen Secor
> Second, even if the work had been done and completed there's no
> guarantee that it would have prevented this particular incident. It
> might have, or it might not have. We don't know at this point, and I
> doubt that anybody really knows.
I have to say that I was really impressed by the guy who stood up on TV
last night (or at least, I saw it last night) and said "we did a
cost-benefit analysis, and it didn't make sense to make the levees
stronger than we did." It may have been the wrong decision, it may look
cruelly heartless from this vantage point, but it took a lot of guts for
someone to stand there in the face of this devastation and say "we had a
reason, and we thought it was a good one, and it had to do with money."
Aiglet
(The guy I had a crush on in 7th grade is missing down there. It's not
family, and he's not close, but I empathize deeply with all the people
who can't find a reasonable check-in site to even try to start looking.)
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> Personally, I'd rather wait until rescue operations are complete to
> start up with this sort of thing, but your point isn't batshit insane,
> or stupidly petty.
By that point, it will be another news cycle and the Bush defenders
will have swept it under the rug AGAIN.
This I do blame on the American public: problems haven't disappeared
just because nobody is talking about them.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> There are Bush-worshipers in the world -- folks who play for "their
> team" and defend Bush no matter what. Just as the Atrios/Daily Kos
> crew reflexively hates the guy, no matter what he does?
Do you EVER for even a moment stop to think that he just might deserve
to be hated on purely an objective basis? Just what does he have to do
to finally be held accountable?
> But where are the people "here" who worship him no matter what he
> does?
I guess you are demanding that I go find all the posts of the Bush
defenders here.
> It seems to me that the
> folks around here fall into two categories: those who loathe him
> without reservation or reason,
Once again, you are assuming there aren't hundreds of reasons that
taken together make for a valid case for hatred.
> and those who sometimes agree,
> sometimes disagree, but who think that some modicum of balance and
> fair-mindedness is in order.
And to me its a case for hair pulling as it seems that nothing is going
wake people up to just how much damage is being done by this
administration. When I am intemperate and heated in my posts, it is
precisely because no amount of facts or reasoned arguments seems to
make a dent on some people.
By the way, I'd like some modicum of balance and fair-mindness from the
Bush defenders, starting with all those people being held without trial.
David Friedman
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > But where are the people "here" who worship him no matter what he
> > does?
>
> I guess you are demanding that I go find all the posts of the Bush
> defenders here.
>
I don't think that's what he is asking for.
What he is asking you to do is to name people who are consistent Bush
defenders. Someone who defends Bush on issue X but criticizes him on
issue Y doesn't count.
You wrote, after all:
"And others here would still worship him if he personally killed
everybody in their family in front of them."
If that claim is true, you should have no trouble identifying people who
behave that way. Pete is suggesting that you can't.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
Mike Stone
news:CUIwJOaL...@escore.demon.co.uk...
>
> P.S. My condolences on the loss of what seems to have been an
> interesting city. It is unfortunate that it was built in such an
> unsustainable position. No doubt it will be restored though the cost
> will be enormous.
>
Not so much _built_ in the wrong place - after all, it is 300 years old, so
must have been surviving disasters that long - as allowed to expand into
areas not really suitable for building, least of all residential building.
Istr that the old city has survived somewhat better than the rest. Sounds to
me that some people have been insufficently cautious about where they
expanded.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.
It is essential to show some forty-twode
David Friedman
"Mike Stone" <Mws...@aol.com> wrote:
> "aRJay" <aR...@escore.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CUIwJOaL...@escore.demon.co.uk...
>
> >
> > P.S. My condolences on the loss of what seems to have been an
> > interesting city. It is unfortunate that it was built in such an
> > unsustainable position. No doubt it will be restored though the cost
> > will be enormous.
> >
>
> Not so much _built_ in the wrong place - after all, it is 300 years old, so
> must have been surviving disasters that long - as allowed to expand into
> areas not really suitable for building, least of all residential building.
>
> Istr that the old city has survived somewhat better than the rest. Sounds to
> me that some people have been insufficently cautious about where they
> expanded.
There are actually two different problems with the location of New
Orleans, only one of which is involved in the current situation.
1. Most of the city is below sea level, and vulnerable to flooding--as
we have just seen.
2. The city is where it is because that is where the Mississippi River
is. But the river, left to its own devices, would shift its mouth from
time to time, because of the buildup of silt in the delta it creates. If
it does so, New Orleans loses a good deal of its current function. So
far the Army Corps of Engineers has (barely) succeeded in keeping the
river from shifting, but doing so becomes increasingly difficult over
time.
Alan Braggins
>You wrote, after all:
>
>"And others here would still worship him if he personally killed
>everybody in their family in front of them."
>
>If that claim is true, you should have no trouble identifying people who
>behave that way. Pete is suggesting that you can't.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hyperbole
I suggest that Pete is equally unable to find anyone who loathes Bush
"without reservation or reason".
Alan Braggins
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Joe Ellis wrote:
>> > You know, you're a smug, self-righteous little twit with delusions of
>> > humanity.
>>
>> incredibly corrupt administration.
>>
>> No matter how many people get killed, no matter how many trillions of
>> dollars are flushed down the toilet, you will support them as long as
>> your own personal bread is buttered and you will NEVER EVER admit you
>> were wrong to support him.
>
>obviously right so there can't be any good reason to disagree with me,
>so it must be because he is a bad person."
You missed the reinforcing step of "and since he's a bad person, any
evidence he presents to support his position can be ignored, so I can
go on believing I'm right".
Oh wait, you were talking about Mark?
(It is amazing the twists some people can go through to maintain a position.
Among things I've seen have been (paraphrased in some cases):
"<X>" "Actually <not X> <explanation>" "Obviously, but no-one claimed <X>"
"<messageid of claim X>" "*Plonk*"
"How can I say I was wrong just because the evidence is against me when
I've clearly repeated the claim?"
"Yes the quoted qualification is there, but there isn't any qualification,
because it means what it says.")
Nancy Lebovitz
Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>
>> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, that's not all Bush has been doing. After the levees were breaking
>>>and water started to rise, he was off talking up the Iraq war again to
>>>hand-picked audiences. Priorities.
>
>Everybody's chest-deep in the big muddy, and the damn fool says to press on.
Brilliant choice of quote, though I wish it weren't quite so literal.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Nancy Lebovitz
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I don't know the exact numbers on the National Guard -- how many are
>deployed overseas and how many are left. It's self-evident that
>somebody who's in Iraq can't be in Louisiana at the same time. Still,
>logistical limitations being what they are, there's a maximum number
>of National Guard units which can be usefully deployed. I honestly
>don't know whether the number deployed now is near that maximum. And
>I doubt you do, either.
I've been seeing 25% or 35% given for how much of the National Guard is
in Iraq.
Nancy Lebovitz
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>First, it's not clear that money allocated in the 2004 and 2005 budget
>would have resulted in projects which would have been complete by now.
>It's possible they'd have finished in, say, 2009. Recall that,
>according to your own source, they've been working on this since 1995.
>That is, six years of work which took place before Bush took office
>was apparently not sufficient.
It looks as though cutting the budget for flood prevention was extremely
imprudent, even if it wasn't consequential for the current disaster.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<synth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
>As a result of the complacency those articles encouraged by being afraid
>to justifiably scare the shit out of people, her body is probably
>bloating somewhere out in the Gulf of Mexico.
My regrets.
Hopefully, somehow she managed to survive, though.
jrw
David Friedman
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that you should find a Bush worshipper all of whose
family members had been killed by Bush. I thought it clear that your
claim, after allowing for hyperbole, was there were people here who were
consistent supporters of Bush, whatever he did. That was the claim that
Pete was questioning--and that you have made no effort to support.
(assuming it was you--I haven't kept track of the attributions. In any
case, someone).
Alan Braggins
That was Mark. I leave supporting the claim to him. That Pete's claim is
equally unsupported doesn't make Mark's claim any more right.
David Friedman
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
You were the one who raised the issue of hyperbole, no? If you
dehyperbolate Mark's claim, it becomes something like "others here
support Bush on everything, whatever he does."
If you similarly dehyperbolate Pete's claim, what do you get, and do you
think Pete would have a hard time supporting it?
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>For Bush, secrecy is a matter of loyalty
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/03/14/usat-secrecy.htm
>
> " The fear of retribution is well placed. Mike Parker, a former
> Republican congressman from Mississippi, lost his job as head of the
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last week. His offense? Being too candid
> before the Senate Budget Committee, administration officials say.
>
> " Aside from saying under oath that Bush budget cuts will have a
> "negative impact" on the corps, Parker told senators, "After being in
> the administration and dealing with them, I still don't have warm and
> fuzzy feelings for them."
>
> " A furious Daniels sent a transcript of Parker's comments to the White
> House. Parker was given 30 minutes to decide whether to resign or be
> fired. He resigned.
>
>That's just an example in an article about Bush's governing style. It's
So, how many Clinton administration political appointees slammed the
administration in congressional hearings and then kept their jobs? I
suspect that the answer is zero. Same for Bush I, Reagan, Carter,
Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc. It's not a matter of "governing style;"
it's a matter of the way any administration works.
>only in retrospect that the words "Army Corps of Engineers", "Bush
>budget cuts", and "negative impact" come back like a boomerang to the
>current catastrophe of mismanagement.
It was my gut instinct that these charges would turn out to be more of
the usual anti-Bush talking points: a small seed of truth exaggerated,
twisted, and distorted all out of perspective. In fact, the Chicago
Tribune just ran an article which suggests that the rush to judgment
might be a bit premature.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050901corps,1,7189346.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
According to this article, the section of the levee that actually
broke was not, in fact, a section that would have been worked on given
more funding. In other words, the budget cuts didn't cause the
problem. Now, it's possible that the guy who made this claim is
simply defending the administration, but it's also possible he's
telling the truth.
The article also notes that the decision not to prepare for a category
V storm was made in 1965. (Note: a Democrat was President then.)
Now, maybe more money should have been spent, and maybe it would have
mattered. But your factual claim is simply premature and unfounded.
You leap to this conclusion because your visceral hatred for Bush
makes you really, really, really want to believe that it's all his
fault.
>
>A natural disaster has two components, only one of which is natural. And
>consider: if this had been a dirty bomb, the contingency plans for
>getting people out and sheltered, and food, water, and medical care in,
>would have been almost identical. So what has the "National Security"
Except that roads would have been passable. If nothing else, people
could walk out.
Not that I don't think a dirty bomb would be a disaster; it would. I
suspect that it would be an utter mess, with much of the confusion and
second-guessing you have now.
>president been doing for the last four years, if not equipping the
>country to handle just such an attack as this?
Del, no country is ever ready for something like this. It just
doesn't happen.
Note also that New Orleans has a mayor, and Louisiana has a governor.
Neither of whom has been covered in glory, and both of whom are
Democrats.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
Braggins) wrote:
I didn't think that mark was literally arguing that people would
support Bush even if he murdered their family before them. I
understood him to mean that there are people in this group (an
important qualifier!) who support Bush regardless of what he does. I
challenged him to name somebody, and he failed to answer that
challenge.
I may have made some use of hyperbole myself. I didn't mean to
suggest that the Bush-haters don't have legitimate policy
disagreements with Bush, or even, from time to time, valid points. My
position is that some folks criticize Bush for absolutely trivial
utterly meaningless shit, and some folks who will criticize him no
matter what he does. That is, if he doesn't go to see the
devastation, he's heartless, and if he does he's a publicity hound
who's interfering with rescue operations.
I don't think that his critics are insincere, by the way. But I think
that they're so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they
automatically view any action by Bush in the worst possible light.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <3r1ch15d7nt18lm1s...@4ax.com>,
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>First, it's not clear that money allocated in the 2004 and 2005 budget
>>would have resulted in projects which would have been complete by now.
>>It's possible they'd have finished in, say, 2009. Recall that,
>>according to your own source, they've been working on this since 1995.
>>That is, six years of work which took place before Bush took office
>>was apparently not sufficient.
>
>It looks as though cutting the budget for flood prevention was extremely
>imprudent, even if it wasn't consequential for the current disaster.
Sure. But Del and Michael and the others who have harped on this seem
to think that there's a direct causal link between this disaster and
those budget cuts. The Chicago Tribune article which I cited earlier
calls that into question, at the least.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> I didn't think that mark was literally arguing that people would
> support Bush even if he murdered their family before them. I
> understood him to mean that there are people in this group (an
> important qualifier!) who support Bush regardless of what he does. I
> challenged him to name somebody, and he failed to answer that
> challenge.
I'm sorry that my working considerable overtime has gotten in the way
of meeting your schedule. I'll try to live up to your expectations
this Labor Day weekend.
BTW, given your past insistance that I'm a communist, isn't your desire
for truth and lack of hyperbole just a tad suspect?
> I may have made some use of hyperbole myself. I didn't mean to
> suggest that the Bush-haters don't have legitimate policy
> disagreements with Bush, or even, from time to time, valid points. My
> position is that some folks criticize Bush for absolutely trivial
> utterly meaningless shit, and some folks who will criticize him no
> matter what he does. That is, if he doesn't go to see the
> devastation, he's heartless, and if he does he's a publicity hound
> who's interfering with rescue operations.
He can't be both? He was slow in responding and when he gets there he
makes sure everything he does is captured on camera without seeming to
actually do anything effective. He speaks out of both sides of his
mouth both on the deplorable conditions (after having discounted
reports) and how everybody's doing such a bang up job.
> I don't think that his critics are insincere, by the way. But I think
> that they're so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they
> automatically view any action by Bush in the worst possible light.
And after years of the press mollycoddling him, what do expect?
People are a lot like steam boilers. You keep building the pressure
up, they're going to blow.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> I'm not holding a brief for Mark's style of argument, but he doesn't actually
> say that Bush is responsible for category 5 hurricanes. (A case could be made
> that Bush or Bush administration choices resulted in there being less
> mitigation of the effects of the Cat 5 Hurricane than there could have been,
> through both the loss of wetlands and providing much less money than the
> Army Corps of Engineers requested for strengthening the levees, so there might
> be some responsibility _there_.)
Exactly. I could have brought in all sorts of links supporting just
those arguments and it still would been tossed in my face by people
willing to disbelieve unvarnished truth when it suits them.
It's to be expected in those newsgroups where politics is the actual
topic, but I had expected better of the people here.
BTW, saying that liberals are accusing Bush of causing Katrina is the
standard spin of the USENET right wing at the moment. Can't let people
look behind the curtains at the actual state of preperations, now can
we?
> Isn't this a nonsequitur to anything Mark said? Mark referred to a "an
> incredibly corrupt" administration, not a dumb one.
I would never call Rove and Cheney dumb. A lot of other unsavory
things, including a unexpected absense of sensitivity to appearances at
the moment, but not dumb. Bush, on the other hand, .....
Aaron Denney
> According to this article, the section of the levee that actually
> broke was not, in fact, a section that would have been worked on given
> more funding. In other words, the budget cuts didn't cause the
> problem. Now, it's possible that the guy who made this claim is
> simply defending the administration, but it's also possible he's
> telling the truth.
(1) 3 sections of levee broke.
(2) The levees are an interconnected system. It's not entirely clear
to me that changes in one place would not reduce load in others.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
David Friedman
Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
That makes sense for canals or pumping stations, but I don't see how
improvements on a levee that, ex post, didn't break would reduce the
load on one that did.
Pete McCutchen
>Pete McCutchen wrote:
>> I didn't think that mark was literally arguing that people would
>> support Bush even if he murdered their family before them. I
>> understood him to mean that there are people in this group (an
>> important qualifier!) who support Bush regardless of what he does. I
>> challenged him to name somebody, and he failed to answer that
>> challenge.
>
>I'm sorry that my working considerable overtime has gotten in the way
>of meeting your schedule. I'll try to live up to your expectations
>this Labor Day weekend.
Hey, dude, it's not a big deal. My only point was that I don't think
that your description is accurate.
>
>BTW, given your past insistance that I'm a communist, isn't your desire
>for truth and lack of hyperbole just a tad suspect?
I don't recall calling you a communist, but it's possible I did. In
any case, just to be clear, I don't object to hyperbole. Maybe I
wasn't clear, but I understood you weren't literally arguing that
people would support Bush even if he killed their relatives. Instead,
you were arguing that people will support Bush pretty much regardless
of what he does. I was taking issue with that claim, at least with
respect to folks on this newsgroup. I do admit that such people exist
in the world, just as there are Democratic cheerleaders, who support
Dems no matter what.
>
>> I may have made some use of hyperbole myself. I didn't mean to
>> suggest that the Bush-haters don't have legitimate policy
>> disagreements with Bush, or even, from time to time, valid points. My
>> position is that some folks criticize Bush for absolutely trivial
>> utterly meaningless shit, and some folks who will criticize him no
>> matter what he does. That is, if he doesn't go to see the
>> devastation, he's heartless, and if he does he's a publicity hound
>> who's interfering with rescue operations.
>
>He can't be both? He was slow in responding and when he gets there he
>makes sure everything he does is captured on camera without seeming to
>actually do anything effective. He speaks out of both sides of his
>mouth both on the deplorable conditions (after having discounted
>reports) and how everybody's doing such a bang up job.
Well, sure. My point wasn't as much about this specific instance.
I'm arguing that there are people who will criticize him regardless of
his course of action. With all due respect, I think you fall into
that category.
>
>> I don't think that his critics are insincere, by the way. But I think
>> that they're so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they
>> automatically view any action by Bush in the worst possible light.
>
>And after years of the press mollycoddling him, what do expect?
I hadn't noticed this mollycoddling. In fact, the press has been
pretty relentless in its fault-finding. Maybe not enough to satisfy
you, but I'm not sure it would be possible for the press to be
critical enough to satisfy you. In any case, anti-Bush talking points
of some sort are constantly in the news. Some of them are valid, some
less so.
>
>People are a lot like steam boilers. You keep building the pressure
>up, they're going to blow.
Well, it's certainly true of some people.
--
Pete McCutchen
Aaron Denney
If they're in layers, it would. Since at least one of the breaks
was right near sizeable amounts of water, probably not.
Alan Braggins
>> >
>> >I wasn't suggesting that you should find a Bush worshipper all of whose
>> >family members had been killed by Bush. I thought it clear that your
>> >claim, after allowing for hyperbole, was there were people here who were
>> >consistent supporters of Bush, whatever he did. That was the claim that
>> >Pete was questioning--and that you have made no effort to support.
>> >
>> >(assuming it was you--I haven't kept track of the attributions. In any
>> >case, someone).
>>
>> That was Mark. I leave supporting the claim to him. That Pete's claim is
>> equally unsupported doesn't make Mark's claim any more right.
>
>You were the one who raised the issue of hyperbole, no? If you
>dehyperbolate Mark's claim, it becomes something like "others here
>support Bush on everything, whatever he does."
Or even "others here support Bush, even after everything he has done".
Would you claim otherwise?
>If you similarly dehyperbolate Pete's claim, what do you get, and do you
>think Pete would have a hard time supporting it?
"with little reservation or reason", and yes.
Alan Braggins
>I may have made some use of hyperbole myself. I didn't mean to
>suggest that the Bush-haters don't have legitimate policy
>disagreements with Bush, or even, from time to time, valid points. My
>position is that some folks criticize Bush for absolutely trivial
>utterly meaningless shit, and some folks who will criticize him no
>matter what he does. That is, if he doesn't go to see the
>devastation, he's heartless, and if he does he's a publicity hound
>who's interfering with rescue operations.
>
>I don't think that his critics are insincere, by the way. But I think
>that they're so infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they
>automatically view any action by Bush in the worst possible light.
I think there are people whose well justified and reasoned loathing
of Bush sometimes spills over beyond those reasons.
But the idea that an opposition party and its supporters should do
their best to oppose is hardly one sided.
Paul Ciszek
In article <00A4929D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>Isn't this a nonsequitur to anything Mark said? Mark referred to a "an
>incredibly corrupt" administration, not a dumb one.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from
malice.
--
Please reply to: | "When the press is free and every man
pciszek at panix dot com | able to read, all is safe."
Autoreply has been disabled | --Thomas Jefferson
David Friedman
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >You were the one who raised the issue of hyperbole, no? If you
> >dehyperbolate Mark's claim, it becomes something like "others here
> >support Bush on everything, whatever he does."
>
> Or even "others here support Bush, even after everything he has done".
> Would you claim otherwise?
No.
But I think my reading is a more natural one than yours.
I should add that I don't read the group thoroughly enough to be sure
that the claim is false on my reading, but I am guessing it is, since
nobody has tried to suppport it.
Alan Braggins
>In article <slrndhjap...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> >You were the one who raised the issue of hyperbole, no? If you
>> >dehyperbolate Mark's claim, it becomes something like "others here
>> >support Bush on everything, whatever he does."
>>
>> Or even "others here support Bush, even after everything he has done".
>> Would you claim otherwise?
>
>No.
>But I think my reading is a more natural one than yours.
Which is why I wasn't supporting the claim. My point is that the claim
is exaggerated but not baseless - just like Pete's.