If “insert some minor and otherwise insignificant event here” doesn’t happen, then the terrorists have won.
It seems like I can’t read the daily news or open my email without someone making that claim. Of course, there are people who use it in a very wry sense, like if someone smiles and says “If I don’t get another drink then the terrorists have won,” as an excuse to stay for a couple extra minutes at the bar.
But aside from that I consider the entire statement to be asinine. It is not only ludicrous in most contexts, but disrespectful to victims of terrorists attacks.
A recent use of this invective came in the form of an opinion column which I get from different organizations and people every day.
It said, “If spending in Iraq means America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down, then the terrorists have won.”
Now, as it happens, I happen to disagree with our spending practices in Iraq. We “won” a long time ago (At least I think that’s what the “Mission Accomplished” banner was supposed to mean when the President stood underneath it in 2003 and declard an end to combat operations in Iraq) but we still spend millions of dollars and hundreds of lives in a cyclone of violence that seems never-ending.
Even with in the depths of my disagreement with the war, I still think the use of terrorism as a prod for action against it is wrong.
What the writer of the statement is doing, on a psychological level, is threatening our children. The implication here is that your child will fall sick and die with noone to care if the war continues. The writer is using fear to motivate a response, and that is the very definition of terrorism.
Logically speaking, the arguement isn’t even very sound. It occurs in a basic format known as the “If/then” statement. It is one of the foundations of all logical arguements, “If A then B.”
Taking a look at only the A section we see that it really occurs in two parts which consist of “spending in Iraq” and “America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down.”
So obviously it’s a simple choice, Iraq and falling bridges and dying children or, none of that and a happy-go-lucky world where everyone smiles and has enough money left over at the end of the year for a trip to Disney world.
I find this case particularily disgusting because it is turning trade on a recent disaster and also echoing one of my other most hated political opportunist phrases, “Think of the children.”
There are good and solid reason for ending the war in Iraq, but lets not pretend that stopping the war will magically solve other problems. Stopping the war will only end the problem of being at war. Other problems, like our continuing dependence on foreign oil, a lack of children’s health care or a crumbling infrastructure are seperate issues that require their own solutions.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Global Warming=Crock of Shit
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s a global warming alarmist.
Concern for the planet’s ecosystem, especially global temperature change is part of the mark of a citizen who is in touch with the current issues facing us as human beings today. Developing an ulcer because you’re worried about the ice caps melting and flooding the world is just ludicrous.
For one thing, one of the more prevalent models of catastrophic climate change predicts that the melting of the ice caps due to global warming would trigger a back swing of global cooling. A second ice age would envelope the world and most plant and animal life would die.
So you can see that warming might be the least of our worries.
Another misconception is that all scientists everywhere are in agreement that global warming is an imminent threat. The truth is that many researchers continue to say that there is either not enough evidence or that the changes we see are merely the natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature.
Lot’s of people will go straight to a meteorologist if they want to know about global warming, and any one of them who has studied climate change will tell you that the earth is indeed getting warmer, but that’s not the whole story.
Weather patterns are a tricky and fickle beasts. They can move and change, sometimes with barely a moment’s notice. For this reason, when reviewing global weather changes, we need to look at a more solid science, rock solid.
Any geologist will tell you that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. If the earth were a football field, then human history would be a space the width of a hair on the goal line. For this reason, actual measurements of temperature change represent an insignificant portion of the whole story.
Geological study reveals that the earth is in constant transition. It periodically gets warmer and colder depending on a number of factors, including continental drift and reflective gasses in the atmosphere.
According to one theory, it was a worldwide climate change that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and I’m fairly sure that none of them were burning fossil fuels.
I myself am not convinced that this ecological change is the fault of humankind. I believe that we have allowed our collective ego to convince us that we are more important than is actually true.
I am not suggesting that cutting greenhouse gas emmissions, decreasing power consumption, researching alternative fuel sources, or decreasing the excessive packaging on products, all ideas which have stemmed from the ecological movement (which itself seems to be driven by global warming extremists), are bad ideas.
These ideas are good in and of themselves, regardless of the temperature.
Decreased emmisions means clean air for you and your children, now and in the future. Emissions are directly linked to power consumption, the less power used, the less it is necesarry to generate, meaning that the power plant uses less fuel.
The fuel those plants are using is mostly fossil fuels and often that means oil. It is the dependency on foreign oil that has led to the war in Iraq for which taxpayers will be paying through the nose until God knows when.
Not only has our dependence on oil caused a war (or two), but it is an ever increasing component in the trade deficit which is one of the reasons why the American Dollar continues its fall in value (it is now trading at essentially equal value to the Canadian Dollar).
The solutions to these problems are not easy, and they cannot be taken care of by elected officials. In 1997 a meeting of world leaders saw the establishment of the Kyoto Protocols, a promise by many nations to reduce emmissions by the year 2012.
Unfortunately, the agreement has done nothing to curb the proliferation of greenhouse gas emmissions. As many as 36 of the 161 nations (including the United States) which signed on are not on track to meet there emissions goals.
So what is the next step? Set new goals, of course. But what’s to stop us from ignoring the new goals just like we did before? Absolutely nothing.
A popular definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.” That’s what this policy is, insane.
A recent study showed that 2/3 of Americans “strongly believe” that “strong action” should be taken on the environmental “crisis”. I’d lay a wager that 90 percent of those people leave unused appliances plugged in, drive to work without trying to find a car pool or even consider riding a bus.
The point is that change doesn’t start from the top down. If we’re to have an environmental revolution then it has to come from you and me. We need to make a concerted effort to live cleaner and “greener” lives. Laws won’t help. Emmissions goals are pie in the sky wishes. And politicians promises to “fix” the environment are beaureaucratic double-talk.
It’s we, the people, who matter and we need to make the changes on our own. Not because the earth is warming and we could be extinct some day, not because that guy from Greenpeace is making us feel guilty, we need to change for the most personal of reasons, because it’s the right thing to do.
Concern for the planet’s ecosystem, especially global temperature change is part of the mark of a citizen who is in touch with the current issues facing us as human beings today. Developing an ulcer because you’re worried about the ice caps melting and flooding the world is just ludicrous.
For one thing, one of the more prevalent models of catastrophic climate change predicts that the melting of the ice caps due to global warming would trigger a back swing of global cooling. A second ice age would envelope the world and most plant and animal life would die.
So you can see that warming might be the least of our worries.
Another misconception is that all scientists everywhere are in agreement that global warming is an imminent threat. The truth is that many researchers continue to say that there is either not enough evidence or that the changes we see are merely the natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature.
Lot’s of people will go straight to a meteorologist if they want to know about global warming, and any one of them who has studied climate change will tell you that the earth is indeed getting warmer, but that’s not the whole story.
Weather patterns are a tricky and fickle beasts. They can move and change, sometimes with barely a moment’s notice. For this reason, when reviewing global weather changes, we need to look at a more solid science, rock solid.
Any geologist will tell you that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. If the earth were a football field, then human history would be a space the width of a hair on the goal line. For this reason, actual measurements of temperature change represent an insignificant portion of the whole story.
Geological study reveals that the earth is in constant transition. It periodically gets warmer and colder depending on a number of factors, including continental drift and reflective gasses in the atmosphere.
According to one theory, it was a worldwide climate change that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and I’m fairly sure that none of them were burning fossil fuels.
I myself am not convinced that this ecological change is the fault of humankind. I believe that we have allowed our collective ego to convince us that we are more important than is actually true.
I am not suggesting that cutting greenhouse gas emmissions, decreasing power consumption, researching alternative fuel sources, or decreasing the excessive packaging on products, all ideas which have stemmed from the ecological movement (which itself seems to be driven by global warming extremists), are bad ideas.
These ideas are good in and of themselves, regardless of the temperature.
Decreased emmisions means clean air for you and your children, now and in the future. Emissions are directly linked to power consumption, the less power used, the less it is necesarry to generate, meaning that the power plant uses less fuel.
The fuel those plants are using is mostly fossil fuels and often that means oil. It is the dependency on foreign oil that has led to the war in Iraq for which taxpayers will be paying through the nose until God knows when.
Not only has our dependence on oil caused a war (or two), but it is an ever increasing component in the trade deficit which is one of the reasons why the American Dollar continues its fall in value (it is now trading at essentially equal value to the Canadian Dollar).
The solutions to these problems are not easy, and they cannot be taken care of by elected officials. In 1997 a meeting of world leaders saw the establishment of the Kyoto Protocols, a promise by many nations to reduce emmissions by the year 2012.
Unfortunately, the agreement has done nothing to curb the proliferation of greenhouse gas emmissions. As many as 36 of the 161 nations (including the United States) which signed on are not on track to meet there emissions goals.
So what is the next step? Set new goals, of course. But what’s to stop us from ignoring the new goals just like we did before? Absolutely nothing.
A popular definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.” That’s what this policy is, insane.
A recent study showed that 2/3 of Americans “strongly believe” that “strong action” should be taken on the environmental “crisis”. I’d lay a wager that 90 percent of those people leave unused appliances plugged in, drive to work without trying to find a car pool or even consider riding a bus.
The point is that change doesn’t start from the top down. If we’re to have an environmental revolution then it has to come from you and me. We need to make a concerted effort to live cleaner and “greener” lives. Laws won’t help. Emmissions goals are pie in the sky wishes. And politicians promises to “fix” the environment are beaureaucratic double-talk.
It’s we, the people, who matter and we need to make the changes on our own. Not because the earth is warming and we could be extinct some day, not because that guy from Greenpeace is making us feel guilty, we need to change for the most personal of reasons, because it’s the right thing to do.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Politically Correct Bullshiat
In the latest politically correct assault on the “good ol’ days,” a Colorado elementary school recently banned the game of tag at recess.
I hope I’m not the only one that finds this to be completely asinine.
The school cited complaints from parents that their children had been chased and tagged even though they weren’t playing. As I recall from my schoolyard days, it’s difficult to chase someone who isn’t running away, and even more difficult to declare someone “it” when they aren’t playing the game.
Looking back on fond memories of schoolyard games I can find a few instances where I chose to play some game other than tag. This didn’t stop others from assuming that I was playing just because I was on the playground, but when I got tagged I simply kept doing whatever I had been doing and ignored the tagger.
There seems to have been a movement in the last 30 years towards a kinder and gentler world which for the most part is a good thing. But the fact is that a few sharp edges can teach lessons that are important later in life.
If you’re the slow kid on the playground then you learn quickly that tag probably isn’t your game. So instead you play a game you are good at like dodge ball if you can throw. Except that’s also getting banned – maybe not without good reason.
Personally, my favorite playground game was called “Smear the Queer.” Despite its very non-politically correct name, it was a great game. Everyone tries to tackle the person who has the ball, the “queer.” Once that person is tackled, the ball is thrown to/at someone else and the game continues with another target.
This game ended with a district wide ban when I was in fifth grade. Somebody had lost a tooth at another school and hence we were deprived of yet another game.
The Colorado school says that they still encourage racing games, but tag will not be making a comeback any time soon. The trouble I see is that a race is only fun once or twice until you realize that the same kid is winning every time. After that you might as well just stay at the starting line.
With rowdy and calorie burning games like tag being banned, is it any wonder that childhood obesity is an ever increasing problem?
I suppose you could say that I “grew up” during the 90’s when the safety craze was already in full swing, but I was here in the Midwest where we pride ourselves on having a little bit more common sense than the coastal states – especially California, New York and Florida.
To the parents: I know that your child is the most important thing in the world to you, but sheltering them from all harm won’t help them make their way in the world. It’s best for them to learn early that there is almost always someone out there who is faster than they are, and if they don’t pay attention then they’re going to get tagged.
If they learn these things early then they’ll be saved a lot of grief later on in life when their “beautiful and unique snowflake” bubble is popped by the fact that winners and losers are a fact of life and they had better work their butts off if they want to avoid the latter category.
I realize that no one who was involved in the Colorado tag banning is likely to read this, but those who do can take it as an example of what to avoid at all costs. The more fun outdoor games we take away from our children, the more we encourage them to sit inside and become couch potatoes, and no parent wants that.
I hope I’m not the only one that finds this to be completely asinine.
The school cited complaints from parents that their children had been chased and tagged even though they weren’t playing. As I recall from my schoolyard days, it’s difficult to chase someone who isn’t running away, and even more difficult to declare someone “it” when they aren’t playing the game.
Looking back on fond memories of schoolyard games I can find a few instances where I chose to play some game other than tag. This didn’t stop others from assuming that I was playing just because I was on the playground, but when I got tagged I simply kept doing whatever I had been doing and ignored the tagger.
There seems to have been a movement in the last 30 years towards a kinder and gentler world which for the most part is a good thing. But the fact is that a few sharp edges can teach lessons that are important later in life.
If you’re the slow kid on the playground then you learn quickly that tag probably isn’t your game. So instead you play a game you are good at like dodge ball if you can throw. Except that’s also getting banned – maybe not without good reason.
Personally, my favorite playground game was called “Smear the Queer.” Despite its very non-politically correct name, it was a great game. Everyone tries to tackle the person who has the ball, the “queer.” Once that person is tackled, the ball is thrown to/at someone else and the game continues with another target.
This game ended with a district wide ban when I was in fifth grade. Somebody had lost a tooth at another school and hence we were deprived of yet another game.
The Colorado school says that they still encourage racing games, but tag will not be making a comeback any time soon. The trouble I see is that a race is only fun once or twice until you realize that the same kid is winning every time. After that you might as well just stay at the starting line.
With rowdy and calorie burning games like tag being banned, is it any wonder that childhood obesity is an ever increasing problem?
I suppose you could say that I “grew up” during the 90’s when the safety craze was already in full swing, but I was here in the Midwest where we pride ourselves on having a little bit more common sense than the coastal states – especially California, New York and Florida.
To the parents: I know that your child is the most important thing in the world to you, but sheltering them from all harm won’t help them make their way in the world. It’s best for them to learn early that there is almost always someone out there who is faster than they are, and if they don’t pay attention then they’re going to get tagged.
If they learn these things early then they’ll be saved a lot of grief later on in life when their “beautiful and unique snowflake” bubble is popped by the fact that winners and losers are a fact of life and they had better work their butts off if they want to avoid the latter category.
I realize that no one who was involved in the Colorado tag banning is likely to read this, but those who do can take it as an example of what to avoid at all costs. The more fun outdoor games we take away from our children, the more we encourage them to sit inside and become couch potatoes, and no parent wants that.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Gay Marriage
Democrats are the liberal party, the movers and the shakers if you will. So why then will not a single one of them embrace the concept of gay marriage. Oh sure, those practically unknowns Gravel-face and Kucinichead are willing to do it, but Edwards, Clinton and Obama stand pat on the "civil union" side of the fence.
I really wish someone would tell me what the hell is wrong with people getting married that it should be denied to anyone. I'm willing to bet that homosexuals can't mess it up anymore than heterosexuals have already done. It's been said before, but I think it bears repeating, no matter what Jerry Falwell may have said homosexuals are not making a mockery of marriage, divorce is.
Current nationwide estimates put divorce rates somewhere near 50% with rates going down as one moves from east to west until they get their lowest in the Midwest, then it's on to California where the estimates are on the order of 60-70%. Yep, us heteros are doing a great job screwing up marriage.
Maybe a better measure to take would be to rewrite ALL marriage laws so that EVERY marriage would be a civil union. People could still call themselves "married" but on paper it would be a civil union. That would mean some work for our lawmakers, but they need something to do other than voting themselves pay raises.
I meant to go further into this, but real work draws me away.
I really wish someone would tell me what the hell is wrong with people getting married that it should be denied to anyone. I'm willing to bet that homosexuals can't mess it up anymore than heterosexuals have already done. It's been said before, but I think it bears repeating, no matter what Jerry Falwell may have said homosexuals are not making a mockery of marriage, divorce is.
Current nationwide estimates put divorce rates somewhere near 50% with rates going down as one moves from east to west until they get their lowest in the Midwest, then it's on to California where the estimates are on the order of 60-70%. Yep, us heteros are doing a great job screwing up marriage.
Maybe a better measure to take would be to rewrite ALL marriage laws so that EVERY marriage would be a civil union. People could still call themselves "married" but on paper it would be a civil union. That would mean some work for our lawmakers, but they need something to do other than voting themselves pay raises.
I meant to go further into this, but real work draws me away.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A little Latin
Not everyone can be an Einstein. It’s a simple fact of life that some people are smarter than others, or at the very least have more knowledge about a certain subject than others.
Without a doubt, nuclear physicists are very smart people. But how many of them could tell you the difference between a guernsey and a jersey cow? Different walks of life require different knowledge and different kinds of intelligence.
Over time it seems that certain kinds of knowledge have become privileged with lofty spots in our society. Someone who can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together might be seen as having less knowledge than someone who can recite and digress on the meaning of Geofrey Chaucer, but who would you rather have with you after your plane went down in the wilderness.
My point is that what seems like esteemed knowledge in one situation is useless in a different context, so really nobody has the right to walk around being snooty to other people just because they know a bit of latin.
Of course, learning a little latin isn’t all that hard, and can make you look smarter in front of all your friends and relatives. The trick is to learn just a few words and phrases and when to use them. So, here are a few key phrases to impress your acquaintances with:
Phrase: “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.”
Meaning: “Sweet and honorable it is to die for one’s country.”
When to use it: When talking about war, especially when someone makes reference to the sacrifice laid down by our brave men and women in uniform. Often this phrase is used in a manner which questions how sweet the sacrificer found the action.
Phrase: “Ecce Homo”
Meaning: Behold Man
When to use it: Anytime someone makes a very human mistake. It can be akin to saying “nobody’s perfect” (you can also use “errare humanum est” - “to err is human).
Phrase: “Alea iacta est”
Meaning: “The die is cast.”
When to use it: When you’ve just started a project where the outcome is unsure. Julius Caeser is reported to have said this as he led his troops across the Rubicon River toward Rome.
Phrase: “Quo fata ferunt”
Meaning: “Wherever the fates bear us”
When to use it: Whenever someone asks you a question about the future. It can be very useful in interviews when you are asked questions like, “Where do you see yourself in five years?”
Phrase: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”
Meaning: “What is asserted without reason can be denied without reason.”
When to use it: When someone makes a claim you disagree with and can’t back it up with facts.
Phrase: “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses”
Meaning: “If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher”
When to use it: Best to bring this one out sparingly as it is somewhat insulting. It is essentially used as a barb against someone who has just revealed their own ignorance. You may have heard a similar expression attributed to Mark Twain, “It is better to keep one’s mouth closed an be though a fool than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Phrase: “Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.”
Meaning: “If you can read this, you have too much education.”
When to use it: Whenever someone is trying to prove their intelligence by using latin.
Without a doubt, nuclear physicists are very smart people. But how many of them could tell you the difference between a guernsey and a jersey cow? Different walks of life require different knowledge and different kinds of intelligence.
Over time it seems that certain kinds of knowledge have become privileged with lofty spots in our society. Someone who can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together might be seen as having less knowledge than someone who can recite and digress on the meaning of Geofrey Chaucer, but who would you rather have with you after your plane went down in the wilderness.
My point is that what seems like esteemed knowledge in one situation is useless in a different context, so really nobody has the right to walk around being snooty to other people just because they know a bit of latin.
Of course, learning a little latin isn’t all that hard, and can make you look smarter in front of all your friends and relatives. The trick is to learn just a few words and phrases and when to use them. So, here are a few key phrases to impress your acquaintances with:
Phrase: “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.”
Meaning: “Sweet and honorable it is to die for one’s country.”
When to use it: When talking about war, especially when someone makes reference to the sacrifice laid down by our brave men and women in uniform. Often this phrase is used in a manner which questions how sweet the sacrificer found the action.
Phrase: “Ecce Homo”
Meaning: Behold Man
When to use it: Anytime someone makes a very human mistake. It can be akin to saying “nobody’s perfect” (you can also use “errare humanum est” - “to err is human).
Phrase: “Alea iacta est”
Meaning: “The die is cast.”
When to use it: When you’ve just started a project where the outcome is unsure. Julius Caeser is reported to have said this as he led his troops across the Rubicon River toward Rome.
Phrase: “Quo fata ferunt”
Meaning: “Wherever the fates bear us”
When to use it: Whenever someone asks you a question about the future. It can be very useful in interviews when you are asked questions like, “Where do you see yourself in five years?”
Phrase: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”
Meaning: “What is asserted without reason can be denied without reason.”
When to use it: When someone makes a claim you disagree with and can’t back it up with facts.
Phrase: “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses”
Meaning: “If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher”
When to use it: Best to bring this one out sparingly as it is somewhat insulting. It is essentially used as a barb against someone who has just revealed their own ignorance. You may have heard a similar expression attributed to Mark Twain, “It is better to keep one’s mouth closed an be though a fool than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Phrase: “Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.”
Meaning: “If you can read this, you have too much education.”
When to use it: Whenever someone is trying to prove their intelligence by using latin.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Again doing what's popular, wondering about bridge collapses
The collapse of the 35W interstate bridge in Minneapolis was a horrific accident. Noone is denying that. I would call it a terrible tradgedy, but ever since 9/11/01 the word "tradgedy" seems to be a little over the top for any incident that claims less than 100 lives or fails to touch the life of at least a B-list celebrity. If Billy Zane's kid brother had died, then somebody might have called it a tradgedy. Not me, but somebody.
Stories continue to cover the response to the bridge collapse as if there was really something new to tell. I guess there is, because the death toll keeps changing, various newspaper and television spots place it somewhere between five and 16 people. How hard is it to tell who's dead and who's not? I really don't want to be the one to dash the hopes of the victims' families, but if they haven't been found by now, then chances are good that they were washed downstream and may never be found.
There might be a few people out there who think it's callous of me to downplay the horror of the incident over and in the Mississippi by relating it to the tradgedy of the world trade center collapse. I obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this right now. No, the link between the two was made in the mind of every American old enough to form coherent thoughts and remember the terrible fear that followed the events of 9/11/01. At the very least, everyone wondered subconciously whether or not this had anything to do with terrorist plots to undermine our confidence in our government, transportation systems, and general infrastructure.
Every news outlet knew what was at the back of everyone's mind, which is why every paper that ran the story included a paragraph which specified that this was not terrorist related. Everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief and went on about their business. This was certainly nothing to worry about, it wasn't even close to 9/11, couldn't measure up to Hurricane Katrina, and the only thing it had on the New York blackout was that a few people died.
But maybe these events are related in some way? Perhaps there is something wrong with the government that all of these things are happening. Looking at 9/11 the evidence seems to point to a massive intelligence failure. Maybe that's not quite fair, the problem was really a failure to act on good intelligence. Reliable sources in the FBI warned about terrorists using planes as bombs, missile defense was more important to the current regime.
Moving on to Hurricane Katrina. Did terrorists have anything to do with it? If they did, then they have a weather generation machine and we'll have to create a biologically advance human with super powers to stop them. But realistically, no they didn't do this one, we did it to ourselves. But again I'm being harsh on the majority of Americans who weren't even aware that New Orleans had levvies which protected it from flooding, until they broke. However, once again, sources which warned of impending disaster were ignored and a terrible tradgedy occured ( the amount of collateral damage alone make this one a tradgedy).
The New York blackout. A relay station blew. Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it other than the fact that there are probably a few undetected cell members in New York using power and you can't plan a jihad in the dark anyway. Anyways, my only beef here is that everyone in New York was so congratulatory to themselves. Hadn't New York done well? They had survived a few hours in the dark without everyone going postal and killing each other. Absolutely no tradgedy here.
Now we come to the bridge collapse. As newspapers and bloggers continue to dig into this story there keeps coming to light new information on warnings which were issued about problems and dangers of increased interstate traffic on the bridge. The last inspection of the bridge was made in June 2006 and can be found here: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/hottopics/35w/06_br_%209340%20.pdf
If you just took time to scan the "Executive Summary" you might have found such interesting phrases as "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL)," or, "Fatigue cracks at girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout." While these might be a little alarming, I don't think they hold a candle to the in depth report which details hundreds of patches to the bridge and even webbing that had broken all the way through at points (these were repaired). The report also has phrases which I personally find alarming like, "The truss members have numerous poor weld details."
Now I'm no civil engineer (my next step is to go find one and have him or her explain this report to me), but overall I get a vague feeling of unease when reading the report. From the lack of action taken and the recent stampede of state and local government branches to close and repair bridges, it seems to be like this could have happened anywhere. There are probably reports almost identical to this one for major bridges in every state (maybe fewer the southwest, but they tend to have less rivers to cross anyway).
It's a shame that people had to die for something to be done about deteriorating bridges, but then, that seems to be the precedent set by a string of national emergencies.
Stories continue to cover the response to the bridge collapse as if there was really something new to tell. I guess there is, because the death toll keeps changing, various newspaper and television spots place it somewhere between five and 16 people. How hard is it to tell who's dead and who's not? I really don't want to be the one to dash the hopes of the victims' families, but if they haven't been found by now, then chances are good that they were washed downstream and may never be found.
There might be a few people out there who think it's callous of me to downplay the horror of the incident over and in the Mississippi by relating it to the tradgedy of the world trade center collapse. I obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this right now. No, the link between the two was made in the mind of every American old enough to form coherent thoughts and remember the terrible fear that followed the events of 9/11/01. At the very least, everyone wondered subconciously whether or not this had anything to do with terrorist plots to undermine our confidence in our government, transportation systems, and general infrastructure.
Every news outlet knew what was at the back of everyone's mind, which is why every paper that ran the story included a paragraph which specified that this was not terrorist related. Everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief and went on about their business. This was certainly nothing to worry about, it wasn't even close to 9/11, couldn't measure up to Hurricane Katrina, and the only thing it had on the New York blackout was that a few people died.
But maybe these events are related in some way? Perhaps there is something wrong with the government that all of these things are happening. Looking at 9/11 the evidence seems to point to a massive intelligence failure. Maybe that's not quite fair, the problem was really a failure to act on good intelligence. Reliable sources in the FBI warned about terrorists using planes as bombs, missile defense was more important to the current regime.
Moving on to Hurricane Katrina. Did terrorists have anything to do with it? If they did, then they have a weather generation machine and we'll have to create a biologically advance human with super powers to stop them. But realistically, no they didn't do this one, we did it to ourselves. But again I'm being harsh on the majority of Americans who weren't even aware that New Orleans had levvies which protected it from flooding, until they broke. However, once again, sources which warned of impending disaster were ignored and a terrible tradgedy occured ( the amount of collateral damage alone make this one a tradgedy).
The New York blackout. A relay station blew. Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it other than the fact that there are probably a few undetected cell members in New York using power and you can't plan a jihad in the dark anyway. Anyways, my only beef here is that everyone in New York was so congratulatory to themselves. Hadn't New York done well? They had survived a few hours in the dark without everyone going postal and killing each other. Absolutely no tradgedy here.
Now we come to the bridge collapse. As newspapers and bloggers continue to dig into this story there keeps coming to light new information on warnings which were issued about problems and dangers of increased interstate traffic on the bridge. The last inspection of the bridge was made in June 2006 and can be found here: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/hottopics/35w/06_br_%209340%20.pdf
If you just took time to scan the "Executive Summary" you might have found such interesting phrases as "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL)," or, "Fatigue cracks at girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout." While these might be a little alarming, I don't think they hold a candle to the in depth report which details hundreds of patches to the bridge and even webbing that had broken all the way through at points (these were repaired). The report also has phrases which I personally find alarming like, "The truss members have numerous poor weld details."
Now I'm no civil engineer (my next step is to go find one and have him or her explain this report to me), but overall I get a vague feeling of unease when reading the report. From the lack of action taken and the recent stampede of state and local government branches to close and repair bridges, it seems to be like this could have happened anywhere. There are probably reports almost identical to this one for major bridges in every state (maybe fewer the southwest, but they tend to have less rivers to cross anyway).
It's a shame that people had to die for something to be done about deteriorating bridges, but then, that seems to be the precedent set by a string of national emergencies.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Barack Obama: or why I agree with Pat Buchanan
I honestly never thought that it would happen, but I am in agreement with Pat Buchanan's remarks which can be found in his blog, here: http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=810
I also have considered the media storm which has surrounded Obama's remarks about meeting with heads of state from what might be considered "Rogue Nations" and found the whole thing to be ludicrous. It's not as if Obama said he was going to invite each of them over for spankings and blowjobs, he just said he would be willing to meet with them.
Isn't that what a president is supposed to do? How can the "leader of the free world" lead if he keeps himself in isolation? I see this as a bold move toward a less isolationist policy which could be greatly beneficial for the United States in the years to come. By setting up lines of communications between these mostly anti american countries perhaps we can begin to heal the rifts that are present between US and them.
Take Fidel Castro (or more likely his brother Raul) for instance. For almost fifty years the bastion of communism has existed but a few scant miles outside of American waters. An embargo has been in place since 1962 and has done everyone a fat lot of good. We even went so far as to make the embargo into law in 1992 with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act which aims to "bring democracy to the citizens of cuba." Yes, we all know how good the United States is at delivering democracy to small nations. Maybe we can do better if the nation we're democratizing is closer to our borders, but I doubt it. The whole thing reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently: "Don't piss off America, or we'll bring Democracy to your country."
Buchanan points our, correctly and convincingly, that presidents have met with leaders that are much worse than those that Obama proposes to initiate contact with. I think the strongest arguements come in the form of the FDR/Truman meetings with Josef Stalin and Eisenhower's meeting Yuri Andropov. By comparison, Obama's proposal seems very tame.
I know that James will probably chime in with the point that Obama is inexperienced or some such, but it seems like he gets more savvy every day. Such comments made by Hillary Clinton are now quite obviously rebounding as Obama takes the moral high ground, affording him the opportunity to attack Clinton's support of the War in Iraq, which is shaping up to be (like every other war-time election) to be the central issue of the coming election.
I personally believe that Obama is milking this portrayal as a virtual outsider in the political arena for all it is worth. I think he understands the public frustration with the entrenched politicos both inside and outside the Bush camp. If he continues to strive for moderation and keeps his head up while ducking punches as skillfully as he has done so far then it is possible that America will be electing it's first black president in 2008.
I also have considered the media storm which has surrounded Obama's remarks about meeting with heads of state from what might be considered "Rogue Nations" and found the whole thing to be ludicrous. It's not as if Obama said he was going to invite each of them over for spankings and blowjobs, he just said he would be willing to meet with them.
Isn't that what a president is supposed to do? How can the "leader of the free world" lead if he keeps himself in isolation? I see this as a bold move toward a less isolationist policy which could be greatly beneficial for the United States in the years to come. By setting up lines of communications between these mostly anti american countries perhaps we can begin to heal the rifts that are present between US and them.
Take Fidel Castro (or more likely his brother Raul) for instance. For almost fifty years the bastion of communism has existed but a few scant miles outside of American waters. An embargo has been in place since 1962 and has done everyone a fat lot of good. We even went so far as to make the embargo into law in 1992 with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act which aims to "bring democracy to the citizens of cuba." Yes, we all know how good the United States is at delivering democracy to small nations. Maybe we can do better if the nation we're democratizing is closer to our borders, but I doubt it. The whole thing reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently: "Don't piss off America, or we'll bring Democracy to your country."
Buchanan points our, correctly and convincingly, that presidents have met with leaders that are much worse than those that Obama proposes to initiate contact with. I think the strongest arguements come in the form of the FDR/Truman meetings with Josef Stalin and Eisenhower's meeting Yuri Andropov. By comparison, Obama's proposal seems very tame.
I know that James will probably chime in with the point that Obama is inexperienced or some such, but it seems like he gets more savvy every day. Such comments made by Hillary Clinton are now quite obviously rebounding as Obama takes the moral high ground, affording him the opportunity to attack Clinton's support of the War in Iraq, which is shaping up to be (like every other war-time election) to be the central issue of the coming election.
I personally believe that Obama is milking this portrayal as a virtual outsider in the political arena for all it is worth. I think he understands the public frustration with the entrenched politicos both inside and outside the Bush camp. If he continues to strive for moderation and keeps his head up while ducking punches as skillfully as he has done so far then it is possible that America will be electing it's first black president in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)