From 2001

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000

Tim K. wrote:
From 2001

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000

IMO our leaders, members of both parties in both houses of
Congress plus the Presidents, would be criminally negligent
for letting New Orleans remain so vulnerable and underprepared
for an event that was virtually inevitable except for the fact
that there is no statute against an elected leader being
stupid or incompetent.

Cheers,
Russell

On 3 Sep 2005 16:34:36 -0700, wrote:


Tim K. wrote:
From 2001

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000

IMO our leaders, members of both parties in both houses of
Congress plus the Presidents, would be criminally negligent
for letting New Orleans remain so vulnerable and underprepared
for an event that was virtually inevitable except for the fact
that there is no statute against an elected leader being
stupid or incompetent.

Why limit your criticism to successful politicians who are not
necessarily leaders? Since the goal of a politician is to be elected
then election equals success. But election does not make them
leaders, leading does and many successful politicians fail that test.
So, we should not be surprised that the goofballs we elected do not
lead, especially in a crisis.

Moving on, I repeat my original question: why limit criticism to the
politicians? Are the people who chose to live in a site that is below
sea level and next to the ocean responsible for making that poor
choice? I think so, just like the nutcases who build on steep,
unstable slopes in earthquake prone California and then wail and groan
when a landslide wipes out their home. The fact that one cannot buy
insurance against these hazards should tell them something, but Ohh
that view!

JMH but jaded O

John

John Bachman wrote:
On 3 Sep 2005 16:34:36 -0700, wrote:


Tim K. wrote:
From 2001

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000

IMO our leaders, members of both parties in both houses of
Congress plus the Presidents, would be criminally negligent
for letting New Orleans remain so vulnerable and underprepared
for an event that was virtually inevitable except for the fact
that there is no statute against an elected leader being
stupid or incompetent.

Why limit your criticism to successful politicians who are not
necessarily leaders? Since the goal of a politician is to be elected
then election equals success. But election does not make them
leaders, leading does and many successful politicians fail that test.
So, we should not be surprised that the goofballs we elected do not
lead, especially in a crisis.

Ah, but they all claim to be leaders, which helps get them elected.
So, they are liars and incompetent or stupid. Does that immunize
them against criticism?


Moving on, I repeat my original question: why limit criticism to the
politicians? Are the people who chose to live in a site that is below
sea level and next to the ocean responsible for making that poor
choice? I think so, just like the nutcases who build on steep,
unstable slopes in earthquake prone California and then wail and groan
when a landslide wipes out their home. The fact that one cannot buy
insurance against these hazards should tell them something, but Ohh
that view!

JMH but jaded O

John

Why limit your criticism to people who "chose" to live some place
where they were born, could find jobs, etc.? How about the children?
Did they make a bad choice? If you want to criticize someone for bad
choices of where to live, criticize the Frenchmen who chose to first
put a settlement there. I happen to agree with you that a lot of
people live in places that have a higher probability of disaster than
others. IMO we should move people off of barrier islands and away
from the coast in hurricane alley. Southern California isn't
climatologically suited for its population level, and metro areas of
the Southwest are too dry to put millions of people, too. Most of
Japan is an earthquake disaster waiting to happen, but they try to
deal intelligently with it. People have to consider many factors
when making a decision, and as I've often said, information is often
unavailable, when it is available it is often unclear, and when it is
clear it is often wrong. In this case the leaders had the information,
it was clear and correct, and they didn't act. It is their jobs to do
what they can to protect they rest of us. Even the most poltically
conservative people admit that is government's fundamental job. And
all of us profited from New Orleans and the people who worked there
and in the area. IOW there is plenty of blame to spread around, no
doubt, but the buck stops somewhere and that is with the leadership.

Cheers,
Russell

On 3 Sep 2005 22:46:31 -0700, wrote:

John Bachman wrote:
On 3 Sep 2005 16:34:36 -0700, wrote:


Tim K. wrote:
From 2001

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000