Post by: Hawkmoon on August 07, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
First there was the bridge collapse. Mind you, there have been bridge collapses before, and after each one state governments and the Feds have "resolved" to ensure it naver happens again. Then we read that inspectors in Minnesota found cracks in the structure of the bridge, but the recommended method of repairing them was "too expensive" ... so they did nothing. Gee, I'll bet plating those cracks looks a whole bunch better in retrospect.
And now the mine collapse. Check this out:
Quote
Government mine inspectors have issued 325 citations against the mine since January 2004, according to a quick analysis of federal Mine Safety and Health Administration online records. Of those, 116 were what the government considered "significant and substantial," meaning they are likely to cause injury.
The 325 safety violations is not unusual, said J. Davitt McAteer, former head of the MSHA and now vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia.
"It's not perfect but it's certainly not bad," McAteer said.
The 325 safety violations is not unusual, said J. Davitt McAteer, former head of the MSHA and now vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia.
"It's not perfect but it's certainly not bad," McAteer said.
It's been awhile since I studied arithmatic, but last I knew we still had 12 months in a year. So since January of 2004 we have seen 43 months elapse. So that boils down to an average of 7.6 safety violations per month (roughly two per week), and 2.7 "significant" (defined as likely to cause injury) violations per month (that's one approximately every 11 days).
And a former head of the Federal agency in charge on these inspections says that's "... not bad"? I guess I must be awfully dumb, because it sounds rather bad to me.
Why are we paying government officials to play Russian roulette with our lives? That's what it boils down to. Inspectors inspect, they see problems, and then nothing gets done. They file a report, and the conditions continue, unabated. Why aren't they subject to the same rules of responsibility as ordinary citizens? Suppose my car has a brake failure and I run down a few dozen pedestrians. Can I say "Well, I saw that the brakes were worn out and there wasn't much fluid left in the master cylinder, but brake fluid is expensive, so I deemed it was safe enough and just kept driving it. Sorry 'bout that. Have a nice day."
Didn't think so.
Post by: Paddy on August 07, 2007, 02:29:40 PM
Post by: tyme on August 07, 2007, 02:51:47 PM
Post by: S. Williamson on August 08, 2007, 02:27:27 AM
/vomits moments after typing that
Post by: onions! on August 08, 2007, 02:47:44 AM
It's been my expierience that the only time/place that all the rules are followed is in a bubble about 50 feet accross surrounding the O.S.H.A. inspector.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 08, 2007, 03:40:07 AM
Of course, it's the fault of the eevilll capitalists pig management and their lackeys in the Bush administration (even the offenses and issues occurring during the Clinton administration).
Chris
Post by: RevDisk on August 08, 2007, 03:53:34 AM
I wonder if something so simple as a miner failing to wear a helmet or safety glasses(or a respirator or whatever) could qualify as "significant & substantial"?
It's been my expierience that the only time/place that all the rules are followed is in a bubble about 50 feet accross surrounding the O.S.H.A. inspector.
It's been my expierience that the only time/place that all the rules are followed is in a bubble about 50 feet accross surrounding the O.S.H.A. inspector.
Significant and substantial, no. But if they are in an area designated for specific safety gear and are not wearing said safety gear, yes, that is a violation. Especially a respirator.
Post by: Vile Nylons on August 08, 2007, 04:54:25 AM
Compliance to code at local levels [ mom and pop facilities] is non problematic. Even cross state chains are very compliance and public safety motivated. When you get into state facilities operations you run up against government meaning lawyers and state politicians. Push back is substantial and agencies whose task it is to ensure compliance often are stifled by other state agencies who bring out their big guns. Compliance is not mandatory but subject to "memo's of understanding" meaning state agency commissioners discuss it over lunch.
At the Federal level or big industry it's even worse. Big industry brings in a team of lawyers and their political friends. Major push back if substantial costs are involved. Federal facilities themselves are EXEMPT from code and only comply on a voluntary basis, meaning inspectors have to beg.
Inspectors are the low man on the totem pole who perhaps once a year take a snapshot overview of operations but who more often than not become the scapegoats when something goes bad. Compliance and public safety are really a function of the facility managers, their ethics as to staff and public protection and the rescources they are alloted to fulfill that function.
Post by: grampster on August 08, 2007, 05:17:02 AM
Maybe it's time we recognized that Hillary is our Saviour and we should all work for the government. Then we'll be safe and the bridges will not fall.
Post by: Paddy on August 08, 2007, 05:45:00 AM
Quote
For there to be "money for something", or "not enough money for something," there would have to be some connection between the annual revenue of the federal government and the annual budget. There isn't. Politicians are happy to spend money that's not there. The only reason they didn't spending money on toothpaste inspection, toy lead-paint inspection, or bridge repair is that they judged those safety measures wouldn't buy them enough votes to be worth the political capital fighting for those expenditures.
Correct. It's not that the money doesn't exist; rather it's not being directed toward activities that protect the health and safety of the American people. The perception is that the mundane tasks of protecting the borders and maintaining the infrastructure doesn't make the grade into 'legacy statesmanship'
Add to that a failed education system and a press more interested in political agendas than fact and you have an ignorant populace who are easily manipulated.Besides an apathetic electorate, what else is wrong with this country? Overwhelming consumerism. The focus is no longer on what we can produce, rather on what we can consume. As a nation, we've gone into billions $$ credit card debt to buy cheap imported crap made with slave labor in third world countries. We can't get enough of it. Walmart keeps growing and the landfills are overflowing (hey, that rhymes).
Everybody has to have an undergraduate degree and there is no honor in labor anymore. And why should there be? Who needs to learn or practice the trades when everything we buy is disposable and not repairable? Besides, we can import as much cheap Mexican labor as we need to do the grunt work.
Few have any sense of stewardship or regard for the great nation we've literally been handed by virtue of simply being born here. More important is how many greasy cheeseburgers we can stuff into our huge gut. How many of us participate in some volunteer work, with a local charity, church, or hospital? Few, and mostly older people.
What's wrong with this country is us. Our laziness, our apathy, and our self centeredness. Our lack of appreciation for the founding principles and heritage of this (once, yet hopefully again) great nation.
That's my .02
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 05:46:42 AM
Correct. It's not that the money doesn't exist; rather it's not being directed toward activities that protect the health and safety of the American people.
That's perfectly natural: the first thing to go under socialism is maintenance. American roads, Cuban hospitals, same story.--Len.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 06:01:44 AM
Just my .02
Post by: Manedwolf on August 08, 2007, 06:09:01 AM
Privatize infrastructure. No company would want a bridge disaster connected with the bridge they built. That is a sure way to guarantee infrastructure is kept safe.
Just my .02
Just my .02
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
There's no easy solutions.
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 06:13:34 AM
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
Sure--but they'll be balancing the risk of failure against the costs of prevention, where the risks include lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc. For the government agent who fails to maintain the bridges, the risks are minimal. The guy responsible for the collapsed bridge has probably already been promoted out of that job, and some peon will be scapegoated--and the peon will never be sued, imprisoned or rendered penniless. At worst he'll lose his crappy job, and he'll go get another job, just as good as the one he lost. Liberty isn't utopia. It's just that I'd rather deal with a selfish businessman, than a selfish ruler with an army and guns.
--Len.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 06:13:52 AM
Quote
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
There's no easy solutions.
There's no easy solutions.
How far do you think companies will go to profit? I certainly don't think that they would endanger people's lives for profit, if only for the fact that it would be a stain on their record.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 08, 2007, 06:15:53 AM
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
Sure--but they'll be balancing the risk of failure against the costs of prevention, where the risks include lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc. For the government agent who fails to maintain the bridges, the risks are minimal. The guy responsible for the collapsed bridge has probably already been promoted out of that job, and some peon will be scapegoated--and the peon will never be sued, imprisoned or rendered penniless. At worst he'll lose his crappy job, and he'll go get another job, just as good as the one he lost. Liberty isn't utopia. It's just that I'd rather deal with a selfish businessman, than a selfish ruler with an army and guns.
--Len.
I'd believe that if the officers could be held personally responsible, but if only the corporation is legally responsible for negligence, there's not as much disincentive to cut corners.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 06:15:59 AM
Edit:Double Post. My bad.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 08, 2007, 06:16:48 AM
Quote
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
There's no easy solutions.
There's no easy solutions.
True, however how far do you think companies will go to profit? I certainly don't think that they would endanger people's lives for profit, if for only the fact that if an accident happened there would be outrage.
Ford, Pinto.
GM, Corvair.
Bridgestone, SUV tires.
Airlines, flammable, toxic-fumes-when-burned upholstery
Food producers, high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated waste oils
Importers, contaminated Chinese goods.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 06:21:18 AM
Post by: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 06:21:38 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 06:25:42 AM
Ford, Pinto.
GM, Corvair.
Bridgestone, SUV tires.
Airlines, flammable, toxic-fumes-when-burned upholstery
Importers, contaminated Chinese goods.
Again, the claim isn't that nothing bad will happen in a free market. The claim is that much worse happens in the unfree market. Add up all the "market failures" you can find in all of history, and they'll add up to fewer innocent deaths than are dismissed as "collateral damage" in any war you want to pick. Ignoring war, they'll still add up to fewer than die in government failures such as collapsed bridges, failed levees in New Orleans, banning of life-saving inventions like DDT, delayed approval or outright denial of needed pharmaceuticals, etc., etc.GM, Corvair.
Bridgestone, SUV tires.
Airlines, flammable, toxic-fumes-when-burned upholstery
Importers, contaminated Chinese goods.
--Len.
Post by: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 06:32:51 AM
Then again you can just blame it all on Barry Bonds...
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2007, 07:02:23 AM
Quote
The problem with a for-profit enterprise is that if they can profit more by using concrete pillars two feet thinner than the original design, and still be called "relatively safe", they will.
There's no easy solutions.
There's no easy solutions.
True, however how far do you think companies will go to profit? I certainly don't think that they would endanger people's lives for profit, if for only the fact that if an accident happened there would be outrage.
Ford, Pinto.
GM, Corvair.
Bridgestone, SUV tires.
Airlines, flammable, toxic-fumes-when-burned upholstery
Food producers, high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated waste oils
Importers, contaminated Chinese goods.
That isnt a proof of anything other than carelessness. Do we suddenly expect perfection from multi-million dollar companies? The fact that the few examples you give spans 40 years says something about reliability.
It is especially so with the Corvair. The company changed the axle design early on but not before Ralph Nader made his career out of it. In fact GM continued the model for several years after they planned to discontinue it anyway just because of Ralphie. I owned a '67 Corsa at one time.
And companies that intentionally put people in danger pay a heavy price in liability judgements.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 08, 2007, 07:13:59 AM
For there to be "money for something", or "not enough money for something," there would have to be some connection between the annual revenue of the federal government and the annual budget. There isn't. Politicians are happy to spend money that's not there. The only reason they didn't spending money on toothpaste inspection, toy lead-paint inspection, or bridge repair is that they judged those safety measures wouldn't buy them enough votes to be worth the political capital fighting for those expenditures.
Ding ding ding! Correct answer!
Post by: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 08:00:27 AM
Cheap money which encourages massive debting, at all levels of society, private and governmental, is another huge problem--but it's not one we couldn't rectify. We will, but not until the system really starts to collapse, unforunately.
Post by: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 08:06:48 AM
By Emily Belz and Alexander Bolton
August 08, 2007
After dueling with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) to pass a renewable energy bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) faces a wrestling match with another rogue chairman. And this one can bench-press 265 pounds.
Pelosi is set to square off against Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the power-lifting chairman of the House gym committee.
Abercrombie is touting his efforts to secure funding in the legislative branch spending bill to begin an estimated $8 million renovation of the House gym. The project is personally important to Abercrombie, who sets a yearly goal to bench-press 200 pounds more than his age, now 69.
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are not eager for a multimillion-dollar renovation of the congressional members-only gym to be one of the first accomplishments of the Democratic majority. They worry that freshman Democrats could be attacked on the campaign trail next year for approving a fancy new gym for themselves after winning office.
Democratic leaders held a special meeting with Abercrombie earlier this year to tell him that now is not the time for a new House gym and also instructed him not to mention the issue to reporters, according to Democratic sources
But Abercrombie hasnt stopped talking about it. He insists that the gym needs renovating and is pushing for federal money to finance a redesign.
Abercrombie showed last week that hes not afraid to confront his leadership. Angered by a last-minute discovery that leaders would not schedule a floor vote on an Iraq bill he sponsored, Abercrombie introduced a motion to adjourn the House in protest, a rare tactic for a member of the majority to wield against his leaders. Abercrombie was the only Democrat to vote for the motion.
When it comes to the House members gym, Abercrombie also talks tough.
Officially, the facility is called The Wellness Center. Abercrombie calls it The Badness Center.
It may not be a Turkish prison, but the windowless facility in the bowels of the Rayburn House Office Building is hardly upscale.
The gyms scent is reminiscent of sweaty basketball pennies and musty basements. A half-court backs up against a little netted area for driving golf balls. Drab 1970s-era office chairs line the gym wall.
Behind a saloon-style door off the half-court, the exercise machines are crammed together.
The lack of amenities are all the more galling when compared to the gleaming new gym reserved for House staffers. In the staff members gym, each elliptical machine and treadmill has its own flat-screen TV hooked up to cable.
The locker rooms are well lit (not many overhead fluorescents), with vanity tables in the womens for reapplying mascara or blow-drying hair.
Staffers can attend classes or roll around on Pilates balls in an aerobics room lined with full-length mirrors. The staff gym is designed to allow men and women equal access to all the equipment.
Abercrombie argues the staff gym should be the model for lawmakers gym renovations. He says the current setup is a burden for female lawmakers, making it somewhat awkward for Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, to oppose him.
The women (including lawmakers wives) have a smaller, separate gym next to their locker rooms in Rayburn.
To get to the main gym from the womens locker rooms, they must walk across an underground parking lot. If they want to use the cardiovascular equipment, for example, they must walk through the mens locker rooms.
Some congresswomen are fed up.
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) says she doesnt use the gym because its not convenient from her office in the Longworth House Office Building.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, said, I dont mind working out in front of men, but you have to go through the mens locker room.
She is a swimmer, but to get to the pool she says she would have to walk through a parking garage and upstairs from the locker room.
Logistically, its too difficult, she said. For the time being, however, Wasserman Schultz agrees with Pelosi that there are more important funding priorities than the gym.
Abercrombie is quick to position himself alongside his female colleagues in a potential showdown with Pelosi.
He says the pinched size of the womens gym impedes female lawmakers from using it. He says they need more room to get dressed after a workout in this age of television-driven politics.
Not all women agree with Abercrombie. The wife of one congressman who uses the womens gym regularly said the complaints are overblown.
The facilities are absolutely fine. Theyre great, said the spouse, who spoke anonymously to avoid angering any lawmakers. You cant walk across a parking lot? Whats the big deal?
Taxpayers would be furious if they knew we were spending their money on gym renovations, she added, echoing the concern of Democratic leaders.
House appropriators have told Abercrombie that funding for plans to redesign the gym can come from a $60 million account in the legislative branch spending bill. To free the money up, though, Abercrombie must secure final approval from the House Building Commission, which Pelosi chairs.
So while Abercrombie is correct that money for building a new gym has passed the House, it still has to get by Pelosi, who doesnt seem too scared of Abercrombies muscle.
Pelosi would prefer to see money spent on security and other issues.
The emphasis is on security, safety and greening of the Capitol campus, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 08, 2007, 08:08:38 AM
Post by: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 08:21:58 AM
Post by: Paddy on August 08, 2007, 08:47:58 AM
Quote
Abercrombie is touting his efforts to secure funding in the legislative branch spending bill to begin an estimated $8 million renovation of the House gym. The project is personally important to Abercrombie, who sets a yearly goal to bench-press 200 pounds more than his age, now 69.
So, this bozo's too freaking special to get a membership at the D.C. Bally's? He needs to be bounced out of Congress.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 08, 2007, 07:12:13 PM
How far do you think companies will go to profit? I certainly don't think that they would endanger people's lives for profit, if only for the fact that it would be a stain on their record.
You are FAR more optimistic than I am. I have no doubt that private companies would not hesitate a nanosecond to jeopardize hundreds, even thousands of people, if it would help their short-term bottom line.Does the name Bhopal (or is it Bopahl?) ring any bells?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 01:51:05 AM
Quote
Abercrombie is touting his efforts to secure funding in the legislative branch spending bill to begin an estimated $8 million renovation of the House gym. The project is personally important to Abercrombie, who sets a yearly goal to bench-press 200 pounds more than his age, now 69.
So, this bozo's too freaking special to get a membership at the D.C. Bally's? He needs to be bounced out of Congress. Yeah, most of them do.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 03:40:26 AM
Hey, nothing like 7 separate tolls along a 100-mile stretch of interstate because each section is owned by a different investment group. It'd be like medieval France, for Christ's sake.
If anyone really wants to see how "successful" a privatized infrastructure would be, they only need to look at the Dulles Greenway.
A 14-mile stretch of private road between Leesburg and Dulles Airport.
A one-way trip on ANY amount of that road is $3.00 during the week. And, by 2010, it's projected to go up to something like $5.50. And that's with no new miles added to the road.
And the Greenway's maintenance? It's no better than Dulles Toll Road to which it connects.
Privatization is NOT the "make everything better and the world becomes teddy bears, kittens, and lollipops" solution.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 04:44:15 AM
Hey, nothing like 7 separate tolls along a 100-mile stretch of interstate because each section is owned by a different investment group. It'd be like medieval France...
Cutting the road into few-mile stretches, each with different owners, is one model for road ownership--but it's the worst possible model. We can be confident the market would not work that way. Also, toll roads are one business model, and it's a reasonable one, but it's by no means the only one. Residential areas, for example, are likely to be owned by the equivalent of a homeowners' association, which would subcontract the management of it to a road-service provider. Maintenance of the roads would be paid through homeowners' dues, not through tolls.Quote
If anyone really wants to see how "successful" a privatized infrastructure would be, they only need to look at the Dulles Greenway.
If you want to see how "successful" privatized infrastructure can be, look at Disney World. Every scrap of infrastructure, including miles and miles of roads, are privately owned and operated by Disney. In this case, the roads are provided as a loss leader, and maintenance is paid from park profits--and the roads are spotless and in perfect condition.Quote
Privatization is NOT the "make everything better and the world becomes teddy bears, kittens, and lollipops" solution.
We need to emphasize that nobody says it is. It's definitely not perfect. It's just better than socialism is all.--Len.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 09, 2007, 05:08:03 AM
Okay: Tell me what other bridges have failed, but more specifically, "Just up and broke"?
Anyone?
Art
Post by: Manedwolf on August 09, 2007, 05:14:39 AM
Quote
If you want to see how "successful" privatized infrastructure can be, look at Disney World. Every scrap of infrastructure, including miles and miles of roads, are privately owned and operated by Disney. In this case, the roads are provided as a loss leader, and maintenance is paid from park profits--and the roads are spotless and in perfect condition.
I don't think that applies at all. They can afford to do that because every car that travels that road is going to spend at least $50 on each occupant of the vehicle for a park ticket. When the impact of a car on the road is weighed against the $200 or more that each car's occupants are going to pay that same day, plus the money spent on food, souvenirs and other items, they better be nice roads.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 05:18:29 AM
Okay: Tell me what other bridges have failed, but more specifically, "Just up and broke"?
One near to my heart: the Schoharie Creek Bridge just up and collapsed in 1987, killing ten people. It sticks in my mind because I drove over that bridge about one hour before it collapsed, on my way home from Canada. I was barely able to stay awake, and stopped at almost every rest stop for coffee. I skipped the one before Schoharie creek purely by chance. If I hadn't, odds are good I'd have been fish food twenty years ago April 5.--Len.
Post by: silliman89 on August 09, 2007, 05:49:14 AM
Quote
Okay: Tell me what other bridges have failed, but more specifically, "Just up and broke"?
Anyone?
Anyone?
The Myannis River Bridge on I-95 in CT just up and broke in 1983 or 1984. Luckily it happened in the middle of the night and only a few cars went into the river before someone (a trucker as I recall) stopped and blocked the road.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 05:52:38 AM
Disney is a DESTINATION. It's not a throughway. It's an entertainment venue, it's not a means of travel. You're not going to be seeing mini Disney parks spring up along the sides of major interstates, parks that are controlled by the owning entity.
Disney's continuing popularity requires that it be proactive to a maximum degree in developing and maintaining the park. It also requires ticket prices that are pretty steep.
Let's take a look at another private venture, the coal mine where they're now trying to dig out what, 6 miners? It had something like 400 safety violations in the past three years. The Sago mine in West Virginia is another example of a private venture that had a huge number of safety violations.
Privatization, again, is NOT the panacea answer to the infrastructure problems that currently exist in the United States.
"Schoharie Creek Bridge"
The Schoharie Creek Bridge failed due to scouring of the creekbed under the pier by floodwater. Pier scouring had been known for many years, and IIRC Schoharie Creek Bridge was known to be susceptible to it, and regular inspections were carried out looking for it.
The Oakland Bay Bridge did NOT just collapse. It was designed with an eye towards resisting earthquake strains. The design was at least partially successful because only one section of roadway collapsed, and it was fairly quickly returned to service after the deck was repaired and the rest of the bridge was shown to have weathered the quake fairly well.
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which collapsed in the 1940s, was designed before there was a good understanding of how wind harmonics affected bridges, especially suspension bridges. One of the major considerations in the design of the bridge was to keep it as light and "non invasive" to the view as possible.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 06:02:38 AM
That's right, Disney World is a private venture. But to compare it to the interstate system is truly apples to oranges.
You cherry-picked one "private" road--which, I'll wager turns out not to be as "private" as you think--so I cherry-picked another. The plural of anecdote is not "data."Quote
Privatization, again, is NOT the panacea answer to the infrastructure problems that currently exist in the United States.
I want to be very clear and emphatic that the free market is not a panacea. It's just better than socialism.Quote
The Schoharie Creek Bridge failed due to scouring of the creekbed under the pier by floodwater. Pier scouring had been known for many years, and IIRC Schoharie Creek Bridge was known to be susceptible to it, and regular inspections were carried out looking for it.
You are damning the highway maintenance people, not exonerating them. Like the New Orleans levees and other failures, you're blaming the proximate cause rather than the poor engineering that made the accident possible--and at the same time you're admitting that they knew their engineering was inadequate long before the perfectly predictable disaster struck.--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 09, 2007, 06:14:52 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 09, 2007, 08:45:53 AM
Let's take a look at another private venture, the coal mine where they're now trying to dig out what, 6 miners? It had something like 400 safety violations in the past three years. The Sago mine in West Virginia is another example of a private venture that had a huge number of safety violations.
Privatization, again, is NOT the panacea answer to the infrastructure problems that currently exist in the United States.
If you are looking for examples where privatization doesn't work you've picked the wrong corner.
Mining is inherently a dangerous activity. But look at mine fatalities over the last 50 years and there are tremendously fewer of them now than then. You have managed to name 2 mining incidents over 5 years out of hundreds of operating mines. Auto traffic on highways is less safe than that.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 09, 2007, 05:38:35 PM
Okay: Tell me what other bridges have failed, but more specifically, "Just up and broke"?
Anyone?
Anyone?
The Mianus River bridge in I-95 in Connecticut. It collapsed just like the Minnesota bridge did, except it was around 3:00 a.m. so fewer people were killed or injured.
Connecticut's governor was asked the next day why the state had allowed the bridge to become so unsafe that it could collapse with no warning. His response was a classic, even among the governing class:
"This bridge was safe until 2:47 this morning. Then it fell down."
Post by: Thor on August 09, 2007, 06:23:02 PM
You are damning the highway maintenance people, not exonerating them. Like the New Orleans levees and other failures, you're blaming the proximate cause rather than the poor engineering that made the accident possible--and at the same time you're admitting that they knew their engineering was inadequate long before the perfectly predictable disaster struck.
--Len.
Post by: DustinD on August 09, 2007, 07:30:38 PM
Quote
Privatization is NOT the "make everything better and the world becomes teddy bears, kittens, and lollipops" solution.
That strawman argument does nothing to help the debate. Also, do you have to use it all the time?Does anyone know if the 300+ violations is a lot for a typical mine over that time period? I know in other industries violations are handed out like candy. For all I, and most other people know 300+ could be a great record.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 08:46:24 PM
How much of this stuff... were designed so many years ago?? ... It was designed to handle roughly 70,000 vehicles per day. Traffic flow has doubled... You can't blame poor engineering on this... I'm certain that it was state of the art engineering at that time in history.
You're probably right: the crime was probably poor maintenance rather than poor engineering. But that doesn't change a thing:
How far would Walmart get explaining that their store was designed "so many years ago" to handle "so many shoppers," but that "traffic has doubled" and "today's products are heavier than ever..." and that's why the store collapsed and killed X number of shoppers? But the store really was the state of the art of engineering back in its day?
Walmart would be found liable for not maintaining the facility so it would be safe today under today's usage. Only government can say, "It was safe right up until it fell down." Sue them for negligence? HAH!
Which is of course why maintenance is the first thing to go under socialism. It cuts costs with hardly any risks. I'm sure greedy capitalists would do the same thing if the court was rigged in their favor and they had legal power to force you to keep patronizing their establishments.
--Len.
Post by: 280plus on August 10, 2007, 12:53:07 AM
The part that worries me is if you look closely at the minnesota pix yoo can see they used the exact same style concrete pylons that they used extensively on the bridgework here in Hartford. Exactly what that means, I'm not sure. Same engineers / companies did both jobs? [Astro voice] Rut Row[/Astro voice]
Post by: silliman89 on August 10, 2007, 02:53:30 AM
Quote
The Mianus River bridge in I-95 in Connecticut.
Thanks Hawkmoon. I couldn't spell mianus. Now that you did, here's a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mianus_River_Bridge
Post by: 280plus on August 10, 2007, 07:51:06 AM
Post by: longeyes on August 10, 2007, 08:02:18 AM
These collapses will become a weekly event.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 08:30:15 AM
I can't wait for the mass influx of Mexican trucks.
These collapses will become a weekly event.
These collapses will become a weekly event.
If they hold together long enough to make it to a bridge.
Post by: Thor on August 10, 2007, 08:44:43 AM
You're probably right: the crime was probably poor maintenance rather than poor engineering. But that doesn't change a thing:
--Len.
I would tend to buy into the "poor maintenance" aspect vs the poor engineering. I remember when I first moved to MN. The 494/694 beltway around the Twin Cities area was pretty adequate. That was 1986. It only took the state almost 20 years to act on the beltway to improve the roads for the higher capacity traffic. There's STILL a lot of room for improvement. Instead of funnelling money to the roadways, the state has become convinced that light rail is thew answer. Studies done on the light rail, which travels from downtown Minneapolis to the airport and Mall of America show that the light rail will cost the taxpayers some $ 13 Million/ year. It will NEVER turn a profit. The light rail stations have also become a target of criminals and have become high crime areas. And yet, the most recent election, there was a referendum to divert monies from the roadways to the light rail from the roadways. Due to a lot of misdirection and misinformation, (I could say, "Lies"), the voters were convinced to pass the referendum. So, now, instead of repairing the heavily travelled roadways and bridges, a lot of that money is going to the canard that the light rail has been exposed to be.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 10, 2007, 08:59:10 AM
I can't wait for the mass influx of Mexican trucks.
These collapses will become a weekly event.
These collapses will become a weekly event.
I never knew Mexican trucks to be any heavier than American ones.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 09:10:05 AM
I can't wait for the mass influx of Mexican trucks.
These collapses will become a weekly event.
I never knew Mexican trucks to be any heavier than American ones.These collapses will become a weekly event.
I think he meant the increased number of trucks on the road and not the weight factor.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 09:16:25 AM
I never knew Mexican trucks to be any heavier than American ones.
Maybe the Mexican drivers are heavier?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 10, 2007, 09:25:56 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 09:30:14 AM
With the Mexican trucks, I'm just expecting more fatalities of Americans hit by their trucks due to poor maintenance. Tires exploding and taking out the car next to them, duct-taped airbrake lines failing and a trailer sweeping cars off the road as it jackknifes, etc.
I'm not. I think most of that is FUD from American truckers who want to protect their fellow citizens from lower-priced shipping.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 10, 2007, 10:12:04 AM
I never knew Mexican trucks to be any heavier than American ones.
Maybe the Mexican drivers are heavier?
--Len.
But the toilets are. You ever hear of "El Ton John"??
Post by: Manedwolf on August 10, 2007, 10:14:49 AM
With the Mexican trucks, I'm just expecting more fatalities of Americans hit by their trucks due to poor maintenance. Tires exploding and taking out the car next to them, duct-taped airbrake lines failing and a trailer sweeping cars off the road as it jackknifes, etc.
I'm not. I think most of that is FUD from American truckers who want to protect their fellow citizens from lower-priced shipping.
--Len.
John McCain, is that you?
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:16:32 AM
I'm not. I think most of that is FUD from American truckers who want to protect their fellow citizens from lower-priced shipping.
John McCain, is that you?
McCain is for free markets? I'm shocked. As far as I know, there's only one candidate this time around that actually believes in free markets.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 10, 2007, 10:24:21 AM
See what their reaction is. Especially the ones who are still paying for their privately-owned rigs.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:26:07 AM
Len, I suggest you go into a truckstop somewhere in the midwest and tell some American truckers what you just said.
Yeah, and I suggest you go tell some upstate New York dairy farmers that you're against farm subsidies. Then go tell a bunch of welfare queens that you'd like to see the welfare state cut back. Then go tell a roomful of FCC workers that you're for deregulating the airwaves. See what happens to you.
So people are prone to get violent when they want something. So what?
--Len.
Post by: longeyes on August 10, 2007, 03:13:44 PM
Corrupt politicians + civil service + Mexican day labor = Trouble.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 04:09:37 PM
http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/
Post by: 280plus on August 10, 2007, 04:50:27 PM
Post by: longeyes on August 11, 2007, 06:42:05 AM
Quote
Here's one thing that's wrong with this country-that this crap should even get to court. If it was so important, wth didn't he lift the bun before he bit into it?
A good example in microcosm of why America is turning into a joke. Lawyers who will take any case that promises a big payoff, judges who bought their way onto the bench, juries who live in game show fantasies. A general moral smog permeates America's social life, growing thicker by the day.
We are being undone by the very things that used to be our strengths: the rule of law (perverted), commerce (avaricious business people lacking any sense of ethics or good will or community responsibility), and education (the realm of leftist, anti-American propaganda). We need radical self-surgery--on our souls. How we do that I don't pretend to know, but we are either going to have to metamorphose or die as a nation.
For those who think I'm being too dark or that we'll squeeze by, well, I think you're kidding yourself. We have a few years before the iPod generation takes over and does any deal to be left alone with its toys in "peace."
Post by: Manedwolf on August 11, 2007, 06:46:23 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 11, 2007, 07:04:06 AM
Nestle specifically did not release their self-heating coffee cans in the US for fear of litigation.
Where can you find that? Never even seen it advertised. Wouldn't have a problem with that.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 11, 2007, 07:17:32 AM
Nestle specifically did not release their self-heating coffee cans in the US for fear of litigation.
Where can you find that? Never even seen it advertised. Wouldn't have a problem with that.
What I just said, it's not available in the US due to their fears of litigation.
They're likely afraid someone is going to stick it in their eye, pull the tab and sue. It's available in other world markets, though, including parts of Europe and South Africa. There's other versions in Japan, too. Just not in the US. Probably won't ever be available in the US. If you're still "over there", you might be able to find self-heating coffee in a store...or, I don't know, a British PX if there is such a thing?
I'd think it'd be an awesome thing for troops! Hot coffee anytime at night in the desert?
It works by mixing water and calcium oxide in a separate iinner chamber when you pull a tab. Pull, shake, wait six minutes or so, have hot coffee.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 11, 2007, 07:27:43 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 11, 2007, 07:30:14 AM
I am going to have to check with the local vendors and see if they can score me some of this.
Current brands are, I believe, Nescafe, Wolfgang Puck, Hillside, and something I can't remember in Japanese. There might be others.
Post by: tyme on August 11, 2007, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Privatization, again, is NOT the panacea answer to the infrastructure problems that currently exist in the United States.
That applies to the subset of infrastructure that is immune from competition because of logistics (roads, etc).However, there is infrastructure that's not subject to such logistical difficulties, and that infrastructure should be privatized. I'm still furious about the effective monopoly of cable and phone providers. There's no good reason why other companies shouldn't be allowed to run fiber throughout a city. Sure, there's transient inconvenience as streets and alleys are dug up. So what? Live with it. And, in many cases, existing monopolies haven't and aren't running fiber, yet they're still preventing other companies (Verizon) from doing so.
Post by: ilbob on August 11, 2007, 08:30:21 AM
I'm disgusted.
First there was the bridge collapse. Mind you, there have been bridge collapses before, and after each one state governments and the Feds have "resolved" to ensure it naver happens again. Then we read that inspectors in Minnesota found cracks in the structure of the bridge, but the recommended method of repairing them was "too expensive" ... so they did nothing. Gee, I'll bet plating those cracks looks a whole bunch better in retrospect.
And now the mine collapse. Check this out:
It's been awhile since I studied arithmatic, but last I knew we still had 12 months in a year. So since January of 2004 we have seen 43 months elapse. So that boils down to an average of 7.6 safety violations per month (roughly two per week), and 2.7 "significant" (defined as likely to cause injury) violations per month (that's one approximately every 11 days).
And a former head of the Federal agency in charge on these inspections says that's "... not bad"? I guess I must be awfully dumb, because it sounds rather bad to me.
Why are we paying government officials to play Russian roulette with our lives? That's what it boils down to. Inspectors inspect, they see problems, and then nothing gets done. They file a report, and the conditions continue, unabated. Why aren't they subject to the same rules of responsibility as ordinary citizens? Suppose my car has a brake failure and I run down a few dozen pedestrians. Can I say "Well, I saw that the brakes were worn out and there wasn't much fluid left in the master cylinder, but brake fluid is expensive, so I deemed it was safe enough and just kept driving it. Sorry 'bout that. Have a nice day."
Didn't think so.
First there was the bridge collapse. Mind you, there have been bridge collapses before, and after each one state governments and the Feds have "resolved" to ensure it naver happens again. Then we read that inspectors in Minnesota found cracks in the structure of the bridge, but the recommended method of repairing them was "too expensive" ... so they did nothing. Gee, I'll bet plating those cracks looks a whole bunch better in retrospect.
And now the mine collapse. Check this out:
Quote
Government mine inspectors have issued 325 citations against the mine since January 2004, according to a quick analysis of federal Mine Safety and Health Administration online records. Of those, 116 were what the government considered "significant and substantial," meaning they are likely to cause injury.
The 325 safety violations is not unusual, said J. Davitt McAteer, former head of the MSHA and now vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia.
"It's not perfect but it's certainly not bad," McAteer said.
The 325 safety violations is not unusual, said J. Davitt McAteer, former head of the MSHA and now vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia.
"It's not perfect but it's certainly not bad," McAteer said.
It's been awhile since I studied arithmatic, but last I knew we still had 12 months in a year. So since January of 2004 we have seen 43 months elapse. So that boils down to an average of 7.6 safety violations per month (roughly two per week), and 2.7 "significant" (defined as likely to cause injury) violations per month (that's one approximately every 11 days).
And a former head of the Federal agency in charge on these inspections says that's "... not bad"? I guess I must be awfully dumb, because it sounds rather bad to me.
Why are we paying government officials to play Russian roulette with our lives? That's what it boils down to. Inspectors inspect, they see problems, and then nothing gets done. They file a report, and the conditions continue, unabated. Why aren't they subject to the same rules of responsibility as ordinary citizens? Suppose my car has a brake failure and I run down a few dozen pedestrians. Can I say "Well, I saw that the brakes were worn out and there wasn't much fluid left in the master cylinder, but brake fluid is expensive, so I deemed it was safe enough and just kept driving it. Sorry 'bout that. Have a nice day."
Didn't think so.
Most government issued safety citations are for things that while they are not totally unimportant, they aren't especially dangerous either. When so called safety inspectors go to a plant, they have to find a certain number of violations or they can't justify their existence. The plants know this. I suspect they do not worry a whole lot about minor things that don't really matter much and leave them to the inspectors to find, so they will leave them alone. That is an old game. This is not much different than the quotas virtually every traffic cop lives by.
Post by: Len Budney on August 11, 2007, 10:27:44 AM
Manedwolf, how does that thing work? Is that a micro nuclear reactor in there? That would certainly generate lawsuits.
Basically, quicklime and water. When the two are mixed, quite a lot of heat is generated.Quote
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Privatization, again, is NOT the panacea answer to the infrastructure problems that currently exist in the United States.
That applies to the subset of infrastructure that is immune from competition because of logistics (roads, etc).
Fair observation, but I think you'll find that roads are much less "immune from competition" than you think. Like electric utilities, etc., the monopoly was forcibly imposed first, and then came the argument why monopoly is inevitable.
In the original colonies there were private turnpikes. The courts, however, refused to provide remedy against people who refused to pay. The private turnpikes, facing bankruptcy, were abandoned and taken over by the government whose very courts had driven the private owners out of business.
Quote
However, there is infrastructure that's not subject to such logistical difficulties, and that infrastructure should be privatized. I'm still furious about the effective monopoly of cable and phone providers. There's no good reason why other companies shouldn't be allowed to run fiber throughout a city....
The argument that cable and phone are "natural monopolies" is the same argument that roads are: namely, that it's prohibitively expensive to "duplicate infrastructure," so the one to lay wires first becomes a monopolist. You can easily see through this argument when it comes to wires; I think if you ponder it a bit, you'll realize that the same considerations apply to roads.
The reason people find the road argument so plausible is that they only have one road in front of their house. They don't realize that "competition" doesn't mean "two or more roads in front of every house," so you can pick which one to ride on. The most appropriate definition of "competition" is "low barriers to entry," so that the guy providing roads in the next town can, if he's doing a better job, buy out the provider in your town. Profit and loss, and its way of driving the bad providers out of business, is the magic of the market--consumer choice is merely one manifestation of that.
--Len.
Post by: tyme on August 11, 2007, 12:32:20 PM
Quote
They don't realize that "competition" doesn't mean "two or more roads in front of every house," so you can pick which one to ride on. The most appropriate definition of "competition" is "low barriers to entry," so that the guy providing roads in the next town can, if he's doing a better job, buy out the provider in your town.
Only if the local provider will sell. Evil Road Corp manages to buy a few city blocks of roads. They proceed to set up tollbooths but otherwise do nothing to maintain the roads. The people living and working there can't move without huge costs (due to plummeting property values), so they're stuck paying the tolls. Meanwhile, Evil Road Corp makes huge profits, because they're not doing anything except collecting fees. Why would they sell to Good Road Corp unless the offer was way above fair market value... at which point even Good Road Corp would have to overcharge for quite a while to break even?It doesn't have to be that sinister. Evil Road Corp might even maintain the roads, presumably because road maintenance is in some contract with whoever they bought it from, or they somehow got bound by contracts with the people living along the road. Suppose in 20 years the standard is to have RF beacons in lane markers to allow modern vehicles to navigate by themselves. Since that was probably an unexpected development at the time of sale to Evil Road Corp, they don't put markers in to keep costs down. What recourse do people living there have? Again, property values go down, and the people there are stuck.
Quote
The argument that cable and phone are "natural monopolies" is the same argument that roads are: namely, that it's prohibitively expensive to "duplicate infrastructure," so the one to lay wires first becomes a monopolist. You can easily see through this argument when it comes to wires;
Fiber can be run parallel to all the other fiber/copper crap already in place. It can be run to one neighborhood at a time. There's not as much of an economy of scale, and there's no logistics problem with providing service to customers of some other data service company. There could be a dozen fiber companies running fiber throughout a city and there wouldn't be a problem. How would you have the same thing with roads? "This lane is for Good Road Corp customers, that lane is for Evil Road Corp customers"? Building tunnels or elevated roads is not feasible, because the added maintenance costs would make "fair market value" for using those roads even more expensive than the bloated prices Evil Road Corp is charging.
Post by: DustinD on August 11, 2007, 02:48:51 PM
Post by: Thor on August 11, 2007, 03:08:38 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 11, 2007, 03:47:51 PM
Only if the local provider will sell.
That's the beauty of it: bankruptcy has a way of forcing the owner to sell. Exactly what makes the government so dangerous is that it never goes bankrupt. If worst comes to worst, it will just print more money.
It's true that a jillionaire could, in theory, buy up the roads of a certain town just to deny everyone passage. Under road socialism, he can still strangle a town--he only needs to be slightly more creative. For example, he could buy up all the shopping centers within X miles and shut 'em all down. The anti-walmart crowd claims that Walmart creates "ghost towns" by doing almost exactly that: out-compete the other stores until Walmart is the only one standing. The claim is bogus, but a vengeful billionaire could do that if he really wanted to.
The evil billionaire could not shut the country down that way, though. The costs rise fast, especially when neighbors see what just happened to Victimville. They'll pay almost anything to keep their road supplier from selling out to Predatorpike, and the value of roads would be bid way beyond Predatorpike's ability to pay.
Bottom line: a "monopoly" is much, much harder to create or sustain than people imagine. There are all sorts of countermeasures that can destroy the would-be monopolist. That's why governments cut out the BS and secure their monopolies with guns and prisons.
Quote
Since that was probably an unexpected development at the time of sale to Evil Road Corp, they don't put markers in to keep costs down. What recourse do people living there have? Again, property values go down, and the people there are stuck.
The drop in property values would in turn hurt Evil Road Corp. When you run a fast-food joint in a slum, you can't charge high prices. That's why businesses do modernize. Government doesn't, or does so much more slowly, because they don't care about profit and loss. They can raise prices and then shoot anyone who refuses to pay.
Quote
Quote
The argument that cable and phone are "natural monopolies" is the same argument that roads are: namely, that it's prohibitively expensive to "duplicate infrastructure," so the one to lay wires first becomes a monopolist. You can easily see through this argument when it comes to wires;
Fiber can be run parallel to all the other fiber/copper crap already in place.
Not if the company that owns the poles refuses to let them. But in any case, that's a huge fixed cost which the first company doesn't face. So, the argument goes, the competitors have no choice but to charge more in order to cover the infrastructure cost which the first company has already paid. Hence, the first-comer always out-competes newcomers, and competition is impossible. That's the "natural monopoly" argument in a nutshell.
And it's identical to the road argument. Namely, the first-comer has the easements and roadway; the newcomer would (it's claimed) need to buy up property or easements to set up a separate, competing network of roads.
And both arguments are wrong for the same basic reasons. Road "competition" doesn't mean two distinct sets of roads, any more than phone "competition" means two distinct sets of wires. Airlines are one competitor of highways, just as cell phones are one competitor of landlines. "Competition" is a much more complex landscape than most people's simplistic image of two identical products side-by-side on a shelf.
--Len.
Post by: Thor on August 11, 2007, 04:43:16 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 11, 2007, 05:22:31 PM
Quote
Here's one thing that's wrong with this country-that this crap should even get to court. If it was so important, wth didn't he lift the bun before he bit into it?
A good example in microcosm of why America is turning into a joke. Lawyers who will take any case that promises a big payoff, judges who bought their way onto the bench, juries who live in game show fantasies. A general moral smog permeates America's social life, growing thicker by the day.
We are being undone by the very things that used to be our strengths: the rule of law (perverted), commerce (avaricious business people lacking any sense of ethics or good will or community responsibility), and education (the realm of leftist, anti-American propaganda). We need radical self-surgery--on our souls. How we do that I don't pretend to know, but we are either going to have to metamorphose or die as a nation.
For those who think I'm being too dark or that we'll squeeze by, well, I think you're kidding yourself. We have a few years before the iPod generation takes over and does any deal to be left alone with its toys in "peace."
Gee, I'm glad I don't live in the same country as you.
And if you want to see mess, look at the US post Civil War.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 11, 2007, 05:46:47 PM
Quote
For those who think I'm being too dark or that we'll squeeze by, well, I think you're kidding yourself. We have a few years before the iPod generation takes over and does any deal to be left alone with its toys in "peace."
Can't say I agree with that one. I blame baby boomers for opening the door wide to socialism, myself.
I'm also of that "ipod generation", and I'm currently messing with my AK after having sent some editorial letters about local taxes and tolls this morning.
Don't generalize.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 14, 2007, 07:05:19 PM
It's true that a jillionaire could, in theory, buy up the roads of a certain town just to deny everyone passage. Under road socialism, he can still strangle a town--he only needs to be slightly more creative. For example, he could buy up all the shopping centers within X miles and shut 'em all down. The anti-walmart crowd claims that Walmart creates "ghost towns" by doing almost exactly that: out-compete the other stores until Walmart is the only one standing. The claim is bogus, but a vengeful billionaire could do that if he really wanted to.
The claim is not entirely bogus. Not an entire town, but Wal-Mart has created a ghost shopping center not far from me. They took over a store that was originally built by a regional discount chain that flopped after a good number of years. Half a mile down the road is another shopping center that held, among other tenants, a K-Mart. Not a Super K-Mart, just a K-Mart. When K-Mart closed that in the last round of shutting under-performing locations, Wal-Mart immediately took over the lease and refuses to reliquish it. So that store has been vacant for several years, and without the draw of an anchor there hasn't been enough traffic to keep the other stores in customers, so one by one they have all closed. There is now nothing in the center, only a Burger King and a Dunkin' Donuts whose lots connect but who also have direct access from the state highway that runs along the front of their stores.
Wal-Mart is evil personified. Perhaps not quite as evil as Bill Gates and Microsoft, but a very close second.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2007, 07:27:16 PM
FWIW, I rarely go to Wal-Mart and never for gun stuff. Sorry, JJ.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 14, 2007, 07:55:43 PM
Wal-Mart is evil personified. Perhaps not quite as evil as Bill Gates and Microsoft, but a very close second.
So, who's number three? Big Oil? Big Tobacco? George Bush?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 15, 2007, 04:12:11 AM
OK, we have enough people complaining about Wal-Mart in this country (including my Dad) - what are they doing about it? If Wal-Mart is so terrible, squash it. Start another company and take them down. If they're violating anyone's rights, legislate against it; take them to court. Start a mass movement to boycott them until they die or change their ways.
FWIW, I rarely go to Wal-Mart and never for gun stuff. Sorry, JJ.
FWIW, I rarely go to Wal-Mart and never for gun stuff. Sorry, JJ.
Snapper lawnmowers said no to them on quality principles. Wal-Mart wanted to sell mowers with the Snapper name, but made from sheet steel in China. The CEO of Snapper said "no" and walked out of their offices.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2007, 05:54:12 AM
Some company making lawn equipment (Stihl?) runs ads touting that their product is not sold by Wal Mart or Home Depot. Good for them.
Meanwhile, it is estimated that Wal Mart has saved the average consumer $3,000 a year in lower prices. I don't know how many people they employ but lots. I dont know what they pay in taxes of various kinds but it's lots. And they're the evil ones??
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 05:58:43 AM
Quote
it is estimated that Wal Mart has saved the average consumer $3,000 a year in lower prices
for a bunch of plastic fantastic junk from China that winds up in the landfill.
Post by: longeyes on August 15, 2007, 06:10:10 AM
I'm not blaming only the "iPod generation." I'm in the previous one and agree completely that the baby boomers brought us to where we are now. The "best and brightest" lost their compass early on.
Can we get out of the mess we're in? Yes, we can, but only point is that to do so will be uber-painful because the problem has now insinuated itself into the nation's very marrow: business, the law, and education.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2007, 06:21:58 AM
Quote
it is estimated that Wal Mart has saved the average consumer $3,000 a year in lower prices
for a bunch of plastic fantastic junk from China that winds up in the landfill.American manufacturers were not stuck on "quality" until they encountered serious competition, first from Japan. The average car from the 1970s ran until about 80k miles and then it was junked. It used more gas, provided less comfort and safety, and overall cost more to operate than today's cars. The only impetus for all this came from "cheap" cars from Japan.
I would bet it is the same with all manufactured items. If you want to spring for a quality toaster oven or blender, go right ahead. But for most people something cheap from China will fit the bill just fine.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 15, 2007, 06:29:57 AM
Post by: longeyes on August 15, 2007, 08:10:05 AM
How many people crowd onto a creaking bus isn't necessarily a measure of a great transportation system. It's a great country, even now, but some things need to be identified and fixed if we want it to stay that way in the future.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2007, 09:06:19 AM
If this country is in such dire straights why is it that more people are still wanting to come to this country than want to leave?
EVERY country is worse than this one in one way or another. People want to move here from, e.g. Germany in part because entrepreneurship is rewarded here while it is taxed in Germany.
I do not know any group of refugees for whom the U.S. is not the preferred destination.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 12:36:06 PM
Quote
it is estimated that Wal Mart has saved the average consumer $3,000 a year in lower prices
for a bunch of plastic fantastic junk from China that winds up in the landfill.Except that Wal-Mart sells clothing. And shoes. And cooking utensils, pots, pans, dishes, flatware, etc. And towels. And tools. And light bulbs. And fabric by the yard. And food, for humans and animals. And the afore-mentioned lawn care implements (just not Snapper). And motor oil. And car batteries. And electric lamps so you don't have to use kerosene. But you're right. All of that stuff is just frivolous junk.
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 12:48:58 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 15, 2007, 12:58:03 PM
90% (or more) of it substandard crap made by slave labor in third world sweatshops. But, hey, it's a free country. Shop 'til ya drop
Last time I looked it was the same brands sold pretty much everywhere else, only cheaper.
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 01:06:33 PM
90% (or more) of it substandard crap made by slave labor in third world sweatshops.
I don't know if all of that is true, and it's not that I don't care. Like I said, I don't shop at Wal-Mart very often. My point was that Wal-Mart saves customers money on stuff that is neither junky nor plastic. A lot of their merchandise are necessary items, not trinkets.
Post by: JohnBT on August 15, 2007, 04:02:14 PM
I thought it was FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society. Of course I could be wrong, because being a baby boomer they were a little before my time.
John
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 15, 2007, 04:38:09 PM
"I blame baby boomers for opening the door wide to socialism, myself."
I thought it was FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society. Of course I could be wrong, because being a baby boomer they were a little before my time.
John
I thought it was FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society. Of course I could be wrong, because being a baby boomer they were a little before my time.
John
And fistful thought he was a scapegoat......
Post by: longeyes on August 15, 2007, 08:46:46 PM
Here's what we're facing:
U.S. agents accused of aiding Islamist scheme
August 15, 2007
By Sara Carter -
A criminal investigations report says several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are accused of aiding Islamic extremists with identification fraud and of exploiting the visa system for personal gain.
The confidential 2006 USCIS report said that despite the severity of the potential security breaches, most are not investigated "due to lack of resources" in the agency's internal affairs department.
"Two District Adjudications Officers are allegedly involved with known (redacted) Islam terrorist members," said the internal document obtained by The Washington Times.
The group "was responsible for numerous robberies and used the heist money to fund terrorist activities. The District Adjudications Officers made numerous DHS database queries to track (Alien)-File movement and check on the applicants' status for (redacted) members and associates."
According to the document, other potential security failures include reports that:
Employees are sharing detailed information on internal security measures with people outside the agency.
A Lebanese citizen bribed an immigration officer with airline tickets for visa benefits.
A USCIS officer in Harlington, Texas, sold immigration documents for $10,000 to as many as 20 people.
A USCIS employee, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, said many of the complaints in the multipage document are as many as three years old.
"Terrorists need immigration documents to embed in our society and work here without raising alarm bells," said the employee.
"Whether through bribing an immigration officer, an employee with the department of motor vehicles, or utilizing highly effective counterfeit documents produced by the Mexican drug cartels. They are always looking for that documentation to live amongst us."
Bill Wright, spokesman with USCIS, said that he could not comment on any ongoing investigations but that USCIS "takes all internal allegations seriously."
"The investigations that are referenced are ongoing investigations that we can not comment on," Mr. Wright told The Times. "We take all of these allegations seriously, and we are acting on them. For anyone to suggest that they are ignored is blatantly wrong."
In March, USCIS established the Office of Security and Integrity to investigate internal corruption.
"We'd like to clean up our own house first," Mr. Wright said.
The office would add 65 investigators and internal-review specialists, for a total of 245 employees and contract employees, but none of the new 65 vacancies approved in March has been filled.
Last week, The Times disclosed a confidential DEA report substantiating the link between Islamic extremists and Mexican drug cartels. The 2005 DEA report states that Middle Eastern operatives, in U.S. sleeper cells, are working in conjunction with the cartels to fund terrorist organizations overseas. Several lawmakers promised congressional hearings based on the information disclosed in the DEA documents.
The DEA report also stated that Middle Eastern extremists living in the U.S. who speak Spanish, Arabic and Hebrew fluently are posing as Hispanic nationals.
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez in March told Congress that he could not establish how many terror suspects or persons of special interest have been granted immigration benefits.
"While USCIS has in place strong background check and adjudication suspension policies to avoid granting status to known terror risks, it is possible for USCIS to grant status to an individual before a risk is known, or when the security risk is not identified through standard background checks," said a statement provided to lawmakers.
"USCIS is not in a position to quantify all cases in which this may have happened. Recognizing that there may be presently known terror risks in the ranks of those who have obtained status previously."
Mr. Gonzalez's response, along with the 2006 USCIS document obtained by The Times, show a "pattern of national security failures that have put the nation at risk," the agency source said.
Another investigation involved more than seven USCIS and Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE) employees including special agents and senior district managers who were moving contraband via "diplomatic pouches" to the United States from China.
ICE the original investigating agency downgraded the criminal investigation to a managerial problem, and the case was never prosecuted, a source close to the investigation said.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 03:19:35 AM
The Irish staged riots in NY during the Civil War against conscription.
None of this is new. The idea that sometime, somehow we were one country united in our beliefs and goals is just bunk. Things were no better 100 years ago than today, probably worse in some areas. Politics was no more civil then, not 30 years ago, not 50 years ago, not 150 years ago.
Post by: longeyes on August 16, 2007, 05:59:53 AM
This country has been unified around certain fundamental values and principles. E plurius UNUM, my friend. Without that level of basic unity we are not a nation. That is elementary.
And citing dissident groups really doesn't equate to the creation of a vast class--in the tens of millions--that now feels it is a nation apart.
You can posit all the "doom and gloom" to my messages you wish. I'm a realist and a pragmatist. If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2007, 06:04:45 AM
If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.
Based on the venom and anti-patriotic "we all suck, we're the terrorists" self-loathing I saw last time I perused Daily Kos, I'd not disagree with that. But it'll be people who love the country versus the leftist nihilists who just want to watch it burn.
Post by: longeyes on August 16, 2007, 08:12:44 AM
And we are all, whether we know it or not, choosing sides.
Political cries for "unity" mean nothing when an increasing contingent of people in this country despise their own nation and see no problem with ripping asunder its basic values, principles, and legal protections.
Don't think I like coming to this conclusion. I hate the prospect of what might be on the way. But I know a lot of "liberals" and I find myself increasing unable to even break bread with many of them without hearing irrational venom directed at everything I believe in.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 08:18:58 AM
Let me get this straight, "Rabbi:" you are defending what look to me like treasonable activities by government officials?
This country has been unified around certain fundamental values and principles. E plurius UNUM, my friend. Without that level of basic unity we are not a nation. That is elementary.
And citing dissident groups really doesn't equate to the creation of a vast class--in the tens of millions--that now feels it is a nation apart.
You can posit all the "doom and gloom" to my messages you wish. I'm a realist and a pragmatist. If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.
This country has been unified around certain fundamental values and principles. E plurius UNUM, my friend. Without that level of basic unity we are not a nation. That is elementary.
And citing dissident groups really doesn't equate to the creation of a vast class--in the tens of millions--that now feels it is a nation apart.
You can posit all the "doom and gloom" to my messages you wish. I'm a realist and a pragmatist. If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.
Since the COnstitution defines what is treasonable and what isn't, please explain what treasonable actions you refer to.
As for "e pluribus unum" I do not think that means every citizen must have the same POV. I do not think it even refers to individual citizens.
As for your "vast class" this canard is very old. As old as Ben Franklin who wrote about the aliens destroying this country who could not be assimilated. He was referring to the Germans living in PA btw. I guess even the Founders got it wrong sometimes.
You are neither a realist nor a pragmatist. You are an alarmist.
Post by: longeyes on August 16, 2007, 09:13:47 AM
No one said all citizens should have "the same POV." But they should subscribe to the principles of the Constitution and abide by American law, wouldn't you say? I mean if you really want a sovereign nation, of course.
If you read the story I posted you know what the potential treason is. Aiding and abetting enemies of the nation is treason, and that's precisely what's being alleged.
Yes, I'm an "alarmist." That doesn't mean I don't see possible responses to the dangers we face. But better to be an alarmist than a Lotus-eater. I assume you own firearms if you're on this board--does that make you an alarmist or just a realist?
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 09:27:20 AM
Rabbi, I have lived in Los Angeles for a long time. I've been around the country. The notion that we have a lot of people hostile to basic American values is, sir, no mere "canard."
I agree. Almost everyone in America is hostile to basic American values. About half of them believe in using government to rob their fellow citizens, and roughly half believe in projecting American military power abroad. There's hardly a soul left alive who believes in "free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 10:09:58 AM
Quote
"free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."
Nice utopian sentiment. Too bad human nature makes it impossible.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 10:27:22 AM
Quote
"free trade with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."
Nice utopian sentiment. Too bad human nature makes it impossible.
What's Utopian about it? Threaten me and I shoot you. Don't threaten me, and I trade with you. Pick a fight with your neighbor, and I'll continue to trade with you--but if you try to drag me into the fight, I'll decline.
Worked for Switzerland for half a thousand years or so.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 10:50:47 AM
Rabbi, I have lived in Los Angeles for a long time. I've been around the country. The notion that we have a lot of people hostile to basic American values is, sir, no mere "canard." I suggest you widen your reading. Comparing fears of Germans two hundred years ago with an invasion, in the tens of millions, by illegals, mostly from Latin America is rank foolishness and an insult to any rational debate. The "Reconquista" extremists exist. So does MS-13. This is no "canard." Black people living in Highland Park, near me, have been targeted for assassination--justs because they are black--by militant Mexican gangsters. That is the subject of a current Federal case here. No, it's no "canard."
No one said all citizens should have "the same POV." But they should subscribe to the principles of the Constitution and abide by American law, wouldn't you say? I mean if you really want a sovereign nation, of course.
If you read the story I posted you know what the potential treason is. Aiding and abetting enemies of the nation is treason, and that's precisely what's being alleged.
Yes, I'm an "alarmist." That doesn't mean I don't see possible responses to the dangers we face. But better to be an alarmist than a Lotus-eater. I assume you own firearms if you're on this board--does that make you an alarmist or just a realist?
No one said all citizens should have "the same POV." But they should subscribe to the principles of the Constitution and abide by American law, wouldn't you say? I mean if you really want a sovereign nation, of course.
If you read the story I posted you know what the potential treason is. Aiding and abetting enemies of the nation is treason, and that's precisely what's being alleged.
Yes, I'm an "alarmist." That doesn't mean I don't see possible responses to the dangers we face. But better to be an alarmist than a Lotus-eater. I assume you own firearms if you're on this board--does that make you an alarmist or just a realist?
Of course thousands of Germans 200 years ago is about the same percentage as 10s of millions today. Of course there are no tens of millions. The total illegal population is estimated at about 10 million. If someone assumes that everyone in Latin America is itching to move here and that 10% will actually make it then he'd be right. Of course he'd also be an idiot because not everyone in Latin America wants to move here.
As for MS 13 and Mexican gangs, yeah. So what? So some tiny number as an overall percentage of the population has some weird notion or are criminals. I don't see that that proves anything. We have had gangs of criminals here for hundreds of years, all of them with values opposed to the Constitution. We haven't collapsed yet. No, the end is not near.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 11:19:01 AM
Quote
Worked for Switzerland for half a thousand years or so.
Nope. What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 11:22:13 AM
Nope. What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.
I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on August 16, 2007, 11:26:15 AM
The estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the USA range from 8-20million and that roughly 70% of them are Mexican. Current Mexican population is a little over 108million. So, 5.2%-13% of Mexico's population is already here in the USA. These percentages do not take into account legal immigrants or naturalized US citizens who Mexico still considers Mexican citizens.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 11:46:29 AM
Nope. What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.
I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.
--Len.
That wins the non-sequitur comment of the week award.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 11:56:38 AM
Nope. What worked for Switzerland is they made themselves an indespensible repository for anonymous money and, when that didn't work, people like us stepped in from time to time and kept them from getting stomped into cheese flavored goo.
I look forward to your references on US military intervention in Switzerland.
That wins the non-sequitur comment of the week award.
It's a perfect sequitur: he claims that people like us stepped in to keep them from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 12:02:08 PM
Quote
That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.
Maybe you should take a history class and get back to us.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:04:08 PM
Quote
That's in fact false, as will become obvious as soon as he tries to come up with examples of "people like us stepping in," etc.
Maybe you should take a history class and get back to us.
Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 12:10:10 PM
Quote
Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.
If you're going to belabor something that blatantly obvious, then nothing I or anyone else could say will make any difference.
By the way, what was your handle over at THR?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:29:34 PM
Quote
Not even one little pointer? That's called "shifting the burden of proof." Hopefully you won't reply by saying, "I'm not doing your homework for you... go back to school." That one has been done to death. The burden of proof rests with you, and you can start by giving one good example.
If you're going to belabor something that blatantly obvious, then nothing I or anyone else could say will make any difference.
In other words, you give up. OK, that's OK.
--Len.
As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 12:33:51 PM
Quote
As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.
:snicker:
You need to broaden your horizons a bit, buddy. There's a lot more to history than the few short years of WWII.
And we're still waiting to know who you were over at THR. Or does the question bring up too many bad memories?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:35:18 PM
Quote
As an aside, if you think it's "blatantly obvious," then I'm going to guess that you think the allies somehow "saved" Switzerland in World War II. If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea; Switzerland was not threatened at any point, and no military action was undertaken by the allies in her defense.
:snicker:
You need to broaden your horizons a bit, buddy. There's a lot more to history than the few short years of WWII.
Still can't come up with any examples? Not even one? Pity.
Quote
And we're still waiting to know who you were over at THR.
Who's "we"? The royal "we"? Are "we" royalty, then? If you're curious, it isn't that tough to guess: my user name was my last name.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 12:43:26 PM
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 01:04:22 PM
Keep stirrin'.
It's pointless to keep going in circles. You refused the burden of proof, so you lose. It's that simple.
But you're wrong anyway. The last invasion of Switzerland was by Napoleon in 1789. The Swiss resisted, and the French pulled out in 1803. No other nations came to her aid. Before that the Swiss lost the battle of Marignano, but that was fought in Italy and Switzerland was not invaded. Before that, the Duke of Burgundy invaded in 1475; the Swiss were in the end victorious, without help, and have been essentially independent ever since, with the exception of the five years' occupation by Napoleon.
You'll have to help me out here. When was the part where "people like us" rushed to their aid so they wouldn't be squished into a "cheese-like goo"?
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 01:06:04 PM
Brad
p.s. - If you came over to APS thinking that this is a win/lose forum like Ell & Pee was getting over at THR, you might want to reconsider your motives.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 01:10:24 PM
You have invasion on the brain today, don't you? It ever occur to you that might not be the point?
I have no idea what you mean by "people like us" stepping in to keep them from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo," since you refuse to tell us. You apparently admit that whatever you're claiming, it has nothing to do with preventing or repelling an invasion of Switzerland, which is certainly a reasonable interpretation of being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." You also claimed that whatever you're referring to is "blatantly obvious."
You'll have to give an example of "blatantly obvious" stepping in by "people like us" in order to keep Switzerland from being "stomped into cheese-flavored goo." This will be especially interesting since you claim it has nothing to do with any military invasion of Switzerland.
But I'm not going to keep asking; guessing games are pointless.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 01:15:06 PM
Quote
But I'm not going to keep asking; guessing games are pointless.
Then stop guessing and go do a little research. You might learn something.
Brad
Post by: jnojr on August 16, 2007, 01:24:21 PM
If we continue on the current path we are looking at a civil war in America that will make the last one look like war games.
I agree with this to some extent.
Look at American politics today... we have two parties that are bitterly opposed, yet really aren't very different. Each party is far more interested in demagoguery and one-upsmanship than leading. Both parties have their rabid supporters who bitterly hate those of the other party. And neither party really represents most of the country... voter turnout keeps dropping because people are sick and tired at having two choices, neither of which is palatable to them.
So, we have Red America, Blue America, and a whole bunch of people who really don't care and just want to live their lives, but who aren't allowed to because of the first two. On top of that, a huge and growing population of illegal aliens who have no interest in assimilating into any form of our society... they want to do things just like they do back home.
If only Red and Blue were geographic as well as ideological boundaries... there'd be a civil war, all right, but I think it would get resolved without too terribly much time and bloodshed. But we simply cannot remain as one country the way we're going. And, frankly, I don't want to... I don't want to be the subject of a massive, indifferent bureaucracy thousands of miles away that cares nothing for me, except for how much wealth it can extract from me. I have just as much representation with that distant, foreign government as the Founding Fathers of our country had with England... so what if I get to vote for "representatives", when none of those representatives actually represent me, and their elections are foreordained anyway!
The government in Washington D.C. has no real legitimacy any more. It has grown and expanded far beyong the limitations that were set on it. So what if a group of old men made some decision decades before I was born saying that that was OK? We're supposed to have a government "by the consent of the governed", yet I have never given my consent, nor is there any method which they would recognize by which I could withdraw my consent if I had. If my consent is not required any more, and if I may not withdraw consent... how am I not a slave? What difference is there between what we have now, and some random stranger sticking a gun in my face and telling me that I must work for him now?
The tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And I doubt that anyone could disagree that that tree is pretty sickly right now.
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2007, 01:32:01 PM
(note that I did not use any keypad characters)
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 16, 2007, 03:09:13 PM
Worked for Switzerland for half a thousand years or so.
--Len.
--Len.
Ah yes, Switzerland, that bastion of Utopian Libertarianism for
Quote
half a thousand years or so
withQuote
"free trade in gold teeth, art and family heirlooms with all, wars and entangling alliances with none."
Now there's something to aspire too!