Ben Stein is right!

Fact is with most older, intelligent men, not only are they more mature, less into head games, and all around more civilized individuals, they are also more experienced in other things. Things that I enjoy very much and enjoy even more because they know what they are doing.

I gotcha ;) duh! I'm slow sometimes.

Well I guess that just took you out of the running. :)

Geothermal energy works best in areas where there is an upwelling of magma and/or the Earth's crust is thin. These areas occur where there is volcanic activity, or where warm springs or geysers can be found. Iceland makes good use of geothermal energy. In the United States, Yellowstone would be a promising area for geothermal energy, except it is a long distance from population centers, and would need some heavy duty high voltage transmission wires to get the generated electricity out of there to where it is needed.

I just got into this discussion and clicked on the link for the evacuation plan and it's gone. What a shock...... I don't want to sound TOO naive, but can anyone else use this link?

Gee, I'm crushed! So easily tossed out with yesterday's trash. haha I'm not really slow. Uh...I just said I'm slow because I didn't know what else to type? yeah that's it... LOL

I bet you say that to all the girls. ;)

I have found that to be the best place for an open mind.

Hell, I don't know. I'm out of practice. With my pickup lines that is. Though I never had any good pickup lines in the first place. I think they only work in the movies.

.
And you'll find copies and/or excerpts of the evacuation plan in other places as well. But not on the city of New Orleans Web site.

And as far as your suggestion that "they were probably trying to get their networks working again", I guess it's ONLY that particular page of the site that was all wet -- in more than one way.

And Free Republic is a Great source for information. Thanks for posting the link. Keep reading stuff from there for the real story.

Also from Free Republic:

WASHINGTON - The Jefferson Parish president's emotional retelling of a mother's desperate calls from a New Orleans nursing home included details that conflict with the timeline of the tragedy.

The story, of a colleague's mother begging her son for rescue as flood waters rose after Hurricane Katrina, came to prominence on Sunday, Sept. 4, when Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans, was interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press. (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)

New details and interviews with the son whose mother died in the flood show that the tragedy unfolded from Saturday through Monday, Aug. 29 ? not Monday through Friday, Sept. 2 as recounted by Broussard. The owners of the nursing home were indicted Tuesday for the deaths of more than 30 residents, which officials say occurred on Aug. 29.

These Democrats are shameless. Shameless, I say!

Good answer, ITgirli. I don't know if I'd call it the other brain, I think I'd call it the anti-brain.

Both parties. Every level of government. This problem is really beyond partisanship. There is no doubt that all levels of government have failed those people.

Welfare was never the right way to solve poverty. It created too much dependency for people that weren't needy, just lazy. Every city in America has some poverty, but there is so much in LA. It is a huge problem that needs a better solution. They need to trained to be productive members of society. If the government pays for anything, it should be that.

Actually, I don't like either of the politicians you are talking about. Somewhere in the middle would be the right politician for me.

I do agree with your last paragraph, though. Clearly, you are on your own in the event of a disaster. Be prepared yourself.

Pure Puffery.

.
....when you said, "...and the Pres for not micromanaging every aspect of the country to make sure that everyone was up to snuff."

Micromanaging? Are you serious or are you being sarcastic? Micromanaging is a sign of a BAD manager, not an effective one.

Moreover, I have yet to see this federal response, in terms of time and materials, discussed in relative terms to other similar responses, hurricane Andrew, for example. And I also see the criticism levied from the very Democrats you mention, with a little help from their friends, of course -- their accomplices in the media and in the Democrat party. And as we've learned, the battle cry of the Democrat party of the past 20 or more years has been to only blame for everything under the sun; and their mission for the past 50 has been to get as many people as possible DEPENDENT on government. And they've done a fine job in Louisiana of completing their mission; and we all saw what results -- FAILURE at every turn.

Sarcastic to the end.

I am always amused/horrified by peoples complete lack of understanding of what the President does and what their powers are.

The Pres doesn't write laws.
The Pres doesn't enforce laws.

Congress runs the country, because they DO write the laws. The run the coutry because they are the ones that write out the check to pay for enforcement of the laws that they have written. Think even though they can't MAKE a state do something, they can't GET a state to so something? No funding for highways for you if you don't do XYZ. That is how Michigan was STUCK with 55 mph speed limits for a long time. (shudder).

The pres should have been more visable, as the clueless masses seem to think that if they can't SEE anything being done, then nothing is being done. How many of you out there COMPLAIN ALL THE TIME about jerk managers that think the same way? I have seen it many times complained about here in the last few months, that if the manager doesn't SEE you doing something, your not doing something. So why do you sheeple turn around and apply that same mentality to others? BAAAAAA! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

And now that Bush has stepped up and taken responsabilty for the federal involvement, the big complaint is that he didn't do it quick enough. It is never enough, and it is just LOOKING for a reason to critisize. Very unethical and dishonest.

Save the people, get them in their homes, THEN worry about your petty politics.

I've told you before...I don't advocate pork.

Even pointed out one for you by Democrat Tom Foley from years ago about a pork project for replacement of a pool in his district, when the existing one could be revamped for 20 percent of the cost.

You're wrong about me. You are just too proud to admit it. :D

It was a funnier proposition than you attempting Foghorn. :D

I'm gonna start the "SendMaxToPoliSciClass Fund"...and the motto will be..."Help make the demented...reinvented...as intended."

(yes...that was purposefully a la Jesse Jackson) :D

but was mistaken. Turned out I was right all along! :^O

And you didn't even READ my post. We aren't talking PORK here. We are talking money that was allocated for a very real need, and then the money was NOT used for that purpose. In business that would be fraud and embesslement. There would be CRIMINAL charges brought against them for taking money away from a program for public safety and spending it elsewhere.

This is NOT PORK, it is corruption and incompitence. (note, the state is NOT run by Republicans)

How can I be wrong when you refuse to discuss the same topic?

And I don't care WHAT your registered as, you are not kidding anyone as to your being a left leaning individual rather than a right leaning individual. Sure, you may not be kool-aid drinking left, but you are still left. "so far left, your wrong"! (love that saying!)

Are you going to tell me you voted for Bush EVER? Ducakas? No right leaning person would have ever voted for Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. And we know you have wet dreams about Clinton. :^O

Lucky for you, I know your not old enough to be blamed for Carter, our worst president ever. ;\

.
You agree with me when we both suggest, "you are on your own in the event of a disaster". Well how about this as a reasonable conclusion? You are ALSO on your own in the event of a non-disaster. If a person is capable of assuming self-responsibility in the case of a disaster, and we both must agree that he is, why in the world shouldn't that sentiment apply to life in general?

And again, I'm talking about more than just "welfare" when I discuss such things, although that's a major part of it, and it's really where it all began. The notion that government should step-in and solve an individual's problem is ludicrous. And it's doomed to fail. And it's not just the lazy. It used to be said that government dependency has bred a dependent class. But it's grown to even bigger proportions than that, where it's actually created a dependency culture.

Imagine this. The proponents of transfer of wealth programs, the ones that perpetuate this dependency on government mentality, dependency in any sense of the word and to any degree, are actually saying that some certain individual doesn't have the capacity to live his life without being dependent on government. They are, in essence, telling that individual that he's incapable; that he's stupid; that he's worthless. Try to go up to that individual and look him in the eye, and tell him to his own face that he's so stupid and worthless and incompetent that he can't even take care of himself. You'd probably get punched in the nose. These people that support such government dependency programs won't admit it, but that's exactly what they're doing, but just not face-to-face, and not in such blunt terms.

The dependency culture has created an expectation on government to solve ALL problems for ALL people at ALL times. And that's an expectation that simply cannot be met. And there is no middle ground, as you suggested. Actually, the search for that elusive middle ground has gotten us into this mess. A person should either be expected to take full and total self-responsibility or not. Once you make excuses and exceptions for one thing, you open the door to making excuses and exceptions for any and all things.

I like the way Stephen Covey describes it when discussing the merits of taking self-responsibility. First you have dependency. An illustration, of course, is little kids who are, by nature, dependent on others for their survival and growth. These dependent people can't really achieve anything, so the desired goal is not to remain dependent, but rather learn and achieve independence. Only when they reach the level of independence can their full potential be realized; and no personal achievement is beyond the realm of possibility. As Napoleon Hill first observed about a hundred years ago, what the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve. The third and final step is what's called inter-dependence. That's where the concerted efforts of independent people can achieve even greater things -- the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak. No one person could possibly go to the moon, but the combined efforts of a number of independent people can go to the moon and beyond, both literally and figuratively.

However, and this is the key, when "dependent" people are part of the "inter-dependent" system, it becomes not only a drain on the whole, but it denies them the individual opportunity to contribute to that whole. It not only denies them their right to independence, but dependent people are a drain on the system; and our current system is creating dependent people. Go figure! And you have to be careful not to get caught-up in the trap of excusing the dependent people in the name of inter-dependency. That bird simply won't fly. And you have to be careful of the people who want "temporary" dependency so as to help achieve independence. That bird won't fly either. And here is where the excuse of making an exception for those who literally can't be independent will surface. But it, too, won't fly. All those excuses are just that -- excuses. And it's all a ploy to assume control over people -- all people.

I once started a discussion with one sentence. "You can't fly like an eagle when you're cooped up with a bunch of turkeys." And it applies to both individuals and inter-dependent groups, whether that group be a family, a company, or a nation. Not too many people understood the meaning or intent behind that sentiment. I guess they're all wanna-be birds, i.e. turkeys, that just can't fly -- or are afraid to try.

Dependency: Democrats want a lot more of it. Republicans want a little more of it. But the best way is to have none of it.

.
.....you just end up looking stupid.

And this is also evidenced in your months long attempts to get itgirli to take you seriously. It's interesting how you've changed your tune towards her when compared to those earlier messages. She, too, realized early on that you're just stupid. She wasn't buying into your game, and neither am I, and neither are most.

Here's another link for you.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=181004&messageID=1849937

Take all your "wanna-be" political savvy and expertise, and try to put together some semblance of intelligible sentences to challenge my position.

And then go play in the traffic.

(Now is the time for your attempted "cute" come-back.)

Levees in this country are managed, operated, maintained and funded by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT under the guise of the Army Corps of Engineers.

http://www.usace.army.mil/who/

So, blame your boys if there was embezzlement going on in the contracts behind it. No state or city official put those guys there. Those are military or federally appointed people who are hiring those jobs.

So...now you're proven wrong. If the embezzlement exists, it was under the guise of Bush for the past 5 years.

Go have your drinks and golf...and...

Have a nice day :)

I must have hurt someone's feelings...poor Max.

Me? Not forming good sentences? I'll go to my writing style guide and reference it, rather than depend on your English skills. Thanks though.

As for you: You can't even equate government socialism to government socialism to back your argument. You have to go to such perspectives of minutia to prove your points, that your comparisons become unequated and therefore invalid.

At least I know the meaning of Socialism when it comes to a government...not just one of its policies, actions, or parts.

At least ITgirli doesn't take herself too seriously. You on the other hand need an enema, a muscle relaxant, and if that doesn't work a frontal labotomy. Might actually hit something and make your brain fire.

Go back to signing your papers, having your meetings, and being pompous.

At least I'm guaranteed you're good at the last one of those

oh...and...

Have a nice day :)

Local then state then federal. People need to decide once and for all if they want more or less federal intervention in our lives. Can't have it both ways for whatever is convenient.

I will post the article tonight.

Money has been taken way from both the leavies AND the evacutation plans and redirected locally on other projects.

You have NOT proven me wrong as I haven't provided you the information for you to TRY to prove me wrong. Or do you not need data to know if my point is valid or not? If it isn't Anti-Bush, it must be wrong? A very moderate stance. Nice and open minded of you.

At least M A R K has it right! He MUST be right, because he agreed with me! ;\

.
You jump to such stupid and absurd conclusions that it can only mean one thing.

There was the mayor of New Orleans behind the wheel of his bus, but when people tried to get on he said "Sorry, I can't let you on until the Feds get here."

(and what was in that "freezer sized box"?)

States are sovereign. The feds have no authority without state permission. An FBI agent can't even arrest someone in a state for a murder that took place within that state!

There's no such thing as independent data.

and a lot of people don't know the difference between acccepting responsibility and accepting blame.

"Did you ever break a neighbor's window with a baseball?" "Did you own up to it?" that's accepting blame. "Did your dad pay for the window?" That's accepting responsibility.

I will do my best to go through the budget office's records and find you the proposed budgets and allocated budgets for the New Orleans district where Bush stripped it out.

Now again...when it comes to who is responsible for fund misappropriation:

The Army Corps of Engineers manages the levees and they are federal, not state or local.

I pointed out previously that the Bush adminstration approved less than 25% of what was requested by the New Orleans District USACE.

You indicated the reason that it happened was because there was misuse of funds meant for levees, etc.

I indicated if this is the case, then this has been happening then for almost 5 years under the control of the Bush-led Administration.

Hence if it was occurring in 2001-2004 (which would be 4 years...sorry), it was the Bush Administration that is responsible for audits that check the accountability of dollars spent, because those civilian and military personnel given authority to spend money at the Army Corps of Engineers are Federal employees.

That's logic. Take it or leave it.

that was a la Nelson Muntz.

you say:

"You jump to such stupid and absurd conclusions that it can only mean one thing."

Absurd? Stupid?

ok...here's a list for you. No conclusions here. Definitions of "socialism" for you to ponder and read carefully so you understand that labels applied in a discussion of economics in relation to a government refer to an entire establishment, not an individual part or process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861709575/socialism.html
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378989

I don't try to be cute...

I am cute. :D

what was in the box?

It depends on the crime. For example, murder is the states' responsibility to prosecute so the FBI has no jurisdiction over that. If a federal official is murdered then the FBI and federal govt does have jurisdiction.

If I remember correctly:

If a kidnapping occurs and it goes across state lines, it is within federal jurisdiction.

If a crime is committed in or against a national park or on other federal property, that is within federal jurisdiction.

I hate to disagree with you but..YOU ARE SO OFF THE MARK. YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST WROTE ABOUT BEN STEIN AND PRESIDENT BUSH...WELL DO I HAVE A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU...I BET YOU'VE CHANGED YOU MIND SINCE YOU WROTE THAT...TELL YOU YOU HAVE...IF NOT YOU ARE IN SERIOUS NEED OF DE-PROGRAMING!....I HOPE I DON'T HAVE TO BE A REP. TO BE ON HERE...SORRY..

Lincoln sent Federal troops into Southern states in response to their illegal secession. They had renounced the Constitution so Lincoln had every right to send in troops.

I don't disagree that the Constitution has gotten beaten up on numerous occasions, but in this case you are just wrong.

There is no restriction in the US Constitution prohibiting states from seceding. And any power not prohibited to a state by the US Constitution is permitted according to the 10th Amendment. Therefore, Lincoln was not putting down an "illegal" rebellion, he was sending troops to conquer a sovereign country in a war of conquest. Whether that was legal or not is another matter, but since Congress backed Lincoln's war, then the War of Northern Agression was legal for Lincoln and the USA to fight, if devastating to the states that seceded and were conquered by the war. Sending in the troops to invade the Confederacy was a de-facto (if not formal) recognition of the sovereignty of the Confederacy, since Lincoln did not get permission of the state governments to intervene, but treated them as foreign territory to invade.

The southern states that seceeded formed a new country known as the Confederate States of America, similar to when the 13 former colonies united together in 1776 to form the United States of America, as declared in the Declaration of Independence.

"There are many countries that don't have ANY governmental oversight into polution from factories that polute much more than anything in the US"

Where is YOUR VALID, INDEPENDANT data to back this up? And even if it is true, does that mean nobody should bother about it? The USA might not be one of the biggest polluters but it is still a huge part of the problem. But hey, as long as you can keep driving about in your ridiculous SUV who cares what happens to our children and grandchildren.

.
He said, "Lincoln sent Federal troops into Southern states in response to their illegal secession."

If he claimed that instance was "illegal", by what authority, I must wonder? I also wonder what he would consider "legal", and also, by what "legal" authority?

By default and by definition, if a state or states do secede, then they denounce the US constitution, or refuse to adapt it, or whatever reasoning they would have for failing to recognize it. His reasoning seems to be an exercise in circular logic. Recognize the constitution, he suggests, and a state won't secede. Fail to recognize it, and you forfeit your constitutional right to secede. That bird just won't fly, except, of course, in a circular-logic pattern.

I wanted to hear his reasoning behind his comments.

I just took the opportunity to explain why the states that seceded in 1860-61 were well within their rights. He throws around the word "illegal" without quoting any specific laws, just like those who try to claim that the actions of the USA and its allies in Iraq are an "illegal war".