On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > > So who do you plan to vote for for Mayor of San Diego? > > > > I'm still watching this one.
Watching till the game is over is fine. And a typically noncommital move. But what of making a decision to participate with more energy, to actually support soemone agressively. To be an active participant, rather than a passive bystander? > > However, one plus that Sanders has in his corner is that he got the fire > handling right. Yeah, it wasn't all Sanders, and he is benefiting from the > hindsight of the Cedar fires. However, it was a model of competency--he had > the right people in the right positions. These fires are actually not necessary. There are reasonable ways to prevent the massive fires that all "reasonable" people say are inevitable. But just try to get even $50,000 to pursue such a thing. Millions for disaster recovery, nada for disaster prevention. Fires are big revenue generators for the local bureacracy and the insurance companies. Why would they want to reduce their impact? > In addition, I remember Duncan Hunter doing some political grandstanding > and Sanders and staff rather bluntly stating that we have a plan, we'll ask > for the feds when we can use them, and, if you really want to help us, send > money after we're done. Otherwise, stay out of our way. And the circle jerk goes on and on. > Given how badly the Feds have screwed up most disaster efforts under Dubya, > I applauded. These fires are preventable but not without some serious efforts that no one is even willing to consider. It is much more politically viable to say "fires are inevitable" then to get huge budgets to fight them. The SoCal fire situation is a classic example of human stupidy at every level imaginable. So it goes, BobLQ PS. "How do you prevent fires?" -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
