Journal pudge's Journal: GOP Conspiracy Theory Du Jour 7
The last GOP national convention was held in New York City, following the September 11 attacks.
The next GOP national convention is in Minneapolis
This time they picked the location before the tragedy. So which is it? Did the GOP know that the bridge would collapse and kill ones of people, or did they cause it themselves?
Speaking of the bridge collapse, I don't get why this is a big issue. They thought the bridge was safe, they were wrong. Maria Bartiromo echoed the views of many when she said this weekend on McLaughlin Group that there's something wrong with the bridge collapsing in the "richest country in the world," as if money has anything to do with it.
(Not to mention that as a business reporter, she should understand money better to know that if we fixed everything that people thought should be fixed in the "richest country in the world," we wouldn't be the richest country in the world anymore.)
If we thought the bridge was unsafe, we would have found money to fix it. It's not about money, it's not about priorities, it's about us not being nearly as smart as we think we are, such that we say a bridge is safe when it isn't.
To a lesser degree, it's also about lack of government ability and the lack of confidence in government that comes with it. In Seattle, public officials said they wanted a Big Dig. Which, to most people, means huge cost overruns in the tens of billions, deadlines missed by many years, and massive corruption, all to get something that may never result in a net benefit (it's going to take decades to come out as a net benefit for time spent in traffic, and may never have a net economic benefit).
No one would ever say, "let's not pay money to fix a bridge that is going to collapse," unless the bridge were no longer needed, in which case you close it down. People are more than willing to pay money to do that. It's not about the money.
oh good grief (Score:1)
Ya but it's a good opportunity, if you have a tax and spend/govt. growth philosophy or agenda, to try to trick people into thinking it is. Like advertisers try to do sometimes, and slip some "logic" past us fast enough that they know people will tend to just accept it without having really any time to think about it. It's a con by folks who don't have any other way of getting people on board, who aren't already.
Why do you always beat around the bush in your political JE's? Is it not
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the money.
Ya but it's a good opportunity, if you have a tax and spend/govt. growth philosophy or agenda, to try to trick people into thinking it is. Like advertisers try to do sometimes, and slip some "logic" past us fast enough that they know people will tend to just accept it without having really any time to think about it. It's a con by folks who don't have any other way of getting people on board, who aren't already.
Why do you always beat around the bush in your political JE's? Is it not completely obvious that that's actually what's going on?
Well, um, that's the point: it's obvious enough that there's no need for me to bother to say it.
It's part money & priorities (Score:2)
But there also is an aspect of ignoring our infrastructure in favor of social & feel good, "look what I did" spending that has been going on for years. While a lot of the bridges and roads aren't to the point of being in shambles, so many are beyond what their intended lifespan was. Bridges that
Re: (Score:2)
I think to a large extent, it's also about playing the odds. Again if we were convinced a bridge were unsafe, money would be found. But it's not that clear of a case. I'd imagine it's more like a well-engineered and built brand new bridge has maybe a 1 in 1 million chance of catastrophic failure 1 in 100,000 of minor failure. As they age, the numbers increase. At what point then, do lawmakers decide it's worth replacing?
If it's still only 1 in 1,000, then Joe Politician may decide to roll the dice, instead choosing to spend money on things that will better result in him getting re-elected. If the engineers and so on say it is safe, we can't expect any money to be put toward replacing it. It's not about priorities at that point, for many politicians. It's about this not even being up for consideration if it is still considered to be safe for the next N years.
There is an ever-increasing chance my car will just stop workin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between your car and a bridge (not that you don't know, I'm just trying to make a point) is your car isn't going to fail to the point of costing many/any lives. For bridges, especially high traffic ones, we should have a much lower tolerance for risk because the cost is so much greater - and not just lives though that's where most attention will be but also the economic impact
Sure. I am just making the point that the level of risk is something to be evaluated, not slavishly adhered to, else we would be replacing or upgrading bridges every time the current bridge has an estimated level of risk higher than it otherwise would. That's not tenable either.
We need to do something in between constantly upgrading and replacing, and what we've got now. But the rhetoric I hear the last week seems to imply that any increased level of risk is unacceptable, and that's just wrong.
Also, liv
Ones of people (Score:2)
Thank you for that hearty laugh. Now I think I'll go share it with coworkers. :)