Bridge Collapse

[xoxoxoBruce]

See, I told you he could make a rational, succinct, post.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I heard on the news today that the next step will be to bring in Navy Salvage Divers to remove the biggest bits by large commercial cranes that are on the way. Should be an interesting engineering feat.

Dangerous work, I wish them the safest of all jobs and honor their service.

As for politicians... again, I don;t care if they can speak at all.
If they vote for what I want they can just stand in front of the mike dressed as Elvis in a tutu and curse.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

All I know is that the cell phones were jammed.

I read an article that discussed this. It took a few hours for Cingular and another cell phone company to setup emergency response cells meaning that cells were overloaded in the vicinity of that bridge collapse for two hours.

Meanwhile, I have been saying this for a long time. Why do you use and setup text messaging in your phone? So many older friends cannot be bothered. But when disaster strikes, only text messaging is remains reliable.

The report went on to suggest land line traffic was heavy. It was not stated whether land lines were overloaded - that fast dialing tone.

Curiously, the article suggested that Nextel users did not have the access problems that others were suffering. Do Twin City residents not heavily use Sprint Nextel?

[Clodfobble]

If I understand correctly, "Nextel" users may make walkie-talkie style calls to other Nextel users, but must access the "Sprint" network if they want to make normal cell phone calls to other brands of cell phone. If the article is only referring to the Nextel network being open, that would make sense: around here, Nextel is almost exclusively business-based. Couriers, and other traveling workers, use them to call the home office while they are out in the field. Most people wouldn't be calling coworkers when there is a catastrophe, they'd be trying to call friends and family, which may mean they were counted in Sprint's network problems instead.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

there are a lot of politicians who are a bit lacking in social skills if you ask me.

lol

Of all the politicians I've worked for/with, I'd have to say that precious few have good personal social skills.

[DanaC]

es, I could never be a politician. A politician puts human emotion ahead of honesty. Lying is too much part of the job.

Well. I didn't say you'd be a good, or a bad politician. Merely pointed out to UG that his assertion that you have no interpersonal skills and therefore wuold never make a politician, was false. First off, he cannot tell from forum posts what your interpersonal skills might be in the real world, and secondly, politicians are people and there are those with and those without those interpersonal skills:P

On a slight tangent from where this was heading: I do slightly resent your characterisation of polticians. Not all politicians lie routinely, some are actually very decent people. I've met local and national politicians who work hard and are dedicated to the communities they serve. I've also met some absolute vipers.

[bluecuracao]

You're right, Dana. For the most part, politicians want to do right by the people they represent (good social skills or not).

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I do slightly resent your characterisation of polticians. Not all politicians lie routinely, some are actually very decent people. I've met local and national politicians who work hard and are dedicated to the communities they serve. I've also met some absolute vipers.

It is the nature of that environment. A politician that is a superb liar indeed has the inside track. Even honest men must lie or 'spin' to be reelected.

So when we talk about an honest politician, it is not an oxymoron. What we have are politicians who lie more often when things are less relevant.

For example, I was struck by the honesty of Bob Dole, a former presidential candidate. On Nightline, in response to a Ted Koppel question, Dole was so honest as to start his answer with something like, "Well Ted, I am going to avoid your question". One way to answer what a politician does not want to answer. Koppel was in the unusual position where he could not say, "You did not answer my question so I will ask it again." A rare example of honesty.

Numerous others don't bother to be so honest. As a result, more honest Republican power brokers such as Gingrich and Dole were uncerimoniously undermined and replaced by outright liars such as Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and other loyal friends of Abramoff and his peers. Gingrich is reported to hold exceptional contempt for what Tom Delay did to him. Lying created fertile ground for other corrupt government lawmakers and administrators. For example, 102 Republicans and 1 Democrat convicted in
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2007/08...rehensive.html

A list that does not include the CA Congressman who smashed all standards for corruption - Duke Cunningham.

It is extremely difficult for a politician to get elected and be honest. As George Jr so proved, lying is so easy especially to the most religious that most Americans, including so many here, believed George Jr's obviously lies about Saddam and those WMDs.

BrianR noted my contempt for America's worst president. What he forgot mention after what - 15 years? Combine every post of contempt for every politician. That total number from 15 years does not even approach numbers that accurately describe George Jr in only one month. George Jr also sets new standards for lying - and repeatedly getting away with it. Not noted in BrianR's post is how much contempt I have for a politician who lies most often, repeatedly, and earned political support by doing so.

So who do we blame? The world class liar George Jr? Or people who believe his lies? Why do politicians find lying necessary? Look at what lying has done for a mental midget like George Jr. Even Jesus Christ would eventually have to lie to be elected to public office. Ever wonder why high office is also called a hot seat? Chairs constructed for devils.

What does that say about those who support the most liars such as George Jr?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One imagines an annoyed tw, on the scene, sternly ranting at all the people trying to help the kids on the bus.

"Ridiculous people. Only the foolish would be emotional. This bus is not the most important matter right now. Focus your priority: we must all look for and document evidence in the water that will help explain the bridge failure, before it is carried downstream and lost."

Somehow, this just has to be delivered in Zoidberg's voice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One imagines an annoyed tw, on the scene, sternly ranting at all the people trying to help the kids on the bus.

Meanwhile, what tw posted is contrary to what UT "imagines". Notice that very first paragraph about that school bus (which is what set Yesman065 into a meltdown tirade):

Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.

A tw has been seen running past the gaukers to start a solution. But tw, UT, and Yesman065 were not there. A responsible and very first question that tw, UT, and Yesman065 should ask (if concerned for children on every school bus) is "why did this happen?" or "what kids are currently at risk and where?"

Meanwhile, UG again takes cheap shots by quoting a UT post that contradicts what tw posted. Well that is logical and predictable since UG's routinely posts personal attacks on tw (and others); since UG has been caught repeatedly lying by tw. So where are all those fallen dominos in SE Asia?

The post remains accurate, pertinent, still unanswered, and obviously attacks no one:

Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.

A bridge fails in America every week.

Why UG is even posting is his need to post personal attacks on one who repeatedly exposes his lies.

Still at risk are other school busses: every school bus that was not on that bridge last week and is still carrying kids over other bridges. These bridge failures are predictable. Another question still not answered: how predictable was this failure. Or was the problem identified? Question far more important than unharmed kids on one school bus.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

You're right, Dana. For the most part, politicians want to do right by the people they represent (good social skills or not).

I think you're right because it's the best way to cultivate the loyalty and adoration of their constituents.
The loyalty for obvious job security.... the adoration for their egos, that people who wish to be in the spotlight, seem to have in abundance.

[DanaC]

The loyalty for obvious job security.... the adoration for their egos, that people who wish to be in the spotlight, seem to have in abundance.

Not all politicians crave the spotlight. They do it, because they have to increase their profile in order to reach as many constituents as possible and increase their chances of geting elected/re-elected.

The politicians who tend to crave that limelight are the serious, career politicians, the ones who are looking to get somewhere prominent on the national stage. Most politicians I've met are actually quite uncomfortable with media attention, and being the centre of attention at functions as well. This is one reason most polticians seek media training. It's not actually their natural habitat.

Even on the national scene, the representatives that each constituency elects to Parliament as an MP, are mostly people who've had other careers and other experiences. Most aren't 'career politicians' in that sense. We get more of them these days mind, people coming out of university with a political career in mind from the start. But for instance, my local MP worked in a bank until she got ill in her early 30s and lost her job because of it. She went off and got herself an English degree and was persuaded to run for Council, before eventually running for MP. She's the most down to earth normal person you're ever likely to meet. She lives in an ordinary little dormer bungalow, with a small lawn at the front. She hates having her photo taken and when she's been interviewed on tv she phones her sister to see if she watched it, and did her hair look okay?

They're just people. Most of them you'll never know their names, because they're not in the cabinet or in some prominent national role. They're just local MPs and they serve their local communities. You only see them as rows of faces on the green seats at Prime Minister's Questions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your politicians are unlike our politicians.

[DanaC]

Most people in this country view our politicians in much the way you do yours bruce. That's because most of what we see of politicians are a) the high flying media darlings, or heavy hitters on the national scene, or b) politicians on the campaign trail where it's their job to court publicity and support.

a) is a minority, b) is most/all politicians for a portion of their time.

What might make yours seem more about the limelight, could be that more stuff is on an elected basis over there. Many of the high ranking public service roles for which you hold an election, we do not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm not talking about National or even statewide office holders, but the local town/county politicians. Mostly businessmen or lawyers full time and hold political office on a part time basis. This accounts for the vast majority of our politicians.