Obama:"I'm adopting the Tman 'Infrastructure Rebuild Plan'."

[travelinman67]

Obama wises up and chooses to rebuild America's infrastructure rather that wasting tax dollars on "feel good" entitlement programs. Good for him. This is a sign he's finally listening to the Conks. It's time to rebuild and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html

Obama had committed just before Thanksgiving to saving or creating 2.5 million jobs in the next two years, more than twice his campaign promise of 1 million new jobs over an unspecified period. But he didn’t say how he would do it. On Saturday, he began to spell it out, offering "five key parts" of his economic plan:
—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”

—BROADBAND: “As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.”

(Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had talked about expanding broadband access, but this is the first time the transition has formally proposed it.)

—ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: “In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”

Next step. Oversight. The Obama administration must have HEAVY oversight to prevent state and local governments from subverting the funding for "political agenda" diversions as California has done with transportation funding (no new road construction unless it facilitates "pay per use", "mass transit" or "eye candy [soundwalls, landscaping]"), and healthcare (low income ONLY, or youth [planned parenthood=abortion] centers). The public can assist by DEMANDING TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE of expenditures.

I'll post more on this later.

[Appaholic]

I agree...all these ideas are great....but wait until his proposals meet the pork trough of Congress. Carter started with good ideas such trying to create a comprehensive water plan to eliminate redundancy and conflicting government susidized projects. All those proposals made economic sense in 1977, but once the rubber met the road in Congress and projects were being eliminated in THEIR districts, the democrats turned on their president like pack of hyenas on carrion....I like Obama's thought process and I hope he is succesful for all of us....

[HI54UNI]

I agree...all these ideas are great....but wait until his proposals meet the pork trough of Congress. Carter started with good ideas such trying to create a comprehensive water plan to eliminate redundancy and conflicting government susidized projects. All those proposals made economic sense in 1977, but once the rubber met the road in Congress and projects were being eliminated in THEIR districts, the democrats turned on their president like pack of hyenas on carrion....I like Obama's thought process and I hope he is succesful for all of us....

Agreed. The idiots in Congress could screw up a wet dream.....

[travelinman67]

Oversight!

There's bound to be tons of pork and "bridges to nowhere" included in the spending package, but if the poli's are smart, they'll look at all the "crumbling infrastructure" issues first, deal with them, and if they want (...and they will), they can cook the contracts so they favor political patrons and constituents (...i.e., MBE/WBE/DBE/DVBE and Section 8 "patrons").
While not the "best" of solutions, it beats what's been happening for the past 40 years, with virtually NO infrastructure maintenance and expansion.
My BIGGEST worry is that the envirowhackos will go gonzo and block all new highway expansion, dams or other water projects. Also, if they REALLY are serious about addressing CO emissions, they could take an HUGE bite out of them by mandating via EPA the implementation of computer controlled traffic within the major urban areas. That may not seem like a big problem for folks who live and work in rural America, but there are MANY major urban areas who sequence traffic signals TO IMPEDE the flow of traffic (OH YES THEY DO!!!!!). I've read papers on the subject through Traffic Engineering trade publications, and the arguments used to support the method are concocted with "blinders on" half-baked rationale. The implementation of computer managed traffic flow would not only reduce CO emissions, but would annually save America/Americans BILLIONS in wasted fuel, productivity and wasted time.

Just my two cents worth.

Ya listening, Barack?

[lifesapuntreturn]

Obama wises up and chooses to rebuild America's infrastructure rather that wasting tax dollars on "feel good" entitlement programs. Good for him. This is a sign he's finally listening to the Conks. It's time to rebuild and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html

Obama had committed just before Thanksgiving to saving or creating 2.5 million jobs in the next two years, more than twice his campaign promise of 1 million new jobs over an unspecified period. But he didn’t say how he would do it. On Saturday, he began to spell it out, offering "five key parts" of his economic plan:
—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”

—BROADBAND: “As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.”

(Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had talked about expanding broadband access, but this is the first time the transition has formally proposed it.)

—ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: “In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”

Next step. Oversight. The Obama administration must have HEAVY oversight to prevent state and local governments from subverting the funding for "political agenda" diversions as California has done with transportation funding (no new road construction unless it facilitates "pay per use", "mass transit" or "eye candy [soundwalls, landscaping]"), and healthcare (low income ONLY, or youth [planned parenthood=abortion] centers). The public can assist by DEMANDING TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE of expenditures.

I'll post more on this later.

My take on what will actually happen in regard to the major components of Obama's infrastructure plan:

ENERGY - retrofitting federal buildings and replacing lightbulbs isn't going to make a significant difference and will cost many times more dollars than it will save. This is nothing more than a nod to the environmental libs, the green crowd. It is a feel-good exercise like most other environmental programs and will lead to $75,000/year government light bulb changers. A huge waste of time, energy (pun intended) and money.

ROADS AND BRIDGES - the only significant money will be spent in metro areas in blue presidential states. If Obama won your state's electoral votes and has a city of 500,000+, it will get money. If he didn't win your state and especially if you are a rural state with few electoral votes, your state will get squat. In Montana, for instance, there will be one new interstate highway interchange actually built, probably the one that's proposed for Belgrade along I-90. That will Montana's token project. If you live in Illinois, by contrast, especially in Chicagoland, there'll be many such projects funded. Same with NYC, LA, etc.

SCHOOLS - very similar to the "Roads and Bridges" paragraph above. Population centers of blue states will see most of the $, token money will go to rural and/or red states. We'll be told the taxpayers need to get the biggest bang for their buck and the way to do that is to start in the large cities. You rural people who cling to religion and guns, you're out of luck and on your own.

BROADBAND - we will be told his goal is for every American to have wireless internet access by 2010. It won't happen that fast but it will happen. Again, starting in the cities but in this case eventually expanding into rural America, he will actually meet this goal. It will be his "payback" to all Americans for the trillions of taxpayers dollars that Washington DC is spending now and will continue to spend in the coming years. He will recognize people have to get something for their money and that's how this will be promoted. No one in Congres will dare vote against it. The FCC meets this week, I believe it is, to consider allocating certain frequencies for this purpose. Even if they fail to approve it now, it will be revisited early in Obama's term and approved. It will happen over the loud protests of the current isp's but they'll be paid off to shut up and go away. Wireless towers and/or transmitters will begin to appear by 2010 and the project will be done by election day on 2012. It will be like telephone service - everyone in the country will have access to it if they want it and can afford it. There will probably also be some sort of give away program to access it via your tv like the old WebTV concept - cheap and limited but functional internet access.

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS - won't happen via the internet. A lot of people are like me and know the internet is not secure. As a result, we do not want our medical records floating around out there and even if it was secure we do not want them accessed by God knows who e.g. I'm not interested in being diagnosed with some ailment and then having every drug company around the world emailing me incessantly trying to get me to buy their drug to deal with my ailment. The internet thing won't fly. What they will end up doing, once they nationalize health care, which will happen by 2010, is that we will all get a medical identification/insurance card (the first step toward a national i.d. card requirement, by the way) with a computer chip embedded in it that will have all of our medical records on it. Every time you get medical care, your new/updated medical records information will be downloaded onto that card so the next time you get medical care, when you are required to present that "insurance" card, your current medical information will available to that doctor/clinic/hospital instantly.

Oversight will not change from it's present status. There will be all kinds of the usual corruption because the feds won't care. The state's will get this money in the form of block grants and it will be up to them to provide oversight. Some will do it well, most will cut corners like they always have. Nothing will change and if they are the "right" (blue) states, they'll be allowed to do as they please. Red states will be scrutinized. Same old same old bureaucratic approach to federal spending and oversight. The one's screaming into the darkness for oversight will be the states that don't get much money. The one's that get money will quietly go about the business of wasting as much as possible so they can get more. Obama's "use it or lose it" quote will be the mantra for this behavior.

[AZGrizFan]

SCHOOLS - very similar to the "Roads and Bridges" paragraph above. Population centers of blue states will see most of the $, token money will go to rural and/or red states. We'll be told the taxpayers need to get the biggest bang for their buck and the way to do that is to start in the large cities. You rural people who cling to religion and guns, you're out of luck and on your own.

And the funny thing about that is, we're just fine with that. Get the government to leave us the fuck alone and get out of our lives.

[Appaholic]

SCHOOLS - very similar to the "Roads and Bridges" paragraph above. Population centers of blue states will see most of the $, token money will go to rural and/or red states. We'll be told the taxpayers need to get the biggest bang for their buck and the way to do that is to start in the large cities. You rural people who cling to religion and guns, you're out of luck and on your own.

And the funny thing about that is, we're just fine with that. Get the government to leave us the [*]f**k alone and get out of our lives.

They'll leave you alone.....but don't forget to send the check.....

[grizzaholic]

And the funny thing about that is, we're just fine with that. Get the government to leave us the [*]f**k alone and get out of our lives.

They'll leave you alone.....but don't forget to send the check.....

Ain't that the truth.

[AZGrizFan]

And the funny thing about that is, we're just fine with that. Get the government to leave us the [*]f**k alone and get out of our lives.

They'll leave you alone.....but don't forget to send the check.....

If I COULD, I WOULD.

[D1B]

This is a sign he's finally listening to the Conks. It's time to rebuild and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure..

Uhh, Donks have been talking bout this big time, ever since your hero W started spending hundreds of billions on his war. Before your war, they'd been proposing it in lieu of massive military spending.

Perhaps your girl Palin could be picked to oversee this, seeing she "stopped' the bridge to nowhere and doesn't ask for nor accept D.C pork.

[travelinman67]

This is a sign he's finally listening to the Conks. It's time to rebuild and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure..

Uhh, Donks have been talking bout this big time, ever since your hero W started spending hundreds of billions on his war. Before your war, they'd been proposing it in lieu of massive military spending.

Perhaps your girl Palin could be picked to oversee this, seeing she "stopped' the bridge to nowhere and doesn't ask for nor accept D.C pork.

Horsecrap. The Dems have been opposing a comprehensive infrastructure EXPANSION and maintenance/rebuild program for the past 3 decades. California's new congressman, Tom McClintock accurately described the problem 5 years ago while a State Senator:

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclin ... sp?PID=211

Since 1974, the miles driven by Californians have increased 116 percent, while lane mileage has increased just 8 percent.

According to one of Jerry Brown’s deputies: “We are prepared to endure considerable outcry in order to pry John Q. Public out of his car.”

This policy has reached a new level with the election of Jerry Brown’s chief of staff, Gray Davis. Last summer, scant attention was paid when Davis announced that “California’s era of freeway construction is over.” I suggest to you that this statement ranks with “Let them eat cake,” and “Apres nous, le deluge” for sheer irresponsibility and lunacy in public policy.

Well, we stopped building freeways, the people came anyway, and they’re still in their cars.

I am here to state what is politically incorrect in bureaucratic circles, but what is self-evident to virtually every motorist on the road today. California policy makers have conducted a 30-year hate affair with the automobile, to the detriment of our economy, our safety, our environment, and our quality of life. And it is time – it is long past time – that Californians kicked them out of office and demanded the highways that we have paid for.

During those 30 years, we have heard the derisive and condescending comments about “Californians’ love affair with their cars.” California’s highway system was not due to an irrational love affair with a machine. It was the simple fact that the individualized transportation made possible by the automobile offers advantages that no mass-transit system could ever begin to duplicate: high-speed, low-cost, doorstep-to-doorstep, 24-hour a day on call service in safety, convenience and comfort, offering infinite flexibility in travel schedules and routes. It was this efficient, adaptable system that made 20th Century commerce possible – and it is the foundation upon which our ability to socially and commercially interact now rests.

But it is not popular with big government. Highly decentralized systems that respond to individual needs are anathema to the manipulative whims of government. Government likes centralized, command-and-control structures that can be dominated politically. Those who have lectured Californians that they have become too dependent on the automobile would rather make them dependent on government-managed mass transit.

So today, the finest highway system in the world is a shambles. It has not been merely neglected. An ideological war has been waged against it. I am here to suggest that it’s time that war was joined, and that the ideologues that have destroyed our transportation system be challenged by common sense.

Our plight is not for lack of money. California motorists bear the third heaviest taxes per vehicle in the country, and yet we rank dead last in our per capita spending for our highways.

In 1990, they doubled the excise tax on gasoline – and promised that money would be used for road construction. In the decade that followed, the miles driven by Californians increased another 30 percent, our lane mileage increased just ONE percent.

The Left likes to argue that government subsidizes the car. The truth is exactly the opposite. The car once paid for all highway construction. Now it is used to subsidize every aspect of the welfare state – except for a decent road system.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, virtually the entire California freeway system was constructed from the taxes – lower taxes, I might add – paid by the motorists who used the freeways. Since the 1970’s, there has been virtually no new freeway construction. We are carrying 30 years more volume – 116 percent more usage --- on the same road system built by our grandfathers – and paying higher taxes to boot.

The politically correct transportation system is, of course, mass transit. The only problem is that the masses don’t use it. And there’s a reason. It is inconvenient, it is enormously time-consuming, and most of all, if it wasn't heavily subsidized, it would be cost prohibitive.

Take a look at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority for example. Last year, the MTA consumed $2.7 billion: $5,900 annually for every passenger it carried. Last year, they had a 32-day strike. There was no appreciable increase in traffic congestion. There was actually a decrease in air pollution. Even the MTA admitted that 90 percent of its passengers had alternative means of transportation. And for the 45,000 truly transit dependent people in Los Angeles, a low-cost jitney service immediately materialized on every street corner until LA City government aggressively shut it down.

Now, consider this. Shifting just the MTA’s mass transit subsidy funds to road construction – at Century Freeway prices – would mean four new lanes on the San Diego Freeway from the Ventura Freeway to the Century Freeway in the first year of savings alone. The next three years could do the same on the Hollywood Freeway from the Ventura to the 605 and on the Santa Monica from the Pacific coast to the 605. Within ten years, 170 miles of congested freeway routes in the Los Angeles area could have four lanes of angioplasty done, using the most conservative possible figures, for the MTA’s net operating costs for mass transit.

For the cost of the 79-mile long Los Angeles Metro-rail, we could have added 618 miles of new freeway lanes to the Los Angeles Freeway system – at Century freeway prices.

Let me ask for a show of hands. How many of you rode on the MTA in Los Angeles last year? How many of you rode on a Los Angeles Freeway last year? Any questions?

A few years ago, I attended a “transit summit,” composed of several hundred mass transit advocates throughout the region. There was a bus stop right outside the hotel. I asked these transit officials and lobbyists how many had come by bus. Of roughly 300 in attendance, three hands were raised.

More recently, the director of Rideshare for Los Angeles was asked if she carpooled. She said “No,” it seems her schedule was just too unpredictable. Well, welcome to the world.

Four years ago, the San Fernando Valley Industry and Commerce Association conducted a survey of commuter preferences. According to the poll, a vast majority of area commuters want transit service that requires no more than a ten minute wait, stops no more than once on the way home, takes no more than thirty minutes in transit, and charges no more than 75-cents. For a Southern California mass transit system, such demands are impossible. Fortunately, what the public is describing is something they already have: the convenience, versatility and economy of the (politically incorrect) automobile.

But we don’t have that system any more because the taxes that once paid for all of our roads now have been diverted to pay for everything except our roads, and specifically to mass transit systems that are wildly unrealistic, hugely inconvenient, and enormously expensive.

There is method in their madness. County Supervisor Roger Niello of Sacramento, a strong advocate for highway construction, told me of his experience at one of these “mass transit summits.” There, the speaker said to the approval of the audience, “Remember, gridlock is our friend.” If you make the highways impassable, if you make life miserable enough for the single motorist, then people will have no choice but to take mass transit, with all its inconveniences and inefficiencies.

[note from Tman...this "social engineering" by stick and inconvenience has become the standard method or operation for the left/Democrats...and is the driving force for the climate/environment lies]

As boring and as politically incorrect as the road system is, it is the most efficient, most economical, safest, and most environmentally friendly transportation system we have. And if that statement surprises you, it is because of a massive mis-information campaign to which the mass transit lobby has subjected us for a generation.

But let me also mention the environment, which is the most prevalent excuse we have for California’s 30-year hate affair with the car.

Gridlocked automobiles create twice the NOX contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile as those operating at peak efficiency. Think about that. Bringing California’s highways back to capacity would be the environmental equivalent of removing half the automobiles from the roads during rush hours for nitrogen oxide and removing five cars out of six for carbon monoxide.

And let me ask you this: does even the most wild-eyed environmentalist ever suggest that these mass transit systems will remove half of the cars from the roads?

Instead of doing the obvious, the big government crowd is suggesting everything but. We are told that we need to expand bus systems, add more light rail, telecommute, offer flex-time schedules, more HOV lanes, and on and on.

We’re told, “If you build more lanes, in ten years they’ll be as crowded as ever.” Listen to the logic of this statement: “Don’t build more lanes, people will just use them.” Instead, they have squandered billions of dollars on transportation systems people don’t use.

We’re told, “We can’t build our way out of these problems.” Well, how would you know, we haven’t tried in 30 years. When we kept pace with our needs, congestion was limited to a brief period at the height of rush hour. Now look at us.

We’re told, “Freeways will create suburban sprawl.” Well, there’s a reason for that that has nothing to do with freeways. People don’t like living in dense urban cores. It seems they like to have a yard for their kids to play in. And that’s why they are willing to endure endless traffic delays to provide that room for their kids. We can either recognize that and accommodate their needs, or refuse to recognize it and ruin of our standard of living and our quality of life.

It is one of the ironies of human nature that the more we invest in our mistakes, the less inclined we are to admit them.

So let me offer these politically incorrect suggestions:

First, restore highway revenues for highways. I first proposed dedicating our sales taxes on gasoline for our highways three years ago. Today, a similar measure is before us as Proposition 42, and it is a start.Second, let’s ask that MTA and all the other mass transit systems pay for themselves through their own fareboxes, just as we expect highway users to pay for their highways through their gas taxes.
Third, fire the social engineers at CalTrans, update the blueprints for the highway system that our parents and grandparents drafted, and that we were supposed to have in place by now. And then, where it is still economically possible to do so, re-purchase the land and get to work.

This prescription raises a very important practical question: “How?” How do we change the thinking that has dominated transportation policy in this state for nearly 30 years?

I don’t have an easy answer to that question. I only have a hard answer to it. We have to change public opinion. We have to confront the mass transit lobby. We have to remove from office an entire generation of Luddites who have an utterly irrational abhorrence for the automobile and a blind faith in 30 years of failed transportation policy.

And that ain’t easy. Changing governing agendas is never easy.

But every now and then, change does occur – once the necessity for it overcomes our natural resistance to it.

But here’s the tough part – it takes years – sometimes decades of setbacks and disappointments and defeats and routs. It means going out every day into that marketplace of ideas and selling a position that a majority opposes.

But the good news is, the facts are not subtle. This is not a close call. But the facts have to be out there for the people to consider, and that is where we have utterly failed. And as we educate – as we agitate – as we bang our heads against a brick wall – public opinion will start to stir – glacially at first – imperceptibly at first – then very slowly, then slowly, and then quite suddenly the folly of decades gives way in a climacteric.

The good news is that the public will exercise solid judgment once they are in possession of all the facts. The problem is, all they currently hear is the propaganda of the mass transit lobby.

Change will not originate from within the Capitol building. In order for change to occur inside a Capitol, it must first change outside.

So I must ask you, and your companies, and your organizations, and your clients, What are you prepared to do?

Are you prepared to educate every Californian that in the decade since our road taxes doubled and our driving increased 30 percent, our highways have increased just one percent? Are you prepared to confront the MTA and its clones over the misuse of our highway money? Are you prepared to undertake a steady campaign until every voter is as aware as each of us in this room of the condition of our highway system and how we got there?

Because until you are prepared to do so – things are not going to change. And once you do – it might be years before we see results. And that is not an easy answer. It is a hard and expensive and uncertain answer. But it’s the truth and it is time we learned the truth – and acted on it.

This leftist/Democrat "social engineering" agenda that has been in full force in CA for the past three decades, migrated into every other corner of the U.S., save a few "conservative states" who could see the migration out of states like CA to states whose govts. still acted in the best interests of ALL THE PEOPLE, and haven't forgotten public servants are just that...SERVANTS of the people, not their masters.

[dbackjon]

Horsecrap indeed, T-man.

Your experiences in CA may not be reflective of the rest of the nation.

But, having mass-transit steam-rolled in favor of highways for decades, it was time for mass-transit to gain a fair share of subsidies.


And public works projects was one of the cornerstones of the new deal that Republicans always bash.

[travelinman67]

Horsecrap indeed, T-man.

Your experiences in CA may not be reflective of the rest of the nation.

But, having mass-transit steam-rolled in favor of highways for decades, it was time for mass-transit to gain a fair share of subsidies.


And public works projects was one of the cornerstones of the new deal that Republicans always bash.

This is not just a "CA" only issue, jon. As a result of EPA pressure, leftist/environmental propaganda ( http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/induced.pdf , http://www.sightline.org/research/energ ... -ghg-roads )and extortion by lawsuit ( http://augustafreepress.com/2007/12/20/ ... -widening/ , http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/oct/2 ... s_filing_/ , http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/28/local/me-17368 , http://www.roadsbridges.com/Foes-of-Ind ... Piece12390 , http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:OS ... d=34&gl=us , http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/oct/22/last_lawsuit/ , http://www.dailyreporter.com/item.cfm?r ... &snippet=f ) , and an overwhelming industry trend by traffic engineers to "push" mass transit. Every state has been infested by social engineer leftists attempting to block ALL expansion of infr. systems...even Texas...

Agency blames diversion of state gas tax money, curbs on privately funded toll roads By Jim Forsyth Friday, September 28, 2007 At a time the Texas Department of Transportation is defending spending thousands of dollars on a public relations campaign designed to convince you to support toll roads, the department says it has no money to pay for highway construction, 1200 WOAI's Robert Wood reports.

"The bottom line is, we're running out of money very quickly," TexDOT's Chris Lippincott says.

Lippincott blames decisions by state lawmakers to spend more than $1.5 billion in state gas tax money on pet pork barrel projects, a process painstakingly details by 1200 WOAI news over the last year, as well as hundreds of millions in federal highway dollars lost. TexDOT also blames a two year moratorium on privately funded toll roads which was approved earlier this year by the Texas Legislature.

TexDOT says after fiscal year 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, the department will have no money left for any new highway construction, and says its entire budget will be taken up paying for repairs on existing state highways.

The agency warned that by the early part of the next decade, even funding for repairing existing highways will be in jeopardy.

"That means we won't have as much money for congestion relief," Lippincott says, "We won't be able to build new highways, or new lanes on existing highways."

Lippincott blames 'soaring inflation' which has reduced the ability of the state gasoline tax, which hasn't been raised since the early 1990's.

"Increasing traffic is wearing down our highways. We have a population that increases by a thousand people a day."

But despite this imminent poverty, TexDOT says it will continue to fight attempts by grass roots groups to stop it from spending millions of dollars on 'Keep Texas Moving,' a public relations campaign designed to 'educate' Texans on the need for toll roads, and the Trans Texas Corridor.

...and an eye-opener from the National Wildlife Federation...a 104 page assault on BLM and the Army Corp of Engineers...http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Crossroads.pdf...and, if you can separate yourself for a moment from your "envrironment at all cost" viewpoint...answer, "Why would anyone attack the Army Corp of Engineers...who are, in fact, an extension of Congressional intent and funding? This kind publication sure seems like the manic catharsis of some arguably maladjusted envirowhackos.

[dbackjon]

Just on the Corp of Engineers - they have done a lot of good, and a hell of a lot of environmental damage, and wasted a shit load of taxpayer money.

They have pushed and built some incredibly stupid projects, and have been to stubborn to take outside advice.

They have gotten better, but only because environmentalists have held their feet to the fire.

Without environmentalist, we would still have shitty air, undrinkable water, rivers on fire, and a lower quality of life.

[travelinman67]

Just on the Corp of Engineers - they have done a lot of good, and a hell of a lot of environmental damage, and wasted a shit load of taxpayer money.

They have pushed and built some incredibly stupid projects, and have been to stubborn to take outside advice.

They have gotten better, but only because environmentalists have held their feet to the fire.

Without environmentalist, we would still have shitty air, undrinkable water, rivers on fire, and a lower quality of life.

For the most part, I agree. Problem is, environmentalism as a contemporary philosophy throws the baby out with the bath water. If you take a gander at most of the links to the blockers websites...you'll find Wildlife Fund and Sierra Club funding and support behind most of them. My largest problem with both (as you'll expect) is their lack of integrity. If you look at the puff piece from the Sierra Club on "sprawl" that I linked above, it cites as fact transportation related "data" that is simply a flat out "lie": "80% of commutes prefer mass transit." Puhhhleeezzzz. That issue has been researched and surveyed over and over and over, and even in "liberal" regions like SF, the figure's down around 10.6%. As with Gore and his psychotopically inspired thoughts...just because a person believes something with all their heart doesn't make it real. The Sierra Club, NWF, and other extremist environmental groups now doing more to DESTROY America than they are to save America...have been for that last three decades.

BTW, Jon...all this gesticulation of projects, done with the intent of blocking ALL DEVELOPMENT, only reveals the idiocy of their practice. There are sites around America so polluted animal and plant life can't exist, yet, due to land swap deals and financial "considerations", the polluters were allowed to walk away, and the sites have been "quarantined" with no remediation planned. One of the sites I was aware of had a plume detected 3 miles away, and was only 7 mi. from a major east coast NE city. The land in question, has been capped, paved, and a "green belt" overlook (like a rest area) built on top of the mound containing the contamination. The situation would be laughable but for the potential harm that still exists.

...yet, the Sierra Club has the time and money to chase down infrastructure programs all of the U.S. and act to block their expansion or even existence?

It's beyond disingenuous, and I'm simply not going to remain quiet. Obama has a chance to get something done...I only hope it's real and not some paper tiger to divert tax revenues to innocuous, hidden patronage projects, or straightforward graf.

[dbackjon]

You will find that the Sierra Club has lost much of it's influence - it has been taken over by radicals, and lost the support of it's founders.

And to blame the environmentalists for abandoned sites is ludicris. If anything, we have pushed for greater oversight on these types of issues.

[D1B]

You will find that the Sierra Club has lost much of it's influence - it has been taken over by radicals, and lost the support of it's founders.

And to blame the environmentalists for abandoned sites is ludicris. If anything, we have pushed for greater oversight on these types of issues.

Fuck him. He gone.

[travelinman67]

You will find that the Sierra Club has lost much of it's influence - it has been taken over by radicals, and lost the support of it's founders.

And to blame the environmentalists for abandoned sites is ludicris. If anything, we have pushed for greater oversight on these types of issues.

Not blaming the Sierra Club for the abandoned sites, I'm asserting they have bigger fish to fry than stopping everything that facilitates infrastructure expansion and resource management for human benefit.

[D1B]

You will find that the Sierra Club has lost much of it's influence - it has been taken over by radicals, and lost the support of it's founders.

And to blame the environmentalists for abandoned sites is ludicris. If anything, we have pushed for greater oversight on these types of issues.

Not blaming the Sierra Club for the abandoned sites, I'm asserting they have bigger fish to fry than stopping everything that facilitates infrastructure expansion and resource management for human benefit.

Tman, do you ever entertain the thought that we need to back off a little? How many more humans can survive on this planet? Capitalism has reached a point of diminishing returns. Our planet is polluted, nations are killing each other for rapidly disappearing resources. 3/4 of the world's population is one wheat blight away from mass famine. Cars, planes, mind boggling complexity, reliance on thinking machines, stress, violence, detachment, wars....

You seem to glorify your artificial life. I find it pathetic and short sighted.

[Cap'n Cat]

Not blaming the Sierra Club for the abandoned sites, I'm asserting they have bigger fish to fry than stopping everything that facilitates infrastructure expansion and resource management for human benefit.

Tman, do you ever entertain the thought that we need to back off a little? How many more humans can survive on this planet? Capitalism has reached a point of diminishing returns. Our planet is polluted, nations are killing each other for rapidly disappearing resources. 3/4 of the world's population is one wheat blight away from mass famine. Cars, planes, mind boggling complexity, reliance on thinking machines, stress, violence, detachment, wars....

You seem to glorify your artificial life. I find it pathetic and short sighted.

Amen.


Man, T, you're just a modern day ubermensch blowhard.

Love your mother.

[Appaholic]

...and an eye-opener from the National Wildlife Federation...a 104 page assault on BLM and the Army Corp of Engineers...http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Crossroads.pdf...and, if you can separate yourself for a moment from your "envrironment at all cost" viewpoint...answer, "Why would anyone attack the Army Corp of Engineers...who are, in fact, an extension of Congressional intent and funding? This kind publication sure seems like the manic catharsis of some arguably maladjusted envirowhackos.

Why would anyone attack the corps? Seriously, you're asking that? OK......

"Independent investigations — including one by the Pentagon's inspector general — have repeatedly caught the Corps skewing its analyses to justify wasteful and destructive projects that keep its employees busy and its congressional patrons happy."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... cnn-topics

"The Corps has eluded the public's outrage -- even though a useless Corps shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge, even though poorly designed Corps floodwalls collapsed just a few feet from an unnecessary $750 million Corps navigation project , even though the Corps had promoted development in dangerously low-lying New Orleans floodplains and had helped destroy the vast marshes that once provided the city's natural flood protection."

"Even Prather, the agency's public representative on the Hill, complained in that private e-mail that the Corps has sacrificed its credibility by defending its indefensible projects -- he called them "swine" -- just as the Catholic Church defended its wayward priests."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 37_pf.html

"Now it's back from the drawing board, and the corps is no longer pushing a $1 billion project to improve navigation on the upper Mississippi. Instead, it's pushing projects that could cost more than $10 billion to improve navigation and the environment on the upper Mississippi. It's as if Arthur Andersen had stayed in the auditing business—and decided that Enron was doing even better than it had thought."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090978/

Senators McCain and Feingold Introduce Critically Needed Corps of Engineers Priorities Legislation

"“The current process is almost entirely driven by pork barrel politics........More and more we are witnessing the results of the Corps’ failure to set priorities and direct funding to the most critical national water resources needs, failure to view water resources comprehensively and with environmental sustainability as a basic goal, and failure to consider the long-term consequences of water development projects and to apply modern science and economics to their planning.....It would focus the Corps on clear priorities of protecting people, property and the environment, instead of spreading limited dollars on hundreds of obsolete and often wasteful boondoggles.”

http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageI ... EBE409CAA4

"But there is no national water policy, meaning the Corps is answerable only to members of Congress hungry for projects in their home districts.

The result is boondoggles from coast to coast that have proven to be poorly engineered and disasters environmentally.

Much of the problem, critics say, can be traced to how the Corps computes the cost-benefit analysis of projects, rules which continue to promote large-scale construction solutions over environmental considerations.

For instance, while the Corps does consider land appreciation and the economic development a dam project makes possible, it does not take into account the associated increased potential for loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. The result are projects that encourage development in flood-prone or high-risk areas."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... source=RSS

Yep, no reason at all.....please, you're smarter than to think that the Corps doesn't push projects for work wih faulty numbers and are only responding to our legislator's requests.

[dbackjon]

Excellent post, Appy!!

[D1B]

...and an eye-opener from the National Wildlife Federation...a 104 page assault on BLM and the Army Corp of Engineers...http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Crossroads.pdf...and, if you can separate yourself for a moment from your "envrironment at all cost" viewpoint...answer, "Why would anyone attack the Army Corp of Engineers...who are, in fact, an extension of Congressional intent and funding? This kind publication sure seems like the manic catharsis of some arguably maladjusted envirowhackos.

Why would anyone attack the corps? Seriously, you're asking that? OK......

"Independent investigations — including one by the Pentagon's inspector general — have repeatedly caught the Corps skewing its analyses to justify wasteful and destructive projects that keep its employees busy and its congressional patrons happy."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... cnn-topics

"The Corps has eluded the public's outrage -- even though a useless Corps shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge, even though poorly designed Corps floodwalls collapsed just a few feet from an unnecessary $750 million Corps navigation project , even though the Corps had promoted development in dangerously low-lying New Orleans floodplains and had helped destroy the vast marshes that once provided the city's natural flood protection."

"Even Prather, the agency's public representative on the Hill, complained in that private e-mail that the Corps has sacrificed its credibility by defending its indefensible projects -- he called them "swine" -- just as the Catholic Church defended its wayward priests."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 37_pf.html

"Now it's back from the drawing board, and the corps is no longer pushing a $1 billion project to improve navigation on the upper Mississippi. Instead, it's pushing projects that could cost more than $10 billion to improve navigation and the environment on the upper Mississippi. It's as if Arthur Andersen had stayed in the auditing business—and decided that Enron was doing even better than it had thought."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090978/

Senators McCain and Feingold Introduce Critically Needed Corps of Engineers Priorities Legislation

"“The current process is almost entirely driven by pork barrel politics........More and more we are witnessing the results of the Corps’ failure to set priorities and direct funding to the most critical national water resources needs, failure to view water resources comprehensively and with environmental sustainability as a basic goal, and failure to consider the long-term consequences of water development projects and to apply modern science and economics to their planning.....It would focus the Corps on clear priorities of protecting people, property and the environment, instead of spreading limited dollars on hundreds of obsolete and often wasteful boondoggles.”

http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageI ... EBE409CAA4

"But there is no national water policy, meaning the Corps is answerable only to members of Congress hungry for projects in their home districts.

The result is boondoggles from coast to coast that have proven to be poorly engineered and disasters environmentally.

Much of the problem, critics say, can be traced to how the Corps computes the cost-benefit analysis of projects, rules which continue to promote large-scale construction solutions over environmental considerations.

For instance, while the Corps does consider land appreciation and the economic development a dam project makes possible, it does not take into account the associated increased potential for loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. The result are projects that encourage development in flood-prone or high-risk areas."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... source=RSS

Yep, no reason at all.....please, you're smarter than to think that the Corps doesn't push projects for work wih faulty numbers and are only responding to our legislator's requests.

Nice work Appy!

[travelinman67]

...and an eye-opener from the National Wildlife Federation...a 104 page assault on BLM and the Army Corp of Engineers...http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Crossroads.pdf...and, if you can separate yourself for a moment from your "envrironment at all cost" viewpoint...answer, "Why would anyone attack the Army Corp of Engineers...who are, in fact, an extension of Congressional intent and funding? This kind publication sure seems like the manic catharsis of some arguably maladjusted envirowhackos.

Why would anyone attack the corps? Seriously, you're asking that? OK......

"Independent investigations — including one by the Pentagon's inspector general — have repeatedly caught the Corps skewing its analyses to justify wasteful and destructive projects that keep its employees busy and its congressional patrons happy."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... cnn-topics

"The Corps has eluded the public's outrage -- even though a useless Corps shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge, even though poorly designed Corps floodwalls collapsed just a few feet from an unnecessary $750 million Corps navigation project , even though the Corps had promoted development in dangerously low-lying New Orleans floodplains and had helped destroy the vast marshes that once provided the city's natural flood protection."

"Even Prather, the agency's public representative on the Hill, complained in that private e-mail that the Corps has sacrificed its credibility by defending its indefensible projects -- he called them "swine" -- just as the Catholic Church defended its wayward priests."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 37_pf.html

"Now it's back from the drawing board, and the corps is no longer pushing a $1 billion project to improve navigation on the upper Mississippi. Instead, it's pushing projects that could cost more than $10 billion to improve navigation and the environment on the upper Mississippi. It's as if Arthur Andersen had stayed in the auditing business—and decided that Enron was doing even better than it had thought."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090978/

Senators McCain and Feingold Introduce Critically Needed Corps of Engineers Priorities Legislation

"“The current process is almost entirely driven by pork barrel politics........More and more we are witnessing the results of the Corps’ failure to set priorities and direct funding to the most critical national water resources needs, failure to view water resources comprehensively and with environmental sustainability as a basic goal, and failure to consider the long-term consequences of water development projects and to apply modern science and economics to their planning.....It would focus the Corps on clear priorities of protecting people, property and the environment, instead of spreading limited dollars on hundreds of obsolete and often wasteful boondoggles.”

http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageI ... EBE409CAA4

"But there is no national water policy, meaning the Corps is answerable only to members of Congress hungry for projects in their home districts.

The result is boondoggles from coast to coast that have proven to be poorly engineered and disasters environmentally.

Much of the problem, critics say, can be traced to how the Corps computes the cost-benefit analysis of projects, rules which continue to promote large-scale construction solutions over environmental considerations.

For instance, while the Corps does consider land appreciation and the economic development a dam project makes possible, it does not take into account the associated increased potential for loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. The result are projects that encourage development in flood-prone or high-risk areas."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... source=RSS

Yep, no reason at all.....please, you're smarter than to think that the Corps doesn't push projects for work wih faulty numbers and are only responding to our legislator's requests.

You gotta be kidding me, appa.

Please, please go back and objectively research your sources.

The author of the first article you quote from "Time" online, Michael Grunwald, has made it his life goal to discredit the Corp.

He's also the author of your second source, the Washington Post article...

Par for the Corps
A Flood of Bad Projects
By Michael Grunwald
Sunday, May 14, 2006;

Which is nothing more than a repeat of his own beliefs...he even quotes himself...from the "Times"/WAPO series he wrote in 2000.

The third source, from Slate is... ... AGAIN an article by Michael Grunwald, who AGAIN simply rewrote the article he did form WAPO back in 2000. The only difference here is, Slate didn't allow him to quote himself, just cite his previously written articles as reference...

River Blindness
The Army Corps of Engineers' continuing campaign to pour concrete into the Mississippi.
By Michael Grunwald
Posted Monday, Nov. 10, 2003, at 11:06 AM ET

... the fourth source you cite in support of your assertion of C.O.E. misconduct is from the National Wildlife Federation, which is one of the two organizations I cited as THE AUTHOR OF this baseless attack on the C.O.E. in my original post...

...and an eye-opener from the National Wildlife Federation...a 104 page assault on BLM and the Army Corp of Engineers...http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Crossroads.pdf...and, if you can separate yourself for a moment from your "envrironment at all cost" viewpoint...answer, "Why would anyone attack the Army Corp of Engineers...who are, in fact, an extension of Congressional intent and funding? This kind publication sure seems like the manic catharsis of some arguably maladjusted envirowhackos.

...and finally...your last article cite pertains to the Kissimmee River/Channelization restoration which is one piece of the "Everglades Restoration Project".

I had heard about it, but went back to look into the details.

Some facts:
The channelization of the Kissimmee River between Lake Okeechobee and Lake Kissimmee came in response to severe flooding resulting from hurricanes in 1947. After the flooding, a local flood control agency was created, which in turn employed the U.S. Geologic Survey and C.O.E. to devise a flood control plan for Central and Southern Florida, which was chaptered, submitted to Congress, who passed the authorization and funding bill in 1954. That plan, basically, used Okeechobee as the freshwater collection basin during heavy storms, and to manage Okeechobee's capacity, unlined canals to the coastal waterways were dug, and the Kissimmee River was channelized to allow rapid, controlled drainage of Lake Kissimmee into Okeechobee 56 miles to the south. The three problems that resulted from this plan were:
1) As the normal level of Okeechobee rose and subsided, during dry years, the lack of freshwater flows into the coastal canal system allowed brackish water to move inland, and due to the porous soils, infiltrate the regional inland aquifer, making them, in some cases, completely, but temporarily unusable.
2) For flood capacity purpose, to comply with the Board of Reclamation's ill planned response to FEMA's 1993 risk-assessment requirement replacing the old 100/200 year flood protection with a new 500 year standard, rather than back pumping the water from Okeechobee back into the regional lakes including Lake Kissimmee as had been originally planned and the sytem designed to do, the Bureau of Reclamation chose to let Lake Kissimmee in effect "dry out", which devastated regional wildlife counts and quality, as well as reducing freshwater replenishing to the watertable, ultimately prompting the revaluation and eventual restoration of the River (Note to appa: There's very little public discussion of the events leading up to FEMA's re-assessment of flood protection levels throughout the U.S., following the great flood of 1993, but here's some telling clues from the C.O.E. head who managed the post flood repairs/mitigation. http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Disast ... lliams.pdf. Take note of his brief mentioning of "eligible" levees...then, think about that... What's wrong with this picture? )
3) Rather than allowing the first two issues to be objectively reviewed with all options included for consideration, the Bureau of Reclamation and flood control districts excluded consideration of preserving the flood control aspects of the channelization project.

This last topic, the "Everglade Restoration Project" has less to do with the Corp of Engineers than Congress and Florida Developers. The Everglades is not merely a single river with a relatively narrowly defined biosphere/bioregion. The Everglades itself is over 6000 square miles, and adding the Central Florida watershed that was effected by this project, the "effected" area is around 13,200 square miles...one of the largest sub-bioregions in the North American hemisphere. If the C.O.E. made any mistakes, it was attempting to treat the Everglades as they would any other "typical scale" natural resource. Could it be done with little impact to the ecosystem, hypothetically, of course it could. Could it be done using strictly traditional dam/canal/levee method? Probably, but not without long-term analysis and corrections/modifications based on environmental impact.
If you've ever been down into the Everglade region, it can be harsh and the seasonal fluctuations are extreme. Historically, during dry years, drain down of low lying regions in the Everglades trapped fish, manatees, shrimp, etc...resulting in massive kills of native species. Once the Everglades have been restored ($8billion project estimated to take 20-30 years), will the government be expected to mobilize to "save" (relocate) those dying species? That's just rhetorical. My point is, for every problem we would "fix" in an Everglades scale project, a new one is created.

So, do we abandon all resource/watershed management, fall back to a time when there was NO flood protection (...which, in effect will take place once the Everglade Restoration Project is compete), or try to REASONABLY find some balance/compromise? And, BTW, the Restoration Act grew out of environmental/political opposition that started before the channel was ever in place...i.e., this was more about blind, unscientific opposition to "anything manmade" that to actual environmental harm. And something else to ponder, the Sierra Club's point man on this activist project, Frances Coleman said:

We rejoice in what has been restored - and we grieve that it isn't the entire river. Too much development in the northern section, with resultant concerns over flooding, and too many homes built in the southern section have forestalled total restoration. The lesson that has, hopefully, been learned is that we must use greater caution when we contemplate changes to our natural systems, because, once homes are built in large numbers, financial, social and political concerns will prevent restoration.

...my question to you, Appa...If the homes are not built, and the development not done there, then where? Are we to limit our habitation to geographically restricted, government defined, regions? If so, who makes that "map", and when will it become available?

But back to your attempt to support the bash Corp of Engineer crowd...

Appa, this yay-hoo Grunwald obviously is an envirowhacko (...really, go check him out...written books on anti-war activism, destruction of the everglades, global warming, tried to blame N.O. on the C.O.E., the list of lefty drownin'-in-'da-Kool-Aid diatribe goes on and on, but most importantly, critically examine his "logic". He makes HUGE conclusions without support, and often introduces his personal opinion with unprofessional sarcastic remarks: FinE for a blog, not appropriate for investigative jouralism.) who has a stick up his azz in re: the C.O.E....Good for him. But to find a couple of instances where the C.O.E. has administered/built watershed management projects that didn't work out as planned, and declare that C.O.E. is a pack of self-serving, bastardized, no'er do well bent on destroying the environment is telling of the thoughtless rationale exercised by the envirowhackos.

Finally, a personal comment. I know gents retired from the C.O.E., all officers, all with "distinguished" records. None of these men give a sh!t what you or any other political do-gooder says or thinks. Not because they're politically close-minded, but because mostly they're apolitical. They build. PERIOD

Where you or the average person looks at a mesa, or lake, or mountain, or valley, or plateau and thinks, "Wow! What a beautiful natural terrain." The C.O.E. Officer looks at it and thinks, "First, we build access roads with culverts to allow year 'round operations. Next, cut a temporary pad for parking of heavy equipment, servicing of equipment, and standby for off-haulers. Complete a survey and calculate the off-haul volume, distance to placement of spoils, number of trips, estimate extended load-days, verify availibility of equipment for the duration of the project and need to purchase lease own equipment, and finally execute labor agreements. Commence tunneling, blasting and rough excavations..." They are EXTREMELY focused, and rarely factor in "non-job specific" variables (biosphere impact; how the project will effect the neighbor's view; whether the "locals" will treat them nicely when they go into town; if some nutcase lefty journalist will target them for attack; or some group of narrow-minded environtmentalists with anti-growth fixations will target them for never-ending harassment and character assasination) when looking at a project...not because they don't care...but because that's NOT THEIR JOB!!!

My point is, these envirowhackos are attempting to villify an agency and it's management, without knowing the TRUE definition of their mission or intent.

[Cap'n Cat]