You Can't Fix Stupid

Most people are familiar with the Pareto Principle; the 80/20 rule that says that 80% of the results are produced by 20% of the people or 80% of the crimes is committed by 20% of the people etc. We need not get hung up on the precise numbers, but clearly the basic idea most trouble/benefits come from a minority of the cases is valid. All men are created equal, but they don’t behave that way.

The Pareto Principle is a wonderful thing. If you can identify and eliminate the small number of problems and/or identify and emulate the small number of exceptional performers, you can get big results for small inputs. Correctly identifying and exploiting/avoiding such opportunities/threats is the basis of most success.

It also works in society as a caution. I always tell my kids that 98 out of 100 (much more than 80/20) people are probably good and reasonably honest, but they will meet more than 100 people in the course of an average day. Be careful.

Virginia Tech recently completed a study of drivers. They put cameras into 100 cars and recorded the driving for a year. The test cars got into a total of 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 "incidents”, defined as events requiring an evasive maneuver.

You cannot multitask when you are driving. Most of the problems were from drivers not paying attention. Some people were putting on makeup. Some actually took naps or checked their email. Of course, we have the idiots on mobile phones. The WSJ has a good summary.

So what about Pareto? Well this is a lot less than 20%, but TWO women really did more than their share of trouble. One 18-year-old woman was involved in three crashes, 53 near-crashes and 401 "incidents”. A 41-year-old woman was involved in four crashes, 56 near-crashes and 449 incidents. If it was only them, it would be their problem, but you never know when one of these rolling menaces will fetch up next to your car going 70 mph.

This is a good place to have a government business partnership. Governments (as many states do) can require that every driver carry third party liability insurance. If you don't have it, get used to walking. Private insurers should drive the price so high for people like these two women that they cannot afford to drive. Some people just don't deserve the privilege of driving. They are endangering everyone else to a much too great an extent.

I would extend the insurance idea to other things. Rebuilding New Orleans, for example. Citizens should rebuild their houses IF they can get PRIVATE insurance. The same goes for earthquake zones, floodplains etc. You can live there if you want, but pay for it yourself. The government should not subsidize or require firms to insure anybody. The same goes for people with all sorts of bad habits and stupid behaviors.

Maybe you can't fix stupid, but at least you can make it pay its way a little more.

Posted by Jack at April 24, 2006 5:42 PM
Comments
Comment #142753

Who’s going to insure a house in New Orleans until the levees are fixed and a new infrastructure is in place to give people jobs, etc?

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #142754

Jack,

“The same goes for earthquake zones, floodplains etc.”

You may not be aware of this, but Federal Insurance is REQUIRED if you live in a flood plain, even if the area you live has never been flooded.
I have a friend that lived near the L.A. river in Long Beach, CA. The river is actually a concrete ditch probably 100 feet wide and at least 35-40 feet deep. He lived a good distance away in an area that had never, in the recorded history of that concrete ditch, had been flooded, yet he was required to buy Federal flood insurance.
And it ain’t cheap!

Dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #142755

But Rocky, isn’t the Federal insurance subsidized?

When I reread my post I see I didn’t make clear that I think we should require 3rd party insurance for drivers, but in the case of flood plains or other known hazards, just NOT subsidize or bail out.

Max

Right. Maybe there are some places we should not build things.

Federal insurance allows people to build in places where the private insurance would not dare to tred, for good reason.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #142756

Jack,

“But Rocky, isn’t the Federal insurance subsidized?”

I can’t say for sure. Maybe he didn’t qualify?

All I know is that he couldn’t get Homeowners insurance without it and it was a pretty good sized hit for him to pay.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #142758

To Max and Rocky,
Why should the government be in the insurance business? If the market is allowed to work, the problem will take care of itself.

As for New Orleans, it is catastrophically stupid to rebuild below sea level. How many billions should be poured into this gaping hole?

That’s dumb as a box of rocks!

Posted by: Richard at April 24, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #142760

Richard,

I never said the government should be in the insurance business.

I merely pointed out that they already are.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #142768

Richard, Jack,

The levees would never have fallen in the first place had fixing them not been taken out of the previous year’s budget. An ounce of prevention would have saved a pound of sweat.

But now it’s too late and thousands of people are without homes or possessions through no fault of their own. In my opinion, we owe them a leg up, since we said we would fix something but gambled the money on “other” things instead. And if you don’t think the administration flubbed it, take it up with the Republican party, because their investigation says he did. If you don’t help them, btw, you’ll pay for it many other ways, including watching a lot of these people turn to crime, etc.

It’s interesting how you guys suddenly care about money when it goes toward helping other people or preventing future costs. Honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys would rather burn or flush money down the toilet than save it.

Thick as bricks.

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #142774

My understanding is that Federal Flood Insurance is required by the Federal Government but is supplied by the private companies. Either way it aint cheap. I have a brother-in-law out in Sacramento. He lives about 3 miles from the American River. The area has never been flooded sense the levy system was built. But the government says it’s a flood plain and he has to buy flood insurance. He told me one time that he pays more for it than he does all the other insurance he has on his house. I have a call in to him trying to find out what he pays. I do know the house is valued at $375,900.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 24, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #142775

with all the threats of global warming and melting polar caps and increased weather disasters a rebuilt new orleans should rename new atlantis.

Posted by: lllplus2 at April 24, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #142776

What about Congress ?
Does that follow the 20%/80% rule.
Do we need to oust 20% or 80% ?

Personally, I think it’s closer to 98% (just the bad ones).

If 80% of Congress is doing a good job, why does the list of problems and blunders continue to grow in number and severity ?
There definitely seems to be a problem with over 50%.

That’s pretty bad. Of course, Republicans think Democrats are the problem, and Democrats think Republicans are the problem, and voters think … well, who knows what the voters think.

Two fifths of voters (the largest group) tune out (don’t even vote), about 31% of voters vote for Democrats, and about 31% of voters vote for Republicans.
Hmmmmmm….I’m not too sure about this Pareto thing. : )

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #142779

Ron Brown,
Have you heard that Bush just turned down the opportunity to show people in San Joaquin County (Sacramento) and all of Northern California that he’d actually learned a few lessons from the catastrophic disaster which was Katrina?
I guess being proactive and saving the country money by avoiding another area in America where people are sure to incur staggering losses due to a levy failure, and in the future is certain to require enormous amounts of federal disaster funding in a post-disaster emergency just made too much sense to appeal to him.
As Jack said: You Can’t Fix Stupid.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #142788

New Orleans had the problems way before a year earlier. They blew their own money on things other than working on the walls. As for CA let them fix the walls or let them break. If people want to live in areas that require that type of protection let them pay for it. It sure is not our responsibility to pay for that. Maybe the people that need to learn a lesson from what happend in New Orleans are the people that live in similar situations, not the President of the United States or its taxpayers.

If the people move from the areas they will fix their own stupid. In this case you can fix stupid by moving. Stupid is to bail the people out. Throwing money at a levy does not guarantee it won’t break. Moving is the only way to insure it will not happen.

Posted by: nunya at April 24, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #142799

I find some of the talk about disasters a little too optimistic. From a disaster point of view, there’s no perfectly safe location.

Take the Midwest. Many cities exist along the economic arteries of the Mississippi watershed. One could berate them for choosing to do that, but the market and the costs of infrastructure make it more advantageous to site the city riverside. Most floods aren’t as disastrous as the 1993, but nonetheless, these things will happen. The question is one of preparation and responsibility. Have you planned for the worse?

Some disasters are so rare, and only so recently understood that established communities have already been dropped on top of these danger zones. The Louisiana purchase, crucial to doubling our nation’s size overnight put millions of settlers into a once sparsely populated area, exposing them to a threat nobody really understood until recently: The New Madrid Fault System.

If we were to have a repeat of the seismic sequence of the early 1800’s, it could kill thousands and devastate a wide swath of the American midwest. Everybody talks about the big one, and yes, if we get a repeat of SF 1906, that will be bad, but California earthquakes tend to be rather confined in their destructive range. What makes a New Madrid quake of particular concern is that instead of having rock which shakes, then settles down, we will have the moist, loose alluvial sediment of the Mississippi Watershed, which will amplify the shaking and make it felt over thousands of miles in a more destructive fashion.

Some disasters should be obvious in the coming, and people should be prepared. Our preparations should be on all levels, local, state, and federal. If one or two levels fail, we shouldn’t be left in a situation where the last government force standing is in a fetal position in a corner. Whatever the failures of local governments in Katrina, the Federal government should have been prepared for state and local government unable to deal with the problem. When a Category 5 hurricane strikes, we cannot kid ourselves that we have any guarantees of local or state governments remaining intact, or being able to deal with the whole situation.

We can talk all we want to in speeches of how the system is supposed to work, of what we want state and local governments to do or be able to do, but when the time comes, we should not be prepared only to deal with the best cases. That goes for all levels. Man proposes here, and God disposes, and it would pay for us to remember that.

In the end, our biggest problem is that we are only human. Disasters will strike us in ways that we were not aware they could strike us. For that part, we will find that no city is immune, because we do not know the sum total of all potential problems we might have.

That said, there are places where we should be prepared, where we have been warned to be prepared. New Orleans was one area. It’s 20/20 hindsight at this point to call people stupid for living in New Orleans Most people never saw a disaster like Katrina in their lives. However, multiple warnings were given at all levels of government as to how much danger New Orleans was in, governments that could have done something that might very well have prevented the tragedy from ever taking place. I think its fair to say that thousands died in New Orleans because somebody didn’t do their job.

No matter who it was, it is incumbent on those of us who deal with the aftermath of this that we don’t repeat the mistakes already made. It is important to hold people accountable, but we must also have a serious discussion ending in serious action, as to what we can do to guard against such natural disasters in the future.

This cannot simply be set aside for later, because later may come sooner than we think. The fact of our preparedness at that point will be of far more consequence than any political arguments then ongoing about who’s doing what. In fact, that is the only reason to hold folks accountable, to see who’s doing what. Everything else is just a distraction.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans focus on maintaining their image, and the image of their president. They identify the outrage that came from the left and elsewhere as the product of cynical political gambits, instead of realizing that in many American’s eyes, they were failing to do their jobs. Sometimes, you can get much more P.R. help out of a good course of action, than you can out of a good campaign of propaganda. Moreover, if people sense you’re trying to get unearned points on an issue of this importance, it will only amplify the image problems.

Ultimately, it is easier to shape the truth by shaping it in fact than it is to try and bend it through words. Modern politicians should understand this, if they want a good relationship with voters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #142811

Adrienne
No I haven’t heard it, but it don’t surprise me none. I’m not an expert on California. All I know about is the Sacramento area as I have a brother-in-law there. That area has 2 rivers running through it. The Sacramento River and the American River. Both rivers have levies and have come close to over flowing in the past 12 years. I don’t think that the people are as concerned about failure as much as they are the levies might be overflowed.
San Joaquin county has the same problem as the City Sacramento and Sacramento County from what I understand. Only it only has the Sacramento river.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 24, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #142813

Jack,
Hurricanes, floods, and tsunamies, they are all so stupid, right? That’s why no one can fix them.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 24, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #142816

200 BILLION $

200 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!
How many people can actually comprehend this?
I have no doubt that we will spend this and probably much more. Much of it will be doled out to pacify, placate and generally make people feel better without true reconstructive benefit.
200 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!
The storm didn’t kill that city the people did!
What we have here is a rare opportunity. An opportunity to do it bigger and better.

E. P. C. O. T.
EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPE COMMUNITY OF TOMORROW

What ever happened to all of those great ideas we saw at the Worlds Fairs and in Popular Science magazine of how fantastic the future would be?
For the kind of money we are going to spend on this it should be stunning.
Let the city flood and call it Venice; works for them. Do something, anything but make it special! If we just rebuild the projects and in the same old places and the same old style then we will get the same old conditions.
It is time to demand that everyone has a stake in the community there is no room for the unwilling nonparticipant. We make it so easy to be a dud without any demands. There are no entitlements! We have to take this opportunity and push the limits of science and technology and we can’t do that if we are tripping over deadbeats.
Please please please take 25 minutes and go see what one man envisioned in the 50’s and think what we could do now and write letters, make phone calls, rattle some office cages. Please don’t let them truck money into a vile corrupt pit just to maintain the status quo in the hopes of protecting their sorry political asses.
Please go see what true vision can be.
http://www.waltopia.com/epcot_film.html

Posted by: R. Paul Gani at April 24, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #142817


Putting pen to paper in Kyoto would not have stopped the storm. Not driving an S.U.V. would not have stopped the storm.
1 (one) volcano puts out more junk than all of the cars ever built. What would have been the excuse for the storm of 1900 that killed 6,000+ and destroyed Galveston, Texas? So shut up!

How arrogant to think that we could be responsible for the weather! So shut up.
Weather is weather and that’s all there is to it, there is no such thing as the angry earth! Shut up!

Why do people live in these places? Because it is a great life. We don’t shovel snow. We eat great food from the sea. We have a diverse economy that survives recession well. And the rest of the country and world count on us to be here working the ports and energy industry. So shut up.
It is not the Federal Governments job to take care of the needs of individuals or reimbursement for loss, this is a bastardized (Great Society) application of our system. This is or should be the responsibility of communities.

How is it that the greatest country in the history of mankind can have assets on the far side of the earth helping people before the calendar changes?! Yet we have the kind of anarchy we see in the Crescent City!

I would love to not have been prompted to ponder such questions (at least until everyone that can be saved has been rescued) but the social aspects can not be ignored even this early because valuable resources are being diverted form saving people to running armed escorts for medics.

Historically New Orleans has been a fast and loose “laissez les bons temps rouler” kind of place. That is part of the charm that makes it what it is (was).
The cops there will tolerate a lot. The standard is ‘jus a ‘lil defernt’.
For some reason the diversity in that city not only includes culture but severe class and economic separations. It is not for lack of work or bad economy.
Here comes the blame part…
When the word went out to get out, the HAVES that could, got out. The HAVE NOTS that could not or would not, didn’t. That is what happens when you make people dependent on the government for everything. Projects for housing, food stamps for subsistence, hand outs for health and welfare. Public transportation is just another facet of welfare and dependency. Those that had the S.U.V.s were able to get around even after the worst was over.
It is hard not to say that “your dumb ass” is there looting which is probably illustrative of your entire miserable chaotic life of never being responsible for anything including yourself.
We don’t see this kind of anarchy in third world countries when disaster strikes. That is because we are fat and lazy and lay around waiting for the government to come do for us.
Consider 1900 Galveston, Texas. No CNN, no FOX NEWS, no Weather channel, no RED CROSS. Word went down the street, house to house to drill holes (not with a cordless drill) in your floor so it doesn’t float off of it’s pilings and to this day people warned by their parents and grandparents still have a fireaxe mounted in the attic to escape when retreat has failed or rescue is at hand. God forbid dying trapped in an attic at over 120 degrees on a good day. We have been made weak at the government tit. If we are going to render these creatures helpless then it is our responsibility to take care of them at all times, not just when it is easy and keeps them quiet! When people get desperate they loose all sense of civility. Can you see now how a hand out has never helped anyone.
A spokesman for the La. Office of Homeland Securty actually said on national TV when asked why the ‘Guard was not ready?….”The storm caught us off guard”. The National Guard can’t get caught with their “guard down”. We are at the mercy of idiots.

Posted by: R. Paul Gani at April 24, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #142828

nunya:
“As for CA let them fix the walls or let them break.”

Yeah, who gives a shit whether a whole lot of people die due to floods that are entirely preventable and poisons the water of a very large portion of Northern California’s drinking water, right?
Honestly, it’s amazing to me how the “Culture of Life” Party can carry on such a carefree and nonchalant relationship with Monsieur Thanatos.

“If people want to live in areas that require that type of protection let them pay for it. It sure is not our responsibility to pay for that.”

We might well have been able to carry a lot more of the burden of the cost of repairing the many levies in question, but for the little problem of 9 billion dollars being stolen from our state thanks to Bush’s “Pioneer” buddy at Enron.
Btw, though Governor Ah-nold now claims he can’t remember it, there are documents that surfaced confirming the disturbing fact that the Terminator attended a high level meeting with Kenny Boy Lay and several other oil execs and powerful influential Republicans regarding the artificially created energy crisis that shut off electricity to California in the spring of 2001 — which was ultimately to blame for causing our state to go broke and subsequently the catalyst for getting our governor elected.

“Throwing money at a levy does not guarantee it won’t break. Moving is the only way to insure it will not happen.”

Oh, sure. The entire population of the Sacramento Valley and surrounding regions are just supposed to relocate. That’s reasonable.

Ron:
“San Joaquin county has the same problem as the City Sacramento and Sacramento County from what I understand. Only it only has the Sacramento river.”

Right. And I just realized that my last post was really confusing. I wrote Sacramento in quotes when I meant to say that San Joachim County has the exact same levy problem as Sacramento. And Bush has denied federal disaster funds to help fix any of Northern California’s levy’s — he claims those are only for after a disaster rather than for impending ones — even though preventing disasters is obviously a much more conservative and money saving approach.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #142840

There is on life w/o risk, but some places and behaviors are riskier than other. We should not try to equalize the risk. It is smarter to avoid the risks where possible and mitigate them when not.

I am not familiar enough with the situation in California to talk about the levees there. In fact, no individual is. That is why I am advocating NOT getting the Feds involved in subsidies. If it makes sense to live someplace, it should not require a Federal guarantee. Private insurers make it their business to know these things. They WANT to sell insurance and make money. If they wont do it, that should tell us something about the risk. If the dog won’t eat the meat, maybe there is something wrong with it.

If you can produce cabbages on an acre of land only if the government spends a million dollars to build a levee around it AND that levee causes environmental destruction to boot, maybe we should grow those cabbages somewhere else.

Some investments are worth it; others not.

The problem with getting the government to do it is that people are very happy to spend other people’s money when they would not spend their own.

I would like to build a pond on my land. The contractor told me he could do it for $10,000. I can do without that pond. If the government would pay, I would be able to make very good arguments to prove I needed that pond and how the wildlife would benefit. But the bottom line is that if it is not worth the money when I pay for it, it is not worth the money when the government pays for it. Never ask the government to buy for you what you would not buy for yourself. That is a good rule.

Posted by: jack at April 24, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #142841

What should The President have done? This is a political arguement. Why should the rest of the country foot the bill for fixing our levies. This state has done nothing for him. The two senators have lambasted him at every turn, the minority leader of the congress has railed against him at every turn. The governer was voted down for infrastructor repair by the state legislators and state dems. The cost of repairing the levies has been blown way out of proportion due to environmental whining. The titmouse or some sort of rodent has made their home in the levies since they were built and now are causing a sky rocket price for retro fitting. Why should the taxpayers in minnesota pay to fix what this state should take care of on its own. Plus, the president only withheld funds but not assistance. The army corps of engineers has been given the greenlight to help. We just have to pay the cost.

Posted by: scottp at April 24, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #142849

“I am not familiar enough with the situation in California to talk about the levees there. In fact, no individual is.”

Jack,
Northern California has never seen these kinds of rising water levels in the Sacramento Valley or San Joachin Valley (and several other surrounding regions) during our rainy seasons before. It’s new territory due to more rain over the past decade than was usual for our area (global warming? quite possibly.), and new, more intense melting in the Sierras during that same time frame, which has been compounded by the fact that we’ve got a rather primitive dirt levy system that was built back at the turn of the last century.
Katrina just brought home to this area what could happen if we don’t find a way to remedy this disastrous and impending situation — and the sooner the better.

Btw, it’s been nice to see that Northern Californians, both on the Left and Right fully understand that we can’t wait for Bush to give us federal funds. You might want to read this Mercury News article:
Bush offers little help toward levee repairs
Also, if you’re actually interested in understanding how very much this region needs to deal with this before our own levy failures happen, you may want to check out some of the recent articles on this webpage.

Scottp,
Sure, that is the only factor that should determine whether Bush should or shouldn’t help this region prevent an enormous disaster — it should all hinge on whether or not we’ve “done something for him”.
As it says in the article link I gave to Jack: “the federal government normally picks up the tab for 75 percent of repairs for severely eroded levees.” But Bush has now decided that things should be different for us — perhaps for the vengeful reason you just suggested? Maybe so.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #142857

the article does not say normally, it says expected. Totally different statements. one implies foregone conclusion the other implies negotiation. Which gets back to the political point. We have done nothing for him yet expect him to open the purse and pay for 3/4’s of us. I would say the same as he does, pay your own way.

Posted by: scottp at April 25, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #142860

Adrienne

They can live where they want, I don’t care. THEY have to accept the risk for living there, not the taxpayers. It is not our responsibility to accept the risk for them. Personally, I would not live on the side of or base of a mountain for the obvious reasons. I would not live in an area where I could be flooded. My choice. If people choose to live in those types of areas they should accept the risk, not me. I don’t see what is so difficult about that theroy for libs to understand. Stupid is as stupid does (sorry I could not resist). Furthermore, this has nothing to do with this or any other Presidency. All of these things have existed for decades. I think for the libs to even try to blame it on GW is as petty of politics as there are. This has to do with individuals and communities who decide to plant themselves where they do. To make it any more is, well, just stupid.

Posted by: nunya at April 25, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #142863

scottp:
“the article does not say normally, it says expected.”

Wrong. Go back and read it again.

nunya:
“I would not live in an area where I could be flooded. My choice. If people choose to live in those types of areas they should accept the risk, not me.”

What complete and utter nonsense! You’re saying that people should never have settled in vast regions of this country. Hate to burst your bubble Chief, but if everyone in this nation had insisted on avoiding the proximity to the water, there would never have been any shipping and trading routes in America. How would you like to accept that risk? I thought you righties were all for globalisation? Well you can forget about trade entirely, because if everyone shared your view there would be no one living along the coasts and rivers of America in order to receive or ship anything. Fishing? That’s out. How about The US Navy? Well you can forget that as well. Too dangerous to live near anywhere near the water! How does the risk of not having a Navy grab you?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #142872

I dispute the findings of the study as quoted and your presumptions about drivers.

Driving is precisely a multitasking skill. It is a eye/hand/foot coordination skill.

Some people have poor skills in these areas. Some people are great, but slow thinkers.

The problem isn’t multitasking at all. It is inattention and poor driving skills. Some of these skills cannot be taught.

If you are truly interested in improving safety you would require a more rigorous test for driving on different types roadways. Licensing would have allowances for different levels of skills.

Waiting for accidents to occur to allow some actuarial to determine risk is broad and ineffectual, as well as cavalier in the consequence of such thinking.

Our current insurance led shceme correctly disadvantages teens, but allows old and unskilled drivers to cause death and destruction before being removed.

Most freeway crashes aren’t excessive speed as often quoated but differential speed and poor skill. It is usually the rookies who cause most crashes in racing.

Many slow thinking and slow reacting people would be restricted to slow speed limit side roads or removed from being allowed to drive and having jobs like all us skilled drivers. (A sarcastic reference to the atitude of most)

I believe USC did some studies to this effect.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 25, 2006 2:54 AM
Comment #142873

point is there was flooding in the central valley before 1945, the mighty sacramento and four other rivers have been tamed by something called the central valley project. it was started in 1938 and ended in 1945. the project consisted of three dams. no 1. trinity dam the most north. at 50 miles north of redding california. no 2.shasta dam about 10 miles north of redding california and no 3.keswick dam 8 miles south of redding. trinity dam controls the trinity river. shasta dam controls the mighty sacramento and the mcCLOUD RIVER, AND THE PIT RIVER and the squaw river. keswick dam is a catch basin. the water releases from shasta and trinity flow in to keswick lake and it stabilizes the uneven water releases from shasta and trinity dams.hence the reason for no flooding in sacramento city and beyond.ron brown! i lived in redding california after i got out of the army. from 1978 to 1981. talk about beautiful country. rodney brown.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 25, 2006 3:03 AM
Comment #142874

I have looked at the study and find it, after review, highly biased and subjective as well. This isn’t even science. It’s a coorelation of a preconcieved idea.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 25, 2006 3:03 AM
Comment #142878

So, let’s see if I understand this Pareto thingie:

If, say, 32% of a nation supported a Party which had caused 90% of that nation’s Problems, then would that be a Good Example of Stupid?

Gee, it’s a lot like the Peter Principle, isn’t it? The Peter Principle states that, in a bureaucracy, a person will keep getting promoted, higher and higher, until they reach a place where their Personal Level Of Incompetence becomes so glaringly apparent that no one in their right mind would continue to Promote Them…

I see your point, Jack: it seems that Ya Can’t Fix Stupid.


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 25, 2006 5:10 AM
Comment #142886

Fixing ‘stupid’ might be a little difficult, but fixing ‘ignorant’ is easier, ignorant can be repaired with open and thorough education.

Jack, it might be better all around if the right would quit trying to kill the Department of Education, and stop promoting biblical nonsense in public education…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 6:24 AM
Comment #142890

Adrienne

I saw Hanson (the guy who made global warming well known) interviewed yesterday. He said that you can attribute NONE of the extraordinary weather events to global warming. We still are within the normal variations associated with weather. Warming is a threat for the future.

IF it was due to global warming, California has a worse problem, since IF this has become the norm, we can no longer maintain the levees at reasonable cost. In other words, if the game has changed, the existing structures are in the wrong places and you may have to make other arrangements. I don’t think that is true, BTW, so you are better off.

Betty

It is nothing like the Peter Principle and I don’t see how the Emerson quote fits either.

You may also recall that we hold elections and those who won have a majority of the votes. An approval rating is not the same. Many people didn’t like Bush that much in 2004, but the alternative was worse. We will see what happens in November this year.

Jack M

It is just an interesting study with an interesting insight. Statistically you cannot use 100 people like that. Clearly, however, some people are responsible for disproportionate number of accidents. I have been driving for more than 30 years and never have been involved in an accident. When you see a problem, take your foot off the gas and pay attention. That simple thing works most of the time. I have observed accidents. Often it is the result of somebody who makes a wrong move AND some idiot refuses to make allowances and lays on his horn as it hits the other guy.

Posted by: Jack at April 25, 2006 7:13 AM
Comment #142894

>>Betty

It is nothing like the Peter Principle and I don’t see how the Emerson quote fits either.

Posted by: Jack at April 25, 2006 07:13 AM

Hmmm, I caught on…maybe you really CAN’T fix ‘stupid’.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #142895

Adrienne said - What complete and utter nonsense! You’re saying that people should never have settled in vast regions of this country.

Where did I say that?

I said - They can live where they want, I don’t care.

Another problem you libs have is trying to read between a line that is not there or worse twisting words to match some invalid argument your are trying to put forth.

My entire point is WHO accepts the RISK. He/She who lives behind a wall to stop water should accept the risk if the wall breaks. NOT THE TAXPAYER. As for your little rant about history, trading, living near water and the Navy, well that was just a rant and did not address the issue of people living behind MAN made structures to stop water.

Do you live behind one of those walls?

Posted by: Nunya at April 25, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #142915

Mary

Maybe you understand the connection that doesn’t exist. Maybe you both should do a little more reading.

I have been trying to fix that for too long.

Posted by: Jack at April 25, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #142916

“If, say, 32% of a nation supported a Party which had caused 90% of that nation’s Problems, then would that be a Good Example of Stupid?”

No a good example is those that get all of their information and form their opinions from 30 second sound bites, hate-mongers like Al Franken and opinion polls, all of which are a very poor source of vision. But since it has been brought up - what about the other 68%? reminds me of this quote:

“The tendency of the masses is towards mediocrity” - Aldous Huxley

Posted by: lle at April 25, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #142917

Nunya
you said
“My entire point is WHO accepts the RISK. He/She who lives behind a wall to stop water should accept the risk if the wall breaks. NOT THE TAXPAYER. “
Just who do you think BUILT those walls in the first place? and who do you think promised protection as a result??
So it is ok for the Govt to build faulty levees, or to not properly maintain them once built — or to not upgrade them as necessary because people took them up on their promise and actually were “stupid” enough to believe them and built there anyway.
So the government previously took some action that then led people to build and settle in an area of risk — and then it is the people’s fault for doing that?
and it is the people’s fault that the work that was done was faulty, or not kept up, or not taken care of.
Oh yea, I forgot, the right wing is the wing of personal responsiblity.
These people lost everything NOT because they chose to live there
They lost everything because of corruption, greed and political maneuvering (over many decades)
and this occured both in Govt AND your precious Private Sector

Posted by: russ at April 25, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #142939

Jack,

Most people are familiar with the Pareto Principle; the 80/20 rule that says that 80% of the results are produced by 20% of the people or 80% of the crimes is committed by 20% of the people etc.

I think the numbers should be closer to 75/25… because half the people didn’t vote, and half of those that did voted for Kerry… :-)

(Come on, you knew someone was going to say it!)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 25, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #142940

Rodney Brown,
The dams do hold back a whole lot of the water (mostly from the north), but not all of it. As I mentioned earlier, seasonal rains also affect rising water levels, and so can increasing runoff from the snows of the Sierras into the valleys toward the west. Those old and crumbling levees simply have to be repaired and rebuilt to protect the valley regions.

“talk about beautiful country.”

Absolutely!

nunya:
“I said - They can live where they want, I don�t care.”
“My entire point is WHO accepts the RISK. He/She who lives behind a wall to stop water should accept the risk if the wall breaks. NOT THE TAXPAYER.”

Do you have any idea how much of America’s food comes from the Sacramento and Central Valleys of California? Tons. Let me put it this way — no matter where you happen to live in this country you’ve most likely eaten plenty of food that was produced and processed right here in this region.
Sacramento happens to be the shipping and rail center for the entire Sacramento Valley and a large portion of the Central Valley. Fruit, vegetables, wheat, rice, dairy products and beef are all produced in this region so food processing is a major industry.
To say you don’t care what happens to the people live here, or say that they take an unnecessary risk and that America owes nothing to the people who produce, can and process so much of the food America eats is to display a truly glaring amount of ignorance.

By your attitude you seem to somehow believe that all Americans aren’t connected to each other, or that we don’t need to rely upon what people in any area of our country manage to produce. In my opinion such an attitude couldn’t be more thoughtless or unwise.

“Do you live behind one of those walls?”

No. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area in the East Bay and live no where near where flooding from any of those levees might occur. But like I said earlier, the water supply of a huge portion of Northern Calif. could be contaminated if nothing is done and disaster strikes. And that doesn’t mean I don’t care very much about what could happen to the people who live in those valleys who might be flooded. Just like I care deeply about the people in New Orleans and Mississippi who were made homeless and had their businesses destroyed after Katrina. I’d like to see those areas wisely and safely rebuilt — and I’m not at all worried if it takes some of my taxpayer dollars to do so.
Maybe in your opinion that automatically makes me a bleeding heart Liberal, but in my view, it just makes me an average American who fully understood what Lincoln meant when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #142944

Nunya,

My entire point is WHO accepts the RISK. He/She who lives behind a wall to stop water should accept the risk if the wall breaks. NOT THE TAXPAYER.

Initially, yes. But if someone builds the wall, then promises to maintain that wall, they have taken the responsibility (aka RISK) associated with that wall. You can argue all you want about whether the taxpayer SHOULD have taken that responsibility (and I’ll probably agree with you on most of it), but the fact remains that the taxpayer DID claim that responsibility. When the Federal government builds and maintains those levees, and prevents the state/local authorities from doing so, then the Federal government (aka TAXPAYERS) have claimed responsibilty for them if they break.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 25, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #142949

Evolution, survival of the fittest, the Jesus fish with legs. You’ve all seen this next to the “War is not the answer” bumper sticker. I submit, IF there is no intelligent design, IF creatures evolve to best suit the environment, why do we attempt to dilute that process by encouraging the weakest amongst us to reproduce? Perhaps “nature” demands that some should die, nothing you can do no dollar you can spend will stop it.

Posted by: JayTea at April 25, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #142952

Adrienne
I have a brother-in-law in Sacramento. He lives about 3 miles from the American River. While he says that the area hasn’t flooded sense the levies were built, that they’ve been keeping a real close eye on them lately. The system needs up grading and no one seems to want to do it. I reckon a break in the levies or the river over flowing them are about the only things thatll get the politicians off their fat asses to do something.


Jack
I agree that the Government shouldn’t subsidise the building of new levies. However it’s my understanding that the levies in Northern California belong to the Corp of Engineers. Don’t you think the Government should maintain and improve on a levy system it owns?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 25, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #142967

I was doing a bit of web surfing this morning and came across an interesting study.

Some people think it is ludicrous and some deny it. There have even been attempts in the courts to quash the study.

McDonald’s and murder

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 25, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #142974

OOps I botched the link. I’m fixing stupid.

McDonal’s and murder

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 25, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #142979

Ron:
“While he says that the area hasn’t flooded sense the levies were built, that they’ve been keeping a real close eye on them lately.”

I know this. They need to because some of them are in really bad shape. The rains were torential this year, but luckily they dodged the bullet. Next year they might not be so lucky, so something has to be done. I hear they’ll be starting on some of them as soon as this July — with or without federal funds.

“The system needs up grading and no one seems to want to do it. I reckon a break in the levies or the river over flowing them are about the only things thatll get the politicians off their fat asses to do something.”

Not very conservative viewpoint is it? It makes no sense whatsoever to me that the federal government would withhold funding and wait to incur the impending expense of a giant disaster when it can be so easily prevented.

“I agree that the Government shouldn’t subsidise the building of new levies.”

I think help with this kind of federal funding should depend entirely on how many people might be affected or killed if nothing is done where there are old levees.
And where failure could result in the poisoning of fresh drinkable water for enormous regions in outlying areas, they should automatically receive more funding as well as top priority in getting such work completed quickly.

“However it’s my understanding that the levies in Northern California belong to the Corp of Engineers. Don’t you think the Government should maintain and improve on a levy system it owns?”

That’s my understanding too, Ron. And yes, naturally I think they should.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #143015

Adrienne, it was my understanding that the army corps built most all of the levies and dykes up there and it was a part of the original central valley project in the 1930s and 1940s. they should maintain the levies. is mrs matsui the congressperson for that area? also i have had very good luck with senator Feinstein she was very gracious about helping me restore my fathers stolen medals when he was in ww2. Rodney brown.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 25, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #143047

“Adrienne, it was my understanding that the army corps built most all of the levies and dykes up there and it was a part of the original central valley project in the 1930s and 1940s.”

I’m not sure, but think you might be right. Although, I do know that in many places what they did was simply build up from many dirt levees that had already been built there at the turn of the last century. I saw a local news bit about this and they claimed that back in the 1900’s they were using wood and a lot of other salvaged materials to build frames that they then packed the dirt in and around, so now, most of those underlying structures that were later built on top of have really rotted away — so it’s really only dirt at the bases of those levees holding back all that water. Pretty scary and tenative situation when the rain comes down in buckets — but Sacramento county workers have been doing a great job of closely monitoring them and trying to reinforce them where necessary.

“they should maintain the levies.”

Rebuild sounds more like it.

“is mrs matsui the congressperson for that area?”

Yes, she is.

“also i have had very good luck with senator Feinstein she was very gracious about helping me restore my fathers stolen medals when he was in ww2.”

That’s really nice to hear — I’m glad she could help you out. Personally I can’t help but have a rather love/hate feeling about Senator Feinstein. She seems to do some things really, really well, but in other areas has left quite a lot to be desired, IMO.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #143117

Two wrongs do not make a right. If the areas make so much money from the food let them pay the bill. If it raises the cost of food from there, fine. Rather than bury the cost in the government budget, let the market pay its way. If the cost makes the food to high then I guess it is not such a good thing to be producing there.


Adrienne

Once again you lie about what I said.

You said.

To say you don’t care what happens to the people live here, or say that they take an unnecessary risk and that America owes nothing to the people who produce, can and process so much of the food America eats is to display a truly glaring amount of ignorance.

I never said I don’t care about the people only that I don’t care where they live. The American people don’t OWE those people anything. They PAY when they buy the products produced there.

I suspect you are one who can recognize glaring ignorance as you display it regularly.

I’ll just stop there.

Posted by: nunya at April 25, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #143122

nunya,

Some things are important enough to all of us that we share in the maintainance of them, i.e., highways, dams, levees, etc. They are important for many reasons, i.e., we can’t go anywhere, protect ourselves or transport our goods without highways. Electricity is important enough and dams are so expensive that only the most wealthy among us could afford electricity unless we collectively pay for the dam and its maintenance. Food is important to all of us, so we subsidize the areas that provide huge quantities of it by building and maintaining levees that protect the growth areas. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxes are good, because they provide us with these and more essentials, i.e., national defense, an organized public school system, regulations for healthy foods, water and drugs, etc.

Waste of taxes is bad, but the up-keep of the above mentioned essentials is hardly wasteful.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #143124

[Sigh]
Jack is right. You can’t fix stupid.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #143171

I heard back from my brother-in-law concerning flood insurance. His property is valued at $425,900, not the $375,900 that I mentioned earlier. His flood insurance is $4,250 a year. About 10% of the the value of his property. All his other insurance on the property is $2,100 per year.


Adrienne
My brother-in-law told me the same thing you did about Bush refusing to fund the repair of the levies. Says it make him sorry he voted for him.
He also says that it’s his understanding that the levies along both the American River and the Sacramento River are owned by the Corps of Engineers.
He told me that at the junction of the rivers there is a park that usually spend the rainy season under water. This year the water is higher than usual and the Yolo bypass is higher than usual. Of course the Corps of Engineers dumping extra water from the dams isn’t helping any. but the lake are full to overflowing. The rivers are also at flood stage.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 26, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #143185

Adrienne & Ron, you guys can check the shasta lake and dam (sacarmento river) conditions at this web site www.shastalake.com/shastalake. click on shasta lake facts,statistics and data. you can get a up to date report on the biggest man made lake in california lake shasta, right now the lake elevation is at 1045.39ft the crest is about 20 ft until spillway occurs. ive seen the lake go over the spillway i think it was 1980 because we had a severe drought, it was the late 1970s and it rained like hell up there. the lake was very low. the engineers said then it would take 4 years to fill. it filled in 1 year!!! the old folks said they never saw water go over the spillway back then. it was a pretty sight. you guys! right now the out flow is at19,ooo cubic ft per second. and the in flow is at 21,000 cubic ft per second. 10 days ago the outflow was at a very high 36,333 cubic ft per second. and the inflow was also very high at 34,382 cubic ft per second. so at least right now about 13,333 less cubic ft per second is flowing in to the lake! i still would keep a eye on it! Rodney brown

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 26, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #143206

At least your admitting your problem, that is the first step to recovery.

Posted by: nunya at April 26, 2006 7:42 AM
Comment #143236

Ron:
“My brother-in-law told me the same thing you did about Bush refusing to fund the repair of the levies. Says it make him sorry he voted for him.”

Ron, if I began to tell you how bad I think Bush has been for our state, I could probably sit here writing to you all day. But I’ll spare you that. ;^)
Just read this article from today: Schwarzenegger: Feds should be worried about California levees
Sounds to me like the man is getting just about as disgusted and fed up with Bush as your brother-in-law is.
A few examples:

Federal officials still are not taking seriously the threat of a failure in California’s aging levee system and are risking another New Orleans-style disaster by failing to provide funding for repairs, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday.
Schwarzenegger also met privately with Bush, but he said Tuesday that the message isn’t resonating with the administration. He did not mention the president by name.

“The federal government still is not getting the message,” the Republican governor told business leaders during the annual California Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

“They are spending $100 billion in New Orleans right now because they were not acting fast enough. And here is the time for them to redeem themselves, to go and say, ‘We made a mistake before; let’s not ever make that mistake again.’ And again they are missing the boat.”

Schwarzenegger said he is tired of talk.

“Again they are waiting and they are dialoguing and they are talking. They say ‘Well, the permits are going to come. Well, we are going to get more money … ‘

“All that dialogue we are hearing, but no true action.”

Still, the governor vowed to keep up the pressure, saying the levees are “one big storm, one earthquake away from a major disaster.” He said levee ruptures could flood farmland, all of Sacramento, and other Central Valley towns and suburbs, while cutting off Southern California’s water supply. Cleanup costs could match what the government is spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he said.

Maybe our governor is starting to realize that “you can’t fix stupid”?
Here’s a thought — we could impeach this whole stupid, dishonest administration and get some smart, honest Republicans in there to take the place of these clowns, and thereby avoid another deadly, catastrophic and excruciatingly expensive disaster for our country?

Rodney,
I love Lake Shasta, and I’m sure the the water going over the spillway is a beautiful sight, but I’m hoping against hope it doesn’t happen this year.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 26, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #143278

I agree completely with Jack. I think stupidity is the downfall of society, and not just American society, but society as a whole. People continually want to give breaks to these people and second, third, tenth chances, while the rest of us “80%,” as you say, are effected by them. I think insurance rates should increase and keep increasing until people begin to take their lives, and the lives of the rest of us, more seriously.

Posted by: Brenna at April 26, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #143280

Jack,

This sounds like some kind of economic-eugenics argument. It’s offensive to me. The Constituion applies to PEOPLE, not 80% of them or 20% either.

As for the PRIVATE insurance thing, did you know that private insurance was denying claims to Katrina victims with the end result that those middle to lower middle class insured were then FORCED to find permanence in whatever place they had evacuated to? Emanent domain is being used to take the homes and property of these victims who cannot get their property taken care of by those who clearly profited by selling valid policies.

As for WHOLE 80-20 thing. IT’S IRRELEVENT, JACK!
Going around treating people like statistics doesn’t get it, Jack. But it is also completely unnacceptable as a matter of law, for those contactually bound, or governmental representatives or agaencies or courts, etc., to govern, administer, judge according to statistics.

WE ARE A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

If we get fooled by some percentage of people out there, that absolutely does not mean we should throw the whole thing out and build a government of some percentage of the people, by some percentage of the people and only for some percentage of the people.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 26, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #143325

Jack Fantasised:

You may also recall that we hold elections and those who won have a majority of the votes.

Uh - no

We held an Election in 2000, and the Vote-Rigging was done in Florida the Southern Way: racist cops with barricades keeping minorities from Voting.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

The “election” came to an end when the Scaliquist Court violated its own [Conservative] policy on “States’ Rights” and stopped the vote-counting, thus appointing a Commander-In-Thief, the Resident Of The United States: Dick Cheney.


Then we held an Election in 2004; the Vote-Rigging was done in Ohio, the Yankee Way: machinery with no paper-trail was manipulated and laws were violated by the Secretary Of State in order to force a “win” for George “Little Boots” Bush and his puppeteer, Regent Cheney, again.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml


So please, don’t tell me how your party Loves America while they are anally-raping the Constitution without so much as a Reacharound…

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 26, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #143368

Betty

If you believe that racist cop thing (which must have happened in the Dem districts) there is no use in trying to explain.

I can’t remember when I last heard anyone (besides black commedians) even say the N - word. Maybe your friends use it more than mine and maybe you live near racists. That is not my experience, so I cannot speak to it.

And if you believe that Republicans could steal an electing in Ohio, with Democrats in each of the polling place, you must think Dems are pretty stupid, or Republicans are super smart (thanks). So you are saying Republicans can make machines that Democrats cannot understand.

Posted by: Jack at April 26, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #143369

RGF

I am for letting people have choices and benefiting or not by the results. I don’t believe in paternalistically protecting people from themselves.

Posted by: Jack at April 26, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #143404

Jack,

That is not what I suggested at all. No reasonable person wants that. LEAST of all the real liberals, believe it or not. The GOP has engaged in some truely jingoistic attacks on the left for some time now. They are preposterous. Especially so in light of recent trends among our current administration. AGAIN I point out that nobody has EVER come close to growing the size, invasiveness, expense or power of our government to the level it has acheived under BUSH. Who’s being paternalistic?

As you know from my posts, I am about maintaining rule of law in our country. There are a myriad of forces that are attacking it because they stand to profit from reducing the power of law. I have discussed this phenomenon with you before in the instances of: The abuse of propaganda by McDonald’s in the hot coffee case, the disgusting abuse of influence by Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson et al., the mis-information and use of fear and anger to reduce liabilities for med-mal and class action suits. The list goes on, Jack. You know what my pet causes are. They should be the pet causes of every red blooded American, but too many of us are getting manipulated.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN MY THOUGHT, DESIRE, WISH TO HAVE A MORE PATERNALISITC GOVERNMENT. Why would I want to give more power to those who are already so vividly showing how horrendously they misuse and abuse the power they have?

Your implied accusation falls flat. Just as flat as your 80-20 thing and all its rather unsavory implications about how to think about people.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 26, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #143630
If you believe that racist cop thing (which must have happened in the Dem districts) there is no use in trying to explain.

The United States Commission On Civil Rights (check out the .gov Domain) believes it:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

Heh.

So you are saying Republicans can make machines that Democrats cannot understand.

The problem for you and your position, Jack, is that we can and do understand them:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

So you might as well stop lying and spinning, Jack: the jig is up!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 27, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #143693

Check out the history of that civil rights report and how the nut case head of the commission pushed it through w/o review.

You have two options. Either those things did not happen to any great extent (probably the true one) or we are so smart that even when you see us do things, you cannot stop us (and what does that make you?)

Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #144013

Jack, I am once again flabbergasted (and appalled) at the ease (and comfort) with which you equate “Crooked” with “Smart.”

This is about the fourth time you have asked, essentially, “If we Conservatives are smart enough to have Subverted The U.S. Constitution by Rigging an Election, then how stupid are you Liberals, who haven’t Rigged one yourselves?”

Morality isn’t “Stupid,” Jack - and Immorality isn’t “Smart.” It reveals a sort of Low Animal Cunning which the likes of Richard Nixon and Karl Rove are famous for.

Essentially, by constantly confusing being “Smart” with being Evil, you are betraying a worldview which we Progressives have known you Conservatives to hold all along: a twisted and criminal worldview which endangers Lawful Society and Humanity itself!

Conservatives have the Ethics of Badgers and Hyenas - have you considered changing the GOP Symbol from an Elephant to one of the above?

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 28, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #144064

>>Conservatives have the Ethics of Badgers and Hyenas - have you considered changing the GOP Symbol from an Elephant to one of the above?

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 28, 2006 09:44 PM

Damn, Betty B, you did it again…what a flair for words…and, so true too…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 29, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #144194

Thank you, O Dude of Mary.

But be not Unworried.

For, whilst Liberals have the Ethics of Dolphins and the Intelligence of Cats, I’m afraid that the present brood of Democrats have the Unity of Squirrels and the Courage of Rabbits…

[large stage-hook comes in and yanks Betty off her toadstool before she can stre-e-etch the metaphor any more]

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 29, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #144979

Hey you guys, www.shastalake.com/shastalake as of today, the crest is 16.5 feet from spillway. inflow to the lake is 21,000 cfs, outflow from the dam is 9,000 cfs .it looks like there going to fill it to the top! ? Rodney Brown .

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 3, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #145205

Mmmmm… Lake Shasta…

Good Fishin’…

:od

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 3, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #145434

Yes Betty, if you fish, that be the place. when i lived their, i would scuba dive and see lots of fishies. we would also raft down the river for many miles.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 4, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #145524

It is a beautiful place. Have you ever fished the Trout Streams* surrounding Lake Pillsbury?

*To call them “streams” is somewhat grandiose: they are like wee Faerieland Rivulets, some scarcely 15” wide, winding and twisting through tuffets and hillocks; in short, *perfect* for 7”-10” Pan Fryers! (Mmmmm… Pan-Fryers: a camp-skillet with a dab of Bacon Grease; plop `em in, give `em 3 min. per side, eat `em on Toast!)

:od,

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #146733

only 9 feet till spillway occurs at shasta dam.holy cow shasta man !

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 10, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #150027

less than 4 ft till spillway,!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 22, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #151084

3 ft till spillway,

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 24, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #151853

I couldn’t agree more on the note of privatized insurance for people that live in threat-areas. The feds shouldn’t pay the bill for people that don’t have enough common sense not to live below sea level, surrounded on all three sides by water, and in a hurricane-prone area.

Posted by: Skylark at May 27, 2006 5:06 AM
Comment #152338

2 ft. till spillway.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 29, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #192838

your right you can’t fix stupid!

the original post was not about insurance or the govenment, it was about stupid people you stupid morons. Stupid people can’t be helped, and when you tell them they are stupid, the just get upset.

Posted by: rob at November 2, 2006 4:28 PM
Post a comment