Kevin's Watch

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Malik23 wrote: That's really sad. Dozens of families drowned in their own cars with their children buckled in "safely" in the back seat.

The number has been downgraded to 4 I think, not dozens.

At least 50 cars plunged over 60 feet into the water. There are at least a couple dozen families strapped into their cars on the bottom of the Mississippi River as we speak.

Wayfriend wrote:

Let's not cheapen their deaths by making this political. Please.

Why is it that it's the people who are to blame that always say that.

Since I'm the one who said that here, the only logical conclusion one can draw from your statement is that you think I'm to blame for this bridge collapse. Either that, or you just didn't express yourself very well.

So you think this bridge collapsed because of Bush? You really think that during a time when the deficit has been cut in half, when federal revenues are at an all time high, that it's Bush's fault that we don't have enough money to repair bridges? The war in no way caused this to happen. This is a kneejerk, political reaction to a horrific tragedy. The fact that some people can only cope with tragedies by blaming a Republican is, in my opinion, sad. We haven't even recovered all the bodies yet and you guys are finding ways to blame Bush. Don't you think that's a little messed up? He is not personally responsible for bridge maintenance. He doesn't write the budgets. That would be Congress. Show me ONE Democrat who has been screaming: "Fix the damn bridges" and maybe you'd have a point. But if this is a federal problem at all, it's a systemic problem that's been going on for decades (bridges don't suddenly weaken only when Republicans go to war) and it's silly and petty to start blaming one particular person. Except, perhaps, the bridge inspector himself.

We could just as easily ask why Clinton didn't take that massive surplus and throw it into New Orleans dike rebuilding and bridge rebuilding--a surplus during peacetime, no less. See how easy it is to start blaming Presidents? I don't think we should be doing that here. But, honestly, it's to be expected.

[And on to the Tank this thread goes . . . ]

Malik23 wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Malik23 wrote: That's really sad. Dozens of families drowned in their own cars with their children buckled in "safely" in the back seat.

The number has been downgraded to 4 I think, not dozens.

At least 50 cars plunged over 60 feet into the water. There are at least a couple dozen families strapped into their cars on the bottom of the Mississippi River as we speak.

Oh man..........I just heard about the missing people a little while ago.
Sorry, what you described is most likely and sadly true.
That's horrible.

I wonder when the actual cause will be determined and what sort of recompense the government will offer the kin of the deceased.

It sounds really sinister the more I hear about it.
I mean, there was a train running underneath it at the time?
That sounds like good terrorist timing to me.
Although more likely the vibrations caused by the train set up some kind of chain reaction.
I don't know.

Well, if it cracked at a truss then certainly the weight and vibration of the train could easily have set the bridge collapse in motion.

Just the fact that you know what a truss is, I find sexy.

Well, as Bush is blaming the democrats for not passing the spending bill, I'd like to blame Bush.

Just because.

I love bridge construction. I used to build the craziest bridges with erector sets when I was a kid. HLT if you ever make it out to SF I'll take you on the harbor tour so you can see what the Golden Gate looks like from underneath. It's truly magnificent.

Cameraman Jenn wrote:I love bridge construction. I used to build the craziest bridges with erector sets when I was a kid. HLT if you ever make it out to SF I'll take you on the harbor tour so you can see what the Golden Gate looks like from underneath. It's truly magnificent.

I bet it is.
I could make your post sound so dirty..........but it's very inappropriate for this thread!

Wayfriend wrote:And inspectors, I am sure, are paid to not find problems.

I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic. If inspectors were paid to not find problems, the bridge would never have been classed as deficient in the first place. Way to blame public service workers for being overworked and completely ignored by politicians who care more for image than for doing the right thing.

[/rant]

Sorry. I'm just tired of people being blamed when they're trying the best they can to do what's right. Don't know what the story was with how this bridge was insepcted, but let's wait for the whole story before we jump to conclusions and assign blame.

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:Don't know what the story was with how this bridge was insepcted, but let's wait for the whole story before we jump to conclusions and assign blame.

Well said.

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:

Wayfriend wrote:And inspectors, I am sure, are paid to not find problems.

I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic. If inspectors were paid to not find problems, the bridge would never have been classed as deficient in the first place. Way to blame public service workers for being overworked and completely ignored by politicians who care more for image than for doing the right thing.

The bridge was inspected and found to be deficient ... and then years later it was inspected again and pronounced "fine". I suppose it's possible that the first result was a mistake. Or that they re-evaluated the results to a better standard.

I'm not blaming public service workers. I would blame (if this turns out to be the case) the people who put pressure on the reporting process because finding failures turns into requests for funds.

ST. PAUL (AP) - Minnesota bridge inspectors found no structural flaws last year or the year before in the interstate bridge that collapsed into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis on Wednesday, but engineers who looked at the span independently saw signs of trouble. [link]

Malik, I am not the only with a similar opinion.

If the federal limits were not applied with an eye toward denying needed infrastructure funding to states, if the federal government accepted its responsibility to maintain the bridges, roads, levies and sewers of the United States, the death and destruction that comes from neglect might well have been avoided. [link]

The general need for repairs of the nation's bridges has been reported scores of times by all media. Congress and states seldom agree about their respective funding responsibilities. Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war shrunk funding for bridge repairs. [link]

Wayfriend, I know you're not the only one with this opinion. Like I said, I expected liberals to leap to this conclusion before the cause of the collapse was even known. It's very predictable. And yet, to myself, I immediately dismissed this idea as impossibly callous and partisan. I couldn't believe anyone would actually stoop to such a predictably partisan reaction.

Watching CNN tonight, I saw that Bush has allocated a record amount of funds for infrastructure repair. On NBC news tonight, Brian Williams reported that this particular bridge has been designated "structurally deficient" for 17 years. Clearly, this predates Bush.

I also read that Arkansas has nearly 1000 bridges with the same designation--and yet

"State Highway and Transportation Department spokesman Glenn Bolick said the designation does not mean any of the 963 deficient bridges must be closed."

link
So if the state officials themselves don't deem these bridges bad enough to close--even after one has dropped into the river--why is Bush responsible when they actually drop? If they are so bad that the only thing standing between a horrific death for 1000s of people is federal funds, then why are they still open? If you don't have the funds to fix your bridges, close them. The problem isn't funding. And it's certainly not the war. It's complacency at all levels of government.

And here it was noted that:

Two reports published since 2001 pointed to structural problems with the Interstate 35W bridge that collapsed Wednesday into the Mississippi River, but both reports determined the bridge was safe despite deficiencies.

So how can this be a funding problem if the bridges were deemed safe?? If a bridge is deemed safe, what, exactly, is Bush supposed to do about it? Go inspect it himself?

I wasn't trying to make it political. In fact, I didn't even read the article much. I was just struck by the irony of the headline.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with finding out where the responsibility lies. I think that doing so is the exact opposite of cheapening the tragedy.

--A

We should find out what happened to the bridge, and no one said that we shouldn't. Some people here have already reached a conclusion (i.e., it was Bush's fault), with no evidence and limited information. Experts don't even know what happened yet.

It does cheapen the tragedy for people to use this to further their own political worldview. It takes the focus off the tragedy and off the investigation. There will be plenty of time to assign blame.

Uh-huh. Like Katrina. I just don't see how it cheapens it, really I don't. Nobody is going to the survivors and saying "Hate Bush for this." (Or it's his fault or whaever.) This is the very far periphary of it...interested observers. And I wouldn't say to "further" their world-view (personally). I would say that their world-view affects the way they see it.

Pretty sure that at best, official investigation will turn up a scapegoat. Beyond that...*shrug*

(Love your new avatar btw.)

--A

Malik, I honestly don't see where you get I am blaming the president.

If you'd ask, I'd blame underfunding the federal highway system. ("record spending" is a red herring, of course ... record spending doesn't impress me when it's underspending, and compared to other years of underspending.)

Congress is not putting the money where it is needed.

But even if all the money Congress has approved from transportation improvements was doled out to the states, it still would not be enough, Stidger said. [link]

And yet, even though he is only one player among many, GWB does play a part in this. Not being the sole guilty party doesn't make you innocent.

There is crumbling infrastructure all over the country," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who heads the Senate panel that controls transportation spending, said the Bush administration has threatened vetoes when Democrats try to increase such spending. [link]

In 2004, Bush threatened to veto the highway spending bill unless it was cut [link]. And in 2005 [link]. He's doing it again this year [link].

My bottom line is that this accident should be a wake-up call to our leaders that continuing to underfund maintenance of our infrastructure is putting the lives of every American in danger.

That's not CHEAP. This issue needs to be raised now, when people are feeling it. We all know what will happen if we don't - Paris or Britany will do something stupid, and we'll forget all about it.

Jesus Christ! Can the damm political arguements--every citizen in the country needs to work together to ensure public safety-Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Life is always nice...

Avatar wrote:Uh-huh. Like Katrina. I just don't see how it cheapens it, really I don't. Nobody is going to the survivors and saying "Hate Bush for this." (Or it's his fault or whaever.) This is the very far periphary of it...interested observers. And I wouldn't say to "further" their world-view (personally). I would say that their world-view affects the way they see it.

Maybe "cheapen" isn't the best description. All I know is that most people here were saddened by the tragedy and want to know what happened. But there are some, one in particular, whose first comments were to blame the Bush administration, and to predict that the Bush administration will use this to their advantage against terrorism (which btw, they haven't). Just like Katrina, there is no one person to blame. There isn't even just one level of government to blame. And maybe it is just me, but even if there were a democrat president right now, my first thought wouldn't be to blame the president or to say that he would use this situation to his benefit. I think you are right that their world-view affects the way they see it (just like mine affects me). And that is a good way to look at it. But, someone here said something to the effect of, "oh, that's what you get for going into Iraq. Your infrastructure crumbles." Which says to me, "I am going to use this tragedy to advance my political opinion of being against the war in Iraq." Um, we get it!!! You are against the war in Iraq, which is your every right. BUT, not everything that goes wrong is b/c of the war in Iraq. Geez...the infrastructure has been deteriorating for decades; not just since the war started. Even if we weren't at war, would our politicians be in the process of rebuilding our infrastructure?

ok, ranting over......sort of...maybe.....

Avatar wrote: Pretty sure that at best, official investigation will turn up a scapegoat. Beyond that...*shrug*

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. Today, I will be hopeful that it won't and that something good will come out of this horrible tragedy (like we'll start rebuilding our infrastructure).

Avatar wrote: (Love your new avatar btw.) --A

Thank you! It's TooL (big shock there).