Wheels and tires

On 3/29/2020 10:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/29/2020 12:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/28/2020 9:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/28/2020 6:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:13:13 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

Indeed, from small business owners to generals in the
field to
Presidents, one assembles hopefully competent
advisors, takes their
counsel but at the end a decision must be made.

Something this President has been loath to do, because
in his narcissism
he believes he knows better than everyone else.

According to Dr. Fauci.

"The president has listened to what I have said and what
the other
people on the task force have said. When I have made
recommendations he
has taken them," Fauci added. "The idea of just pitting
one against the
other is just not helpful."

Trump isn't a shining example of how to be president.
But in this case
he really does seem to be doing what competent advisers
suggest.

"In this case" since when? Certainly not since January!

Again:

Â* â¬SAre there worries about a pandemic at this point?â¬Â�

Jan. 22 ⬠â¬SNo. Not at all. And we have it totally
under control.�

Jan. 24 ⬠â¬SIt will all work out well.â¬�

Jan. 30 ⬠â¬SWe have it very well under control.Â* We
have very little
problem in this country at the moment ⬠five. And those
people are all
recuperating successfully.�

Feb. 10 ⬠â¬SLooks like by April, you know, in theory,
when it gets a
little warmer, it miraculously goes away.�

Feb. 19 ⬠â¬SI think the numbers are getting
progressively better as we go.�

Feb. 20 ⬠â¬S⬦within a couple of days, is going to be
down to close to zero.�

Feb. 22 ⬠â¬SWe have it very much under control in
this country.�

Feb. 25 ⬠â¬S⬦the Democrats are politicizing the
coronavirus⬦ They tried
the impeachment hoax ⬦ and this is their new hoax.�

Feb. 26 ⬠â¬SWeâ¬"re going down, not up.â¬�

Feb. 27 ⬠â¬SItâ¬"s going to disappear.Â* One day like a
miracle ⬠it will
disappear.�

Feb. 29 ⬠â¬SEverything is really under control.â¬�
(The vaccine will be
available) â¬Svery rapidly.â¬�

March 2 ⬠â¬SItâ¬"s very mild.â¬�

March 4 ⬠â¬S⬦weâ¬"re talking about very small
numbers in the United States.�

March 6 â¬Â* â¬SI like this stuff.Â* I really get it.
People are surprised
I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, â¬ÜHow
do you know so
much about this?â¬" Maybe I have a natural ability.â¬"
Maybe I should have
done that instead of running for president.� Maybe.

March 6: â¬SAnybody who wants a test can get a test.
Thatâ¬"s the bottom line.â¬�

March 7: â¬SIâ¬"m not concerned at all. No, weâ¬"ve done
a great job with it.�

March 10 ⬠â¬SIt will go away. Just stay calm. It
will go away.�

March 16 ⬠(on his own performance) â¬SIâ¬"d rate it
a ten.�

March 17 ⬠â¬SI felt it was a pandemic long before it
was called a pandemic.�


And since then? "I feel good about it. That's all it is.
Just a
feeling. You know, I'm a smart guy." No matter what's
said by those
who are, you know, actually educated.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...eling-n1166566



Â*
Â* I guess I don't see your inside information on what his
advisers told
Â* him at those points.
Â*

Correlate the above statements with this information:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020...-cdc-timeline/



It requires some serious cognitive dissonance to believe
Trump was in sync with the CDC, etc. during all that time.
Even now, he blathers at the microphone, then those with
actual expertise step up to carefully and diplomatically
"rephrase," to give actual facts.



Let us know how Dr Fauci reacts when you ring him up and tell him
he's wrong to say( more than once), "To his [Trumps] credit, even
though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own
way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen
to what I say.

Fauci's dealing with a jerk who has lost or fired dozens of competent
people, and who has stated a propensity to punish governors and states
that aren't sufficiently obsequious. There has been real speculation
how long it will be until Trump fires Fauci - because Fauci has very,
very diplomatically, let the world know that Trump often spouts
nonsense.

Fauci knows this. It seems obvious the statement above was intended to
mollify Trump and deflect further criticism of Trump. And it seems
obvious that Fauci is doing this so his competence can continue to
exert some influence for the public good.

Fauci could have retired long ago. He's in this out of dedication. To
keep serving, he's willing to throw the orange puppy a bone to calm
him down.

Geez, Frank, you sound like you've never had a boss. I guess being
tenured faculty is kind of like that.

Tenure has terrific advantages for the faculty member, but absence of
bosses is not one of them. In academia I've experienced competent
"bosses" (chairmen, coordinators, deans, provosts, etc.), incompetent
ones, supportive ones, abusive ones, cooperative ones, vindictive ones,
dictatorial ones and more. And I've encountered most of those types in
private industry too, sometimes combined in one individual.

(FWIW, I'm against the tenure system, at least as I experienced it.
Details on request.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/29/2020 10:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/29/2020 12:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/28/2020 9:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/28/2020 6:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:13:13 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

Indeed, from small business owners to generals in the
field to
Presidents, one assembles hopefully competent
advisors, takes their
counsel but at the end a decision must be made.

Something this President has been loath to do, because
in his narcissism
he believes he knows better than everyone else.

According to Dr. Fauci.

"The president has listened to what I have said and what
the other
people on the task force have said. When I have made
recommendations he
has taken them," Fauci added. "The idea of just pitting
one against the
other is just not helpful."

Trump isn't a shining example of how to be president.
But in this case
he really does seem to be doing what competent advisers
suggest.

"In this case" since when? Certainly not since January!

Again:

Â* â¬SAre there worries about a pandemic at this point?â¬Â�

Jan. 22 â¬. â¬SNo. Not at all. And we have it totally
under control.�

Jan. 24 â¬. â¬SIt will all work out well.â¬�

Jan. 30 â¬. â¬SWe have it very well under control.Â* We
have very little
problem in this country at the moment â¬. five. And those
people are all
recuperating successfully.�

Feb. 10 â¬. â¬SLooks like by April, you know, in theory,
when it gets a
little warmer, it miraculously goes away.�

Feb. 19 â¬. â¬SI think the numbers are getting
progressively better as we go.�

Feb. 20 â¬. â¬S⬦within a couple of days, is going to be
down to close to zero.�

Feb. 22 â¬. â¬SWe have it very much under control in
this country.�

Feb. 25 â¬. â¬S⬦the Democrats are politicizing the
coronavirus⬦ They tried
the impeachment hoax ⬦ and this is their new hoax.�

Feb. 26 â¬. â¬SWeâ¬"re going down, not up.â¬�

Feb. 27 â¬. â¬SItâ¬"s going to disappear.Â* One day like a
miracle â¬. it will
disappear.�

Feb. 29 â¬. â¬SEverything is really under control.â¬�
(The vaccine will be
available) â¬Svery rapidly.â¬�

March 2 â¬. â¬SItâ¬"s very mild.â¬�

March 4 â¬. â¬S⬦weâ¬"re talking about very small
numbers in the United States.�

March 6 â¬.Â* â¬SI like this stuff.Â* I really get it.
People are surprised
I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, â¬ÜHow
do you know so
much about this?â¬" Maybe I have a natural ability.â¬"
Maybe I should have
done that instead of running for president.� Maybe.

March 6: â¬SAnybody who wants a test can get a test.
Thatâ¬"s the bottom line.â¬�

March 7: â¬SIâ¬"m not concerned at all. No, weâ¬"ve done
a great job with it.�

March 10 â¬. â¬SIt will go away. Just stay calm. It
will go away.�

March 16 â¬. (on his own performance) â¬SIâ¬"d rate it
a ten.�

March 17 â¬. â¬SI felt it was a pandemic long before it
was called a pandemic.�


And since then? "I feel good about it. That's all it is.
Just a
feeling. You know, I'm a smart guy." No matter what's
said by those
who are, you know, actually educated.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...eling-n1166566



Â*
Â* I guess I don't see your inside information on what his
advisers told
Â* him at those points.
Â*

Correlate the above statements with this information:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020...-cdc-timeline/



It requires some serious cognitive dissonance to believe
Trump was in sync with the CDC, etc. during all that time.
Even now, he blathers at the microphone, then those with
actual expertise step up to carefully and diplomatically
"rephrase," to give actual facts.



Let us know how Dr Fauci reacts when you ring him up and tell him
he's wrong to say( more than once), "To his [Trump.s] credit, even
though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own
way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen
to what I say..

Fauci's dealing with a jerk who has lost or fired dozens of competent
people, and who has stated a propensity to punish governors and states
that aren't sufficiently obsequious. There has been real speculation
how long it will be until Trump fires Fauci - because Fauci has very,
very diplomatically, let the world know that Trump often spouts
nonsense.

Fauci knows this. It seems obvious the statement above was intended to
mollify Trump and deflect further criticism of Trump. And it seems
obvious that Fauci is doing this so his competence can continue to
exert some influence for the public good.

Fauci could have retired long ago. He's in this out of dedication. To
keep serving, he's willing to throw the orange puppy a bone to calm
him down.

Geez, Frank, you sound like you've never had a boss. I guess being
tenured faculty is kind of like that.

Tenure has terrific advantages for the faculty member, but absence of
bosses is not one of them. In academia I've experienced competent
"bosses" (chairmen, coordinators, deans, provosts, etc.), incompetent
ones, supportive ones, abusive ones, cooperative ones, vindictive
ones, dictatorial ones and more. And I've encountered most of those
types in private industry too, sometimes combined in one individual.

(FWIW, I'm against the tenure system, at least as I experienced
it. Details on request.)

Full disclosu my Dad was an engineering professor at a state school,
for most of my childhood I heard him complain bitterly about some of the
people he had to work with, and for. But for tenure he would certainly
either have been fired or moved on voluntarily, and my life for one
would have been quite different.

Since then tenured positions seem to have become much, much more
competitive and hard to obtain.

--

On 3/30/2020 12:20 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/29/2020 10:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/29/2020 12:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/28/2020 9:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/28/2020 6:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:13:13 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

Indeed, from small business owners to generals in the
field to
Presidents, one assembles hopefully competent
advisors, takes their
counsel but at the end a decision must be made.

Something this President has been loath to do, because
in his narcissism
he believes he knows better than everyone else.

According to Dr. Fauci.

"The president has listened to what I have said and what
the other
people on the task force have said. When I have made
recommendations he
has taken them," Fauci added. "The idea of just pitting
one against the
other is just not helpful."

Trump isn't a shining example of how to be president.
But in this case
he really does seem to be doing what competent advisers
suggest.

"In this case" since when? Certainly not since January!

Again:

Â* â¬SAre there worries about a pandemic at this point?â¬Â�

Jan. 22 â¬. â¬SNo. Not at all. And we have it totally
under control.�

Jan. 24 â¬. â¬SIt will all work out well.â¬�

Jan. 30 â¬. â¬SWe have it very well under control.Â* We
have very little
problem in this country at the moment â¬. five. And those
people are all
recuperating successfully.�

Feb. 10 â¬. â¬SLooks like by April, you know, in theory,
when it gets a
little warmer, it miraculously goes away.�

Feb. 19 â¬. â¬SI think the numbers are getting
progressively better as we go.�

Feb. 20 â¬. â¬S⬦within a couple of days, is going to be
down to close to zero.�

Feb. 22 â¬. â¬SWe have it very much under control in
this country.�

Feb. 25 â¬. â¬S⬦the Democrats are politicizing the
coronavirus⬦ They tried
the impeachment hoax ⬦ and this is their new hoax.�

Feb. 26 â¬. â¬SWeâ¬"re going down, not up.â¬�

Feb. 27 â¬. â¬SItâ¬"s going to disappear.Â* One day like a
miracle â¬. it will
disappear.�

Feb. 29 â¬. â¬SEverything is really under control.â¬�
(The vaccine will be
available) â¬Svery rapidly.â¬�

March 2 â¬. â¬SItâ¬"s very mild.â¬�

March 4 â¬. â¬S⬦weâ¬"re talking about very small
numbers in the United States.�

March 6 â¬.Â* â¬SI like this stuff.Â* I really get it.
People are surprised
I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, â¬ÜHow
do you know so
much about this?â¬" Maybe I have a natural ability.â¬"
Maybe I should have
done that instead of running for president.� Maybe.

March 6: â¬SAnybody who wants a test can get a test.
Thatâ¬"s the bottom line.â¬�

March 7: â¬SIâ¬"m not concerned at all. No, weâ¬"ve done
a great job with it.�

March 10 â¬. â¬SIt will go away. Just stay calm. It
will go away.�

March 16 â¬. (on his own performance) â¬SIâ¬"d rate it
a ten.�

March 17 â¬. â¬SI felt it was a pandemic long before it
was called a pandemic.�


And since then? "I feel good about it. That's all it is.
Just a
feeling. You know, I'm a smart guy." No matter what's
said by those
who are, you know, actually educated.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...eling-n1166566



Â*
Â* I guess I don't see your inside information on what his
advisers told
Â* him at those points.
Â*

Correlate the above statements with this information:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020...-cdc-timeline/



It requires some serious cognitive dissonance to believe
Trump was in sync with the CDC, etc. during all that time.
Even now, he blathers at the microphone, then those with
actual expertise step up to carefully and diplomatically
"rephrase," to give actual facts.



Let us know how Dr Fauci reacts when you ring him up and tell him
he's wrong to say( more than once), "To his [Trump.s] credit, even
though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own
way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen
to what I say..

Fauci's dealing with a jerk who has lost or fired dozens of competent
people, and who has stated a propensity to punish governors and states
that aren't sufficiently obsequious. There has been real speculation
how long it will be until Trump fires Fauci - because Fauci has very,
very diplomatically, let the world know that Trump often spouts
nonsense.

Fauci knows this. It seems obvious the statement above was intended to
mollify Trump and deflect further criticism of Trump. And it seems
obvious that Fauci is doing this so his competence can continue to
exert some influence for the public good.

Fauci could have retired long ago. He's in this out of dedication. To
keep serving, he's willing to throw the orange puppy a bone to calm
him down.

Geez, Frank, you sound like you've never had a boss. I guess being
tenured faculty is kind of like that.

Tenure has terrific advantages for the faculty member, but absence of
bosses is not one of them. In academia I've experienced competent
"bosses" (chairmen, coordinators, deans, provosts, etc.), incompetent
ones, supportive ones, abusive ones, cooperative ones, vindictive
ones, dictatorial ones and more. And I've encountered most of those
types in private industry too, sometimes combined in one individual.

(FWIW, I'm against the tenure system, at least as I experienced
it. Details on request.)

Full disclosu my Dad was an engineering professor at a state school,
for most of my childhood I heard him complain bitterly about some of the
people he had to work with, and for. But for tenure he would certainly
either have been fired or moved on voluntarily, and my life for one
would have been quite different.

Since then tenured positions seem to have become much, much more
competitive and hard to obtain.

I agree, and that's before taking into account the fact that tenure
_track_ positions are harder to obtain. Universities have adopted the
same tactic as Wal-Mart: Hire lots of part-timers to cut expenses, and
pump the savings into salaries and positions for administrators.

When I retired, I was asked to return as a part-time faculty member. I
loved working with students, and would certainly have done it; except
part of my responsibility was to find and hire part-timers qualified to
teach specialized technical courses like Finite Element Analysis,
Applied Robotics, HVAC, Fluid Power etc. I had a qualified candidate
whom I badly needed for one of those courses who literally laughed at me
when I told him the salary.

Having been through that, and having tried (and failed) every way I
could to get respectable pay for part timers, it would have been
hypocritical for me to teach part time, even though I loved teaching.

BTW, the university I taught at has not given a raise to part time
faculty for over 25 years. But in that time, the administration head
count and average salary has soared.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/30/2020 12:20 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Since then tenured positions seem to have become much, much more
competitive and hard to obtain.

I agree, and that's before taking into account the fact that tenure
_track_ positions are harder to obtain. Universities have adopted the
same tactic as Wal-Mart: Hire lots of part-timers to cut expenses, and
pump the savings into salaries and positions for administrators.

When I retired, I was asked to return as a part-time faculty member. I
loved working with students, and would certainly have done it; except
part of my responsibility was to find and hire part-timers qualified
to teach specialized technical courses like Finite Element Analysis,
Applied Robotics, HVAC, Fluid Power etc. I had a qualified candidate
whom I badly needed for one of those courses who literally laughed at
me when I told him the salary.

Having been through that, and having tried (and failed) every way I
could to get respectable pay for part timers, it would have been
hypocritical for me to teach part time, even though I loved teaching.

BTW, the university I taught at has not given a raise to part time
faculty for over 25 years. But in that time, the administration head
count and average salary has soared.

It's a sad story, but not news to anyone paying attention. Kudos to you
for maintaining a bit of integrity.

Even sadder is the generation of students (and parents) going deeply
into debt to underwrite a few years of unreasonably nice dorm rooms, now
that a BA is required in order to become a shoeshine boy^H^H^Hperson.

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response.. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster. Tell us what happened to Texas and Louisiana after those Hurricanes - they have to "disaster relief" for YEARS.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster.

Cite? Is this another truth told you by the voices in your head? What if California were attacked by illegals? States can't enforce immigration laws.. What if the Reds attacked -- would it be the California air force -- the Flying Bears -- that responded?

I suggest you take your medication -- and then read about 12 feet of statues comprising the USC. And then twenty feet of CFRs. Also read the admission statement for the State of California and the Constitution. Then you might have some sense of the allocation of responsibility between state and federal government in the event of a national disaster. Get a tiny sample of all of that he https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...avirus/608083/

All states have disaster plans. Some states have more stores than others, but states generally can and do rely on the feds to provide a coordinated response to a national disaster and disaster relief. Having 50 states with 50 expiring stores of disaster medicines and medical equipment makes no sense. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00...i nal_508.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:14:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster.

Cite? Is this another truth told you by the voices in your head? What if California were attacked by illegals? States can't enforce immigration laws. What if the Reds attacked -- would it be the California air force -- the Flying Bears -- that responded?

I suggest you take your medication -- and then read about 12 feet of statues comprising the USC. And then twenty feet of CFRs. Also read the admission statement for the State of California and the Constitution. Then you might have some sense of the allocation of responsibility between state and federal government in the event of a national disaster. Get a tiny sample of all of that he https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...avirus/608083/

All states have disaster plans. Some states have more stores than others, but states generally can and do rely on the feds to provide a coordinated response to a national disaster and disaster relief. Having 50 states with 50 expiring stores of disaster medicines and medical equipment makes no sense. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00...i nal_508.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

CITE??? You can't even count to TEN? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Tell us where the Federal Government is relegated the requirement to prepare for medical emergencies in states?

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:14:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster.

Cite? Is this another truth told you by the voices in your head? What if California were attacked by illegals? States can't enforce immigration laws. What if the Reds attacked -- would it be the California air force -- the Flying Bears -- that responded?

I suggest you take your medication -- and then read about 12 feet of statues comprising the USC. And then twenty feet of CFRs. Also read the admission statement for the State of California and the Constitution. Then you might have some sense of the allocation of responsibility between state and federal government in the event of a national disaster. Get a tiny sample of all of that he https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...avirus/608083/

All states have disaster plans. Some states have more stores than others, but states generally can and do rely on the feds to provide a coordinated response to a national disaster and disaster relief. Having 50 states with 50 expiring stores of disaster medicines and medical equipment makes no sense. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00...i nal_508.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

CITE??? You can't even count to TEN? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Tell us where the Federal Government is relegated the requirement to prepare for medical emergencies in states?

Uh, start he https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...109publ417.pdf

Who knew that there were like these state/federal compacts and laws and all that kind of stuff? It's so complicated!

Like I was saying:

SEC. 2811. COORDINATION OF PREPAREDNESS FOR AND RESPONSE
TO ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES.
* * * *
‘‘(5) LOGISTICS.—In coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the General
Services Administration, and other public and private entities,
provide logistical support for medical and public health aspects
of Federal responses to public health emergencies.

This is where the SNS came from. This is how states manage national emergencies -- mostly through the federal government. It's top down leadership (or buffoonery) in times of national disaster.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:14:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice.. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster.

Cite? Is this another truth told you by the voices in your head? What if California were attacked by illegals? States can't enforce immigration laws. What if the Reds attacked -- would it be the California air force -- the Flying Bears -- that responded?

I suggest you take your medication -- and then read about 12 feet of statues comprising the USC. And then twenty feet of CFRs. Also read the admission statement for the State of California and the Constitution. Then you might have some sense of the allocation of responsibility between state and federal government in the event of a national disaster. Get a tiny sample of all of that he https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...avirus/608083/

All states have disaster plans. Some states have more stores than others, but states generally can and do rely on the feds to provide a coordinated response to a national disaster and disaster relief. Having 50 states with 50 expiring stores of disaster medicines and medical equipment makes no sense. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00...i nal_508.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

CITE??? You can't even count to TEN? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Tell us where the Federal Government is relegated the requirement to prepare for medical emergencies in states?

Uh, start he https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...109publ417.pdf

Who knew that there were like these state/federal compacts and laws and all that kind of stuff? It's so complicated!

Like I was saying:

SEC. 2811. COORDINATION OF PREPAREDNESS FOR AND RESPONSE
TO ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES.
* * * *
‘‘(5) LOGISTICS.—In coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the General
Services Administration, and other public and private entities,
provide logistical support for medical and public health aspects
of Federal responses to public health emergencies.

This is where the SNS came from. This is how states manage national emergencies -- mostly through the federal government. It's top down leadership (or buffoonery) in times of national disaster.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, you forever surprise me by quoting laws you obviously didn't read. That was meant for the Federal Government to coordinate within itself to BACK UP a state and not to replace it as your communist mind works.

"‘‘IMPROVING STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY.’’; (2) by striking subsections (a) through (i) and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—To enhance the security of the United States with respect to public health emergencies, the Secretary shall award cooperative agreements to eligible entities to enable such entities to conduct the activities described in subsection (d). ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—To be eligible to receive an award under subsection (a), an entity shall— ‘‘(1)(A) be a State; "

On 4/1/2020 10:35 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:14:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/28/2020 6:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

In January, our President stopped inbound travel from China
before any other nation did so. Why didn't Congress act?
Because they were rabidly engaged with their failed witch hunt.

The legislative branch does not run the CDC, NIH, FEMA and all the agencies that provide emergency response. Congress does not manage strategic reserves. It can't nationalize industries. It can't restrict travel without passing new laws. So, in the face of impending disaster, the executive branch has a lot to do -- much of it logistical. The same is true on a state level. The governors are running the show through executive orders, and the legislatures are providing funding and a legal frame work for delivering economic assistance.

This administration did a less than stellar job with messaging and logistics and continues to do a poor job with logistics.

Omniscience is denied humans. Compare anything Commie Bill
DiBlasio said this week with his early March comments about
going to dinner in Chinatown and encouraging others to do
so. Even Yogi Berra knew that 'it's hard to make
predictions, especially about the future."

Shame on him, but constantly pointing to other idiots doesn't make it better.


The police powers of Governors are much stronger than
anything the President can do. They acted much later,
rightly or wrongly, and not all in the same way. Which are
correct and which have erred? We'll know in a few years but
not this afternoon.

Yes and no. Governors are not equipped to respond to national disasters. That's why we have federal agencies that help with a coordinated response. Governors cannot restrict national and international travel. They cannot coordinate the nation's supply of respirators or move Navy hospital ships on to the coasts. They can activate national guards and take other measures (like all the shelter in place orders), but they cant' make vaccines or do all the things the NIH and CDC can, and they can't federalize industries, assuming anyone can.


As I asked Mr McNamara, what would you have him do? Given
limited knowledge and the time scale, he did what most agree
was as much as could be done.

Not lie and spend all his time in front of the camera either deflecting or praising himself. We needed FDR and we got John Lovitz doing Tommy Flanagan. Pull the team together, secure supply chains, mobilize the CDC, NIH, get a solid talking head -- Mike Esper would have been a good choice. Be serious and act the part, which is something he can't do -- so he should out source it and not extemporize in front of the camera about Chloroquine or mean correspondents asking bad questions. A good chief of staff would have managed this.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suggest you read the ****ing Constitution rather than piling your garbage upon this site. The States are responsible for everything inside of their borders and that includes keeping emergency stores for any conceivable disaster.

Cite? Is this another truth told you by the voices in your head? What if California were attacked by illegals? States can't enforce immigration laws. What if the Reds attacked -- would it be the California air force -- the Flying Bears -- that responded?

I suggest you take your medication -- and then read about 12 feet of statues comprising the USC. And then twenty feet of CFRs. Also read the admission statement for the State of California and the Constitution. Then you might have some sense of the allocation of responsibility between state and federal government in the event of a national disaster. Get a tiny sample of all of that he https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...avirus/608083/

All states have disaster plans. Some states have more stores than others, but states generally can and do rely on the feds to provide a coordinated response to a national disaster and disaster relief. Having 50 states with 50 expiring stores of disaster medicines and medical equipment makes no sense. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00...i nal_508.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

CITE??? You can't even count to TEN? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Tell us where the Federal Government is relegated the requirement to prepare for medical emergencies in states?

Uh, start he https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...109publ417.pdf

Who knew that there were like these state/federal compacts and laws and all that kind of stuff? It's so complicated!

Like I was saying:

SEC. 2811. COORDINATION OF PREPAREDNESS FOR AND RESPONSE
TO ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES.
* * * *
‘‘(5) LOGISTICS.—In coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the General
Services Administration, and other public and private entities,
provide logistical support for medical and public health aspects
of Federal responses to public health emergencies.

This is where the SNS came from. This is how states manage national emergencies -- mostly through the federal government. It's top down leadership (or buffoonery) in times of national disaster.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, you forever surprise me by quoting laws you obviously didn't read. That was meant for the Federal Government to coordinate within itself to BACK UP a state and not to replace it as your communist mind works.

"‘‘IMPROVING STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY.’’; (2) by striking subsections (a) through (i) and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—To enhance the security of the United States with respect to public health emergencies, the Secretary shall award cooperative agreements to eligible entities to enable such entities to conduct the activities described in subsection (d). ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—To be eligible to receive an award under subsection (a), an entity shall— ‘‘(1)(A) be a State;"


The 2007 statute seemed[1] in conflict with the 10th
Amendment and was repealed, replace with the less draconian
2008 law.

[1] No lawsuit but all 50 Governors protested. All of them,
both parties, and Congress thought better of it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971