I hope everyone has a great long holiday weekend. On saturday I'm going with my family to my cousins weeding. It should be interesting I'm not sure what other family members will be there. It is out a little bit passed springville.
Metalpeter's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/02/2005 21:36 #28164
weekend08/28/2005 09:49 #28160
(TO) Blue FridayCategory: event
Well in a few minutes I am off to go see my second Blue Jays game of the year. I think that is the most Major league games I've gone to in one season. But to be honest I'm not sure. There have been a few MaJor league where the bisons play that I know I've been to soo I think two is the record. Maybe next summer I will travel and see games in more then one city that would be cool. For those of you who havn't seen the big billboards there is a Bills Ralley on Sept. 9th in downtown Buffalo, I went last year it was cool it was live on TV for like a half hour but it was an hour long and there was music and stuff but below I have a little bit more information, but not tons.
The Juliet Dagger
September, 9 2005 at BLUE FRIDAY - Buffalo Bills Rally - FREE ALL AGES!
outdoor show in Lafayette Square, Buffalo, NY 14201
Cost: FREE
Starts: 5:30PM TJD: 9PM With: Universal Grill, Milkfat, Klear
The Juliet Dagger
September, 9 2005 at BLUE FRIDAY - Buffalo Bills Rally - FREE ALL AGES!
outdoor show in Lafayette Square, Buffalo, NY 14201
Cost: FREE
Starts: 5:30PM TJD: 9PM With: Universal Grill, Milkfat, Klear
09/02/2005 20:39 #28163
Katrina LaxityCategory: news
This is a story I read today in the Buffalo News. I found it interesting because i interpert it to mean that a lot of people droped the ball in this tragdagdy. It also implies that other tragadys may happen because people don't listen to warning signs I know I enjoyed it.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Katrina is case where laxity cost dearly
The colossal disaster still unfolding begs this question: How did the nation's leaders and its citizens allow it to happen?
By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press
9/2/2005
WASHINGTON - At every turn, political leaders failed Katrina's victims. They didn't strengthen the levees. They ceded the streets to marauding looters. They left dead bodies to rot or bloat. Thousands suffered or died for lack of water, food and hope. Who's at fault?
There's plenty of blame to go around - the White House, Congress, federal agencies, local governments, police and even residents of the Gulf Coast who refused orders to evacuate. But all the finger-pointing misses the point: Politicians and the people they lead too often ignore danger signs until a crisis hits.
It wasn't a secret that levees built to keep New Orleans from flooding could not withstand a major hurricane, but government leaders never found the money to fully shore up the network of earthen, steel and concrete barriers.
Both the Bush and Clinton administrations proposed budgets that low-balled the needs. Local politicians grabbed whatever money they could and declared victory. And the public didn't exactly demand tax increases to pay for flood-control and hurricane-protection projects.
Just last year, the Army Corps of Engineers sought $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. The White House slashed the request to about $40 million. Congress finally approved $42.2 million, less than half of the agency's request.
Yet the lawmakers and Bush agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-laden highway bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers. Congress spent money on dust control for Arkansas roads, a warehouse on the Erie Canal and a $231 million bridge to a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.
How could Washington spend $231 million on a bridge to nowhere - and not find another $62 million for hurricane and flood projects in New Orleans? It's a matter of power and politics.
Alaska is represented by Republican Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior member of the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee. Louisiana's delegation holds far less sway.
Once the hurricane hit, relief trickled into the Gulf Coast. Even Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown, whose agency is in charge of disaster response, pronounced the initial results unacceptable.
The hurricane was the first major test of FEMA since it became part of the Homeland Security Department, a massive new bureaucracy that many feared would make FEMA another sluggish federal agency.
Looting soon broke out as local police stood by. Some police didn't want to stop people from getting badly needed food and water. Others seemed to be overwhelmed. Thousands of National Guard troops were ordered to the Gulf Coast, but their ranks have been drastically thinned by the war in Iraq.
On top of all this, Katrina is one of the worst natural disasters ever to hit the United States. The best leaders running the most efficient agencies would have been sharply challenged.
"Look at all they've had to deal with," former President Bill Clinton told CNN shortly after joining former President George H.W. Bush on a fund-raising campaign for hurricane relief. "I'm telling you, nobody ever thought it would happen like this."
That's not true. Experts had predicted for years that a major hurricane would eventually hit New Orleans, swamping the levees and filling the bowl-shaped city with polluted water. The politicians are doing what they do in time of crisis - shifting the blame.
"The truth will speak for itself," Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said of potential lapses by government. Later, her office blamed the White House for budget cuts.
If it's not the Republicans' fault, perhaps some in Washington would like to blame New Orleans itself. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., questioned whether a city that lies below sea level should be rebuilt. "That doesn't make sense to me," he said.
But for anybody living - or dying - in the devastated region, there are far too many villains to name.
"We're out here like pure animals. We don't have help," the Rev. Issac Clark, 68, said outside the New Orleans Convention Center.
Robin Lovin, ethics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said it's too convenient to blame one branch of government when they are all, at some level, failing people. From Watergate to Clinton's impeachment, governmental institutions have disappointed the public.
"Bush, Congress, the mayor - each of them are symptoms of a bigger problem, that we don't have accountability for disasters or challenges of this scale," Lovin said. "That's all the public wants in trying times - accountability."
Thus, Americans are doing what people do when government lets them down - they're turning to each other. Donations are pouring into charities. Internet sites are being used to find relatives. Residents of far-off states are opening their homes to victims.
The community spirit is reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. So is the second-guessing. It will happen again after the next crisis. You've heard the warnings: a cataclysmic California earthquake, another terrorist strike, a flu pandemic, a nuclear plant meltdown, a tsunami, the failure to address mounting U.S. debt - and on and on.
Will the public and its leaders be better prepared next time?
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Katrina is case where laxity cost dearly
The colossal disaster still unfolding begs this question: How did the nation's leaders and its citizens allow it to happen?
By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press
9/2/2005
WASHINGTON - At every turn, political leaders failed Katrina's victims. They didn't strengthen the levees. They ceded the streets to marauding looters. They left dead bodies to rot or bloat. Thousands suffered or died for lack of water, food and hope. Who's at fault?
There's plenty of blame to go around - the White House, Congress, federal agencies, local governments, police and even residents of the Gulf Coast who refused orders to evacuate. But all the finger-pointing misses the point: Politicians and the people they lead too often ignore danger signs until a crisis hits.
It wasn't a secret that levees built to keep New Orleans from flooding could not withstand a major hurricane, but government leaders never found the money to fully shore up the network of earthen, steel and concrete barriers.
Both the Bush and Clinton administrations proposed budgets that low-balled the needs. Local politicians grabbed whatever money they could and declared victory. And the public didn't exactly demand tax increases to pay for flood-control and hurricane-protection projects.
Just last year, the Army Corps of Engineers sought $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. The White House slashed the request to about $40 million. Congress finally approved $42.2 million, less than half of the agency's request.
Yet the lawmakers and Bush agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-laden highway bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers. Congress spent money on dust control for Arkansas roads, a warehouse on the Erie Canal and a $231 million bridge to a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.
How could Washington spend $231 million on a bridge to nowhere - and not find another $62 million for hurricane and flood projects in New Orleans? It's a matter of power and politics.
Alaska is represented by Republican Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior member of the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee. Louisiana's delegation holds far less sway.
Once the hurricane hit, relief trickled into the Gulf Coast. Even Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown, whose agency is in charge of disaster response, pronounced the initial results unacceptable.
The hurricane was the first major test of FEMA since it became part of the Homeland Security Department, a massive new bureaucracy that many feared would make FEMA another sluggish federal agency.
Looting soon broke out as local police stood by. Some police didn't want to stop people from getting badly needed food and water. Others seemed to be overwhelmed. Thousands of National Guard troops were ordered to the Gulf Coast, but their ranks have been drastically thinned by the war in Iraq.
On top of all this, Katrina is one of the worst natural disasters ever to hit the United States. The best leaders running the most efficient agencies would have been sharply challenged.
"Look at all they've had to deal with," former President Bill Clinton told CNN shortly after joining former President George H.W. Bush on a fund-raising campaign for hurricane relief. "I'm telling you, nobody ever thought it would happen like this."
That's not true. Experts had predicted for years that a major hurricane would eventually hit New Orleans, swamping the levees and filling the bowl-shaped city with polluted water. The politicians are doing what they do in time of crisis - shifting the blame.
"The truth will speak for itself," Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said of potential lapses by government. Later, her office blamed the White House for budget cuts.
If it's not the Republicans' fault, perhaps some in Washington would like to blame New Orleans itself. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., questioned whether a city that lies below sea level should be rebuilt. "That doesn't make sense to me," he said.
But for anybody living - or dying - in the devastated region, there are far too many villains to name.
"We're out here like pure animals. We don't have help," the Rev. Issac Clark, 68, said outside the New Orleans Convention Center.
Robin Lovin, ethics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said it's too convenient to blame one branch of government when they are all, at some level, failing people. From Watergate to Clinton's impeachment, governmental institutions have disappointed the public.
"Bush, Congress, the mayor - each of them are symptoms of a bigger problem, that we don't have accountability for disasters or challenges of this scale," Lovin said. "That's all the public wants in trying times - accountability."
Thus, Americans are doing what people do when government lets them down - they're turning to each other. Donations are pouring into charities. Internet sites are being used to find relatives. Residents of far-off states are opening their homes to victims.
The community spirit is reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. So is the second-guessing. It will happen again after the next crisis. You've heard the warnings: a cataclysmic California earthquake, another terrorist strike, a flu pandemic, a nuclear plant meltdown, a tsunami, the failure to address mounting U.S. debt - and on and on.
Will the public and its leaders be better prepared next time?
08/30/2005 21:09 #28162
Last ConservativeCategory: events
This is from Last Conservatives Myspace page. I don't know if any one is playing tommarow or not downtown but they are at least not playing till next week.
Aug 30, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: show planned for tomorrow is now next week
Body:
Aug 30, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: show planned for tomorrow is now next week
Body:
08/29/2005 18:43 #28161
domain xxxCategory: internet
[size=s]For those of you may have noticed If i see interesting articles I like to post them. I wouldn't really call this news or porn so I guess internet is the closest catogory. The blue jays lost again yesterday but I had fun and went to Planet Hollywood after words wich I know has nothing to do with this, but I never got to read sunday's paper. But I wonder if all new porn domains got xxx how you would know if it was a german or american or a UK site or a Candain strip club site. I didn't completly get the entire article. I guess new sites that use the XXX would get some benifits. It is one idea to try and cut down on people going to adult sites by mistake, it isn't perfect but it sounds like a good idea. Don't be affraid to tell me if you agree disagree or don't care at all about the issue.[/size]
'.xxx' marks the spot
Will a virtual red-light district help parents curb online pornography?
By ANICK JESDANUN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8/29/2005
Illustration by DANIEL ZAKROCZEMSKI/Buffalo News
Click to view larger picture
Associated Press
With their computers in front of them, members of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet's key oversight body, meet to oversee the administration of domain names such as .biz, .museum and possibly .xxx.
NEW YORK - A red-light district is being considered for construction on the Internet - the ".xxx" domain. This virtual location is being billed by backers as giving the $12 billion online porn industry a great opportunity to clean up its act.
A distinct online sector for the salacious, one with rules aimed at forbidding trickery, will reduce the chances of Internet users accidentally stumbling on porn sites, they argue.
If only it were so simple:
Zoning in cyberspace has always been a daunting proposition, and participation in the porn domain will be voluntary. Critics wonder why ".xxx" got the OK at all when so many other proposals sit unaddressed, some for years.
Nearly five years after rejecting a similar proposal, the Internet's key oversight body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), voted 6-3 in June to proceed with ".xxx."
But acknowledging "unprecedented" opposition, the U.S. government has asked the Internet's key oversight agency to delay approval of a new ".xxx" domain name for one month.
Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on ICANN to "ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered."
The department received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it, he said.
"The volume of correspondence opposed to creation of a .xxx TLD (domain name) is unprecedented," Gallagher wrote to Vinton Cerf, ICANN's chairman.
Gallagher said ICANN should take more time to evaluate those concerns.
The chairman of ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, Mohd Sharil Tarmizi, also wrote ICANN officials urging delay and expressing "a strong sense of discomfort" among many countries, which he did not name.
Gallagher's comments, however, carry greater weight because his agency has veto power over ICANN decisions given the U.S. government's role in funding early developing of the Internet and selecting ICANN in 1998 to oversee domain name administration.
ICANN officials had no immediate comment.
The market unquestionably exists: Two in five Internet users visited an adult site in April, according to tracking by comScore Media Metrix. The company said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all surfing time involved an adult site.
A Florida company, ICM Registry Inc., proposed ".xxx" as a mechanism for the online porn industry to clean up its act. All sites using ".xxx" would be required to follow yet-to-be-written "best practices" guidelines, such as prohibitions against trickery through spamming and malicious scripts.
Use of ".xxx" would be voluntary, however.
As envisioned, ICM would charge $60 for each of up to 500,000 names it expects to register, $10 of which would go to a nonprofit organization that would, among other things, educate parents about safe surfing for children.
The nonprofit, run by representatives of adult Web sites, free-speech, privacy and child-advocacy concerns, would determine registration eligibility.
Skeptics argue, however, that porn sites are likely to keep their existing ".com" storefronts, even as they set up shop in the new ".xxx" domain name. And that will reduce the effectiveness of software filters set up to simply block all ".xxx" names.
The ".xxx" domain "legitimizes this group, and it gives false hope to parents," said Patrick Trueman, senior legal counsel at the Family Research Council and a former Justice Department official in charge of obscenity prosecutions.
The adult entertainment industry is also hardly behind ".xxx" as a group. Many of its webmasters consider the domain "the first step toward driving the adult Internet into a ghetto very much like zoning laws have driven adult stores into the outskirts," said Mark Kernes, senior editor at the trade monthly Adult Video News.
ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory.
"Where governments have tried to use private labeling systems as proxies for regulation, courts have always held those measures unconstitutional," he said.
Even if it's voluntary, supporters say, adult sites will have incentives to use ".xxx."
"If the carrot's big enough, you're going to get sites in there," said Parry Aftab, an Internet safety expert who served as an informal adviser on ".xxx."
Stuart Lawley, ICM's chairman and president, said use of ".xxx" could protect companies from prosecution under a 2003 federal law that bars sites from tricking children into viewing pornography - as ".xxx" would clearly denote an adult site.
Lawley said those requirements could make credit-card issuers more confident about accepting charges. The online porn industry currently faces higher fees because some sites engage in fraud and customers often deny authorizing payments.
But given the limited effectiveness of a voluntary ".xxx" for filtering, Internet filtering expert Seth Finkelstein calls ".xxx" no more than a mechanism "to extract fees from bona fide pornographers and domain name speculators." (ICANN also gets an unspecified cut of each registration fee.)
Even if it were mandatory, it wouldn't be foolproof.
A domain name serves merely as an easy-to-remember moniker for a site's actual numeric Internet address. David Burt, a spokesman for filtering vendor Secure Computing Corp., said a child could simply use the numeric address when the ".xxx" equivalent gets blocked.
Better technologies exist, he said, including a little-used self-rating system that lets Web sites broadcast whether they contain nudity, violence or foul language, along with the specific forms, such as presence of genitals or passionate kissing.
Burt also favors a ".kids" domain that would serve as a safe haven for children. The U.S. government has approved one under ".us," but support has been cool, with only about two dozen ".kids.us" sites listed.
ICM proposed both ".xxx" and ".kids" in 2000, but ICANN board members resisted them for fear of getting into content control. Instead, ICANN approved ".info," ".biz," and ".museum" and four others.
But pressure has continued to mount for ICANN to expand the number of domain names, and last year it reopened bidding.
ICM resubmitted its application for ".xxx" only, this time structuring it with a policy-setting organization to free ICANN of that task.
That did the trick.
ICANN board member Joichi Ito, who backed ".xxx," wrote in his Web journal that the decision wasn't an endorsement of any type of content or moral belief but a chance for "creating incentives for legitimate adult entertainment sites to come together and fight "bad actors.' "
Anti-porn activist Donna Rice Hughes, however, remains unconvinced.
"They are not going to give up their ".com' addresses," she said of porn sites. "It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out."
'.xxx' marks the spot
Will a virtual red-light district help parents curb online pornography?
By ANICK JESDANUN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8/29/2005
Illustration by DANIEL ZAKROCZEMSKI/Buffalo News
Click to view larger picture
Associated Press
With their computers in front of them, members of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet's key oversight body, meet to oversee the administration of domain names such as .biz, .museum and possibly .xxx.
NEW YORK - A red-light district is being considered for construction on the Internet - the ".xxx" domain. This virtual location is being billed by backers as giving the $12 billion online porn industry a great opportunity to clean up its act.
A distinct online sector for the salacious, one with rules aimed at forbidding trickery, will reduce the chances of Internet users accidentally stumbling on porn sites, they argue.
If only it were so simple:
Zoning in cyberspace has always been a daunting proposition, and participation in the porn domain will be voluntary. Critics wonder why ".xxx" got the OK at all when so many other proposals sit unaddressed, some for years.
Nearly five years after rejecting a similar proposal, the Internet's key oversight body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), voted 6-3 in June to proceed with ".xxx."
But acknowledging "unprecedented" opposition, the U.S. government has asked the Internet's key oversight agency to delay approval of a new ".xxx" domain name for one month.
Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on ICANN to "ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered."
The department received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it, he said.
"The volume of correspondence opposed to creation of a .xxx TLD (domain name) is unprecedented," Gallagher wrote to Vinton Cerf, ICANN's chairman.
Gallagher said ICANN should take more time to evaluate those concerns.
The chairman of ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, Mohd Sharil Tarmizi, also wrote ICANN officials urging delay and expressing "a strong sense of discomfort" among many countries, which he did not name.
Gallagher's comments, however, carry greater weight because his agency has veto power over ICANN decisions given the U.S. government's role in funding early developing of the Internet and selecting ICANN in 1998 to oversee domain name administration.
ICANN officials had no immediate comment.
The market unquestionably exists: Two in five Internet users visited an adult site in April, according to tracking by comScore Media Metrix. The company said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all surfing time involved an adult site.
A Florida company, ICM Registry Inc., proposed ".xxx" as a mechanism for the online porn industry to clean up its act. All sites using ".xxx" would be required to follow yet-to-be-written "best practices" guidelines, such as prohibitions against trickery through spamming and malicious scripts.
Use of ".xxx" would be voluntary, however.
As envisioned, ICM would charge $60 for each of up to 500,000 names it expects to register, $10 of which would go to a nonprofit organization that would, among other things, educate parents about safe surfing for children.
The nonprofit, run by representatives of adult Web sites, free-speech, privacy and child-advocacy concerns, would determine registration eligibility.
Skeptics argue, however, that porn sites are likely to keep their existing ".com" storefronts, even as they set up shop in the new ".xxx" domain name. And that will reduce the effectiveness of software filters set up to simply block all ".xxx" names.
The ".xxx" domain "legitimizes this group, and it gives false hope to parents," said Patrick Trueman, senior legal counsel at the Family Research Council and a former Justice Department official in charge of obscenity prosecutions.
The adult entertainment industry is also hardly behind ".xxx" as a group. Many of its webmasters consider the domain "the first step toward driving the adult Internet into a ghetto very much like zoning laws have driven adult stores into the outskirts," said Mark Kernes, senior editor at the trade monthly Adult Video News.
ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory.
"Where governments have tried to use private labeling systems as proxies for regulation, courts have always held those measures unconstitutional," he said.
Even if it's voluntary, supporters say, adult sites will have incentives to use ".xxx."
"If the carrot's big enough, you're going to get sites in there," said Parry Aftab, an Internet safety expert who served as an informal adviser on ".xxx."
Stuart Lawley, ICM's chairman and president, said use of ".xxx" could protect companies from prosecution under a 2003 federal law that bars sites from tricking children into viewing pornography - as ".xxx" would clearly denote an adult site.
Lawley said those requirements could make credit-card issuers more confident about accepting charges. The online porn industry currently faces higher fees because some sites engage in fraud and customers often deny authorizing payments.
But given the limited effectiveness of a voluntary ".xxx" for filtering, Internet filtering expert Seth Finkelstein calls ".xxx" no more than a mechanism "to extract fees from bona fide pornographers and domain name speculators." (ICANN also gets an unspecified cut of each registration fee.)
Even if it were mandatory, it wouldn't be foolproof.
A domain name serves merely as an easy-to-remember moniker for a site's actual numeric Internet address. David Burt, a spokesman for filtering vendor Secure Computing Corp., said a child could simply use the numeric address when the ".xxx" equivalent gets blocked.
Better technologies exist, he said, including a little-used self-rating system that lets Web sites broadcast whether they contain nudity, violence or foul language, along with the specific forms, such as presence of genitals or passionate kissing.
Burt also favors a ".kids" domain that would serve as a safe haven for children. The U.S. government has approved one under ".us," but support has been cool, with only about two dozen ".kids.us" sites listed.
ICM proposed both ".xxx" and ".kids" in 2000, but ICANN board members resisted them for fear of getting into content control. Instead, ICANN approved ".info," ".biz," and ".museum" and four others.
But pressure has continued to mount for ICANN to expand the number of domain names, and last year it reopened bidding.
ICM resubmitted its application for ".xxx" only, this time structuring it with a policy-setting organization to free ICANN of that task.
That did the trick.
ICANN board member Joichi Ito, who backed ".xxx," wrote in his Web journal that the decision wasn't an endorsement of any type of content or moral belief but a chance for "creating incentives for legitimate adult entertainment sites to come together and fight "bad actors.' "
Anti-porn activist Donna Rice Hughes, however, remains unconvinced.
"They are not going to give up their ".com' addresses," she said of porn sites. "It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out."
thanks for posting that, metalpeter, it is more proof that the reason the levees failed was because not enough people cared enough to make sure that they were strengthened.
The Clinton administration failed to protect the citizens; as did the Bush administration. Why aren't people blaming Clinton for this? He's just as much at fault as Bush is. Or just as innocent. It's all perception.
But one thing is for damn sure, if the Clinton administration had gotten off its collective ass and strengthened the levees, it wouldn't have mattered what Dubya did or did not do.
Dcoffee, I'll agree with you that it the Federal government who failed its citizens - it didn't matter who was in the White House. Neither Clinton nor Bush cared enough to do what it takes to ensure the safety of New Orleans.
There's more than enough blame to go around.
Thanks for that article, it was really good, I'm glad the Buffalo News is mentioning the stuff about the federal government cutting the funds for the Levees.