A Really Important Question
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: If you want to look at the picture in the light you're attempting to place it, contrast 9-11 with New Orleans debacle. The difference was in the quality of local and state leadership. Oh, and guess what. New York State and New York City were run by Republicians. D'oh. Apples vs oranges. Terrorist attack (sudden, office buildings, caused by evil humans) vs Hurricane (anticipated, entire cities, caused by evil deity). I think it's more appropriate to compare FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina[^] with their response to the Hurricanes of 2004[^] (which occurred prior to the 2004 election *wink* *wink*). Mike Gaskey wrote: Have another drink of kool aid. Sure, but mine is sweetened with the truth[^].
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Sure, but mine is sweetened with the truth[^]. I am astounded that you would call that left wing grabage propaganda rag "the truth". You reall are drinking all of the kool aid, aren't you. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
OK, I'll rejoin the blame game. Actually the response was almost perfect. A major portion of the gulf coast was obliterated and relief was pretty much immediately available. Only two decisions of any real detrimental significance occured. One, was the Mayor's refusal to respond as early as sunday with readily available transportation to move large numbers of people from vulnerable areas. The other was the state's refusal to allow the Red Cross supplies, which had been forward postitioned by FEMA, and were available in large amounts, to enter New Orleans in time to be available before the city began to flood. Those two simple, bureaucratic blunders, were primarily responsible for the chaos and inconvenience that could have been avoided by any one in any position of authority once the actual danger was recognized. (Questions concerning why the flood control system protecting New Orleans failed is an entirely separate issue and is not really germane to how we would respond to a large scale attack.) So, frankly, all political bias aside, I'd say we look pretty well prepared for a simple 'dirty bomb' attack. Things will never go perfectly (there are bugs in any complex system, after all), but for the most part it looks as though we can be confident in our leadership. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
rwestgraham wrote: what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning??? From Keith Olbermann[^]:
[T]his is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison Awasu 2.1.2 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water. What a pack of BS. A Cat 4 Hurricane, followed by a fdlood caused by massive failure of levees surrounding a below sea level city is hardly "standing water". And the first and fatal failure was on the part of the Local and State govenrnments, who always will hold responsibility for firt response to a disaster. The Feds were no class act, but thier bumbles would hardly have been noticed but for the city and state governments abject failure. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Actually the response was almost perfect. Interestingly, the vast majority of people, Republicans up to the President included, disagree.
David Kentley wrote: Interestingly, the vast majority of people, Republicans up to the President included, disagree. Fine. Explain to me how (with the exception of the screw ups in New Orleans, largely by local authorities) was the response to the devastation of Katrina any less than the response to the devastation of Andrew in Florida? Everyone is concentrating on what happened in New Orleans, but the response in the remainder of the area has been as rapid as it has ever been anywhere for any such disaster. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans You're saying that GW's dismissal of Dick Clarks' warnings - essentially shutting down the government's counter-terrorisom efforts and thereby allowing 9-11 to happen - is effective handling? It is to laugh.. if not to cry.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: You're saying pay attention. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: we have our far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis. uncomfortable? they ruin the whole fucking party. seriously. get rid of the theocrats and bigots and keep (errr... get back to) the fiscal responsibilty and you've got yourself a real attractive party. as it is now, the GOP is completely poisoned. Mike Gaskey wrote: The facts remain, 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans and Katrina-New Orleans was mishandled by people labelled as Democrats ah. as long as the right label wins, regardless of what the people actually stand for, it's all good. go team! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 8:00 Friday 9th September, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote: uncomfortable? they ruin the whole f***ing party in a word, horse shit. ok, in two words. try facing reality, some of the icons on the political scene find a home in the GOP, including McCain, Arnold, Gulianni, Pataki even though they're not 100% in agreement with the entire spectrum. They probably feel as comfortable as Leibermann and Zell Miller do in the Democrat party. Oh, and by the way, none of the icons I mentioned felt compelled to speak at the Democrat Party Convention. Chris Losinger wrote: ah. as long as the right label wins, regardless of what the people actually stand for, it's all good. go team! can't stand the comparison of my team's leadership to yours? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans You're saying that GW's dismissal of Dick Clarks' warnings - essentially shutting down the government's counter-terrorisom efforts and thereby allowing 9-11 to happen - is effective handling? It is to laugh.. if not to cry.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: GW's dismissal of Dick Clarks' warnings - essentially shutting down the government's counter-terrorisom efforts and thereby allowing 9-11 to happen Outright lie. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: GW's dismissal of Dick Clarks' warnings - essentially shutting down the government's counter-terrorisom efforts and thereby allowing 9-11 to happen Outright lie. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
Ed K wrote: Outright lie That's Jim's specialty. But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! :rolleyes: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: uncomfortable? they ruin the whole f***ing party in a word, horse shit. ok, in two words. try facing reality, some of the icons on the political scene find a home in the GOP, including McCain, Arnold, Gulianni, Pataki even though they're not 100% in agreement with the entire spectrum. They probably feel as comfortable as Leibermann and Zell Miller do in the Democrat party. Oh, and by the way, none of the icons I mentioned felt compelled to speak at the Democrat Party Convention. Chris Losinger wrote: ah. as long as the right label wins, regardless of what the people actually stand for, it's all good. go team! can't stand the comparison of my team's leadership to yours? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: McCain, Arnold, Gulianni, Pataki first of all, i hear nothing but disdain from "true conservatives" over McCain. the right has an unlimited well of bile for him. and the other three are Republican only by virtue of being slightly more conservative than the people they run against (which, as i gather is just fine with you, since winning a seat for Team GOP is more important than what they actually do when they're elected). hell, look up RINO[^] on Wiki - guess whose picture is up there? then read the list of those who've been delcared RINO (Bloomberg, McCain, Arnold, Pataki, Giuliani all make the list). a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, non-evangelical (Catholic!) Republican will have a hell of a time getting elected in any state but CA, NY or New England - you know the places: the ones the GOP footsoldiers like to describe as "liberal coastal elitist". they don't represent the bulk of the GOP in Congress, nor do they reflect the GOP leadership. yes, they get to speak at conventions, but that's for show. because everybody knows those guys aren't driving the party. nope, face it: right now, the GOP is the party of choice for bigots, theocrats and corrupt southern demagogoues. till you get rid of that stuff, "Republican" is anathema to a large chunk of people. (nobody should consider the above a defense for the Democrats) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 10:01 Friday 9th September, 2005
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: McCain, Arnold, Gulianni, Pataki first of all, i hear nothing but disdain from "true conservatives" over McCain. the right has an unlimited well of bile for him. and the other three are Republican only by virtue of being slightly more conservative than the people they run against (which, as i gather is just fine with you, since winning a seat for Team GOP is more important than what they actually do when they're elected). hell, look up RINO[^] on Wiki - guess whose picture is up there? then read the list of those who've been delcared RINO (Bloomberg, McCain, Arnold, Pataki, Giuliani all make the list). a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, non-evangelical (Catholic!) Republican will have a hell of a time getting elected in any state but CA, NY or New England - you know the places: the ones the GOP footsoldiers like to describe as "liberal coastal elitist". they don't represent the bulk of the GOP in Congress, nor do they reflect the GOP leadership. yes, they get to speak at conventions, but that's for show. because everybody knows those guys aren't driving the party. nope, face it: right now, the GOP is the party of choice for bigots, theocrats and corrupt southern demagogoues. till you get rid of that stuff, "Republican" is anathema to a large chunk of people. (nobody should consider the above a defense for the Democrats) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 10:01 Friday 9th September, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote: first of all, i hear nothing but disdain from "true conservatives" over McCain. the right has an unlimited well of bile for him. No argument. I would far prefer Santorum or Condi Rice in the GOP primary to McCain. Chris Losinger wrote: the other three are Republican only by virtue of being...... Registered Republicans. With all the rhetoric, did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? fyi - Bloomberg I could do without, period. Chris Losinger wrote: they don't represent the bulk of the GOP in Congress Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. That isn't a slam, it is a simple fact that they represent the people who elected them - there isn't a Republican machine that automatically appoints a conservative to a seat. Chris Losinger wrote: the ones the GOP footsoldiers like to describe as "liberal coastal elitist". that is a kinder description than I would use. I've lived in the east (Mass.) and travelled heavily to NYC and wouldn't live in either place on a bet. Chris Losinger wrote: choice for bigots what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? Chris Losinger wrote: theocrats How so. becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? Chris Losinger wrote: corrupt southern demagogoues Byrd? Your broad brush indictments are filtered by your liberal viewpoint. Virtually everyone one has a Democrat party parallel, yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: first of all, i hear nothing but disdain from "true conservatives" over McCain. the right has an unlimited well of bile for him. No argument. I would far prefer Santorum or Condi Rice in the GOP primary to McCain. Chris Losinger wrote: the other three are Republican only by virtue of being...... Registered Republicans. With all the rhetoric, did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? fyi - Bloomberg I could do without, period. Chris Losinger wrote: they don't represent the bulk of the GOP in Congress Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. That isn't a slam, it is a simple fact that they represent the people who elected them - there isn't a Republican machine that automatically appoints a conservative to a seat. Chris Losinger wrote: the ones the GOP footsoldiers like to describe as "liberal coastal elitist". that is a kinder description than I would use. I've lived in the east (Mass.) and travelled heavily to NYC and wouldn't live in either place on a bet. Chris Losinger wrote: choice for bigots what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? Chris Losinger wrote: theocrats How so. becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? Chris Losinger wrote: corrupt southern demagogoues Byrd? Your broad brush indictments are filtered by your liberal viewpoint. Virtually everyone one has a Democrat party parallel, yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? no question they are conservative for the areas they are elected to. and while that may make them Republicans in NYC or CA (by virtue of our silly Dem/Rep duopoly), they are still pretty far to the left of the current national GOP. it's a stretch to claim Pataki or Arnold has much of anything to do with Trent Lott or Tom DeLay. Mike Gaskey wrote: Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. of course. and that electorate doesn't like pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-science politicians. they're the same people you described as the "far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis." Mike Gaskey wrote: what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? ? i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". they're certainly not gay-bashing, xenophobes who want to run the infidels out of the country, and they don't play wink-wink with those who are. maybe you can get them by using some expansive definition of the word. but if you're gonna make it broad enough to get them, you're gonna end up getting everybody else in the country, too. if you stick to the commonly-accepted definition, they aren't it. Mike Gaskey wrote: becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? cute. but that's not all the religious right is about. Mike Gaskey wrote: Byrd? not exactly a leader of the Democratic party. Mike Gaskey wrote: yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. do you think changing the subject to Dems is a defense of the GOP ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Ed K wrote: Outright lie That's Jim's specialty. But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! :rolleyes: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! You assume too much, Stan; I'm independent.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! You assume too much, Stan; I'm independent.
Oh! my mistake. I suppose you would have to hold out for the possibility of an occassional communist on the ballot. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? no question they are conservative for the areas they are elected to. and while that may make them Republicans in NYC or CA (by virtue of our silly Dem/Rep duopoly), they are still pretty far to the left of the current national GOP. it's a stretch to claim Pataki or Arnold has much of anything to do with Trent Lott or Tom DeLay. Mike Gaskey wrote: Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. of course. and that electorate doesn't like pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-science politicians. they're the same people you described as the "far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis." Mike Gaskey wrote: what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? ? i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". they're certainly not gay-bashing, xenophobes who want to run the infidels out of the country, and they don't play wink-wink with those who are. maybe you can get them by using some expansive definition of the word. but if you're gonna make it broad enough to get them, you're gonna end up getting everybody else in the country, too. if you stick to the commonly-accepted definition, they aren't it. Mike Gaskey wrote: becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? cute. but that's not all the religious right is about. Mike Gaskey wrote: Byrd? not exactly a leader of the Democratic party. Mike Gaskey wrote: yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. do you think changing the subject to Dems is a defense of the GOP ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The reason you don't see them as bigots is you share their opinions and prejudices. Chris Losinger wrote: so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The reason you don't see them as bigots is you share their opinions and prejudices. Chris Losinger wrote: so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. right, like i said: use a big enough definition and you catch everyone. there is nobody alive who doesn't meet that definiton. of course when i used the word, i used its common meaning of someone who's prejudiced and intolerant of social or racial differences. Mike Gaskey wrote: and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. and i'm explaining why you won't keep them. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. right, like i said: use a big enough definition and you catch everyone. there is nobody alive who doesn't meet that definiton. of course when i used the word, i used its common meaning of someone who's prejudiced and intolerant of social or racial differences. Mike Gaskey wrote: and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. and i'm explaining why you won't keep them. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm explaining why you won't keep them ready to lose another wager? 2006: GOP maintains or gains House seats - $1 gets you $10. 2006: GOP maintains or gains Senate seats - $1 gets you $10. results to charity of choice. 2008: GOP maintains control of Presidency - $1 gets you $25. Pelosi, Kennedy, Shumer, Boxer, Waters (I could go on, but..) are as bigoted aginst conservatives, Christians, anti-aboritionists, the successful business man as anyone you mant to point to who is bigoted regarding gays, abortion and liberals. You're making the same mistake my stepson did prior to the 2004 elections. He watched CNN, ran around with hip-hop sub-culture and simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America. Dead fucking wroong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm explaining why you won't keep them ready to lose another wager? 2006: GOP maintains or gains House seats - $1 gets you $10. 2006: GOP maintains or gains Senate seats - $1 gets you $10. results to charity of choice. 2008: GOP maintains control of Presidency - $1 gets you $25. Pelosi, Kennedy, Shumer, Boxer, Waters (I could go on, but..) are as bigoted aginst conservatives, Christians, anti-aboritionists, the successful business man as anyone you mant to point to who is bigoted regarding gays, abortion and liberals. You're making the same mistake my stepson did prior to the 2004 elections. He watched CNN, ran around with hip-hop sub-culture and simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America. Dead fucking wroong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
right, again, use a huge definition and everybody's a bigot. use the narrow definition i was using and you get quite a different set of people. but, since you're bigoted against that definition, i guess this is a dead-end conversation. Mike Gaskey wrote: simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America and yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no irony there! sure, i'll take your bets. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
right, again, use a huge definition and everybody's a bigot. use the narrow definition i was using and you get quite a different set of people. but, since you're bigoted against that definition, i guess this is a dead-end conversation. Mike Gaskey wrote: simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America and yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no irony there! sure, i'll take your bets. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: but, since you're bigoted against that definition lol - bigotry cuts both ways, just just happen to see you stands as more noble thus not bigoted and mainstream. Chris Losinger wrote: yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. Chris Losinger wrote: no irony there! does seem odd, doesn't it. Chris Losinger wrote: sure, i'll take your bets. great. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but, since you're bigoted against that definition lol - bigotry cuts both ways, just just happen to see you stands as more noble thus not bigoted and mainstream. Chris Losinger wrote: yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. Chris Losinger wrote: no irony there! does seem odd, doesn't it. Chris Losinger wrote: sure, i'll take your bets. great. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. oh. well then. that's completely different. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
A lot of people seem to be mostly interested in a pissing contest over who should take the blame for the mess of Katrina. But take a critical look, not at the preventative measures that could have been taken, but rather only at the response that was mounted after the disaster had indeed become a reality. I believe that it is hard for a person not blinded by their particular political and ideological persuasion to disagree that the post-disaster response that has been mounted has been characterized by a disturbing level of, uhmm, shall we say, "ineptness". We have had almost 4 years since 911 of living in a world where every person is acutely aware that a terrorist catastrophe can occur on our own soil. Now, given the recent test of our ability to respond to a catastrophe involving on the order of roughly 100,000, where we had advance warning to boot, what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning???
It tells us to go buy duct tape for the windows and doors of our homes.