Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: How to have the Burning Man experience from the comfort of your own home:
Tear down your house. Put it in a truck. Drive 10 hours in any direction. Put the house back together. Invite everyone you meet to come over and party. When everyone leaves, follow them back to their homes, drink all their booze, and break things.
Stack all your fans in one corner of your livingroom. Put on your most fabulous outfit. Turn the fans on full blast. Dump a vacuum cleaner bag in front of them.
Pitch your tent next to the wall of speakers in a crowded, noisy club. Go to sleep. Wake up 2 hours later in a 110+ degree tent.
Only use the toilet in a house that is at least 3 blocks away. Drain all the water from the toilet. Only flush it every 4 days. Hide all the toilet paper.
Visit a restaurant and pay them to let you alternate lying in the walk-in freezer and sitting in the oven.
Don't sleep for 5 days. Take a wide variety of hallucinogenic/emotion-altering drugs. Pick a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend.
Pay an escort of your affectional preference subset to not bathe for five days, cover themselves in glitter, dust, and sunscreen, wear a skanky neon wig, and dance close naked;
-- then tell you they have a lover back home at the end of the night.
Cut, burn, electrocute, bruise, and sunburn various parts of your body. Forget how you did it. Don't go to a doctor.
Buy a new pair of favorite shoes. Throw one shoe away.
Buy a new set of expensive camping gear. Break it.
Spend a whole year rummaging through thrift stores for the perfect, most outrageous costume. Forget to pack it.
Listen to music you hate for 168 hours straight, or until you think you are going to scream. Scream. Realize you'll love the music for the rest of your life.
Get so drunk you can't recognize your own house. Walk slowly around the block for 5 hours.
Sprinkle dirty sand in all your food.
Mail $200 to the Reno casino of your choice.
Go to a museum. Find one of Salvador Dali's more disturbing but beautiful paintings. Climb inside it.
Spend thousands of dollars on a deeply personal art work. Hide it in a funhouse on the edge of the city. Blow it up.
Set up a DJ system downwind of a three alarm fire. Play a short loop of drum'n'bass fortissimo until the embers are cold.
Have a 3 a.m. soul-baring conversation with a drag nun in platforms, a crocodile, and Bugs Bunny. Be unable to tell if you're hallucinating.
And I might add: Do all that and spend a whole year thinking about doing it all again but bigger.
Christopher T. Heun for InternetWeek wrote:
Courts Unlikely To Stop Google Book Copying Despite objections from publishers and writers, copyright law appears to be on Google's side, legal experts say. The social value of Google's initiative to digitize library books, including those protected by copyright, will likely weigh heavily in the search engine's favor. Should the growing number of publishing groups, who oppose the plan by Google Inc. to digitize the collections of some of the world’s major libraries, fail to reach an agreement and turn instead to the courts, they may have a tough road ahead of them.
Although Google may appear to violate the law by scanning, without permission, entire copies of books protected by copyright, such an act is not illegal if it is considered “fair use” of the material. How a court interprets that doctrine will decide the fate of the company’s ambitious plans, according to lawyers and law professors with knowledge of intellectual property and copyright statues. They say the most important issues for a court would be the character of Google’s activity, its adverse economic impact on the copyright holder, and the amount of material it uses in proportion to the whole and if that is key to the work. Of lesser concern is whether the company makes a reasonable effort to contact copyright holders before copying their books.
“Google would probably win” a court case, says William Fisher, who teaches intellectual property law at Harvard Law School and is the director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. “Google is a profit-making venture, that counts against it, but what it is doing is a highly socially valuable activity and that counts highly in its favor.”
A potential legal battle is slowly gathering strength. The Text and Academic Authors Association this week joined the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers in publicly stating it is ready to take on Google in the courtroom.
The two sides are playing a game of chicken over who should dictate what works are digitized: Google says it will not scan any titles publishers tell it not to; publishers insist it should work the other way around. “The solution we’d like to see [Google] heading toward is to say here is a list of books we’d like to include, may we have permission to do so,” says Peter Givler, the executive director of the Association of American University Presses. The scanning has stopped temporarily but will resume in November.
One law professor doesn’t think that’s necessary. “The principle that Google should have to ask [for permission] is proving untenable,” says Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University Law School who has published a book on protecting intellectual property on the Internet, “Digital Copyright.” “The opt-out mechanism is pretty reasonable.” The source of the squabble is the Google Print Library Project, which aims to scan and store in the company’s search database copyrighted books from the libraries of Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, the University of Oxford and the New York Public Library. Google’s ultimate goal, according to its Web site, is to build a “comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog of all books in all languages that helps users discover new books and publishers find new readers.”
If a work included in a search query is covered by a copyright, Google limits the amount of text shown to a few sentences adjacent to the search term; the full text is available for any book with an expired copyright now considered public domain – for instance, a novel published in 1905.
Sounds fair enough. But publishers don’t see it that way. They look at the library project not as an altruistic endeavor but a profit-making venture that will harm their own business. As proof they point out that Google, which relies on advertising for the vast majority of its revenue – a record $1.4 billion for the quarter that ended June 30 – allows sponsored links on the search results page for Google Print. It’s enough to make them wonder: if one search engine can appropriate a publisher’s intellectual property, then isn’t it logical to assume that others, like Yahoo! and Microsoft, will be next?
“If copyright law worked the way Google would like to see it working, then everyone in the world would be able to use the material unless the copyright holder explicitly told them not to, and even then it would be OK,” says Allan Adler, the vice president for legal and government affairs for the Association of American Publishers. “That would be a very strange copyright system.”
Regardless, there is a clear legal precedent for any potential court battle between publishers and Google, and it favors the Mountain View, Calif., company. In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., a 2003 case in which a photographer sued a search engine, claiming copyright infringement for displaying thumbnail images of work originally posted on his site, the Ninth Circuit found in favor of the search engine: the act of copying the material, even though it was for commercial purposes, was not exploitative and therefore was fair use. “Everything the Ninth Circuit stated with respect to Arriba applies with equal force to the Print Library Project,” Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer in Washington, D.C., who represents Internet companies and library associations on intellectual property matters, wrote recently in a copyright analysis of the dispute. Google’s copies of books will not replace the originals, and the company does not profit from the sale of any books it scans, he wrote. Band does not represent any entity with respect to the Google Print project.
“The Google Print Library Project will make it easier than ever before for users to locate the wealth of information buried in books,” Band concluded. “By limiting the search results to a few sentences before and after the search term, the program will not conflict with the normal exploitation of works nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of rights holders. To the contrary, it will often increase demand for copyrighted works.”
For further legal precedent, David Donahue, an associate at Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, a New York firm that specializes in trademark, copyright and unfair competition law, cites two cases involving the distribution of photocopies of articles from scientific and medical journals.
In American Geophysical Union vs. Texaco Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in 1994 that a private company did not have the right to photocopy entire works and hand them out to its research staff. But in Williams & Wilkins Co. vs. The United States Records, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that it was fair use for a library to photocopy research journals and distribute them. “Google lies somewhere in between those two cases,” Donahue says.
Complicating the debate over copyright is the fact that publishers often don’t even know who has it. Their records can be incomplete, particularly if an author is deceased, in which case an estate or family member could hold the rights. A book with an unknown copyright status is known as an “orphan work.” Most works published prior to 1923 are now in the public domain, because the term of protection, the life of the author plus 70 years, is likely over. Conversely, works published in the last 30 years or so probably have an ISDN number and are tracked through a database, “so there should be little question about who holds the copyright,” Adler says. The tough part is determining the status of books published in those five decades in between. “Were talking about millions of books,” he says. “Orphan works are not in the public domain.”
The Copyright Office, at the request of Congress, has studied the “orphan works” issue and should publish its recommendations later this year, which will likely be passed into law. Publishers believe that copyright holders of orphan works, should they eventually make a claim, are entitled to a reasonable compensation, but Google using their works in the meantime shouldn’t be treated as infringement, as long as the company makes an honest effort to find them.
By now, lawsuits shouldn’t faze Google. Agence France-Presse, angry that its content appears in search results, filed a $17.5 million copyright infringement in March; adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 Inc. is asking a federal court in Los Angeles to prevent Google from displaying pictures and links to the company’s copyrighted photos; and two companies have sued Google over its practice of keyword advertising.
In the end, winning a fair use argument against Google could be tough, since its entire business model revolves around the principle. “Google couldn’t exist at all without making copies,” Litman says. “It’s a search engine. It makes copies in order to index content.
At a news conference, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's choice for head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had “absolutely no credentials.”
She related that she urged Bush at the White House on Tuesday to fire Brown.
He said, “Why would I do that?” Pelosi said.
I said, “Because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.”
And he said “What didn't go right?”
”By September 2005, Bush had destroyed the nation's financial solvency, declared war on Islam internationally, sent the entire National Guard to depose Iraq's government, alienated the European nations by feeding the fires of international warfare, invited a trade war with Canada over softwood, and directed his proxy Pat Robertson to announce a jihad against Venezuela. Then G-d decided to open yet another front in the worldwide conflict, and directed his armies of wind and waves to destroy the entire Biloxi staging base for the Iraq war, to destroy New Orleans in one day, to create a huge demand for the absent National Guard, to choke off the nation's supply of crude and refined oil by devastating Louisiana and Mississipp, and killed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, all in just over a week. G-d also saw fit to assure the destruction of the Bush junta by hardening the hearts of the Pharaoh's men, so that their TV messages were not at all reassuring, and their sound bites were like stones, and broke the teeth of viewers who sought to consume them. So a great wave of anger rose up in the hearts of the people, and like a tsunami of rage, destroyed the Bush junta."
Viewpoint: Has Katrina saved US media?
BBC News, Los Angeles
As President Bush scurries back to the Gulf Coast, it is clear that this is the greatest challenge to politics-as-usual in America since the fall of Richard Nixon in the 1970s.
Then as now, good reporting lies at the heart of what is changing. But unlike Watergate, ”Katrinagate“ was public service journalism ruthlessly exposing the truth on a live and continuous basis.
Instead of secretive ”Deep Throat“ meetings in car-parks, cameras captured the immediate reality of what was happening at the New Orleans Convention Center, making a mockery of the stalling and excuses being put forward by those in power.
Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its spine back, thanks to Katrina.
National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account.
They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt to the same huge business interests.
Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.
It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.
'Lies or ignorance'
But last week the complacency stopped, and the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow, from slick anchors who spend most of their time glued to desks in New York and Washington.
The most spectacular example came last Friday night on Fox News, the cable network that has become the darling of the Republican heartland. This highly successful Murdoch-owned station sets itself up in opposition to the ”mainstream liberal media elite“.
But with the sick and the dying forced to sit in their own excrement behind him in New Orleans, its early-evening anchor Shepard Smith declared civil war against the studio-driven notion that the biggest problem was still stopping the looters.
On other networks like NBC, CNN and ABC it was the authority figures, who are so used to an easy ride at press conferences, that felt the full force of reporters finally determined to ditch the deference.
As the heads of the Homeland Security department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) appeared for network interviews, their defensive remarks about where aid was arriving to, and when, were exposed immediately as either downright lies or breath-taking ignorance.
And you did not need a degree in journalism to know it either. Just watching TV for the previous few hours would have sufficed.
When the back-slapping president told the Fema boss on Friday morning that he was doing ”a heck of a job“ and spent most of his first live news conference in the stricken area praising all the politicians and chiefs who had failed so clearly, it beggared belief.
The president looked affronted when a reporter covering his Mississippi walkabout had the temerity to suggest that having a third of the National Guard from the affected states on duty in Iraq might be a factor.
It is something I suspect he is going to have to get used to from now on: the list of follow-up questions is too long to ignore or bury. And it is not only on TV and radio where the gloves have come off.
The most artful supporter of the administration on the staff of the New York Times, columnist David Brooks, has also had enough.
He and others are calling the debacle the ”anti 9-11“: ”The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled,“ he wrote on Sunday.
”Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield.“
It is way too early to tell whether this really will become ”Katrinagate“ for President Bush, but how he and his huge retinue of politically-appointed bureaucrats react in the weeks ahead will be decisive.
Government has been thrown into disrepute, and many Americans have realised, for the first time, that the collapsed, rotten flood defences of New Orleans are a symbol of failed infrastructure across the nation.
Blaming the state and city officials, as the president is already trying to do over Katrina, will not wash.
Black America will not forget the government failures, and nor will the Gulf Coast region
Beyond the immediate challenge of re-housing the evacuees and getting 200,000-plus children into new schools, there will have to be a Katrina Commission, that a newly-emboldened media will scrutinise obsessively. The dithering and incompetence that will be exposed will not spare the commander-in-chief, or the sunny, faith-based propaganda that he was still spouting as he left New Orleans airport last Friday, saying it was all going to turn out fine.
People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch, less than a mile away.
Black America will not forget the government failures, nor will the Gulf Coast region.
Tens of thousands of voters whose lives have been so devastated will cast their mid-term ballots in Texas next year - the president's adopted home state.
The final word belongs to the historic newspaper at the centre of the hurricane - The New Orleans Times-Picayune. At the weekend, this now-homeless institution published an open letter: ”We're angry, Mr President, and we'll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry.
“Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been, were not. That's to the government's shame.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 214516.stm
Published: 2005/09/05 16:48:01 GMT
© BBC MMV
FEMA head takes heat in spotlight
By John Biemer and Howard Witt Chicago Tribune staff reporters Published September 4, 2005
For the decade prior to joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Director Michael Brown was commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, a Colorado-based group that organizes breeders and horse shows. Then he was asked to resign.
“He didn't follow the instructions he was given,” then-IAHA President William Pennington confirmed Saturday.
Less than five years after that dismissal, Brown, 50, finds himself heading the federal agency charged with responding to one of the nation's worst disasters.
Brown has been one of the leading public faces of a federal response sharply criticized as too little and too late. His statements and sometimes even his demeanor under the camera's glare have been questioned by critics--and often divergent from the grief-stricken reality on the ground.
During one of his first televised news conferences Wednesday, when violence and chaos were spreading in New Orleans and bodies were beginning to be seen floating in the water, Brown laughed and joked as he took reporters' questions.
At points last week, he described security in New Orleans as “pretty darn good.” He said he had received no reports of “unrest,” nor any information about uncollected corpses. And on Thursday night, he told CNN the agency had just learned that thousands of people had huddled at the New Orleans Convention Center, even though the city had directed them to go there, and journalists had been reporting their plight.
The frustrated New Orleans mayor, C. Ray Nagin, lashed out last week, saying federal officials “don't have a clue” what was going on in his city. And the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, was quoted in The New York Times as calling on President Bush to fire Brown.
Seeking her own expert, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Saturday hired James Lee Witt, the widely praised FEMA director under President Bill Clinton, to advise her.
Still, even though Bush has called the federal response to the disaster “not acceptable,” he praised Brown Friday during a tour of Alabama, saying, “Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job,” the AP reported.
FEMA DIR. MIKE BROWN FIRED FROM PRIOR JOB AT HORSE ASSOC.
by Goldy at HorsesAss
by Daily Kos.com
Fri Sep 2nd, 2005
[editor's note, by Goldy at HorsesAss] Revised title
"An unmitigated, total fucking disaster." That's not a quote from Mike Brown, but rather, a quote describing him. And most disturbingly, it's not even a reference to his dismal performance as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This blunt critique was emailed to me from a regular reader who was apparently attracted to HorsesAss.org by her passion for politics and her love of Arabian horses.I think I've told you that I'm into Arab horses. Well, for 3 years Michael Brown was hired and then fired by our IAHA, the International Arabian Horse Assoc. He was an unmitigated, total fucking disaster. I was shocked as hell when captain clueless put him in charge of FEMA a couple of years ago.
Goldy at HorsesAss's diary :: ::He or the WH lied on the WH presser announcing him to FEMA. IAHA was never connected to the Olympic Comm, only the half Arab registry then and the governing body to the state and local Arabian horse clubs. He ruined IAHA financially so badly that we had to change the name and combine it with the Purebred registry.
I am telling you this after watching the fucking shipwreck in the Gulf. His incompetence is KILLING people.
Yes, that's right ... the man responsible for directing federal relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sharpened his emergency management skills as the "Judges and Stewards Commissioner" for the International Arabian Horses Association ... a position from which he was forced to resign in the face of mounting litigation and financial disarray.New Hampshire Arabian Horse Association
I am headed to the IAHA convention in San Antonio after Thanksgiving. It should be a hot time down there this year. A complete counter slate of officers has been offered from the floor of convention. There is a lot of unrest in this industry right now. There are 17 resolutions pertaining to Resolution 5-90 (The office of the Judges and Stewards Commissioner) i.e.; the $3.00 fee. Mike Brown who was commissioner was requested to resign after all of the controversy regarding the number of lawsuits that are pending transpired.
AWhiteHorse Equine Industry Articles, Editorials and Opinions Page
From Tom Connelly to the Board of Directors:
As the Board directed during our recent conference call, negotiations have been ongoing with Mike Brown in relation to his resignation.
Attached is the final agreed upon separation agreement which Mike has executed and presented to us. He realized that this matter was going to go to the Board and he wanted to have signed it before it was actually presented.
I plan to sign the agreement Monday at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, but in the meantime, if you wish to make any comments, please forward them to Joleen White and she will make sure we all see them.
The Parties to this Agreement are:
A. International Arabian Horse Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation, which is located in Arapahoe County, Colorado ("IAHA"); and
B. Michael D. Brown, an individual who is a resident of Boulder County, Colorado.
A. Mr. Brown is employed as the Judges and Stewards Commissioner of IAHA.
B. Mr. Brown and IAHA are currently involved as co-defendants in litigation.
C. Mr. Brown desires to resign from his employment with IAHA, and IAHA desires to accept Mr. Brown's resignation. However, in an attempt to accomplish an orderly transition for IAHA, the parties desire a gradual disengagement of the relationship so that Mr. Brown can complete his pending work and continue to assist in the defense of the pending litigation.
In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which the parties hereby acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:
A. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties, Mr. Brown will resign from his position with IAHA, effective January 31, 2001.
B. Mr. Brown will employ his best efforts to conclude his work on pending matters during the month of September, 2000, and will assist in an orderly transition, and will continue to assist in the defense of litigation against him and/or IAHA relating to his work as Judges and Stewards Commissioner.
C. Prior to January 31, 2001, Mr. Brown will use all of his accrued vacation time.
D. IAHA will continue to pay to Mr. Brown his full salary, including benefits, through January 31, 2001.
E. During the months of February, March and April, 2001, IAHA will pay Mr. Brown his full salary, as severance pay.
F. Mr. Brown will continue to assist in the defense of litigation against him and/or IAHA relating to his work for IAHA as Judges and Stewards Commissioner, as reasonably requested by counsel for IAHA, unless reasonably objected to by counsel for Mr. Brown.
G. IAHA will pay to Mr. Brown a consulting fee of $100 per hour for time he spends assisting in the defense of litigation after April 30, 2001, such fee to be paid within 30 days of the date services are billed to IAHA by Mr. Brown.
H. IAHA will continue to provide and to pay for health insurance for Mr. Brown and his wife through October 31, 2001.
I. By October 1, 2000, Mr. Brown will cause to be contributed from the Michael D. Brown Legal Defense Fund Trust to the IAHA Legal Defense Fund the sum of $25,000.
J. IAHA will, without limitation and to the fullest extent allowed by law, continue to indemnify Mr. Brown and to hold Mr. Brown harmless from all liabilities, obligations, claims, causes of action, or expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, that may arise or be incurred by Mr. Brown arising out of the performance of his employment as Judges and Stewards Commissioner of IAHA, including his duties under the terms of this Separation Agreement.
K. Mr. Brown further agrees to abide by the provisions of Paragraphs 17 and 18 his Employment Contract and the confidentiality requirements of Resolution 5-90.
L. This Separation Agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission by either party of any acts of wrongdoing whatsoever. The parties recognize that, due to the nature of Mr. Brown's duties as Judges and Stewards Commissioner, he has been the subject of numerous personal attacks, and that there have been numerous allegations made during the course of his employment that Mr. Brown engaged in conduct that would constitute cause for the termination of Brown's contract with IAHA. IAHA specifically acknowledges, however, that no cause exists to terminate Brown's contract with IAHA.
M. The Parties hereby and forever release and discharge each other, their heirs and assigns, from any and all causes of action, actions, judgments, liens, damages, losses, claims, liabilities and demands whatsoever, whether known or unknown, which arose prior to the date of this Separation Agreement.
N. Any dispute arising under this Separation Agreement shall be submitted to arbitration before the Judicial Arbiter Group in Denver, Colorado. In the event any arbitration is held pursuant to this Agreement, the arbitrator shall award the prevailing party his or its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
O. This Separation Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof.
P. The parties have each been represented by counsel in connection with this Separation Agreement and have read the entire Separation Agreement and understand each of the terms hereof.
Q. Colorado law shall govern the interpretation of this Separation Agreement and the resolution of any dispute arising in connection herewith.
R. No modification to this Separation Agreement will be effective, unless such modification is made in writing and signed by each of the parties hereto.
S. In the event that any part of this Separation Agreement and General Release is determined to be void, or otherwise unlawful, the remaining portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Michael D. Brown
International Arabian Horse Association
And what of that misleading White House press release?The White House
President Bush to Nominate Two Individuals to Serve in His Administration
The President announced his intention to nominate two individuals to serve as members of his administration.
The President intends to nominate Michael D. Brown to be Deputy Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Brown was appointed FEMA General Counsel in February, and Acting Deputy Director in September, where he has served as the Chairman of the Consequences Management Working Group. From 1991 to 2001, Brown was the Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, an international subsidiary of the national governing organization of the U.S. Olympic Committee. From 1988 to 1991, Brown was General Counsel to Dillingham Insurance, Suits Drilling, Suits Rig, Latigo Energy, Dillingham Ranch and Dillingham Enterprises, and from 1980 to 1988, he was an attorney in private practice. In 1978 to 1980, he worked for the Oklahoma State Senate Finance Committee, and from 1975 to 1978, Brown worked for the City of Edmond, Oklahoma, overseeing the emergency services divisions. Brown is a graduate of Central State University and Oklahoma City University Law School.
The President intends to nominate Ruth Lewis Griffin to be a Commissioner of the International Joint Commission for the United States and Canada. Griffin is the Executive Councilor for the Third District of New Hampshire and has been a member of the Executive Councilor since 1987. She was a Member of the New Hampshire State Senate, the New Hampshire House of Representatives and has served New Hampshire in elected office for a total of 35 years. Griffin is a member of the Governor's Commission on Intermodal Transportation which is the architect of the New Hampshire Highway Plan and the New Hampshire Health Services Planning and Review Board. She has served on the Portsmouth Board of Education, the Portsmouth Police Commission and is currently the Portsmouth Housing Authority Commissioner. A registered nurse, she is a graduate of the Wentworth Hospital School of Nursing.
I can't even begin to fact check the dates or IAHA's alleged relationship to the US Olympic Committee, because of course, the IAHA doesn't exist anymore, so there's nothing to Google. But it begs the question ... how the hell did his prior job experience prepare Brown to head FEMA?
Well, judging by his agency's performance over the past few days ... it didn't.
[Cross-posted at HorsesAss.org]
Welcome To the Netherlands wrote:
The Netherlands is best known for its tulips, windmills and clogs. And for its low altitude and vulnerability to flooding.
The Netherlands lies on the delta of three major rivers: the Rhine, Maas and Scheldt. It owes its existence to feats of hydraulic engineering.
The Dutch are proud of their conquest of water. Their struggle to keep dry has helped them develop a can-do attitude. And since controlling water requires many parties to meet and plan together, it has forced them to learn how to work as a team. That is why their European partners and the broader international community regard the Dutch as bridge builders and often ask them to serve as such.
The Netherlands’ many bridges, dykes, windmills and pumping stations give it a unique appearance and illustrate its long struggle against the sea. The crowning achievement was the Delta Project, a chain of dams protecting Zeeland and South Holland from the North Sea.
Work on the Delta Project began after the 1953 floods, and it ended in 1997 with the completion of a storm surge barrier in the Nieuwe Waterweg. The barrier has two enormous hinged gates that can be lowered in severe weather to close off the 360-metre-wide waterway. It protects greater Rotterdam’s one million inhabitants from flooding without harming the environment.
A quarter of the Netherlands’ land area lies below sea level. The low-lying areas consist mainly of “polders”, flat stretches of land, surrounded by dikes, where the water table is controlled artificially. From the 16th century, windmills were used not just to keep the land dry, but even to drain entire inland lakes.
The US Forest Service wrote:
Release No. 0348.05 Contact: Daniel Jiron (202) 205-1134 FOREST SERVICE WAIVES CAMPGROUND FEES FOR HURRICANE KATRINA SURVIVORS Washington, Sept.3, 2005 - The USDA Forest Service is taking another step to assist survivors of Hurricane Katrina by temporarily rescinding the fee requirement for campgrounds and the 14-day stay limit for camping on some National Forest System lands in the Southern Region. The normal fee range is $4.00 to $25.00 depending on the location.
The forests offering free camping include the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana, the National Forests of Alabama, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas, the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma and the National Forests and Grasslands of Texas. In all, 106 campgrounds are open without charge to victims of Hurricane Katrina as they transition through these first weeks of the disaster.
Location information on the fee-free campgrounds will be shared through the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and state and local assistance agencies. Individuals and families with communications capabilities can call their nearest USDA Forest Service office.
The USDA Forest Service efforts are a component of the active response efforts by USDA to provide immediate relief to displaced residents by providing food, water and housing. For a comprehensive overview of USDA efforts go to: http://www.usda.gov. More information on hurricane recovery activities through FEMA is available at http://www.fema.gov. Last Modified: 09/03/2005
Chertoff: Katrina scenario did not exist. However, experts for years had warned of threat to New Orleans
Monday, September 5, 2005; Posted: 2:55 p.m. EDT (18:55 GMT)
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff talks with reporters Saturday during a news conference. New Orleans (Louisiana) Michael Chertoff
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.
But in fact, government officials, scientists and journalists have warned of such a scenario for years.
Chertoff, fielding questions from reporters, said government officials did not expect both a powerful hurricane and a breach of levees that would flood the city of New Orleans.
Click here to download "Drowning New Orleans"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest