http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi...8/06_03-29/TOP

Fred

wrote:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi...8/06_03-29/TOP

Fred

"Rudder failure" can mean a whole load of things, dependant upon the type of
steering and how the wheel's movement is transmitted to the rudder, assuming
it was a wheel-steered yacht.

Since virtually all racing boats carry an emergency tiller, it mystifies me
why this was not deployed by one of the crew remaining on the yacht,
suitably clothed in his lifejacket.

Also a mystery is where all the water was coming from, unless the rudder had
actually broken off at the stock.

A soleboard lashed to the spinnaker pole might have been an option provided
the ingress of water could have been stopped or minimized.

Is this another case of the CG simply taking the view that "it's only
$300,000, let the insurers pick up the tab"?


Dennis.

Roger Long wrote:
"Dennis Pogson" wrote
Is this another case of the CG simply taking the view that "it's only
$300,000, let the insurers pick up the tab"?


Now that the CG is nearly as overstretched and underfunded as the rest of
the military, and deprived of proper equipment by the the hidiously corrupt
supply contractor / procurement system that sees everything as a money
siphon from the taxpayers and cares not one whit for the safety or security
of the nation, they have not unreasonably adopted an unwritten policy that
their job is to save people; not toys. After all, there is only so much
they can do. If I were out there risking my life on an aging cutter or
aircraft looking at a toy boat owned by the kind of fat cat that deprived me
of the proper equipment to do my job and keep me safe to be alive to do it,
hell, I'd let the damn thing sink too.

So your solution to others having more than you is to do what you can to
see that they lose it, if you get the chance. Hmm.

I know that not all, in fact very
few, sailors actually fit into this category but, if I were on of those
dedicated and courageous and dedicated people out there who had been waiting
for new equipment and had been following the Deepwater fiasco, it would be
an easy attitude to slip into. It's also the only rational prioritization
response at the command structure level to the task / resources ratio forced
on them.

Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private
lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the
massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers
they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in
Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles?

The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives
generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of
wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always want to
do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of are
eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to choose the
best products and services. In other words, let people profit from
creating better products and services, the best products and services
will succeed. The worst will fail. This is what capitalism accomplishes,
if free.

More than
enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into the companies run by
Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was spent to give the USCG the
equipment they need and they didn't get so much as a usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to think of
how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking huge risks for
someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio

Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been
fed by talk radio too, right?

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private
lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about the
massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the soldiers
they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their cars about are in
Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant vehicles?

The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives
generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of
wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always want to

Always?? So, this isn't about conservatism vs. liberalism in your argument.
It's about good vs. evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_conservative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_liberal

do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of are
eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to choose the
best products and services. In other words, let people profit from
creating better products and services, the best products and services will
succeed. The worst will fail. This is what capitalism accomplishes, if
free.

This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and
over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out
there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of its
benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so much as a
usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make their
"chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to think of how
ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking huge risks for someone
else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do it for
themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.

People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk radio

Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've been
fed by talk radio too, right?

Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut talk
radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Why is it that the conservatives who get so worked up about private
lifestyle issues and taxes never seem to get very exercised about
the massive theft that is military procurement or the fact that the
soldiers they put "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their
cars about are in Iraq without proper body armor or mine resistant
vehicles?

The answer is that you misunderstand what you oppose. Conservatives
generally see the problem as belonging to the system and instead of
wanting to dump more money into that system like liberals always
want to

Always?? So, this isn't about conservatism vs. liberalism in your
argument. It's about good vs. evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_conservative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_liberal

do, they want to change the system so that the problems you speak of
are eliminated. One great way to do so is the free people up to
choose the best products and services. In other words, let people
profit from creating better products and services, the best products
and services will succeed. The worst will fail. This is what
capitalism accomplishes, if free.

This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over
and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of
examples out there, the justification for Iraq war included).
Capitalism must be moderated with a societal safety net in order to
take full advantage of its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work
as advertised.

More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into
the companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money
was spent to give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't
get so much as a usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to
think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking
huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do it
for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.

People mindlessly repeat the propaganda they have been fed by talk
radio

Hmm. You do realize you are mindlessly repeating propaganda you've
been fed by talk radio too, right?

Or, he's actually thinking. Either could be true. The right-wingnut
talk radio shows are fairly popular as well last I checked.

To get back to the subject. On UK television tonight we had a film of the
rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht, allegedly
the first in this country to be driven by biofuels.

Unfortunately, someone neglected to "engineer" the steering which was said
to be hydraulic. I have sailed on several machines fitted with hydraulic
steering all of which were utterly useless. This particular system leaked
badly, leaving them without steerage. (Must have had only one engine, aren't
we carrying this fuel-cost excuse a little too far?)

Could it be they charged up the steering system with hydraulic biofuel?

The vessel was towed to safety by the lifeboatmen, one of whom mentioned
that their own vessel was considerably less expensive than the rescued
vessel.

Red faces all round!

No secondary steering sytem, not even an emergency tiller! Bet I could have
got her home using the bow thruster!


Dennis.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:33:16 +0100, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote:

... On UK television tonight we had a film of the
rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht, allegedly
the first in this country to be driven by biofuels.
....
Dennis.

The UK is a small country, no doubt. Nowhere more than 150 miles from
the sea possibly. But I was struck again, visiting Walsall and
Birmingham in the Midlands last week i.e as far as it gets from the
ocean, how the Lifeboat service is never far from their consciousness.

I saw collecting boxes in the pubs and a poster on some public
building. Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for
Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank
Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long
repetition.

Brian W

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and
over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out
there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of
its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez
faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell
us what "working" is.

Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government
intervention.

What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed?

What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago" style
of argument on which the U of C arguments are based?

"Road Rage!" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and
over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out
there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of
its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez
faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span. Tell
us what "working" is.

Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will
explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster
Capitalism.

Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government
intervention.

Can and does/have are two different things.

What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed?

Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's been
attempted. Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete.
Even he couldn't do it, although he tried.

What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago"
style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based?

Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:33:16 +0100, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote:

... On UK television tonight we had a film of the
rescue services (lifeboat) going out to a £500,000 motor yacht,
allegedly the first in this country to be driven by biofuels.
...
Dennis.

The UK is a small country, no doubt. Nowhere more than 150 miles from
the sea possibly. But I was struck again, visiting Walsall and
Birmingham in the Midlands last week i.e as far as it gets from the
ocean, how the Lifeboat service is never far from their consciousness.

I saw collecting boxes in the pubs and a poster on some public
building. Then there were the radio marine gale forecasts - for
Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Thames, Cromarty, Forth, Dogger Bank
Biscay, Dover, Lundy, The names allbecome familiar from long
repetition.

Brian W

Yes, it's interesting to see the way our emergency services have developed
as compared to the US. Hard to say which is the best way to go. The way our
lifeboat service co-ordinates with the other services (eg Coastguard
helicopters) must be unique. The BBC radio forecasts are still used by most
mariners, although there are now so many alternative sources, including your
mobile phone, that any yachtsman who puts to sea without knowing the weather
would be an idiot.

On the only-150-miles-from-the-sea thing, we all had a laugh this week when
an American Travel brochure, discussing Aviemore (in the Scottish
Highlands), stated that it was "quite close" to Tower Bridge, Buckingham
Palace, and the Houses of Parliament.

Aviemore is around 600 miles from all of these places, and with gas at
$10.38 a (British) gallon, your tourists would find it an expensive trip in
their hired BMW!

Can't blame them for trying though! We need the tourists!


Dennis.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
newsYudnZbFvawqtNfVnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@bayareasolut ions...
"Road Rage!" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and
over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out
there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of
its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez
faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span.
Tell us what "working" is.

Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will
explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster
Capitalism.

One problem with that book is that it fails to distinguish between economic
and political systems. Did you find that also?



Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government
intervention.

Can and does/have are two different things.

Yes they are. There were no government safety nets before 1900 in the US. It
was all private. Social inequality and suffering exploded when government
got involved in the charity industry. Such safety nets as the "war on
drugs", the "Great Society, the "New Deal" resulted in even greater
incarcerations for victimless crimes, increased poverty and crime. The New
Deal was the greatest environmental disaster the world has ever seen.



What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed?

Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's
been attempted.

The lack of a government is needed for unfettered capitalism. Under
unfettered capitalism there would be no war, taxes pay for war. The
existence of government is why unfettered capitalism will never exist.


Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he
couldn't do it, although he tried.

Nice slam. Why not bring up FDR and the internment camps or Truman and the
nuking of Japan and innocent people as examples of the outcome of
capaitalism when controlled by the left?



What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago"
style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based?

Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman


Clueless! Go back a few hundred years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith

Did your head explode yet?


The thing you fail to realize is that there is only one economic system.
What exists in the world today are distortions of that system by political
systems and they will all fail, some will take longer than others.
Politicization of the economic system will eventually end it. Politics in
science is no longer science, politics in education becomes indoctrination,
politics in social systems increases misery, politics in anything destroys
it.

So why do so many look to politicians and lawyers to solve society's ills?
Especially since politicians and lawyers are held in such low regard?