It's hilarious:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...g.html?ca t=5


Quote:

The passage of a Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill totaling
almost $51 million includes many earmarks benefiting Courtney's district,
which includes most of Eastern Connecticut.

"Eastern Connecticut is home to many exciting technological initiatives and
to some very dire infrastructure needs, which I am proud to be able to
address in this appropriations bill," said Courtney. "The new Democratic-led
majority has kept its promise to restore fiscal responsibility in Washington
while continuing to support our local priorities with new federal funding."

Some of the funds have been earmarked for much needed dredging of various
waterways in the region. Among those receiving funding, Old Saybrook's North
Cove is expected to receive $4,433,000 to be used for testing, planning, and
permitting of dredge work of Old Saybrook's North Cove.

Courtney's office reported that the cove was last dredged in 1965 and funds
will allow the harbor to be restored to its authorized depths by dredging
and properly disposing of those materials.



"very dire infrastructure needs"

"Democratic led majority"

"restore fiscal responsibility"

"new federal funding"

"earmarks"



Are failing bridges a more "dire infrastructure need" than a slightly
shallow yacht basin?

Funding playgrounds for the wealthy to "restore fiscal responsibility"?

"Earmarks"?


It's political payback for wealthy donors. $51 million would have provided
basic health care for many poor people in need or job training for those
unemployed but it's not a priority. The company doing the dredging will be
owned by Democrats and have union labor. This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

On 4 Sep 2008 12:36:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike" said:

This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were asleep at
the switch when hearings were held on the project.

G

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike" said:

This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were asleep
at
the switch when hearings were held on the project.

Tough **** for who? I don't have to moor my boat almost 100 miles from where
I live.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0600, "Mike"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike" said:

This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were asleep
at
the switch when hearings were held on the project.

Tough **** for who? I don't have to moor my boat almost 100 miles from where
I live.


Dave could easily have his boat much closer to where he lives.
Instead, he realizes the value in keeping it in an amazingly beautiful
and protected anchorage directly adjacent to some of the best sailing
grounds on the entire east coast. He also has strong ties to the area
because he used to live there. If it wasn't so shallow, I probably
would have put myself on the waiting list there many years ago.

And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0600, "Mike"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike"
said:

This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were
asleep
at
the switch when hearings were held on the project.

Tough **** for who? I don't have to moor my boat almost 100 miles from
where
I live.


Dave could easily have his boat much closer to where he lives.
Instead, he realizes the value in keeping it in an amazingly beautiful
and protected anchorage directly adjacent to some of the best sailing
grounds on the entire east coast. He also has strong ties to the area
because he used to live there. If it wasn't so shallow, I probably
would have put myself on the waiting list there many years ago.

That's all very nice but still doesn't change the fact it is 100 miles away.



And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

So tax breaks and perks from the Federal Government to the "rich" are ok
with you?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:19:17 -0400, said:

Dave could easily have his boat much closer to where he lives.
Instead, he realizes the value in keeping it in an amazingly beautiful
and protected anchorage directly adjacent to some of the best sailing
grounds on the entire east coast.

Yes. And with the Shoreline East now running on weekends, getting there
doesn't even require fighting traffic. Just jump on the train at Grand
Central and get off a couple of yours later in Old Saybrook.

That's 6-8 hours of commuting time both ways. Great way to spend a day. Are
you a train buff?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD_v6KyMPe0

On 6 Sep 2008 13:01:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:19:17 -0400, said:

And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

I was tempted to get into the merits of the project, but it was clear to me
the Mike is simply your typical empty-headed rabble-rouser, making the
exercise useless.

I'm sure he means well. He just stopped when he got enough facts to
support one side of the story. If he had kept going until he had ALL
the facts, he might have reached a different conclusion. He would have
at least understood that as something that harms the LIS, this
particular dredging project doesn't even make the list.

As you know, I'm a staunch environmentalist. I never even water my
lawn. Every year, I take out another section of it and plant either
things to eat, or ground cover that holds in moisture and doesn't
require any fertilizers or other maintenance. Lawns and agriculture
are a BIG factor in damage to the LIS. The runoff from miles away ends
up in the LIS. I'm on top of a very high hill not far from the
Connecticut River. That river flows right into the Sound. Fortunately,
after years of procrastination, my town and a few others have
completed sewer separation projects so that not as much filth makes
it's way down the river, especially when it rains and the old system
couldn't handle the overflow.