I don't blame the media for that per se... I think the media is doing what they do most / best: entertaining us. They really do little else for that matter. And since there is such a glut of media (people and resources) and such a comparative drought of actual substance for them to report on (which is not to say that important things don't go unreported -- happens all the time largely because they don't think they'll get good ratings reporting them because they think the subject's unpopular -- I'm talking about after they've weeded out the important but "unpopular" stuff), they end up reporting on "every damn thing". Whether it's worthy of those resources or not. I do blame the people responsible for changing the menu in the cafeteria in the first place and taking their time away from anything of substance to provide the media with something entertaining for the public. ... soma for the masses as it were... and I think you're right -- the priorities in our country suck.
ike ------ Original Message ------ From: Haggerty, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 28, 2003 03:49 PM Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Th ought >I think the two things are related in that they reveal the serious >differences between signal and intent. > >The media was not as concerned with the fact multibillion dollar >contracts were being awarded for the rebuilding of a country before we >(supposedly) had even decided to go to war with as they were with the >cuisine in the congressional cafeteria. One has an impact on everyone's >life, the other I could give a tihs about. > >People really need to get their priorities straight - I'm not saying war >is wrong or anything, but this is just sad. > >M > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:31 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals >> Greater Than Th ought >> >> >> How is contingency on receiving a grant in any way comparable >> to contingency on going to war and potentially decimating a >> country?? ... >> >> Agreed on the "freedom fries" thing... We're hacked off >> because somebody else didn't support whatever it was we were >> doing, so lets take a minute out to change the name of >> something that matters less than not at all to them. This >> makes much sense. >> >> ike >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: Haggerty, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Aug 28, 2003 02:15 PM >> Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals >> Greater Than Th ought >> >> >I wouldn't worry about that, the government does a lot of >> RFPs for work >> >that is contingent on receiving grants, allocations, and the like. >> > >> >What I would worry about is the whole "Freedom Fries" thing. >> You mean >> >to tell me Congress has time to worry about the food in the >> cafeteria? >> >That must mean every single terrorist on this Earth locked >> up, chained >> >away, or buried, the economy is back on a track to fast growth and >> >unemployment is dropping, and our trade deficit is reduced >> to the point >> >where we are not paying out more than we take in for manufactured >> >goods. Because there is no way these guys are more concerned >> about what >> >is in the cafeteria than these real, important issues that >> affect us, >> >our children, and the future of the country. >> > >> >Priorities, people, are what we seem to have lost sight of. >> We must ask >> >what does this get us before we go around saying what is important. >> > >> >M >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:37 PM >> >> To: CF-Community >> >> Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater >> >> Than Th ought >> >> >> >> >> >> I remember reading a news article that said the US had >> started taking >> >> bids for the reconstruction of Iraq... prior to any declaration of >> >> war or the deployment of any troops there... Which seemed not only >> >> backward in a business sense, but also just plain evil... >> It's like >> >> saying "don't worry, I've already started taking bids from Dr's to >> >> reconstruct your face after I smash it in with this lead pipe". >> >> >> >> ike >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> >> From: Haggerty, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent: Aug 28, 2003 01:07 PM >> >> Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater >> >> Than Th ought >> >> >> >> >Well Jim, a public bidding process would probably have >> been somewhat >> >> >suspicious considering we were 'debating' whether or not to go to >> >> >war... >> >> > >> >> >M >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:52 PM >> >> >> To: CF-Community >> >> >> Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's >> Deals Greater >> >> >> Than Th ought >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I understand your point, but chafe at the example. >> >> >> >> >> >> "Have the troops starve"? Are you seriously suggesting that we >> >> >> entered Iraq with no plan to feed our troops? That the >> >> only way to >> >> >> feed them was to forfeit legitimate processes for "last minute >> >> >> emergency decisions" involving politically valuable, no bid >> >> >> contracts? >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sorry, but I always suspect unwarrantedly extreme >> arguments. >> >> >> They tend to mask illicit behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Davis >> >> >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:13 AM >> >> >> > To: CF-Community >> >> >> > Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's >> >> Deals Greater >> >> >> Than Th >> >> >> > ought >> >> >> > >> >> >> > By having proved yourself on multiple deployments. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > These were last minute emergency decisions. Would you >> >> rather have >> >> >> seen >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > troops starve from not have the proper logistics in place? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Tim >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:53 AM >> >> >> > To: CF-Community >> >> >> > Subject: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals >> >> Greater Than >> >> >> > Thought >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Kevin Schmidt wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >Haliburton is the best at what it does, period, >> that's they win >> >> >> > >contracts. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How do you win a "no bid" contract? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Jochem >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
