(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:44 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

I have two questions?
1) How useful is this "playbook" in reality?
2) How was it not followed by the Trump administration? Where did it deviate?

My criticism of this sort of document is that it has a whole lot of bureaucratic gobbledygook, but not much in the way of action. That's because there is no federal agency responsible for action. They all MANAGE pieces of the problem, but none of them actually DO anything.

What we need is a RESPONSE plan, not a bureaucratic MANAGEMENT plan. And that requires that we have an identified RESPONSE agency that is charged with actually DOING things.

We've got the wrong verbs.

Who is Kyle Griffin?

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:44 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

I have two questions?
1) How useful is this "playbook" in reality?
2) How was it not followed by the Trump administration? Where did it deviate?

My criticism of this sort of document is that it has a whole lot of bureaucratic gobbledygook, but not much in the way of action. That's because there is no federal agency responsible for action. They all MANAGE pieces of the problem, but none of them actually DO anything.

What we need is a RESPONSE plan, not a bureaucratic MANAGEMENT plan. And that requires that we have an identified RESPONSE agency that is charged with actually DOING things.

We've got the wrong verbs.

You are, of course, correct. Why should the government ever make plans for anything? It is all bureaucratic gobbledygook anyway. Just wing it. Especially when there are changes in administration, each administration should totally learn from scratch rather than relying on the knowledge and experiences of the people who held the positions before them. This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

If you are curious what the playbook does or says, click on the link to the politico article. They have the entire 69-page pandemic response playbook in the article. Then you can make your own judgments on whether it would be useful or whether the Trump administration followed it.

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:44 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

I have two questions?
1) How useful is this "playbook" in reality?
2) How was it not followed by the Trump administration? Where did it deviate?

My criticism of this sort of document is that it has a whole lot of bureaucratic gobbledygook, but not much in the way of action. That's because there is no federal agency responsible for action. They all MANAGE pieces of the problem, but none of them actually DO anything.

What we need is a RESPONSE plan, not a bureaucratic MANAGEMENT plan. And that requires that we have an identified RESPONSE agency that is charged with actually DOING things.

We've got the wrong verbs.

You are, of course, correct. Why should the government ever make plans for anything? It is all bureaucratic gobbledygook anyway. Just wing it. Especially when there are changes in administration, each administration should totally learn from scratch rather than relying on the knowledge and experiences of the people who held the positions before them. This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

It reminds me of how many conservatives want to cut federal funding because government is the problem, and then point to the ineffective response of an underfunded government as being an example of how government is the problem.

Also, apparently Owl#s has read the report - see bolded. I hadn't seen a copy surface online yet, but it would be interesting to see what it said.

(03-27-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You are, of course, correct. Why should the government ever make plans for anything? It is all bureaucratic gobbledygook anyway. Just wing it. Especially when there are changes in administration, each administration should totally learn from scratch rather than relying on the knowledge and experiences of the people who held the positions before them. This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

It reminds me of how many conservatives want to cut federal funding because government is the problem, and then point to the ineffective response of an underfunded government as being an example of how government is the problem.

Also, apparently Owl#s has read the report - see bolded. I hadn't seen a copy surface online yet, but it would be interesting to see what it said.

You must not have read Big's entire post before leaping into the scrum. He tells you where to find it and provides a link.

Interesting to see Big/Lad arguing that we didn't throw enough money at it sooner. Seems to be the default position of the left.

I have plans on how to handle things if my well runs dry, or my washer breaks, or if my water softener needs replacing. But so far, I have put off replacing those things because my money is limited, and I have more important things t do with it. (like support my sister) I cannot just go to my rich neighbors (of whom I have many, including one multi-billionaire) and demand they pay for these things for me.

OTOH, I have no plan on how to rid my homestead of an invasion by a pack of rabid wolves. I guess if this happens, Big/Lad will chastise me for not being prepared, when all I had to do was buy a big gun, wait a while, pass a check, and buy some ammo, and then store them against the day rabid wolves might overrun me. Let's ignore the fact that wolves were eradicated in this county 60 years ago. They could come back, they could be rabid, and so we must be prepared for that.

I think I am just seeing some partisan schadenfreude here.

(03-27-2020 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You are, of course, correct. Why should the government ever make plans for anything? It is all bureaucratic gobbledygook anyway. Just wing it. Especially when there are changes in administration, each administration should totally learn from scratch rather than relying on the knowledge and experiences of the people who held the positions before them. This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

It reminds me of how many conservatives want to cut federal funding because government is the problem, and then point to the ineffective response of an underfunded government as being an example of how government is the problem.

Also, apparently Owl#s has read the report - see bolded. I hadn't seen a copy surface online yet, but it would be interesting to see what it said.

You must not have read Big's entire post before leaping into the scrum. He tells you where to find it and provides a link.

Interesting to see Big/Lad arguing that we didn't throw enough money at it sooner. Seems to be the default position of the left.

I have plans on how to handle things if my well runs dry, or my washer breaks, or if my water softener needs replacing. But so far, I have put off replacing those things because my money is limited, and I have more important things t do with it. (like support my sister) I cannot just go to my rich neighbors (of whom I have many, including one multi-billionaire) and demand they pay for these things for me.

OTOH, I have no plan on how to rid my homestead of an invasion by a pack of rabid wolves. I guess if this happens, Big/Lad will chastise me for not being prepared, when all I had to do was buy a big gun, wait a while, pass a check, and buy some ammo, and then store them against the day rabid wolves might overrun me. Let's ignore the fact that wolves were eradicated in this county 60 years ago. They could come back, they could be rabid, and so we must be prepared for that.

I think I am just seeing some partisan schadenfreude here.

I clicked on At Ease's Politico link, and they do provide the playbook. I thought I had looked at the link before, and didn't remember seeing them link to the actual document previously.

I'll have to give it a read through over lunch. Will be interesting to see how grounded it is.

edit: I now see what you meant about Big's post - he edited it after I read and responded to it.

(03-27-2020 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting to see Big/Lad arguing that we didn't throw enough money at it sooner. Seems to be the default position of the left.

Default position of the left -- that is until the opposition also wants to go deep and broad. Then they clamor (and delay) for more: diversity issues, solar tax credits, and any number of left agenda wet dream positions.

(03-27-2020 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting to see Big/Lad arguing that we didn't throw enough money at it sooner. Seems to be the default position of the left.

Default position of the left -- that is until the opposition also wants to go deep and broad. Then they clamor (and delay) for more: diversity issues, solar tax credits, and any number of left agenda wet dream positions.

True - only have to go back a week to see this. Don't forget the board positions for unions and the NEA money.

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are curious what the playbook does or says, click on the link to the politico article. They have the entire 69-page pandemic response playbook in the article. Then you can make your own judgments on whether it would be useful or whether the Trump administration followed it.

I have and I have.

The problem remains, we have nobody responsible for DOING. We can PLAN all we want, but until that plan includes actually DOING something, it is of little use.

I think it would be useful to take to a hearing and be able to tell everyone that you did exactly what it says, so it's not your fault. But useful in actually stopping a virus from becoming a pandemic? Not really.

To be an equal opportunity critic, I need to single out a Republican.

One single Repub explicitly ditched Pelosi's wish for a passage by consent, so everyone has to come back. Now the same dorkgongle says he will require a physical quorum in the chamber, and force a roll call vote.

Just amazing. This will probably necessitate not just subjecting members to the lockdowns in their districts, but maybe even a quarantine as well.

Pelosi and McConnell really need to pass a 'one time' lapsing amendment to the Rules for this crisis.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/hud...ote-488735

If I'm Dr. Fauci, et al., I appeal directly to Trump's ego - "Mr. President, would you like to have your approval rating soar this summer into the election in the fall, thus buoying your chances of getting re-elected? Ok, then you need to do exactly what I tell you to do with regard to COVID19"

And funny, I thought only Romney was gonna kill your grandma.

A tweet from a Michigan (D) congress critter:

This tweet follows the tone of this --- errr --- 'speech' in Congress

"You will see darkness".

At least she has a plan for us.

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

Look, I'll make a deal with you. Why don't you tell me what you think, and let me tell you what I think? And for the love of peace, please stop telling me what I think. Because you get it wrong every time you try.

Simple concept, respond to the words I say and write, instead of the words you want me to have said so you can argue with them.

(03-27-2020 12:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

Look, I'll make a deal with you. Why don't you tell me what you think, and let me tell you what I think? And for the love of peace, please stop telling me what I think. Because you get it wrong every time you try.

Simple concept, respond to the words I say and write, instead of the words you want me to have said so you can argue with them.

I do know one thing you think - the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

:)

(03-27-2020 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 12:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This seems to be your default position on literally everything involving the government.

Look, I'll make a deal with you. Why don't you tell me what you think, and let me tell you what I think? And for the love of peace, please stop telling me what I think. Because you get it wrong every time you try.
Simple concept, respond to the words I say and write, instead of the words you want me to have said so you can argue with them.

I do know one thing you think - the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
:)

Yes, indeed, I do. I just wish my enemies had better enemies.

(03-29-2020 02:36 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Oh, this is terrible. We need a Democrat. They never brag.

Quote:President Trump, who at one point called the coronavirus pandemic an “invisible enemy” and said it made him a “wartime President,” has in recent days questioned its seriousness, tweeting, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.” Trump said repeatedly that he wanted the country to reopen by Easter, April 12th, contradicting the advice of most health officials. (On Sunday, he backed down and extended federal social distancing guidelines for at least another month.) According to the Washington Post, “Conservatives close to Trump and numerous administration officials have been circulating an article by Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, titled ‘Coronavirus Perspective,’ that plays down the extent of the spread and the threat.”

Epstein, a professor at New York University School of Law, published the article on the Web site of the Hoover Institution, on March 16th. In it, he questioned the World Health Organization’s decision to declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, said that “public officials have gone overboard,” and suggested that about five hundred people would die from COVID-19 in the U.S. Epstein later updated his estimate to five thousand, saying that the previous number had been an error. So far, there have been more than two thousand coronavirus-related fatalities in America; epidemiologists’ projections of the total deaths range widely, depending on the success of social distancing and the availability of medical resources, but they tend to be much higher than Epstein’s. (On Sunday, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, estimated that there could be between a hundred thousand and two hundred thousand deaths in the U.S.) In a follow-up article, published on March 23rd and titled “Coronavirus Overreaction,” Epstein wrote, “Progressives think they can run everyone’s lives through central planning, but the state of the economy suggests otherwise. Looking at the costs, the public commands have led to a crash in the stock market, and may only save a small fraction of the lives that are at risk.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/t...nistration

An amazing interview, notwithstanding familiarity with the mannerisms and mistakes from the wizened/pompous/libertarian/lawyer combo.

(03-29-2020 09:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  An amazing interview, notwithstanding familiarity with the mannerisms and mistakes from the wizened/pompous/libertarian/lawyer combo.

And thanks to you for allowing us the familiarity with the mannerisms of the smug-fk whack a mole prog types. Quite the public service you engender.