I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

TMT

GAO: Smithsonian facilities in decline By SARAH KARUSH, Associated
Press Writer
Fri Sep 28, 8:08 PM ET



The Smithsonian Institution's maintenance backlog has grown to $2.5
billion as the museum complex faces problems such as corrosion of
historic airplanes and leaky pools at the National Zoo, the Government
Accountability Office said in a report released Friday.

The GAO noted some progress in addressing maintenance issues since its
last report in 2005. But it urged the Smithsonian to more thoroughly
consider alternatives to government funding - including charging
admission - to address the maintenance problems.

The new backlog estimate is an increase from $2.3 billion in 2005, the
report said.

Acting Smithsonian Secretary Cristian Samper said the museum complex
agreed to the recommendations and said the institution is already in
the middle of a more thorough analysis of funding options.

At the same time, Smithsonian officials emphasized that upkeep has
always been paid for by the federal government. The Smithsonian Board
of Regents has considered charging admission three times in about a
dozen years and always rejected the idea, she said.

"It has always been Congress' responsibility to care for the national
collections and the buildings," Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St.
Thomas said.

Among the critical maintenance problems cited in Friday's report:

· A lack of temperature and humidity control at the Museum of Air and
Space's storage facilities in Suitland, Md., has corroded historic
planes.

· Recurring leaks at the Museum of African Art forced the museum to
close one gallery several times from 2004 to 2006.

· Power capacity problems caused by inadequate electrical systems has
forced the Air and Space Museum to occasionally close galleries.

· The National Zoo's sea lion and seal pools lost an average of
110,000 gallons of water a day as of July, with an annual replacement
cost of $297,000.

· Officials at the Sackler Gallery reported a "near miss" in which a
major leak occurred in a holding area just three weeks before the
arrival of $500 million worth of art on loan.

The GAO also questioned security at the museums, finding that the
number of guards throughout the complex has decreased despite an
increase in the Smithsonian's square footage. Two of the most popular
museums, the Air and Space Museum and the Museum of Natural History,
have seen a 31 percent decrease in security personnel since 2003,
according to the report.

The Smithsonian has begun employing gallery attendants in an effort to
help fill security gaps and is constantly advertising vacancies for
security guards to help deal with high turnover, St. Thomas said.

In a letter to board chairman Roger Sant, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-
Calif., said she would hold a hearing of the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee regarding the GAO report on Nov. 7. She said
she was concerned about the lack of a funding strategy to address the
facilities and security needs.

___

On the Net:

Smithsonian Institution: http://www.si.edu/

Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain your
body?

The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and Congress.


The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to take
it over.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests, who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.


The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and Congress.

Except I bet the level of care for a vet vs a Congressman is not the same.



The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to take
it over.

Now we are getting into limited government. Those that belive in limited
government would argue that the Smithsonian isn't a function of government.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests, who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.

I agree that their scope needs to be reviewed. There is no way they are
going to get unlimited funding even from politicians favorable to them. Too
many conflicting wants and needs in our society. I'm a great believer in
the space program and that too has had to deal with a financially reality
check. User fees are not out of the question. If modest user fees drive
off their customers then maybe there isn't that much support for the
Smithsonian after all.

One of these days, likely next year I'm going to make it to Green Field
Village for a day or two since it is in my state. I have no idea of the
scope of that operation but I'm fairly sure I'll have to pony up some bucks
to see that and it will be well worth it.



The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.

Property taxes are voted for specific purposes. The school administration
're-allocated' funds to operations. IOW, they knew best. Stupid tax payers
should have given them more money.

Between flat wages in many areas, higher energy costs, higher health care
and a host of other things, there is only so much each citizen is willing to
pay in taxes. Many citizens are tightening their belts and expect the same
for all aspects of government.



I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

Politics is how we do this. Not a perfect system but best we have come up
with so far.

You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and
Congress.

Except I bet the level of care for a vet vs a Congressman is not the same.



The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to
commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to
take
it over.

Now we are getting into limited government. Those that belive in limited
government would argue that the Smithsonian isn't a function of
government.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the
original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government
agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests,
who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.

I agree that their scope needs to be reviewed. There is no way they are
going to get unlimited funding even from politicians favorable to them.
Too
many conflicting wants and needs in our society. I'm a great believer in
the space program and that too has had to deal with a financially reality
check. User fees are not out of the question. If modest user fees drive
off their customers then maybe there isn't that much support for the
Smithsonian after all.

'Sounds good to me. I think it's essential, first, to define which parts of
it that government will pay for, and to provide for other expansion without
government funding. That will be expensive for the user, but you have to
stop somewhere.


One of these days, likely next year I'm going to make it to Green Field
Village for a day or two since it is in my state. I have no idea of the
scope of that operation but I'm fairly sure I'll have to pony up some
bucks
to see that and it will be well worth it.



The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.

Property taxes are voted for specific purposes. The school administration
're-allocated' funds to operations. IOW, they knew best. Stupid tax
payers
should have given them more money.

This varies by state, but the usual scenario is that the school board
presents a budget; it's voted down; the board cuts the budget; then it's
re-submitted and eventually passed.

The thing is, if they budgeted accurately the first time for operations, the
difference will come out of maintenance. School boards all around the
country have learned that the margins budgeted for maintenance are a
significant part of the difference between what will pass and what won't,
and operating costs are more or less fixed. Also, it's often easier to pass
a bond issue for replacement/expansion than to get the year-to-year costs of
maintaining the old property passed.

I was deeply involved with this in NJ around ten years ago, and I learned
that it's a chronic problem all around the country.


Between flat wages in many areas, higher energy costs, higher health care
and a host of other things, there is only so much each citizen is willing
to
pay in taxes. Many citizens are tightening their belts and expect the
same
for all aspects of government.

But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to required
courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the voters seem
to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things they've demanded
at a price nobody will work for.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to
get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real
treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

Politics is how we do this. Not a perfect system but best we have come up
with so far.

You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.

Actually, up early. I was having my coffee and breakfast while getting ready
to go fishing. Now I'm having more coffee, getting ready to fillet some
bluefish.

--
Ed Huntress

But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to
required courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the
voters seem to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things
they've demanded at a price nobody will work for.


Some school systems are bringing in teachers from other contries that will
work
for lower wages. They claim its the only way they can stay within thier
budgets.
The wages for neveda teachers are so low they can't get any good ones. As
i recall we have a highschool drop out rate of 54%, sad.

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...


But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to
required courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the
voters seem to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things
they've demanded at a price nobody will work for.


Some school systems are bringing in teachers from other contries that will
work
for lower wages. They claim its the only way they can stay within thier
budgets.
The wages for neveda teachers are so low they can't get any good ones. As
i recall we have a highschool drop out rate of 54%, sad.

There ya' go. Do the foreign teachers have to speak English? g

Perhaps we should outsource the kids to India.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and
Congress.

Except I bet the level of care for a vet vs a Congressman is not the same.


The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to
commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to
take
it over.

Now we are getting into limited government. Those that belive in limited
government would argue that the Smithsonian isn't a function of
government.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the
original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government
agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests,
who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.

I agree that their scope needs to be reviewed. There is no way they are
going to get unlimited funding even from politicians favorable to them.
Too
many conflicting wants and needs in our society. I'm a great believer in
the space program and that too has had to deal with a financially reality
check. User fees are not out of the question. If modest user fees drive
off their customers then maybe there isn't that much support for the
Smithsonian after all.


'Sounds good to me. I think it's essential, first, to define which parts of
it that government will pay for, and to provide for other expansion without
government funding. That will be expensive for the user, but you have to
stop somewhere.


One of these days, likely next year I'm going to make it to Green Field
Village for a day or two since it is in my state. I have no idea of the
scope of that operation but I'm fairly sure I'll have to pony up some
bucks
to see that and it will be well worth it.



The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.

Property taxes are voted for specific purposes. The school administration
're-allocated' funds to operations. IOW, they knew best. Stupid tax
payers
should have given them more money.


This varies by state, but the usual scenario is that the school board
presents a budget; it's voted down; the board cuts the budget; then it's
re-submitted and eventually passed.

The thing is, if they budgeted accurately the first time for operations, the
difference will come out of maintenance. School boards all around the
country have learned that the margins budgeted for maintenance are a
significant part of the difference between what will pass and what won't,
and operating costs are more or less fixed. Also, it's often easier to pass
a bond issue for replacement/expansion than to get the year-to-year costs of
maintaining the old property passed.

I was deeply involved with this in NJ around ten years ago, and I learned
that it's a chronic problem all around the country.


Between flat wages in many areas, higher energy costs, higher health care
and a host of other things, there is only so much each citizen is willing
to
pay in taxes. Many citizens are tightening their belts and expect the
same
for all aspects of government.


But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to required
courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the voters seem
to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things they've demanded
at a price nobody will work for.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to
get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real
treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

Politics is how we do this. Not a perfect system but best we have come up
with so far.

You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.


Actually, up early. I was having my coffee and breakfast while getting ready
to go fishing. Now I'm having more coffee, getting ready to fillet some
bluefish.

--
Ed Huntress



Where did you go bluefishing and how were they running?


John

"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

snip


You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.


Actually, up early. I was having my coffee and breakfast while getting
ready to go fishing. Now I'm having more coffee, getting ready to fillet
some bluefish.

--
Ed Huntress

Where did you go bluefishing and how were they running?

I was fishing from a jetty near Leonardo, NJ. They're spotty near shore, but
Raritan Bay is paved with them, of all sizes. I also caught some very small
weakfish, but keepers are in the bay.

I never saw so much bait in Raritan Bay: spearing, peanut bunkers, big
bunkers, mullet, and rainfish. The blues are gorging on them and can be hard
to attract to a bait. I had better luck with metal than others were having
with live bait.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to required
courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the voters seem
to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things they've demanded
at a price nobody will work for.

I think the downfall for schools was when federal funding was introduced.
For a relatively small percent of total funding all sorts of mandates were
accepted. I'm for a state saying sorry feds, keep your money we will do it
our way. I'd even pry open the wallet to make up the difference I don't
have kids though I have a bunch of nephews.

Glad you got some good fishing in.

Wes

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:42:35 -0400, Wes wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain your
body?
===========
The federal government is like most other people in the US. We
have enough money to *ANYTHING* we want, but never enough money
to do *EVRYTHING* we want.

The problems stem from: (1) failure to prioritize; and (2)
failure to accurately estimate the total cost of acquisition and
just as importantly, the cost of operation/running.

Until such time there is consus on priorities, this will be an
on-going problem, greatly exacerbated by an obsession to "get by
on the cheap."

Like the old Marx Brothers routine

You want good?
I got good!

You want cheap?
I got cheap!

You want good and cheap????
I *NO* got good and cheap!!!!


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

The federal government is like most other people in the US. We
have enough money to *ANYTHING* we want, but never enough money
to do *EVRYTHING* we want.

The problems stem from: (1) failure to prioritize; and (2)
failure to accurately estimate the total cost of acquisition and
just as importantly, the cost of operation/running.

Until such time there is consus on priorities, this will be an
on-going problem, greatly exacerbated by an obsession to "get by
on the cheap."


Don't forget the problems caused by force of law and regulations to shift
costs from government back to consumers. Consider Medicare reimbursement
rates. Everyone wants the other guy to pay.

Wes

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?


The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and Congress.


The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.


Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to take
it over.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests, who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.


The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.


Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.


The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

--
Ed Huntress



The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and Congress.

You may wish to re-think that statement. We vets DO NOT have "national
health care", we have an HMO (Tri-Care) just as do retirees from other
companies. We have to pay an annual premium, which, granted, isn't as
much as some others, but we also have to go through a lot of crap to get
treatment.

Jim Chandler

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the schools can't be "tightened" like government. You have competing
mandates, from "No Politician Left Behind" standardized testing to
required
courses and maximum class sizes mandated by the state. What the voters
seem
to expect is a miracle that will give them all the things they've demanded
at a price nobody will work for.

I think the downfall for schools was when federal funding was introduced.
For a relatively small percent of total funding all sorts of mandates were
accepted. I'm for a state saying sorry feds, keep your money we will do
it
our way. I'd even pry open the wallet to make up the difference I don't
have kids though I have a bunch of nephews.

I feel exactly the same way. The situations in our schools are too diverse
for the feds to manage it, but it's also true that local school boards need
some help on curricula, etc. They really aren't up to the job in most
places.

But I'm more comfortable with them than with the feds.


Glad you got some good fishing in.

Yeah, me too. d8-) My fishing has been low-key this year, just for
relaxing. But it's still fun.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message


snip

You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.


Actually, up early. I was having my coffee and breakfast while getting
ready to go fishing. Now I'm having more coffee, getting ready to fillet
some bluefish.

--
Ed Huntress

Where did you go bluefishing and how were they running?


I was fishing from a jetty near Leonardo, NJ. They're spotty near shore, but
Raritan Bay is paved with them, of all sizes. I also caught some very small
weakfish, but keepers are in the bay.

I never saw so much bait in Raritan Bay: spearing, peanut bunkers, big
bunkers, mullet, and rainfish. The blues are gorging on them and can be hard
to attract to a bait. I had better luck with metal than others were having
with live bait.

--
Ed Huntress




I sure wish I was down there. I worked there ages ago when they were
dredging the pipeline from NJ to Long Island to Kennedy airport. I was
maintaining all the electronics on the dredge. The tugboat that took me
out to the dredge picked me up at that dock.

With all that bait in the water, a jig would probably stand out a little
more. Bluefish will go after just about anything.



John

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:f8SLi.9948$Ww5.9895@trnddc03...
Ed Huntress wrote:

snip


The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and
Congress.

You may wish to re-think that statement. We vets DO NOT have "national
health care", we have an HMO (Tri-Care) just as do retirees from other
companies. We have to pay an annual premium, which, granted, isn't as
much as some others, but we also have to go through a lot of crap to get
treatment.

In the VA system, you also have government-employed doctors and staff -- the
purest example of socialized medicine in the US.

I'm not judging this; it's just an ironic and curious fact.

--
Ed Huntress

"john" wrote in message
...

snip

I sure wish I was down there. I worked there ages ago when they were
dredging the pipeline from NJ to Long Island to Kennedy airport. I was
maintaining all the electronics on the dredge. The tugboat that took me
out to the dredge picked me up at that dock.

With all that bait in the water, a jig would probably stand out a little
more. Bluefish will go after just about anything.

Yeah, I think you could have thrown out a paint stirrer with hooks on it, if
you cast into the school. They are eating machines. I wonder what would
happen if you fell into a school of 12-pound bluefish that were worked into
a frenzy with a chum slick. They almost seem to pile on top of each other
sometimes.

I haven't fished for them from a boat for some years, but that's wild
fishing when they got going. Then you'd bring one over the side, and it
would puke all over you. Bad table manners.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and
Congress.


The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to
commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to
take
it over.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the
original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government
agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests,
who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.


The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to
get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real
treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

--
Ed Huntress

It's all about the priorities of the administration in power. The current
pro business/wealth gang doesn't want to spend money on things like the
Smithsonian or the Consumer Product Safety Institute so they let them fall
into decay and disrepair. They do this so they have money for wars and tax
cuts for the investor class. By now everyone can see the outcome of letting
people who think like this run things.
People complained that government couldn't do things efficiently or at all.
The republicans have proven this to be true. But it would be a mistake to
think this would be the case if the people in charge of the government were
competent, capable, and believed in using government to provide what the
people want from it. Putting people in charge with anti government attitudes
only guarantees one thing. Government won't do anything very well. As we
have abundantly seen over the course of the Bush administration. Whether it
be the mismanagement of the war, the blundering of intelligence in the run
up to the war, Katrina, adding an additional three trillion to the national
debt, or any number of other examples of misfeasance the proof is
undeniable. Bush is the worst president in modern history and the
republicans in congress have proven to be perfect partners for him. The
question now is will the public have had enough with them and their ways and
send them packing.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and

Congress.

The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to

commercial

interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to

take

it over.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the

original

trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government

agencies

who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests,

who

should figure out how to fund their part of it.


The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to

get

even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real

treasure"

but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

--
Ed Huntress


It's all about the priorities of the administration in power. The current
pro business/wealth gang doesn't want to spend money on things like the
Smithsonian or the Consumer Product Safety Institute so they let them fall
into decay and disrepair. They do this so they have money for wars and tax
cuts for the investor class. By now everyone can see the outcome of letting
people who think like this run things.
People complained that government couldn't do things efficiently or at all.
The republicans have proven this to be true. But it would be a mistake to
think this would be the case if the people in charge of the government were
competent, capable, and believed in using government to provide what the
people want from it. Putting people in charge with anti government attitudes
only guarantees one thing. Government won't do anything very well. As we
have abundantly seen over the course of the Bush administration. Whether it
be the mismanagement of the war, the blundering of intelligence in the run
up to the war, Katrina, adding an additional three trillion to the national
debt, or any number of other examples of misfeasance the proof is
undeniable. Bush is the worst president in modern history and the
republicans in congress have proven to be perfect partners for him. The
question now is will the public have had enough with them and their ways and
send them packing.

Hawke




Whoa! Back up there! This kind of building maintenance problem doesn't
just crop up in a six year period. I didn't see the previous
administration putting out a lot of money to fix things either, nor the
one before that, nor the one before that.... They're all too busy
trying to keep themselves in office by socializing the country.

Jim Chandler

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and
Congress.


The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to
commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to
take
it over.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the
original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government
agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum.
Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that
its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian
wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests,
who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.


The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money
for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used
for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.


I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian
Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to
get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real
treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

--
Ed Huntress

It's all about the priorities of the administration in power. The current
pro business/wealth gang doesn't want to spend money on things like the
Smithsonian or the Consumer Product Safety Institute so they let them fall
into decay and disrepair. They do this so they have money for wars and tax
cuts for the investor class. By now everyone can see the outcome of
letting
people who think like this run things.
People complained that government couldn't do things efficiently or at
all.
The republicans have proven this to be true. But it would be a mistake to
think this would be the case if the people in charge of the government
were
competent, capable, and believed in using government to provide what the
people want from it. Putting people in charge with anti government
attitudes
only guarantees one thing. Government won't do anything very well. As we
have abundantly seen over the course of the Bush administration. Whether
it
be the mismanagement of the war, the blundering of intelligence in the run
up to the war, Katrina, adding an additional three trillion to the
national
debt, or any number of other examples of misfeasance the proof is
undeniable. Bush is the worst president in modern history and the
republicans in congress have proven to be perfect partners for him. The
question now is will the public have had enough with them and their ways
and
send them packing.

Hawke


Washingtons priorities revolve around passing legislation that was written
by
campain contributors. Failing to introduce legistation written by a
corporate
sponsor will result in termination of campain funding. Yes its true we have
the best laws money can buy.

Best Regards
Tom.

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:xHTLi.1908$hP.545
@newsfe12.lga:

I haven't fished for them from a boat for some years, but that's wild
fishing when they got going. Then you'd bring one over the side, and it
would puke all over you. Bad table manners.

Worse than that is the blood. Bluefish bleed like stuck pigs and before
you
know it the deck is so slick with blood you can't stand up.

Yeah, the puke and the blood harden like varnish if you don't wash them off
the deck right away. I still have some canvas painting dropcloths (actually
heavy canvas) that we used to lay over the gunwales of my uncle's boat when
we went bluefishing, to keep the chum and puke from getting on the boat.
After many cleanings they still look like Jackson Pollack paintings.


We used to fish in the Race. Motor up current, then drift through the
Race.
If you hurry you can catch two per drift. Then fire the boat back up, zoom
up current of the race, repeat. After two drifts we would stop and pump
water on the deck to clean the blood and slime. Otherwise between the
rough
water in the race and the blood you'd end up on your ass rolling in the
slime.

I've seen guys fishing in the race in a 12' aluminum boat. No thanks.

I miss the fishing on the east coast.

It's been a good year here, and this is the most exciting time. Blues and
stripers are in the surf and they're chasing bunkers right up onto the
beach.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:xHTLi.1908$hP.545
@newsfe12.lga:

I haven't fished for them from a boat for some years, but that's wild
fishing when they got going. Then you'd bring one over the side, and it
would puke all over you. Bad table manners.

Worse than that is the blood. Bluefish bleed like stuck pigs and before
you
know it the deck is so slick with blood you can't stand up.

Yeah, the puke and the blood harden like varnish if you don't wash them off
the deck right away. I still have some canvas painting dropcloths (actually
heavy canvas) that we used to lay over the gunwales of my uncle's boat when
we went bluefishing, to keep the chum and puke from getting on the boat.
After many cleanings they still look like Jackson Pollack paintings.

Trout are so much more civilized. Sniff.

Wes

--

I got a bud that caught a Rainbow Trout, he threw it back, no way he was
bringing a gay fish home.

Larry the Cable Guy.

Ed Huntress wrote:
There ya' go. Do the foreign teachers have to speak English? g

Perhaps we should outsource the kids to India.
--
Ed Huntress

Well from personal experience, the grad students at Penn State
in the 50s, at least in Math couldn't. :-) Thats the group that
got the lower level courses to teach. Professors are WAY to
important to teach such. :-)
...lew...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:xHTLi.1908$hP.545
@newsfe12.lga:

I haven't fished for them from a boat for some years, but that's wild
fishing when they got going. Then you'd bring one over the side, and it
would puke all over you. Bad table manners.

Worse than that is the blood. Bluefish bleed like stuck pigs and before
you
know it the deck is so slick with blood you can't stand up.

Yeah, the puke and the blood harden like varnish if you don't wash them
off
the deck right away. I still have some canvas painting dropcloths
(actually
heavy canvas) that we used to lay over the gunwales of my uncle's boat
when
we went bluefishing, to keep the chum and puke from getting on the boat.
After many cleanings they still look like Jackson Pollack paintings.

Trout are so much more civilized. Sniff.

That's true. Bluefishing is not civilized fishing. However, my uncle was a
pioneer in catching them with a flyrod, back in the late '40s. He used a
bamboo rod with King Eider silk lines. That's like wearing a tuxedo while
you're butchering hogs.

Fly fishing for stripers and blues is now a big thing here in NJ. And I was
surprised to see, when I got back into sal****er fishing a few years ago,
that fishing for them from kayaks also is very big. They wear wetsuits and
safety training includes learning to roll.

I think I'll pass. Rolling a kayak in the New York shipping channels is not
my idea of a good time.

--
Ed Huntress

"lew hartswick" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
There ya' go. Do the foreign teachers have to speak English? g

Perhaps we should outsource the kids to India. --
Ed Huntress
Well from personal experience, the grad students at Penn State
in the 50s, at least in Math couldn't. :-) Thats the group that
got the lower level courses to teach. Professors are WAY to
important to teach such. :-)
...lew...

It was the same at Michigan State in the mid-'60s. My Taiwanese chemistry
instructor is the one I blame for my lousy understanding of chemistry today.
I could hardly understand a word he said.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:04:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

It's been a good year here, and this is the most exciting time. Blues and
stripers are in the surf and they're chasing bunkers right up onto the
beach.

What's this about strippers on the beach? Send JPGs, please.

--
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:04:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

It's been a good year here, and this is the most exciting time. Blues and
stripers are in the surf and they're chasing bunkers right up onto the
beach.

What's this about strippers on the beach? Send JPGs, please.

We're going to chip in and get you some new eyeglasses. d8-)

However, mermaid season opens next week, and a good time will be had by all.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:04:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

It's been a good year here, and this is the most exciting time. Blues and
stripers are in the surf and they're chasing bunkers right up onto the
beach.

What's this about strippers on the beach? Send JPGs, please.

We're going to chip in and get you some new eyeglasses. d8-)

However, mermaid season opens next week, and a good time will be had by all.


Too bad it's 'catch and release'.

Silver Springs is within driving distance, where the old 'Tarzan'
movies were shot. I think I saw the old metal roofed 'trading post'
through the trees and weeds the last time I was there.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida