Saturday, February 24, 2007

Irony overload

If you liked the Big Dig, you'll love Boston's new $800 million convention center which is dripping water onto passersby. From the Boston Globe "Leaks splash visitors inside exhibit center - $800m convention facility has numerous design flaws":

Water seeping through the roof of the $800 million Boston Convention & Exhibition Center dripped on some visitors to the New England Boat Show this week, six months after state convention officials said that the public would never notice leaking and other structural problems in the massive building.
I suppose if you're going to be hit by water, the boat show is the place to be.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Big Drip!

Assistant Village Idiot said...

$800M? Pocket change for Massachusetts corruption.

Keep the faith in Western MA. When my brother taught at Smith, he said Ward Churchill would be considered a moderate there.

Anonymous said...

This convention center brought to you by unions!


And I'll bet there's a union INSIDE that convention center that makes people pay just to move things around and plug things in.... Something they could do for themselves, but can't because of the unions.

Duke of DeLand said...

I am quite happy to be reminded every now and then of the horrible corruption and graft associated with most unions.

They had a place in our society 50 years ago, but today they are antiquities which chase jobs offshore so fast as to make your head spin.

I am happy to be in Florida a constitutionally-protected right-to-work state....

Duke

Anonymous said...

The convention center needs more work to repair faulty construction? It's the gift that keeps on giving for the unions!

Anonymous said...

James E Rooney he is collecting a pension from the M B T A .Good old assachusetts

Anonymous said...

From the city that brought you The Hancock Tower, my friend. That one was NOT a government project, but still: Panes of glass raining down on passersby, and winds that blew away anyone foolish enough to try and enter. How can a local culture foster such colossal incompetence AND host MIT? It gives new meaning to the term schizophrenic.

Anonymous said...

It appears that about 20 percent of the cost is paid from federal funds.

Anonymous said...

it is so easy to immediate shout Unions! In fact, who is in charge of the program? who runs oversight? Not the unions. Never. So sit back. Type away. Make clever remarks. Meantime, as more and more people lose jobs, union or non-union, as businesses hire illegals incressingly, gloat and bash the left because under the GOP we have had such a wonderful budget reduction and no debt for the American taxpayers and their children.I am delighted, too, that you need no govt social security (big govt) nor health aid nor Medicare--all is fine for you and your children. Why not send your kids to private schools if you so oppose unions? pur your money and children where your keyboard is

Anonymous said...

Ummm, I believe that there are others called Dems, that use illegals. In fact the blame can be spread, if there is to be, to both the Dems and the GOP.

NAFTA, being an example.

George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993.

No Acute Distress said...

You've got to be kidding.


"Why not send your kids to private schools if you so oppose unions?"

Ummmm, 'cuz the Federal legislature, bought and kept by teachers unions won't let me take my tax dollars and spend them at private schools. As it stands, I have to pay for horeshit public schools whether I send my kids there or not.

tyreea said...

Anon says:
"Why not send your kids to private schools if you so oppose unions?"

We home schooled our children, can I speak out against unions now?

Anonymous said...

I believe the two rovers on Mars was at an expense in the eight hundred million dollar range (for the initial mission.) You can drive by remote control on Mars for less than it takes to put up a bunch of boozy conventioneers in the fetid pool of "progressive" corruption that is Mass. And yet expect no shame or change, they are metastasizing and spreading into New Hampshire.

Anonymous said...

Zzzzzz... this is the same brand of kneejerk pro-CEOism that cheered with happiness when Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union. So what if safety slipped measurably? We showed those lefties who's boss!

Although I'm sure conservatives are just as upset about the bricks of $100 bills-- between $8 and $12 billion, but who's counting?-- that was secretly shipped to Iraq on military planes. Surely, the dead silence coming from the right is only because their teeth are gritted so tightly in outrage that it's hard to speak...

Anonymous said...

What is up with the "yeah but other terrible things have happened so there!" arguments? They exonerate nothing and are pointless.

Pyrthroes said...

When the Boston Police, beholden to Eugene V. Debs, mounted a city-wide strike just after WWI, Governor Calvin Coolidge fired the lot of 'em as vandals' fires burned bright on Boston Common. "No-one has the right to strike against public safety, anywhere or anytime," said Coolidge.

When will some national Chief Executive hark back to Silent Cal, asserting, "No-one has the right to destroy public education anywhere, over any time"? Easily done, because Public Employee Unions, from Teachers (sic) on down, were never authorized by statute, never debated or enacted by any Congressional legislation.

We forget that the sole --repeat, sole-- genesis of today's extraordinarily destructive public-school policies and procedures (curricula are another matter; no substantive humanities content exists) is one of John F. Kennedy's first Executive Orders, issued in payback to George Meany's
mobster-proficient pack of trolls: By sheer diktat, Kennedy told Big George, "Rope 'em in, shake 'em down, pass 95% of dues to us as campaign contributions. Kids be damned-- we love ya, George."

In all American history, even Clinton's 10-figure price on dozens of last-minute pardons (invariably to the worst crooks of Binky's era), no single pen-stroke has wrought such consequences. These are notorious, too maddening to mention; but any Chief Executive can correct Kennedy's eructation by simply rescinding his Executive Order. Since no law ever authorized brutish dolts to extort six-figure incomes, retirement at 55 from taxaholic municipal tripe-mongers, rescinding Kennedy's order merely salutes Calvin Coolidge in absentia.

Breyer, Mde. Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter would naturally cry Havoc-- but absent a statute to twist and mangle, what jurisdictional BS can they assert? If PT-109's cynical payoff was unchallengable, so is its recission. Reagan apparently never thought to inquire how Coolidge fell away, nor did Bush I of sacred memory ("Education President", my foot.)

Knowing Bush II, feckless in matters of domestic policy (no vetoes of D-rat manifestoes ever; signer of McCain-Feingold in violation of his sacred oath, "surprised" when Sister O'Connell proclaimed "No law" means anything we Humpty Dumpty robists says it does), nothing will change at least until '09. Would Giuliani, Romney, any other of the present waddlers take the plunge against Joe Kennedy's machine? Don't count on it. But meantime, why not raise public consciousness a bit? America's incredible blindness to the original corruption of our educational system, foundation of all democracy, is symptomatic of larger failures now feeding on themselves.
















So at any time, any Chief Executive could solve Kennedy's tricky little

Anonymous said...

Finally, somebody had the guts to say it!

Anonymous said...

On the deregulation of the trucking industry:
In decisions that had the support of the White House, the motor carrier agency has eased the rules on truckers’ work hours, rejected proposals for electronic monitoring to combat widespread cheating on drivers’ logs and resisted calls for more rigorous driver training.

While applauded by the industry, those decisions have been subject to withering criticism by federal appeals court panels in Washington who say they ignore government safety studies and put the industry’s economic interests ahead of public safety.


Ho! Ho! Unions and safety regulations are like, so fifty years ago!

Anonymous said...

Awww, so much for the blog link. The sheep have moved on. Thread closed!