ernliz
join:2001-11-25
Abilene, TX Reviews:
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Rural Broadband -- A Farce The USDA is certainly NOT auditing it's rural broadband program (no, idiots -- it's not Bush's fault). Here in the Abilene, TX area, the USDA gave lots of money to a wireless company called Xanadoo. This was to expand rural broadband service. So.......... Xanadoo set up their coverage to service Abilene city only, and the hell with the rural areas north of town. They have towers able to transmit in the rurals, but they don't wish to install the necessary pods. They simply cover the same areas as another wireless service has (Clearwire). Don't get me started! |
|
 KonaguyLive From Kailua-Kona, HawaiiPremium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| I think the Sandwich Isles Communications fiber-optic
project takes the cake for USDA RUS AND USF waste. It is
being funded with 400 million in RUS loans, which will
be repaid by the USF. Essentially SIC is wiring DHHL
lands. Some of which are already serviced by Hawaiian Telcom.
»starbulletin.com/2002/06/04/news/story2.html
»the.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic···07a.html
»the.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic···01p.html |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to ernliz
said by ernliz:(no, idiots -- it's not Bush's fault) I have yet to see any person be an idiot as a result of being called an idiot. In fact, name-calling usually only reflects badly on the name-caller.
Bush's fault? In one sense of the word, probably not. Although I don't know for sure, my guess is that George W. Bush has little to no day-to-day knowledge of what the USDA is up to. And although some can argue that Bush is not really in charge at the White House, the fact remains that he signed his name is on the dotted line. In that sense of the word, Bush is most certainly at fault.
This is no different than the Enron scandal. (Hey, back to Texas! Houston, no less.) Ken Lay's defense was that he didn't know what his subordinates were doing. That may or may not be true; we'll never know for sure. But because it was his job, a responsibility that he took on willingly, he was in fact criminally liable.
Facts are facts, and no amount of invective will alter the facts. |
|
