September 8, 2005


California Earthquake Could Be the Next Katrina (Jia-Rui Chong and Hector Becerra, 9/08/05, LA Times)

[O]fficials believe that a major temblor could cause the level of destruction and disruption seen over the last week on the Gulf Coast.

More than 900 hospital buildings that state officials have identified as needing either retrofitting or total replacement have yet to receive them, and the state recently agreed to five-year extensions to hospitals that can't meet the 2008 deadline to make the fixes. More than 7,000 school buildings across the state would also be vulnerable during a huge temblor, a state study found, though there is no firm timetable for upgrading the structures.

And four Los Angeles Police Department facilities — including the Parker Center headquarters in downtown — worry officials, because they were built to primitive earthquake standards and might not survive a major temblor. Only two of the LAPD's 19 stations meet the most rigorous quake-safe rules.

"We could be dealing with infrastructure issues a lot like New Orleans," Jones said. "Our natural gas passes through the Cajon Pass…. Water — three pipelines — cross the San Andreas fault in an area that is expected to go in an earthquake." Railway lines are also vulnerable, she said.

A catastrophic temblor at the right spot along the San Andreas could significantly reduce energy and water supplies — at least temporarily, she and others said. Researchers at the Southern California Earthquake Center said there is an 80% to 90% chance that a temblor of 7.0 or greater magnitude will strike Southern California before 2024.

"We aren't anywhere close to where I wish we were" in terms of seismic safety, Jones said.

Seismologists are particularly concerned about a type of vulnerable building that has received far less attention than unreinforced masonry.

There are about 40,000 structures in California made from "non-ductile reinforced concrete," a rigid substance susceptible to cracking. This was a common construction ingredient for office buildings in the 1950s and '60s, before the state instituted stricter standards. Few such structures have been seismically retrofitted, officials said.

Seismic safety advocates have also recently lost some major battles in Sacramento. The state rejected a proposal from the Seismic Safety Commission in the wake of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake to force owners of unreinforced masonry buildings to post warning signs. In that quake, two women died when the roof slid off of a two-story Paso Robles brick building where they worked.

Last week, the Legislature sent to the governor's desk a bill that encourages local governments to develop retrofitting programs for "soft story" wood-frame apartment buildings.

There are an estimated 70,000 such structures in the state, and experts worry that they could sustain major quake damage, because they often have tuck-under parking and lack solid walls at their bases.

The danger of this kind of construction was illustrated in the 1994 collapse of the Northridge Meadows apartment complex, in which 16 residents were killed.

There are other potential safety gaps as well.

Let's agree now to all act shocked when it happens.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2005 7:05 AM

And your solution is?

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 8:05 AM

The New Madrid Fault could slip again, too. And January could bring a major blizzard to the Great Lakes region and pound the living heck out of everyone for a week.

Moral of the story? Mother Nature is an uncaring hag who can make you dead pretty darn pronto. So prepare what you can and be ready.

Posted by: Mikey at September 8, 2005 8:14 AM

The solution is to demand moral clarity. If one insists on engaging in ultra-hazardous activity, it is unjust for him to encumber his neighbors by demanding that they underwrite his risk-taking.

The California coast has many natural advantages of climate and location, and the natural disadvantage of the risk of becoming the next Atlantis. It is unjust to luxuriate in sole enjoyment of the advantages and expect others to share the costs of the disadvantage.

The solution is to make eligibility for disaster relief conditional on acceptance of the true costs of living in a disaster-prone location. If one cannot afford a properly constructed building, he cannot afford to live there.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 8, 2005 8:30 AM

The solution is obvious--move.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 8:47 AM

The solution is for Bush to put his money where his mouth is after he makes promises.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 9:14 AM

The feds can offer up some disaster preparedness funding, but then it's up to the state and local officials to actually implement the precautionary measures, not Uncle Sugar in Washington. That's the lesson California needs to learn from Katrina.

Posted by: John at September 8, 2005 9:17 AM

I think George missed breakfast.

Posted by: AllenS at September 8, 2005 9:18 AM

There were a lot of lies posted on here in the past few days concerning the timeline of the Katrina disaster that I just wanted to clear up.
Some of them came from The Washington Post!
Basically, help was requested from the Federal govt., which was disorganized, even after Bush had promised after 9/11 that disaster response would be much better managed under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security; which in the wake of Katrina has been shown to be an essentially useless department who's name sounds like it came out of 1984.
So, after doing some research, beyond the right-wing news sources that most of the contributors to this site listen to exclusively, I have determined that the federal administration completely screwed up the response to Katrina, and has abused the media to put the blame on the over-swamped local officials who didn't have the resources necessary to do the job.
Go and look up some Bush speeches from 2002-2003, and see what he said about the Department of Homeland Security. If you voted for Bush because you thought he was gonna make you safer, you were fooled.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 9:28 AM

George - Bush has asked for $60BN for Katrina so far. And stories are surfacing that NO/LA spent their levee and homeland defense $on other necessities like marinas, hotels, and so forth.

Responsibility starts at the local level.

Posted by: AWW at September 8, 2005 9:29 AM


The same Washington Post that wrote this story?

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon. . . .

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Look, George, your conclusion is going to start collapsing around you in the next few days. Blame Bush for Iraq, not LA.

Posted by: Brian (MN) at September 8, 2005 9:46 AM

Responsibility starts at the individual level. Adopt a life style that promotes personal supportive relationships as the first step in coping with disaster. Only a fool depends on government to provide in a crisis.

Posted by: tgn at September 8, 2005 9:51 AM

The fact the the levee wasn't in good shape was the fault of local and federal officials for decades; that cannot directly be blamed on Bush (even though, I think it should have been a priority when Bush promises to make America safer). Still, you're rifht, local officials in the deep south have been notoriously corrupt for quite some time, and really screwed themselves by not being prepared.

However, it is the response to the disaster that I am referring to when I say the Federal government completely screwed, help was asked and it never came. The Department of Homeland Security is the facade of a promise that the administration thought would never be tested.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 9:57 AM

To all lefties and Bush haters:

When it is public knowledge that the governor of Louisiana prevented the Red Cross from delivering blankets, water, and other basics to the Superdome and Convention Center (where people were TOLD to go), then it's time to find another bloody shirt to wave, OK?

All previous supposed bulwarks have collapsed.

Perhaps you should start looking for the pictures of Bush and Cheney and Colin Powell in drag at a hotel the night before he spoke to the UN in Sept. 2002. I'm told they are quite racy. Supposedly, Condi and Paul Wolfowitz were wearing striped suits and sticking pins into a voodoo doll of Kofi Annan. And the things they did to the pinata of Jacques Chirac - well, let's just say it would hurt worse than having a stroke.

That's the current level of the debate - good luck in making your points.

Posted by: ratbert at September 8, 2005 9:58 AM

help was asked

Oh, I agree that the local officials asked for MONEY. It would have been nice if they had started their own evacuation plan--the one that had failed under simulation ("Hurricane Pam"). Instead, they were making a DVD about how New Orleans has no clue about what to do, and you're screwed. Too bad that it wasn't even finished when Katrina struck.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 10:04 AM


Government can't make you safe. The government response has been what you should expect when disaster strikes.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 10:20 AM


It's not his money. It's ours and none of us were about to pay for a Huey Long version of the Big Dig. We have the level of preparedness we're willing to pay for.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 10:23 AM


Would you prefer that the DHS be renamed the Department of Peace and Goodwill ?

They changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense , but it still functions in the same way.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2005 10:25 AM

This one's from the Whitehouse homepage:

The Presidents most important job is to protect and defend the American people. Since September 11, all levels of government have cooperated like never before to strengthen aviation and border security, stockpile more medicines to defend against bioterrorism, improve information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deploy more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure.

The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against todays threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future.

The President proposes to create a new Department of Homeland Security, the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the Presidents national strategy for homeland security.

With strong bipartisan support President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security the most comprehensive reorganization of the Federal government in a half-century. The Department of Homeland Security consolidates 22 agencies and 180,000 employees, unifying once-fragmented Federal functions in a single agency dedicated to protecting America from terrorism.
President Bush has nearly tripled homeland security discretionary funding.
More than $18 billion has been awarded to state and local governments to protect the homeland

The President's 2005 budget reflects a 780 percent increase in funding for first responders since September 11th.

Since September 11th, more than a half-million first responders across America have been trained.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 10:41 AM


The Federal government is not the first responder in this instance. Indeed, it has to clear a number of constitutional hurdles before it can do much.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 10:43 AM

More than $18 billion has been awarded to state and local governments to protect the homeland

The President's 2005 budget reflects a 780 percent increase in funding for first responders since September 11th.

Sure it's a big lame bureaucracy. Sure it was dopey and incompetent.

I really don't see how that lets LA and NO off the hook (in fact it makes them look much much worse), nor do I see how it makes the federal government the first responder.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 10:45 AM

The Department would build and maintain a comprehensive assessment of our nations infrastructure sectors: food, water, agriculture, health systems and emergency services, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, transportation, chemical, defense industry, postal and shipping, and national monuments and icons. The Department would develop and harness the best modeling, simulation, and analytic tools to prioritize effort, taking as its foundation the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (currently part of the Department of Energy). The Department would direct or coordinate action to protect significant vulnerabilities, particularly targets with catastrophic potential such as nuclear power plants, chemical facilities, pipelines, and ports, and would establish policy for standardized, tiered protective measures tailored to the target and rapidly adjusted to the threat.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 10:51 AM

Help on a large scale got there when the Feds have always said it would. 48-72 hours after the storm cleared the area.

What the Feds can be blamed for is the amount of red-tape that has prevented emergency responders who were not assoc'd with the Feds from the start -- ie the firemen coming in from out of the region,. rather than say the Red Cross with whom FEMA had an established relationship -- from getting in to help later.

What you say? A Washington bureaucracy and red tape? Shocking! BS sexual harrassment classes? Gee, wonder who mandated all that ?

All of this is teaching a valuable lesson.

(1)The only folks who can reasonably help you in the immediate aftermath of the disaster are the locals. So elect responsible folks to city and county offices.

That said, aside from examples like the Red Cross fiasco and the failure to stock the Superdome for the number of folks who went there, I'm not sure how much even the locals can be blamed. NO and the rest of SoLA was up a creek. And there's nothing left of much of southern Miss.

(2) Therefore be ready to help yourself for 2 days.

Everyone in earthquake and hurrican regions seems to already know this of course, but it's a lesson much of the rest of the country seems unable to understand.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 8, 2005 10:52 AM

Ordinarily, I support most of Pres. Bush's policies, and am far from a Bush hater.

But if what I have heard recently is even remotely true, the top three in the Federal Gov't disaster response chain of command are political appointees with absolutely no experience in disaster response, and are collectively incapable of organizing a drunk fest in a brewery.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 10:55 AM

Anon's last post itself makes the point that $18BB in funding went to state and local governments, although he/she seems to have missed the implications of this point.

To drive it home further, I note that FEMA has only 2500 employees, but 500,000 first responders were trained with Homeland Security funds (again, per Anon's own source). This begs the question: what the heck did Louisiana and New Orleans do with their share of these first responders? Apparently nothing, just as they failed to use the over 500 buses at their disposal to evacuate any of the less mobile citizens.

In the event of an emergency, state and local governments are supposed to handle the first 72 hours (with the $18BB and 500K first responders) until the Feds can intervene by coordinating assistance from further away. If your state and local governments are staffed by feckless incompetents, you're in trouble (I was going to say "up the creek without a paddle", but decided that was a bit too apposite).

Posted by: HT at September 8, 2005 10:59 AM

I agree with you, but it seems to me that it was a federal responsibility when the potential for danger to the entire country is taken into account. A hypothetical disaster that happens in Maine would have little or no effect on the rest of the country; but at the mouth of the Mississippi- this is a disaster for everyone. And blaming the locals for not helping themselves is like telling a man buried up to his neck to dig himself out.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 11:00 AM


It isn't. The Feds still need to get permission. It's a Republic, not a dictatorship of reason.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 11:04 AM

Oj, did you read anything? They declared a state of emergency and asked for help 4 days before the levee broke. The Feds had permission.

HT - My source is the White House homepage. Check it out.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 11:07 AM

HT - How can you use 500 buses when the roads are flooded, and you're understaffed because everyone is just trying to survive, communications are down, the power is out; locally they were swamped and when the Dept. of Homeland Sec. should have come in and saved the day, they got caught with their pants down, and immediately start a campaign of blaming local officials.
Blame local officials for not building a strong enough levee (even though the Army Corp had been requesting more Federal money for years, and was routinely denied), but don't say "They didn't ask for help." It is an offensive lie.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 11:12 AM

How can you use 500 buses when the roads are flooded

"I need five hundred buses, man."--Mayor Nagin of NO, on CNN.

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would blame local officials.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 11:20 AM

All who defend Bush would go for the jugular if this happened on Kerry's watch. The "Republicans can do no wrong" line no longer works. Democrat Blanco, AND Democrat Nagin, AND, yes, Republican Bush, AND "Brownie," ALL failed miserably. Those who think they can do no wrong no matter what ultimately never learn a thing.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 11:35 AM

Perhaps, ratbert, you might find the time to research the ways in which FEMA has ALSO refused help. Oh, wait -- that would present a complete picture, wouldn't it? What am I thinking suggesting that??

Bored. Goodbye.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 11:44 AM

GEorge, there's a reason the Feds give locals that window.

Locals can request the help way in advance, but a number of factors come into play,

First, they have to worry about how much they can put into the region before the storm its. It's unpredictable what will happen, what will get destroyed. AS the mayor of NO's favorite military dude said, if my men are in there during the storm itself, they're going to be victims not responders. Ditto for supplies that might well be destroyed.

Second, FEMA goes in in the aftermath, helos etc as soon they can fly, to assess damage from the air and guess at what needs to be done. They did this. But then they have to rely on locals to tell them what is needed as well. This part. Not so good.

Third, the first point means that the Feds have to bring everything in from outside. In a storm/damage area this big, it meant that stuff was preplaced some 200-300 miles away. The roads it comes in on have to be checked and cleared, the convoys can only move so fast. In a case like this I believe that had to truck in their own gasoline for refueling.

All this takes time.

Was the Fed respone perfect? No, but what ever is? Do they have to do better next time. Probably yes.

But there's no magic wand that can be waved bringing the FEds in Tues or evem Wed n force, particularly when the police force fails in a major city, and the Ntl Guard under the state gov has to deal with crimefighting and not disaster relief.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 8, 2005 11:45 AM


The system worked. This is what it looks like. No one got upset with Bill Clinton when it happened on his watch:

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 11:48 AM

the Dept. of Homeland Sec. should have come in and saved the day

If only there were no Constitution....

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 11:51 AM

Use of the buses was part of the NO
disaster evacuation plan. Nagin and Blanco are the products of the NO mentality. Gamble! Wait till the last minute to see if the storm might veer away. They made their bet and the people lost "big time." Their incompetence borders on the criminal. If this were China they'd be publically executed ... by big government.

Anon. asked the question and George gave the Michael Moore answer: BLAME GEORGE BUSH! They'll be doing this for the next ten years no matter which party's in office or what the subject is.

Posted by: Genecis at September 8, 2005 11:52 AM

I'll add the the anon posts, not George's, are unfair.

Would some repubs have gone for the jugular under Clinton no doubt.

I for one tho, and there are many others, have noted that I'm not willing yet to assign a hell of a lot of blame even to the locals authorities.

The Red Cross story is the first that I've seen that really puts the guv in a bad light. Other than that, the only other thing I have had a problem with was that the guv and mayor started pointing fingers at the Feds last Wed. That was just wrong.

It now seems as well that the Superdome was stocked with food and water beforehand so that charge of local incompetance goes out the window.

I suppose the locals should've been better prepared for the loss of radio transmission for the police, but even that, tho predictable, is very hard to deal with.

Short of evacuating the whole city before hand at gunpoint -- b/c let's face it, alot of those folks going to the Dome or staying in their homes were just no going to leave the city -- there's not much more that could've been done.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 8, 2005 11:55 AM

And of course NO is was just one city in a disaster area the size of Britain.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 8, 2005 11:57 AM

I believe OJ's comment a few days ago about Brown was "dead man walking", so there's not exactly reflexive rah-rah support for Bush and his FEMA director here. But what the federal government can do effectively is based in large part on what the state and local governments do beforehand in terms of both evacuations and preparing for relief and rescue efforts.

As far as the state of emergency delcaration, it allowed the federal government to help with money, not military forces. To get the troops in, Bush would have to have declared state and local officials incompetent before the hurricane hit and either federalized Blanco's Louisiana Nationa Guard troops, the way Ike and JFK did dealing with desegrgation cases in the South in the 1950s and early 1960s, or he could have implemented the Insurrection Act to basically federalize southern Louisiana...which the left would have immediately claimed was an illegal seizure of power that Bush never would have done if Republicans were running the state.

Gov. Blanco didn't ask for help on the troop support level until 36 hours after the levees broke, and she's still balking at allowing the federal government to take full control over rescue efforts in New Orleans, while at the same time countermanding Nagin's order for a full evacuation of the city (to me, Blanco far more than Nagin has been the main problem in this whole crisis -- Nagin's mistakes were mainly ones of omission when it came to the placement of buses and personnel; Blanco has been actively attempting to maintain her state power base by fighting actions by both Bush and Nagin, even as people died. That's reprehensible).

Posted by: John at September 8, 2005 11:57 AM

George -

The State of Emergency declaration was a request for funds only, nothing more. To the best of my knowledge, the funds were granted.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at September 8, 2005 11:58 AM

You people's use of rational discourse and easily checkable facts so bored a troll that it ran away. Oh, the humanity!!! Oh, the heartless cruelty!!!

(And gotta love how trolls think that telling someone to "find the time to research" is pursuasion at its finest. Well, I guess it beats the massive and disorganized quote and link dump from dubious sources so beloved and perfected by the Usenet netkooks.)

And it really does seem that George W. Bush will be the Left/Dem's Herbert Hoover-like boogie-man for a good part of this century.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 8, 2005 1:07 PM

Raoul - I didnt get scared, i ate lunch.

dubious sources, yeah, i think that the NYT, Washington Post and others are pretty dubious, too.

Explain to me what no one has been able to do for days since this happened: What does the Department of Homeland Security do? I have posted what it claims to do, taken directly from the Whitehouse homepage (another dubious source), but as it contains a number of agencies involved in the disaster relief, did it actually do what it claims it was set up to do?
Please answer this question.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 1:25 PM


No. It does not have authority to do what you claim it claims to do.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 1:28 PM

What I claim or what it claims? Go to the whitehouse website, if you dont trust my post that you erased.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 1:55 PM


It doesn't matter what you claim the White House claims. It matters what the Constitution says. You'll have noted that even today the military forces are refusing to help Mayor Nagin remove people from their houses because that exceeds their authority.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 2:04 PM

OJ - So basically, the Department of Homeland Security is one big sham?

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 2:07 PM

It's certainly a mistake, though it was worth creating just because we got through new work rules that will eventually destroy the civil service.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 2:11 PM

It was a lie? An empty promise of security?

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 2:13 PM

@ George/OJ -

I'll also agree that the creation of DHS was likely a mistake, componded by the absorption of FEMA into that entity. As OJ says, this *really is* what big government looks like in action.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at September 8, 2005 2:15 PM

Neither a lie nor a sham. The intentions were sincere.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at September 8, 2005 2:17 PM


Yes, the Democrats' response to 9/11 was, of course, to make the bureacracy even more gigantic and sclerotic. They forced George Bush to accept DHS. It's a political creation that worked exactly as well as it's capable of working.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 2:19 PM


C'mon, few acts of this presidency were cynical, but embracing DHS certainly was.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 2:25 PM

OJ - are you joking? You're going to blame the dems for the DHS? Ok, someone please prove me wrong when I call OJ a fool, again....
You really think the Dem's are responsible for the current bloated bureacracy? You really are a fool.
Im done, Im out, at least i got you guys to admit that the DHS was a sham. Add it to the list of Bush administration scams. Its getting pretty long.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2005 2:32 PM

DHS is Joe Lieberman's baby. Remember that Bush initially opposed it, for (some of) the reasons that FEMA is getting bashed today.

Of course, it is an executive department, so no avoiding the blame that is deserved now. But as Rush has mentioned several times in the past few days - let's also investigate the role Congress has played in the post-Katrina situation (funding, porking, legislating).

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 8, 2005 2:37 PM

Well, I'm glad to see that George is willing to self-identify as a troll, but my specific comments were directed at an anonymous coward's pathetic rebuttal directed at Ratbert in its 11:44 posting. I thought the phrase I quoted would make that obvious.

Those of you attempting to engage him in a rational debate should take note.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 8, 2005 2:44 PM

Care to address FEMA's refusal of help, Raoul?

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 2:49 PM


FEMA was also (supposedly) training 700 firefighters in an Atlanta hotel to hand out flyers. Not good.

However, if you want to play the blame game, you must stick to the rules - give the sharpest blame to those who deserve it the most. FEMA (and the feds) may have been 24 hours late, but from August 26th (Friday) to at least the morning of August 31 (Wednesday), the whole thing was exacerbated by the locals. To dispute that is to dispute gravity or the hurricane itself.

But, as ratbert said, that is the battle the left wants to fight. Good luck. Even the refugees won't be on your side.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 8, 2005 3:56 PM

Bye George. Thanks for the sideshow.

Posted by: Genecis at September 8, 2005 5:28 PM

Can someone point me to FEMA's "refusal to help" that these people keep going on about?

Posted by: Timothy at September 8, 2005 5:56 PM