Definitely Finite
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration now acknowledges it is trying to recover nearly $500 million from people who improperly received federal aid money intended to help victims of two deadly hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, along the Gulf Coast two years ago. It said the amount may increase further.
“This is a moving target and not finite,” said James McIntyre, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[Associated Press, "U.S.: Katrina aid fraud nears $500 million", msnbc, 4 December 2007.]
I found the first paragraphs of this item interesting, but not for the story about the effort to recover the half-billion dollars.
No, I'm interested in what Mr. McIntyre could possibly have intended to mean when he said “This is a moving target and not finite". The "moving target" bit isn't so difficult, it's the "not finite" that concerns me.
Finite, of course, means not infinite. Finite things are countable, they have limits, they have largest and smallest values, etc.
Now, in considering, say, the class of all people from whom money might be recovered, or even if we're talking about the amount of money that might be recovered — or virtually any other category you can think of that might relate to this story — there are bounds, highest values, largest numbers that one can assign without fear of being incorrect. How many people? Fewer than the population of the US; probably even fewer than the population of Louisiana at the time. How many dollars might be recovered? Probably less than $500 million. Whatever.
Either Mr. McIntyre is confused, or else this formerly useful word has taken on new meanings of which I am unaware, and of which I probably would not approve.
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 01.34
Permalink
One suspects that he meant either "definite" (as in, we don't know how many people yet), or "fixed" (as in, we don't know how many people yet so we can't give any firm numbers).
But given the amount of money people have ripped off from the current administration, especially in Iraq, "not finite" is getting close to the truth!
on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 08.31
Permalink
To rescue it as written, one might hypothesize that aid programs for Katrina and Rita are ongoing, and will be so forever, since victimhood never ends, nor fraud. The amount of aid will decrease over time, but the equation for the amount of fraud money might not converge.
on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 02.53
Permalink
I took it to mean they're not sure how many people might be subject to having to return money and the $500 million sum could change.
Frankly, I'm much more concerned with the $9 billion that disappeared in Iraq a few years ago. I'd especially like to know how much, if any, of that money wound up being at the disposal of the Republican Party and/or its candidates.
I'm also more concerned about the blatant stupidity of an administration that had no problem at all writing off $9 billion as just one of those crazy things, but is ready to get all righteous and nasty with a bunch of two-bit cheats in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast. What's more, I have a hunch Halliburton considers its fiscal year a total waste if it hasn't managed to screw taxpayers out of at least $500 million.
on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 00.14
Permalink
Regardless of what he may have meant, SW, I insist on making mock of what he actually said.