InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 07:57:48 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] I'm enjoying the Gray Davis stuff out there too... Y'know the standard reason (here atleast) thats attributed for the Terminatah getting into office is simply americans will vote for their stars way before they vote for something intelligent. [/QUOTE]Well I was still living in L.A. when this whole thing went down and it is a bit more complicated than that. The emergency ballot did not have a primary election so basically anyone who had the $(can't remember how much) to run would be on the ballot. This included Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, Ariana Huffington, even Galagher and a whole bunch of other wackos. Circus comes nowhere near describing the situation.The guys who had a chance were Cruz Bustamante (an extreme leftist who actually belonged to this group La Raza who thinks California should go back to Mexico; LC would like him :p ), A pretty sensible yet not very dynamic conservative named Tom McClintock, and Ahnold himself. While McClintock was definately the most qualified and had the best ideas, the Republican party feared he could not beat Bustamonte so either they recruited Arnold or he stepped up to the plate on his own and Bustamonte didn't have a chance. So the whole reason Arnold was even able to run was because nobody wanted Cruz Bustamante to be the governor. Turned out Schwartzeneger got 50%, Bustamonte got 32%, McClintock got 13%. Some estimated that McClintock could have beaten 32% but who knows how many of Arnold's votes would have gone to Bustamante. It was a game. If you vote for McClintock, you are voting for Bustamante. A vote for Arnold was a vote to keep Bustamante out. I got to vote a week before I moved so they get to deal with my vote after I am long gone. :DFri, 16 Sep 2005 19:13:48 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] I think this is more a statement about the people electing than the elected.[/QUOTE]Democracy is founded on the basis that each person makes an informed vote. Unfortunately that vast majority of the population falls under the sheep category and rarely takes the time to consider doing something else other than following the shepherd. Wasn't there an election where a dead incumbant won a vote because people voted for their team and didn't actually take the time to notice who tehy were voting for?[QUOTE] Yeah, that there isn't much threat at least to newer buildings that is. I lived in CA for 28 years and lived through many an earthquake.[/QUOTE]I think the fact earthquakes are more common helps to ensure that California is aware and prepared. I'm curious what the newer buildings are designed to withstand though... a 5.0? 7.5? 9.0? 10.5? (the disaster movie '10.5' was about an earthquake powerful enough to rip down the golden gate bridge. And the bigger one to follow was rated 10.5)---Side topicI'm enjoying the Gray Davis stuff out there too... Y'know the standard reason (here atleast) thats attributed for the Terminatah getting into office is simply americans will vote for their stars way before they vote for something intelligent.[QUOTE]Top 5 ReasonsTo Recall Gray DavisLied to Public About California’s Budgetary Matters Solely to Gain Re-Election: Never has there been a time where a politician had been more disingenuous in deceiving and misleading the public than Gray Davis. He knowingly lied through his teeth before the election about the size and scope of California’s $34.6 billion budget deficit. Lied to Voters About His Plans to Raise Taxes: As soon as he felt he had hoodwinked the voters and Election Day had passed, Gray Davis suddenly declared a serious budget crisis existed. Then he started advocating massive tax increases plus cuts in public safety and education to balance the state’s budget. Pushes for New Form of Taxation – Taxing the Internet: Never has there been a more dangerous threat to commerce in the state and indeed the nation than the current consideration by Gray Davis of inventing new ways to tax families and small businesses. Gray Davis has now proposed implementing a tax on Internet commerce for any company with a retail outlet in California. This will provide one more means for the government to collect more of your money so that corrupted and incompetent politicians like Gray Davis can mismanage it.California and The Nation Still Suffer from the Davis Power Crisis: Californians are paying the highest utility bills in the nation because of Davis’ gross mishandling of the state’s power crisis. This has hurt other states as well as the notoriety of the California Energy Crisis created a disincentive for other states to explore reforms to public power agencies as the means of providing affordable electricity to the public.The People’s Property For Sale – Selling the Government for Campaign Cash: In the past year, numerous allegations have emerged concerning the role of fundraising in the administration of Gray Davis’ duties as Governor. Questions have been raised over whether campaign contributions affected the Davis’ Administration change of heart in allowing cancer causing dioxin to be dumped into our water ways. The California Teachers Association – long an ally of Democrat Party candidates – was even faced with an extortion demand for $1 MILLION while meeting with Davis in the Governor’s office to discuss educational reforms to benefit children.It’s not a question of whether we should recall Gray Davis, it’s an issue of how long we can afford to wait – all the while watching California slide further into the abyss. [/QUOTE]Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:18:55 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] There are other ways to hold politicians accountable, for example if they commit crimes, but it's arguable if "not taking appropriate action" is a crime, it certianly isn't doing your job, and in most places not doing your job will get you fired, but in the realm of politics, usually that means you have to wait until the next election, when typically, most of the voting population has forgotten about your lack of ability to do your job, and hence incumbents typically get elected almost every single time. [/QUOTE]I think this is more a statement about the people electing than the elected. Sad but true. Oh yeah, don't most polititians not do their jobs? :p [QUOTE] Does 1 in every 2 people in California not know about the potential threat of an earthquake? [/QUOTE]Yeah, that there isn't much threat at least to newer buildings that is. I lived in CA for 28 years and lived through many an earthquake. Most deaths related to the earthquakes there were heart attacks and possible electrical fires but that was mostly it. Northridge was a different story as it's epicenter was actually in the city. There was quite a bit of damage done but still the loss of life was like in the teens I think and people weren't stranded like the huricane victims.Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:07:19 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxHmm LC, thanks for the link... Thats good reading.And the incumbant part... simple... Very few people vote for a person, they vote for the party (or 'their team')Back to NO... This surprised me (CNN I think, though it might be somewhere else)[QUOTE] The evacuees polled, all from New Orleans or elsewhere in Louisiana, also said:More than half of their homes were destroyed. Two-thirds were renting their homes and a third were owners.Almost three-fourths don't have insurance to cover their losses.More than half didn't have health insurance, a usable credit card with them, or a bank or checking account from which they could withdraw money.Nearly three-fourths heard before the hurricane hit that an evacuation order had been given; a fourth did not.More than two-thirds said they didn't evacuate because they didn't realize how bad the storm and its aftermath would be. More than half -- 55 percent -- said one factor was that they didn't have a car or a way to leave.The survey of 680 randomly selected evacuees at Houston-area shelters was conducted September 10-12 by ICR. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Harvard School of Public Health collaborated on the project. [/QUOTE]1 in 4 didn't get the notice to evacuate? Thats a bit scary1 in 3 own, 2 in 3 rent... Hmmm, might say something about the poverty when that few actually own and most rent.55% saying they weren't aware how bad it could be isn't very good either. Does 1 in every 2 people in California not know about the potential threat of an earthquake?Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:28:48 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxHere in Tennessee, 4 elected state officials, as well as individual lobbiers were busted in a sting that had been materializing the past couple of years. the sting operation was called Tennesee Waltz, it made some national noise not much. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tennessee_Waltz]Wikipedia: Operation Tennessee Waltz[/URL]the politicians involved, 3 democrats and 1 republican were charged with corruption, bribery, witness intimidation, etc. As the article says, one has already resigned his post in the government, I believe Ford has as well.... There are other ways to hold politicians accountable, for example if they commit crimes, but it's arguable if "not taking appropriate action" is a crime, it certianly isn't doing your job, and in most places not doing your job will get you fired, but in the realm of politics, usually that means you have to wait until the next election, when typically, most of the voting population has forgotten about your lack of ability to do your job, and hence incumbents typically get elected almost every single time.Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:56:37 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxHehe, not a question for me I think.Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:13:03 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] You forget the reason we have Ahhnold as governor in California. [/QUOTE]Didn't forget, never knew that at all ;)In a case like this though... Should it be a firing or should it be a lesson to all and hold the path?Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:36:01 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxWell, other than impeachment, I don't think so. Should he be fired? Yes, but his employer is the citizenry of New Orleans. You forget the reason we have Ahhnold as governor in California. The people were so dissatisfied with the job Grey Davis was doing that they signed petitions to have an election to vote him out. The power is with the people in a democracy, so for elected possitions, like it or not, the people hold their leaders accountable. I don't know what other accountability there could be other than a fine or something. Should we have mayors appointed? Impeachment would require that he did something illegal with respect to his possition and I don't know that he did.Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:07:45 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] The beauty of elected officials is that the people can hold them accountable. [/QUOTE]So not electing them is the only way to hold a public official accountable then?Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:59:58 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Curious... How do you think Nagan should be held accountable? [/QUOTE]The beauty of elected officials is that the people can hold them accountable. If he is voted in to office again, I guess the people of NO deserve the Mayor they get, that is if there will be a city to be mayor of.Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:43:32 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Those very buses were part of a pre-conceived evacuation plan made for just such an event. The plan was there it was just never executed . You forget, this man was demanding 500 Greyhound buses while these other buses just sat there and were eventually swamped. I just don't how to say it any other way, the Mayor screwed up in this case and the first thing he does (rather than actually helping his people) is go out and start blasting Bush.[/QUOTE]Ya it's starting to look like everyone had their guns in the holster all ready for the event, but when the event actually occoured, everyone stood their too stunned to actually pull the trigger. And the second they realized they missed the opportunity, out came the accusations that it was someone elses fault (That or they pulled the trigger while leaving the gun in the holster ;) I'm not one to let a metaphor die easily).[QUOTE]We know enough details in this particular instance to know the Mayor was negligent enough to get people killed [/QUOTE]Aye, that we do. Actually I took some time to do a bit of research and it looks more and more apparent that Blanco and Nagan had their heads up their butts for this one to start. Also looks like theres alot of corruption issues to go along with. Curious... How do you think Nagan should be held accountable?[QUOTE]Nagan will probably walk away without a scratch while Bush will get all the blame [/QUOTE]It needs to be spread out. Nagan failed, Blanco if anything hampered alot of efforts, and the Feds response wasn't the best (and that will goto Bush). Another question for debate... Do you think from this event we should re-eval how such disaster responses occour? We know (mostly) how/why/what failed here... Do we just hope next time the proper processes are followed or should we take steps to change the processes?Oh, side point... It was mentioned that the hurricane hit 5 states, why is LA the only one having these difficulties with it? In the NO's case it wasn't the actual hurricane that did most the damage... It was the events that followed (storm surge, levee break, looting, then finally anarchy) that put NO to what it was. Maybe the actual process for the hurricane response was well done, just the response to the NO situation wasn't because the response wasn't designed for the problems they encountered. From what I'm seeing, the actual hurricane response with the exception to NO has been handled decently well (though finding articles on it is challenging since it isn't the hot topic). If it is decided changes need to be made to the disaster response, I think the key point to focus on is what other 'events' would occour afterwards. The Hurricane flooding NO was a well documented occourance. The looting and anarchy afterwards wasn't.Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:27:33 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]You're making the same assumption about the mayor of NO as alot are making of Bush.[/QUOTE]Assumptions? Not really, the chain of responsibility is pretty clear here..it's the Mayor first, the Govenor 2nd and President 3rd.[QUOTE]I'm curious what the reason those busses weren't used really was... And I'm guessing that it'll turn out nobody knew about them till it was too late. [/QUOTE]Well, Nagan is now saying (very after the fact) that they couldn't get drivers...kinda of a weak argument though considering the number of people wanting to get out...surely [i]someone[/i] could figure out how to drive a stick :( [QUOTE]How could the mayor be held at fault for not using a resource he didn't know existed? The process (inventory of resources in this case) is what should take the blame.[/QUOTE]Those very buses were part of a pre-conceived evacuation plan made for just such an event. The plan was there it was just never executed :rolleyes: . You forget, this man was [i]demanding[/i] 500 Greyhound buses while these other buses just sat there and were eventually swamped. I just don't how to say it any other way, the Mayor screwed up in this case and the first thing he does (rather than actually helping his people) is go out and start blasting Bush. :( [QUOTE]Yet another reason why we need to hold back on finger pointing until we know the details.[/QUOTE]We know enough details in this particular instance to know the Mayor was negligent enough to get people killed(not to mention he was the first to start pointing fingers...). The sad fact is, that despite overwhelming evidence, written laws, ignored evacuation plans and a total failure of the local gov't, Nagan will probably walk away without a scratch while Bush will get all the blame :rolleyes: [QUOTE]I think in the end we'll see every last level of Gov't take heat and make changes because of it.[/QUOTE]Heh, in a country where the 84% of the press is in the opposite political party of the sitting President? I hope you're right and the responsible parties are shown as such but I'm not holding my breath :rolleyes:Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:10:08 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] This is anathema... [/QUOTE]had to look that one up myself. :lol:[QUOTE] However Charity could not organzie an evacuation. Nor should it be left to private initiative and the goodwill of individuals. It is too important. [/QUOTE]I totally agree. In this country the government's first job is to protect the lives of it's citizens and I don't feel that is a form of social welfare although I can see how someone would. At any rate, I agree that the government should at least assist with the saving of lives in the short term as well as the mid term (choppering the stranded out of there as well as providing temporary housing, meals and a bit of money). [QUOTE] So, a lot of very good things in individualism.My worry is that a focus only on the individual countenances the abandonment of vulnerable members of society. This is anathema to many traditional Third World societies, where even the feckless are valued. [/QUOTE]Perhaps this is the reason they are still third world countries. If you took from the poorest (not homeless, that's another issue IMO) of people in the U.S. lets say and an average citizen from any third world country, for example, I guarantee that the poor guy in America has it better.[QUOTE] It is anathema to socialism and social democracy. Because when the poor are abandoned (as in capitalism) it is both morally wrong... [/QUOTE]This is a fundamental difference between the Left and the Right. The left feels it is immoral to allow people to live in poverty, that the poor are stuck in their situation and cannot get out (this may be true in some countries), the right believes it is immoral to force the society to prop up the poor and not expect anything from them in return. Basically it is dragging the society down, not lifting it. If we lift many of the restrictions on the individual, he can make something of himself no matter what his starting point and that just giving money to the poor actually takes this incentive away. For example, a kid wants this bike but has no money for it so he sells candy bars to get the money. He goes door to door and works his rear off for about a week to sell candy bars. He has about half the money he needs and his Dad notices how hard his son has been working and decides to make a deal with him. He says that he will pay for rest of the bike and the kid can use the bike to help him sell the rest to pay him back. He gets the bike and the dad never sees his money again.The point, when your incentive to work is taken away, you ain't gonna work.[QUOTE] - because the causes of poverty are not always the fecklesness of the poor, but structural [/QUOTE]This may be true in some countries but in the U.S. someone who starts out at the bottom can make it to the top if he works hard and has the desire to pay the price. [QUOTE] and also wrong because it is bad for the rest of society, too. [/QUOTE]This may be true but under capitolism, and if the society is morally accountable to some higher sense (be it God or some other moral code), then the individuals will seek to lift those who really do need help. In this instance, the reciever of the welfare will have a greater incentive to pull him/herself out. If you are getting money from a faceless government, it is easy to not feel guilty but when you know it is coming from individuals who care, you will more likely wish to make good use of it.Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:28:15 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] So I'm guessing that absolves the guilty party? [/QUOTE]Hehe, no way... But for the time being yes. You're making the same assumption about the mayor of NO as alot are making of Bush. I'm curious what the reason those busses weren't used really was... And I'm guessing that it'll turn out nobody knew about them till it was too late. How could the mayor be held at fault for not using a resource he didn't know existed? The process (inventory of resources in this case) is what should take the blame. This process of course can always be traced back to a person (who mismanged the inventory process)... which is all in due time. Yet another reason why we need to hold back on finger pointing until we know the details.I think in the end we'll see every last level of Gov't take heat and make changes because of it.Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:31:12 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]This is anathema...[/QUOTE]Are you feeling okay there B? Once caught my attention but twice? You've been reading too many of Scipios posts my friend;):DTue, 13 Sep 2005 09:43:33 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxGood points Jerm. I certainly did not mean to imply that all Americans only think about themselves. And I think you may be right that there is more charitable giving in capitalist than socialist countries. In part this may be because the state takes the burden of providing more essential sevices in a socialist coun try. In a capitalist country there is more NEED for charitable giving.In the social-democratic European west, like FRance, paying the high taxes is seen as a virtue by some in much the same way as giving to charity. It serves the same function.However Charity could not organzie an evacuation. Nor should it be left to private initiative and the goodwill of individuals. It is too important. Thought I'd have a look at wikipedia:[QUOTE] Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. It embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state or society. It is thus directly opposed to collectivism, but it can exist in a community where individuals respect other individuals. It may derive from a belief in solipsism and is often confused with egoism. At heart, it may be simplified as "minding one's business." [/QUOTE]So, a lot of very good things in individualism.My worry is that a focus only on the individual countenances the abandonment of vulnerable members of society. This is anathema to many traditional Third World societies, where even the feckless are valued. It is anathema to socialism and social democracy. Because when the poor are abandoned (as in capitalism) it is both morally wrong - because the causes of poverty are not always the fecklesness of the poor, but structural - this insight being the reason socialist movements appeared) and also wrong because it is bad for the rest of society, too.wikipedia on Collectivism, usually contrasted with Individualism:[QUOTE] Collectivism, in general, is a term used to describe a theoretical or practical emphasis on the group, as opposed to (and seen by many of its opponents to be at the expense of) the individual. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] (Some) political collectivists emphasize the notions of equality and solidarity, and see all human beings as part of the same group, with similar interests. They maintain that competition and rivalry between individuals or smaller groups is overall counter-productive or detrimental, and should therefore be replaced with some form of cooperation. [/QUOTE]Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:32:00 GMTBastablehttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxWow, I forgot about this thread.[QUOTE] Individualism means people only thinking about themselves. It is deeply shocking to see people apparently abandoned without much thought. The assumption (unproven, not even tested) seems to be that if you couldnt get out or chose not to then you had it coming. That is just deeply shocking to me - how can people value their fellow citizens so little?Yes I agree about welfare dependency and people abusing welfare selfishly. (incidentally they're also only following the capitalist ethic - be selfish. Why not blame capitalism? why only talk about welfare?)But you simply do not leave the old and poor and vulnerable behind to face this kind of disaster.I don't care if some of them are selfish are whatever - they are still human beings and you do not abandon them. The alternative to individualist ethic of only being out for yourself, is that you are part of a society (Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society") and you have obligations and duties to your fellow humans and you, crucially, include them in thinking about what to do in a disaster. Frankly I'm deeply shocked and while you may see my - or other peoples' - locating of the cause in individualism, I assure you I do not do so out of desire to bash the US. [/QUOTE]Well Bas, read this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy to see how much Americans only think about themselves:[URL=http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2005/09/2005090801.htm]Americans Have Given at Least $670-Million for Victims of Hurricane Katrina[/URL][QUOTE] The pace of giving is unprecedented in American history. In the 10 days after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Americans donated $239-million to charitable causes, and in the nine days after the tsunamis hit, major American relief groups raised $163-million. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] Corporations have been significant donors to the charitable efforts, as have numerous celebrities and wealthy Americans. Wal-Mart has contributed the most so far, donating $17-million. The foundation created by the company's founders, the Walton family, also has donated $15-million to groups working on hurricane relief.As of last week, more than $273-million had been donated by corporations, foundations, and wealthy individuals, according to a tally by The Chronicle. [/QUOTE]Now you must ask yourself, is all this giving in spite of living in a capitalist society or because of it? I would argue that under other economic structures like socialism, there is less of an incentive to give. When the government takes a larger portion of your income, why would you want or how could you give to charity? There is also the mentality that the government is taking care of the poor so I don't need to feel guilty if I don't help them. Now you may say that if the poor or those in need are being helped, what's the difference? The difference is that the person giving must make the decision to be part of the community or society while the person who's government forces them to, has no choice.I think that religion has a something to do with it also. Whether the 'givers' are religious or not, I don't know, but it is no coincidence that the two largest recievers of donations have been religious organizations (Red Cross and Salvation Army).Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:58:05 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxMy parents have been here and I've been too busy to follow this discussion. I'd like to write a fuller reply later, but for now I'd just like to state that I DO very much suspect individualism as a major cause of the bad handling of the disaster.Individualism means people only thinking about themselves. It is deeply shocking to see people apparently abandoned without much thought. The assumption (unproven, not even tested) seems to be that if you couldnt get out or chose not to then you had it coming. That is just deeply shocking to me - how can people value their fellow citizens so little?Yes I agree about welfare dependency and people abusing welfare selfishly. (incidentally they're also only following the capitalist ethic - be selfish. Why not blame capitalism? why only talk about welfare?)But you simply do not leave the old and poor and vulnerable behind to face this kind of disaster.I don't care if some of them are selfish are whatever - they are still human beings and you do not abandon them. The alternative to individualist ethic of only being out for yourself, is that you are part of a society (Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society") and you have obligations and duties to your fellow humans and you, crucially, include them in thinking about what to do in a disaster. Frankly I'm deeply shocked and while you may see my - or other peoples' - locating of the cause in individualism, I assure you I do not do so out of desire to bash the US. I would also address Scipio's point about "How do you know it could have been handled better" or whatever it was... how do I know? The fact that so many people were abandoned in NO and in the Superdome (Got the name right?) is enough. That buses were left to be submerged rather than used to evacuate people.If I lived in the US I would feel incredibly ANGRY. Maybe that's why there's so much attacking and blaming. But the anger is, IMHO, perfectly appropriate.Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:44:01 GMTBastablehttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]It's because of this mentality that we have more people standing up pointing fingers then actually investigating what happened and what went wrong. [/QUOTE]So I'm guessing that absolves the guilty party? I'm just curious because it was the Mayors job to protect the people first. It was the Mayors job to get the buses out. It was the mayors job to evacuate the city...this is all written law! there is no debate here, the Mayor clearly f*&^ed up but since he's not Bush...well, we need to investigate Bush anyway and forget the people that are [i]obviously[/i] guilty...yeah...silly. :rolleyes:Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:57:33 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] 1. How do you KNOW that it was far worse than it could have been.2. Even if you have bullet-proof empirical bases to answer Number 1, you still have to answer, number two: How do you know that it was some ONEs fault, and not some THINGS fault? [/QUOTE]Y'know, we went down different paths, but have come to pretty much the same conclusions Scip... Though my reasoning may be a bit diff... You decide... And I think this board displays it well. Our society is quite well setup as a 2 team, us vs them, good vs evil... You get the point.I'm not sure if it's a recent phenom, but since the nation is nicely divided into a your team vs my team mentality, it's much easier just to blame the other team then to investigate how or why it happened. As long as the public knows who's side is the evil ones responsible for it, everythings fine. It's because of this mentality that we have more people standing up pointing fingers then actually investigating what happened and what went wrong. I think it's funny how circular all the arguements become. You get the Bush critics saying it was his fault that he didn't ensure a NO emergency response (silly), followed by an equally silly critique of Nagin about the 2000 busses that could have been used to evacuate. Instead of investigating why and perhaps improving a system, tis much more conveient to simply say who's fault it is and why you should join our team instead.Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:02:01 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxI've just posted a link and quotation to a story in the New Yorker Magazine, which some of you may find interesting[URL=http://civ3.1bigcommunity.com/community.asp?id=10061&page=4&board=291&thread=34179&start=3&tPage=&tThreads=&ttl=23&sT=]HERE[/URL]Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:38:17 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] And that is the story that no one is reporting. [/QUOTE]Sure am glad to hear that someone else has reached the same conclusion as me.Welfare should be about rehabilitating people to be autonomous, not about creating dependency on the system, which is precisely the way far too many state-assistance programs work.Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.But then Bush is clearly responsible for the WHOLE thing, because he never went down there and taught NO how to fish!The other thought I've had is this. Except for this one which you've posted Tosk, EVERY story I've read has at its core this proposition: "It was far worse than it could have been, and this is someONEs fault." To which I have two questions:1. How do you KNOW that it was far worse than it could have been.2. Even if you have bullet-proof empirical bases to answer Number 1, you still have to answer, number two: How do you know that it was some ONEs fault, and not some THINGS fault?In the Middle Ages, people still had humility. The Renaissance, Englightenment, Industrial Revolution, Modern-Age, Space Race, etc, changed all of that. Now people live in a delusion that governments, civil authorities, health organizations, meteorologists, and other scientists, etc., can literally CONTROL REALITY. Well I'm sorry to remind you that we cannot yet control reality.The actions of hurricanes (including their trajector, velocity, intensity, duration, amount of precipitation, etc., etc.) CANNOT be predicted, despite the marvel of modern meteorology. The outcome of a storm's impact on a levee system, ALSO cannot be predicted, despite the marvel of modern civil engineering.As I said in a previous post, there simply are no guarantees in life. This is not a pleasant thing to be reminded of but unfortunately it is true, and it is better to acknowledge it, than to live in a deluded state of unrealistic, and harmful excessive expectations. Such expectations are harmful both to one's own mental state, and to one's social interactions with others.When natural disasters hit, people sometimes die. The suffering in the Gulf Coast has been horrible to witness, but I challenge that the vast majority of the variability in the outcome of this disaster is accounted for by the storm itself, and by the overall MILIEU in which the storm occurred, which includes EVERYTHING, not just Ragin, not just Bush, not just Brown, or Blanco, or any other individual, or even party.Given the argument that I am making, the idea that the STATE of a social welfare milieu contributed to what transpired seems to be a more reasonable conclusion than that specific actions taken by any particular individual leader in the immediate aftermath accounted for what happened.Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:59:58 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxCont. ...No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism. What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men. But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? Or is living off of stolen wealth a way of life for them? [b]The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans.[/b]And that is the story that no one is reporting.Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:23:58 GMTToskhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[quote]"I don't think it's racism, I think it's economic," Powell said. "But poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor."[/quote]I quite agree Mr Powell ... below is one mans opinion on why this is.by Robert TracinskiSep 02, 2005 It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster. If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild. Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting. But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster. The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong. The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view. The man-made disaster is the welfare state. For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country. When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11). So what explains the chaos in New Orleans? To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story: "Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on. "The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire.... "Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders. " 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' " The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad. What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome? Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them? My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.) What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, [b]crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose.[/b] There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa. There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves. All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:22:14 GMTToskhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms]From Here[/URL] it looks like changes are being made as a few investigations unfold. FEMA director Mr. Brown was removed. Though I'm glad to see holes are being identified and corrected, I'm hoping Browns removal doesn't negatively impact current efforts.It even looks like Powell is getting in shots as well... But I quite enjoyed his stance. He's not pointing fingers at people, he's looking into the process and getting more info first:[QUOTE]"There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," Powell said in excerpts on ABC's Web site.[/QUOTE]He also addressed the racial claims quite well:[QUOTE]"I don't think it's racism, I think it's economic," Powell said. "But poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor." [/QUOTE]Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:04:29 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxTexas has over 200k refugee's and last I heard RickPerry (Tx Gov) was begging other states to take some of them. The cites where they are located are really feeling the pinch and alot of ppl are mad because they are being given first priority in the unemployment lines. My step-dads company just recieved millions from FEMA to build mancamps to rebuild the regions that were effected by the hurricane. Wouldn't it make sense to let the unemployed in those regions have first stab at those jobs?Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:31:38 GMTcleopatra143http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Why not focus on how your community has opened its arms to receive refugees, and be awed that even in spite of such spiteful leaders, common decency still flourishes... [/QUOTE]Jeez, why didn't I think of that. Here in Utah, we have about 1000 people that are given a place to stay and many of them are saying how wonderful the hospitality has been and they may want to stay permanantly. The news out here hasn't been particularly 'blamish' but this is small town news so you don't have so much competition to get the big headline or story.Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:12:55 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal government cannot go in and take over or even help, without the states formally requesting it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wasn't aware of that... Theres something that should probably be identified as needing changed maybe? Had this occoured here I would have expected the federals onsite ASAP... Not awaiting the go ahead from a province.[/QUOTE]Well, the way the Constitution is set up States have these things called 'Rights' and the Gov't can't really just go around doing whatever it pleases...it's all part of the 'Checks and Balances' system we have here to keep the Gov't from taking over everything.I totally agree with an investigation once the people are out and safe. That said, I'd like to know why the Governor of LA decided to wait 3 days after Katrina to declare a state of emergency (at which point the Feds were asked to come and help). I'd like to know why the Mayor of NO left 2000 buses in a parking lot when they could've been used to carry 10s of thousands of people out who could not otherwise afford to leave. I'd also like to know why FEMA was busy rescuing people in other areas such as Biloxi (there were other states ravaged by this hurricane) and why he made 5 of his search and rescue teams actually stay in NO during the hurricane so they'd be there once it was over. Personally I'd like to know why the hell so many people were allowed to stay in NO when we knew the levees could only withstand a Cat 3 hurricane and a Cat 5 was approaching?There are a ton of unanswered questions at the moment. Will Bush get the blame...well, maybe 13% (a recent CNN\USA Today poll says only 13% of people blame Bush) and recent allegations paint a grim picture for the Mayor (a Democrat mind you [IMG]emot/Evil/evil174.gif[/IMG] )[QUOTE]The Red Cross is confirming to Garrett that it had prepositioned water, food, blankets and hygiene products for delivery to the Superdome and the Convention Center in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, but were blocked from delivering those supplies by orders of the Louisiana state government, which did not want to attract people to the Superdome and/or Convention Center. Garrett has no paper trail yet, but will follow up on his verbal confirmation from sources at the highest levels of the Red Cross.[/QUOTE]If this is true I suspect we'll have lots of hearings but I doubt Bush will be there. What's that about to hit the fan? :rolleyes:As for Bush investigating himself, I believe it was ALGORE (at the height of the Chinese Money 'Fundraising' Scandal) who said (speaking about those that can investigate a sitting Pres.\Vice Pres.) "There is no controlling legal authority"...since his situation was...unique ;)Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:40:12 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxFrom the article:[QUOTE]Presidential and Congressional plans for inquiries into how the disaster was handled have been questioned by the opposition Democrats, who have raised the idea of an independent commission. President George W Bush said on Tuesday he would lead an investigation himself as two Senate committees began separate inquiries. "I don't think the government should be investigating itself," said Senator Hilary Clinton. [/QUOTE]From you:[QUOTE]So, if not the Executive or the Legislative Branch of the Federal government. Who IS going to do this investigation? The U.N.? [/QUOTE]Hate to say it, but I agree with Hillary... An investigation should be independant (furthest away from anything partisan possible). I can see the next headline now"Investigation led by Bush finds Bush and his friends did nothing wrong". Please enlighten me a bit... In Canada we have a 'scandal' commitee that would be the ones to investigate a similar situation in Canada. Pretty much a non-partisan and unbiased group that investigates politicians (how they handled what, who bribed who, and so on). Does the US have anything similar to do this investigation or does it get to be the president investigating himself?Oh, and I overused bush there... The extent of this investigation should definately include the head of FEMA (Brown I think?) and other ministries that are involved (department of homeland defense, NO's mayor's office, Govenor of Lousianna.... Theres definately more I'm missing). The intention of this shouldn't be blame either (though it'll definately be called that)... It should be to correct the system so that in the event of a next time, the response is what we should expect it to beAddit:[QUOTE]One of the downsides of a competitive market system I guess, that news people feel absolutely DESPERATE to fill pages with stuff that will get people looking at them instead of others. [/QUOTE]Y'know, thats a great quote... I'm pretty sure that 90% of the reason why we're piping up about partisan attacks here is because a huge portion of the media coverage only deals with the high publicity stunts... Ultimately the heated partisan arguements.Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:33:21 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE][b]Well, if you don't mind, I would like to stop discussing this. The reason is, I have been involved in many discussions like this and they all turned out to be useless. Nobody turned sides (as you could expect beforehand).[/b][/QUOTE]Politicians are all nuts, you know this, right? Why not focus on how your community has opened its arms to receive refugees, and be awed that even in spite of such spiteful leaders, common decency still flourishes... Have a nice day... :)Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:25:27 GMTZigeunerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxEnter Hilary, who has offered up the incredibly insightful comment that [QUOTE] "I don't think either the president or the Congress can conduct the kind of objective, independent investigation that we need," she said on CBS television. [/QUOTE][URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4221310.stm]Is it Still To Early to Play the Blame Game, she asks??[/URL]So, if not the Executive or the Legislative Branch of the Federal government. Who IS going to do this investigation? The U.N.?[URL=http://civ3.1bigcommunity.com/community.asp?id=10061&page=4&board=315&thread=34175&start=1&tPage=&tThreads=&ttl=0&search=&searchType=]Never Do Anything Without Full U.N. Approval and Coordination; That Would Be "Illegal"[/URL]Or how about France? Yeah, that's the ticket! How apropos, given that the area was settled by them!This clearly is going to be Hilary's (or whoever the democratic hopefuls are at this point for 2008) campaign theme: "Remember: Republicans Destroyed New Orleans Cause the Black Folks Didn't Vote For Them!"My take. Even if the Republicans ARE entirely 100% to blame, it remains at this point irrelevant, until it is proven. As it is irrelevant, it is disgusting to waste words on it, given that the disaster is still being dealt with. Moreover, wasting words in what is clearly a partisan political attack with the intent to create political capital is even more disgusting.Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:45:00 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] It's pathetic, the blame game going on in politics, while people are still trying to survive. The left have been particularly bad, being quick to blame Bush, then Blame Iraq, then blame funding, and when all else failed they pull the race card. [/QUOTE]As always, blame the attacks on Bush on the evil left... [URL=http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/US_President_And_White_House_Advisers/Bush_Katrina.html]From CNN[/URL][QUOTE]Even Republicans were criticizing Bush and his administration for the sluggish relief effort. "I think it puts into question all of the Homeland Security and Northern Command planning for the last four years, because if we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. [/QUOTE]Hmm, Newt being critical of Bush?!?! Holy geez that leftwing nutcase! I love how you can make an "it's a pathetic blame game going on in politics" followed by a blindass blame game statement of your own.Addit:[QUOTE] The Federal government cannot go in and take over or even help, without the states formally requesting it. [/QUOTE]Wasn't aware of that... Theres something that should probably be identified as needing changed maybe? Had this occoured here I would have expected the federals onsite ASAP... Not awaiting the go ahead from a province.Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:34:44 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxI just do not get what political editors expect to achieve by saying the things they say, at the times they say them.[URL=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/clinton.katrina/index.html]Clinton: Govt 'Failed' People[/URL]According to this article, the elder Bush also says that he was "dis-satisfied" with how the post-disaster aftermath had been handled, but that he "defended his son's performance."All of this seems like talking out of both sides of one's mouth in my opinion, because on the one hand CNN leads this page saying "government failed" and "blame will have to be accounted," then quotes Clinton saying now is not the time to be wasting time talking about blame!?[QUOTE] He said that the utmost priority was saving people now -- and evaluating the mistakes in the months to come."We've got the departments on the ground, we've got the military on the ground, we've got a chance to do it right now, and we should do it right," he said. "And then in an appropriate time we should analyze what went wrong and why and what changes should be made." [/QUOTE]Here we have a clearly bi-partisan effort by former Republican and Democratic Presidents who were opponents no less! Yet, the News people just don't seem to be happy unless they can twist the words of the people they quote so that the blame-game gets the headline! Clearly Clinton and Bush are both intending that, sure, there may have been mistakes, and there needs to be accounting of what they were so that similar mistakes are not made in future, but now is not the time to even waste one fricking word on that garbage! Do that LATER.One of the downsides of a competitive market system I guess, that news people feel absolutely DESPERATE to fill pages with stuff that will get people looking at them instead of others.Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:55:08 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Anything this big in any other Western country would probably automatically be the central government's responsibility first, as we're just not as big.[/QUOTE]Heh, well, the last time the federal gov't tried to impose it's will in that area 13 states left the Union (if only temporarily).[QUOTE] France (if they are offering aid, I dunno) would certainly love a chance to rebuild bridges with the US.[/QUOTE]France has offered to help, hell they even loaned us Jerry Lewis for a telethon;). I think they had 4 planes in the area looking for people and some ships (many with Fresh Water systems on board) heading up here from one their islands just south of there.Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:25:16 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxReally interesting quotes and comments Tosk, fits with what Clay said on one of the other threads.Anything this big in any other Western country would probably automatically be the central government's responsibility first, as we're just not as big.Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:13:42 GMTBastablehttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxFrom the Washington Post[b]Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.[/b] ...[b]Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.[/b]...[b]one reason federal assets were not used more quickly was "because our constitutional system really places the primary authority in each state with the governor."[/b]Outside New Orleans, frustration boiled over among the boatmen who spontaneously left their homes in central Louisiana to rescue stranded residents in the first hours after reports of flooding hit the airwaves. For the past two days, many have been turned away because of security concerns in a city that had turned violent and chaotic. ...The boatmen who made it in came back with harrowing memories. Kenny, who did not want to disclose his last name, said friends were shot at by stranded people who wanted to steal their boats. "It's total chaos," he said.[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680_pf.html]from here,[/URL] one of the more liberal news medias in the country.********My comments:The Federal government cannot go in and take over or even help, without the states formally requesting it.It takes congress to declare martial law (that would mean BOTH parties)The President does not have the authority to do so on his own.It's pathetic, the blame game going on in politics, while people are still trying to survive. The left have been particularly bad, being quick to blame Bush, then Blame Iraq, then blame funding, and when all else failed they pull the race card. Mississippi and Alabama weren't spared from this but you don't see mass chaos in those states.And for anybody who throws in the "poor" card I would point at the behavior of those in the tsunami hit areas who's average [u]ANNUAL[/u] income was less than US$250, yet those people still managed to act like civilized human beings.In NO, when the feds stepped in, you started to see results PERIOD!Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:38:54 GMTToskhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]I think you're right that Cuba and Chavez are playing politics. They may genuinely have a desire to help, but they're certainly playing politics. But do they want to humiliate the US, loook good, or improve relations? France (if they are offering aid, I dunno) would certainly love a chance to rebuild bridges with the US. [/QUOTE]One wonders what good can come of criticizing those who offer to help. This isn't directed at you Bas, certainly, and it wasn't just money, jerm. Humanitarian workers and even deals on petrol products at a reduced rate, in the case of Venezuela. As I ride the bus to work now, I look out the window and see 3.29 a gallon for regular. So don't tell me about any empty gestures. [QUOTE]The U.S. government has yet to respond to Chavez's offer to send planeloads of aid, including 2,000 soldiers, firefighters, volunteers and other disaster specialists. Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil exporter, also pledged $1 million in aid through its Citgo Petroleum Corp., plus fuel to help in hard-hit areas. [/QUOTE]I realize that there are other factors involved, but come on, the Gulf Coast area was just slammed, and I mean slammed!!!!!Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:24:18 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] jerm writes: [QUOTE] Exactly, 'cause as we all know every country except the US is just plain evil.Come on, Jerm. Insult us some more. [/QUOTE]Assuming that I meant what you think I meant, do you intend to insult me when you are critical of my government and leaders for playing politics? That said, I think that you took what I said fully out of context. I was explaining the point, as I saw it, that I believe Scipio was making with regards to nations who are offering money for humanitarian aid. I must admit I was a bit unclear in my wording:[QUOTE] The point is that [i]these countries[/i] know we don't need the money and are offering us an empty gesture in order to show what humanitarians they are. [/QUOTE]When I wrote this I was specifically thinking of leaders like Chavez and others like him and not countries like Austrailia and GB and most european countries, so for that I appologize. You also left out my first point that we don't need the money. If we did, I would have no problem with us accepting any money, political or not. [/QUOTE]Well, you have got a point that I do criticise the US government a lot, but it just seemed such a sweeping statement because it seemed to be saying, that EVERY country except the US was suspect morally. Which seemed like some kind of nationalist madness.I think you're right that Cuba and Chavez are playing politics. They may genuinely have a desire to help, but they're certainly playing politics. But do they want to humiliate the US, loook good, or improve relations? France (if they are offering aid, I dunno) would certainly love a chance to rebuild bridges with the US.Yeah the US is certainly rich enough to do it all. But the Red Cross have been appealing for donations, and watching the news for a long time it looked like not enough was getting done.Hope I didn't offend you with my rant, Jerm.Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:09:14 GMTBastablehttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspxIn response to those who have been saying it's Bush's fault that the wetlands are being depleted or that it is a even a recent phenomenon, read this article from National Geographic from Oct 04:[URL=http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/]Gone with the Water[/URL]The first few paragraphs give almost an exact description of what happened last week. Here's some highlightsThis one says it all:[QUOTE] A cocktail of natural and human factors is putting the coast under. Delta soils naturally compact and sink over time, eventually giving way to open water unless fresh layers of sediment offset the subsidence. The Mississippi's spring floods once maintained that balance, but the annual deluges were often disastrous. After a devastating flood in 1927, levees were raised along the river and lined with concrete, effectively funneling the marsh-building sediments to the deep waters of the Gulf. Since the 1950s engineers have also cut more than 8,000 miles (13,000 kilometers) of canals through the marsh for petroleum exploration and ship traffic. These new ditches sliced the wetlands into a giant jigsaw puzzle, increasing erosion and allowing lethal doses of salt water to infiltrate brackish and freshwater marshes. [/QUOTE]Here is where the administration does have some blame though:[QUOTE] Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely bedfellows—scientists, environmental groups, business leaders, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to forge a radical plan to protect what's left. Drafted by the Corps a year ago, the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially estimated to cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice as much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a plan to spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years to fund the most promising projects. Either way, Congress must authorize the money before work can begin. [/QUOTE]Pretty good article I thought. The decreasing wetlands are a problem and while not caused by Bush, his administration hasn't done much about it. Perhaps (ironically) this hurricane may save the wetlands.Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:46:58 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034140-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Exactly, 'cause as we all know every country except the US is just plain evil.Come on, Jerm. Insult us some more. [/QUOTE]Assuming that I meant what you think I meant, do you intend to insult me when you are critical of my government and leaders for playing politics? That said, I think that you took what I said fully out of context. I was explaining the point, as I saw it, that I believe Scipio was making with regards to nations who are offering money for humanitarian aid. I must admit I was a bit unclear in my wording:[QUOTE] The point is that [i]these countries[/i] know we don't need the money and are offering us an empty gesture in order to show what humanitarians they are. [/QUOTE]When I wrote this I was specifically thinking of leaders like Chavez and others like him and not countries like Austrailia and GB and most european countries, so for that I appologize. You also left out my first point that we don't need the money. If we did, I would have no problem with us accepting any money, political or not.Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:53:30 GMTjerm