An Understandable Conspiracy Theory
Bret Cahill
levees for population control. First it should be pointed out the
government would be almost as criminal under the official story, that
they knew the levees wouldn't hold and did nothing.
But it is easy to imagine that if you were told to go to the Superdome
and then nothing happened, no water or food or transportation, you'ld
start to wonder if it was negligence or deliberate.
It's especially easy to wonder if the opportunistic Dick Cheney, seeing
public support fade for his quagmire, deciding, "Hey. Halliburton needs
to get billions in big free contracts. Instead of killing Iraqis and
U. S. soldiers for profit, why not take advantage of this 165 mph
hurricane in the Gulf? . . ."
Bret Cahill
mimus
Did you notice that Florida got C-130s to fly hospital patients out?
--
In the previous number, the cattle rustlers (post-
Hegelian dogma) had trapped Professor Dewey in an
abandoned mine shaft (Jamesian pragmatism) and had
ignited the fuse leading to a keg of dynamite
(neo-Newtonian empiricism).
< S. J. Perelman
Brian Fletcher
"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:enmu2nhevx2a.b...@40tude.net...
> On 21 Sep 2005 13:16:41 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> The rumor going around the displaced is that the government blew the
>> levees for population control. First it should be pointed out the
>> government would be almost as criminal under the official story, that
>> they knew the levees wouldn't hold and did nothing.
>>
>> But it is easy to imagine that if you were told to go to the Superdome
>> and then nothing happened, no water or food or transportation, you'ld
>> start to wonder if it was negligence or deliberate.
>>
>> It's especially easy to wonder if the opportunistic Dick Cheney, seeing
>> public support fade for his quagmire, deciding, "Hey. Halliburton needs
>> to get billions in big free contracts. Instead of killing Iraqis and
>> U. S. soldiers for profit, why not take advantage of this 165 mph
>> hurricane in the Gulf? . . ."
>
> Did you notice that Florida got C-130s to fly hospital patients out?
>
Forgive them for they know not that they are fulfilling karmic laws.
BOfL
Robert Cohen
deliberately mis-treated.
And rampant bitterness & conspiracy speculations are to be expected.
Meanwhile: Tonight as Hurricane Rita seems to be seriously threatening
the Texas coast, one may conjecture that the remarkable help of Texas
for the displaced Louisianians may be pervesely returned by devastation
via Mother Nature.
Texans are abandoning the vulnerable Galveston; but what if the !@#$%^&
hurricane hellishness goes for Houston too, which isn't so far away
from Galveston.
There are millions of lives and important economic assets directly at
stake.
The price of refined gasolene could go wayyy-up, if the reported "13
refineries" around there are damaged.
This is an extremely perilous reality for the nation, and we won't know
until Saturday how bad.
Wordsmith
W : )
Bret Cahill
etc. The real problem is more off shore rigs will get washed away.
I don't see how so many large hurricanes manage to manuver through the
narrow Florida Strait. It's only 90 miles from Key West to Havana.
Some ships have difficulty getting through. This is just a really bad
luck year. Also they were saying that Katrina had brought up a lot of
cold water from the bottom of the Gulf. What happened to it?
I once asked a USF student from Morocco if any hurricanes ever went
back their way. He answered, "no, it's always off to the States."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
As the OP clearly stated, I thought it was a pretty dumb theory. After
all, we liberals consider governmental inaction or criminal negligence
to be one and the same / on par with active criminal behavior.
< Any proof?
Funny you ask:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2...
Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:10 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hurricane experts said Hurricane Katrina's
storm surges were smaller than authorities have suggested and that
poor design, faulty construction or a combination of the two were to
blame for the failure of New Orleans' flood-protection system, The
Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Scientists and engineers at Louisiana State University's Hurricane
Center -- with the help of computer models and visual evidence --
concluded the levee system should have been sufficient to keep most of
the city dry.
They also said Katrina's storm surges did not come close to going over
the floodwalls, contradicting statements from the Army Corps of
Engineers, which has said the surges sent water from Lake
Pontchartrain over the top of the concrete walls.
"This should not have been a big deal for these floodwalls," said
oceanographer G. Paul Kemp, a hurricane expert who runs LSU's Natural
Systems Modeling Laboratory. "It should have been a modest challenge.
There's no way this should have exceeded the capacity."
Ivor van Heerden, the Hurricane Center's deputy director, said the
real scandal of Katrina is the "catastrophic structural failure" of
barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.
"We are absolutely convinced that those floodwalls were never
overtopped," the newspaper quoted van Heerden saying.
The Post said the center's researchers said it is too early to say
whether the breaches were caused by poor design, faulty construction
or some combination. But van Heerden said the floodwalls at issue --
massive concrete slabs mounted on steel sheet pilings -- looked
similar to the sound barriers found on major highways, the Post said.
Corps spokesman Paul Johnston told the Post the agency believes storm
surges sent water flowing over the floodwalls and undermined the
earthen levees they sat upon, creating the breaches. Johnston said the
Corps would investigate to ensure that scenario is correct.
The Corps has said that Katrina, a Category 4 storm, was too massive
for a levee system not intended to protect the city from a storm
greater than a Category 3 hurricane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bret Cahill
Publius
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> The Post said the center's researchers said it is too early to say
> whether the breaches were caused by poor design, faulty construction
> or some combination. But van Heerden said the floodwalls at issue --
> massive concrete slabs mounted on steel sheet pilings -- looked
> similar to the sound barriers found on major highways, the Post said.
Bear in mind that this is Louisiana, where political corruption is endemic
and *de rigeur*. Virtually all public works in the state are built by the
bothers-in-law and cousins of politicians who entered the construction biz
the day after the appropriations were passed.
Brian Fletcher
BOfL
"Robert Cohen" <robt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127357186....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Roger Johansson
Publius wrote:
> Bear in mind that this is Louisiana, where political corruption is endemic
> and *de rigeur*. Virtually all public works in the state are built by the
> bothers-in-law and cousins of politicians who entered the construction biz
> the day after the appropriations were passed.
Corruption is very common in private businesses, in corporations, in
everything which has to do with big money, and the corruption spills
over into politics in countries which have no working democratic
control, no transparency, no participation by the citizens and media.
--
Roger J.
Sir Frederick
I am corrupt, why aren't I wealthy?
I am also very suspicious of all humans, paranoid perhaps.
Deceit, including self deceit abounds.
Sleepyhead
Are you financially corrupt?
Sir Frederick
>> I am corrupt, why aren't I wealthy?
>
>Are you financially corrupt?
Apparently not, should I be?
Sleepyhead
Dare
> Forgive them for they know not that they are fulfilling karmic laws.
>
> BOfL
Wonder if Hurricane Rita will brush Crawford, TX?
If the emergency plan works better in Texas will it be
because the problems of Katrina have been "fixed"?
mimus
Thank God Halliburton and Bechtel will put an end to all that.
Publius
news:1127386102.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Corruption is very common in private businesses, in corporations, in
> everything which has to do with big money, and the corruption spills
> over into politics in countries which have no working democratic
> control, no transparency, no participation by the citizens and media.
Corruption doesn't "spill over" into politics. Politics is the fount of
corruption, and it spills from there to other areas of life. Politics is
based on the premise of a free lunch ("Vote for me and I'll get you a
subsidy").
BTW, politics is just as transparent and participation is just as high in
Louisiana as in other states. Political corruption is no secret. "Of course
Huey Long is a crook. All politicians are crooks. But the Kingfish is my
crook."
Publius
news:l145j158d707m4i8v...@4ax.com:
> I am corrupt, why aren't I wealthy?
You aren't in politics. Keep in mind, however, that politicians lust for
power, not wealth per se. They gain power by assuring that others gain
wealth. Those with the wealth then invest some of it in increasing the
politician's power.
Publius
news:jujxch0igm32.n...@40tude.net:
>> Bear in mind that this is Louisiana, where political corruption is
>> endemic and *de rigeur*. Virtually all public works in the state are
>> built by the bothers-in-law and cousins of politicians who entered
>> the construction biz the day after the appropriations were passed.
>
> Thank God Halliburton and Bechtel will put an end to all that.
Don't count on it. Louisiana has Boh Bros. You can count on them to defend
their turf.
But you can bet that countless hotel rooms in Baton Rouge are choked in
cigar smoke this week, after Bush's promise of $200 billion for
reconstruction. That might be enough to raise Huey Long from the dead.
Bret Cahill
-- Nietzsche
"People go into politics to make money."
-- DeTocqueville
Here's an interesting point:
Both thinkers had aristocratic backgrounds and both considered
aristocracy superior to democracy.
One reacted and tried to fight democracy while the other submitted to
it.
Now link the quotes to the right thinkers.
Bret Cahill
Sleepyhead
It would be more accurate to say: Corrupt people tend to go into
politics. It's a gravity-well of corruption. Corruption-particles
outside the gravity-well will tend to move towards it due to forces of
attraction, and if they stray too near the event-horizon they plunge
down through the singularity to merge with the Devil, or whatever
hell-beast it is that's convinced people that representative Democracy
is both representative and democratic.
Roger Johansson
Sleepyhead wrote:
> > Corruption doesn't "spill over" into politics. Politics is the fount of corruption
> It would be more accurate to say: Corrupt people tend to go into
> politics.
So you continue to spread the capitalist propaganda against democracy,
politics, and everything else which is too advanced for you to
understand.
Who would go into politics for his own profit, in a modern country?
Nobody, because there is nothing to gain from a political career.
It might have been a time in history, in some very backward country,
when politics was a theater to fool the population, when rich people
dominated politics, and you could make a career in politics as a way to
get into the ruling elite of such a third world country.
Such countries are often called liberal democracies, and the democracy
consists only of the right to vote once every four years.
They usually give the population a choice between candidate A, from a
rich family, representing corporations X,V,L,H, and F, or candidate B,
from another rich family, representing corporations G, R, T and Z.
In a modern democracy only very idealistic people go into politics,
because there is nothing to gain personally, you will be attacked by
newspapers for every little mistake you've ever made, you will work
more than 100 hours per week, and everybody will hate you.
In a modern democracy everything is transparent, the media and the
public has full access to all authorities so we can protest against
wrong decisions, demand other decisions, debate for our views, organize
an opposition, influence the politics all the time.
The elections are just used for major changes in the political course.
The democratic processes are working every day, to let the people
participate in ruling itself, together with the representants we have
elected.
A modern democracy is a combination of direct democracy and
representative democracy. It is a participative democracy, where we
vote for political programs, not for persons.
In a backward political system a strong and charismatic person is
elected, all responsibility and all power is placed in his hands, and
he rules the country like a dictator until the next election. It is
very important who that person is, who will have so much power.
Politics in such countries are very person-oriented. The personal
qualities of the candidate are very important, because all power will
be put in his hands.
In a modern political system the system doesn't work like that.
The administration of the country and of every little town is open to
the public and media. Decisions are made democratically at all levels.
No single person has a lot of power in his hands.
The everyday democratic processes in the country involve democratic
decisions of hundreds of thousands of fairly independent participators.
--
Roger J.
Sleepyhead
Wow strong words from someone I've never met!
> Who would go into politics for his own profit, in a modern country? Nobody, because there is nothing to gain from a political career.
So old "2 jags" doesn't get any perks whatsoever?
> In a modern democracy only very idealistic people go into politics, because there is nothing to gain personally, you will be attacked by newspapers for every little mistake you've ever made, you will work more than 100 hours per week, and everybody will hate you.
Nothing to gain except power. Can you give an example of a politician
who works more than 100 hours a week?
> In a modern democracy everything is transparent, the media and the public has full access to all authorities so we can protest against wrong decisions, demand other decisions, debate for our views, organize an opposition, influence the politics all the time.
Which modern democracy did you have in mind? USA, UK, Europe, Croatia?
In the UK not everything is transparent (maybe you think that discounts
the UK as a modern democracy because it doesn't fit your definition?),
and the public doesn't have full access to all authorities (like
military decisions: the recent Iraq débacle being a case in point).
> In a modern political system the system doesn't work like that. The administration of the country and of every little town is open to the public and media. Decisions are made democratically at all levels.
Yes, in a modern policitical system we all live in utopian bliss,
nothing ever goes wrong and just talking to a politician will be enough
to convince him to change his mind.
> No single person has a lot of power in his hands. The everyday democratic processes in the country involve democratic decisions of hundreds of thousands of fairly independent participators.
The everyday democratic process in the UK consists of lots of
overweight blubbermouths arguing the toss over the latest piece of
nonsensical legislation like schoolchildren in a playground. Once every
4 years or so we get the chance to choose which blubbermouths we'd like
to 'represent' us (except that we can't choose not to have a
blubbermouth).
Oh, but of course. That means the UK isn't a modern democracy.
Publius
> In a modern democracy only very idealistic people go into politics,
> because there is nothing to gain personally, you will be attacked by
> newspapers for every little mistake you've ever made, you will work
> more than 100 hours per week, and everybody will hate you.
>
> In a modern democracy everything is transparent, the media and the
> public has full access to all authorities so we can protest against
> wrong decisions, demand other decisions, debate for our views,
> organize an opposition, influence the politics all the time.
Couple of questions, Roger. Can this "modern democracy" to which you refer
be found in any existing polity, or it is an Utopian ideal?
Which kinds of decisions are political decisions, and which are private
decisions?
> No single person has a lot of power in his hands.
> The everyday democratic processes in the country involve democratic
> decisions of hundreds of thousands of fairly independent
> participators.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of government, which is precisely to
concentrate power in a few hands. That is the only way it can be exercised
effectively. The average person does not have the information, the skills,
the time, or the interest to actively participate in the daily business of
government.
Publius
> Who would go into politics for his own profit, in a modern country?
Anyone who wishes to exercise power over others.