1997 Grand Forks Flood - Why no looting, shooting or rapes then?
C. Osbourne
Eight years ago, the city of Grand Forks ND was flooded
in the same way as New Orleans is today. But there was
no looting, no shooting of rescue workers, no rapes in the
city's shelters.
Can anyone speculate about why this didn't happen in
Grand Forks, and it did/does today in New Orleans, when
both cities are experiencing the same disaster?
Erik Anderson
>
> Can anyone speculate about why this didn't happen in
> Grand Forks, and it did/does today in New Orleans, when
> both cities are experiencing the same disaster?
Sort of a rediculous comparison. There are just a few areas of difference:
Population:
Grand Forks (in '97): ~49,000
New Orleans (before Katrina): 1,337,726 [1]
Percentage of citizens below poverty line: [2]
GF: 14.6%
NO: 27.9%
These are just a few stats...I could have listed many more. It's really
not fair to compare Grand Forks to NO. Sure - the flooding of GF was a
bummer, but as far as scale goes, it was many orders of magnitude
smaller and less catastrophic than NO.
-Erik
[1] Population data courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org
[2] I'm not trying to insinuate, in any way, that living below the
poverty line equates to criminal activity. The reality, though, is that
lower income people 1) were not able to leave the city and 2)have a
higher level of desperation upon being "trapped" in the city.
WDS
New Orleans. At no point was anyone in Grand Forks without food and
water for a day let alone almost a week.
FEMA really fell down on the job in New Orleans. I heard an interview
with the guy who heads it yesterday and what a f*ckwit. The
interviewer was asking him why no one was sending any assitance to the
people at the convention center and he kept denying there was anyone
there. WTF? Maybe he should like, oh, WATCH TV and SEE all the people
there.
D. A. Tsenuf
"Erik Anderson" <and...@bethel.edu> wrote in message
news:fl7mu2-...@lpdlnx00.logicpd.com...
> C. Osbourne wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone speculate about why this didn't happen in Grand Forks, and it
>> did/does today in New Orleans, when both cities are experiencing the same
>> disaster?
>
> Sort of a rediculous comparison. There are just a few areas of
> difference:
>
> Population:
> Grand Forks (in '97): ~49,000
> New Orleans (before Katrina): 1,337,726 [1]
>
> Percentage of citizens below poverty line: [2]
> GF: 14.6%
> NO: 27.9%
>
> These are just a few stats...I could have listed many more. It's really
> not fair to compare Grand Forks to NO. Sure - the flooding of GF was a
> bummer, but as far as scale goes, it was many orders of magnitude smaller
> and less catastrophic than NO.
>
So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
Erik Anderson
>
> So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
> Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
Oh please. If you want to misinterpret what I wrote, please feel free,
but you're not going to get any more response out of me than this message.
It's a horrible, crappy situation down there. This world doesn't need
any more negativity in it in times like these.
-Erik
P.S. Oh, and yes, by the way, I *did* notice you trimmed out my footnote
from your reply...
Jerry
news:11hh90h...@corp.supernews.com:
Maybe it means that you trim text like a jackhole.
<Begin Erik's footnote>
[2] I'm not trying to insinuate, in any way, that living below the
poverty line equates to criminal activity. The reality, though, is that
lower income people 1) were not able to leave the city and 2)have a
higher level of desperation upon being "trapped" in the city.
<End Erik's footnote>
--
Jerry
D. A. Tsenuf
Then stop trying to justify the inexcusable and uncivillised behavior of
some of those people.
D. A. Tsenuf
"Jerry" <jabeach@DONT_SPAM_ME_citlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96C59F15E2C4Fja...@66.133.129.71...
> "D. A. Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote in
> news:11hh90h...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "Erik Anderson" <and...@bethel.edu> wrote in message
>> news:fl7mu2-...@lpdlnx00.logicpd.com...
>>> C. Osbourne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone speculate about why this didn't happen in Grand Forks,
>>>> and it did/does today in New Orleans, when both cities are
>>>> experiencing the same disaster?
>>>
>>> Sort of a rediculous comparison. There are just a few areas of
>>> difference:
>>>
>>> Population:
>>> Grand Forks (in '97): ~49,000
>>> New Orleans (before Katrina): 1,337,726 [1]
>>>
>>> Percentage of citizens below poverty line: [2]
>>> GF: 14.6%
>>> NO: 27.9%
>>>
>>> These are just a few stats...I could have listed many more. It's
>>> really not fair to compare Grand Forks to NO. Sure - the flooding of
>>> GF was a bummer, but as far as scale goes, it was many orders of
>>> magnitude smaller and less catastrophic than NO.
>>>
>>
>> So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
>> Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
>>
>
> Maybe it means that you trim text like a jackhole.
>
You don't like the way I trim text ?
Too fucking bad.
For all I care, you can stick it and then sit on it.
For the rest, you can compare human behavior NORWITHSTANDING differences in
population size.
Erik Anderson
>
> Then stop trying to justify the inexcusable and uncivillised behavior of
> some of those people.
Read the OP and my reply. I was not trying to justify *anything*. I
was trying to make a point that comparing NO to Grand Forks is pointless
and inapropriate due to, among many other things, the stats that I posted.
I am in complete agreement with you that the behavior of the
shooters/looters/etc is *completely* inexcusable and uncivilized, so
quit trying to take my comments out of context with intentions of
picking a fight.
Cyli
Different populace (which looks like what you're wanting us to think
of), advance warning system better. Few people left in the town when
it, much more slowly, flooded. Lots of support in getting folks out,
plenty of official people with guns to enforce rules, etc.
Most people in Grand Forks weren't left there for days without
information and support. They had clothing and food and water
available quickly. They weren't trying to leave their homes by being
up to their necks in water and then standing around in wet clothes
with no food or clean water.
There were nowhere near as many people in Grand Forks, therefore far
less badly behaved people. It's a certain percentage everywhere.
You can bet there was some stuff going on. There are people
everywhere of every ethnos and race who'll go bad given a chance.
No bad behaviour was _reported_ on TV in Grand Forks. Some of the
first shots I saw from New Orleans were showing 'violence' that
consisted of some people arguing on a freeway overpass and, gasp, a
girl shoved a guy. Now tell me they weren't looking for sensational
to put that poor example up? The first shots I saw of looting were of
people grabbing clothing, food, and water. They had to dig to find
the people looting jewelry shops and TV stores. That became more
apparent later, as the other survivors went away and hid from the bad
guys. When the harmless are forted up, it's a lot easier for the
violent and thieving to run loose and be visible.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: cyl...@gmail.com.invalid (strip the .invalid to email)
Cyli
Wasn't he awful? I tried to watch the whole interview after hearing a
couple of his moronic excuses. He just got worse. Never admitted
that he or FEMA was in any way at fault.
Dan Goodman
> So...poverty causes crime?
It reduces ability to bribe law enforcement officials, make large
contributions to elected officials, etc.
It also limits the opportunity to commit white-collar crime, which is
safer.
"Some men rob you with a gun; some with a fountain pen."
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/
Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com
Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
C. Osbourne
vel...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>C. Osbourne <Cosbo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Eight years ago, the city of Grand Forks ND was flooded
>> in the same way as New Orleans is today. But there was
>> no looting, no shooting of rescue workers, no rapes in the
>> city's shelters.
>>
>
>making the recovery a much smaller logistical challenge. The population
>density was much smaller, which means that panics don't spread as easily
>and violence is much less likely.
Maybe some of those enlightned ones can help us understand
what level of population density justifies looting of non-food
items, like televisions and boom boxes, dispite the fact that
theres no electricity to operate this stolen booty.
>The area affected was MUCH smaller
>and thus it was easy for people to get to the affected area. With New
>Orleans, several of these factors have come together, so even if relief
>can get to the affected area logistically, the violence is stopping them
>from doing it. Basically, it is a self-defeating situation. I would
>never be willing to risk my life for anybody who is shooting at me.
>Hence, the dilemna many relief workers are finding themselves in.
This is the same mentality of shooting the mailman for not bringing
the welfare check, which is nothing new.
C. Osbourne
>
>
>C. Osbourne wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone speculate about why this didn't happen in
>> Grand Forks, and it did/does today in New Orleans, when
>> both cities are experiencing the same disaster?
>
>Sort of a rediculous comparison. There are just a few areas of difference:
>
>Population:
> Grand Forks (in '97): ~49,000
> New Orleans (before Katrina): 1,337,726 [1]
Okay let's try to figure out what population level justifies
wholesale looting and rape in a flooded city. Somewhere between
50,000 and 1.3 million. What might that number be? Perhaps
750,000 looting is justified, but not rape? Over one million,
then is rape warranted too? Please elaborate.
>Percentage of citizens below poverty line: [2]
> GF: 14.6%
> NO: 27.9%
What percentage of poverty justifies shooting of relief workers?
It's somewhere between 15 and 28%. Split the difference at about
21%? Would it be fair to say that you sould expect relief workers
to be fired upon by those that they are attempting to help if their
rate of poverty excedes 21%?
This remindes me of the incidents of mailmen (postal workers) being
shot by welfare receipients that are angry becuse they didn't bring
the welfare check that day.
Erik Anderson
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> So...poverty causes crime?
No - read the rest of the thread. By quoting population and economic
differences, I was merely pointing out a few of the dozens of
differences between NO and Grand Forks, making the OP's point a bad
comparison.
Geez I wish people would quit taking me out of context.
-Erik
P.S. Your x-no-archive bit won't do any good unless it's in the header
section of your email.
Fred
I was living in Omaha in '75 when the tornado hit. There was some
initial looting (I witnessed some of it), but within three hours of the
event the Governor had called out the National Guard and declared
marital law, including the admonition that looters attempting to flee
would be shot. And *that* was the end of the looting. We had helicopters
and armed patrols during the night, and the nearest shopping center was
being guarded by troops the next morning. And as one who was living in
the affected zone, I was glad to see it.
By contrast, troops are only now arriving in New Orleans, not hours
later, but days later.
John A. Weeks III
"Airkings" <airkingsNO*SP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> So...poverty causes crime?
Poverty may not be a causal factor, but you
certainly find the two in the same place.
Where you find poverty, you find crime.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III
Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was living in Omaha in '75 when the tornado hit. There was some
> initial looting (I witnessed some of it), but within three hours of the
> event the Governor had called out the National Guard and declared
> marital law, including the admonition that looters attempting to flee
> would be shot. And *that* was the end of the looting. We had helicopters
> and armed patrols during the night, and the nearest shopping center was
> being guarded by troops the next morning. And as one who was living in
> the affected zone, I was glad to see it.
>
> By contrast, troops are only now arriving in New Orleans, not hours
> later, but days later.
Lets also remember that there was very little notice of the
tornados, perhaps no more than a few hours of a watch, and
a few minutes of a warning. In contrast, New Orleans had
two full days of warning that the hurricane was coming,
and a full day notice that they would be ground zero for
one of the most powerful storms in history.
I really don't get it. New Orleans is only a 3 hour flight
from here. Why does it take 7 days to get people and supplies
in there? The government, had they cared at all about those
poeple, could have activated the National Guard units on
Saturday, flew them into staging sites on Sunday, and had
them rolling in on APC's and HumVees within an hour of
the storm passing.
The mayor of New Orleans is right--the government lack
of response was a total cluster-f*ck.
P T
Why is there so much rape, looting, and shooting in New Orleans?
Exactly HOW MUCH rape and shooting is going on? The news reports
continually mention this. But I have not seen a reporter who actually
said "I heard shots fired." Hmmm.
Rape? Same thing.
The convention center too dangerous? Reporters seem to come and go
unmolested.
Looting? If I had not eaten in 4 or 5 days, I would "steal" food too. I
have heard some victims express sincere-sounding regrets about taking
food. .
On a German website, I saw an interesting comment about American
perspectives. They referenced two photos:
In one, black people shown carrying groceries were described as looters.
In another, white people carrying groceries were said to have "found"
food.
I've noticed the press is starting to use the term scavenging.
There is no excuse for taking tvs, etc. OTOH I saw a photo of scavengers
inside a Walmart in Mississippi. The devastation of the store was so
great that I doubt Walmart could do any recovery, but merely haul away
the flotsam.
There are a few bad people in New Orleans. Most are just desperate.
Fred
But which government? The Governor of Louisiana commands the National
Guard. Of course, a sizeable number have been Federalized and sent to
Iraq. Still, it seems like Louisiana just sat there waiting for the Feds
to respond.
An interesting fact: the Federal government cannot send troops into a
state without first receiving a request from the state. States rights,
y'know. So when, I wonder, did Louisiana make its request? Could tell us
a lot.
John A. Weeks III
Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An interesting fact: the Federal government cannot send troops into a
> state without first receiving a request from the state. States rights,
> y'know. So when, I wonder, did Louisiana make its request? Could tell us
> a lot.
Lets say that the Governor of Louisiana had a heart attack
and died. And the Lt Governor was lost in the flooded city
and could not be found. Would everyone sit watching for
months because nobody made a request for help?
The reality is that these people got hit hard. They got
nailed badly. They were dazed and confused, and will be
for quite some time. That is why we have a federal government.
President Bush is supposed to be on top of this kind of thing,
and step in when help is needed. As it turns out, Bush and
the head of FEMA are the only two people in America that were
not watching CNN and had no clue that this was a category 5
storm.
C. Osbourne
jo...@johnweeks.com says...
>The reality is that these people got hit hard. They got
>nailed badly. They were dazed and confused, and will be
>for quite some time. That is why we have a federal government.
>President Bush is supposed to be on top of this kind of thing,
>and step in when help is needed. As it turns out, Bush and
>the head of FEMA are the only two people in America that were
>not watching CNN and had no clue that this was a category 5
>storm.
>
I was watching CNN, and saw the mayor of New Orleans order everyone
to evacuate the city. Most did. and you'll argue that the poor did
did not because they were unable too. And in some cases I'm sure
that's true. But there were looters that started even before the
storm hit. They stayed to exploit the certain chaos that would ensue
after the storm hit. These were the ones that were dragging the
women into the bathrooms in the Superdome to rape them, among other
atrocities.
The Governor was on CNN crying - yes - crying on the following night
after the levee broke. Remember the storm didn't cause most of the
damage, it was the levees breaking that did the damage. This took
a couple of days for the extent of the damage to become evident.
The Governor cried, and CNN lied!
Fred
> Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>An interesting fact: the Federal government cannot send troops into a
>>state without first receiving a request from the state. States rights,
>>y'know. So when, I wonder, did Louisiana make its request? Could tell us
>>a lot.
>
>
> Lets say that the Governor of Louisiana had a heart attack
> and died. And the Lt Governor was lost in the flooded city
> and could not be found. Would everyone sit watching for
> months because nobody made a request for help?
It's the law, John. That's how it works. And as a practical matter, the
Governor of Louisiana did not have a heart attack, or drown in the
flood, or have any other tragedy befall her. That being the case, the
question becomes what did she do and when did she do it.
> The reality is that these people got hit hard. They got
> nailed badly. They were dazed and confused, and will be
> for quite some time.
And *they* are not the government of Louisiana, a state which has a
Governor and a legislature and people whose job is disaster
preparedness, all in the capitol of that state, which is *not* New
Orleans; it's Baton Rouge. They're being paid to do thier jobs, and the
people of Louisiana should hold them accountable for the jobs they did
in this case.
> President Bush is supposed to be on top of this kind of thing ...
He has people who are supposed to be on top of this kind of thing.
This reminds me of the statement made by Condoleezza Rice when she was
National Security Advisor, to the effect that she just couldn't
anticipate that anyone would use a commercial aircraft as a weapon of
terror. Excuse me? She was being *paid* to anticipate!
Yeah, the Feds are doing a pretty bad job of it, but I still want to
know what the state was doing the past few days. Just sitting there
waiting doesn't cut it.
LJ
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-819AEC.2...@ip-lcc.supernews.net...
> In article <431a39f1$0$8035$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
> Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> An interesting fact: the Federal government cannot send troops into a
>> state without first receiving a request from the state. States rights,
>> y'know. So when, I wonder, did Louisiana make its request? Could tell us
>> a lot.
>
> Lets say that the Governor of Louisiana had a heart attack
> and died. And the Lt Governor was lost in the flooded city
> and could not be found. Would everyone sit watching for
> months because nobody made a request for help?
>
> The reality is that these people got hit hard. They got
> nailed badly. They were dazed and confused, and will be
> for quite some time. That is why we have a federal government.
> President Bush is supposed to be on top of this kind of thing,
> and step in when help is needed. As it turns out, Bush and
> the head of FEMA are the only two people in America that were
> not watching CNN and had no clue that this was a category 5
> storm.
>
> -john-
>
as well
John A. Weeks III
<UuadnZ2dnZ2V2--FnZ2dn...@pghconnect.com>,
"C. Osbourne" <Cosbo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Governor was on CNN crying - yes - crying on the following night
> after the levee broke. Remember the storm didn't cause most of the
> damage, it was the levees breaking that did the damage. This took
> a couple of days for the extent of the damage to become evident.
That is, of course, the cover story being used by the FEMA
and Republican apologists who now realize that their lack of
action cost hundreds and probably thousands of lives before
this thing is over. They say that this was two separate
events, a hurricane and a flood.
That is, of course, total B.S. The hurricane caused the storm
surge, which weakened the levees to the point of failure. This
is a very widely known disaster scenario that is studied by
students of disaster management and first response across this
country. It is known as the "worst case scenario". CNN was
reporting on this possibility 2 days before the hurricane
made landfall. The only people in the US that were unaware
of this possibility was the President (who admittedly doesn't
read much) and the head of FEMA (who is too busy strip searching
elderly ladies at airports looking for dangerous fingernail
clippers).
WDS
Kind of scary that they got it almost perfectly right down to the
numbers of people who would and woud not evacuate.
Poor Impulse Control
"Fred" <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:431a39f1$0$8035$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> An interesting fact: the Federal government cannot send troops into a
> state without first receiving a request from the state. States rights,
> y'know. So when, I wonder, did Louisiana make its request? Could tell us a
> lot.
Sounds like BS. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to
enforce desegregation, and I'd guess that he wasn't acting on a personal
request from Gov. Orval Faubus.
osmium
That's very interesting. Nothing leaps to mind about what the Constitution
says about this. But I recall reading somewhere ( a long time ago) that the
Governor must initiate the request. Good simple manners alone would mandate
that sequence; for the President to initiate the action would imply the
Governor was incompetent.
Fred
either the US Constitution or Federal law. It makes a difference.
This came up a few years ago during Hurricane Andrew, I think it was,
when whoever in Florida was responsible for sending the request never
did so, and Federal resources were left sitting while it all got
straightened out. Governor in Florida's a guy named Bush, as I recall ...
... but the whole idea is to solve the problem and figure out how to
keep it from happening again, don't y'all think?
Poor Impulse Control
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3o0jb5F...@individual.net...
I think there are restrictions on the military performing some kinds of law
enforcement, but it's not a constitutional restriction. It is, however,
unconstitutional to quarter soldiers in private homes. 3rd Ammendment.
A ceremony of "requesting" Federal troops sounds like just that -- a quaint
ceremony, designed to promote some political illusion about the use of
Federal troops within the U.S. borders.
The idea that its some kind of legitimate excuse for not applying the
resources of the military in a timely fashion is BS.
I don't quite get the dependence on the National Guard; I guess it makes
sense for most of your run of the mill localized problems, but I'm surprised
Louisiana was able to raise any force considering the size of the population
center affected and other drains like Iraq postings.
Fred
Read this:
http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm
The underlying Federal regulation is 42 USC Sec. 5170.
That's the law. Not a "quaint ceremony"; the law. You may like it, or
you may not like it, but that's the law.
You could look it up.
Cyli
(snipped previous)
>
>Read this:
>
>http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm
>
>The underlying Federal regulation is 42 USC Sec. 5170.
>
>That's the law. Not a "quaint ceremony"; the law. You may like it, or
>you may not like it, but that's the law.
>
>You could look it up.
Thanks. Always nice to have real information...
My caveat is that someone on the president's staff should have been
calling someone on the governor's staff somewhere along the line and
asking if they were going to need any help or people. When the
governor doesn't seem to be on track, a reminder could help a lot.
And a recording of such calls does a lot to do a CYA job for the
president. The Guard doesn't need the governor's request to be put on
ready status by the president, does it? They could have been getting
ready for a couple of days or more before they were officially called
in. I've heard of the Guard being put 'on alert' before.
I've read about Hurricane Andrew in Florida and the president then had
the Guard all ready to go, just waiting for the governor to give the
word, Which he didn't for too long. Which is probably at least one
reason why the next election saw him gone and Jeb Bush as governor.
I've not seen any hints of communication either direction in Louisiana
until everyone in the US was aware of the problems already having
happened and continuing to worsen.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:03 -0500, Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped previous)
>>
>>Read this:
>>
>>http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm
>>
>>The underlying Federal regulation is 42 USC Sec. 5170.
>>
>>That's the law. Not a "quaint ceremony"; the law. You may like it, or
>>you may not like it, but that's the law.
>>
>>You could look it up.
>
>
> Thanks. Always nice to have real information...
>
> My caveat is that someone on the president's staff should have been
> calling someone on the governor's staff somewhere along the line and
> asking if they were going to need any help or people. When the
> governor doesn't seem to be on track, a reminder could help a lot.
> And a recording of such calls does a lot to do a CYA job for the
> president. The Guard doesn't need the governor's request to be put on
> ready status by the president, does it? They could have been getting
> ready for a couple of days or more before they were officially called
> in. I've heard of the Guard being put 'on alert' before.
To simplify just a little: the Guard only obeys orders from the
National command authority when they've been, well, nationalized. So,
yes: it takes either the Governor or nationalization for the Guard to
be put on ready status by the President. While Perpich vs. US shows
that the governor can't say no when the President nationalizes the
Guard, it doesn't mean that he can put them on ready status without
taking over.
Cyli
wrote:
Thanks. Bummer. At least they could have been ready if that weren't
in place. Oh, well. State's Rights and all that.
Joel Rosenberg
And not just the sometimes-empty rhetoric around it, either: do you
want the states' National Guards to always be directly under the
National command structure and have a governor determine, for smaller
emergencies, not whether to call them out, but whether or not to ask
the real, Federal owners to? I'm not sure that'd be a great idea,
myself.
Cyli
wrote:
>> Thanks. Bummer. At least they could have been ready if that weren't
>> in place. Oh, well. State's Rights and all that.
>>
>
>And not just the sometimes-empty rhetoric around it, either: do you
>want the states' National Guards to always be directly under the
>National command structure and have a governor determine, for smaller
>emergencies, not whether to call them out, but whether or not to ask
>the real, Federal owners to? I'm not sure that'd be a great idea,
>myself.
Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
used.
Fred
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:03 -0500, Fred <cske...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped previous)
>
>>Read this:
>>
>>http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm
>>
>>The underlying Federal regulation is 42 USC Sec. 5170.
>>
>>That's the law. Not a "quaint ceremony"; the law. You may like it, or
>>you may not like it, but that's the law.
>>
>>You could look it up.
>
>
>
> Thanks. Always nice to have real information...
>
Oops! You're asking a lot, given the responsibilities asd spelled out in
law.
> The Guard doesn't need the governor's request to be put on
> ready status by the president, does it? They could have been getting
> ready for a couple of days or more before they were officially called
> in. I've heard of the Guard being put 'on alert' before.
Actually, the Governor can call out the National Guard without asking
for anybody's approval. The Guard is, first and foremost, a state
militia. When the Governor of Nebraska called out the Guared after the
tornado, he didn't ask anybody's approval or permission, he just did it.
Maybe that's why he was able to get them deployed so quickly.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:54:04 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Thanks. Bummer. At least they could have been ready if that weren't
>>> in place. Oh, well. State's Rights and all that.
>>>
>>
>>And not just the sometimes-empty rhetoric around it, either: do you
>>want the states' National Guards to always be directly under the
>>National command structure and have a governor determine, for smaller
>>emergencies, not whether to call them out, but whether or not to ask
>>the real, Federal owners to? I'm not sure that'd be a great idea,
>>myself.
>
> Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
> approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
> used.
>
There are some checks on governors, at least; the President can always
nationalize the Guard. But if it's something done lightly, or
routinely, that creates serious problems -- whose responsibility does it become
to call up the Guard, then?
John A. Weeks III
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> > Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
> > approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
> > used.
> >
>
> There are some checks on governors, at least; the President can always
> nationalize the Guard. But if it's something done lightly, or
> routinely, that creates serious problems -- whose responsibility does it
> become
> to call up the Guard, then?
You would think, however, that a reasonable governor and a
reasonable president can call each other on the telephone and
say something to the effect of "hey, this one looks like it is
going to be a bad one, we better get the troops moving", and
the appropriate person would make the appropriate executive
order to make it happen.
S. Smith
>In article <m33boja...@walter.ellegon.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>> > Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
>> > approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
>> > used.
>> >
>>
>> There are some checks on governors, at least; the President can always
>> nationalize the Guard. But if it's something done lightly, or
>> routinely, that creates serious problems -- whose responsibility does it
>> become
>> to call up the Guard, then?
>
>You would think, however, that a reasonable governor and a
>reasonable president can call each other on the telephone and
>say something to the effect of "hey, this one looks like it is
>going to be a bad one, we better get the troops moving", and
>the appropriate person would make the appropriate executive
>order to make it happen.
That's kind of difficult to do when the president is on
(another) extended vacation and not taking calls.
Probably because he was worried it would be an anti-war
mother of a deceased soldier on the other end, asking him
some tough questions he was not prepared (or was unwilling)
to answer.
- Scott Smith: sc...@sludgereport.org
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
"To be neutral and to be passive is to collaborate
with whatever is going on." - Howard Zinn
D. A. Tsenuf
"Cyli" <cyl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:kciph15nft0f5d7hv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:54:04 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Thanks. Bummer. At least they could have been ready if that weren't
>>> in place. Oh, well. State's Rights and all that.
>>>
>>
>>And not just the sometimes-empty rhetoric around it, either: do you
>>want the states' National Guards to always be directly under the
>>National command structure and have a governor determine, for smaller
>>emergencies, not whether to call them out, but whether or not to ask
>>the real, Federal owners to? I'm not sure that'd be a great idea,
>>myself.
>
> Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
> approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
> used.
Well, It's all about whose job is what
Remember that the original intent was to have the Feds take care of things
outside of the country and a few things to help ease intra-state activities
The Feds, over the last 200+ years have been slowly expanding their
activities in what should really be state affairs.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:36:20 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <m33boja...@walter.ellegon.com>,
>> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>> > Considering some governors and some presidents, it's hard to tell. I
>>> > approve of the law in theory, but in practice it's sometimes not well
>>> > used.
>>> >
>>>
>>> There are some checks on governors, at least; the President can always
>>> nationalize the Guard. But if it's something done lightly, or
>>> routinely, that creates serious problems -- whose responsibility does it
>>> become
>>> to call up the Guard, then?
>>
>>You would think, however, that a reasonable governor and a
>>reasonable president can call each other on the telephone and
>>say something to the effect of "hey, this one looks like it is
>>going to be a bad one, we better get the troops moving", and
>>the appropriate person would make the appropriate executive
>>order to make it happen.
>
> That's kind of difficult to do when the president is on
> (another) extended vacation and not taking calls.
In SS-world, of course, only Republican Presidents don't take calls on
"vacations." It's why SS-world is such a silly, disreputable place.
osmium
>>You would think, however, that a reasonable governor and a
>>reasonable president can call each other on the telephone and
>>say something to the effect of "hey, this one looks like it is
>>going to be a bad one, we better get the troops moving", and
>>the appropriate person would make the appropriate executive
>>order to make it happen.
>
> That's kind of difficult to do when the president is on
> (another) extended vacation and not taking calls.
> Probably because he was worried it would be an anti-war
> mother of a deceased soldier on the other end, asking him
> some tough questions he was not prepared (or was unwilling)
> to answer.
My guess is that when anyone calls the President, a secretary or someone
else actually answers the telephone. It is then up to the governor to
convince this person that he/she/it *is*, in fact one of the 50 governors
and not a siding salesman or whatever..
S. Smith
So Bush wasn't on another extended vacation? He didn't respond
slowly to the disaster?
What world do you live in Joel? A world of denial? (No need
to answer, that was a rhetorical question)
And for the record, the Bush administration is helping to make this
a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
bring it to light for many people.
Fred
> So Bush wasn't on another extended vacation? He didn't respond
> slowly to the disaster?
How Bush personally responded is not the issue. How the Executive Branch
agencies charged with responding to natural disasters performed/are
preforming is very much an issue.
Some interesting comments today by James Lee Witt, who headed FEMA
during the Clinton administration. He assigns blame to the decision to
put FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security, which he said
resulted in FEMSA's budget being "eviscerated", and the depletion of
resources by the war in Iraq.
So, in my opinion, if you wanna point the finger, point it at the
formation of the Department of Homeland Security in an atmosphere of
panic surrounding the events of 9/11. Not enough study, not enough
thought, too politically charged an atmosphere. Slap together some shit
to make people feel like the gummint was Doing Something.
So, based on the current performance of DHS, did we get homeland
security, or did we get political bullshit?
S. Smith
>S. Smith wrote:
>
>> So Bush wasn't on another extended vacation? He didn't respond
>> slowly to the disaster?
>
>How Bush personally responded is not the issue. How the Executive Branch
>agencies charged with responding to natural disasters performed/are
>preforming is very much an issue.
Bush is such an easy target because he is such a slow-witted moron during
crisis times like these.
>Some interesting comments today by James Lee Witt, who headed FEMA
>during the Clinton administration. He assigns blame to the decision to
>put FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security, which he said
>resulted in FEMSA's budget being "eviscerated", and the depletion of
>resources by the war in Iraq.
>
>So, in my opinion, if you wanna point the finger, point it at the
>formation of the Department of Homeland Security in an atmosphere of
>panic surrounding the events of 9/11. Not enough study, not enough
>thought, too politically charged an atmosphere. Slap together some shit
>to make people feel like the gummint was Doing Something.
Yes, I read that today, too.
I think the drain of resources due to the Iraq quagmire, along
with the whole "Homeland Security" and FEMA snafu are the
big reasons the New Orleans disaster was much worse than it
needed to be.
>So, based on the current performance of DHS, did we get homeland
>security, or did we get political bullshit?
It's just one more instance of the Bush administration screwing
up the country to the point of 'breaking' it.
It will probably take decades to clean up the messes they have
created in the 8 years they'll have been in power.
Joel Rosenberg
Even if governors don't have any of the private numbers at the White
House -- and there are such; at least two Presidential children have
mentioned that that's how they call in -- Caller ID (and more
sophisticated systems) would probably be very helpful in identifying
them.
Joel Rosenberg
Presidential "vacations" -- whether the President is a Republican or a
Democrat -- aren't time off; they're time away from the White House.
Didn't you know that?
> He didn't respond
> slowly to the disaster?
Interesting question -- and I dunno, and neither do you. We do know
that when he finally received permission from Governor Blanco to send
in Federal troops, they arrived that day.
Reflexive spinning -- on both the right and the left -- aside, it'll
be interesting and perhaps useful to see what a lot of people and
systems did right and wrong.
Dan Mercer
"S. Smith" <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote in message news:ha6qh195vjlal8cqn...@4ax.com...
You act like he's vacationing on the moon. The President is never
really on vacation - wherever he goes he's accompanied by staff and
a communications system that can connect him to anywhere on Earth
instantaneously. He can, for instance, launch a nuclear attack on
vacation. All of Congress is also on vacation, as is the Supreme Court.
I think the silliest criticism was aimed at Condi Rice for taking in a
Broadway play. She's the Secretary of State, for cripes sake.
Louisiana, last I checked, was not a foreign country.
As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
There's a good timeline, assembled from NO Times Picayune reports.
at http://rightwingnuthouse.com/. Unfortunately, the volume of hits
they're getting is crashing the site.
There are many lessons to be learned from this disaster - I don't really
expect any to actually be learned, thanks to its early politicization.
One of the big lessons ought to be to plan for disasters ahead of time
the same way we plan for War ahead of time. When the military already
had game plans for the invasion of Iraq (multiple plans to fit multiple scenarios
of weather and force availability), the left jumped on that as proof that
Bush intended to invade Iraq all along. It was a silly claim based on
a total ignorance of military preparedness.
The plans existed because plans exist for almost any conceivable military
situation. The nation has an institution, the War College, whos sole
purpose is just such preparedness. The Prussians invented the idea -
the Franco Prussian War was won long before the first bullet was fired.
When NAZI Germany invaded Poland, and later Russia, it did so with plans
first drawn up during the Weimar Republic. All the German high command had
to do was dust them off and modernize them.
While wars, even wars we assume we never would have to fight (there are
probably extensive plans for invading Canada and Great Britain), are thoroughly
prepared for, far more predictable disasters are handled only after the fact.
Military crises we deal with proactively, natural disasters reactively.
: What world do you live in Joel? A world of denial? (No need
: to answer, that was a rhetorical question)
:
: And for the record, the Bush administration is helping to make this
: a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
: to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
: just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
: bring it to light for many people.
Poppycock. The only thing disreputable about America is the leftist treachery
it coddles.
Dan Mercer
:
:
:
:
: - Scott Smith: sc...@sludgereport.org
Poor Impulse Control
Heh, the idea that the President actually answers *any* phone calls seems
kind of comical. How would he answer it? "White House, George Speaking"?
"You dropped the dime, I'll drop the bomb"?
I can see where he MIGHT answer some kind of internal phone or a
super-private line in the residence "after hours".
But I'll bet that 99% of the time he doesn't even answer the phone (ie, pick
it up if it rings) in the Oval Office. One of his yes men picks it up and
deals with the switchboard/secretary and then the President picks up his
extension and starts talking. It's probably the same in reverse for
outgoing calls.
I don't think this is any different than any of the senior executives I've
ever dealt with. All their calls seem to go to their secretary who then
buzzes them based on who's calling and who they expect.
S. Smith
>There's a good timeline, assembled from NO Times Picayune reports.
>at http://rightwingnuthouse.com/. Unfortunately, the volume of hits
>they're getting is crashing the site.
I find it so humorously fitting that you frequent a site called
the "Rightwing Nuthouse", Dan. ;)
>: And for the record, the Bush administration is helping to make this
>: a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
>: to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
>: just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
>: bring it to light for many people.
>
>Poppycock. The only thing disreputable about America is the leftist treachery
>it coddles.
Yes, yes...we all know...you would have us all shot if you could, Dan.
Too bad for you that we live in a country founded on free speech and
inhabited by many free thinkers (on the right and the left). Sadly, you
are not one of them.
drow
> "S. Smith" <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote in message news:ha6qh195vjlal8cqn...@4ax.com...
> > a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
> > to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
> > just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
> > bring it to light for many people.
>
> Poppycock. The only thing disreputable about America is the leftist
> treachery it coddles.
"And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd."
-- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"
--
\^\ // dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Form follows malfunction.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
John Ferman
<D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> "Erik Anderson" <and...@bethel.edu> wrote in message
> news:41omu2...@lpdlnx00.logicpd.com...
> > D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
> >>
> >> So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
> >> Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
> >
> > Oh please. If you want to misinterpret what I wrote, please feel free,
> > but you're not going to get any more response out of me than this message.
> >
> > It's a horrible, crappy situation down there. This world doesn't need any
> > more negativity in it in times like these.
> >
> > -Erik
>
> Then stop trying to justify the inexcusable and uncivillised behavior of
> some of those people.
The looter pictures you saw were individual snapshots and can't be used
to characterize everyone. Yes, some individuals stole TVs, CDs and etc.
But others stole anything edible (when you are very hungry and the food
you steal lies between you and collapse, might you not see it as not
stealing).
To my way of thinking, what we witnessed in New Orleans was raw
humanness. We are, after all, animals to whom survival is a powerful
instinct.
Cyli
wrote:
(snipped)
>
>As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
>days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
>guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
>didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
Would have been difficult. Considering that Clinton kept publicly
asking the governor to permit the Guard in and the governor kept
refusing for a long time. The next gubernatorial election in Florida
saw that guy out and Jeb Bush in.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:31 GMT, "Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>>
>>As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
>>days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
>>guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
>>didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
>
>
> Would have been difficult. Considering that Clinton kept publicly
> asking the governor to permit the Guard in and the governor kept
> refusing for a long time.
As I think we've been shown for some time, blaming either Bush or
Clinton -- by those folks suffering Clinton Derangement Syndrome or
Bush Derangement Syndrome -- isn't difficult at all for some folks,
regardless of the facts. The purveyors of the Clinton Death List, for
example, blamed the Clinton administration for killing off supposed
witnesses to events that hadn't happened with the given individuals
had died, and for BDS, just take a look at SS's posts here.
D. A. Tsenuf
"Cyli" <cyl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:31 GMT, "Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>>
>>As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
>>days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
>>guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
>>didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
>
>
> Would have been difficult. Considering that Clinton kept publicly
> asking the governor to permit the Guard in and the governor kept
> refusing for a long time. The next gubernatorial election in Florida
> saw that guy out and Jeb Bush in.
>
The same can be said of Blanco & Nagin
They sat on their hands and dithered.
The ONLY thing Bush did wrong was NOT go public with a request top provide
aid.
D. A. Tsenuf
"John Ferman" <nos...@nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:060920052318334795%nos...@nospam.edu...
> In article <11hhh3q...@corp.supernews.com>, D. A. Tsenuf
> <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
>
>> "Erik Anderson" <and...@bethel.edu> wrote in message
>> news:41omu2...@lpdlnx00.logicpd.com...
>> > D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
>> >> Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
>> >
>> > Oh please. If you want to misinterpret what I wrote, please feel free,
>> > but you're not going to get any more response out of me than this
>> > message.
>> >
>> > It's a horrible, crappy situation down there. This world doesn't need
>> > any
>> > more negativity in it in times like these.
>> >
>> > -Erik
>>
>> Then stop trying to justify the inexcusable and uncivillised behavior of
>> some of those people.
>
> The looter pictures you saw were individual snapshots and can't be used
> to characterize everyone. Yes, some individuals stole TVs, CDs and etc.
>
Since I was talking ONLY of looters, I can characterize as I did..
That you wish to stretch MY usage to fit YOUR agenda is not my problem
> But others stole anything edible (when you are very hungry and the food
> you steal lies between you and collapse, might you not see it as not
> stealing).
> To my way of thinking, what we witnessed in New Orleans was raw
> humanness. We are, after all, animals to whom survival is a powerful
> instinct.
Yup and sitting on your butt waiting for the cooked pigeon to fall into your
mouth is also a human behavior trait in some circles.
Dan Mercer
"S. Smith" <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote in message news:o39sh19b92glq0p5d...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:31 GMT, "Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
:
: >There's a good timeline, assembled from NO Times Picayune reports.
: >at http://rightwingnuthouse.com/. Unfortunately, the volume of hits
: >they're getting is crashing the site.
:
: I find it so humorously fitting that you frequent a site called
: the "Rightwing Nuthouse", Dan. ;)
I don't. But many sites I do frequent pointed it out. I think they've
done a nice job putting together a timeline. Others must have too, since
the site was buried yesterday by people trying to access it.
:
: >: And for the record, the Bush administration is helping to make this
: >: a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
: >: to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
: >: just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
: >: bring it to light for many people.
: >
: >Poppycock. The only thing disreputable about America is the leftist treachery
: >it coddles.
:
: Yes, yes...we all know...you would have us all shot if you could, Dan.
:
: Too bad for you that we live in a country founded on free speech and
: inhabited by many free thinkers (on the right and the left). Sadly, you
: are not one of them.
No, I wouldn't have you shot, Scott. As for a free thinker, you've never
written anything original in your life. And the left, by far, is much more
rigid in its thinking than the right and so far, seems inoculated against the
truth. As evidenced by your constant display of smug superiority.
Dan Mercer
:
:
:
:
: - Scott Smith: sc...@sludgereport.org
Dan Mercer
"Cyli" <cyl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message news:0f3th15tl95ld82pv...@4ax.com...
: wrote:
:
: (snipped)
: >
: >As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
: >days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
: >guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
: >didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
:
:
: Would have been difficult. Considering that Clinton kept publicly
: asking the governor to permit the Guard in and the governor kept
: refusing for a long time. The next gubernatorial election in Florida
: saw that guy out and Jeb Bush in.
Which makes the point for me - it is the Governor and local authorities who
are in charge of disaster recovery. It wasn't Bush who lined up all the city
buses in a row in an are below sea level.
This was actually two disasters - the initial disaster of the storm which
flooded a fifth of the city, and the levee breaching a day later which
flooded three times more area.
Dan Mercer
:
: Cyli
WDS
top people at FEMA are a disgrace and should be dumped ASAP. Here are
some quotes from the head of FEMA from late last week:
* (Asked about uncollected corpses:) "That's not been reported to
me, so I'm not going to comment. Until I actually get a report from my
teams that say, "We have bodies located here or there," I'm just not
going to speculate."
* (Asked about civil unrest:) "I've had no reports of unrest . . .
no reports of that."
* (Asked about effectiveness of the federal response:) "Considering
the dire circumstances . . . things are going relatively well."
Poor Impulse Control
"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:1126102084....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The Homeland Security megabureaucracy seems like a bad idea, it's just too
big and allows for too much bureaucratic layering.
Perhaps its more DHS bureaucratization, but maybe FEMA *and* NOAA should be
moved under the department of the interior. This way NOAA and USGS (already
a part of Interior) resources could be better coordinated by/with FEMA.
Plus many of our natural disasters include fires, which appear to be
ultimately handled by some Interior department agency.
This doesn't do much for "terrorism" work for FEMA, but it could be reasoned
that major disasters resulting from terrorism just aren't likely to be as
common or as widespread as natural disasters and that should one arise,
FEMAs assets could be applied to those kinds of problems.
S. Smith
There is nothing "deranged" about holding the Bush administration
accountable for it's many follies. Also, it's not Bush the man, per se,
but the administration of which he is the figurehead (sort of, in his
own deer-in-the-headlights kind of way).
If the Clinton administration was demonstrably responsible for the
issues that make the New Orleans disaster a bigger problem than
it should be (lack of resources due to the Iraq war, slashing funding
of programs and studies that may have helped to avoid the situation
or at least reduced the impact, moving FEMA to the DHS and gutting
their funding, etc.), then I would be placing blame on them. I was
very vocal about the Clinton administration's fiasco in Somalia and
I would have spoken out if the Clinton administration ordered an
all-out pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
It's not just a one-sided partisan issue, like you and other conservatives
here would like to paint it to be. It is an issue with a corrupt, deceitful
and dangerous (both through their actions and inaction) administration
that needs to start being accountable for their messes.
There's plenty of blame to place, and more often than not it is correctly
placed directly on the current Bush neo-con administration...whether
you care to admit it to yourself or not.
S. Smith
>"S. Smith" <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote in message news:o39sh19b92glq0p5d...@4ax.com...
>: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:31 GMT, "Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>:
>: >There's a good timeline, assembled from NO Times Picayune reports.
>: >at http://rightwingnuthouse.com/. Unfortunately, the volume of hits
>: >they're getting is crashing the site.
>:
>: I find it so humorously fitting that you frequent a site called
>: the "Rightwing Nuthouse", Dan. ;)
>
>I don't. But many sites I do frequent pointed it out. I think they've
>done a nice job putting together a timeline. Others must have too, since
>the site was buried yesterday by people trying to access it.
Too bad, the name of the site fits you perfectly.
>: >: And for the record, the Bush administration is helping to make this
>: >: a "disreputable place" to live. At least the American public is starting
>: >: to realize that...and many of us have realized that for years now. It's
>: >: just too bad that it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to finally
>: >: bring it to light for many people.
>: >
>: >Poppycock. The only thing disreputable about America is the leftist treachery
>: >it coddles.
>:
>: Yes, yes...we all know...you would have us all shot if you could, Dan.
>:
>: Too bad for you that we live in a country founded on free speech and
>: inhabited by many free thinkers (on the right and the left). Sadly, you
>: are not one of them.
>
>No, I wouldn't have you shot, Scott. As for a free thinker, you've never
>written anything original in your life. And the left, by far, is much more
>rigid in its thinking than the right and so far, seems inoculated against the
>truth. As evidenced by your constant display of smug superiority.
How wonderfully ironic that is coming from a conservative like you.
You conservative flag-waving, war-mongering, bible-thumping folks
haven't had any original thoughts in decades. To folks like you,
the theory of "intelligent design" seems like a new idea...but it's just
the same old creationism crap rolled up in a new disguise.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:33:13 GMT, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
>>Cyli <cyl...@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:31 GMT, "Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>>
>>>>As for the speed of the response, others have noted it was many
>>>>days faster than the federal response to Hurricane Andrew (any
>>>>guess who was president then?) The big difference was, the MSM
>>>>didn't claim it was Clinton's fault.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would have been difficult. Considering that Clinton kept publicly
>>> asking the governor to permit the Guard in and the governor kept
>>> refusing for a long time.
>>
>>As I think we've been shown for some time, blaming either Bush or
>>Clinton -- by those folks suffering Clinton Derangement Syndrome or
>>Bush Derangement Syndrome -- isn't difficult at all for some folks,
>>regardless of the facts. The purveyors of the Clinton Death List, for
>>example, blamed the Clinton administration for killing off supposed
>>witnesses to events that hadn't happened with the given individuals
>>had died, and for BDS, just take a look at SS's posts here.
>
>
> There is nothing "deranged"
SS, you apparently don't notice deranged when you shave its face every
morning. Sheesh.
Dan Mercer
"S. Smith" <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote in message news:vusuh1lp44seacmvh...@4ax.com...
See, proved from your own mouth. Creationism posits a Biblically correct
universe with a planet less than 7000 years old. ID has no such limitations.
Standard Darwinian theory, taken as Gospel by most nonscientists on the left,
has few adherents even amongst scientists. ID is one theory to explain
the Darwinian shortfalls, but by no means the only. Punctuated equilibrium,
for instance, is another. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference, or to
be able to offer any kind of intelligent debate on the subject. So much
easier to regurgitate dogma.
As for who hasn't had a new idea in decades, liberalism is still stuck in the
thirties. You guys haven't had a new, let alone effective, idea since FDR
died. Prove me wrong - name one.
As for war mongering, conservatives weren't campaigning for war until
war was thrust upon us. There is a vast difference between war mongering
and defending yourself. But since you're of the belief that disarming the innocent
will protect them against the guilty, hardly a surprise you can't tell the difference.
Face it Scott, you belong to a hate filled, shrill, and tyrannical minority.
Dan Mercer
:
:
:
: - Scott Smith: sc...@sludgereport.org
John A. Weeks III
"Dan Mercer" <dme...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
> This was actually two disasters - the initial disaster of the storm which
> flooded a fifth of the city, and the levee breaching a day later which
> flooded three times more area.
No, it wasn't. It was all one ugly mess. This scenario of a big
storm causing flooding of NOLA has been widely discussed and known
for many years. Saying it was two disasters is like saying Hurricane
Andrew was 2 disasters...one when the wind blew, and a 2nd one when
the trees fell over.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
S. Smith
The only thing deranged here is your inability to get beyond your
own political agenda to see the reality around you.
S. Smith
It is essentially the same thing.
Can't explain it? It must be "gods work".
>Standard Darwinian theory, taken as Gospel by most nonscientists on the left,
>has few adherents even amongst scientists.
> ID is one theory to explain the Darwinian shortfalls, but by no means the only.
>Punctuated equilibrium,for instance, is another. I wouldn't expect you to know
>the difference, or to be able to offer any kind of intelligent debate on the subject.
I studied biology and philosophy in college. I still read Dawkins. I am very
much aware of various theories of evolution, and creationism. "Intelligent
Design" is simply creationism wrapped up in pseudo-science to make it
more palatable for the religious believers who don't buy the ridiculous
biblical version of creationism.
>So much easier to regurgitate dogma.
When the dogma fits...
>As for who hasn't had a new idea in decades, liberalism is still stuck in the
>thirties. You guys haven't had a new, let alone effective, idea since FDR
>died. Prove me wrong - name one.
Here's just a list, for starters.
GI Bill
era: 1950's
This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get college
educations, something that most Americans had never had the opportunity to do
previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists, and business people owe
their education to the GI Bill.
Labor Laws
era: 1930's-present
An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively
bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we take for granted today
are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half of this century. It was the
conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and
exploitation.
Environmental Laws
era: 1970's-present
The environment has gotten much better in the last 30 years thanks to liberals. Bald
Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are
clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the
past in most big American cities.
Food safety laws
era: 1910's-present
Ever read Sinclair's "The Jungle?" That's what things were really like before food
purity laws were on the books. Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers
know that whatever they buy is safe to eat.
Workplace safety laws
era: 1930's-present
Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past. Tragedies such
as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been eliminated by liberal and
progressive legislation.
Social Security
era: 1930's-1970's
This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement benefits, and
nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program is weakening now, but for 50
years it did its job to a T.
Economic Growth
era: 1950's-1960's
Liberalism and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. Unlike the pseudo-boom of the
1980's, the 1950's and 1960's were a period of sustained and real growth for all
sectors of the economy and all social classes. Taxes were fair, government worked,
and America prospered under both Democratic and Republican administrations
Space Program
era: 1950's-present
It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and
Johnson's administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to
American industry and peoples' standard of living, not to mention national pride. If
you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got
it going.
Peace corps
era: 1960's-present
Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country,
and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective legacy
Civil rights movement
era: 1950's-present
Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the
civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom
and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and
others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were
conservatives.
The fight against Totalitarianism
era: always
World War II was fought by all Americans; liberals and conservatives fought together
the evil of Nazism. The ideal we fought for was freedom and the dignity of the
individual against totalitarianism. Under the leadership of Roosevelt and Truman, we
won. But the battle is never over, so we must remain vigilant.
The Internet
era: 1960's-present
Not a liberal program per se, but rather a government one, which many equate as the
same thing. The Internet is a good example of what a government program can do when
allowed to work.
The Tennessee Valley project
era: 1930's
The Depression-era government program bought electricity to thousands of impoverished
families in Appalachia, prevented floods, and created thousands of new jobs.
Women's right to vote
era: 1920's-present
Before 1920, half of America's population could not exercise the essential duty of
citizenship.
Universal Public Education
era: 1890's-present
The reason America is so strong economically is because we have a well-educated
citizenry. Public schooling is the true melting pot of America, where every student,
regardless of economic background can be taught the basics of citizenship. It is no
coincidence that in the last 20 years, as conservatives have greatly weakened the
public school system, that American students have scored lower on tests and our civic
society has started to unravel.
National Weather Service
era: 1930's-present
This is one of those things you never think about, but you are glad its there. Far
from just forecasting the weather, the NWS also provides vital data to pilots and
sailors, and the NWS satellites and observation posts provide the raw data that all
other weather forecasting services (private ones too!) depend on.
Scientific Research
era: 1940's-present
Much of the great discoveries in science have come about through grants from the
government. This is not to say that scientific genius depends on Washington, but the
fact remains that pure science is expensive, and private industry will often not fund
experiments which don't have a direct commercial potential. From Salk's polio vaccine
to today's Human Genome Project and Hubble Space Telescope, the government is an
important partner in scientific discovery.
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
era: 1910's-present
"We take it for granted that if a claim is made publicly for a product, it's
reasonable to assume it's true. Plus, every time we check the ingredients on a can or
package of food, we should mentally call down blessings on the liberals who passed
the necessary legislation over the anguished howls of the conservatives, who were
convinced such info would be prohibitively expensive, and too big a burden on
business."
Public Health
era: 1910's-present
Government funded water and sewage systems are an important part of modernity. In
addition, organizations such as the National Institute of Health and the Center for
Disease Control play an important part in maintaining the national health and
preventing epidemics through research, vaccination programs, etc.
Morrill Land Grant Act
era: late 1800's
This act is the reason why nearly every state in the Union has a large public
university. These centers of learning have educated untold millions of Americans. If
you went to a school with a state name in it, then you were helped by liberalism.
Rural Electrification
era: 1930's-1960's
This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convenience of electricity.
I am sure that those of us using computers on the Internet, sitting in our air
conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider electricity a basic necessity -
one that the pure market would never have found profitable to provide to isolated
farming communities.
Public Universities
era: 1890's-present day
Put a college education within the reach of nearly every American. In addition to
education, many of these institutions have played key roles in all kinds of
scientific research and been a strong influence on our entire society.
Bank Deposit Insurance
era: 1930's-present day
About 1934, as part of extensive New Deal banking legislation, Congress created the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to provide federal insurance for bank
deposits.Ê This was instrumental in restoring confidence in our nation's banks, and
remains so to this day.
Earned Income Tax Credit
era: 1970's-present day
Reduces the tax burden for working families who make under $28,500.00 You have to
earn income to get it. It is not a handout. It's a great incentive for families to
stay off welfare. But the atmosphere has changed in Washington, and Republicans had
to find a way to pay for their capital-gains tax cut, and EITC was their ticket to
success. So, the Republicans voted to cut this program by $29 billion over a certain
time frame. Well guess what? They just raised the taxes on lower income working
families.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
era: 1940's-present day
The world's foremost authority and defense against infectious disease and epidemic is
a department of the United States government.
Family and Medical Leave Act
era: 1993-present day
This is a program which mandates that you have the right to job leave to take care of
sick family members, or to have a child. Many conservatives were opposed to this
valuable piece of legislation. Perhaps they were opposed to family values?
Consumer Product Safety Commission
era: 1972-present day
These guys regulate consumer products for safety. Everything from sharp (and edible)
baby toys to flammable pajamas have been taken off the market due to the work of this
commission.
Public Broadcasting
era: 1930's-present day
Millions of our children have learned from shows like Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact,
and Mister Rogers (and so many more). Millions of adults continue to learn from shows
like Nova. Also, the best broadcast journalism is by far National Public Radio. PBS
and NPR have served to enrich our national culture.
Americans With Disabilities Act
era: 1990-present day
Civil rights for disabled citizens. It is fair, just, and it is the law of the land.
Credit where credit is due, former Senator Bob Dole helped push this through, a rare
nod in favor of liberalism from Mr. Dole.
Need some more?
>As for war mongering, conservatives weren't campaigning for war until
>war was thrust upon us. There is a vast difference between war mongering
>and defending yourself.
Iraq never attacked us, either directly or indirectly. It was a unilateral
pre-emptive assault by the United States on Iraq.
Most of us supported the attacks on definite Al Queda targets in Afghanistan
after the 9/11 attack. Iraq was never part of that attack scenario...that has
been proven. Just as the lies behind why we *did* go into Iraq (WMD's, etc.)
have been proven false.
If you are going to try to defend the Bush administration's war in Iraq, at
least get your facts straight, Dan.
> But since you're of the belief that disarming the innocent
>will protect them against the guilty, hardly a surprise you can't tell the difference.
>
>Face it Scott, you belong to a hate filled, shrill, and tyrannical minority.
That is very entertaining, coming from a brutish conservative like you, Dan.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>
>> How wonderfully ironic that is coming from a conservative like you.
>> You conservative flag-waving, war-mongering, bible-thumping folks
>> haven't had any original thoughts in decades. To folks like you,
>> the theory of "intelligent design" seems like a new idea...but it's just
>> the same old creationism crap rolled up in a new disguise.
>>
>
>I think you are showing some clear schizophrenic associations with the
>way you leap and rationalize your way from one subject to another.
You're entitled to your opinion, Tom. But I hope you won't
mind if I don't give a fuck about it.
S. Smith
>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
>> SS, you apparently don't notice deranged when you shave its face every
>> morning. Sheesh.
>
>Hmm .... funny, I came to the same independent conclusion a few minutes
>ago in another part of the thread. Although, I believe I used the word
>schizophrenic as the best descriptor of SS.
I would expect no less from conservatives like you and Rosenberg.
If you can't win the debate with facts, claim your opponent is "deranged"
or "schizophrenic ".
Weak attempt...but thanks for playing the game anyway.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>
>> You're entitled to your opinion, Tom. But I hope you won't
>> mind if I don't give a fuck about it.
>
>Hmm .. perhaps I am on to something.
No, not really. But keep guessing...it's fun to observe how you
guys react when you're frustrated.
>You seem rather sensitive to that label. What works best for you, risperdal?
Hefe Weizen and bratwurst. ;)
>Really though, I see these leaps you make as one of two things, an
>effort to keep the banter going [such as a troll would do] or simple
>schizophrenic associations. I hope it is not the latter.
Then go with the former, or whatever other delusion floats your boat.
Joel Rosenberg
> On 08 Sep 2005 00:34:50 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <vel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> How wonderfully ironic that is coming from a conservative like you.
>>> You conservative flag-waving, war-mongering, bible-thumping folks
>>> haven't had any original thoughts in decades. To folks like you,
>>> the theory of "intelligent design" seems like a new idea...but it's just
>>> the same old creationism crap rolled up in a new disguise.
>>>
>>
>>I think you are showing some clear schizophrenic associations with the
>>way you leap and rationalize your way from one subject to another.
>
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, Tom. But I hope you won't
> mind if I don't give a fuck about it.
>
And he'll tell you, over and over, Tom, how much he doesn't care about
it, and how it doesn't even occur to him that he should.
Paging Freud, Dr. Sigmund Freud . . .
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>> SS, you apparently don't notice deranged when you shave its face every
>> morning. Sheesh.
>
> Hmm .... funny, I came to the same independent conclusion a few minutes
> ago in another part of the thread. Although, I believe I used the word
> schizophrenic as the best descriptor of SS.
Nah. They can treat that with pills. SS is a pill.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>
>> If you can't win the debate with facts, claim your opponent is "deranged"
>> or "schizophrenic ".
>>
>
>You aren't.
No shit.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>
>>>You seem rather sensitive to that label. What works best for you, risperdal?
>>
>> Hefe Weizen and bratwurst. ;)
>>
>
>You are ruining a good Hefe. :-)
Then go do something else that is more your style.
Read a book?
Listen to a CD?
Watch a movie?
Whatever gets you by and keeps your blood pressure low.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>> On 08 Sep 2005 01:08:51 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <vel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you can't win the debate with facts, claim your opponent is "deranged"
>>>> or "schizophrenic ".
>>>>
>>>
>>>You aren't.
>>
>>
>> No shit.
>>
>
>Nice post edit shitbag.
There, there, Thomas...maybe it's time for you to take a break for
the evening.
S. Smith
And getting harder for you to swallow every day, Rosenberg.
D. A. Tsenuf
"Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote in message
news:m3vf1cb...@walter.ellegon.com...
Which is why I'm amazed that after all this time people still bother reading
him and answering him.
S. Smith
>D. A. Tsenuf <D...@tsenuf.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which is why I'm amazed that after all this time people still bother reading
>> him and answering him.
>>
>
>Because he does a disservice to blind followers, and there are many.
Calling out the Bush administration, and the federal government in
general, on their responsibility for the mishandling of the New Orleans
disaster is being a "blind follower"? How so?
I would think that being a "blind follower" would be looking at the
situation and claiming that they did nothing wrong.
>As a matter of fact, all partisans could be called blind followers, so
>that would describe Shawn perfectly ... the blind leading the blind.
I'm hardly "partisan". I vote Green, Independent, DFL and yes, even
Republican on occasion (although, the last was Arne Carlson).
Currently, I am just overwhelmed with how bad the Bush administration
is, and I will tell it anyone and everyone who will listen...willingly or
otherwise.
John Ferman
<D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> "John Ferman" <nos...@nospam.edu> wrote in message
> news:060920052318334795%nos...@nospam.edu...
> > In article <11hhh3q...@corp.supernews.com>, D. A. Tsenuf
> > <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Erik Anderson" <and...@bethel.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:41omu2...@lpdlnx00.logicpd.com...
> >> > D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So what your saying is that poverty level is a license to misbehave ?
> >> >> Or maybe it's the degree of catastrophe ?
> >> >
> >> > Oh please. If you want to misinterpret what I wrote, please feel free,
> >> > but you're not going to get any more response out of me than this
> >> > message.
> >> >
> >> > It's a horrible, crappy situation down there. This world doesn't need
> >> > any
> >> > more negativity in it in times like these.
> >> >
> >> > -Erik
> >>
> >> Then stop trying to justify the inexcusable and uncivillised behavior of
> >> some of those people.
> >
> > The looter pictures you saw were individual snapshots and can't be used
> > to characterize everyone. Yes, some individuals stole TVs, CDs and etc.
> >
>
> Since I was talking ONLY of looters, I can characterize as I did..
> That you wish to stretch MY usage to fit YOUR agenda is not my problem
>
>
> > But others stole anything edible (when you are very hungry and the food
> > you steal lies between you and collapse, might you not see it as not
> > stealing).
> > To my way of thinking, what we witnessed in New Orleans was raw
> > humanness. We are, after all, animals to whom survival is a powerful
> > instinct.
>
> Yup and sitting on your butt waiting for the cooked pigeon to fall into your
> mouth is also a human behavior trait in some circles.
I gather Tsenuf's stock in trade does not embrace rational discussion.
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>>Because he does a disservice to blind followers, and there are many.
>>
>> Calling out the Bush administration, and the federal government in
>> general, on their responsibility for the mishandling of the New Orleans
>> disaster is being a "blind follower"? How so?
><snip>
>
>Suddenly, you are back on subject? I am describing you in general, as
>was the context in which the initial question was asked, which
>paraphrased was asking "why does anybody read and respond to Shawn
>Smith".
This has always been on topic...the topic is the New Orleans
disaster, and why the Bush administration, and the Federal government
in general, failed at dealing with it quickly and efficiently.
The rest of the finger pointing at the Bush administration is a natural
flow of discussion, IMO.
The fact that you, and others here, don't want to hear it is besides
the point, IMO.
>The rest of you snipped comments have been discussed to death in this
>thread and are not relavent to the context of which you were responding.
Again, YOUR opinion, and one that I don't necessarily share.
S. Smith
Nope, never has, never will.
S. Smith
>> him and answering him.
I LOVE the fact that this was posted by an idiot I killfiled here
YEARS ago. ;-)
Mike O'Brien
"undocumented consumers" not "looters." Don't want to further injure the
victims no I mean refugees no I mean "displaced Americans."
Regards.
Mike O'Brien
life is full of choices; choices have consequences
S. Smith
>S. Smith <ssm...@sludgereport.org> wrote:
>>
>> I LOVE the fact that this was posted by an idiot I killfiled here
>> YEARS ago. ;-)
>>
>
>You may as well delete him from you killfile, as you are still reading
>his posts AND commenting on them.
No, thanks.
D. A. Tsenuf
I will embrace rational discussion with rational indivduals.
Those that behave like you and twist meaning to fit your agenda, don't
qualify.
I prefer to waste my time in other ways.