OT - Katrina, historical perspective on past presidents
Scoop
think it most clearly shows why people are angry at Bush, and how he has
failed in comparison with recent past presidents who have dealt with similar
hurricanes.
Scoop
-----
Subject: [knitflame] so what should he have done?
I just spent at least ten minutes searching my knitflame mailbox and then
the message archive on yahoo to find an article I wanted to show my
husband. I could have sworn someone had reposted it here, since the "what
the heck could the president have done" question (paraphrased) sort of came
up a few posts ago.
I found the article - it was posted on livejournal, not here. I am,
however, pasting it below for your enjoyment (or not, as the case may be ;)
Note: This is an article I recieved from a friend. The author is unknown at
this time.
How SHOULD the President have handled this disaster?
History shows plenty of examples to people who actually READ...
In September 1999, Hurricane Floyd -- a category 3 -- was bearing down the
Carolinas and Virginia.
President Clinton was in Christchurch, New Zealand - meeting with President
Jiang of China (you know, actually working). He made the proclamation that
only Presidents can make and declared the areas affected by Floyd "Federal
Disaster Areas" so the National Guard and Military can begin to mobilize.
Then he cut short his meetings overseas and flew home to coordinate the
rescue efforts. This all one day BEFORE a Cat-3 hit the coast. That is how
you do it.
How about this dope's own father during Hurricane Andrew? Once again,
President Bush (41) -- August, 1992 -- was in the midst of a brutal
campaign for re-election. Yet, he cut off his campaigning the day before
and went to Washington where he martialed the largest military operation on
US soil in history. He sent in 7,000 National Guard and 22,000 regular
military personnel, and all the gear to begin the clean up within hours
after Andrew passed through Florida. 'Cause, you know, those people and
their stuff was actually where it belonged, rather than being used for
insurgent target-practice halfway around the world in a vain effort to make
Iraq safe for Iranian takeover.
In August of 1969 when Cat-5 Hurricane Camille hit roughly the same area as
Katrina, President Nixon had already readied the National Guard and ordered
all Gulf rescue vessels and equipment from Tampa and Houston to follow the
Hurricane in. There were over 1,000 regular military with two dozen
helicopters to assist the Coast Guard and National Guard within hours after
the skies cleared.
Bush 43 - August 2005 - Cat-5 Hurricane Katrina bears down on New Orleans
and the Mississippi gulf. Both states are down nearly 8,000 National Guard
troops because they are in Iraq -- with most of the rescue gear needed.
Bush is on vacation. The day before Katrina makes landfall, Bush rides his
bike for two hours. The day she hits, he goes to Johnnie McCain's birthday
party; and lies to old people about the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical
company welfare boondoggle. People are dying, the largest port of entry in
the United States (and fifth largest in the World) is under attack. Troops
and supplies are desperately needed. The levees are cracking and the
emergency 1-1/2 ton sandbags are ready, but there aren't enough helicopters
or pilots to set them before the levees fail. The mayor of New Orleans begs
for Federal coordination, but there is none, and the sandbagging never gets
done. So Bush -- naturally -- goes to San Diego to play guitar with a
country singer and lie to the military about how Iraq is just exactly like
WWII. The levees give way, filling New Orleans with water, sewage, oil and
chemicals. Ten percent of all US exports, and 50% of all agricultural
exports ordinarily go through this port. It is totally destroyed. Bush
decides he'll end his vacation a couple of days early -- TOMORROW --BECAUSE
HE HAS TICKETS TO A PADRES GAME! He goes back to the Fake Farm in Crawford,
with every intention of doing something on WEDNESDAY about this disaster
that happened starting last Sunday night.
Failure to plan. Too little response, too late. Insufficent troop and
equipment levels -- sound familiar?
smokey
it is tough on poor old GWB) that two Republican Presidents (Nixon and
GHWBush) were mentioned and commended for their actions.
Smokey
Tim Daneliuk
This is not now, nor should it ever have been a Federal matter.
No portion of the Constitution charges the Federal government
with disaster relief. This was/is/and should always be a matter
for state and local agencies *only* with security being provided
by the State Militia. These people are suffering as a direct
result of the Federal Government having become prostituted as
the social services whore it today has become.
(Oh, and *voluntary, private* charity is always appropriate...)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
kilted1
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:bgnpu2-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
AMEN!
kilted1
Matt Patterson
> smokey wrote:
>
>> l will point out to everyone who is going to flame this post (because
>> it is tough on poor old GWB) that two Republican Presidents (Nixon and
>> GHWBush) were mentioned and commended for their actions.
>>
>> Smokey
>>
>
> This is not now, nor should it ever have been a Federal matter.
> No portion of the Constitution charges the Federal government
> with disaster relief. This was/is/and should always be a matter
> for state and local agencies *only* with security being provided
> by the State Militia. These people are suffering as a direct
> result of the Federal Government having become prostituted as
> the social services whore it today has become.
>
> (Oh, and *voluntary, private* charity is always appropriate...)
>
I suppose someone should tell that to FEMA then, huh?
And the Department of Homeland Security.
And while they are at it, they can go to the Gulf, and explain to some
of the poorest states, with the poorest people, that they are suffering,
in fact, because the government -provides social services-, and not, in
fact, because nobody in power gives enough of a shit about whether they
live or die.
This is a truly bizarre place to go into a state's rights argument.
Perhaps you're a strict literal constitutionist, but i think it's worth
pointing out the constitution doesn't include, say, anything about
circulating kiddie porn on the internet, but that doesn't mean the
government shouldn't take an interest in it.
The document is a set of guiding -principles-, and a methodology, which
has been continuously updated and revised.
the founding father's were brilliant, foresighted men, but their vision
didn't include a city of half a million people having to evacuate from a
storm worse than anything they'd ever seen in a matter of a few days,
nor having to manage giant earthquakes, wildfires, etc.
Leaving the poor to be annihilated because it's 'not within your job
description' to help them is simply callous.
-matt
Scoop
Yeah, that and a cup of coffee, Tim.
Here's the deal, the Feds set it up this way, people expect it to be this
way, and the reality is that it is this way. It is now, thanks to their
promises and programs, the Feds responsibilities. Whining about how it
shouldn't be is like being the guy who accepts a position with power, and
then bitches when he's expected to step up to the bat and do something.
Scoop
kilted1
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:froSe.325603$xm3.27248@attbi_s21...
> My wife forwarded this message to me from a group blah blah blah
.................
The very latest attempt to discredit Bush, and quite boring really.
As popular an idea it is to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong
anywhere (thank God we don't have "reporters" on other planets, because
surely something catastrophic is happening there the Bush is obligated to do
something about) the "blame" if it must be stated starts with the State of
Lousiana, and the city of NO. Nowhere to be seen in all of this is ANY
State or City disaster plan. Their complete LACK of preparedness and
general sloppiness in planning for feeding, policing, defending, rescuing,
sheltering or evacuating thier OWN citizens is astonishing. But the great
"mayor" of said city sure did expedite evacuation of "visitors" and sent
them to the front of the line. I know I know, secretly you probably think
Bush planned THAT ONE TOO while he was secretly planning 9/11 and the Iraq
war on the "fake farm" in Texas.
The "mayor" of NO and all other elected officials in the State of Lousiana
have run out of exuses and are now standing in line to blame Bush for
everything THEY should have done, and the "press" are ready to help them "Go
Tell It On The Mountain".
While you expect the Federal Government to do EVERYTHING State Governments
and City Governments are charged to do, some of us believe otherwise.
I still feel that our energies could be far better spent HELPING rather than
bitching and reciting "Bush bashing" drivel. If you really MUST bash Bush
(presuming it helps you feel better somehow) at LEAST do some research into
how much "blame" is to be SHARED!
kilted1
uncleowen
when we humans get angry, we don't know what to do about it. Where do
we put the anger? Well, we don't want to be angry with ourselves,
right? So, let's find someone to blame. Think about the tsunami, how
a group of people in SE Asia have tried to sue the Forcasting people in
Hawaii for not giving them adequate warning. Gotta blame someone.
If we want to get angry at someone, let's get angry at and blame Mother
Earth! She has a lot of nerve to kick up all those destructive
tropical storms every September. I hope every one who complains about
the President or anyone else will also send some money to the Salvation
Army or do something sacrificial to help the people in NO.
sorry, end of sermon,
uncleowen
James D. Beard
> Here's the deal, the Feds set it up this way, people expect it to be this
> way, and the reality is that it is this way. It is now, thanks to their
> promises and programs, the Feds responsibilities. Whining about how it
> shouldn't be is like being the guy who accepts a position with power, and
> then bitches when he's expected to step up to the bat and do something.
Scoop,
Try a little reality.
The National Guard is a STATE organization. It can be
federalized, but only for Federal missions. It is the
governor's responsibility to mobilize it for any local
missions.
Second, a responsibility does not become a Federal
responsibility simply because you and a whole bunch
of others want it to be one. And many of the
responsibilities the Federal Government has taken
up by virtue of Congressional-passed legislation
(not by virtue of complaints from those such as
yourself) properly should be divested and returned
to those best positioned and best qualified to handle
them.
In point of fact, the Mayor of New Orleans and the
Governor of Louisiana knew, or should have know, far
more about the vulnerabilities of the biggest and
most important city in Louisiana than anyone in the
Federal Government should be expected to know.
And they are the best positioned, closest, to take
action to do what needs to be done. And what did
they do? Blaming the problems on Bush is pure BS.
Next, try complaining that God was not doing his job,
because he let such a thing happen. More BS.
But be careful. Bush is not likely to respond to
your complaint in fitting manner. But God may
well get ticked off and send you to a climate warm
enough to make you wish you could go back and enjoy
"Global Warming."
Cheers!
jim b.
--
Unix is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Scoop
"kilted1" <estel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:slrSe.1579$VU6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Hey, kilted one, Bush dropped the ball, and nothing, but nothing you and any
other bushite can say will change that. When you compare his miserable
actions before, during, and after the hurricane to those of his father, and
of the rest of the presidents mentioned, it's very, very clear that he's a
failure.
As to why the feds should be doing anything, it's simple, that's what
they've been collecting our money for. I didn't pay my taxes for 30 years
to have some incompetent bunch of clueless yahoos turn around and whine at
having to use the money to benefit the very citizens they claim to be
representing.
Go back into your cave, stop whining about taxes, they're a reality. Stop
whining about the size of the federal government, it's not going away
anytime soon. In other words, pull up your pants and start appreciating the
fact that a whole lot of people have put a whole lot of money and faith into
this thing we call the US, and it's time that our damned government starting
acting like it.
Scoop
Scoop
"uncleowen" <jandt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125797977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Nice try, uncleowen, but people have a right to get mad when they have paid
into a system, supported a system with their own money, and have sheer
incompetent leaders that fail to even catch on by looking at the more recent
examples of how to handle a disaster. By this time, in Florida after
Andrew, troops had been on the ground for more than just 2 days. Food had
been distributed for more than just a day.
But, what the hell, Bush is OK because he's doing the "best" he can, eh?
Bullshit. Bush is a failure when it comes to this disaster, mainly because
he failed to bother to look at past hurricanes to see how to organize the
relief efforts, failed to listen when told that the levees were in dangerous
need of repair (btw - he got out there yesterday and told Diane Sawyer that
no one could have foreseen the failure of the levees, this after he
cancelled funding that was designed to repair them and keep them from
failing. The man is totally clueless, or lying through his teeth yet
again.), and failed to catch on to the scope of the problem for two days
after it had happened.
It isn't Bush's fault that Katrina happened, but it sure as hell is his
fault that he failed to prepare and respond as was needed.
Scoop
kilted1
I didn't whine ONCE about the Federal government helping or paying taxes
either. What I AM talking about is your refusal to look at the WHOLE
picture and blame ALL of this on Bush! Typical of people with your mindset!
kilted1
Tim Daneliuk
It's too late now - the Feds have been in violation of the Constitution for
so long that they *have* to do something. But the failure here is primarily
the failure of local people to take and maintain responsibility for
local problems. I, for one, couldn't care less of NO is rebuilt or not.
I, for one, do not want my tax monies spent on doing so. I have already
contributed personally the entire amount I believe this whole business is
worth (to me). The rest should be up to other voluntary charity and
the locals.
Just to help clear this up for you: Kiddie porn falls into the legitimate
purview of law enforcement because its production requires the violation
of the civil liberties of citizens who are legally presumed unable to give
informed consent. When/if such civil liberties violations cross borders,
this then similarly becomes a legitimate concern for Federal law enforcement.
No such Federal interest exists in the the construction and maintainance of
a city built a couple of meters below sea level. Local action, local choice,
therefore local accountability.
Tim Daneliuk
> "uncleowen" <jandt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125797977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Let's face it, whenever a natural disaster hits, we get angry. So,
>>when we humans get angry, we don't know what to do about it. Where do
>>we put the anger? Well, we don't want to be angry with ourselves,
>>right? So, let's find someone to blame. Think about the tsunami, how
>>a group of people in SE Asia have tried to sue the Forcasting people in
>>Hawaii for not giving them adequate warning. Gotta blame someone.
>>If we want to get angry at someone, let's get angry at and blame Mother
>>Earth! She has a lot of nerve to kick up all those destructive
>>tropical storms every September. I hope every one who complains about
>>the President or anyone else will also send some money to the Salvation
>>Army or do something sacrificial to help the people in NO.
>>sorry, end of sermon,
>>uncleowen
>
>
> Nice try, uncleowen, but people have a right to get mad when they have paid
> into a system, supported a system with their own money, and have sheer
> incompetent leaders that fail to even catch on by looking at the more recent
A significant, perhaps even majority, of the NO population live in the
ghetto - an economic underclass. I rather think they've not
"paid into a system" at any level near approaching what they're demanding
from it. But that's just an opinion ... not a fact.
Tim Daneliuk
I'm with you insofar as humanitarian aid is concerned. This is a temporary
issue and the Feds have made promises at least implicitly. However,
under no circumstances should Federal money be used to rebuild the NO
ghetto. People who shoot at rescue helicopters and run rape squads in
emergency shelters are deserving of no long-term help from anyone.
If the people of LA really want New Orleans back that badly, let *them*
pay for it...
Scoop
"James D. Beard" <jim....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:DpsSe.12287$IT4.2038@trnddc04...
> But be careful. Bush is not likely to respond to
> your complaint in fitting manner. But God may
> well get ticked off and send you to a climate warm
> enough to make you wish you could go back and enjoy
> "Global Warming."
First off, reread the original post, and tell me how Bush did everything he
could. GO ahead. You can't.
Because he didn't. I don't give a rat's ass about what he did or didn't do
about global warming, I only really care about what he did and didn't do
during the days immediately preceding, during, and following Katrina's
landfall.
Let's put is clearly. He didn't do what his father did, nor Clinton, nor
even Nixon. He sat on his thumbs.
Everything else is meaningless in comparison to that.
Oh, and as for God, well, let's just say that he and I talk all the time,
and he never mentions your name, so I don't think I'll be taking any advice
from you on how he thinks.
Scoop
kilted1
Just for the record Scoop, I've paid taxes since I was 11 years old, and
served my country in the United States Air Force for 6 years. I'm now 44
years old and have paid my share too! Stop with the drama as though you are
the ONLY one who has invested in this Dream we call America. While self
serving, it isn't very becoming, or even truthful. Not ONCE was any of my
comments to support the idea that the Federal Government should do nothing!
But there are a whole LOT of people to share the "blame" NOT just the Bush
administration! Why did it take until Thursday NIGHT for the Senate to
act???
How about all the democratic yahoo's (KKK Byrd for example) who waste untold
millions every year on PORK ??? Just in case you think I'm making it up >>>
March 5, 2001 Tony Snow on Fox News:
"I've never been an enthusiastic admirer of Jesse Jackson. He made a bad
mistake. We all make mistakes. I made a mistake as a young man and it's
always been an albatross around my neck - I joined the Ku Klux Klan. We all
make mistakes. We can strive to overcome them. That's his situation."
kilted1
Scoop
Really??? And who else is running the damned executive branch, Skippy? Get
a clue. The people in charge of federeal response to the disaster all work
for... BUSH. Yep, he's the big honcho. Of course, in this world of "we
have to protect our chief" that you seem to live in, his desk has a big ol'
sign that says "The buck stops over there."
Scoop
Maybe not, but the rest of us have, with the opinion that the government's
first responsibility is to the welfare of its citizens. All of them. And I
doubt that you'll find a single person in New Orleans who'd say that the
poor there should fend for themselves, or complain that they didn't
contribute as much to our tax base.
But that's only speculation of course.
Scoop
Scoop
> Scoop wrote:
>
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
>> news:bgnpu2-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
>>
>> Yeah, that and a cup of coffee, Tim.
>>
>> Here's the deal, the Feds set it up this way, people expect it to be this
>> way, and the reality is that it is this way. It is now, thanks to their
>> promises and programs, the Feds responsibilities. Whining about how it
>> shouldn't be is like being the guy who accepts a position with power, and
>> then bitches when he's expected to step up to the bat and do something.
>>
>> Scoop
>
> I'm with you insofar as humanitarian aid is concerned. This is a
> temporary
> issue and the Feds have made promises at least implicitly. However,
> under no circumstances should Federal money be used to rebuild the NO
> ghetto. People who shoot at rescue helicopters and run rape squads in
> emergency shelters are deserving of no long-term help from anyone.
> If the people of LA really want New Orleans back that badly, let *them*
> pay for it...
And my point, Tim, is that they have. Maybe not as much as needed, but then
again, when the government is in the business of "insurance", as ours is,
it's time to pony up.
Now, if you can get them to change away from that afterwards, fine, but it'd
be like an insurance company saying, "we'll put you up after the fire in
your house, but after that you're on your own, we can't afford to pay for
your rebuild even though we said we would when you were paying in."
Scoop
kilted1
Someone help this man, he needs a brain transplant.
kilted1
Matt Patterson
Constitution for
> so long that they *have* to do something. But the failure here is
> primarily
> the failure of local people to take and maintain responsibility for
> local problems. I, for one, couldn't care less of NO is rebuilt or not.
> I, for one, do not want my tax monies spent on doing so. I have already
> contributed personally the entire amount I believe this whole business is
> worth (to me). The rest should be up to other voluntary charity and
> the locals.
>
> Just to help clear this up for you: Kiddie porn falls into the legitimate
> purview of law enforcement because its production requires the violation
> of the civil liberties of citizens who are legally presumed unable to give
> informed consent. When/if such civil liberties violations cross borders,
> this then similarly becomes a legitimate concern for Federal law
> enforcement.
> No such Federal interest exists in the the construction and maintainance of
> a city built a couple of meters below sea level. Local action, local
> choice,
> therefore local accountability.
>
Not so.
A significant portion of the levee system of NO is maintained by the
Army Core of Engineers, as it is part of the mississippi levee system,
which cross the borders of states, and is therefore a federal project.
NO being shut down is not a local problem. That's a very narrow view to
take, as the city and it's port play a rather substanitial role in the
delivery of petroleum into the US.
Until the port of New Orleans is reopened, the distribution and refining
of crude, and the transport and purification of natural gas, will be
significantly hampered. Gas prices will continue to go up, and
production will be decreased, and I, for one, am not looking forward to
the increase in my heating bills this winter.
If nothing else, the Fed gv't should have acted in the interest of the
wallets of the rest of the nation, which it did not.
Almost every part of this nation (indeed, the world) is connected to
every other part. If something bad happens in one place, you can rest
assured that there will be repercussions elsewhere.
I think if you're going to get in a tussle about where your tax dollars
are being spent, i think there are better things to contend with, not
helping people who are in a bad spot, even if you think it's their fault
(which is more than a little debatable). The total outlay thus far from
the feds is to the tune of 10 billion, i believe, which is, i might say,
chump change to the pork that routinely passes through congress. Twenty
times that amount is yearly evaded in taxes by american corporations.
-matt
Scoop
Wow, you're a youngster. As to the Senate, they acted immediately after
BUSH requested the aid. Couldn't do it before. OH, while we're at it, the
Congress, controlled by the REPUBLICANS, aren't the ones who can mobilize
anything. Only the President, who is also a Republican, can do that. So,
let's share the whole thing if you want - why is it that a government,
controlled by the Republicans, can't get their act together?
Better?
>
> How about all the democratic yahoo's (KKK Byrd for example) who waste
> untold
> millions every year on PORK ??? Just in case you think I'm making it up
> >>>
> March 5, 2001 Tony Snow on Fox News:
> "I've never been an enthusiastic admirer of Jesse Jackson. He made a bad
> mistake. We all make mistakes. I made a mistake as a young man and it's
> always been an albatross around my neck - I joined the Ku Klux Klan. We
> all
> make mistakes. We can strive to overcome them. That's his situation."
And that has *what* to do with Katrina? Nothing. Besides, if you're going
to complain about pork, realize that the majority of it went to areas
represented by Republicans, and that the whole thing was voted on by a
Republican House, a Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President.
The pork looks suspiciously like elephant meat right now.
Scoop
thinking, shit, you guys gotta get a better line on things than complaining
about pork when your party is doing the serving.
Scoop
> Someone help this man, he needs a brain transplant.
Oh, wow, was that supposed to pass for a pithy comment? You can't even
begin to come up with a cogent argument against my points, so you try to be
clever, how cute.
Now go home and play with your toys, and leave us big boys alone.
Scoop
and you all thought I was gone.
DeepSeaDiver
Amen to that brother
pipeman
crops to market? Didn't the fedral gov't purdhase the port in the
first place? Aren't they americans? Didn't we fight a war over we're
a nation first and individual states second? Or are the conservatives
just happy to see poor blacks (they all vote democratic anyway) suffer?
KL
LGS-DS in a Barling Guinea Grain
Ngo Dinh Diem
elections campaigns and are thus beholden to them whilst in office
(probably a partial explanation for America's refusal to budge on the
Palestinian/Israel issue because of the powerful Jewish lobby there.)
What's more they are treated as demi-gods when they are in power to
SERVE the people who elect them and alltogether forget this fact, most
presidents accross the globe could do munching on a bit of humble pie
and actually remembering why they are in office, not as awe-inducing
populists but servants of the people.
Tim Daneliuk
This is the usual "we're all interconnected" crock that is used to
justify every single usurpation of States' rights by the Federal
government. You with then follow with the "the feds are already
stealing and this is small by comparison" line of reasoning. Both
are profoundly wrong and irrelevant lines of thinking on the matter.
The fact is that natural market forces are the quickest way to get
to effective/efficient/sustainable social structures. We do not
need the governmenet "acting in the interest of the wallets ..."
we need it to get out of the way of said wallets.
Thumbs down ...
Tim Daneliuk
Your misunderstanding of US history is profound. State's rights were the
centerpiece of US Federalism from the very beginning. The Revolutionary
War was fought to remove British control, not to relinquish the
independence of the individual colonies to some new strong central
government. In fact, this limited Federalism was the norm until the baby
got thrown out with the bathwater in 1865. This was then exacerbated by
the looney collectivism of FDR.
Let's review using small words and simple ideas:
1) It's not the Federal government's job to help farmers get their
crops to market.
2) It's not the Federal government's job to run the ports, large or small.
3) We did not first fight a Revolutionary war to become a nation. That
came later and then only when all involved agreed to purposely cripple
the power of the Federal government by the language of the Constitution.
4) Today's Conservatives and Liberals are identical in almost every way.
They merely differ on who to screw and who to spend the money on to
buy votes. Neither is particularly interested in freedom or the preservation
and durability of a free people. Liberals, however, are as a group more
obnoxious about it in that they rewrite history they don't understand in
the first place to peddle a feeble minded ideology more suited for
3rd-rate tribal backwaters than the most powerful nation on the planet.
Tim Daneliuk
> All American presidents are corrupt, various lobby groups support their
> elections campaigns and are thus beholden to them whilst in office
> (probably a partial explanation for America's refusal to budge on the
> Palestinian/Israel issue because of the powerful Jewish lobby there.)
Well, that and the fact that Palestinian moms strap C-4 and packets
of BBs on their children so that they can suicide and kill Israeli
children. You and the rest of the professionally self-righteous
are gonna have a great big Smarmy Sandwitch to chomp on as you
witness those fine Palestinians and how they behave in the newly
freed "occupied territories". The Palestinian/Israeli "problem"
is a diversion that is designed to keep Western Liberals and other
intellectual bottomfeeders busy. The people of the region - Arab and
Jew alike - know that the *real* issue has to do with the oppressive
Arab governments and the Islamic paradises they've created.
> What's more they are treated as demi-gods when they are in power to
> SERVE the people who elect them and alltogether forget this fact, most
> presidents accross the globe could do munching on a bit of humble pie
> and actually remembering why they are in office, not as awe-inducing
> populists but servants of the people.
>
You surely must be smoking crack. The politicans in power are
*precisely* what the Sheeple want. Those politicans *are* demi-gods,
so created by the Sheeple. They want all the "free stuff"
they can get and they elect politicians who will do their pilfering
for them - drug benefits, disaster relief, schools, soccer stadiums,
and so forth - the worst corporate corruption in the world is but
a minor footnote when compared to the greed and theft organized by
the Sheeple. We have met the enemy and it is our neighbor...
smokey
lot of people in this group are going to get broken noses.
Smokey
Matt Patterson
> justify every single usurpation of States' rights by the Federal
> government. You with then follow with the "the feds are already
> stealing and this is small by comparison" line of reasoning. Both
> are profoundly wrong and irrelevant lines of thinking on the matter.
> The fact is that natural market forces are the quickest way to get
> to effective/efficient/sustainable social structures. We do not
> need the governmenet "acting in the interest of the wallets ..."
> we need it to get out of the way of said wallets.
>
> Thumbs down ...
>
Firstly, I still say this is a totally ridiculous state's rights
argument, since, in fact, we are talking about a state's
-responsibilities- having been picked up by the Feds. In no way did the
Federal government -prevent- the states from buliding a better levee
system. I don't think that louisianna, being rather poor, was going to
complain when the feds said "Well, we have this levee project, along the
mississippi, and many of your cities levees happen to belong to this
interstate system, and we believe that this makes them fall under the
jurisdiction of the Army Core of Engineers, much like the interstate
highway system." This is an instance of the Feds taking up a
responisiblity, and then failing to fill it properly. The state of
Louisanna, of course, is ever more poorly suited to deal with the situation.
Regardless.
So, you disagree that your gas prices have gone up?
You disagree that, in fact, a major chunk of this nations refining and
supply system have been disrupted?
You disagree that, in fact, the levee system, which is a federal
project, like it or not, has been chronically underfunded?
You feel that this things do not effect you, in person, in anyway?
Perhaps you ride a bike all the time, and live in the desert, and heat
your home with solar collectors. I don't know. But it seems likely to
me that you will feel the repercussions of a lack of planning here, and
will continue to do so, particularly if the economy nosedives on this,
which it could.
I'm not pointing fingers here, at any given administration, this has
been a known problem for years, and a lot of people have tried to fix
it, not least including the project managers in the ACoE
It's true that the governor of Louisanna and probably also of
Mississippi should have mobilized the guard more effectively before the
storm struck. However, it wouldn't be necessary to bring in guard
forces from as far away as Indiana (guardsmen from my area left earlier
today), had the NG not been siphoned off to meet the needs of a flagging
Army. Now i'm pointing fingers.
Also, i didn't say that the feds were stealing. Read more closely. I'm
saying that business are ripping the country off, by buying congressmen
who pass tax code that screws regular people. One out of four people
who make over $200,000 dollars pays no income tax. Huge corporations
pay a pittance into the system, and reap the benefits.
John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest men in his time, and a rare one,
felt that the rich have an obligation to the poor. This was largely due
to his very strict religious upbringing, but he felt that, having more
money than he could ever use, he should do something for others with it.
This feeling, of an obligation of those who are well off to help those
who are not, has not been carried forward into the future, i'm afraid.
I won't get into an arguement about 'market forces', as it has been
amply demonstrated that business act in their own interest, and not in
the interest of their workers/customers/community. Where those
interests happen to coincide, everyone benefits. Sadly, this is rarely
the case. Do you think BP Amaco really cares that you're going to be
paying over three dollars for a gallon of gas, quite possibly for
months? They have 20 some billion dollars -in cash-, ready at hand to
do what they need to do to get things back into ship-shape. The same
cannot be said for everyday americans.
What i would like to see is you not handwave valid arguments and deny
that you are going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the country.
Matt Patterson
Tim, you have at once remarkable faith in, and also remarkable contempt
for, the human animal.
It's really quite dazzling.
Ngo Dinh Diem
I don't suppose you have noticed how the Israelis have progressively
impoverished the Palestinians over the past few decades reducing vast
swathes of land to rubble and decimating entire villages all in the
name of 'peace.' If your house was bulldozed along with all the other
basic amenities in your shithole of a village you would probably be
ever so slightly irked, and while not an excuse for the suicide
bombers' wrath it sure provides some insight into the situation. Oh I
love it how you put occupied territories in quote marks as if to
suggest that it did not belong to the Palestinians at all, someone
needs to read their history books.....
The M-theorist
<sir_g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>All American presidents are corrupt, various lobby groups support their
>elections campaigns and are thus beholden to them whilst in office
>(probably a partial explanation for America's refusal to budge on the
>Palestinian/Israel issue because of the powerful Jewish lobby there.)
Oh, come on. Are you really that naive or just an apologist for the
revisionist right? If you check the registry of American lobbies,you
will find that there is no "Jewish lobby." It is a falacy conjured up
by racist/anti-Semites. Why is it that pro-Israel lobbies in the
United States are somehow considered "Jewish lobbies" while pro-Irish
lobbies are not considered "Catholic lobbies" or pro-British lobbies,
"Episcopalian lobbies." It's because Jews have always been the
scapegoats for what's wrong with this world--I suppose it's a
punishment for being different by not accepting Jesus Christ as the
messiah--or the result of envy and jealousy for being at the forefront
of scientific, cultural, literary and social achievements. Jews have
given the world the likes of Einstein, Freud, Feynman, Mahler,
Spinoza, Chagall, Kafka, Marx, Ricardo and Bizet--to name just a
few--yet in return they have received pogroms, ghettos and
concentration camps. They were blamed for the depression in 1930's
Germany (i.e,.the alleged justification for their extermination), the
declining morality in 15th Century Spain (the alleged justification
for the inquisition), and in much of the Arab world they were blamed
for the 9/11 attacks--there were reports that up to 60% of all
Pakistanis believed that 9/11 was perpetrated by Israel and India--(an
alleged justification, I suspect, for continued Arab-inspired
terrorism against Israel).
As for the United States' position on the Palestinian
question--consider the fact that Israel has been the only stable
democracy in the middle east over the past 50 years and one of the
United States' most loyal allies--if not THE most loyal. Consider,
for example, the fact that during the Gulf War, Israel stood back and
obeyed the dictates of George Bush (Senior) not to become involved,
while Saddam Hussein was lobbing scud missile after scud missile at
Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Would any other ally have been so obedient or
so loyal? Consider the fact that the existence of the "occupied
territories" was not the result of Zionist/Imperialist expansion as
folks like you mistakenly believe or intentionally misrepresent, but
rather, one of the spoils of war--a war that Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Syria and Jordan started--not Israel. Read your history books. Why
is it that Israel must give up territories it won fairly and squarely
38 years ago when nobody questions why the Phillippines are not
returned to Spain or Greece returned to the Turks? Why can't Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan accept at least some of the Palestinian
refugees as citizens of their own countries? After all, they are more
responsible for the Palestinians' displacement than anyone. Let us
also not forget that the land of Israel (only a portion of which
comprises the modern State of Israel) was stolen from the Jews
countless centuries ago, not to be reclaimed until 57 years ago. Why
does your kind ignore this important fact of history? Israel was the
Jewish homeland more than 4000 years before Mohammed was even born!
If you insist upon assailing lobbies, the pro-Arab lobby in the United
States--not to mention the oil interests subsumed thereunder-- is a
far more powerful lobby than Israel and the six million American Jews
could ever hope to become. Are Americans not slaves to oil,
notwithstanding the availability of cheaper alternative fuels? Are
fuel prices not at the whim of OPEC (which is dominated by Arab
countries)?
Lest I be accused of being anti-Arab, I only raise the issue of the
"pro-Arab" lobby to make the point that American politics is not at
all as you suggest, dominated by officials who are beholden to foreign
interests or ethnic interests within their own borders. U.S. foreign
policy is not as simplistic as that. While lobbyists certainly exert
some influence over politicians (as they do in most countries),
lobbyists tend to cancel each other out when it comes to the big
picture, and most U.S. leaders, save a few, do not believe that what's
good for General Motors is necessarily always good for America.
I am also not suggesting that the Palestinians should all fall into
the Gulf of Aqiba and drown. I am merely saying that the solution to
the Palestinian question is not as simple as you suggest it is and
that Israel's stake in Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank is
as legitimate from an historical perspective as the Palestinians'.
It was Sartre who said, "Jews exist because of anti-Semitism." I
suppose as long as there are narrow-minded, ignorant, intolerant
misanthropes in the world who condemn others for being different than
they are, there will be Jews--both literally and figuratively!
The M-theorist
Briarroot
> Scoop wrote:
>
>> Here's the deal, the Feds set it up this way, people expect it to be
>> this way, and the reality is that it is this way. It is now, thanks
>> to their promises and programs, the Feds responsibilities. Whining
>> about how it shouldn't be is like being the guy who accepts a position
>> with power, and then bitches when he's expected to step up to the bat
>> and do something.
>
> your complaint in fitting manner. But God may
> well get ticked off and send you to a climate warm
> enough to make you wish you could go back and enjoy
> "Global Warming."
>
LOL
I wonder it they're in compliance with the Federal Air Quality statutes
down there? ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Germain's Medium Flake in a Savinelli blast apple
Briarroot
>
> Hey, kilted one, Bush dropped the ball, and nothing, but nothing you and any
> other bushite can say will change that. When you compare his miserable
> actions before, during, and after the hurricane to those of his father, and
> of the rest of the presidents mentioned, it's very, very clear that he's a
> failure.
Well, at least it's clear to *some* people. <shrug!>
> As to why the feds should be doing anything, it's simple, that's what
> they've been collecting our money for. I didn't pay my taxes for 30 years
> to have some incompetent bunch of clueless yahoos turn around and whine at
> having to use the money to benefit the very citizens they claim to be
> representing.
Nonsense. You paid you taxes because you *have* to. Otherwise, men
with badges would have paid you a visit. It would not have been a
social call.
> Go back into your cave, stop whining about taxes, they're a reality. Stop
> whining about the size of the federal government, it's not going away
> anytime soon. In other words, pull up your pants and start appreciating the
> fact that a whole lot of people have put a whole lot of money and faith into
> this thing we call the US, and it's time that our damned government starting
> acting like it.
>
Just to turn that specious argument around...
Go back into your flower garden and stop whining about Bush, about what
he does and what he doesn't do. He's not going away any time soon. In
other words, pull up your pants and start appreciating that a whole lot
of people voted him in into office (twice) and have put a whole lot of
money and faith behind him, what he is and what he stands for.
Briarroot
>
> Also, i didn't say that the feds were stealing. Read more closely. I'm
> saying that business are ripping the country off, by buying congressmen
> who pass tax code that screws regular people. One out of four people
> who make over $200,000 dollars pays no income tax. Huge corporations
> pay a pittance into the system, and reap the benefits.
Care to offer a factual citation for this bit of blarney?
Briarroot
>
> All American presidents are corrupt, various lobby groups support their
> elections campaigns and are thus beholden to them whilst in office
> (probably a partial explanation for America's refusal to budge on the
> Palestinian/Israel issue because of the powerful Jewish lobby there.)
Sheesh, you're one of *those* nuts, are you?
The US supports Israel's claims to its conquered territories for the
same reason it rejects native American claims on the USA. Should all
Americans up sticks and return to the various countries of their
forebearers[1] because the continent was wrested from its original
inhabitants by force? I vote no!
[1] Which would be difficult since most of us are no longer purely one
nationality or another, (except American).
> What's more they are treated as demi-gods when they are in power to
> SERVE the people who elect them and alltogether forget this fact, most
> presidents accross the globe could do munching on a bit of humble pie
> and actually remembering why they are in office, not as awe-inducing
> populists but servants of the people.
On this point, and *only* on this point, do I agree with anything you've
ever said. Congratulations!
Briarroot
>
> I don't suppose you have noticed how the Israelis have progressively
> impoverished the Palestinians over the past few decades reducing vast
> swathes of land to rubble and decimating entire villages all in the
> name of 'peace.' If your house was bulldozed along with all the other
> basic amenities in your shithole of a village you would probably be
> ever so slightly irked, and while not an excuse for the suicide
> bombers' wrath it sure provides some insight into the situation. Oh I
> love it how you put occupied territories in quote marks as if to
> suggest that it did not belong to the Palestinians at all, someone
> needs to read their history books.....
>
The most prosperous Palestinians in the Middle East, the ones with the
highest standard of living, are those that chose to stay home, rather
than leave when the nation of Israel was formed. They are a small
minority in Israel, but (considering the actions of their cousins) they
are well treated and even hold seats in the Israeli Knesset. Everywhere
else in the Middle East, the Palestinians have neglected to improve
their lot, living much as they did 50 years ago. If they live in what
you term "shit holes" they have no one to blame but themselves. Also
take careful note of what their brother Arabs have done by *preventing*
their assimilation into neighboring states, instead fostering and
anti-Jewish hatred that more than anything else is responsible for the
misery of the Palestinian people today. If those Palestinians who chose
to leave their homes in Israel in 1948 had been welcomed into Jordan,
Syria, Egypt and Iran, peace might have settled over the region. If
there is no peace, it is because the Arabs do not want peace.
The houses that are bulldozed are those owned by the families of the
suicide murderers. It may not be a sound policy, but it is entirely
understandable. You may yourself be in need of a refresher course in
history, since you have neglected to learn that Palestine was home to
the Israelites before the Romans conquered and dispersed them. In 1948,
they finally returned home.
Tim Daneliuk
What a joke - the Israelis took over a bunch of sand (at the behest
of the highly vaunted UN) and turned it into a modern state. The
so-called Palestinians (Hashemites really) *started out impoverished*
as mostly herders and agrarian workers. They have *benefitted* as the
Israelis created places with running water, electricity, air conditioning
and all the rest. Go take a look the Palestinian civil liberties under
Jordan and the compare them to the rights they had under Israeli rule.
Better yet ... you go read a history book. I'll be happy to help with the big
words ...
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
>
> highway system." This is an instance of the Feds taking up a
> responisiblity, and then failing to fill it properly. The state of
> Louisanna, of course, is ever more poorly suited to deal with the
> situation.
I agree completely. My only point is that this *always* happens
when the Feds stick their beaks into what is none of their legitimate
business.
>
> Regardless.
>
> So, you disagree that your gas prices have gone up?
> You disagree that, in fact, a major chunk of this nations refining and
> supply system have been disrupted?
Of course, so what? It's suddenly the government's job to supply me
gas at a price I like?
>
> You disagree that, in fact, the levee system, which is a federal
> project, like it or not, has been chronically underfunded?
Exactly *because* it is Federally run. Levees would be properly
funded if people who benefitted from them were responsible for them.
OR People would move and levees would be unnecesary.
>
> You feel that this things do not effect you, in person, in anyway?
Of course they do. But I do not go running to Mommy Washington everytime
I have a personal issue. I still treasure freedom far more than I
do the illusion of comfort and safety peddled by the Feds.
<SNIP>
> Also, i didn't say that the feds were stealing. Read more closely. I'm
> saying that business are ripping the country off, by buying congressmen
> who pass tax code that screws regular people. One out of four people
> who make over $200,000 dollars pays no income tax. Huge corporations
> pay a pittance into the system, and reap the benefits.
That is an IMMENSE crock. Who do you think owns "huge corporations"?
*YOU* do (and me and most everyone else) in the form of retirement
funds. Corporations are not some mystical power with invisible
men with dark hearts running them - they are primarily owned by
millions of citizen owners. And they are NOT "ripping the country off".
They are already paying a disproportionate percentage of the
country's ever-growing taxes. Sure, there are some cheats, but as I
said, they don't begin to approximate the legalized theft the Sheeple
vote themselves in the form of Entitlement Programs.
>
> John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest men in his time, and a rare one,
> felt that the rich have an obligation to the poor. This was largely due
> to his very strict religious upbringing, but he felt that, having more
> money than he could ever use, he should do something for others with it.
> This feeling, of an obligation of those who are well off to help those
> who are not, has not been carried forward into the future, i'm afraid.
You are out of your everloving mind. Who builds new hospital wings?
Crack addicts? Who funds research in universities? The poor?
Who funds the arts? The middle class?
Just because "the rich" don't give as much away as *you* think they
should doesn't make their contributions disappear. You need to
guy buy/rent a serious clue. When was the last time *you* gave
millions to one of your Noble Causes (tm)? I tire of the professionally
self-righteous who all want to make the world a better place with
Other People's Money.
>
> I won't get into an arguement about 'market forces', as it has been
> amply demonstrated that business act in their own interest, and not in
> the interest of their workers/customers/community. Where those
Which means they are acting in the interest of their millions of
citizen owners. A completely morally appropriate thing to do so long
as they don't do it with fraud/force/threat.
> interests happen to coincide, everyone benefits. Sadly, this is rarely
> the case. Do you think BP Amaco really cares that you're going to be
> paying over three dollars for a gallon of gas, quite possibly for
> months? They have 20 some billion dollars -in cash-, ready at hand to
Do you think the pilferers in Washington DC, your looting fellow citizens
who sent them there, or Suzie Soccer Mom who wants Something For Nothing
cares about you more?
> do what they need to do to get things back into ship-shape. The same
> cannot be said for everyday americans.
>
> What i would like to see is you not handwave valid arguments and deny
> that you are going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the country.
Of course I feel the pinch - more than most people I suspect. But I don't
go screaming in fear to Mommy every time I have a problem. I'm a grownup
and I take responsibility for my own choices and actions.
Scoop
"Briarroot" <woo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:11hlqe1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Go back into your flower garden and stop whining about Bush, about what he
> does and what he doesn't do. He's not going away any time soon. In other
> words, pull up your pants and start appreciating that a whole lot of
> people voted him in into office (twice) and have put a whole lot of money
> and faith behind him, what he is and what he stands for.
AH, you mistake me Tim, I don't expect him to go away. I do expect him to
do his job, which, as you'll not if you read my first message, he hasn't.
What I find amazing is the amount of denial that exists within his
supporters over his failure to even half of what his father did in a similar
situation. It's no wonder at all that his popularity is sinking faster than
a lead balloon, I'd be very surprised if we don't see a huge negative
response in the upcoming congressional elections.
Scoop
Matt Patterson
> same reason it rejects native American claims on the USA. Should all
> Americans up sticks and return to the various countries of their
> forebearers[1] because the continent was wrested from its original
> inhabitants by force? I vote no!
>
> [1] Which would be difficult since most of us are no longer purely one
> nationality or another, (except American).
>
Er, but that's sort of the point of Israel: It is the ancestral home of
the jews, dispersed in the first century-ish, by the conquring romans.
Recognizing that jews have a right to return to their ancient homeland,
which has been ruled by non-jews for the better part of 2,000 years, is
well, that's a lot more extreme than handing some land back to Indians.
-matt
Matt Patterson
Here's a few things i was able to find on the subject, with a few
minutes of investigating. Read at your liesure.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/corrupt/2002/0326evasion.htm
I was watching CSPAN and say the interview with one of the authors of
this book, who quoted said statistic. I may well be remembering it
incorrectly, as it was a few years ago. Your local library may well
have it.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060084316/102-3468569-9825734?v=glance
A discussion from the House:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=8471
-matt
F. Prefect
wrote:
>Bush 43 - August 2005 - Cat-5 Hurricane Katrina bears down on New Orleans
>and the Mississippi gulf. Both states are down nearly 8,000 National Guard
>troops because they are in Iraq -- with most of the rescue gear needed.
>Bush is on vacation. The day before Katrina makes landfall, Bush rides his
>bike for two hours. The day she hits, he goes to Johnnie McCain's birthday
>party; and lies to old people about the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical
>company welfare boondoggle. People are dying, the largest port of entry in
>the United States (and fifth largest in the World) is under attack. Troops
>and supplies are desperately needed. The levees are cracking and the
>emergency 1-1/2 ton sandbags are ready, but there aren't enough helicopters
>or pilots to set them before the levees fail. The mayor of New Orleans begs
>for Federal coordination, but there is none, and the sandbagging never gets
>done. So Bush -- naturally -- goes to San Diego to play guitar with a
>country singer and lie to the military about how Iraq is just exactly like
>WWII. The levees give way, filling New Orleans with water, sewage, oil and
>chemicals. Ten percent of all US exports, and 50% of all agricultural
>exports ordinarily go through this port. It is totally destroyed. Bush
>decides he'll end his vacation a couple of days early -- TOMORROW --BECAUSE
>HE HAS TICKETS TO A PADRES GAME! He goes back to the Fake Farm in Crawford,
>with every intention of doing something on WEDNESDAY about this disaster
>that happened starting last Sunday night.
>
>Failure to plan. Too little response, too late. Insufficent troop and
>equipment levels -- sound familiar?
Why shouldn't it? It does seem to run in the family.
F. Prefect
Charles Perry
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200509020719.asp
Charles Perry P.E.
Matt Patterson
> Matt Patterson wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>
>
>
>> highway system." This is an instance of the Feds taking up a
>> responisiblity, and then failing to fill it properly. The state of
>> Louisanna, of course, is ever more poorly suited to deal with the
>> situation.
>
>
> I agree completely. My only point is that this *always* happens
> when the Feds stick their beaks into what is none of their legitimate
> business.
I think it's safe to say that both of us agree that the US government,
is bloated, flailing beast. However, we differ in that i expect it to
fulfill what it sets out to do, regardless of whether or not it should
be doing it.
>> Regardless.
>>
>> So, you disagree that your gas prices have gone up?
>> You disagree that, in fact, a major chunk of this nations refining and
>> supply system have been disrupted?
>
>
> Of course, so what? It's suddenly the government's job to supply me
> gas at a price I like?
>
>>
>> You disagree that, in fact, the levee system, which is a federal
>> project, like it or not, has been chronically underfunded?
>
>
> Exactly *because* it is Federally run. Levees would be properly
> funded if people who benefitted from them were responsible for them.
> OR People would move and levees would be unnecesary.
>
>>
This is not necessarily the case. The people who benefit from the levees
in NO, in particular, and in many places, can't pay for them (i also get
greatly annoyed with all the people who build houses on hills that
wildfires regularly burn down). I do agree that it seems like a stupid
idea to build in places where you -need- levees at all, but there aren't
many places around their to build, while the port of New Orleans is
tremendously important for trade.
>> You feel that this things do not effect you, in person, in anyway?
>
>
> Of course they do. But I do not go running to Mommy Washington everytime
> I have a personal issue. I still treasure freedom far more than I
> do the illusion of comfort and safety peddled by the Feds.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Also, i didn't say that the feds were stealing. Read more closely. I'm
>> saying that business are ripping the country off, by buying
>> congressmen who pass tax code that screws regular people. One out of
>> four people who make over $200,000 dollars pays no income tax. Huge
>> corporations pay a pittance into the system, and reap the benefits.
>
>
> That is an IMMENSE crock. Who do you think owns "huge corporations"?
> *YOU* do (and me and most everyone else) in the form of retirement
> funds. Corporations are not some mystical power with invisible
> men with dark hearts running them - they are primarily owned by
> millions of citizen owners. And they are NOT "ripping the country off".
> They are already paying a disproportionate percentage of the
> country's ever-growing taxes. Sure, there are some cheats, but as I
> said, they don't begin to approximate the legalized theft the Sheeple
> vote themselves in the form of Entitlement Programs.
>
Retirement funds? You think i have a retirement fund?
Mind you, i should, because i don't trust social security to exist by
the time i'll need it... but it's real iffy as to whether or not i can
afford one.
I know perhaps a half dozen people, all of them over 45, who have
pensions, or retirement funds.
A few links on the subject:
http://www.iupat.org/pension/natnews.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/13/national/main533047.shtml
http://www.gao.gov/sp/html/strobj14.html
>>
>> John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest men in his time, and a rare
>> one, felt that the rich have an obligation to the poor. This was
>> largely due to his very strict religious upbringing, but he felt that,
>> having more money than he could ever use, he should do something for
>> others with it.
>> This feeling, of an obligation of those who are well off to help those
>> who are not, has not been carried forward into the future, i'm afraid.
>
>
> You are out of your everloving mind. Who builds new hospital wings?
> Crack addicts? Who funds research in universities? The poor?
> Who funds the arts? The middle class?
>
> Just because "the rich" don't give as much away as *you* think they
> should doesn't make their contributions disappear. You need to
> guy buy/rent a serious clue. When was the last time *you* gave
> millions to one of your Noble Causes (tm)? I tire of the professionally
> self-righteous who all want to make the world a better place with
> Other People's Money.
>
Who builds new hospital wings? Usually the owners of the hospital, in my
experience. There may be some donor who gets the wing named after them,
but usually it's the owners of the hospital.
Who funds research in Universities? A very small group of trusts setup
by people like Rockefeller, who set up trusts for the public benefit
with some of their money eighty years ago.
I'm not saying that the uber-wealthy don't do something/anything.
But, you know, i just can't fathom hording that much money. Does one
really -need- 10 billion dollars? You could easily do a lot of good
things, enormous things, with half that money, and not have it effect
the way you live in any way. Aside from the fact that you wouldn't have
to pay any taxes, because you'd given away so much of your income.
But, you know, you probably think i'm a sucker. I've give bums money on
the street, if i have any.
>> I won't get into an arguement about 'market forces', as it has been
>> amply demonstrated that business act in their own interest, and not in
>> the interest of their workers/customers/community. Where those
>
>
> Which means they are acting in the interest of their millions of
> citizen owners. A completely morally appropriate thing to do so long
> as they don't do it with fraud/force/threat.
Something like 50% of the country owns some form of stock or real
estate, based an a quick google, more than i expected, actually.
I'll agree that stockholders do benefit from a company they own a piece
of making money. That steal leaves a significant portion of society,
the lower portion, get trampled on in pursual of the dollar.
>> interests happen to coincide, everyone benefits. Sadly, this is rarely
>> the case. Do you think BP Amaco really cares that you're going to be
>> paying over three dollars for a gallon of gas, quite possibly for
>> months? They have 20 some billion dollars -in cash-, ready at hand to
>
>
> Do you think the pilferers in Washington DC, your looting fellow citizens
> who sent them there, or Suzie Soccer Mom who wants Something For Nothing
> cares about you more?
>
>> do what they need to do to get things back into ship-shape. The same
>> cannot be said for everyday americans.
>>
>> What i would like to see is you not handwave valid arguments and deny
>> that you are going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the country.
>
>
> Of course I feel the pinch - more than most people I suspect. But I don't
> go screaming in fear to Mommy every time I have a problem. I'm a grownup
> and I take responsibility for my own choices and actions.
Here's the crux of our differences, i think, as there are more than a
few things we agree on:
You feel that the government should not provide 'social services', that
seems fairly obvious to me, based on your references above.
I'm not sure who this "suzie soccer mom' who wants free stuff is, or
what it is that she is purported to want.
Perhaps you are refering to people who don't want to pay taxes, i can't
really make out with any precision what you are refering to.
Most social services benefit the working poor, the elderly and indigent.
The system -is- flawed, and there are people who exploit that.
However, i think it's better than nothing.
As i said, i come from a working poor background, and who knows if i'd
be here today without these programs.
The only reason that i, and most of the people i know, could go to
college, is because of federal loan programs.
Maybe you feel there's nothing inherently wrong with these programs, but
feel they should be run by the States, and not by the Feds.
The main problem with that is this: There are parts of this country
that don't have very much money. There are a lot of states that don't
have the money to do these things.
However, there's this line in the Constituition (which i know you are
fond of): Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 "The Citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
several States."
This means that it's a basic right of citizens of all states to have
access to the same things, be they rich or poor. The only way that can
happen is to distribute money down the economic ladder, and the only
mechanisms we have for that are federal tax and federal programs.
Regardless of all that, we're suffering from some basic ideological
diffences, here. Neither of us is really going to convince the other
about much of anything, and i think we agree on the salient points about
what this thread was, at some point, about.
I.e. The situation in the Gulf has been badly mismanaged, both at the
federal and state level, and it's pretty much a giant clusterfuck, and
it was largely avoidable, if only people would use a little bit of damn
common sense.
Other than that, no amount of linking or typing by either one of us is
going to sway either one of us to change our minds about these things,
as they are basic differences in world view.
I will say that i've enjoyed the exchange, actually, and i'm glad that
there are still people online who can have a serious, even heated
exchange of ideas, without it becoming personal and mean-spirited.
From here on out, i probably won't be making long posts for a while, as
my wrists are starting to act up, and i'd rather not aggravate them
further. I'll probably poke my head into these debates here and there,
but not at this level.
It's been fun!
Matt Patterson
think there's really a single thing on there that i don't agree with.
Which is a little funny considering, but, eh, that's life.
-matt
Briarroot
>
> Exactly *because* it is Federally run. Levees would be properly
> funded if people who benefitted from them were responsible for them.
> OR People would move and levees would be unnecesary.
Note how New Orleans somehow found the money to build the Superdome, but
not to maintain the levees.
:-/
Regards,
Tim Parker ... VA#1 in a no-name billiard
Briarroot
According to the time line published in my morning newspaper today, the
President "declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, authorizing
federal emergency management officials to release aid and co-ordinate
disaster relief efforts" on Saturday, two days *before* the storm hit,
and before either the Mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of LA took
any action at all! So why *are* you dumping everything on him?
Briarroot
You completely missed the point!
Scoop
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> Exactly *because* it is Federally run. Levees would be properly
>> funded if people who benefitted from them were responsible for them.
>> OR People would move and levees would be unnecesary.
>
> Note how New Orleans somehow found the money to build the Superdome, but
> not to maintain the levees.
Maybe that's because the levees are owned and maintained by the Army Corps
of Engineers.
Scoop
Matt Patterson
Huh. I suppose i did!
heheh.
Too much typing, i guess.
-matt
Matt Patterson
the superdome also makes money, though i'm sure a good portion of it was
paid for by the state.
Not all the levees are controlled by the ACoE, and i think you're right
on the money here: People need to get their friggin priorities straight.
There's been a big hubub about the Colts wanting a new stadium in
Indianapolis. I say the money should be spent on schools.
What do i know?
-matt
Ngo Dinh Diem
It is kind of hard to change ones station in life when one needs to
stop at a roadblock every 100 metres to get to work and be denied basic
human rights whilst having ones town constantly overrun by soldiers who
shoot old people and children with abandon all in tha name of 'national
security'....much like Bush! WHat about those who have had their
livelihoods cut off by 'The Wall' that has been built, illegally,
across Palestinian land? Ask the soldiers nicely not to shoot at them
while they pick their olives (as has happened on numerous occasions) or
politely play the fiddle at the roadblock while dancing? In any case
the Israelis have not made 'their' country alone-America has heavily
funded the Jewish state, the only reason it still stands is because it
is propped up by American 'aid' not to mention the influx of guns and
ordnance with which to rid themselves of those Pesky 'Rag heads.'
Scoop
Well, let's see -
From the Science Daily, on August 27th
"President Bush late Saturday declared a state of emergency in Louisiana.
The governors of Louisiana and Mississippi declared emergencies Friday, and
mandatory evacuation orders were in effect for some of Louisiana's low-lying
areas, CNN reported."
So, The governors were acting before Bush.
On Saturday, the 27th, the mayor of New Orleans called for voluntary
evacuations at 5PM. The next morning he changed that to mandatory
evacuations. That same day the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi asked
for aid and additional security forces, in advance of the storm.
Bush did nothing.
Here's the link to their letter.
http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf
And at the same time they asked for the area to be declared a major
disaster, not a "state of emergency."
Hope this helps clarify a bit.
Scoop
Charles Perry
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1IOSe.309030$x96.236256@attbi_s72...
>
Interesting discussion of the disentegration of the NO Police Dept.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050903-3850.html
Charles Perry P.E.
Scoop
"Charles Perry" <pipesan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3o1rjoF...@individual.net...
>
> "Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:1IOSe.309030$x96.236256@attbi_s72...
>>
>
> Interesting discussion of the disentegration of the NO Police Dept.
Yep, can't blame them. Let's see - outnumbered men, no support, low on food
themselves, facing hell and a crowd armed with guns as good, if not better,
than their own. I can see why they'd quit.
Oh, two things - 1) This alone would have allowed the Feds to trigger
provisions in the National Response Plan, and 2) Chertoff claims that they
had "no idea" of the violence in New Orleans prior to Thursday. Apparently
the man never reads newpapers or watches TV.
Scoop
Joe LaVigne
>> Exactly *because* it is Federally run. Levees would be properly
>> funded if people who benefitted from them were responsible for them.
>> OR People would move and levees would be unnecesary.
>>
>>>
>
> This is not necessarily the case. The people who benefit from the levees
> in NO, in particular, and in many places, can't pay for them (i also get
> greatly annoyed with all the people who build houses on hills that
> wildfires regularly burn down). I do agree that it seems like a stupid
> idea to build in places where you -need- levees at all, but there aren't
> many places around their to build, while the port of New Orleans is
> tremendously important for trade.
The same importance could have been attached o a great many places. There
is no reason that the Port couldn't have been built somewhere else.
>> That is an IMMENSE crock. Who do you think owns "huge corporations"?
>> *YOU* do (and me and most everyone else) in the form of retirement
>> funds. Corporations are not some mystical power with invisible
>> men with dark hearts running them - they are primarily owned by
>> millions of citizen owners. And they are NOT "ripping the country off".
>> They are already paying a disproportionate percentage of the
>> country's ever-growing taxes. Sure, there are some cheats, but as I
>> said, they don't begin to approximate the legalized theft the Sheeple
>> vote themselves in the form of Entitlement Programs.
>>
>
>
> Retirement funds? You think i have a retirement fund?
> Mind you, i should, because i don't trust social security to exist by
> the time i'll need it... but it's real iffy as to whether or not i can
> afford one.
>
> I know perhaps a half dozen people, all of them over 45, who have
> pensions, or retirement funds.
If you don't, I hate to say it, but you are being immensely stupid. A
retirement fund will cost you little to nothing. It may even increase your
take-home pay. And it will benefit you (or your family) in huge ways in
the future.
Anyone thst doesn't take advantage of such a fund is just burying their
head in the sand. Please stop.
>>
>> You are out of your everloving mind. Who builds new hospital wings?
>> Crack addicts? Who funds research in universities? The poor?
>> Who funds the arts? The middle class?
>>
>> Just because "the rich" don't give as much away as *you* think they
>> should doesn't make their contributions disappear. You need to
>> guy buy/rent a serious clue. When was the last time *you* gave
>> millions to one of your Noble Causes (tm)? I tire of the professionally
>> self-righteous who all want to make the world a better place with
>> Other People's Money.
>>
>
> Who builds new hospital wings? Usually the owners of the hospital, in my
> experience. There may be some donor who gets the wing named after them,
> but usually it's the owners of the hospital.
And who is the owner? There are plenty of privately owned, or Religiously
owned hospitals. Most run better than the publically owned ones.
>
> Who funds research in Universities? A very small group of trusts setup
> by people like Rockefeller, who set up trusts for the public benefit
> with some of their money eighty years ago.
Along with a pretty good sized group of people who contribute even today.
Even those who are not wealthy. (Ever contributed to a cancer or AIDS
fund?)
>
> I'm not saying that the uber-wealthy don't do something/anything.
> But, you know, i just can't fathom hording that much money. Does one
> really -need- 10 billion dollars? You could easily do a lot of good
> things, enormous things, with half that money, and not have it effect
> the way you live in any way. Aside from the fact that you wouldn't have
> to pay any taxes, because you'd given away so much of your income.
You'd still pay taxes. You'd just have less money to pay it from. But is
it all about *YOU*? What about your kids, and their kids? Who are *YOU*
to say what someone else's money should be spent on?
>
> But, you know, you probably think i'm a sucker. I've give bums money on
> the street, if i have any.
Yet you don't have a retirement fund? Sorry to say it, but yes, I think
you are a bit of a sucker. Think of your family before you think of that
drunk looking for his next fifth...
>
>>> I won't get into an arguement about 'market forces', as it has been
>>> amply demonstrated that business act in their own interest, and not in
>>> the interest of their workers/customers/community. Where those
>>
>>
>> Which means they are acting in the interest of their millions of
>> citizen owners. A completely morally appropriate thing to do so long
>> as they don't do it with fraud/force/threat.
>
> Something like 50% of the country owns some form of stock or real
> estate, based an a quick google, more than i expected, actually.
> I'll agree that stockholders do benefit from a company they own a piece
> of making money. That steal leaves a significant portion of society,
> the lower portion, get trampled on in pursual of the dollar.
They don't get trampled. They just fail to benefit. And they could
benefit easily. They just have to choose to do so.
>> Of course I feel the pinch - more than most people I suspect. But I don't
>> go screaming in fear to Mommy every time I have a problem. I'm a grownup
>> and I take responsibility for my own choices and actions.
>
>
> Here's the crux of our differences, i think, as there are more than a
> few things we agree on:
>
> You feel that the government should not provide 'social services', that
> seems fairly obvious to me, based on your references above.
>
> I'm not sure who this "suzie soccer mom' who wants free stuff is, or
> what it is that she is purported to want.
> Perhaps you are refering to people who don't want to pay taxes, i can't
> really make out with any precision what you are refering to.
No, people who don't want to work, but want plenty of government services
handed to them.
>
> Most social services benefit the working poor, the elderly and indigent.
> The system -is- flawed, and there are people who exploit that.
> However, i think it's better than nothing.
And I disagree. I think *nothing* would be infinitely better. Most social
services are NOT beneifitting the working poor. Not that I can see,
anyhow, and I live in the inner city.
>
> As i said, i come from a working poor background, and who knows if i'd
> be here today without these programs.
> The only reason that i, and most of the people i know, could go to
> college, is because of federal loan programs.
Loan, not handout. A federal loan that is paid back is a loan. If you
didn't have to pay it back, it is welfare, and intrinsically wrong.
>
> Maybe you feel there's nothing inherently wrong with these programs, but
> feel they should be run by the States, and not by the Feds.
That would be an improvement, since the federal government has no such
place.
>
> The main problem with that is this: There are parts of this country
> that don't have very much money. There are a lot of states that don't
> have the money to do these things.
And then they shouldn't do these things. I have a hard enough time paying
for my own kids to go to school. Why should I pay for someone half a
country away?
>
> However, there's this line in the Constituition (which i know you are
> fond of): Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 "The Citizens of each State
> shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
> several States."
>
> This means that it's a basic right of citizens of all states to have
> access to the same things, be they rich or poor. The only way that can
> happen is to distribute money down the economic ladder, and the only
> mechanisms we have for that are federal tax and federal programs.
You might want to re-read that. It would seem that you have inferred
meaning that the words just don't provide.
>
> Regardless of all that, we're suffering from some basic ideological
> diffences, here. Neither of us is really going to convince the other
> about much of anything, and i think we agree on the salient points about
> what this thread was, at some point, about.
>
> I.e. The situation in the Gulf has been badly mismanaged, both at the
> federal and state level, and it's pretty much a giant clusterfuck, and
> it was largely avoidable, if only people would use a little bit of damn
> common sense.
Hey, on that we can agree...
;-)
Good reading. I didn;t agree with much of what you said, but I enjoyed
looking in on how you think... ;-)
--
Joseph M. LaVigne
jlav...@hits-buffalo.com
http://www.thelavignefamily.us/MyPipePages/ - 9/5/2005 12:43:15 AM
A pipe gives a wise man time to think and a fool something to stick in
his mouth. -- Anonymous
Tim Daneliuk
Where were you and your vigorous defense of civil liberties when
the Jordanians abused the civil rights of their own Hashemite cousins?
Why is it that when Israel places boundaries on just how much crap they will
put up with from the Arabic tribal savages, you come unglued, but when the
other Arabs of the region behave very badly, you're are strangely silent?
I don't recall the Drooling American/European Left saying much of anything
while Sadaam butchered hundreds of thousands, for example. OTOH, one minor
violation of Palestinian (aka Hashemite, aka Jordanian) "rights" sets
you Lefties all atwitter...
Matt Patterson
I have work related option.
Also, i have no dependents, and am unmarried, that's why i'm able to
live on what i make.
I give what i can to charities and what not, but that's not very much, i
have to say, doing donations to childrens hospitals at gas stations, and
such.
I guess it boils down to fact that i think everyone shuold help each
other as best they can, and when i see a government program designed to
help people who need it, i am theoretically for it.
I agree that many programs are mismanaged, and i -know- that many
senators from many states blow way more money on pet projects than
should be legal.
one of the main aims of the US gov't is protect the welfare of its
citizens, and last time i checked, our passports said "United States of
America", not "Indiana' and "New York". I don't see a problem -in
principle- with federal aid programs, i don't see how they infringe on
the 'rights' of the states in any way.
Maybe you feel that no level of government should be offering these
programs, but that's a different animal.
-matt
Matt Patterson
far... because the Mississippi enters the ocean in one place, and one
place only.
-matt
Joe LaVigne
> The only way i can setup a retirement fund is by doing it myself.
> I have work related option.
Then do it. Set up an IRA with your bank. Take the tax deduction, and
plan for your future.
>
> Also, i have no dependents, and am unmarried, that's why i'm able to
> live on what i make.
>
> I give what i can to charities and what not, but that's not very much, i
> have to say, doing donations to childrens hospitals at gas stations, and
> such.
Charity begins at home. It is great to gove to charity, but if you are
doing so at the expense of your own future, it is not well thought out.
>
> I guess it boils down to fact that i think everyone shuold help each
> other as best they can, and when i see a government program designed to
> help people who need it, i am theoretically for it.
The problem is that government plans always hurt more people than they
help.
>
> I agree that many programs are mismanaged, and i -know- that many
> senators from many states blow way more money on pet projects than
> should be legal.
So, knowing that, why would you support the programs, other than that they
make you feel good?
>
> one of the main aims of the US gov't is protect the welfare of its
> citizens, and last time i checked, our passports said "United States of
> America", not "Indiana' and "New York". I don't see a problem -in
> principle- with federal aid programs, i don't see how they infringe on
> the 'rights' of the states in any way.
No, there is no part of the constitution that grants the federal government
power to "protect the wlefare of its citizens".
All programs to aid individuals, from the federal government, are an
obvious violation of state's rights.
>
> Maybe you feel that no level of government should be offering these
> programs, but that's a different animal.
I feel that charity is a local issue. Local and state governments have the
ability (and the requirement) to be much more responsive to the needs and
wants of their populace. Federal beauracracies just make problems worse by
trying to control personal behavior, in an attempt to look like the good
guys to everyone.
--
Joseph M. LaVigne
jlav...@hits-buffalo.com
http://www.thelavignefamily.us/MyPipePages/ - 9/5/2005 2:18:54 AM
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
Joe LaVigne
where the mississippi enters the ocean is unimportant. The port could be
built just about anywhere on the coast. If it is too far from the
mississippi, canals can be built. They work, and they are more efficient
than rebuilding a city that is built below sea level.
--
Joseph M. LaVigne
jlav...@hits-buffalo.com
http://www.thelavignefamily.us/MyPipePages/ - 9/5/2005 2:24:29 AM
"(Tobacco is) a companion in solitude; it is a storehouse for reflection
and gives time for the fumes of wrath to disperse."
-Japanese author
Alien
"Scoop" <2l...@nospamheremchsi.com> wrote:
Recognizing states rights, the governors have the duty to take care of
their own states emergencies. That said, when the governor calls for
help the fed should get there ASAP. Considering the scope of the
disaster and the equipment and manpower needed I cannot fault the
federal government. It's a big job lifting equipment and thousands of
workers on moments notice. The states should have been better prepared
with their manpower and equipment IN PLACE and ready to go.
Charles Perry
"Matt Patterson" <ca...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:c_QSe.327748$xm3.230610@attbi_s21...
Not exactly. The Atchafalaya River actually carries water from the
Mississippi to the Atchafalaya Bay. I read that in the past (hundreds not
thousands of years) the Atchafalaya has been the main channel of the
Mississippi. Many scientists believe that this would be the case now if we
did not work so hard to prevent it. It is navigable by the way. The
politics of having the river traffic change course would be "interesting" to
say the least.
Charles Perry P.E.
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>
>> Matt Patterson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, i didn't say that the feds were stealing. Read more closely.
>>> I'm saying that business are ripping the country off, by buying
>>> congressmen who pass tax code that screws regular people. One out of
>>> four people who make over $200,000 dollars pays no income tax. Huge
>>> corporations pay a pittance into the system, and reap the benefits.
>>
>> Care to offer a factual citation for this bit of blarney?
>
>
> minutes of investigating. Read at your liesure.
>
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/corrupt/2002/0326evasion.htm
>
> I was watching CSPAN and say the interview with one of the authors of
> this book, who quoted said statistic. I may well be remembering it
> incorrectly, as it was a few years ago. Your local library may well
> have it.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060084316/102-3468569-9825734?v=glance
>
> A discussion from the House:
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=8471
>
All very interesting stuff, thanks. But here's a page of the IRS's own
statistics:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
As you can see, corporations pay far more than "a pittance." It's also
important to remember that much individual income is derived from those
very same corporations. Indeed, IMO, it is the quest for corporate
profits that drives our entire economic system, and over-taxing
corporations would be like shooting ourselves in the foot. That's not
to say that I don't think the system should be modified somewhat,
because I do. I'd much prefer a flat tax for both individuals and
corporations, alike. ;-)
As to the percentage of the total tax revenue derived from individual
tax payers of different economic levels, try this page:
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
Briarroot
So passing the buck is ok, as long as it isn't Bush who's doing the
passing. Is that what you mean? ;-)
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>
>> Matt Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> > The US supports Israel's claims to its conquered territories for the
>>>
>>>> same reason it rejects native American claims on the USA. Should
>>>> all Americans up sticks and return to the various countries of their
>>>> forebearers[1] because the continent was wrested from its original
>>>> inhabitants by force? I vote no!
>>>>
>>>> [1] Which would be difficult since most of us are no longer purely
>>>> one nationality or another, (except American).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Er, but that's sort of the point of Israel: It is the ancestral home
>>> of the jews, dispersed in the first century-ish, by the conquring
>>> romans.
>>>
>>> Recognizing that jews have a right to return to their ancient
>>> homeland, which has been ruled by non-jews for the better part of
>>> 2,000 years, is well, that's a lot more extreme than handing some
>>> land back to Indians.
>>>
>>
>> You completely missed the point!
>>
>
> heheh.
> Too much typing, i guess.
>
Just to expand on my point a bit: The Biblical story of the Exodus of
the Jews from Egypt tells of them being promised a land flowing with
"milk & honey." When they got there (Palestine), they found that the
place was already inhabited by a people known as the Canaanites. In
other words, the Jews *don't* have first claim on the territory but
neither does anyone else. Most such pseudo-historical "we were here
first" claims are as typically worthless as that one. There will never
be peace in the Middle East until the Arabs learn to accept their
neighbors whoever they may be, however they arrived, and whatever
religion they practice.
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>>
>> but not to maintain the levees.
>>
>
>
> paid for by the state.
>
> Not all the levees are controlled by the ACoE, and i think you're right
> on the money here: People need to get their friggin priorities straight.
> There's been a big hubub about the Colts wanting a new stadium in
> Indianapolis. I say the money should be spent on schools.
>
> What do i know?
>
I'd much prefer the team owners buy their own stadiums. Though I fully
understand the economic benefits to the surrounding community of having
a major league franchise in town, I think the civic leaders have bent
over too far backwards to these guys and the average taxpayer is left
shouldering the burden.
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>>
>>highest standard of living, are those that chose to stay home, rather
>>than leave when the nation of Israel was formed. They are a small
>>minority in Israel, but (considering the actions of their cousins) they
>>are well treated and even hold seats in the Israeli Knesset. Everywhere
>>else in the Middle East, the Palestinians have neglected to improve
>>their lot, living much as they did 50 years ago. If they live in what
>>you term "shit holes" they have no one to blame but themselves. Also
>>take careful note of what their brother Arabs have done by *preventing*
>>their assimilation into neighboring states, instead fostering and
>>anti-Jewish hatred that more than anything else is responsible for the
>>misery of the Palestinian people today. If those Palestinians who chose
>>to leave their homes in Israel in 1948 had been welcomed into Jordan,
>>Syria, Egypt and Iran, peace might have settled over the region. If
>>there is no peace, it is because the Arabs do not want peace.
>>
>>The houses that are bulldozed are those owned by the families of the
>>suicide murderers. It may not be a sound policy, but it is entirely
>>understandable. You may yourself be in need of a refresher course in
>>history, since you have neglected to learn that Palestine was home to
>>the Israelites before the Romans conquered and dispersed them. In 1948,
>>they finally returned home.
>>
>
>
> stop at a roadblock every 100 metres to get to work and be denied basic
> human rights whilst having ones town constantly overrun by soldiers who
> shoot old people and children with abandon all in tha name of 'national
> security'....much like Bush! WHat about those who have had their
> livelihoods cut off by 'The Wall' that has been built, illegally,
> across Palestinian land? Ask the soldiers nicely not to shoot at them
> while they pick their olives (as has happened on numerous occasions) or
> politely play the fiddle at the roadblock while dancing? In any case
> the Israelis have not made 'their' country alone-America has heavily
> funded the Jewish state, the only reason it still stands is because it
> is propped up by American 'aid' not to mention the influx of guns and
> ordnance with which to rid themselves of those Pesky 'Rag heads.'
>
<sigh>
You're completely clueless! Your inability to filter propaganda from
fact may be your first difficulty, but if you *were* able to see the
situation clearly, you might have noticed that the Israelis are
*responding* to a campaign, designed to murder of their citizens, that
is being waged by Palestinian extremists. Since 1848, Arab leaders have
continuously called for the 'eradication' of all Jews, making it quite
easy pinpoint those actually responsible for the present situation.
(Hint: it ain't the Israelis!)
Briarroot
>>
>>According to the time line published in my morning newspaper today, the
>>President "declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, authorizing federal
>>emergency management officials to release aid and co-ordinate disaster
>>relief efforts" on Saturday, two days *before* the storm hit, and before
>>either the Mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of LA took any action at
>>all! So why *are* you dumping everything on him?
>
>
> Well, let's see -
> From the Science Daily, on August 27th
> "President Bush late Saturday declared a state of emergency in Louisiana.
> The governors of Louisiana and Mississippi declared emergencies Friday, and
> mandatory evacuation orders were in effect for some of Louisiana's low-lying
> areas, CNN reported."
>
> So, The governors were acting before Bush.
> On Saturday, the 27th, the mayor of New Orleans called for voluntary
> evacuations at 5PM. The next morning he changed that to mandatory
> evacuations. That same day the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi asked
> for aid and additional security forces, in advance of the storm.
>
> Bush did nothing.
>
> Here's the link to their letter.
> http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf
>
> And at the same time they asked for the area to be declared a major
> disaster, not a "state of emergency."
>
> Hope this helps clarify a bit.
>
Thanks, but it seems to me that Bush *did* act before the storm hit,
which was the major component of your tirade against him. Whether the
steps he took were inadequate or not is a matter of second-guessing. If
the levees had not broken, what would you be complaining about?
Scoop
"Alien" <n...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:no-818411.03...@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> workers on moments notice. The states should have been better prepared
> with their manpower and equipment IN PLACE and ready to go.
If you read the letter from the Louisiana governor, she clearly addressed
the need for manpower, and how there was no way they could accomplish it on
their own.
Scoop
Scoop
>>>Note how New Orleans somehow found the money to build the Superdome, but
>>>not to maintain the levees.
>>
>>
>> Maybe that's because the levees are owned and maintained by the Army
>> Corps of Engineers.
>>
>
> So passing the buck is ok, as long as it isn't Bush who's doing the
> passing. Is that what you mean? ;-)
No, Tim, what I mean is that the owners - i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers,
had a responsibility to handle the problem, and their boss, President Bush,
refused to fund any extra repair work. How, exactly, is that passing the
buck?
Scoop
who thinks that Bush's refusal to fund the project was influenced a mite by
the overwhelming support for Kerry that New Orleans evinced.
Scoop
> Thanks, but it seems to me that Bush *did* act before the storm hit, which
> was the major component of your tirade against him. Whether the steps he
> took were inadequate or not is a matter of second-guessing. If the levees
> had not broken, what would you be complaining about?
If acting is mere words, then there was a flurry of activity from around the
world before the storm. Bush's only activity was to declare the state of
emergency. He did not then make sure that anyone was doing their job, which
is his job, by the way. So, no, he did nothing.
Scoop
G.E.R.R.Y.
<jlav...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> >> They are already paying a disproportionate percentage of the
> >> country's ever-growing taxes.
BTW, "disproportionate" should mean pennies-on-the-dollar in comparison
to individual taxes. Corporations/CEOs have friends in high places.
Look at their taxes actually paid out in relation to their gross
between the 1960s and now.
I can't speak for the US, but up here in Canada, corporate taxes have
been slowly /and/ /quietly/ reduced in the last thirty odd years and
almost exactly matches the national deficit. Amazing coincidence that.
I'd be willing to bet that the US did the same. Canada, the copycat,
must have learned it somewhere. Where do you think the money for
limitless expansion has been coming from? An example: Home Depot's CEO
stated on national TV that they are opening stores at the rate of ONE
EVERY THIRTEEN MINUTES. This expansion is financed by money that should
have gone to taxes. So, indirectly, the taxpayer foots the bill as
usual.
Gerry
Matt Patterson
I've got no problem with a flat tax, or even getting rid of income tax,
and having something like a national sales tax in it's place.
I also don't have any real ideological problems with the rich paying
more taxes.
My only real problem with the system is when people don't pay into it.
If people didn't dodge their taxes, it would be possible for everyone to
pay less. But, you know, people are fond of their money for some reason...
-matt
Matt Patterson
It's happened with the Colorado, when during a flood, it flipped beds
into an ancient course out into the desert, where it made a rather large
lake.
The mexicans -flipped out- because the Colorado stopped running into
mexico.
Took the core of engineers a while to force it back, but they did,
obviously... i wonder if the lake is gone by now or not.
If it weren't for the cost of building a new port infrastructure (which
might be neglible or on par, compared to repair cost) i'd say to go for
it, and move the damn port, if the terrain is better suited. Doubt it'll
happen, though.
-matt
Matt Patterson
Eh, it's a little more complicated than that... the levees have been
chronically underfunded for the better part of forty years. It's true
that with the upswing in Hurricane intensity and activity that the
recent administration should have taken action during it's first term,
but it's not a certainty that the projects would even have been completed.
This is a systemic failure, not just one of the part of Dubya.
-matt
Matt Patterson
I agree that the Arab world is going to have to lose the chip on it's
shoulder sometime... some are already doing so, like the UAE, to a
certain extent Egypt, and also Jordan... It's a litte weird to watch the
"Benevolent Dictator' type system in action, particularly in places like
Dubai.
-matt
Scoop
Yes, you are right about it being a systemic failure. The latest part of
that failure, however, can be traced directly to Dubya, with his cutting of
the budget for the CoE.
Scoop
James D. Beard
> I think it's safe to say that both of us agree that the US government,
> is bloated, flailing beast. However, we differ in that i expect it to
> fulfill what it sets out to do, regardless of whether or not it should
> be doing it.
WTF? Sheer stupidity. If it should not be doing something, it
should not be doing it, and best it fail rather than succeed,
as that might discourage it from trying the same nonsense again.
> However, there's this line in the Constituition (which i know you are
> fond of): Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 "The Citizens of each State
> shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
> several States."
>
> This means that it's a basic right of citizens of all states to have
> access to the same things, be they rich or poor.
WTF? Entitlement to all Privileges and Imunities of Citizens in
the several States" does not mean and has never meant that money
should be distributed down the economic ladder. Do you not
understand the English language? Have you no knowledge of
history and no capability to learn of it? Are you simply
incapable of thought and sound judgment?
Matt, I hate to write it, but your nonsense makes me wonder
if democracy, "government of the people, by the people, for
the people" is possible as a practical matter. You seem to
be one of the better educated specimens of Homo sapiens
politicus in these here United States, and if democracy rests
on your knowledge and wisdom I think we are all in big trouble.
The anti-tobacco zealotry evident in this country may be the
least of our political problems.
No cheers!
jim b.
--
Unix is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
James D. Beard
> First off, reread the original post, and tell me how Bush did everything he
> could. GO ahead. You can't.
Scoop,
Given the nature of our Federal Republic, Bush cannot be held
responsible for _anything_ done or not done until there has been
a legal request from the state for assistance in disaster
relief. He should _not_ have done anything until requested.
And it took how long for a simple request to be delivered....
> Oh, and as for God, well, let's just say that he and I talk all the time,
> and he never mentions your name, so I don't think I'll be taking any advice
> from you on how he thinks.
Given your habit of trying to do all the talking,
I do not doubt He never gets to say even a single word.
Further, I am not so egotistical I would expect Him to
discuss me with others, and were He to do so I would
hope He would confine such discussions to those capable
of good sense and thoughtful judgment.
You go your way. I shall go mine. And let the buffalo
chips fall where they may.
Cheers!
Matt Patterson
Actually, real democracy -is- fairly unlikely, given the nature of the
human animal, which is to be selfish. That's why communism can't work,
and it's why raw capitalism is also inherently flawed.
That's what makes the US, thus far, so remarkable.
Direct Democracy is nearly impossible on the scale of a country this
large and populous (not to mention divided), and our representational
system is in sore need of revision, as it is reaching horrific levels of
dysfunction (the Electoral College for instance, needs to go).
The English language is a funny animal, really. When I read that clause,
I interpret it to mean that if a state provides a privilege/right, for
instance, a college or foodstamp program, then a citizen in another
state is entitled to similar, else the states become uneven.
How does one interpret 'privilege'? Is there a definition included in
the text of the Constitution, specifying exactly what the founding
fathers meant when they used the word?
Here's the definition, courtesy of Dictionary.com:
priv•i•lege Pronunciation Key (prv-lj, prvlj) n.
1.
a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or
benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See
Synonyms at right.
b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative
of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
2. The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or
immunity: a society based on privilege.
3. Law. The right to privileged communication in a confidential
relationship, as between client and attorney, patient and physician, or
communicant and priest.
4. An option to buy or sell a stock, including put, call, spread,
and straddle.
Now, should I choose any definition besides the first, this passage of
the document changes meaning in significant ways.
Should one state choose to make a welfare program available, 'spreading
money down the economic ladder', thus privileging it's poor -at the
expense of it's rich-, then well, according to the Constitution, people
in other states are -entitled- to that same privilege. But what if
their state chooses not to make that available? Aren't they in violation
of the laws of the Union?
Lots of states have welfare programs... in fact, I think all of them.
There is one federal program, to fill in the gaps.
If, as another example, in one state it is perfectly legal for two men
or women to marry, then, by Constitutional Law, should not the residents
of all other states have that same privilege?
I'm as fond of the Constitution as anyone, however, I realize that it is
not always the most specific of documents, and it wasn't intended to be.
There are sections that are very unequivocal, but that's not the case
throughout. That's largely because of the foresight of its writers, who
knew that societies change, and knew that wiggle room would be needed,
as the definitions of 'rights' and 'privileges' would change over time.
I think it was fairly obvious that we're on different political pages.
If you think welfare programs are such a bad idea, badger your local
rep, and then badger your senator and house rep. Don't climb down my
throat and insult my intelligence.
I've written rather more than I intended, because being insulted gets my
hackles up.
Briarroot
Now you're ascribing evil intent to Bush's actions, not merely
incompetence. IMNSHO, this passes beyond rationality and approaches
obsession.
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Samarra in a Kaywoodie all-briar lovat
Briarroot
>>
>>According to the time line published in my morning newspaper today, the
>>President "declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, authorizing federal
>>emergency management officials to release aid and co-ordinate disaster
>>relief efforts" on Saturday, two days *before* the storm hit, and before
>>either the Mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of LA took any action at
>>all! So why *are* you dumping everything on him?
>
>
> disaster, not a "state of emergency."
>
> Hope this helps clarify a bit.
One other point. Correct me if I'm wrong (heh!), but I thought that a
"State of Emergency" was the necessary declaration to engage the
services of FEMA, while a declaration of a "Disaster Area" was a
requirement to obtain Federal funding to rebuild infrastructure and for
private citizens to obtain low interest rate Federally guaranteed loans
to rebuild/repair private property after the emergency was over.
Briarroot
> "Briarroot" <woo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:11hoq7k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Thanks, but it seems to me that Bush *did* act before the storm hit, which
>>was the major component of your tirade against him. Whether the steps he
>>took were inadequate or not is a matter of second-guessing. If the levees
>>had not broken, what would you be complaining about?
>
>
> If acting is mere words, then there was a flurry of activity from around the
> world before the storm. Bush's only activity was to declare the state of
> emergency.
Which is all he could have done at that point. The storm was still
approaching and nothing had yet occurred to indicate that a real
disaster was in the making. Note too, that the city of New Orleans
survived the actual storm. It was during the aftermath that the levees
were breached. I just watched a report that indicated that a barge
which had slipped its moorings and collided with the levee is
responsible for the largest break in the levee.
> He did not then make sure that anyone was doing their job, which
> is his job, by the way. So, no, he did nothing.
20/20 hindsight is a luxury that didn't exist *before* the storm struck.
"The Culture of Blame---on assigning blame for Hurricane Katrina: "Let
me make this clear: Everything which has happened as the result of
Hurricane Katrina is my fault. Mine. Alone. No one else's. Stop wasting
energy pointing fingers and put your hands to work helping out. It was
me. Got it? I was a United States Senator from Louisiana in 2001 when
the levee at Lake Pontchartrain was declared unsafe and I didn't have
enough clout with my Senatorial brethren to get sufficient money
appropriated to fix it. It was my fault. Oh. I almost forgot. I was the
Commander-in-Chief of all United States Armed Forces in the 1960s which
includes the Corps of Engineers. The cost-benefit analysis? My fault. It
is my fault that, as the Governor of Louisiana, I didn't foresee the
need to have enough Louisiana National Guard troops---the vast majority
of whom are NOT currently in Iraq, or Afghanistan or, for that matter,
Indiana---pre-positioned and ready to preserve order. I, frankly, forgot
that there is a portion of the population which will steal anything from
anyone given any opportunity and then will blame it on me because I
didn't---in spite of ample warnings by sociologists from large Eastern
Universities---foresee the need to have 27" flat-screen television sets
available to every family in the New Orleans city limits as soon as the
electricity went out. That one WAS my bad. It is my fault that, as
Mayor of New Orleans, I was boogying down Bourbon Street the night
before the hurricane hit rather than being where I should have been---on
the roof of the Superdome pounding in extra nails to hold the roof on.
As the architect of the Superdome, it was my fault for claiming that the
Dome could survive 200 mile-per-hour winds. It couldn't
even handle a relatively gentle 160 mile-per-hour zephyr. Strap me to my
drafting table and set me adrift. Global warming? My
fault. Despite the fact that nearly every serious climatologist in
America has stated over and over again that there is no clear
evidence tying human-generated greenhouse gasses to global warming, and
even if there were, there is no evidence tying global warming to
hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, I was opposed to the Kyoto treaty and
so it is my fault. It is also my fault that during the administration of
Bill Clinton the U.S. Senate rejected the terms of the Kyoto protocols
by a vote of 95-0. That would be zero, zilch, nada, nil, bupkis. As the
Grand Poohbah in Charge of all TV Coverage, it is my fault that there is
constant video of looters and almost none of humanitarian activities. I
am the person who issued the statement: 'No more rescue footage UNLESS
the person rescued complains about how long they had to wait or, if he
shoots at the rescuers.' And, finally, as Chairman of the National
Association of Gasoline Producers it is my fault that I had the bad
judgment to put so much of my drilling, refining and transportation
assets in a hurricane-prone area like the Caribbean basin.
What...was...I...thinking? If I could re-do that whole thing, I would
have put all that equipment in Lake Erie and Lake Michigan. There may
not be any oil there, but hurricanes are very rare. So. There you have
it. Everything that has happened is my fault. Now. Shut up and help." -
-Rich Galen
Rad Davis
Briarroot
Exactly! But blaming the system is like blaming ourselves, and *that*
is highly unpopular with most people. It's far easier to nominate a
national scapegoat. ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Samarra in a Kaywoodie all-briar lovat
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>>
>> Just to expand on my point a bit: The Biblical story of the Exodus of
>> the Jews from Egypt tells of them being promised a land flowing with
>> "milk & honey." When they got there (Palestine), they found that the
>> place was already inhabited by a people known as the Canaanites. In
>> other words, the Jews *don't* have first claim on the territory but
>> neither does anyone else. Most such pseudo-historical "we were here
>> first" claims are as typically worthless as that one. There will
>> never be peace in the Middle East until the Arabs learn to accept
>> their neighbors whoever they may be, however they arrived, and
>> whatever religion they practice.
>>
>
>
> shoulder sometime... some are already doing so, like the UAE, to a
> certain extent Egypt, and also Jordan... It's a litte weird to watch the
> "Benevolent Dictator' type system in action, particularly in places like
> Dubai.
>
Isn't it though! I wonder what would happen if the all that oil money
suddenly dried up?
Briarroot
LOL! Are you claiming that people don't want to shop at Home Depot stores?
I can tell you from personal experience, that in my neck of the woods,
their stores are quite popular and obviously profitable. *That's* how
corporations expand, first by borrowing money to open new facilities,
then using those facilities to make money. Silly conspiracy theories
aside, it's *profits* that allow corporations to expand. Retail chains
like Home Depot do not need tax breaks to succeed. In Canada,
government protected industries like lumber and steel are where the
*real* scandals lie.
Briarroot
See what I mean? ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Samarra in a Kaywoodie all-briar lovat
Ngo Dinh Diem
And you call me clueless!! Sure some extemist Arab 'leaders' have
called for the extermination of Jews but they in no way represent the
Arabic population as a whole. Are you really sure that building a wall
that quite literally and figuratively divides is the best way to
counter radical terrorists, all they are doing is fostering more hatred
toweards themselves perpetuating the cycle of violence. (Notice how I
am not ditufilly inserting ad hominem remarks). Israel is an ancestral
homeland to many peoples including Christians and Arabs alike, to name
it solely for Jews is inherently wrong and racist.
Ken Dixon
middle eastern politics ?
Y.E
Asp. But your comments are too silly:
It seems YOU are the one that has never opened a history book (at least
a M.E history book).
Tim's right in putting "occupied territories" in quotation marks,
although not entirely as those territories are disputed NOT occupied.
You're saying that they belong to the "Palestinians"?!!!! Would you
care to point out a sovereign country, a nation called "Palestine".
There has NEVER been a country called "Palestine" . That is a simple
fact that even a 10 year old kid can confirm.
The disputed territories belonged to Jordan who lost them to Israel in
a war the arab countries launched against her.
As for your comments on how Israel "impoverished" the "Palestinians",
again, more ignorance on your part. Arafat and his cronies have been
found with billions of dollars in their personal accounts. That money
could have transformed Gaza and the "refugee" camps into a small
Monaco, but those arab leaders decided to steal it instead of
alleviating the poverty of their people.
All the misery suffered by the "Palestinians" is caused by their own
leaders' corruption, greed and savagery.
Amazing how much ignorance there is in this world. Jeez!
Y.E
you're too lazy to read a book at least google the information!
"Palestine" has NEVER been an independent country!.
Oh, and your comments about American aid: So Israel "still stands"
because of American aid? It seems you've fallen pretty nicely into the
propaganda games of the arabs. Just FYI: American aid to Israel is US$
4 billion (70% of which is paid back as the aid is in the form of loan
guarantees) and Israel's annual GDP is around US$ 150 billion. How does
2% of the GDP makes a country stand still? Please explain.
Your show of ignorance is not making you look any good.
Scoop
No, Tim, I'm saying that his refusal to pay for additional work on the
levees may have been part of the political fallout of the election. That is
part and parcel of politics these days. Could he have foreseen the
resulting disaster? If he'd stopped to really review the documents, yes,
but given the size and scope of the US budget, I'm pretty sure that he had
his advisors determine such things, advisors who are, of course, political
appointees.
This has happened in the past, on a whole bunch of issues, from both
political parties. To me, the failure to fund wasn't done in the hopes that
a hurricane would come along and destroy the political "enemies" of the
Republicans, but more along the lines of "why should we put government funds
that are at our discretion into a building project in a locale that didn't
support our guy?"
That, and not an evil intent, was what I meant to ascribe. I apologize if I
was unclear.
Scoop
Matt Patterson
> How in the hell did a thread about Katrina morph into an argument about
> middle eastern politics ?
Sometimes it's better to just close your eyes, and slowly back away...