BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?

Subject: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:32 PM

I looked for other Katrina threads and all that came up were some that were related to song. If Joe(clones) want to combine this with another one, great.

The commission is now actively seeking facts on what went wrong with the response to the hurricane and this is an interesting article on what is known so far.

Katrina - The Nightmare and the Shining Knights

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

The Associated Press reports that over 100,000 pages of documents, emails, memos, etc. have been delivered to Congressional committees investigating the thing.

But why bother with blame? Fingerpointing is a waste of energy; if criminal acts -- malfeasance, nonfeasance, misfeance, fraud, etc. -- turn up, indict and try.

Instead, let's actually learn from it and get on with things.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:12 PM

Eb,

I started a thread entitled "Katrina-Gate"... There some good stuff there on some research I've done... I got more stuff but I couldn't get anyone who really wanted to play, once they found out that Brownie took the fall fir Bush and Chertoff...

Beaubear (bobert)

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:50 PM

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:
1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?


Ben Stein

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:02 PM

Ahhhh, well said, Ben...

You ready to rumble beyond cut-n-paste crap then bring yer cut-n-paste self on over to the Katrina-Gate thread, read what has allready gone down there and lets me and you ahve a nice little rumble!!!

GUEST A weren't up to the task...

Terrible has been avoidin' it like it was a radiation pit, which says somethin'''..

You want in???

Fine... Bring yer cut-n=paste self on in and we can have some real fun...

Your premises are all based on yer own prejudices and not what was in place in the event of a national crisis...

Ain't 'bout hatin' Bush... Hey, he seems like nice 'nuff guy... Oughtta be sellin' insurance some place...

Ain't got one thing to do with love and cooperation... Just a bad manager of a big country... Not his fault... Hey, he ain't never been too good at runnin' much of anything... This ain't about hatin' no one 'cause I honestly don't hate Bush... He's just in way over his head...

Not my problem

(Well, BObert, kinda is???)

Ignore the "Not my problem..."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

My Gawd. Bobert--that's a real cut 'n' paste? Holy Moly. Hey, it's a REAL cut 'n' paste. WOW. I AM impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM

'Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He also writes "Ben Stein's Diary" in every issue of The American Spectator.'

WOW. And Ben lives in Beverly Hills. Bobert, hey, it's a REAL cut 'n' paste from someone who is cut 'n' pastin' a guy from BEVERLY HILLS. Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooly.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:27 PM

Like, ahhhh, what you tryin' to say, Bruce... This Ben guy writes his own stuff???

I hope so... Maybe he got a blog and if he don't wanta rumble here we can do it at his place...

This is one danged story waitin' to be told and I don'r care if he's Jesus, he gonna get a butt whup on Katrina...

Yeah, Bush's PR folks have 'nuff scandals on their plate to let Katrina loose but when Katrina gets outta the box, hey, if you think if wrecked New Orle3ans, you ain't seen nuthin yet...

So, who's this Ben guy, Bruce and where's his joint so I can go in there and let off a couple stink bombs...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:31 PM

Well, it's not too ofetn we get a real cut 'n' paste from some no-name regular posing as GUEST who's quoting a guy who lives in Beverly Hills now, is it? The cut 'n' paste was even in about a thousand other sites, too. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:38 PM

I don't think that Ben hisself posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:39 PM

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing

Well, they're not just mentioned in passing. They're harped on over and over and over and totally sensationalized by the media. And the sad part about that is that there really were no snipers shooting at emergency rescuers. The people who were shooting were not shooting at the rescuers. They were shooting in the air in order to get the attention of rescuers, so the rescuers would know they were there. I think there's a certain amount of racism inherent in the media's distortion of that story and in the way they have sensationalized it.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:41 PM

Listen, Bruce...

There;s some things in the world that I unnerstand real good then there's the innernet...

Does this Ben guy wanta rumble 'er not??

I read yer posts but still don't unnerstand what yer tryin' to tell me... Is this one of them "wink-wink" things???

No matter, whoever wrote this dribble needs a good butt whup... I don't care if he or she is an actor or what... Stupid stuff, irregardless of who writes it, is stupid stuff...

I done a lot or research on the Katrina response and it seems that I got the goods on both Bush and Chertoff but seems that the Bushite's have sniffed out my arguments so they are just ignoring me...

Normal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:48 PM

Naw, Bobert. Guest is just tryin' ta get you and Ben into an argument. Ben don't know his "thought-provoking" missive has been cut 'n' pasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:51 PM

Good point, CarolC...

Yeah, Fox couldn't talk enough about it...

(Ahhhhh, BObert, how would you know/)

Well, I was in Missisisppi recordin' and the guy who was doing the owned the studio was a Fox-ie so that's all I got to watch the entire week...)

I knewif Fox was blarin' it it had to be a hoax...

Then I get back to the real world (i.e. Foxless) and discover that what Fox had been harpin' on all week was, ahhhhh, mythology???

See why I don't watch Fox???

Where's DougR??? Maybe he'd like to weigh in on why Fox spent 3 entire days talkin' about non-exhistent snipers while there were real Katrina stories to tell???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:47 AM

GUEST 03 Dec 05 - 10:50 PM - Very good post, all points clearly stated.

Now what was the response:

Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 11:02 PM - Personal attack, a load of assumptions, not one single point offered by GUEST above addressed.

Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 11:27 PM - More Bobert waffle, absolutely nothing of any consequence, and this on a subject he promised us all that he'd done his homework on. Knowing from previous experience that is all likely to be about West-Ginny Slide Rules, word on the street, heads on sticks and partiot missiles.

Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 11:41 PM - More waffle but it contains this Bobert Classic:

"No matter, whoever wrote this dribble needs a good butt whup..."

+

"I done a lot or research on the Katrina response and it seems that I got the goods on both Bush and Chertoff but seems that the Bushite's have sniffed out my arguments so they are just ignoring me..."

Eh Bobert if you believe so then why aren't you doing it, I mean butt whuppin'. Seems to me that GUEST 03 Dec 05 - 10:50 PM has laid his/her stall out rather well for someone such as yourself, who has done a lot of research to counter the contentions made point for point, but you seem rather reluctant to do so - Why is that Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:59 AM

Some else just mentionmed that you, T-Distradted are having problems with like, ahhh, time... Like past and present...

Now I have laid out my arguments in the Katrina-Gate thread, if any one bothered to actually go back and read them... Obviously you haven't...

Might of fact, other than GUEST A dismissing them just mere rantings, or whatever he/she said after I presented a well researched argument, no one from the Bush side has offerd a single well thought out rebuttal...

To me this means that the Bushites clearly have none...

I'm not going to go back and retype the entitre argument but maybe someone here who knows how to do them clicky things will go back and find the argument I laid out...

Until I get a real response to what I have argued, there's no real going forward... That's the way debates go, T-zer...

I'm certainly not going to debate myself but would certainly welcome a rebuttal to what I have allready presented...

Until then, yeah, if you all want to keep posting about stuff that is not related to facts of waht went wrong before, during and after Katrina, then look for more responses like the ones you have pointed out...

Ain't rocket surgery here, pal...

Bobert

(I will be gone all day so if there is a rebuttal, which I doubt, don't expect me to jump right back in 'til tonight ot tomorrow, depending when I get home...)

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:21 AM

Bobert is away temporarily brushing up on his carrier deck landings.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:07 AM

Bobert, PUHLEEZE don't bother to retype "your arguement"! It was factless to begin with and is the reason we are ignoring you.

While I still place much of the blame on the Mayor/NO and the Governor, the real truth is both of them begged the citizens to leave and were ignored. The Governors aide requesting 500 buses AFTER Katrina (on Tuesday) was perhaps a bit of an afterthought.
Soooo, much of the blame for the fatalities lies with the citizenery.
To answer the question; "Katrina, who was to blame?"

I go with Mother Nature myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:09 AM

...............and maybe now is the time to go with what Rapaire said.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 05:25 PM

Guest you said about Bush, "His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile."

Well, guess what, I'm a teacher and I do alot of things that aren't in my job description because I am human and I am in a position to help. If a kid gets a bloody nose do I just watch him bleed?

If Bush only acts in accordance with what is in his 'job description' then he shouldn't be president. A real president acts with good will and a conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:30 PM

Bullsh*t, GUEST A...

How would you know??? I gave my sources to everything I asserted... Like, ahhh, actual congressional testimomy... Like to the Nation Reponse Plan, w3hich of course, you were too intelle3ctually lazy to reserach yerself... Everything I put out there was documented...

Problem was and apparently still is, you don't have some cut'n paste blog that is up to speed to do yer fightin' fir ya and you are too lazy to get in there and do the heavy liftin'...

Your actions are disgusting and cheap...

I do the work, you sit back and won't and now you want to criticize me???

Give me a break, you very lazy person...

That goes fir you too, T-Lazy...

One more time, boys...

The way a debate goes is one side makes a case and tyhe other rebutes it... I still haven't gotten a rebuttla from any Bush-head other than calling my a "fu*k", a "proven liar" or any of ther utter hogwash that GUEST Lazy-butt has to say...

Until I get so much as a rebuttal, I'll just assume that you two, in particular, agree with me that Bush and Chertoff were the ones who Brownie took the bullet for!!!

You two psudo-intellectuals ain't impressin'e too much on this one...

Both of ya' opyughtta put bags over yer heads 'til yer willin' to do some heavy liftin'...

Absolutle pathetic, GUEST A and T-Pathetic...

Wanta have a debate??? Go back and rebute what I have offered... All my stuff is public record....

Bobert

p.s. Now, beyond yer guy's PR pathetic response in attacking everyone else it seems that Givernor, Katleen Blanco has fired back in releasing some 100,000 pages of material related to what she did and asked Bush to do in referance to Katrina... So don't go hidin' behind her...

Absolutely shamelsss and pathetic, you two....

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 07:35 AM

Bobert, as I always say, 'everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Might you allow that concept for everyone here?

"Bag 'em, Dano."

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 04:58 PM

Oh sure, GUEST A... I have nuthin' against folks opionions but I'm not too sure what yours is as related to the arguments that I made other than, "My guys innocent"... That sho nuff qualifies as an opionion but it asure doesn't seem to be backed up with any meaty logic upon debates of ideas occur...

I mean, lets do a review...

On another thread I challenged you, or anyone elase, to pick a Bush policy that they felt all warm and fuzzy about and Katrina became that policy... So I made a rather lengthy presentation of why I felt Bush was largely responsible for the poor showing of the feds in dealing with the effects of Katrina... All the stuff I used is stuff that isn't just opion but actual facts, fir which I either gave the source or pointed to where one could go to learn more about what I was saying...

Yer response at the time was, ahhhhhhhhh, nada, zip, zero... Then after some pushin' on my side we are now at "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" which is fine but shouldn't be confused with any sort5 of rebnuttal to the arguments I made...

I mean no disrespect here but some Bushites, including yerself, have made statements to the effect that I make stuff up... No, I don't... I do a lotta reading and keep up purdy well with what is going on... Yeah, maybe I don't spell too well, or type to well, and suffer from lexdexia so I really don't proff-read my stuff too well 'cause it looks right to me BUT that don't mean I'm no dummie either...

I can hold my own...

Now, TO WIT: If ya don't want me makin' arguments that all you can come up with is a paltry "everyone is entitled to their opinion" then don't use this joint as a vehicle to attack me 'cause I might be anti-war but I ain't no one bit shy about self defense...

Deal?

Peace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 08:03 PM

Bobert, just do what you think is in your best interest, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 08:25 PM

Thank you, GUEST A... I think we have found a little common ground...

Peace...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

the above Ben Stein post, pretty much loses any credibility
once it addresses global warming. It is in fact accepted by most of the worlds scientific community. It is also a fact that the arctic ice shelf has been reduced by 30% since the late 70's. The world largest greenhouse gas contributor and polluter is the US, and while China Brazil and India are excluded from Kyoto historically those countries did not create the problem - the west did. That is the US and Europe.
signing Kyoto would not obviously have prevented Katrina, but the evidence is that hurricanes have been increasing in intensity as well as frequency (this turned out to be a record year).

while New Orleans was always in danger of flooding there are in fact things that the Bush administration did that made things worse. Such as cutting the funds to maintain the levees, gutting Fema and getting rid of what was arguably Femas best defense, that of prevention planning.

and appointing an Idiot (self-proclaimed Fashion God) Brown as head of Fema. Fema was always a place to park cronies anyway and the only one who was actually qualified for the job, and had emergency planning was James Lee Witt, appointed by Clinton and praised by GWBush in the first Debates.

it didnt help that the bulk of the National Guard was off in Iraq either..

Teribus has a comment in another thread on Iraq, about planning for a worst case scenario -such as Saddam having nukes- well it seems that
the Bush Administration planned for terrorism at the expense of natural disasters which can be far more deadly..

- the energy in a hurricane is the equivalent of 100,000 nuclear bombs. A one degree rise in ocean temperature increases the likelihood of hurricanes 10x. That is a million nuclear bombs.
oh of course global warming doesnt exist.. (see the pbs nova website on katrina)

- and one of the key problems with Katrina, was also a problem after 9/11 - lack of interoperable communications.. 4 years after 9/11
and they still dont have it.. check out the frontline.org interview with Tom RIdge .. we dont want to choose a vendor as that would be favoritism and it would be the federal govt telling the states what to do.. BULLSHIT..
the fed. govt does it all the time - set standards for bridges airports harbours, road etc..

they dont want to force the states to pick a communications system so the money from Homeland Security gets spent on bulletproof vests for dogs etc. etc..

it all comes down to one thing..
poor leadership all the way at the top.
of course youd have to have a president who
admits he makes mistakes, instead youve got one who thinks hes chosen by God.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:42 PM

Very good points, ptr...

Like after 9/11 Bush went 'round the country sayin' stuff like "My job is to protect the American people"...

Just today the )/11 Commission gave hima report card heavily weighted down with "D's and F's"....

Hmmmmmmm?

"My job is to protect the American people" ringin in my ears now...

Hmmmmmmm?

Should be end of story but the Bush apologists will come in and spin whjat ever they have been ordered to spin by the Bush PR department that never gives up, no matter how poorly their boy fails....

That is dedication... I'd quit...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 07:59 AM

Not common ground, Bobert, just acknowledging your approach to things.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 01:53 PM

That in itself is a smidgen of common ground, A...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 02:20 PM

I think there is plenty of blame to go 'round. A few days after Katrina hit there was an NPR morning edition interview with a citizen who had paid attention to the weather, and relocated himself and his family to Memphis ahead of the storm, bringing family documentation and paperwork so that he and his wife could pursue their work in another state. This exemplifies the once common American attitude to take responsibility for one's self.

Mayor Nagin has come off in my view as an intelligent populist style of leader, but it's pretty clear he was overwhelmed by events and did not have enough of a plan in place to utilize all resources he could have, such as Amtrak and those inundated school buses. His attitude toward Hispanic workers brought in to the city came off as racist.

I don't know enough about the Governor to comment.

As for FEMA, this agency has performed extremely well in many past disasters under able leadership, which it clearly did not have during and after Katrina. Some of the blame goes to the Bush Administration and the creation of Homeland Security, which in the name of centralizing intelligence and defense, added a new layer of bureuacracy, and placed FEMA one step removed from the President. So between President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and FEMA director Brown there was no 'kick start'. It's pretty evident that FEMA personnel lower down the chain were well aware of the impending crisis. They lost 48 hours.

As for the plain people of N'y'Oleans, most of them did leave the city. Whether the mass of humanity which struggled through the waves of the levee collapse were losers of society or victims of outrageous fortune is not for me to say, but there comes a time when you have to stand up for yourself and take responsibility for getting your life in order. There are plenty of folk in the rural areas and Mississippi who lost their all and are outside of the media spotlight.

Now let's see what the real insurance situation is: Who is trying to escape their commitments? Homeowners with limited insurance or devious insurance companies who are reinterpreting their agreements? Inquiring minds want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 03:31 PM

Bobert, no, it is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are being delusional again. There is no common ground amongst the two of us. And, that should not be a problem for America. We each have our own lives and lets' just leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 05:38 PM

No problem, A... Just quit attacking me and you won't have to deal with me... Kinda simple... I thought that was the point that you understood... Maybe you don't... Maybe you think I'm yer Mudcat punching bag... Guess again... You punch and yer gonna get one back... Tit-for-tat... Ain't that I'm a mean spirited kinda guy 'cause I ain't... But I do defend myself and my core values...

Maybe what you don't like is that I'm a good counter-puncher...

Robo,

I'm with ya' to a point... When you speak of that part about "responsibilty", I'd just point out that it's easy to talk about this when one has either beaten the odds and found an escape from the opoverty they were born into or they never had to worry much about those things in the first place...

What we have in America is a social-econmis disater and we aren't teaching life skills to kids in poor neigborhoods, that is if we can even get them into the schools... I don't know what the drop out rate is in N.O. But I'd bet it is within the top 5 highest on nay major city in the U.S.

Poor folks just don't have life skills that others have... Street skills ain't life skills and it took life skills to know how to get the heck outta N.O. on Sept 28th or 29th... Yes, you are right that a lot of folks just didn't take "resonsibility" for their lives but, like I said, like why would we have expected anything different???

And, yes, FEMA has been kicked down a rung or two since 9/11 and it really does take the President to make the call to the Secretary of DHS to make the call to FEMA... Sure, a Secretary of DHS, who has the balls can order it without the President's call but that is asking a lot of any appointeee in this president's cabinet...

Brown had spoken with the president two, perhaps three, days before the storm and warned Bush that a Cat 4 ot Cat 5 was going to hit the region...

This is where I see Bush havin' fumbled the ball... He can't say he didn't know about Katrina... He can't say that he hadn't gotten requests for help... He can't say that he didn't know the chain of command...

And that is why I place much of the balme at his feet for the poor federal response and that is why there seesm to be a real hollowness in Bush's own words, "My job is to protect the American people"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,A
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:45 PM

Bobert, don't flatter yourself. What I don't care for is your sense of "I am right all the time."

But, you win - and don't you dare listen to any information that turns up in the next year that may differ with your core values.
You are correct and we are wrong. So, don't pay any attention to facts that may appear that differ with what you believe. Simply take a deep breath and stick with "your core values".

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:54 PM

Guest, A it's you who really won. bobert's bitterness about America and the establishment resounds and bellows from his old hippie mentality. He is the rebel who always loses and that has left him on the outside looking in probably his whole life.

His psuedo folkie blackspeak tries to give the illusion that he is the common man, when in fact his type was going extinct about 20 years ago.

That, and he knows only how to play songs with three chords.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:05 PM

Nice attack the messenger, GUEST A... You have not yet provided one thing other than attack.... You want to point out exactly which post you made that rebutted any of my arguments, which, BTW, I provided my sources...

No, all you ahve is attack, attack, attack and ******NO******** facts.... Hey, like I said on the other thread, I have no use fi8r people who won't even make the slightest effort to make arguments but just go into attack mode... That is you, pal...

Now, as in the other thread, go ahead and attack, attack, attack me even more because you are too danged lazy to mount any rebuttal... I'm going to just ignore your lazy butt... You ain't worth my time... You wanta get beyond yer little fixation of attacklingthe m essenger and actually get into a debate/discussion fine... But I'm not expecting a one-trick-pony as yerself to be able to do that...

Bye...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:54 PM

Bobert blew so much hot air that he started the hurricane.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

Buzz off, moron...

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:41 PM

Inform this moron Bobert. After all your "research", who is to blame for Katrina?
If you can blame that on a person, then you are the smartest man in the world.

If you can't then admit you really don't know shit but you try to act like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM

"Katrina - Who Was To Blame?"

Many levels of government contributed to the disaster and subsequent fiasco that occurred when Katrina hit. (It's foolish to ask who was to blame for the hurricane--obviously.)

The Bush administration did very poorly as did the State governments. And indeed Bush was the leader who didn't lead. Pointing fingers at the Governors does NOT absolve the Federal government of its less than capable performance.

Say what you wish, there were very few people in positions of authority who carried themselves well. I hope y'all are trying to ensure the same crap doesn't happen in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:59 PM

I've laid out my argument, Buzz off... You do the rebuttal...( See KatrinaGate thread)....

Gettin' purdy tired of folks just attackin' without one bit of rebuttal.,.. I laid out my argument, sources included, and now folks wanta pretend that I didn't...

Lot of stupidity going 'round on the Bush side these days...

"What, you talkin' to me???????"

Yeah, I am....

Buch of GUESTs who don't bother to read what I have argued and then just wanta get on this GUEST circle-jerk and attack, attack, attack the messenger...

You are all cowards, as far as I can see!!!!!!!!

Cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 12:12 AM

It is cowards that want to run away from a fight. Quitters, Crybabies.

I don't see a single fact in your posts, just sarcasm like "roll Saddam under the bus"

You lay out a bunch of meanderings. What is the conclusion? Who is to blame? Get to the point. You are always asking "what is yer point?"

Well what is your point beside calling others cowards for insisting on an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 06:39 AM

GUEST,petr - Just one or two points regarding your post

"...global warming. It is in fact accepted by most of the worlds scientific community." - Incorrect, plainly not so, it is a subject that is "hotly" disputed by the worlds scientific community with a 50-50 split at the moment.


"The world largest greenhouse gas contributor and polluter is the US, and while China Brazil and India are excluded from Kyoto historically those countries did not create the problem - the west did. That is the US and Europe." - Who did what in the past is irrelevant, what is done is done, can't do anything about it. If you are looking to future remedies China, Brazil and India must be brought into it. Since Kyoto the signatories have failed miserabley to meet the targets that they themselves set. Whereas the US has made progress. Oh by the way Petr even if the Kyoto targets were met it would reduce the temperature by 0.07 degrees centigrade - you would even be able to measure it. Kyoto is a dead duck, and it never was a solution, at best a feel-good sticking plaster. GWB and the American approach was the correct one - attack the problem from the technological side of things and include all - it has produced results for them.

"..signing Kyoto would not obviously have prevented Katrina, but the evidence is that hurricanes have been increasing in intensity as well as frequency (this turned out to be a record year)." There is no evidence at all linking this years hurricane season to global warming - intensity and frequency of hurricanes is cyclical.

"it didnt help that the bulk of the National Guard was off in Iraq either.." Except for the fact that the bulk of the National Guard are/were not "off in Iraq" as you seem to think.

Your figures regarding temperature differences and effects are all relatives not absolutes. Nobody can plan for worst-case scenario in relation to potential natural disasters, if they did life on earth would be impossible. For example to put plans into effect to ensure that people are safe from the potential natural disaster of the super volcano under Yellowstone, you would have to evacuate most, if not all of the USA, build extremely vast and robust geodomes and power them with their own nuclear power stations. The prospect is ridiculous it just would not happen. Alternatively you try and find a way to relieve the pressure in the chamber that is building beneath Yellowstone.

If the planning and equipment and management were all so poor, how come it all worked when Rita struck a couple of weeks later - couldn't be because people did do what they were told to do when they were told to do it. And that plans in place were implimented.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 07:33 AM

Like I said, Buzzer, the argument was laid out in the very first thread at Katrina-Gate... I knew you'd be too lazy to actaully read it or even take the time to find it... Noraml for you and some other GUEST 'round therse parts these days...

They won't read anything.... All they want to do is attack folks who actually do the research and present it...

That, IMO, is cowardly...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:57 AM

There is no doubt in my mind that government was lax in its response and individuals were foolish in refusing to leave.

The main problem is, however, that a city where the river is up and the buildings are down is not a rational thing to have.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 12:54 PM

teribus, unfortunately no matter how much you may deny global warming
it is a fact accepted, by most of the worlds scientific community.
All of the industrialized countries with the exception of US and Australia, are signatories. IF it was a still a matter of debate
it wouldnot have gotten this far. Its certainly not a matter of debate
that the arctic ice shelf has been reduced 30% since the 70's.
(I wouldnt buy shore front property if I were you)

'who did what in the past is irrelevant and what is done is done'
oh, can I use that argument in the Iraq war threads?

Id say the hallmark of a good citizen is to take responsibility for his own actions. If I lived in a village where one family left all their trash around and used up more of the commons than anyone else - and got better off than anyone else in the process - Id take a dim view if they suggested whats done is done we have to deal with the problem now..

you're also contradicting yourself. In one sentence you say global warming is still debatable - and in another that the US is making progress on the problem (a problem it doesnt acknowledge) through technical solutions...

one simple non-technical solution would be conservation, and requiring better mileage for vehicles, instead the industry has through loopholes classifying SUV's as truck bypassed the mileage requirements.

Kyoto may never claimed to be a solution, rather a step in the right direction. Thanks to Kyoto, btw alternative sources such as wind power have been improved to a much more competitive level.

as far as planning for a disaster: we do know there are 25 or so hurricanes a year in the western atlantic region -we also know this was a record year. The evidence is they have increased in intensity
(see the nova website).. I dont know what the odds are for this super volcano, but Id say its far less than the hurricane striking the souther gulf coast.

as far as planning see the Tom Ridge Interview in the (frontline.org) site - where he explains why 4 years after 9/11 most US cities still do not have interoperable communications for disaster situations
- because the federal govt is not going to choose a vendor without going through a long approval process, and it would be telling the states what to do.. PURE BULLSHIT.

Katrina was a disaster that was made worse by a failure of leadership at many levels but most especially the highest level.
What do you expect from a president who feels he was appointed by God? youd think maybe god was sending a msg with all those hurricanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:18 PM

From an article by Mark Steyn in Yesterdays Dialy Telegraph:

"The eco-doom-mongers were speculating on possible changes in thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic - or, as the Daily Mail put it: "Is Britain on the brink of a New Ice Age?" Europe could get so chilly that shivering Muslim rioters might burn the entire Peugeot fleet on the first night. Which would be good for the environment, presumably. After that, they'd be reduced to huddling round the nearest fire-breathing imam for warmth.

But the point is, as Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace puts it: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." Got that? If it's hot, that's a sign of global warming, and, if it's cold, that's a sign of global warming.

And if it's just kind of average - say, 48F and partially cloudy, as it will be in Llandudno today - that's a sign that global warming is accelerating out of control and you need to flee immediately because time is running out ! "Time is running out to deal with climate change," says Mr Guilbeault. "Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time."

Really? Ten years ago, we had a lot of time? That's not the way I recall it: "Time is running out for the climate" - Chris Rose of Greenpeace, 1997; "Time running out for action on global warming Greenpeace claims" - Irish Times, 1994; "Time is running out" - scientist Henry Kendall, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace, 1992. Admirably, Mr Guilbeault's commitment to the environment extends to recycling last decade's scare-mongering press releases.

"Stop worrying about your money, take care of our planet," advised one of the protesters' placards. Au contraire, take care of your money and the planet will follow. For anywhere other than Antarctica and a few sparsely inhabited islands, the first condition for a healthy environment is a strong economy. In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent.

During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.

Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C - a figure that would be statistically undetectable within annual climate variation. In return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion - and those are the US Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.

I've mentioned before the environmentalists' ceaseless fretting for the prospect of every species but their own. By the end of this century, the demographically doomed French, Italians and Spaniards will be so shrivelled in number they may have too few environmentalists to man their local Greenpeace office. Is that part of the plan? To create a habitable environment with no humans left to inhabit it? If so, destroying the global economy for 0.07C is a swell idea.

But even the poseurs of the European chancelleries are having second thoughts. Which is why, in their efforts to flog some life back into the dead Kyoto horse, the eco-cultists have to come up with ever scarier horrors, such as that "New Ice Age". Meanwhile, the Bush Administration's Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate brings together the key economic colossi of this new century - America, China and India - plus Australia, Japan and South Korea, in a relationship that acknowledges, unlike Kyoto, the speed of Chinese and Indian economic growth, provides for the sharing of cleaner energy technology and recognises that the best friend of the planet's natural resources is the natural resourcefulness of a dynamic economy.

It's a practical and results-oriented approach, which is why the eco-cultists will never be marching through globally warmed, snow-choked streets on its behalf. It lacks the requisite component of civilisational self-loathing.

Wake up and smell the CO2, guys. Sayonara, Kyoto. Hello, coalition of the emitting."

Just thought Petr might find it amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 02:06 PM

Bobert:

I'm with you, to a point. Life skills are worth transmitting, but whose duty is it to do the transmitting? As the poet sez:

"Life is hard, it's even harder when you're dumb." Not to say that poor and ignorant equates to dumb but y'gotta admit there's a tendency. As attributed to Dorothy Parker: "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think."

Teribus et al:

As far as global warming and who's to blame. There is a lot of chest beating on both sides of the issue. One thing I've picked up over the years, the media don't know sh*t, they bleat the latest dire warning to suit the distribution numbers of their publications.

Real science takes time and as the physicist Richard Feynman said: "I know how hard it is to know something."

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM

Teribus.. instead of cut&pasting some head in the sand article, you might try to address the points I raised,

eg are you denying that the arctic ice has declined 30% since the 70's
and exactly how many peer-reviewed science journals have articles discrediting global warming..

as far as air quality- the nixon administration did more for reducing pollution than did GWBush whose Orwellian-named 'Clean air' act was
created by advisers from the worst polluters of US industry.

Id recommend reading Jared Diamond's Collapse - a study of various societies that have collapsed.

Im sure that Easter Islanders thought the trees would never disappear either...

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:36 PM

eg are you denying that the arctic ice has declined 30% since the 70's
and exactly how many peer-reviewed science journals have articles discrediting global warming..
(Petr)

Sorry, it is a serious theme but these two lines one under the other made me laugh out loud. If you take the time scale of your first line to answer the question of your second line the obvious answer is 'all of them' (at least if they have existed in the 70s). But one may guess that you had a completely different time window in mind when formulating the second line. Now to the first line.

A U.S. study concluded that minimum ice extent in the northern autumn has declined by 3.6 percent per decade since 1961.[2] The Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway found a 4.6 percent decline in ice extent and a 5.8 percent decline in actual ice area between 1978 and 1994.[3] Tentative results suggest that this decline accelerated betwen 1987 and 1994.

from a Greenpeace site

Even with a Greenpeace data base I don't come to 30%, Petr. Where do the 30% come from? Is it mass, extent, averag thickness or some other measure? Is it since the 70s or since the late 70s (you have used both expressions).

Hyperbole is not helpful in these discussions.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Katrina - Who Was To Blame?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 06:21 PM

wolfgang, this was just recently in the news (CTV news Canadian news channel in which they talked about close to a 30% decline in Arctic sea ice- specifically the perennial sea cover)

but this is a direct quote from a nasa website

nasa arctic ice decline

'On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record.

The ice that survives the summer is called the perennial sea ice cover which consists mainly of thick multiyear ice floes. "Since 1979 we've seen that Arctic perennial sea ice cover has been declining at 9.6 percent per decade," said Joey Comiso, a senior scientist of GSFC.'

9.6% per decade - in 27 years