Katrina

Post by **Tank Program** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:48 pm

I think I agree with the dude.

Post by **Lucifer** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:26 pm

I'm not going to agree with the dude, but I'll tell you why making a racial issue out of it is expected to get results.

First, they're targetting the feds with it. So the Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA are safe. Second, they're targetting feds who are likely to have their careers washed up if they don't act quickly enough, and any time spent making a racial issue out of it is going to damage them. So, playing the race card right now is actually a good strategic move, if not completely honest.

On a side note, anybody know anything about the Governor of LA? What I'm seeing right now, without knowing anything else about her, makes me think she'd make a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton.

Phytotron · Post by **Phytotron** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:15 pm

Well, I don't count myself as a Democrat, and I'd probably not vote for Hillary (on political grounds, not trite personal nonsense), but I'm hoping Russ Feingold runs.

Oh, and no, I'm not familiar with Louisiana's Governor—only Senator Mary Landrieu, because I'm a C-SPAN junkie.

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:53 am

Oscilloscope wrote:Well, I don't count myself as a Democrat

Why are you Americans so busy with being a democrat or republican.. I don't see it. Isn't it just: vote for the guy who shares your interests?

Fonkay · Post by **Fonkay** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:36 am

The thing is that the person themselves barely have their own agenda. As a democrat or republican, they generally have those interest, making them a very divided 2 people.

If I'm wrong, correct me. I am a Canadian after all, that's just what I get out of US government.

Post by **Lucifer** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:40 pm

Well, looks like we're taking them in here in Austin, too.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=0s3de81M

Interesting, I just told my wife yesterday that we don't have any large covered areas, then I remembered our own convention center. They just built a new one right next to the old one, I don't know if they tore down the old one yet.

We'll be going through our closet and pantry to see if we have anything to give. It would have been nice if that hurricane could have waited another week, 'cause we're broke right now.

THey're just in time for the Bat-fest, too, which is going on just a few blocks from the convention center.

Phytotron · Post by **Phytotron** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:44 pm

Sabarai wrote:Why are you Americans so busy with being a democrat or republican.. I don't see it. Isn't it just: vote for the guy who shares your interests?

Well, that's the rub. No. Our electoral system is set up in such a manner that favors a two-party dominance, and sets up all kinds of barriers to any other so-called "third party." This is on all levels—Federal, State, and Local.

Therefore, in any given election, if the candidate who most closely matches my interests and views is a third party candidate, sure, I can vote for him or her (and I usually do), but the likelihood of him winning is next to nil. That is, if that person even manages to get on the ballot; in most cases, a voter doesn't even have an option beyond the two-headed monster. So that's why most voters end up settling for the "lesser of two evils" mentality. They say to themselves, "[Third Party Candidate] can't win, so I might as well vote for the [Democrat or Republican] who is slightly less worse than the [Republican or Democrat]." And then you also get into the whole "spoiler" refrain. And yadda yadda.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, and the legal favors and barriers are numerous, so I won't digress into a detailing of them here. Suffice it to say that in the US there is an electoral duopoly held and mutually maintained by the Democrats and Republicans.

Gore Vidal puts it like this: "We have one party with two right wings." Hence the term Republicrats.

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:15 pm

But in that way not all different views are looked at...

Post by **Lucifer** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:23 pm

Sabarai wrote:But in that way not all different views are looked at...

It's a fact of life in American politics, and you sure don't hear Os here saying American politics are perfect, do you?

It's also something of a fact of the way votes are tallied that only two parties can ever be in power. Without learning anything about statistics, look around at various countries that tally votes in one form or other and compare the number of powerful parties (you know, the ones that are relevant in elections) to the method of voting they use.

Also, in case everybody missed it, it turns out that small government could have handled the crisis better. So says the conservative voice, anyway:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/art ... ml?id=8016

(I'm still wondering how he figures a city like New Orleans that was told to depend on government and then dropped like a brick when it came time for the government to come through has somehow done somthing bad. Liberals and conservatives alike have thrown away the money that would have built up the defenses to prevent this catastrophe. Compared to NYC, which had lots of support and money and stuff)

Post by **Lucifer** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:38 pm

Incidentally, if you wanted to learn more about the governor of Louisiana, here:

http://gov.louisiana.gov/

I admit I was hoping for a hot-rockin' woman, seeing's how she's from Louisiana and all. In any case, it looks like her career is a series of "First woman to do ... in Louisiana", which is pretty interesting.

And here's the wikipedia entry on Mayor Ray Nagin (which includes the first picture I've seen of the guy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin

Looks like his stint as mayor of new orleans is his first position in public service.

Post by **Lucifer** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:49 pm

Interesting report. Looks like the reporters are trying to spin Bush's criticism of the "results" of the emergency efforts as "response". Under that word substitution, it makes it look like Bush apologized for sitting on his ass (which you know he wouldn't do, apologize for it, that is). Here's a link and some quotes:

The Fine Article wrote: Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, on Saturday described the hurricane as "probably the worst catastrophe or set of catastrophes'" to hit the US. Mr Chertoff said the combination of catastrophes, including the collapse of levees after the hurricane hit, exceeded the disaster plans of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

...

President George W. Bush, who flew to Alabama, Mississippi and New Orleans, earlier admitted the response to Katrina was "not acceptable". He said on friday before leaving Washington: "We'll get on top of this situation and we're going to help the people that need help."

...

Mr Bush said no one had anticipated the breach of the levees that protect New Orleans from flooding. But Lieutenant-General Carl Strock, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, said the military and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had ordered the evacuation of New Orleans precisely because the levees were not designed to withstand a category five hurricane.

It's also interesting that FEMA is being reported as not having a plan to deal with the whole city flooding. Considering New Orleans' unique location, it seems like they should have one. Hell, the US Army has a plan for invading Canada, why isn't there a plan for dealing with the complete flooding of New Orleans?

microbus · Post by **microbus** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:47 pm

Cuz basic human mentality says "it'll never happen to me/us"

Post by **Lucifer** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:23 am

microbus wrote:Cuz basic human mentality says "it'll never happen to me/us"

FEMA's *job* is to deal with emergencies. They are the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and they were created in order to deal with situations just like this, so that state and local governments wouldn't be on their own.

Hence the reason we're all so pissed at the feds for being so slow on it. It's not like we're whining that they didn't help or anything, we're pissed they didn't do their jobs, and what FEMA guys they sent seemed to have been too incompetent to be trusted with a minor emergency like forgetting your homework for class let alone a hurricane that just did the ultimate smackdown on New Orleans.

microbus · Post by **microbus** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:30 am

I agree 100%, the feds really screwed up, majorly...
they figured they could take any funding marked for
improvements and maintenance on levees and other
things in New Orleans, and spend the money elsewhere,
because nothing was going to happen in New Orleans, at
least not during their term of office, or career.
I'm surprised Bush actually went down and looked at things,
I figured he'd have sent someone else... and he's supposed
to go back to the area tomorrow ( Monday ).
And I still can't get used to any North American citizens being
called refugees, in their own nations. A sad day, indeed.

Post by **Lucifer** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:56 am

This is fun:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp ... an/3339670

Paraphrase from the article:

"Perry promised to take more than he can handle! Oh no, how mean of him to offer help to so many people!"

(Texans, like most anybody else, have a habit of offering from the heart and working out the details later, so his offer to take 75k evacuees was exactly that, send 'em here and we'll figure out where to put them. And I didn't exactly notice anybody else stepping up to the plate)

Edit: I love the south. From the Beeb:

The Beeb wrote: The president's suggestion over the weekend that local officials made mistakes has led one Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, to threaten to punch him if he says it again.

She's nice. I'd fire up the barbecue and...(you know the rest)

Edit2: Perry's the Governor of Texas, in case you missed that at some point.