The W
Views: 99947296
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.10.07 0512
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Keith Olbermann on Katrina Aftermath Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(245 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 1690/4963
EXP: 23909756
For next: 472010

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#1 Posted on 5.9.05 2227.19
Reposted on: 5.9.12 2229.01
Former ESPN anchor and current MSNBC reporter Keith Olbermann gives his take on the Katrina aftermath. I really think he knocked it out of the park, good stuff.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514671/#050905a

The "city" of Louisiana (Keith Olbermann)


SECAUCUS Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: "Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater..."

Well there's your problem right there.

If ever a slip-of-the-tongue defined a government's response to a crisis, this was it.

The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that mightve saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of the future tense in terms of relief they couldve brought last Monday and Tuesday like the President, whose statements have looked like theyre being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.

But no. The incompetence and the ludicrous prioritization will forever be symbolized by one gaffe by of the head of what is ironically called The Department of Homeland Security: Louisiana is a city

Politician after politician Republican and Democrat alike has paraded before us, unwilling or unable to shut off the "I-Me" switch in their heads, condescendingly telling us about how moved they were or how devastated they were congenitally incapable of telling the difference between the destruction of a city and the opening of a supermarket.

And as that sorry recital of self-absorption dragged on, I have resisted editorial comment. The focus needed to be on the efforts to save the stranded even the internet's meager powers were correctly devoted to telling the stories of the twin disasters, natural... and government-made.

But now, at least, it is has stopped getting exponentially worse in Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Louisiana (the state, not the city). And, having given our leaders what we know now is the week or so they need to get their act together, that period of editorial silence I mentioned, should come to an end.

No one is suggesting that mayors or governors in the afflicted areas, nor the federal government, should be able to stop hurricanes. Lord knows, no one is suggesting that we should ever prioritize levee improvement for a below-sea-level city, ahead of $454 million worth of trophy bridges for the politicians of Alaska.

But, nationally, these are leaders who won re-election last year largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping the country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power station in Iraq, and defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer. Yet they couldn't even keep one school or power station from being devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans even though the government had heard all the "chatter" from the scientists and city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the government couldn't quite discern... a group called The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection or at least amelioration against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.

It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, "we are not satisfied," with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's the administration, although we still don't know where some of them are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let You Die'?

I don't know which 'we' Mr. Bush meant.

For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be whether or not I voted for this President he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government our government "New Orleans."

For him, it is a shame in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. "The responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament "for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."

In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage itself it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.

As we emphasized to you here all last week, the realities of the region are such that New Orleans is going to be largely uninhabitable for a lot longer than anybody is yet willing to recognize. Lord knows when the last body will be found, or the last artifact of the levee break, dug up. Could be next March. Could be 2100. By then, in the muck and toxic mire of New Orleans, they may even find our government's credibility.

Somewhere, in the City of Louisiana.



Two things,

One, I love this line


    It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.





...and two, where the fuck is Dick Cheany anyways?
Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2980/3273
EXP: 12776229
For next: 315124

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 198 days
Last activity: 198 days
#2 Posted on 5.9.05 2325.27
Reposted on: 5.9.12 2329.01
Good article, but rather pointless in my opinion. We're stuck with Bush for three more years and then he's gone. The only reasons I can think of that public disapproval would force him to change his policies/actions are if he either cares about keeping the Republican Party in power (which I doubt), or if he cares about how his Presidency reads in the history books. Bush can continue to pay us lipservice and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

Instead we should be focusing on the memebers of Congress and the state Governors who had much the same response as the President. Dem or Rep, all these people need to go. I'd love to see the media start roasting them all with the vigor they go after the President with.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 188/257
EXP: -730904
For next: 1010842

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2869 days
Last activity: 2662 days
#3 Posted on 6.9.05 0123.31
Reposted on: 6.9.12 0124.24
Failure began with the local government, a Democratic
mayor and a Democratic governor, who failed to provide
decent plans for evacuation, shelter, and security.
They should both get failing grades before even looking
at FEMA, but Olbermann is more interested in grinding
an axe than in trying to figure out what went wrong.

The Federal Government can bail out any city at any
time for any reason within 48 hours... provided we're
willing to pay billions of dollars to maintain an army
on standby 24/7 with equipment and supplies, the way
cities maintain fire departments.

Whazzat? Too expensive? Yeah, that's how New Orleans
and Louisiana felt about their responsibilities, too.
Better to do nothing and wait big brother to take care
of everything. Liberalism 101. And now Nagin wants to
go to Vegas while Uncle Sam rebuilds his city for him.

Rudy Guiliani he is not.

Frank
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 2551/3943
EXP: 16731499
For next: 79916

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 6.9.05 0156.50
Reposted on: 6.9.12 0157.37
    Originally posted by Boston Idol
    Failure began with the local government, a Democratic mayor and a Democratic governor, who failed to provide decent plans for evacuation, shelter, and security. They should both get failing grades before even looking at FEMA, but Olbermann is more interested in grinding an axe than in trying to figure out what went wrong.

    The Federal Government can bail out any city at any time for any reason within 48 hours... provided we're willing to pay billions of dollars to maintain an army on standby 24/7 with equipment and supplies, the way cities maintain fire departments.

    Whazzat? Too expensive? Yeah, that's how New Orleans and Louisiana felt about their responsibilities, too. Better to do nothing and wait big brother to take care of everything. Liberalism 101. And now Nagin wants to go to Vegas while Uncle Sam rebuilds his city for him.


So you're absolving the federal government because the New Orleans government's response wasn't perfect? Everyone should have known what was going on, but whoever drained resources needlessly knowing this could very well happen should be ashamed. Assigning blame like this isn't going to get anything rebuilt any faster, and just taking ideological potshots is pointless (this one does go both ways). There's plenty of blame to go around here, no need to hand it out for the wrong reasons.

(edited by drjayphd on 6.9.05 1315)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 983/1083
EXP: 2390803
For next: 71061

Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 937 days
Last activity: 907 days
#5 Posted on 6.9.05 0724.03
Reposted on: 6.9.12 0724.34
    Originally posted by Boston Idol
    Failure began with the local government, a Democratic
    mayor and a Democratic governor, who failed to provide
    decent plans for evacuation, shelter, and security.
    They should both get failing grades before even looking
    at FEMA, but Olbermann is more interested in grinding
    an axe than in trying to figure out what went wrong.

    The Federal Government can bail out any city at any
    time for any reason within 48 hours... provided we're
    willing to pay billions of dollars to maintain an army
    on standby 24/7 with equipment and supplies, the way
    cities maintain fire departments.

    Whazzat? Too expensive? Yeah, that's how New Orleans
    and Louisiana felt about their responsibilities, too.
    Better to do nothing and wait big brother to take care
    of everything. Liberalism 101. And now Nagin wants to
    go to Vegas while Uncle Sam rebuilds his city for him.

    Rudy Guiliani he is not.

    Frank


The governor wasn't too smart, either -- "Let's pray this down to a category two" just doesn't work in my book.

At the same time FEMA and HS didn't do a stellar job of making themselves look good, either -- Olbermann was partly basing this off of the arguement that this administration is supposed to be protecting the country; I mean, you do remember the Ready.gov ads, no? So when a cat4/cat5 hurricane hits, we weren't ready -- NOLA and the US both.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 1692/4963
EXP: 23909756
For next: 472010

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#6 Posted on 6.9.05 1802.02
Reposted on: 6.9.12 1802.49
What Rudy Guiliani had to deal with is nothing like what they are dealing with down south. I mean, Christ, comparing the two things is just insane in itself.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 192/257
EXP: -730904
For next: 1010842

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2869 days
Last activity: 2662 days
#7 Posted on 6.9.05 1820.09
Reposted on: 6.9.12 1822.12
Guiliani showed leadership and held his officials and city
together. They didn't wait for someone else to save them.

Have you looked at Ray Nagin's disaster plan yet? He told
people who were too poor to flee the city to bring five days
worth of food to the Superdome. Was that a reasonable plan?

Overcrowding, squalor, lack of supplies, and total lack of
organization in the immediate aftermath can be attributed
to Nagin's lack of planning. What did he do as mayor, cut
ribbons at new hotel openings and plan Jazz festivals?

I sure as hell hope the mayor of my city (San Jose) is taking
note of this debacle and putting together a committee to
review our disaster plan. I'd hate to think he's going to
tell me to bring five days worth of food and water to the
"Your Name Here" Arena in the event of a major earthquake.

Frank

(edited by Boston Idol on 6.9.05 1620)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2981/3273
EXP: 12776229
For next: 315124

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 198 days
Last activity: 198 days
#8 Posted on 6.9.05 1957.02
Reposted on: 6.9.12 1957.38
I really don't understand your point. Do you think anybody is planning on giving Nagin a medal? Or that he even has a hope of re-election?

But besides that, even comparing New Orleans to 9/11 is just asinine. Several buildings collapsing in Manhattan is not the same as having most of your city under water. Which is why it bugs the crap out of me to hear Bush and whoever else come on TV and say this is "A city really pulling together" because there's not even a city anymore! Census data puts the population of the greater New Orleans area at 1,337,726 in 2000. As of last Tuesday there was, what, 100,000 people left in the area? Nine tenths of the people in New York City did not evacuate after 9/11. The two disasters are nothing alike.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 193/257
EXP: -730904
For next: 1010842

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2869 days
Last activity: 2662 days
#9 Posted on 6.9.05 2005.27
Reposted on: 6.9.12 2010.04
My point is that the job of saving my ass, your ass, and everyone else's ass falls to local officials first because they have the knowledge, resources, and authority. New Orleans fell victim to a charlatan who had no plan, a governor who was playing politics, and a federal agency that was slow to grasp the gravity of the situation.

I don't want to crucify Ray Nagin for the sake of the flood victims, but I damn well want mayors across the country to know that they will be held accountable if they don't come up with better plans than "bring your own food", especially when dealing with people who were too poor to evacuate. I also want governors to have a plan in place to direct their resources to the aid of local authorities as quickly as possible because their resources (I mean everything from the national guard to state troopers to resources that can be commandeered from other cities) are a lot closer than the resources of the Federal government.

Some people just want to point fingers at Washington and ignore the rest of the response for partisan political reasons. If those idiots have their way, there will be more disasters just like this.

Frank

(edited by Boston Idol on 6.9.05 1805)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1171/1494
EXP: 3946865
For next: 59214

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on 6.9.05 2148.27
Reposted on: 6.9.12 2148.37
So can we agree that there was failure here at every level of government: local, state, and federal? Keep in mind while there are some that are wanting to point their fingers at Washington and ignore the rest, there are others, for partisan political reasons, who want to point their fingers at the mayor and governor and ignore Washington. They're idiots, too. As drjayphd said, there's plenty of blame to go around here. It is concerning that we created a new department to handle situations such as these, and we were suppose to be better prepared, yet it didn't seem that we were, especially when this very scenerio was so predictable.

(edited by ges7184 on 6.9.05 2149)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 1693/4963
EXP: 23909756
For next: 472010

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#11 Posted on 6.9.05 2215.47
Reposted on: 6.9.12 2215.52
That's all well and good, but it was clear only 24 hours later that the local government had pretty much collapsed and there was nothing a ravaged Police Department could do other than defend it's own buildings. That was even more clear on Wednesday. When the mayor of the city was yelling for help that should have been a pretty good sign that more help was needed.

The fact is help didn't come until panic and chaos over took the whole city. Bush/Chaney told us that they would be safe under their wing. These people spent over 3 days in very unsafe conditions. It might have started at the bottom with the ribbon cutting mayor, but I've never taken into consideration about a mayor's ability to keep me safe when voting. Maybe, that job needs to be better defined for voters. Whatever the case may be, someone somewhere didn't pull the trigger when it was clear to all of us at home that the trigger needed to be pulled.

Was communication really that bad in this communication age?

Are we spread thinner than we thought troop and supply wise?

Did the government not take this as seriously as they should have?

Would something as simple as pallets of water and little meal packets just dropped on the city soothe some of the building panic?

There's a million more questions that need to be asked and when the time finally comes to ask them I hope Americans don't forget how important this all is. Not only must we look a lot weaker to the rest of the world than we say we are, but we need to make sure that the people we put in power to watch our backs actually watch our backs when we need them the most.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1439/2703
EXP: 8924281
For next: 64538

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#12 Posted on 7.9.05 0728.03
Reposted on: 7.9.12 0729.01
Two things.

This situation was in the making over decades, across Democrat and Republican Presidents, Congresses, and state/local leadership. The important thing now is to address the situation, help those in need, figure out what we need to do to correct the situation, and then see what heads need to roll.

Second, the Republican party's avows that the devolution of power from the top down is their stated goal. They don't believe that the Feds are capable of doing much right and locals should take more responsibilty for their lives and area. Dem's are the polar opposite. Neither side is correct. As usual, the truth is in the middle but common ground doesn't make for good sound bites.
Lord of the Manor
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 169/280
EXP: 305748
For next: 2365

Since: 24.2.03
From: London, United Kingdom

Since last post: 603 days
Last activity: 526 days
#13 Posted on 7.9.05 1026.25
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1028.03
The idea of anyone actually being held accountable is a joke. The American public's attention span is too short and by and large if the everyday person is getting on alright, it's all good with them. This has been the case with every last Iraq outrage and will continue to be so, oh probably within a month of the final body count being tallied.

A poll cited on CNN.com states:

63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result.

In recent days, 62 percent said they believe progress made in dealing with the situation is satisfactory.

However, a resounding 79 percent said they believe gas companies are taking advantage of the situation and charging unfair prices to consumers as a result of the hurricane.

http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrina.poll/index.html

That shows the priorities of the general public. Too often it seems apparent that what's in their pocket is more important that what is (should be) in their hearts.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 6809/16298
EXP: 142649781
For next: 717126

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 7.9.05 1044.57
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1055.26
    Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
    That shows the priorities of the general public. Too often it seems apparent that what's in their pocket is more important that what is (should be) in their hearts.


Don't get me wrong -- I really LOVE when non-Americans offer their opinion on American behaviour, but allow me to offer as a counterargument:
    Originally posted by The Chronicle of Philanthropy
    Donations to Hurricane-Relief Efforts Exceed $504-Million

    By Nicole Wallace

    Americans have given more than a half-billion to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

    The pace of giving is unprecedented in recent American history. In the 10 days after September 11, Americans donated $239-million to charitable causes, and in the 9 days after the tsunamis hit, major American relief groups raised $163-million.

    [MORE]


You might think we're only concerned about what's in our pockets, but I hope you're not surprised that we're more than happy to also take OUT of our pockets when necessary. I'm not so worried about what's in the American heart.

(edited by CRZ on 7.9.05 1046)
Lord of the Manor
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 170/280
EXP: 305748
For next: 2365

Since: 24.2.03
From: London, United Kingdom

Since last post: 603 days
Last activity: 526 days
#15 Posted on 7.9.05 1113.08
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1123.43
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
      That shows the priorities of the general public. Too often it seems apparent that what's in their pocket is more important that what is (should be) in their hearts.


    Don't get me wrong -- I really LOVE when non-Americans offer their opinion on American behaviour, but allow me to offer as a counterargument:
      Originally posted by The Chronicle of Philanthropy
      Donations to Hurricane-Relief Efforts Exceed $504-Million

      By Nicole Wallace

      Americans have given more than a half-billion to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

      The pace of giving is unprecedented in recent American history. In the 10 days after September 11, Americans donated $239-million to charitable causes, and in the 9 days after the tsunamis hit, major American relief groups raised $163-million.

      [MORE]


    You might think we're only concerned about what's in our pockets, but I hope you're not surprised that we're more than happy to also take OUT of our pockets when necessary. I'm not so worried about what's in the American heart.

    (edited by CRZ on 7.9.05 1046)


I am American, thank you very much. I have lived in London for the past 2 years now. I am well qualified and well versed enough to be able to call what I see. But thank you for trying the time tested fallacy of attacking the speaker on me. Better luck next time.

Yes American's donate money individually, no one doubts that. But compare any of those figures to the money blown on things such as the Iraq war... and hey, throw in people's live in that category too. I really think that many, not all, but many thrown a couple dollars to charity as a way of feeling good about themselves, while they ignore the larger issues, which if accountability were held, there'd be less need for the donations in the first place.

I do not see it as enough to place a band aid on a problem while ignoring what keeps causing the wounds in the first place.

(edited by Lord of the Manor on 7.9.05 1717)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2689/6335
EXP: 33455713
For next: 664385

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on 7.9.05 1135.35
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1135.46
    Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
    Yes American's donate money individually, no one doubts that. But compare any of those figures to the money blown on things such as the Iraq war... and hey, throw in people's live in that category too. I really think that many, not all, but many thrown a couple dollars to charity as a way of feeling good about themselves, while they ignore the larger issues, which if accountability were held, there'd be less need for the donations in the first place.

    I do not see it as enough to place a band aid on a problem while ignoring what keeps causing the wounds in the first place.

    (edited by Lord of the Manor on 7.9.05 1717)


New Orleans is Under water. Guess what, you build a fucking city BELOW SEA LEVEL, and its bound to flood. No amount of "accountability" would change the laws of nature. Gravity. Heavy things flow down. Water flows DOWN, always to the LOWEST FUCKING POINT. The city survived the hurricane. But, the outdated levees could not handle the stress. Who's to say a "better" levee system would have survived intact?
When St Louis flooded in 93, where was the outrage at President Clinton? I mean, the same Levee system that failed in New Orleans failed here as well. Tens of thousans of people homeless because of the floods, yet I dont recall THAT president getting off his ass and coming to look after the good people of the midwest, or people criticizing his lack of response.
That being said I am sick and fucking tired of hearing about New Orleans. I am sick and tired of hearing how the people left stranded were only left because they were black.
I am sick of the fact that there are a couple hundred miles of property from Alabama to Louisiana, where people are just as hammered, thier houses destroyed, lives destroyed, no water, no food, no shelter, etc. But, they didnt start acting like fucking animals, they started actually cleaning up and trying to figure out what to do, and how to get thier lives together. So, thier plight is virtually ignored, while those who respond to the tragedy with robbing, looting, assaults, raping children, beating old people, etc, get all the attention. Typical of our "news sources" to focus on the human feces that would act like this, while decent people to the east are just as effected, and in some cases even more effected.
PeterStork
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 404/1007
EXP: 2180033
For next: 34076

Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 3 days
#17 Posted on 7.9.05 1221.40
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1222.56
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    When St Louis flooded in 93, where was the outrage at President Clinton? I mean, the same Levee system that failed in New Orleans failed here as well. Tens of thousans of people homeless because of the floods, yet I dont recall THAT president getting off his ass and coming to look after the good people of the midwest, or people criticizing his lack of response.


The two floods are not analogous. There was no necessary immediate Federal repsonse in '93, because there was no sudden disaster. The water crept, and people had plenty of time to evacuate. Levee walls were strong; there had been no plea to the Feds to reinforce them that were mostly denied with spending slashed. What happened in '93, just two decades after the "Flood of the Century," was much more of a surprise than Lake New Orleans.

Oh, and there were certainly no trapped refugees at the (non-existent at the time) Edwards Jones Dome that had no access to food or water and NEEDED these things airlifted in.

Two completely different circumstances.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 6810/16298
EXP: 142649781
For next: 717126

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 7.9.05 1232.39
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1233.00
    Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
    I am American, thank you very much. I have lived in London for the past 2 years now. I am well qualified and well versed enough to be able to call what I see. But thank you for trying the time tested fallacy of attacking the speaker on me. Better luck next time.
I *believe* that jumping on my aside and focusing solely on that while ignoring my counterargument is some other form of logical fallacy, but I'm not going to bother looking it up. My point was/is your post suggested a lack of perspective which I attempted to resolve. How well I did (or didn't) will be left to the folks reading the thread.

    Yes American's donate money individually, no one doubts that.
Let me go back and reread your first post, because it really looked like you were using polls to "prove" that Americans - or rather, Americans who aren't you, I guess* - cared more about the price of gas than their fellow citizens.

    But compare any of those figures to the money blown on things such as the Iraq war... and hey, throw in people's live in that category too.
I dunno, I fail to see any relevance in a comparison of Katrina and Iraq so pointing out that 2,000 dead in Iraq vs. 10,000 dead in NOLA alone seems to tip the scales towards Katrina...but maybe you're more worried about the money than the lives...although the gist I got from your posts was that...ahhh I'm running in circles here

    I really think that many, not all, but many thrown a couple dollars to charity as a way of feeling good about themselves, while they ignore the larger issues, which if accountability were held, there'd be less need for the donations in the first place.
Also, if there hadn't been a hurricane.

It's extremely cynical to question the motives of EVERY good act. Any "feeling good about myself" I got from making my donation can't cancel out how bad I feel about what's going on down there because I don't have enough money to cover that. Having said that, hell yeah it DOES feel good that we've already given half a billion, because that's a hell of a lot of people "doing the right thing" and also because I trust the Red Cross more than the government when it comes to helping people out. (I hope that last sentiment doesn't undermine anything else I'm saying!)

Rushing to find a way to place blame DOESN'T make me feel better, either, but I am the first to admit that's just me and may not be any of a number of people who seem to feel a LOT better after pointing a finger or two. Can't say it's a surprise when some of them get questioned, though.

    I do not see it as enough to place a band aid on a problem while ignoring what keeps causing the wounds in the first place.
So... am I to take it that over there in London the campaign to ban weather was successful? ;-)

*sorry, did it again - must work on that
Lord of the Manor
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 171/280
EXP: 305748
For next: 2365

Since: 24.2.03
From: London, United Kingdom

Since last post: 603 days
Last activity: 526 days
#19 Posted on 7.9.05 1649.46
Reposted on: 7.9.12 1651.31
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
      I am American, thank you very much. I have lived in London for the past 2 years now. I am well qualified and well versed enough to be able to call what I see. But thank you for trying the time tested fallacy of attacking the speaker on me. Better luck next time.
    I *believe* that jumping on my aside and focusing solely on that while ignoring my counterargument is some other form of logical fallacy, but I'm not going to bother looking it up. My point was/is your post suggested a lack of perspective which I attempted to resolve. How well I did (or didn't) will be left to the folks reading the thread.

      Yes American's donate money individually, no one doubts that.
    Let me go back and reread your first post, because it really looked like you were using polls to "prove" that Americans - or rather, Americans who aren't you, I guess* - cared more about the price of gas than their fellow citizens.

      But compare any of those figures to the money blown on things such as the Iraq war... and hey, throw in people's live in that category too.
    I dunno, I fail to see any relevance in a comparison of Katrina and Iraq so pointing out that 2,000 dead in Iraq vs. 10,000 dead in NOLA alone seems to tip the scales towards Katrina...but maybe you're more worried about the money than the lives...although the gist I got from your posts was that...ahhh I'm running in circles here

      I really think that many, not all, but many thrown a couple dollars to charity as a way of feeling good about themselves, while they ignore the larger issues, which if accountability were held, there'd be less need for the donations in the first place.
    Also, if there hadn't been a hurricane.

    It's extremely cynical to question the motives of EVERY good act. Any "feeling good about myself" I got from making my donation can't cancel out how bad I feel about what's going on down there because I don't have enough money to cover that. Having said that, hell yeah it DOES feel good that we've already given half a billion, because that's a hell of a lot of people "doing the right thing" and also because I trust the Red Cross more than the government when it comes to helping people out. (I hope that last sentiment doesn't undermine anything else I'm saying!)

    Rushing to find a way to place blame DOESN'T make me feel better, either, but I am the first to admit that's just me and may not be any of a number of people who seem to feel a LOT better after pointing a finger or two. Can't say it's a surprise when some of them get questioned, though.

      I do not see it as enough to place a band aid on a problem while ignoring what keeps causing the wounds in the first place.
    So... am I to take it that over there in London the campaign to ban weather was successful? ;-)

    *sorry, did it again - must work on that


Okay, first of all a poll suggests that. Argue the merits of that all you want, but it sort of falls in line with what is seen from outside the fishbowl. Let's face it, America is not about social responsibility. The 'American Dream' (No, not Dusty Rhodes) is based on being able to accumulate wealth through hard work and determination. That being said, I'm sure many of the people who have donated and even more who have not would never want their tax dollars going toward national health care, because it's up the the individual. The individual should somehow be able to secure their own health care. While most of them see a natural disaster as an unfair setback and are then willing to help out a bit, they fail to understand that all men are not created equal. Being born into poverty and being underprivileged (plus we cannot not forget the greatest setback in America- not being white) is really no more or less unfair.

Now when I bring up Iraq, what I mean is this- funding for the levees- cut. Where'd it go? Iraq. Where are all the national guardsmen- Iraq. Why the focus on Iraq? WMD... errr, ummm... Right. Should there be accountability for that? I tend to think so.

And it is the accountability that just doesn't occur. Rumsfeld should gone down for the prisoner abuse. Rove should have gone down for purposely blowing a CIA agent's cover. Bush should have already gone down for a myriad of reasons.

I'm sorry but it is the time to lay blame, to put pressure on the government which is supposed to protect its citizens. When offered aid by other countries, Bush should have never been staring at his feet mumbling 'We don't know what we need' while people died. Have they taken Cuba up on their offer to send up 1100 doctors yet, by the way?

Also, just as a brief aside. The number of deaths 'counted' in Iraq, include only those who died on Iraqi soil. It does not include those who have died following an attack, say at a military hospital in Kuwait. I think it's safe to say that the real number dead is significantly higher than the 'official' tally.

Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 194/257
EXP: -730904
For next: 1010842

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2869 days
Last activity: 2662 days
#20 Posted on 7.9.05 2309.02
Reposted on: 7.9.12 2309.12
The greatest setback in America is not being born white?

Did you survey any graduate programs before you left?

Successful Asians and Indians have disproven racism as
an excuse for personal failure. They've overcome the same
racism by making better decisions for themselves and for
their families, like pooling their wealth to buy property,
staying married, and having children responsibly.

The greatest setback in America is having too many children.
That is an issue of personal responsibility, not skin color.

Frank



(edited by Boston Idol on 7.9.05 2109)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Power out in Los Angeles
Next thread: Katrina's latest victim: FEMA
Previous thread: Holy crap! Katrina
(245 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Keith Olbermann on Katrina AftermathRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.204 seconds.