Status Quo describes the situation exactly. No one wants to take charge of
getting things done and wants to blame some other government entity.
Politics as usual regardless of which side you are on. 4 years ago we had
similar flooding in Houston and the city government looked the other way up
until that point. Houston has always had some flooding with each rain storm
but it took 35 inches of rain one weekend during a tropical storm to open
the city leaders eyes.
It's beautiful that they had national guard troops standing by (to go
to F***ing Iraq) as well. At first, I just didn't like Bush because
he is a twit- but now I'd like to see him and his cronies formally
charged with treason and hanged on prime-time TV. There have probably
been plenty of messes that have been this large, or even larger in
history- but none that I can recall seeing in my lifetime.
I've been spending all my time lately helping friends and family
energy-proof thier homes and trying desperately to find used
woodburning stoves (new ones are out of my family members' price
range, and I can only afford to buy new for myself) just so we don't
all freeze to death this winter- they'll let Louisana's residents
drown, no doubt Wisconsin will ice over just as easily. Nobody I know
has enough money to pay an additional 5-6x rate increase for heating
oil- last year was bad enough for most folks, and it's becoming very
clear that if you don't own a multi-national corporation or two these
days, you're expendable garbage.
Yeah, yeah. I know, It's not Bush's fault. Except for the fact that
the SOB seems to be working as hard as he can (when he's not on
vacation, that is) to bring about hell on Earth for all but his close
friends- who will no doubt profit enormously as long as there are
still at least a few victims left to squeeze.
How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
destroyed day after day.
Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks
on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine
and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and
you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
Prometheus (in email@example.com) said:
| they'll let Louisana's residents drown
No worry - Halliburton will get the contract to put the entire Gulf
Coast area back 'right as rain'.
Er... just as soon as they finish (with) Iraq.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
For checking out past knowledge of possible Big Easy problems:
That's from last October. Given the exigencies of magazine publishing,
the concept probably came up and got judged for suitability and
possibilities a year or so earlier, based on preliminary research. A
magazine can figure it out. Bush can't.
By the way, you're wrong in one spot. Bush isn't a twit. He's a twerp.
It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that
can be addressed easily. You do need to get a bit of a grip however,
blaming one person or group of persons for all of the ills you see in the
world is not healthy, especially given that some of the ills you are citing
above don't even exist. Some of the ills you address weren't even started
during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin. At times
like this you further seem to give Bush almost god-like powers, failing to
recognize that there are checks and balances built into the system.
You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil? Whose
fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new refineries have been
built in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Halliburton out protesting and
trying to find some endangered microbe to prevent the construction of any
proposed building project anywhere in the US. Now the source of 25% of the
US supply of refined products has been hit by a natural disaster and we are
surprised that putting all of our eggs in only a few baskets (because they
were there before the wave of anti-building forces were active) is going to
I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also
Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting
at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?
Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred,
but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more
rational go at it in your next diatribe.
1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who
requests other state National Guard support through the federal government.
The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that
was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't
come until 2 days ago.
2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the
ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether
such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with
those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting.
[editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets,
one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything
is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
Frankly, the fact that some people seem to view this disaster as more of
an opportunity for further political partisanship and another opportunity
to bash the sitting president rather than seeing it for what it really is,
a significant disaster needing support is really disturbing. One can't
even address what are real failures without bringing politics into play
rather than trying to find the root cause of the problem and go fix that.
Having seen an AP report this morning, I can certainly understand where
some of this rancor comes from, there was absolutely nothing objective in
that report. They were even beating on the federal government for not
activating the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet to help in this.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
Some people will support Bush right up until Pat Robertson (the
con artist, not the Senator) turns on him, yet more proof that
some people are as dumb as a post.
While I agree with you, he had little to do with the instant case
although it appears that FEMA has been at least as slow as everyone
else to mobilize. Now, the president is responsible for the people
who head up the federal agencies so it looks like that particular
choice may not have been the best. But, iMHO that's not a
It is not irreational. As OP noted, it is based on observations.
He just didn't go into detail.
For example, as Bush himself has lamented, the USA doesn't
have an energy policy. Thirty years ago we had an energy policy
intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That policy
was scrapped around 1981, under a previous administration.
Since we do not have bona fide fuel shortages and I cannot imagine
the industry refining massive quantitites of fuel oil and setting
it aside for a rainy day I daresay the cost of fuel oil is not
up because of a dearth of refineries.
I haven't heard of anybody shooting at a rescue worker. I have
heard of one police officer (unfortunately) beign shot by a
looter. Stopping looters is very important work, I just
wouldn't call it rescue work.
Assuming that's true the governor and probably the mayor too
both deserve to be taken out and shot. But this isn't the time.
Indeed, that is exactly what he did in Iraq, and he is rightfully
being decried for the waste of time, money, material and lives
that was the inevitable result. Not decried by all, the afor-
mentioned dumb as a post Robertsonites and their ilk still support
him as they have not yet been told to stand down.
But again, this isn't the time. We cannot replace the President,
Head of FEMA, the governer of Lousiana, or the mayor of NO fast
enough to make a difference in the present situation. But lets
go back to addresses those greivences as soon as we can.
Aside from the references to Pat Robertson's followers, there is no
mention of wood here. Do we have the common sense, courtesy and
balls to move it to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
On 3 Sep 2005 15:31:09 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I thought we do have an energy policy, and full of pork barrels didn't we?
I bet you, the Oil companies are now laughing all the way to the bank,
just like the oil traders at Enron laughing during California's energy crisis.
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus
Thank you for speaking out.
So there is at least one sane American out there.
Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible
Maybe your biased news networks should get some unbiased views of the
peoples feelings and not those of those who get paid to say the right
There's lots of us out here. We've just gotten tired of arguing with
the Bush bible-thumpers (not bible bashing).
Besides, the way things seem to be going, if we do argue they'll burn us
at the stake :-).
If you think our news media is biased towards Bush and his policies, I
would hate to see a media that was out to have him tossed out of office.
[hint, our mainstream news media goes out of its way to bash Bush and his
adminstration. The bias in the media is apalling -- all of this paranoia
regarding how Bush and his cronies would suppress dissent is exactly that,
a bunch of paranoid hooie]
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
I agree that the Bush administration does receive criticsm from
the American press and media. But like OP, I agree that it
is not nearly as much as it deserves. One of the games played
by the pro-Bush media is to give 'equal time' to the opposition
by focusing on marginal figures like that mother in Texas.
Do you mean, like, protestors at events like the inagural parade
are allowed to intermingle with everyone else along the parade route
and not directed to 'free speech zones'?
I dunno when THAT started, but it was as wrong then as it is now.
Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
Exactly right. But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for example,
nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and
stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
This is independent of whether Iraq itself possesses any petroleum, or not:
the point is that it would threaten those of its neighbors who *do*.
Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only
democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq may
or may not possess.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
[irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
I didn't say that it was.
Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might
pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
*region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But
that's not what I said.
I thought that was pretty clear.
Please read more carefully. You suggested that it cannot be seriously argued
that our policies toward Iraq would be the same if it had no oil. I'm pointing
out that it certainly *can* be seriously so argued, because Iraq's location in
a strategically important region, and any threat that it may or may not pose
to the stability of that region, depends on Iraq's military resources and its
penchant for using them -- not on whatever natural resources it does or does
Missed the words "for example" in my post... and all of the point as well.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical
being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT
Iraq with a threatening military.
ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the
region we'd have little interst and most of that would center
on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.
No, not any threat it "may or may not pose". Only a threat
it DOES pose would justify it. Clearly a threat Iraq DOES NOT
pose would not. Clearly Iraq does not (and did not in 2003)
pose such a threat.
You are introducing a second change into the hypothetical
that being the existance of an Iraqi military threat to the
Certainly it is possible to invent, out of whole cloth, or
even by drawing exagerrated inferences from scant, doubtful,
and contradictory inforamtion, to come with a DIFFERENT
hypothetical in which the US policies toward Iraq would
be the same. We've actually seen that done quite recently.
You may as well suppose for instance that Iraq was located
next to Kansas.
Your "explanation" is orthogonal to mine. It is all
what you might charaterize as "bobbing and weaving"
were it not your own.
Well I could have further qualified my statment by adding,
"unless you postulate some additional factor as inconsistent with
reality as an Iraq without oil." But that hardly seemed necessary.
Hmm. Just now you did not say that Iraq actually did (in 2003 or
since) pose a dire threat to the petroleum supply in the region,
or to Israel.
So, what justification can you see for the invasion and occupation
of Iraq given how Iraq actually was (in 2003) and is today?
Exactly so -- because the military threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors is
not a hypothetical.
Precisely. Keep at it. You're starting to catch on.
You seem to have forgotten what we were discussing, to wit: whether or not US
policy toward Iraq depends on Iraq's possession of oil. I contend that said
policy is influenced primarily by Iraq's location in an oil-producing region
and the extent of its military power and aspirations; you contend that said
policy depends primarily (if not solely) on the extent of Iraq's own oil
reserves. I have explained why, in my view, your contention is erroneous. At
no point have I commented on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of said policy, or
whether it is or is not justified. I'm not interested in having that
discussion with you.
You seem to have forgotten that, in 2002, anyway, it was very clear to nearly
everyone that it *did*. To refresh your memory, here are a few public
statements that you appear to have forgotten:
Ummm, no, that would not be a hypothetical.
Oh, you mean like your population and birth rate figures for France?
Or I might as well suppose that you have the ability to follow a logical
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
In 2003 Iraq did not pose a dire (your adjective) threat to its
neighbors, and we all knew it because UNMOVIC was showing us it
As you say the level of the threat posed by Iraq was independent
of the oil it posessed (not really Iraq needed capital to build
its military in the first place). That does not change the
fact that that level was nearer to nonexistant than to "dire".
They were wrong. We started finding out just how strong they were
toward the end of 2002 when UNMOVIC went into Iraq and found the
nuclear and other WMD sites to still be sealed or destroyed just
like they were when UNSCOM left.
Addressing your hypothetical Iraqi nuclear threat, IAEA found
Iraq's reactor fule and yellowcake still under IAEA seal as they
had left it, found no evidence of importation of nuclear materials
or equipment, found the facilities still unuseable and so on.
Thus, an Iraqi nuclear threat in 2003 IS an hypothetical.
In addition, Iraq had insufficient miltary to threaten any
of its neighbors, Saddam Hussein didn't even have control
of the Northern third of his own country.
There could be no serious argument for predicating a
policy on a threat that does not exist.
A dire Iraqi military threat is certainly is not a 'factual.
It is hypothetical just like an Iraq without oil is hypothetical.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.