Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane Katrina

That's a link, not a response. And the link does not prove anything. It doesn't state whether they had sex ed education before or not, and whether the proposes solution is to cut sex ed and teach abstinence only.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You hypocrite. Who said the left is trying to blame everything on Bush (with regard to Katrina), or that anyone blaming Bush is on the left?This thread in a sense sets up that Bush does SHARE blame in the response failures to Katrina. However it would not support at all the claim that he is most responsible for the problems, nor even that federal agencies are most responsible. So it is not advocating what you have chosen (the 13%) to represent the "left's" side. Yet many left people here have been supporting the OP's point and thus do not fit in that 13%.Why you continually let Bush get a pass for everything is what is the topic of this thread? Why does he avoid all blame that comes his way? Why do you feel that it is important he must be seen to be a demigod?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't take the ACT, but I beat you on the other. When I took the officer's aptitude test I was told I had the highest score they'd seen in the MidWest region for years, perhaps longer.Of course, haven taken the SAT and the test to which you are refering, I have to ask exactly what that has to do with what you are doing now? In addition as far as I know none of them require you to know scientific theories, which you rarely state correctly. No in this case it is a matter of fact. How many threads are there currently where you have misanalyzed your citations, I have rebutted your position, and you disappeared?This is not to mention the numbers of others who have done the same thing, in particular challenging your strange theories about science. People challenge and you flee. Exactly. So defending the nation against natural disaster's is its responsibility which would include good flood management techniques.As far as Iraq goes, what does this have to do with what I said? The argument now is NOT about WMDs. The argument NOW is that we need to build nations and help other, poorer and repressed nations out so that they will grow strong and not be our enemy. That is the same reasoning which underlies building portions of our own nation. Iran? See this is where you prove your poor logic skills. I did not say they did not spend money at all. Certainly they spend money. The portion of the money they make however which is spent (which means goes back into the economy) is smaller than that which they save, when compared to the poor. Thus giving money to the poor is essentially pumping money straight into the economy. The same is not true for giving money to the rich.And what's really funny is you move on to prove my point. They buy stock in companies which "employ people". Tal, they buy stock in companies so that they end up getting more back than they put in. That's the whole point of owning stock, unless you are a complete moron.So let's recap, they spend less percentage of the money they make, and some of the money they make is used to pull more money out of the economy.By the way I have nothing against rich people or corporations. I think people should be allowed to accumulate wealth. But to pretend they are somehow better, and attribute bizarre philanthropical principles to their financial management, is mere idolatry on your part. That would be correct. Its been years and so I forgot the exact story, and it turned out to be policy on where workers could work. Policy was that they couldn't work on someone outside the hospital and so they watched a person dying steps from their door while people pleaded with them to help. It was not that he was uninsured. My mistake trying to remember an event from 1998. And looking it up I found out the family ended up suing and winning damages. Well yes and no. I reported that one case and I was wrong. However I am not wrong that you cannot get certain tests until you are in an emergency setting if you are uninsured. At least that was the way it was up until about 5 years ago, when I finally got insurance and so was able to be tested.You also did nothing to address my arguments regarding HMOs vs socialized medicine, and the cost of not treating the poor in a preventative fashion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I have pointed out already that "all the criticism" is not coming from any one particular side. Are you claiming there has been no criticism of the federal response in general, and Bush's handling of the situation in specific, coming from the right?Again I ask the question, how come every time there is criticism, it gets immediately rejected by a group of true believers, and lumped into a category of singular partisan flavor. It has already been shown that he was asked, but that's besides the point. You may be correct that he cannot intervene, but he sure as hell can protect federal land and buildings and federal works projects. He sure can prepare for the possibility that locals will need help given reasonable contingencies, and have it ready for immediate action once the request is made (though obviously not as the hurricane is in full swing). You asked this before and I told you. I have also told others. That you continue to ignore what I say in order to throw up your hands again does not make your question look any more valid.Here it is for a third time...There was a history of flooding, and known catastrophic flooding dangers associated with high level storms in that area. Recent international flooding events as well as a US event 10 years ago indicated how vulnerable nations can be in the face of storms and floods. In addition to criminal behavior, given our new perspective on national security terrorist possibilities should have been planned for.Thus whether they asked for it yet or not a plan should have been in motion at the very least when Bush declared a state of emergency, though really some of it should have been before that (to protect levees from sabotage), that created centers of federal control/info that locals could fall back on if they needed to, that would coordinate federal assistance from within once it was asked for, and work as a safeguard for critical assets (like levees) which could be sabotaged. They could hae been preparing critical supplies over and above food and water, to include generators and pumps (which seem here to have been only an afterthought).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So did 911. That is not true. But let's say just for argument's sake that it is. He is a FIGURE head. Figurehead or not, but especially if he is a figurehead, I expect the president to choose his priorities correctly. The scope of 911 clearly escalated with the message he received... anything could have happened next. I would expect my FIGUREHEAD to SET A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT TO DO IN AN EMERGENCY. I put those in caps so you can clearly see how they go together.A leader would immediately excuse himself from the photo op, no he doesn't have to say why, and leave to a place where he can be seen taking charge of the situation. Creating a solid command and control area, so he knows what is going on and can respond at the proper level.I really hate the stock dilemma of sitting like a deer in the headlights, patently cutting himself off from communications, or announcing to the class something that would panic them.In any case, what he was clearly doing was freezing up. Maybe you've never been in an emergency or been around an emergency, but that was the face of a man freezing up under pressure. If he was a figurehead then he just set a really poor example.But of course this is all besides the point anyway. If he really was just a figurehead, why did they bother telling him at all? Your analogy and analysis are only partly true. You are correct that Bush was not needed to pilot planes in, or even give the orders to get them going. Immediate first responders would move without him.The problem was that this was not simply a small isolated incident. The ramifications of this went well beyond what first responders can handle all on their own, or at least far beyond what they should be handling. He needed to be getting info in a timely basis, and getting people notified so that they could prepare for new events which could arise.As I said, as soon as I found out what was happening I began contacting those I knew so that we could all be up to speed. His role as CIC is to do the same damn thing with the military, intel, law enforcement, and emergency communities. They are not all tied together, and in sync with what to do next (or expect could happen).While planes are scrambling what should those others do? How do you get them up to speed so that you know they are up to speed and making the proper preps?It isn't even so much that he had to be giving orders, as much as he should have been interested in creating a communications structure and getting up to date info (rather than waiting for aides to interrupt his photo op). That is a different subject altogether. And he did show his intelligence as well as backbone. He did not have the nerve or the common sense to act as a leader during an emerging national crisis. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a Nationwide "structure" which responds and stays coordinated at that level to a surprise attack from an enemy. Supposedly DHS was designed to start creating such a structure. At that time, and clearly even today, we have no such structure.Some agencies cannot even activate without presidential orders.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How about this latest entry? Bush signs exec order so that people hired to clean up and rebuild in those areas can be paid less than the prevailing wage. One wonders if there will be a cap on the amount of profit allowed to any of these contracting orgnizations?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"A second plane has hit the world trade center"...(clocks starts)...1-5 seconds... 1000s potentially dead, could that be an accident? hell no. Terrorism or war.6-30 seconds... If this is terrorism or war then more things might be coming including international strikes (assets overseas as well as other nations).31-50 seconds... This could even include NBC type attacks, and perhaps already has.51-60 seconds... I need to know wtf is actually going on and wake a lot of people up in case they haven't heard.1 min 1 sec- 1min 20 sec... Stand up and look for opening within three seconds, if none break in. Say to the class "I'm sorry everyone, I was glad to meet you today, but some urgent matters have come up that I have to attend to personally", then leave.Max time 1min 20 sec. Take out a stopwatch and time that. You will see how long that actually is. Next put your hand on a very hot object and time 1 min 20 secs. You will see how long, how much can go through your mind, during a period of stress.You mentioned reflexes. The reaction to a realization of an attack on the US, ought to be about as reflexive as setting your hand on a hot piece of metal. Maybe not for everyone, but for a leader, especially the president, it should be. When an alarm bell rings on a ship or a fire station or etc, the proper response is to immediately move to where you are needed, and for leadership that is to a position of central command.One might also add that what he did in the following moments (after the seven minutes) did nothing but perhaps inspire panic and lack of control, as crash pointed out.There simply is no excuse for what happened by anyone willing to call a spade a spade. No matter what wonderful qualities this man may have, leadership in a crisis is not one of them.(AbE: I should note that the time ranges above were max times. If I had been the president, as soon as I heard the first plane had hit the WTC (if I knew it was a passenger plane) I would have cancelled. If I had continued, as soon as I was told a second plane hit the WTC, regardless of passenger or not, I would have immediately stood and said what I stated above... before the rest of the thoughts played out. For me any emergency of such a graphic nature would demand my immediate attention, rather than a photo op. The fact that they had to interrupt the photo op to tell me this news, means I should be following them back out of the room. But I realize that could just be me, since I am a natural news junkie.)This message has been edited by holmes, 09-10-2005 04:23 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

All bets are closed... Firms tied to the White House (Halliburton yet again) snag contracts to rebuild damage from Katrina.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, now where have all of you guys gone? Here are the updated list of issues that need to be dealt with:1) The timelines which have been provided (both by me and Pearl) which show a lot of inaction by Bush during the time of "gathering threat" by Katrina.2) The facts (by jar and others) that FEMA had good knowledge of what could happen, and was likely happening, and in fact happening... where was Bush's concern in this?3) The newly revealed facts that key appointees by Bush to FEMA were patently political cronies with little to no expertise in the areas of disaster management.4) The latest actions by the Bush administration, awarding major contracts to cronies of the White House (already controversial recipients of lucrative grants in Iraq which have had financial discrepencies) to rebuild devastated regions, while issuing an emergency executive order so that those same contracting orgs may UNDERPAY anyone hired to actually do the physical labor of rebuilding.You guys have any problems with this stuff? Or is it mana from heaven as always?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, I know you are not a Bush defender, but I do think you are allowing theoretical analysis of a larger issue, interfere with a very practica; analysis of an immediate issue.Whether contractors can get humongous contracts and stretch the work further by underpaying (and that is exacty what we are talking about when discussing less than min wage) employees, such that they can employ more hands, will not in any way shape or form reflect on nor answer the issue of "does minimum wage help or hinder things."It could be that you have not worked in an area of gov't contracting. I have. This is practical and temporary and immediate and about the gov't trying to get something done, the other issue is about macroscale economics and what role the gov't should have in trying to guide it. This is the crux of the argument that must be addressed. And look at this carefully...1) Allowing contractors to pay lower wages will reduce costs and therefore employ more workers.2) Allowing for employment of more workers will result in greater assistance, and...3) employ those within the region who have lost jobs because of the disaster, until they can find other employment.I am sort of taken back if anyone cannot spot the logical flaws within this argument at all three points. And indeed there is a fourth unstated point which is not being addressed. But here we go...1) Gov't contractors work by fixing overhead to employee salaries. Giving a contractor 1 billion dollars and telling them that they may now pay employees 1 cent an hour instead of 15 dollars, does not in any way guarantee that they will actually buy more employees. They may simply hire the same number at lower cost and take a greater cut of the overhead.And exactly how will anyone know the difference? Are we having them bid on contracts with plan specs and manpower required and how many more they can use and so finish the job sooner if they can pay less?The nature of contracting with the gov't is to extend work as long as possible, at the highest rate (for owners and upper management) as much as possible. The specific orgs who just got the contract have already been shown to be doing that very thing in Iraq. Why would this be different?If the goal was to employ as many people as possible, the actual route would have been to sign an executive order removing overhead charges and capping profit to any contractor awarded a contract, with perhaps additional profit allowed (and must be shared by employees) with work finished in a certain time frame.2) Allowing more hands to be employed does not mean greater assistance at all. Again, we can go back to what I just said above with overhead. Contractors would love to hire more people who they can take a massive chunk of overhead cost on their salary.The only guarantee of greater assistance is a plan which shows how people will be used in an efficient and coordinated way to get the work done. More people standing around, or simply being on the payroll does nothing. For example if they only have ten trucks, and their work requires trucks, wtf good is an extra 1000 employees?3) This last point is especially galling to me. If the intention is to help those who have lost homes and employment within that region, paying them less than they could have earned before is the most scandalous piece of price gouging I have ever seen. Yeah, pay Halliburton execs the same, but pay the people who desparately need extra money to get over what has just happened, much much much less.This also raises the question of WHO will now be enticed to doing this dangerous, back breaking, shit work. The only people likely to run out and get paid less than they could at any other job, will be poor, unskilled people unlikely to find other employment. So it will be price-gouging of the most vulnerable. In fact I am finding very little difference between that and slavery.4) From the last point, comes the next point... getting the job done right. Underpaying a workforce is hardly going to encourage anyone, even those desparate enough to work exhausting labor which they could get paid more for by moving 100 miles in any direction, to work fast nor work well.The infrastructue needs to be rebuilt BETTER than it was previously. Paying a person less is unlikely to get it back to the way it was before, much less better than the way it was before.Please do not allow a business man give you a snake-oil speech, which was exactly what Bush did. Let rich contractors pay EMPLOYEES less, and everything will be BETTER!I am not sure whether gov'ts should be regulating wages or not in the private sector. But I know damn well that this is another issue, and the goal is not to get more done faster.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Congratulations Monk, you get a POTM from me with this. And its not a condescending thing. I honestly think this was a courageous act. It is dealing with mounting evidence head on, rather than skirting the issue. I agree, though would point out that it didn't take a clairvoyant to be concerned about the potential of Katrina to do more damage as it already had done damage in Fla. I think he should have at least gotten a bit more hands on with regard to making sure (ie putting pressure on) managers to get him reliable estimates of what could happen and what the responses would be. But that could just be the fact that I'm a news junkie and would like my leadership to be as well. I agree with this and have stated so already. This issue stretches back and hits all parties. I will only note, as I said in the other thread, that it was the Reps which created the atmosphere which prevented anyone (dem or rep) from initiating massive spending projects. The era of the "tax and spend" label was initiated wholly by Reps.I agree however, that the dems (and non partisan hack reps) should have had more backbone on important projects such as this. That is exactly where I lay blame as well. And I agree with your assessment regarding the blame which hits state and city officials. Heck, you didn't even mention NOrleans police officers which fled, rather than do their duty. Each one gets a raspberry. Agreed. And I want to take this moment to explain something to you, which perhaps may bridge our differences in the future. I have felt the above at every test of Bush's presidency.I did not go into his presidency thinking this guy was the worst possible thing for America. Before the election itself I felt he and Gore were about the same, with a few steps in Bush's favor.After the election (and during the crisis regarding the election) I was disappointed to see him and his crew reverse their stance (they said explicitly Gore should not take this to the SC), as well as lying about the nature of the Fla ballot (they had a person make public statements comparing Chicago ballots, the one I happened to have used, which were downright lies). This is not to mention the extremely shoddy decision that the SC used to push him into office.But that is politics after all. Gore did some reversals himself, so who was clean? So I sat back to watch where Bush would go. I was hoping he would turn out for the best, and in any case much better than Gore.It is at each stage of his presidency, each critical point, where I have lost my enthusiasm, and indeed felt shocked... shocked in the same way you are showing here. He has even reversed important platform positions, including longheld traditional conservative positions I happen to like (and why I thought he had an edge over Gore).But it was patent cronyism and mismanagement which seemed to rule his administration. If there is one thing I can grant Bush, he is loyal to his friends. But that is not synonymous with being loyal to his office and so the American public.Thus I hope in the future, you can view my position in this light, rather than the one you usually put me into. My breaking point may have come sooner than yours, but the idea is the same.I believe this goes for Crash as well, since he even voted for Bush in 2000. I was considering saying the same thing in one of my posts. The fact that you just said it says a lot more. That says even more.I actually do hope Bush can salvage something, only I hope it can be done in ways that are not political in nature. If he can do it without partisan political maneuvers, that means he will effect some real change for the nation, and that's what the nation needs. This could have been an epiphany for him, or at least a wake up call.Carter was not a great president, but he sure became a great person and leader. If the same happens for Bush... why would I want to stop that? However if it is a return to politics as usual, I hope Karma hits him right in the nuts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

From early to mid 80s the reps began a campaign to label liberals and democrats. Despite bankrolling the S&L bailout which was welfare for the rich, not to mention the excesses of gov't military spending under Reagan, the reps managed to hang a name on dems by the early 90s.While Clinton was in the White House this "tax and spend" label was effective, especially given the congressional victory reps won early on, in halting dem backed programs.You could see this in the absolute retreat from socialized medicine, and then Clinton's cave in on welfare.This lasted as long as reps needed it to last politically. After 911, Bush was given carte blanche and reps have entered a phase of tax-future-citizens and spend. I agree that if Bush had raised this as a need for national security it would have been funded.However the subject was already pretty much dead as a doornail politically, and certainly for Bush it was something in the past, rejected or ignored by both dems and reps. Dems shoulder the blame as much as reps in ignoring this. Reps however do shoulder the blame for creating the "tax and spend" climate which needlessly ended debate on worthwhile topics. That they then turned hypocrite is nothing new.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that Bush is not the same as Carter, and the differences make it less likely he will be as effective post-pres as Carter was.But, and this may surprise many, I do not believe I can say he is not a "good" man. My moral system doesn't really include that kind of language but I know what you were driving at. I really think he means well on a human level. I just think he does not have the intellectual capacity to reach good conclusions on what to do, and does not have the overt drive to do things well (excel) that involve helping others. That makes him a less efficient person, even if he happens to want to do good and means to do good.The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

For those of us who believe errors occured at all levels, how does pointing out blanco made a mistake during the crisis, change the fact that Bush made errors in preparation, during, and after the crisis?You discuss a double standard and disingenuity, but where is your condemnation of Bush here? Look like double standard bizarro tal.AbE: Not to mention he appears to have lied to the american public.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 05:23 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I've been harboring a suspicion that he is a paid member of psy-ops, or intel, working out disinformation strategies. Perhaps even to plant or test arguments by the Bush administration.If I remember right that is something the Bush administration had been working on for Europe. Disinfo, or propaganda teams.If he's not getting paid to do this then he's likely a masochist.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)