Redstate

mention that Bush has no control of hurricanes, and frankly Katrina was too big, she was going to cause pain no matter what.

It appears that the shelters and other safe places for evacuations should have been further away, given the extent of the flooding, but when a storm comes in, and moves up along the Mississippi, the city of New Orleans no only has to deal with the water it got with the hurricane, but the water from all the other bodies of water that dump into the Mississippi along Katrina's path.  

I know I'm going to be scolded in some fashion for this, but I must admit that I find the "floating bodies" bit just plain funny.  I also know that if I was able to get away from here (Oh, God I wish I could.  I hate PA), and help out, I'd break down into fits of laughter every time we chased down another coffin.

That's beside the point and probably subject to my typically abominable timing.

I'm hoping the Louisiana government would take a page from Northern CA and copy the Sacramento River levees.  They won't break in LA as often as they do in Napa Valley, which is a good thing.  On average, the Sacramento completely breaks free through any given section of the levee every 5 years and overtops it every other year.  Louisiana won't ever face that amount of water and would be reasonably safe.  The problem is that those levees cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build, Billions, probably, and wouldn't be done for a minimum of 10 years even assuming the studies were completed this year.

Why should the Louisiana government pay to maintain the levees?

That if there's an enormous amount of water bearing down on your crown jewel city, you might want to take care of it regardless of whether someone in D.C. is doing it.

Put differently, management of waterways and keeping your citizens from drowning is a quintessential state concern.

Louisiana, aren't they? Why would we in Maryland pay for them?

There are also left wingers out there claiming Global Warming is a source of the problem because of rising waters, warmers waters and less Bayou to hold back the storm surge.  The left is thankfully grasping in its vulture-like acts.  

Recently the Seirra Club joined in some interesting news as to why the Bayou was disappearing: The Gulf Coast was sinking.  The water wasn't rising, the shelf was sinking.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/608

The source of the problem was damns and levies on the Mississippi.  This is based on science, not political ghoulishness.

First, you've just violated a copyright. Do it again and there will be consequences.

Second, you just made my point. Thank you.

From a September 2002 American RadioWorks (an MPR/NPR documentary project):

"Oliver Houck runs the environment program at Tulane University's Law School, and on a recent evening, he leads the way to one of the spots that helped trigger the wetlands crisis in the first place.

"Well, we're on the banks of the Mississippi River and these are the levees we're about to cross ... .it's a monster system."

To get there, we park near some old wooden houses next to the railroad tracks in New Orleans, and we scramble up the grassy embankment that looks over the river.

"The banks here are about 20 feet high," explains Houck, "and when we cross the banks, you'll see on the other side [that] if these levees were not here, that water would be at about eaves' level across the houses behind us."

I always wondered what "levees" meant. A levee is a wall. A levee is a wall to keep the river out of your living room.

Houck says before people built these walls, the giant Mississippi helped build America. Every day, the river and its tributaries washed millions of pounds of soil from all over the country down to the Gulf of Mexico.

"You can imagine what it would take in dump trucks to bring half a million tons of silt to south Louisiana," says Houck. "Well, it would take about two hundred thousand, two-and-half ton dump trucks every day, driving from Minnesota, from Rapid City, from Pittsburgh, from Denver. And in so doing, it brings down these enormous, enormous loads of earth to the mouth of the Mississippi."

Every year or so, Houck says, it would rain so much that the river would gush out of its banks, and all that mud and goo would spread out along the coast.

"And that's what built south Louisiana," Houck says. "The Mississippi built five million acres of land. A huge amount of land was wetland."

But when French settlers showed up in the 1700s, they tried to stop the Mississippi from flooding: they started building these walls. Eventually, the U.S. Army took over the job, and every time they thought they'd conquered nature, the river proved them wrong. So the army built more walls and they built them higher, they've built two thousand miles of levees as of today along the Mississippi River and its branches. And Houck says, the army has finally won the war--they've tamed the Mississippi.

"And so," describes Houck, "the project was--from an engineering point of view-- brilliant, brilliant. It was hugely successful. From an environmental standpoint, it was a disaster."

Here's the link:  

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/wetlands/full.html

I thought Bushitler diverted levee project money to Iraq, which kept the levees from being raised, but apparently he simultaneously gutted the wetlands restoration, which was necessary because there were too many levees and they were too high.  My question to environmentalists is: can you rejuvenate the wetlands and raise the levees at the same time?

The argument that this tragedy is tied to global warming is that global warming predicts intensified hurricanes in the gulf area. Not more frequent, just intensified.  It has nothing to do with rising water levels, just intensified hurricanes.  Got it?

If anyone on the left is saying anything different, they are wrong, but I don't think they are.

Though I know no one is going to pay attention to me.

BTW, anyone who is arguing that globabl warming isn't happening is simply wrong.  The only argument is whether it has anything to do with human participation or not.  

mk

I don't know the answer to your question re levees v. wetlands, but it sounds like "Bush" (I assume he is blameless in this and just did what one of his policy makers told him to do) did neither.  Am I wrong?  

"I no longer see the Left as a set of political opponents. I understand them now to be what they are: An uncompromising, barely human mass of malignancy, that exists only to be crushed electorally and culturally once and for all. Or, as a wiser man than I put it, The Evil Party"

That's just silly. You make very compelling points about the impossibility of protecting the city but undermine it all with hysterical generalizations like that. 'The Left' is half this country, remember. Perhaps you'd like to compare them to Hitler, too?

"The Left" is about 20% of this country, give or take. I didn't say "people who voted Democrat in the last two Presidential elections" -- which still wouldn't be half.

Not very good at this English thing, are you?

Wow, you mean we have never had a Cat 5 Hurricane before???

Ever hear of Camille?  It was more intense than Katrina - a brief 36 years ago.

Got it?  

Doubtful.  

"In what would, once, have been a surprise, the ever-decent Left is attempting to use another human tragedy as a club in their unending holy war against Chimpy McBushitlerCo"

I think it's important to give names of people. Who on the Left has suggested this?

Yes, Global Warming is occurring.  The question for lefties is prove (a) mankind is driving it and (b) we can make adjustments to effect it.

Global Warming could be 10% driven by Human activities and 90% natural cycle, which means we cannot change it any more than we can stop a hurricane.

Lefties hate being relegated to simple human beings.  Their egos cannot take the humiliation of being lesser than nature.

You actually need to do what we do on Free Republic. A copywrighted article is immediately deleted. This piece needs to disappear.

And yes, he made your point.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

If you're going to make scriptural references, do the readers here the elementary courtesy of using them properly.  By telling Thomas - I'm presuming from the quote that's who you want to talk to - to take care of the mote in his eye you're casting the Left as the folks with the beam in their own.

I wouldn't normally bother to point this out, but seeing as your messing this up effectively has you agreeing with Thomas' assessment of the Left, I feel compelled.

But this isn't about absolute one to one comparisons.

Yes, there was a more intense hurricane in the past, possibly several.  And Katrina doesn't prove anything (though it doesn't need to, global warming is quite well documented).  The point is, we should see, in general, harsher weather over time.

So global warming would say, ok, 36 years ago we saw a very bad hurricane.  As global warming increases, we should see horrible hurricanes on a more regular basis.

And we actually are.  Weather disasters have been far worse in recent years than they used to be.

I appreciate that I made you laugh, but I don't find this particularly funny.  

mk

A man who has spent his life indulging in all sorts of "sinful pleasures" asks a priest, "father you have lived a life of abstinence and piety your whole life.  You have missed out on all of the pleasures of the flesh.  When you die and arrive in heaven, if you find out that your beliefs are wrong, and if you had partaken in these earthly delights you would not have been condemned to everlasting torment, how will you feel?  How will you react if you find out that you are wrong?"

The priest thinks a moment and says "I suppose I'll be sad.  But I ask you this, when you die, if you learn that I was right, how will you feel?"

My point is, there is plenty of evidence that changing habits of energy usage and waste output, cutting back on the use of certain chemicals MIGHT help prevent global warming.  We might not be able to prove it, but if we are right, and we didn't do anything about it, how can we possibly justify our inaction right now?

Only two of the links dealt with the funds issue, which is what this article was about. One of those two simpy quoted a LA official. The other non-fund related post just criticized Bush for playing guitar.

It seems then you take issue with some guy named "RedDan." Does he really represent "the Left?" I don't even know who that is. Who is RedDan?

Is that the tragedy is a club. You are being at once too narrow and too broad.

But you understand the priest's point, right?

There is no way to prove anything until the scenario plays out.  There is no amount of evidence that would be 100% on either side, until it's too late.  

I find it to be a rather irrational choice, myself.  

What kind of proof do you need?

What would sate you?

It's not like there aren't plenty of obvious political and economic reasons for being a bit more sensitive to energy conservation anyway, so we might as well throw in possible environmental rewards as an added bonus.

I just don't get what your breaking point is.  

...this is the first American catastrophe -- really the first American disaster of note (correct me if I'm wrong) -- since the blogosphere population exploded. 9/11/01 was just prior, if I recall correctly. And since Bush is in national (read: presumed omnipotent) power and Kerry or Gore are not, you're going to have this sort of thing happening on the Lefty side. We won't know, until it happens, what a Republican/Right response to a national catastrophe/attack would be if a Democratic president were in power and there was such threadbare evidence of malfeasance or negligence. So, this is just me saying "it's bad all over" again, and there's no proof of that until the mirror-image conditions are met, so thus ends that statement with no argument (and not argument possible) capable of persuading anyone on either side of anything. How constructive of me.

I will note that I agree with the notion that Bush could do no right in this situation. Had he not been visible -- as was the case generally -- he was ignoring the problem and was in his bubble. Had he hopped out in front he would've been interfering and trying to morbidly ride the coattails of another tragedy to success in the polls. It's all blather, whatever. Which isn't to say I don't have an opinion. I have my quibbles with how he's handled it, the disorganization that he could have quelled, the lack of giving the appearance of control for psychological alleviation, and a couple other smaller things. But I hear there are some things in the works -- nat'l petrol. reserve help, call for energy conservation, Armed Forces assistance, etc. -- which would be wonderful.

For the most part I've stayed away from the political side of this because the whole thing, in its insidious multi-day slow crawl of gloom that seemingly suffocates all good news (is there any?), nauseates me completely. More than 9/11, even, this has all the earmarks of a "bad dream" instead of reality, and I only know some people down there. I don't even live there. So adding a political component generally felt sleazy to me.

But when you've got polarization like we have here, and then add a catastrophe that makes people flip out, how do you stop the screeching meltdown when it's a small percentage of political nihilists with nothing to lose that instigate it? You can't, can you? Allusions to the actual levee disaster can be found in the response, I think.

Anyway, practicality. I want them to rebuild. American stubborness I guess. If they can hold back Lake Powell with a dam I don't see why they can't build some sort of enormous scalloped-shaped dam -- made of concrete and not dirt -- around New Orleans. Stupid idea? Maybe, I'm not an engineer. And while such a thing didn't work for the Titanic, please explain why there aren't levees set up inside the city that could act as containing compartments for flooding? Quadrants could flood without the whole city going under.

I wonder who the Mulhollands of this will be? Who will envy the dead once the waters have rushed past the sentries and swallowed up their victims?

That you're a devout Catholic? That you've accepted Pascal's Wager and Aquinas's Proposal?

I personally would be all giggly about some limited conservation measures. Doesn't mean

(1) That I buy the entire global warming alarm;

(2) That I reject it wholly; or that

(3) I was doing anything other than responding to your point.

"Rational" is not always "right." The neo-classicals taught us that, if no one else had.

I consider myself part of the Left, even -- if I want to be honest with myself -- the socialistic Left. Why? Because I agree with socialistic intervention (as last resort) in many realms of economic and, to a vastly lesser degree, cultural life. I work off an NEH grant, for God's sake! And I certainly put the emphasis on "equality" more than "liberty" than most do, though far less than most on the "Left" do since I'm still on liberty's side, whatever that means. Since we're dealing with abstracts none of that means anything in reality, but I think it gives a general idea.

Anyway, you guys need to come up with a new term or something to describe those whose policies and ideology isn't anything, it's just anti-Bush at all costs, counterfactual or not. Maybe you still think "the Left" best fits that bill. I dunno, I think you're more creative than that.

For fear that it will degenerate into "Dummycrat" and "Rethuglican." Political discourse is cheapened, but not yet in the gutter.

...I wasn't advocating some silly pun. Perhaps something drawn from a Dostoevsky Novel or something "highbrow" like that. The Devils might yield something apropos.

from the Houston Chronicle link:

"Today's breach came after New Orleans had, almost miraculously, survived a hurricane many engineers feared would send water gushing over the long, 15-foot levee that protects the city's north shore from Lake Pontchartrain.

Hurricane Katrina moved so quickly, however, its powerful winds did not have enough time to push Gulf of Mexico water into the lake, filling it high enough to crash water over the levee and into bowl-shaped New Orleans."

That article suggests four possible reasons for the 17th Street Canal breach:

1. "limited amount of water washed over the top of the levee in waves" (not storm surge) overtopping the levee and eroding the far side
   
2. Water percolating through the levee causing failure
   
3. Levee was "older and degraded"
   
4.  Collision with some "massive chunk of debris"

I would argue that reduced funding for maintenance of the levees would directly impact reasons two and three and have a smaller impact on reason one.

There is no inaction.  We ARE doing things.  We have reduced our use of hydrocarbons dramatically.  Vehicles achieve higher miles per gallon and burn cleaner.  We are finally achieving the goal of alternative fuel source reliability.  The next step is to get it used by a larger portion of the population.  Action has been taken to clean what was already polluted.  You don't see any rivers catching fire these days, do you?

Tell me, What inaction are you speaking of?

We may not be able to affect Global Warming but the same things we think Might affect it, also affect our ability to breathe the air around us and eat the plants and animals and drink the water.  

And if you try to tell me that Bush has reversed out progress in environmental cleanliness, I' going to relegate you to either the Loony Leftie bin or the Uneducated Product of Progressive Education in America bin.

Bush repealed several acts previously signed by Clinton as a Midnight action that raised requirements to levels impossible to meet.  For instance, you can't prevent enough arsinic pollution to get groundwater cleaner than it is naturally.

Yes, Equality, indeed.  Equality of opportunity Not of results.  I don't want all my hard work to be worth nothing more, or in some cases right now, even less than Joe Dirt sitting on his butt in the Welfare Office.  But this is a different discussion and needs another thread.  Maybe I'll figure out how to start one one of these days.  Maybe not, I'm spending too  much time working my butt off to sit around trying to figure out things like that.

To boil it down:

I, though unkown to you in all respects, am to be fairly considered human filth if I confess to you my self-identification as a member of the "American Left?"

At the very least, you hint, distinguishing between me and filth, is a tall order.

I know you're being knee-jerk, but I'm still not sure I should quietly abide your decision to chalk anonymous me up as a piece of garbage the moment I disclose my voting tendancies.

Am I wrong?

And given what the funds were for, it wouldn't effect 2, 3, or 4.

...on all points.

Sorry about that.  Won't happen again.

The American Left and Human Filth: Distinguish If Possible

seems like a pretty good attempt at cheapening political discourse in my opinion.  

Would point you toward the levees along the Sacramento River which couldn't get enough funding if the entire Federal Budget was turned over for the express purpose of maintaining them.  As massive fortifications as they are, they still burst every 5 years give or take.  Levees do that.

And besides which, why didn't Louisiana foot the bill for the levees' maintenance?  They Were LA levees, were they not?  Federal funding should not have been so neccessary.  It's not considered neccessary for the Sacramento River levees.  What's so special about these?

There is no evidence whatsoever what amount of the warming is due to human actions, what human actions are the drivers and what could be the change in warming from changes.

None.

You want prove your point I would be happy to see your evidence.  But don't kid yourself.  I well steeped in science and engineering.  So may it good evidence.

I'll let you know when I start lowering the standard.

I assumed you were referring to half the country because of your use of the `Evil Party' moniker, by which I assume you were referring to the Dems, who garnered 48.27% of the 2004 vote. The point I was trying to make is that branding even 20% of the population as an `uncompromising, barely human mass of malignancy' because a few are making political lemonade out of tragedy smacks of hypocrisy. You're using the thoughts of a few to deride the many and making lemonade of your own in the process. I really enjoyed your post and you made an excellent case against those who would blame Bush for the 20 feet of water now in downtown New Orleans. People often resort to hysterical generalizations to disguise a poor case and there are people on the right (Coultists?) and left (Moorish?) guilty of that. You, however, have sound evidence and do yourself and the issue a disservice by tarring a good percentage of the country because of a few opportunists. (Moe Lane - sorry for my mangling of the scriptures, I promise to study harder in bible class).

it was also for "shoring up" and "raising" levees that had sunk and were no longer capable of fulfilling their initial requirements:

"In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes."

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

Raising the levees might have been useful in stopping those waves that overtopped them.

and studied hurricane history a lot, I find the agenda driven science claiming this about hurricanes to be at once hilarious and infuriating. Hilarious because it is ignorant, and infuriating because so many people actually believe it. There is very good evidence taht the hurrican seasons are are starting to recover from a 40 year decline to a normal level.

MY grandfater told the story of a storm that struck just east of Pascagoula that blew the wind out of the north so hard that it emptied the Mississippi Sound out so that he went walking out hundreds of yards on sea bottom. There is a history along the Gulf Coast from tezxas to Florida of towns that were disappeared in hurricanes with basically no trace. Ever hear of Indianola, Texas? the politics of those on the left using dead people, whether Sheehan her adult son and infantilizing him, or ghouls like RFK Jr. using the dead of Katrina to attack the Gov. of Miss. is disgusting. Especially from the enviro-wheeny RFK,Jr.who stopped wind turbines from his backyard and still goes around in his limo etc.

The lefties had best stop with this political slime crud. It is starting to impact real people.

AJStrata, his whole point is pointless.  As I said, things are being done, so it doesn't matter whether we're at fault for Global Warming or not.  His whole Chicken Little, Gloabal Warming will kill us all theatrics are, well, pointless.

With folks who haven't read the whole piece.

how high were they planning on raising them? And do you think the work would have been completed by now of a FY2004 appropriation? And the operative word in the article is "proposed". Why don't you check out the actual appropriation?

I think the proper response of any president to a natural disaster of the proportions we've seen here is to return to Washington. The gesture would be symbolic, of course, but to continue as planned with scheduled events sends the wrong message.

Criticism has been exacerbated by the fact that the media was allowed or encouraged to call this 1-month trip a "vacation," but that doesn't change my view that at a time of national emergency, the president needs to move visibly back to the seat of government.

legion, as in the Gospel reference about a horde of devils.  

to separate yourself the idiocy in the Editor And Publisher article. Note that when Pat Roberston made his idiotic remarks about assassinating Chavez, there were plenty of prominent figures on the Right who were willing to call his remarks insipid. Until prominent figures on the Left are willing to stand up and denounce blaming Bush for Katrina for the idiocy that they are, or even to have rank and file lefties rejecting them in the comments sections of blogs, we can assume that you all agree with these remarks and are just waiting to see if it's socially acceptable for you to do so. These prominent lefties don't necessarily need to be political figures, prominent left-wing bloggers like Kevin Drum or Kos will do.  But if your reaction is simply to sit there and whine about the Right without complaining about the Left, then you really don't have a case worth listening to.

Finally, pointing fingers while we as a nation are still trying to get ourself out of this mess is exactly the wrong thing to do.  And that goes for the people who are blaming the Democratic governor or mayor for this fiasco as well as the folks trying to blame President Bush. We need to focus on rescuing those still trapped in the city and then on how we are going to rebuild. There will be plenty of time for finger-pointing once the rebuilding is under way.

The is the classic "do something" call of the neophyte.  Reminds me of 'doctors' in the middle ages bleeding their patients in hope it would remove the illness from them.

In more recent times, spending major money on bogus or unfounded fixes to the suffering of people was typically known as buying snake oil.

If this was the kind of answer a medical doctor gave to a patient to help them with a 'serious disease', the Dr would be a Charlaten who should be prosecuted for malpractice.

I just want these faux experts to understand the company they are keeping.

Relaxed enough?

;)

Here is Kevin Drum:

At the risk of sounding overly righteous every time disaster strikes, can I please suggest that Katrina is really not an appropriate subject for partisan jabbing right now? That goes for both left and right.

how you vote, I mean.

It is our decision how we consider you.

Neither of us really has much impact over the other in regards to the particulars.

he's counseling moderation is because he knows as this unfolds the left is going to get its head figuratively beaten in if it persists in the current spasm of "blame Bush."

Didn't the Republican party just politicize a non-political situation called Terri Schiavo?

The only difference is that natural disasters fall under the responsibility of politicians.  I'm not blaming Bush or global warming for creating the hurricane, but I do fault the president for diverting funds and creating a situation that left the Louisiana Guard at 60% (heard that number in a press conf....they were spinning it as a plus.  I don't see how missing 40% is a good thing....more hands=more help) full.  If you go to war, you really shouldn't be depleting domestic resources to the point where lives are sacrificed.

Anyway, this happened to Americans blue, red, yellow, purple, etc and we gotta fix this problem together.  Everybody pony up.

In all their, for lack of a better word, glory.  

Same link, you'll note.  I also subtract out the few who were trying, instead of being merely trying.

Actually do your research first.

Pressure P-

three words...Paul Wellstone Memorial

you people just don't get it

the devils and the swine already one?

If you have a suggestion, I'll hear it. I understand what you're saying but "Anybody But Bush" doesn't seem to quite explain a lot of people these days.

without getting a very strong urge to wash my mouth out.

By any chance is this the same Kennedy who's also campaigning against wind-power turbines being installed off of the coast of Mass. because it'll tarnish his view of the ocean from his house?

Jeez, I typed 'Kennedy' twice. Now I have to go wash my fingertips.  

But if human beings had never evolved, the cycle of weathering the planet is entering would still yield more powerful hurricanes.

The record is there. There was an ICE AGE not all that long ago-- were Republicans to blame for that? Weather is a very complicated science which NO ONE on Earth has anything resembling a complete grasp of. Not even close-- sometimes our brightest minds can't predict rain 5 minutes before it happens.

My personal view is that human activity has not substantially increased atmospheric temperatures, and mostly increases temperatures near-ground for obvious reasons. However, those increases have no effect unless they influence the upper atmosphere.

Humans have hurt the ozone layer, but that's a fixable problem and totally unrelated to harsh weather conditions.

You make a point here-- we haven't had a Democrat President + blogosphere, really, let alone + massive calamity.

But, the absence of that circumstance should not prevent rational people from condemning the immoral critiques of those leftists seeking to benefit politically. Is it because they now know nothing aside from politics? I kind of doubt it... this isn't ancient Athens, where everyone is in the legislature or something. Just because someone runs a blog (kos cough) doesn't mean all of the sudden they can politicize non-germaine topics.

The test will of course be when a similar situation occurs under a leftist government- how does the Right respond? I hope a good sight better than this, I truly believe that is what will happen. I can't prove it, but there is anecdotal evidence indicating so much.

Perhaps you only support filth? Whatever the case, the left in this country is growing increasingly disgusting by any rational moral, ethical, political standard.

You could be a reasonable person, but if you vote for people that are not, and participate in organizations that are not... what matters more? That you are reasonable personally, or that your activities have the effect of promoting insanity?

I think that's why many people are so appalled by the left's reaction to Katrina, even if not literally every left-winger is to blame. You guys sure aren't doing much to chastise your own.

but it's exactly the differences in temperature between the upper and lower atmosphere that drives hurricanes (sorry not the most scientific of links)...so as you say the temperature on the surface warms, while the upper atmosphere stays the same = stronger huricanes

You're all off-topic. Cut it out. Now.

Hurricanes form over water.

Human-induced temperature increases are over land, where hurricanes always weaken because it destroys their structure regardless of temperature.

Sorry.

p.s.: Probably you shouldn't act like you understand a scientific issue if the extent of your knowledge is a wikipedia article.

the anti-turbine tripe came from teetotaling Teddy; RFK, Jr. predicts the sky is falling, or the earth is rising, whichever is most convenient.  :)

he should have come back right away.

has done quite a bit to reduce polution, and our air and waters are much cleaner than they were 30 years ago.

Also, I would argue that it is good stewardship to avoid being wasteful or polluting, but I am not all that convinced that humans have much to do with global warming, I also think we haven't been studying temperature long enough to decide if it is a cycle or true warming.  

And it is laughable to argue that hurricanes are more intense now, given the fact that there have been more intense or as intense hurricanes within the last 50 years, and there were hurricanes long before they got names, and were recorded.  Are people actually arguing that the hurricanes of 100 or 200 years ago were less intense?

where you can get some neighborhood info on flooding and such.

click here

that doesn't understand temperatures are rising everywhere ...yes, that includes the ocean, rocket scientist...

went straight up the Mississippi river, or its various feeding rivers.

A tremendous amount of water was dumped into the Mississippi, and that much water causes flooding down river.

This is what happened in NC after Dennis and then shortly after Floyd hit.  It wasn't so much that the hurricane causef lots of wind damage, but the fact that there was too much water, that caused too much flooding.

I remember the Neuse River dam ended up having to release water, because it was either release it, or it was going to flood over.

And hurricanes and tropical storms can produce a lot of rain.  We were in Alabama after Gordon (I don't remember if it hit as a hurricane or tropical storm) but at one point rain was falling at 4 inches an hour, and the view from my inlaws front porch made you feel like the house was floating in a river.  The water washed out both ends of their dirt road, and there was massive flooding all along the Alabama/Georgia border.

Levees can only handle so much water, and at some point that is all she wrote, and the water is going over.

Now. Everyone on this thread. You want to argue global warming, write a diary.

This is bad behavior. And, to make the point clear, cut the damned name-calling now. Thread drift is bad enough. Tossing in the names is just bitter sauce.

I'm done :)

Is to do the sorts of things that make sense on their own merits even if global climate change isn't happening.  You know things like reducing methane emissions or helping the Chinese and Indians (a/k/a 2.5 Billion people who weren't covered by Kyoto) develop cleaner technologies as their energy use increases.

You know, things we're already doing but barely rate a mention in the MSM because it contradicts the official "if we're not part of Kyoto, we're not doing anything" line.

The leading hurricane expert in the world, a Dr. Gray of Colorado State, says global warming has no effect on hurricanes.

If you want to debate the science, take it up with him. I'm sure your qualified.

...but even having done that, I'm afraid I remain human filth, according to the diary's alternate title.

If Thomas wants to target Kos or others with that characterization--though to my mind it would still be needlessly vitriolic--at least it would avoid the  worthlessness of blanket generality.

I stridently condemn adding Katrina as a plank in anyone's political platform on general principle, and more specifically, because of the facts with which Thomas rightfully debunks the arguments of those seeking to do so.

If we agree on the premise that reasonable people exist on either side of the aisle, then let's validate that belief by acting on it. I understand that this straw has broken the camel's back for many of you--but your particularly white-hot rage doesn't make sheer nastiness any more excusable or productive.

My point, I guess: I just don't want it to come to this.

. . .for nerve--given the vicious loons who populate his comments section, he knows full well that every time he posts anything that isn't full bore BDS material he'll get roasted alive by the moonbats.  On the other hand, he wouldn't have the problem if he'd do a decent job of cleaning out his cesspool once in a while, so perhaps any sympathy is misplaced.

At one time, as in a few months ago, I clung to the belief that the Left, with a few notable exceptions, were generally otherwise decent people who simply had different policy priorities from me. You know: They favor legalized abortion because they believe that a woman's liberty over her body is more valuable than her child's life. They favor a more active government because they believe that people's lives can be made better that way, and any costs are outweighed by the benefits.

While I stridently disagree, I understood that people could come to those positions in good faith.

I have since watched the Left go after a friend of mine (for calling someone a "whore") when in fact he called her that well-heeled lefty term, a "media whore," said going-after to include offline stalking; take a grieving mother and use her grief to strike at the President they despise; and, now, have taken the home city of half my ancestry and have used its corpse as a weapon.

No.

This is simply too much. This isn't good faith politics; this is war.

Insofar as you support these freaks, then yes, it applies to you. If you give them money, nod Uh-huh silently when you read their frothing lunacy, excuse them, or pretend that this behavior is acceptable in polite society, you are my enemy.

Insofar as you don't, Addison is right elsewhere in the thread; perhaps a new word is used for the unhousebroken yardapes.

because on its own merits, not because of global warming doomsday speak.

...where I feel they warrant condemnation--such as in this case. I extend full credit to you for doing likewise.

But you understand, I think, how I would bristle when you call me or--as you have somewhat downgraded and distanced the charge--the candidates I support, human filth.

Ms. Coulter, for example, will never find me supporting her views--but I am in no way inclined to question her worth as a human being. And I assure you, it is simply impossible that Kos angers you more than she angers me.

These hero or dragon distinctions damage discourse and inhibit the eventual progress that discourse guarantees. You are concocting a Skeletor for your G.I. Joe--and we're not him.

Skeletor is for He-Man.

in order to demonstrate your quite suitable outrage, you deign to join them to some degree.  That reasonable, though passionately partisan voices, have gotten swept up in the maelstrom of shameless mischaracterization, venom and vitriol is unfortunate for any political discourse.

While many people took issue with Erick's comments, only a handful of people truly attacked him and a few mental cases went after him through phone calls, etc.  (Note that they did this criminally as far as I'm concerned.)  The response level hardly speaks to any majority sentiment on the "left".  

When reasonable persons join the mob then they also do their part to keep hate alive.

"Note that when Pat Roberston made his idiotic remarks about assassinating Chavez, there were plenty of prominent figures on the Right who were willing to call his remarks insipid."

Forget the Chavez remark.  What in the devil is George Bush doing meeting with Pat Robertson or Robertson having so much pull in the party that he is a force.  Or in the Christian community.  The man is a fraud that cons desparate people out of money with faith healing over the television.  He is no christian and he doesn't believe what he is doing - or he is as nutty as Jim Jones.  Take your pick.  That Bush would use the christian coelition to run his campaign and be associated with this guy is incrediable.

He might as well meet with that 3 card monti team I ran into in Las Vegas.

I have found exactly one guy in politics that told the truth about Robertson.  And to the Republlican party's credit he was a Republican.

Goldwater said:

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right.  There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics.  That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers.  They are a detriment to the country."

Amen brother.

imho,

Stanford

Addison is entirely right, Thomas.  I think new words would help to machete through the jungle of discussions like these, and prevent people like me from hijacking worthy threads because he's angry.

Sad that wingnut and moonbat have already become appropriated and diluted for general labling purproses. Once, I suspect, they could have well-described the embarassing uncles that humiliate both of our political families.

I read the comments from the far lefties, who must bl aim Bush for everything that happens and just wonder, is this main stream Democrats, or the moonbats speaking? I hope that main stream D's are not this craven, I don't think they are actually because it will take all to pull together and survive this disaster.

In the face of such stupidity from the Moonbats, all we can hope for is that the President and all the forces of DoD and civilian agencies are brought to bear to help these folks in need out in a true bi-partisan professional manner.

By the way, I also have family in La, Central and Western parts of the state, and they were not harmed, not even rain to speak of so go figure.

My twelve-year-old self just strangled me. You gotta believe me, I really do know my way around after-school cartoons.

::slump::

..because my twelve year old self was..um..entirely too mature and successful with the ladies to still be into such nonsense...

... via Drudge today Sidney Bluementhal tosses yet more left wing BS into the fray. Thomas, when I first saw the title of your diary this morning I thought it might be just a tad extreme. But as the day has progressed and I've read more and more pronouncements from the moonbats I think maybe you understated the situation.

A major US city has essentially been destroyed. Hundreds of other cities, towns and villages along the central Gulf coast are in shambles. Millions of people are displaced, homeless, without power, food, water --- the essentials of life. Tens of thousands of people may well be at risk of their lives.

And how do the "intelligencia" of the American and international left respond? Calling for people to pull together to aid the victims? Volunteering to aid in any way they can? Nope. But what did we expect.

... from Sidney Blumenthal below. I'd guess that he qualifies as a member of the "mainstream" Democrats.

I was into cooler stuff like Star Trek at that point. Well, and Transformers reruns.

Having listened to our President on CNN my faith in him is even stronger.  The mobilization of this nation's assets will show the world what we are made of - that freedom means innovation, and that innovation means resilience.

Certainly, by the time Katrina hit New Orleans she'd been downgraded to a Category 3.  Recall the stories, as well as information coming out of the National Hurricane Center, about New Orleans getting struck by the weaker side of Katrina.  There was a brief period where people even seemed relieved, because the downgrading meant the levees were less likely to be breached.  

And then the levees broke anyway.  

And this, my friends, is the key point we must remember to insert into our arguments against the inhuman Left while we are defending our President: the downgrading of Katrina meant levee breaches were "less likely".  

As time goes on, as the levee issue is investigated more closely, this will become an argument over causality.  And causality is about how "likely" it was that Y caused Z.  In our efforts to support this administration, we must put and keep our heads together to understand the nuances of causality and likelihood.  I urge supporters:

open your legal textbooks.  We must collectively prepare ourselves for the coming debate.

Surely, it is too early to say whether any federal spending cuts to specific maintenance or upgrade projects had any causal relationship with the specific breaches which actually occurred.  The Left has already shot itself in the foot by jumping the gun here.

But more people than just the extreme Left will be asking those questions when the time seems more appropriate.  Now is not the time for the mainstream to jump on this inhuman bandwagon - we need to support the President now.  

When the time comes, independent inquiries will be requested by those in Congress who seek political gain at every devastated corner.  But if an independent inquiry ever found that those federal cuts resulted in precisely the same weakened state of the levees which in turn resulted in the breaches, then we must worry.  No inquiry could ever be independent in a country where the Left has such a tight grip.  As Patriots and supporters of our President in his endeavors to rescue those poor souls and recover from this catastrophe, we must ensure that no such "independent" inquiry ever takes place - ever.  It would be a complete distraction from the real issues at hand, no matter when and how it took place.  

For now, let us all worry about how to get this country doing a world-class job of identifying and overcoming the specific obstacles in the rescue and recovery missions.

He's not what I would call main stream, a bit of wack job in my book.

What's Joe librenthaw(sp), even Bill and or Hillary Clinton saying?

I just have a hard time beleiving that all Democrats are so crass as to make this a political issue at this time or to beleive this is a main stream postion.  

This is simply miserable trolling. What the hell is with you people? Can't you imitate what you hate any better than this?

"we must ensure that no such "independent" inquiry ever takes place - ever.  It would be a complete distraction from the real issues at hand, no matter when and how it took place"

This has to be satire.

Took me a couple of reads to find the hook in this one Moby. Embrasse mon tcheue

Sorry for the swearing Thomas

Having listened to our President on CNN my faith in him is even stronger.

Outed yourself right there, idiot.

I read your article.  I followed your link to KOS.  I read another article at KOS.

It is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/31/163230/120

Part of what it indicated was very large funding cuts from Hurricane protection to fund the Department of Home Land Security and the Iraq War.  Well I must admit sympathy not wanting either the increased bureaucracy -  and having been proved wrong on my early support of the war.

The army corp of engineers said it is the biggest funding drop ever.

"I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to."

From the Times-Picayune on June 8th article:

For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.

"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake," said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place."

...

"I can't tell you exactly what that could mean this hurricane season if we get a major storm," Naomi said. "It would depend on the path and speed of the storm, the angle that it hits us.

"But I can tell you that we would be better off if the levees were raised, . . . and I think it's important and only fair that those people who live behind the levee know the status of these projects."

Now I am not convinced that the funding would stop the catastrophe.  I am convinced the priorities are wrong and it might have made a difference.  This storm hit a glance - not head on.  

It seems the contractors thought it important enough they worked without getting paid for some time.

As to the National Guard, I understand the points of both camps.  Whether the administration was efficient before and after this catastrophe is not yet an answered question.  I will reserve judgment.  It is fair game.  And those raising the issue are not evil, although they may be proved wrong.

I disagree with your premise.

imho,

Stanford

"Having listened to our President on CNN my faith in him is even stronger."

I don't think I have heard anyone from the right side of the aisle write like this. First clue should have been CNN, everyone in the VRWC knows that we watch Fox, but the moonies can't bring themselves to spell it correctly - always going for Faux, so they have to use CNN here to cover. 2nd, the whole "having listened to our president" just sounds like someone is trying to hard, it's like someone bragging about their own heroism in Viet Nam, it just doesn't fit for a true hero. Lastly, mobys need to know that even though we are religious fanatics, we don't have faith in men, only faith in God.

But what in what you quoted disputes so much as one word of what I wrote or quoted?

... Katrina approached New Orleans somewhat perpendicular to the river (its hard to say exactly as the river goes every which way in the city area). The river never flooded and the river levees were apparently never at risk.

The LSU pre-storm analysis showed that the low lying areas well to the east of the city would (and did) flood from hurricane barrier overtopping resulting from the storm surge. The analysis also showed that the storm would not (and apparently did not) force enough water into Pontchartrain to overtop the levees on the north side of the city.

The flooding appears to have occured several hours after the worst of the storm created pressures on the Pontchartrain levees had already begun to subside. The barrier wall along the Industrial Canal apparently breeched resulting in the flooding. Had that wall held the "disaster" would not have occured.

I'm sure that there will be more than enough post-disaster analysis to satisfy even the "geekiest" among us, but the point is that the flooding is not the result of a failure of the river levees nor even the Ponchartrain levees.

Oh I don't know, how about the fact that "Mr. President" was golfing the first day, speaking the at a WW-II memorial the second day, which I do respect, however during a national tragedy I want my president working on the issues, then on the third when even Republicans are asking him to get more involved, he does. Showing the American public the he will do everything in his power to help and show some sympathy for those in need. Now is it "window dressing" yes, but for those of who don't have anything anymore, I say just do something that would at least help one person it would be worth it. Now for us "highly sensitive Left" as you put it, I live in Dallas, girlfriend's parents live in Shreveport and have lived through 2 cat. 3 and 1 cat. 4 hurricanes, so I am speaking with authority. Yes to some degree you are correct, how ever just ask yourself "How would I feel if I lived there now and President Gore was golfing". You republicans need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

... that I think Blumenthal is sort of the junk-yard-dog of the centrist Dems.

Every time I come on this site, people put things in my mouth that I didn't say.  I had no such "Chicken Little" pronouncements.

I'm sick of this.  This is supposed to be the "rational" right-wing board, and I come here to engage in insightful conversation, but I always just get called names.  

You people only have one mode of arguing.  Personal attacks, and name calling.  I don't blame you, all your leaders on TV do it too.

Good bye.

The crowd that has come to be known as moonbats, lefties, etc. have been proud to wear the Progressive moniker since last year. They have used it to differentiate between 'Democrats' (i.e. evil centrists) and the 'true believers'.

I say let's use Progressive and taint it for all it's worth. Then we can see just how big the tent is.

.... but what you have to consider is they don't won't any free exchange of ideas, only there own ideology will do, anything else is weak, disgusting, and repulsive. There words not mine...

without power for almost a week both times.

I honestly didn't much care what Clinton was doing.

I know during one flood it took him a little over a week to show up, and the other time he was off in New Zealand, and once again it took him a little over a week to show up (I know this because of articles linked to in other discussions).

Frankly, what exactly did you expect Bush to be doing that he hadn't already done?  Was he supposed to done an orange vest and head down to New Orleans to direct traffic leaving the city?  Just what exactly?

First the left doesn't want him to take vacations, and now they are mad, because he didn't end his vacation soon enough to suit them.

Shoot I think had Bush donned the orange vest and directed traffic it wouldn't have been enough to suit you-you probably think he should have stood on the levee to personally keep them from being breached.

could you put more words in my mouth? Tell me more what I am thinking!

No what I want "ANY" president to do is show the people that he does care about the people and not politics. Why did it take him that long or why did many republicans tell him to get more involved three (3) days later.

No I don't want the president to be in any danger, but if you will recall during the 2004 campaign, he flew to Florida for photo ops of helping relieve victims. He is only going to do some if it plays for him politically.

THESE ARE MY WORDS EXACTLY!!!!!!

Word has been going around in some quarters of the Left that yesterday, as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama suffered the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush played golf. "The president went golfing at the El Mirage Golf Course yesterday while the people were literally suffering," Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes said today. "The president decided that the best use of his time would be to go golfing." The message, of course, was that Bush is so callous and so removed from reality that he went out for a bit of fun on the course while disaster struck the nation. The only problem is, according to the White House, the president didn't play golf yesterday. He took part in a Medicare event at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in El Mirage, Arizona -- during which he made some remarks about the hurricane -- but there was no golf.

Baton Rouge, as close to "ground zero" as possible.  I have ten people from the New Orleans area sleeping in my apartment tonight, people who I never met before, but who I am willing to help because I understand the enormity of the tragedy that has hit my adopted state of Louisiana. Last night the number was thirteen, including  two infants.

As I deal with this tragedy on a personal and psychological level, I have to admit that I have never been angrier at the American left than I am now for their politicizing this tragedy.  There are words I could use, but none that are allowed here.

And should know better than to go there.

... I do give you a total 100% hats off and say that you are a caring person. You are absolutely going to heaven!

Now as far as your politics goes, I disagree. The left only politicized it after the President politicized it first. Are we supposed to just accept everything he says and does? If that is the case then might I ask if you voted for President Clinton and all the problems he had, or you just have selective scrutiny.

At exactly which point you thought the President politicized this first?

Timeline is important here, for this small point.

Now as far as your politics goes, I disagree. The left only politicized it after the President politicized it first.

Surely you have some source for this. Any source at all will do.

... means nothing to the hard left.

I feel really bad about what I wrote, and I was hoping that I was first to reply.  I thought about it on my commute home just now.

I should not have said what I just said.

There are a few people who seem to be into name calling around here and I do think it is obscene, but they are in minority, and I should just ignore them and actually engage the majority of wonderful people here who are excited to talk about things.

So I apologize.

mk

Sid Blumenthal, the Voldemort of the Democratic Party, a spin doctor so ruthless he makes James Carville look like a Care Bear...

 - Jim Geraghty at The Kerry Spot, 9 Sep 2004

We really do value contributors around here. Yes, no doubt, those approaching from the left will need thicker skins, and we make no apologies.

But, we do engage other points of view. It will take a lot to change our minds, but be assured that if you don't track mud in the house, then we'll eventually let you put your feet on the couch and perhaps bum the occasional beer.

We get a lot of the 'they don't want to hear the other point of view' line around here. I can assure you that our editors are some of the most frequent readers of 'leftie' blogs out there. We know our competition, and we know our position.

Anyway, nice to hear you're not writing us off :)

That's very nice to hear.  I may not be ready for this board yet.  I get very emotional about some of this stuff.  

The hurricane really freaked me out.  And if there is anything I could do to prevent it in the future I want to, and am very offended by people who want solid proof.  So maybe I'm not thick skinned enough yet.

I still enjoy reading the columns though.

Thanks.

If anything qualifies as a quagmire - it's DC!  

No matter how much the Left wishes it were so, the real life President is not like Martin Sheen on the West Wing.

Bush wasn't doing nothing those first few days, he was giving orders, signing emergency declarations, consulting with his Cabinet and getting prepared for the aftermath.  The man was a governor, he fully understands the compelxity of all of the issues involved in mobilizing the resources.  And his borther, in case some forget, is the governor of hurricane wracked Florida, so GWB is getting good advice, I'm sure, from that angle as well.

The people who are effected by this horrific tragedy are not watching tv, blogging, or waiting anxiously by the battery operated radio to make sure that the President feels their pain.

They want shelter.  Food.  Air conditioning.  The basic necessities.  They want to know where to go to be safe, where to go to get information.  And they want it all to stop.

No President has magical powers to make the rain go away, the land dry up, and things to instantaneously fix themselves because he wants them to.  It takes time, energy, and resources to get things back, and this tragedy will take years of effort to recover from.

So the fact that Bush didn't rush to the TV camera, maintained some semblance of order in his own busy schedule as President of the ENTIRE freaking nation doesn't really bother me.

That he waited until he had a better sense of what was going on in the effected States and a greater idea of exactly how the Feds were going to respond, shows that he is not a media president.  He doesn't want to be omnipresent on the news, as we've seen for years.  He doesn't think he needs to pontificate on evey issue, big or small, until he's got something worthwhile to say.

For good or for ill, that's the way he is.  He wasn' 'pushed' by some Republicans into doing anything.  He waited until he had something that was wrth saying.

Giving sympathy to people that can't hear it (no power, no cable, no cell phones, etc.) is ten times worse than waiting a few days to make sure we knew what was going on and how we were going to respond.

Remember the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?  The precession of the equinoxes?  The Earth has a wobble to it.  The North Star changes every 10,000 years.  Think that might cause some changes in temperature, and perhaps an ice age every so often?  What happens when you come out of an ice age?  Global cooling?

Damn the Facts...full steam ahead on smearing the President.

Didn't you just incorrectly comment above he was busy playing golf?

has said about the crisis is that it is "one of the worst natural disasters" in our nations history, and that his administration will spare no expense in setting things right (as far as possible).  How does this count as politicizing the situation?  BTW, 2-3 hours ago I heard Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on the radio thank President Bush for his commitment to fund reconstruction.

But thank you for your confidence in my eternal security.

I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SOURCES!

He probably said CNN because if he tried to write Fox he'd accidentally spell it Faux.

This post's use of the phrase "human filth" is incredibly disturbing.

What has he been doing behind the scenes? Who knows. But in public he has been:

    * Golfing

    * Celebrating John McCain's birthday

    * Playing guitar

It has simply been a terrible image, and an important part of leadership is projecting an image of strength and security in times of need.

Instead, comparisons to Nero abound.

I'm sure that mistakes were made in the planning -- that some risks should not have been taken, and that there were probably ways to minimize other risks -- and I'm sure that those mistakes cost lives. But that's not to say that any other government would have done a better job.

Moving more resources into position before the hurricane made landfall seems like a great idea in hindsight, but also would have put them at risk.

Bussing people from the Superdome out of the city leaves you with the problem of where to put them where they will have shelter from the storm.

All of that is just a matter of trying to make the least worst decision, and there's bound to be lots that we can learn from it.

But Bush's very public lack of engagement has shown him to be weak. Predators always go after the weak.

I'll tell you what is incredibly disturbing, the finger pointing and blame game coming from the mouths of such Liberal...Lefite...Democratic shinning lights such as Mr. RFK JR, Mr. Sidney Blumenthal and other dim lights from what passes for the Democratic party right now.

The dead are not even counted yet and the Far Left is even now beating the drum of partisan politics.  

It's not disturbing...it's disgusting and as far as I am concerned is totally unAmerican. In short this sort of speech coming from the Left is beyond the pale.

"Shoot I think had Bush donned the orange vest and directed traffic it wouldn't have been enough to suit you-you probably think he should have stood on the levee to personally keep them from being breached."

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you, JustMe.

what rock have you been under the last four days?

Kos and co. were politicizing this before the damn hurricane even hit land.

have happened is a lot like what happened at the Johnstown dam.  I seem to remember the words "percolated through the earthen berm" in the history of the Johnstown flood.

Doesn't quite have the insidious ring it needs, does it?

Something like "Loudmouth Left-Wing Conspiracy" has already been used.

I think "The Far Left" at least gives it some dignity, but isn't wild-eyed enough.

Sorry, I know this is a serious blog.

Let's go with "The Darth Vader Attack Dogs of the Left."

...I'm not sure how much of my comment was sort of in jest.

There are people who absolutely, 100%, will always be against Bush and thanks to the advances in rhetorical dissembling will always be able to "prove" their case to each other. There are those people on the right, too, who will always view Liberals as "wrong" and always be able to prove that to each other.

There's got to be some perfect label for these people -- these unthinking and reflexive fringes who seek only to be mirror images of each other and therefore be the same on the Platonic plane -- and I'm angry at myself that I can't think of it.

label is, they are going to whine about it.

Labels in general-are just that labels-and in general the left especially will run from its labels-even the accurate ones.  Shoot liberals don't even call themselves liberals anymore.

Now there is some similarity with groups on the right, but in general, I embrace the conservative label, while I don't self identify as a Christian fundamentalist, definition wise I probably am a fundamentalist-I don't like Nazi comparison's, but if the label fits I generally don't raise a fuss.

The latest Known Fact!

...without Adult Supervision.

The "golf" canard is being spread by Randi Rhodes, constitutional liar. For the last time, there was no golf. Indeed, at least 24 hours before the storm hit, Bush himself suggested to the Mayor of New Orleans that a mandatory evacuation of the city begin. It was at that time that KATRINA was still at a Cat 5 with 175 mph sustained winds and a 902mb central pressure: a historic killer storm not seen since ANDREW.

Mobilization for relief had actually begun prior to the storm coming ashore. This is something the Left is conveniently forgetting, while also conveniently failing to disassociate itself from intellectual carjackers like Sidney Blumenthal and the two-bit mind hustlers over at Editor and Publisher.

The performance of the Democratic base has been an unalloyed disgrace. Their canine hatred of Bush has simply gotten the better of whatever decency existed within them during a period of national trial. Indeed, it will be entertaining to watch their intellectual allies in the Running Dog media propagate the new meme that "Bush" is responsible for the levees breaking.

That's preferable to the truth, which revolves around decades of corrupt Louisiana politics and New Orleans municipal backscratching that dates back to the time of Huey Long.

Thomas is correct: unmannered yardapes indeed! Spot on!

unless the president is driving one of the buses or handing out water bottles. Just spare the rest of us the navel gazing nonsense we're really, really tired of it.

I'm trying to pull together photos, flood levels, and stories by New Orleans neighborhood on a Wiki. If anyone knows how to create Wiki markup please give me a hand.

http://thinknola.com/wiki/

and utter nonsense. No less an authority tha Dr. William Gray of Colordo State has poured cold water on this earlier this week; for the umpteenth time he has had to do this since the founding of the new religion of Global Warming and the Evilness of Humans

Just more "Known Facts ™" from the left.

-------------------

... I for one have had enough of "leaders" who rush to the microphone to bite their lower lip and utter meaningless cr*p like "I feel your pain."

I don't want someone to claim to feel my pain. I'm a grown man I can deal with my pain, I want someone to deal with the issues that I can't.

... it would have made a great photo op :-)

Why should Maryland pay for border security in AZ? (you're a better sophist than this...)<end snipe>

We're all connected; we're in this together. Go donate, if you haven't.  

Each region in the country is subject to the wrath of Mother Nature, even MD can flood (Baltimore 2003).  I wouldn't presume that people in MD are any less deserving of my hard-earned tax dollars than those in LA or AZ.

The border we secure is not Arizona's, but the United States's.

One might even go so far as to tremulously assert that this is traditionally one of Congress's powers.

Giant earthen dams around potentially hazardous rivers, however, are not.

What do you think the hyperbole in your title added to your article?

Among other things, it drew stupid non-sequitur questions.

I mean, technically, that has nothing to do with the article, but then again, your question has nothing to do with the thread.

This is just to all the people who are telling me I am talking nonsense:

One word:  MAYBE.

I am not zealously proclaiming "Humans are at fault". My only point is that there is a theory regarding global warming which involves something called "The Greenhouse Effect."  This has not been proven true, but is rooted in very rational thinking.  It might not be true, but it also might.  

What I want to know, and have always wanted to know, from people who refuse to make adjustments in their lives is why not?  We MIGHT be at fault, and there are very simple things we could do to help.  They MIGHT NOT help, but so what.

From my own life:  I bike to work every day instead of driving.  If it turns out that this didn't help global warming, I still get some exercise and save a couple hundred dollars a year (thousand?) on gas. I also did a my part to help reduce the world's dependence on oil (something most agree is a good idea for many reasons), and helped keep the local air clear. So I might have helped global warming I might not have.

What I want to understand, is even knowing all of this stuff, what is it that makes people purchace gas guzzling Hummers and LARGE SUVs (I know some of the smaller models get very good mileage) that they don't need?  Yes I know some people need these vehicles, and I respect that.  But let's face it most people who own them have no need for these vehicles.  

So I understand why there would be indignance regarding my "sky is falling" pronouncements (which I never made, but several folks attributed to me)  but if we all agree conserving oil is:

a) good for local air quality

b) good for our wallet

c) probably good for the future of industrialized society (it's a nonrenewable resource and WILL run out someday, even if it's hundreds of years from now)

d) potentially good for our own bodies (if you bike or walk or whatever)

e) good for the economy (the less fuel we use, the lower gas prices, which effect prices on everything which effects buying... yadda yadda yadda, same argument as Bush's tax cuts essentially)

f) is just an added bonus:  It MIGHT help slow down global warming.  

g) another bonus:  some of our oil money seems to go to support radical Islamic terrorism.  Again we don't know for sure.  

If we agree on all these things, what is it that leads you all to be so stubborn?  To me it feels reactionary.  You are so angry that I dare suggest personal sacrifice might be a good thing for the world that  some of you take an extreme opposite reaction.  

But unlike some of you (will go unnamed) I'm not going to put words in your mouth or attribute motivations.  I would love to hear from someone who has a Hummer that is unnecessary for their business or family needs.  Do you not agree with my points?  What was the motivation to buy that thing?  I honestly don't get it.

I'm sympathetic, but you're so far off thread I'm beginning to think you're doing this as an exercise in spite.

Look to the left side of the page. You'll see a link for "New Diary Entry." Click it. Type away. Comment and argue. But cut this massive threadjack now.

This also goes for any commenters who respond to the above comment. It ends. Now.

It's very telling that throughout 3000 words you don't quote any of the pieces you object to.

You've created a strawman.

The Left would have us believe that the Bush Administration purposefully underfunded the levees

That above is just a flat out lie.

the pieces you linked to:

DailyKos-1. the insinuation here is that on a day of tragedy jovial vacation like activities are inapropriate. there is no politicization of a tragedy.

DailyKos-2. this piece is a direct response to challenges from this site. it is a piece filled with tons of factual information that shows the city was underprepared and missing funds were part of the problem. This is the only place the editor and publisher article you referenced is referred to.

Eschaton. Quotes the emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

The very quote you have a problem with

It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Maybe you need to take up your issue with Walter Maestri, and explain to him how you know the situation better than he does.

If your argument is that we should not look back at the facts and see how we could've done things differently than may God help you. Turn a blind eye to the past because it is politically favorable? What a terrible waste of 3,000 words.

...that the "human filth" charge is disturbing indeed, but no more so than what some on the left are doing?

Or

...are you saying that "human filth" is not disturbing at all, that what's truly disturbing is the left and only the left.

Because one of those I have a quibble with...

I must apologize to you, as well, Kavalier.  There was no intention to put words in your mouth or insult you.  Like you, we all carry our own baggage to these boards and a part of mine is the irritation i feel everytime I run across the seemingly unending call to "DO Something."  Especially where pollution is concerned, whatever the reason behind the call.  

I was trying to point out that despite what the majority of the Democratic Party has been saying for my entire life, we Are doing a great deal about pollution.  Our waters and air and land are cleaner than they have been for over a hundred years.

Global Warming aside, the effort is beng made.  It is, unfortunately, also being ignored.

Congress has been regulating and altering navigable waterways by virtue of the commerce clause since at least 1824. The people of Louisiana have not had practical control over major levee-building policies for a long time. The policies of the Army Corps of Engineers has a dramatic impact on our state, and is in part what has led to New Orleans being the bowl city that it is.

The United States bought New Orleans and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase primarily to gain the ability to control navigation on the Mississippi river. I think it is well within the proper scope of the NATIONAL government to take care of keeping it navigable. And fixing some of the consequences that keeping it navigable has on this state.

since your stupid non-sequitur reply fueled the non-sequitous nature of this non-sequating thread, I've got another question.

Do you think it's arrogant to quote yourself in the pullout?

As I presume that's the amount of energy you spent running your eyes over the screen without reading a word of what I said.

God have mercy on the stupid, for they surely need it.

Of course, I didn't create the pullout quote, so I guess I can sleep tonight after all.

Latin is clearly no more your friend than English. Maybe Mandarin? Ni ben ma?

Dr. Gray has some very strong arguments and I hope that he is correct. But, there are also the arguments of Dr. Emanuel from MIT, that lead to a slightly different conclusion, although Emanuel's work does not necessarily contradict Gray's. Only time will tell who is more correct. Perhaps both.

The link seems to point to Democrats not stalinists, so I do think you're being a little slippery there.

We should all be aware that at times like these we often say things we regret later.

I do think that the Federal government must get out of the business of local issues like levee maintenance. We've cut taxes deeply under Bush and have not yet started to seriously make cuts in Federal spending. Maybe a tragedy like this will be a spring board to debate about the proper role and scope of Federal power and spending in an era of smaller government.

I agree the streiff, Marylanders should not be paying for New Orleans' levees. Americans have been voting for smaller government for 20+ years. I wish Bush would stand up and say that ending big government means something. Too bad it takes a tragedy like this to bring the message home--if indeed it does.

There is a place.

Their is a possessive pronoun.

It is over THERE.

It is THEIR idea.

Good grief.

That of course begs the question: Why doesn't Louisiana handle the project if it's (obviously) so important to the lives and health of their citizens? Why doesn't New Orleans divert part of its annual budget?

We both know the answers to these. Same answer, really.

(1) "Sarcasm."

(2) I have yet to regret one word of my piece. I might, later, but I might also revert to my childhood love of buttered pecan over cookies and cream.

(3) I believe I agree with the rest.

Because we're not allowed to tax most of the commerce that comes through and depends on the river. You pass a constitutional amendment allowing the state of Louisiana to tax goods in interstate commerce passing through this massive navigable waterway (and the oil moving through our pipelines as well), and we'll look at paying to keep up the river.

I'm not getting down in the mud over this with bodies still out of the ground, but that's not why money never gets where it's supposed to go in Louisiana.

The state cannot tax the commerce; it can and does tax the employees and companies that reside there to take advantage of that commerce.

I knew when I read the name.  Iloveyoutoomoby.

...is not a valid rebuttal. C'mon, man, move beyond the swiftboating tactics--you can do better than that.

Defend your position.

No harm meant. I swear.  I had a lot of people be nasty to me, this was my response.  I thought it was very respectful.

mk

But if you want to have this discussion, go draft a diary. Seriously. It'll focus everyone's minds and draw more comments.

The internet is the great regret free zone. I don't know of anyone who manages it off-line, but I've led a sheltered life.

Glad about #3.

Buttered pecan over cookies and cream, that reminds me of my NO roots. Do you have a recipe?

Before imitation, first resolve to comprehend.

Before comprehending, first resolve to study.

Before studying, first resolve to empathize.

Before empathizing, first resolve to love.

Without love, empathy becomes projection.

Without love, study becomes pedantry.

Without love, comprehension becomes self-delusion.

And without love, imitation becomes caricature.

Hate is merely fear remasked!

Do not kill resolve with fear!

I'm just new at this.  I don't know all the unwritten rules.  

I appreciate the help.

Ordinarily, I'd ignore anyone who even used that word. However, for fear that my reply was lost in the snark, and as a one-time show of good faith:

Not one word in what he said or quoted refuted a word I said. Had he read what I wrote, he wouldn't have bothered posting.

But I'll see if I can drag it up.

I understand your upset, Thomas, and agree (to a certain extent) with the notion that now is not the time to be playing political games.  But, if today's Trib is any indication, this has the potential to be a huge political problem for Bush.  Money quotes:

Similarly, the Army Corps requested $78 million for this fiscal year for projects that would improve draining and prevent flooding in New Orleans. The Bush administration's budget provided $30 million for the projects, and Congress ultimately approved $36.5 million, according to Landrieu's office.

"I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have," said Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, when he was ousted after publicly criticizing a Bush administration proposal to cut the corps' budget.

Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the corps' chief of engineers, said late Wednesday that the corps' requests cited in Landrieu's figures were the amount that would be needed to finish the work in a given year. But he said the corps, working with the administration, rarely requests the full amount in the budget.

"There are limited resources and there are huge demands on it," he said. "Very rarely do we fund at full capability."

I expect the (italicized) Parker quote to receive heavy play; though it strikes me that the Strock quote that follows is probably closer to the truth (which means, of course, it'll be totally ignored).

Thanks for not ignoring this term, as you normally would, and showing good faith, as you normally wouldn't.

I believe what happened is that you said that the left (or "filth") had "apparently" used the EP piece to politicize the tragedy...fair point to make with the proper backing info. But then then the blogs you linked to in order to make your point(s?) were about entirely different points such as Dubya strummin' his geetar while people were dying. Your links should support your point, not cut a broader swath of liberal bashing marginally related to your original point.

Set the river aside for a moment. The City of New Orleans is unambiguously in charge of these pumps we keep hearing about. Two of them were not working because they lacked spare parts, and only one was equipped with a diesel generator in case the electricity went out... which of course it did.

This is a city with an annual budget in excess of $500 million per year. What the heck were they spending that money on that was a higher priority than keeping those pumps running? I hope it wasn't those artsy-fartsy 'fish' they had all over the place.

This whole "Bush did it" meme depends on some cut from a usual $45 million or so federal appropriation. You give me a sharp pencil and I guarantee you I can find $45 million worth of stuff in that $500 million city budget that was less important to the city's residents than those levees.

But good intentions are not good enough.  The Green House effect is a proven theory - it is the CO2 impact on the atmosphere.  What has not been proven is CO2 emissions are driving the warming cycle.

My point about doctors bleeding their patients in the middle ages was to alert you to the fallacy of your position.  Bleeding was "rooted in very rational thinking".  It was also beyond irrelevant - it made things worse.

When you ask mankind to divert energy and resources and effort into a plan to stop something, you cannot be crossing your fingers and hoping it works.

The reason people like me want to know for sure what is the cause is because people like me would be able to decide what is worth investing in to assist humankind to get through this.

For example, while you are diverted on fossil fuels, we could be developing a huge desalination capability on the west coast of Africa to begin irrigating the sub sarahan waste lands.  We have plenty of desert there, so we could lose some.  I would rather lose desert than rain forests.  

A green subsaharan region would be pumping massive amounts of see water to create large new lands for people and animals to use.  It would create farmland to avoid famine in Africa, it would provide land for people now encroaching on the wild life.  The greening would add a CO2 sink to rival the massive CO2 sink which are the rain forests of South America.

And it would sot less than Kyoto to implement.

That is the difference between being blindly reactive and being creatively pro-active.

Intentions are simply not enough

I posted on this topic because the finger pointing and insanity coming from Katrina is getting ugly.  You were right on this post, it seems, because every shrill comment from the left is risking our response and recovery of the reqion hit by Katrina.

My post is too long to repear here, so if you do not mind I will simply drop the link:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/618

Most people want to help.  Too many on the left want a political war.  They may just get one - but it won't be left vs right.  It will be America vs the far left.  There is a point of no return for the left.

Well said.

You are right, why should the LA government care whether people drown. They will still faithfully "vote" for the Dim candidates anyway.

that was funny?

Just horrible.

But I'm not suggesting starting a movement and "diverting resources" I'm suggesting not buying a gas guzzling car!

That's all I said!

mk

it is not "funny", it is true. The LA and NO  governments have been controllled by corrupt politics for so long that unless there was graft and votes readily available, levee improvements were hardly a priority.

So, you are criticizing Bill Clinton for this?

President Clinton issued pre-emptive disaster declarations for Florida and Georgia to enable recovery efforts to begin as quickly as possible. He also planned to return a day early from his trip to New Zealand.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency set up a staging area in Atlanta, stockpiling food, ice, water, cots, sleeping bags, blankets, generators, portable toilets, flashlights and plastic sheeting so that they could be delivered to hard-hit areas in a hurry.

If you are criticizing Clinton for returning to Washington before a storm hit, and for FEMA being prepared before the disaster struck, then how does Bush compare making speeches to seniors, celebrating John McCain's birthday, and playing a guitar at another event after Katrina came ashore?

Frankly, what exactly did you expect Bush to be doing that he hadn't already done?

Spend his time talking with people to make sure the disaster response is ready before disaster even strikes, but especially afterward.  Make sure FEMA, the National Guard, mayors, and governors have what they need.  Can't we agree that these efforts are more important than photo ops?

I say let the "Looney Left" continue to rant and rave they way they are. First off, they show their true colors. The more they rant and rave about how Bush not signing Kyoto caused Katrina and other rants, while poeple are suffering in New Orleans and other places along the Gulf Coast, America will see right through them. And it will show come election time when they lose more seats in the House and Senate and scratch their head wondering where they went wrong.

I know, we all look to the Dear Leader for our inspiration, for he is the Health of the Nation, its very Embodiment. But sometimes, the Dear Leader must work behind doors, using mystic artifacts known as "telephones" and "video conferencing centers."

Why, it is said that he even casts his very Thoughts to Heaven, and that they are sent by Divine Grace to his Servants, a thousand blessings on their Names.

Indeed, it is sometimes suggested that what makes the Dear Leader at all the Health of the Nation is his willingness to let his Lesser Servants, a thousand blessings on their names, fill their appointed tasks without his direction, for though he is the Health of the Nation, even the Dear Leader cannot be everywhere at once.

Lukewarm. Camel spit.

You are right. If the MSM ran a picture of Bush on the phone on a conference call with every disaster relief organization in the US, the caption would be "Bush Orders Pizza While Thousand Starve"

The levees that broke were on canals between the river and the lake or the intercoastal water ways.  They were not on the river or the lake proper.

FYI.

 Video telephones.

My favorite personal saying is "want to beat a liberal, let them talk".

But that usually does not apply to ugly speech.

The 17th street canal is connected to the lake.  When its levee broke, water flowed from the lake, down the canal, and through the breach.  Exactly which levee breaks matters not a bit when they are hydrologically connected - the water level in New Orleans was destined to rise to the level of the lake regardless.

He doesn't need to be anywhere in particular, but he can not be on the phone if he is at photo opportunities.  Bush is well known for delegating tasks, but he is the boss, after all.  Unless his underlings have been doing their jobs optimally (and they haven't), giving his attention during a time of crisis would seem to be a good idea.  Many here at RedState were concerned that it looked bad that Bush was playing the guitar, speaking to seniors, etc. as the crisis in New Orleans was unfolding.  I submit that it looked bad because it was bad: he should have had other priorities with his time.  As you say, he can not be everywhere at once.  Therefore, he should do what is most important.

canals 'between' the lake and river.....

Goldwater, or, for that matter, Nixon, would have been laughed off of the Republican Party Platform Commitee of 2004 so fast a turbine hooked to your spinning head could provide power for half a state.

This is not your father's Republican party.

You're not supposed to politicize tragedy?  Someone should have told the GOP that before they staged their 9/11 revival festival (a.k.a. the 2004 Republican National Convention) at Madison Square Garden.   How about putting images of the WTC in official Bush/Cheney campaign ads?  

On the other hand, if Bush's budget priorities contributed in any way to increased suffering in New Orleans (and I'm not saying they did---further study will tell), what's wrong with pointing that out?  Karl Rove can say that liberals wanted to offer terrorists therapy after September 11, but I can't point out that Bush was completely disingenuous this morning to state that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," when that's demonstrably untrue?

Man, I knew your writing style looked familiar, but I don't spend enough time at dKurse to pin it down. Gave yourself away with that tagline.

Seriously, thanks for the help. Now that we know you're not here to actually engage in a debate, we can wish you goodbye.

Have fun.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me here, other than the fact that you'd be wrong.

However, when in another's home, manners apply. Thus:

Right way: Look, you're wrong. Clearly, the budget cuts did indeed cause this problem. And [this isn't politicizing a tragedy/it's ok to politicize a tragedy]. I've provided helpful links to prove my point.

Wrong way:

You're not supposed to politicize tragedy?  Someone should have told the GOP that before they staged their 9/11 revival festival (a.k.a. the 2004 Republican National Convention) at Madison Square Garden.   How about putting images of the WTC in official Bush/Cheney campaign ads?  

On the other hand, if Bush's budget priorities contributed in any way to increased suffering in New Orleans (and I'm not saying they did---further study will tell), what's wrong with pointing that out?  Karl Rove can say that liberals wanted to offer terrorists therapy after September 11, but I can't point out that Bush was completely disingenuous this morning to state that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," when that's demonstrably untrue?

Which could be summarized as:

Chimpy McHitlerburton, blah blah blah, Rethuglicans, blah blah blah, questioning patriotism, blah blah blah...

Your one warning.

. . .when he was one of Bubba's most notorious attack dogs was "Grassy Knoll."  Being given that nickname in an Administration that was characterized largely by paranoia about its enemies is all we need to know about Mr. Blumenthal.

A) I don't need etiquette lessons from someone who, in the midst of what's going on in New Orleans, refers to those who dare disagree with him as "gibbering yard apes."  Alas, I suppose its easier to quibble over style rather than substance when your position is less than sturdy.

B)  Your piece was entitled, in part, "politicizng tragedy."  Is it wrong?  The fact you rail against it leads me to believe your answer is "yes."  If so, please tell me why the other instances I mentioned were different.  

Or, if you prefer, you can continue to dismiss my queries as . . . how did you so eloquently and articulately put it?  Ah yes, "Chimpy McHitlerburton, blah blah blah, Rethuglicans, blah blah blah, questioning patriotism, blah blah blah..."  I suppose, however, for someone whose idea of elevated public discourse is "root out evil-doers," the latter might be preferable.

You had your shot.

Just because he kept up an appearance of normalcy does not mean that he was not hands-deep.

There's a link above that might be useful.

were hit by fran and later Floyd I didn't much care where, when or what Clinton was doing.

My point is that the "Bush is evil and caused all this" meme is rediculous, he didn't do any thing more or less that Clinton did.  Bush, by the way also declared the area a state of emergency the weekend before the hurricane hit.

Much of the problems in NO right now are not federal problems, but problems at the state and local level with the evacuation and relief plans.  The state/local government provides the plan, the feds provide the resources.

I know I said in another thread, I don't even remember Clinton visiting NC either time, I had no power, I was drinking bottled water and just hoping the power came on soon.  Luckily I didn't have any property damaged either time, so once my power came back on, it was pretty much life back to normal.  My kids actually thought Floyd was a blast, they had no school, and we hung out at a friends house during the day (our apartment didn't have windows in the living room/kitchen, hers did, so we hung out there).  

would be attacked, because Bush would be creating a "photo op" rather than being back in Washington doing whatever it is presidents should do.

Then they would also attack him for wasting gas.  He instead should be riding a bicycle to truck the water in.

... but I think that's what I said

...The barrier wall along the Industrial Canal apparently breeched resulting in the flooding...

. However I will admit that I incorrectly identified the canal involved; the failure I had in mind was the 17th Street Canal which feeds in from Ponchartrain.

Actually there were several canal breeches but the point was that it was most definately not the river flooding or river levees failing as "justme" had asserted.

(Further information that came out today says that the 17th Street Canal failure was not actually a levee but a concrete barrier wall that had recently been upgraded.  So the assertion that budget cuts were the underlying cause is completely false.)

I've thought about writing a diary about it, but there's not enough meat to it, I don't think.

That is,

"Shoot liberals don't even call themselves liberals anymore."

I don't mean we should shoot liberals, I mean they have decided to call themseles "progressives."

That was a pretty shrewd PR idea.  After all, if they are "progressive," their opponents have to be "anti-progress" or "regressive" or something like that.

Our only alternative is to try to go them one better.  We'll become "avant garde."  Or is that too French?

that there have been "intensified hurricanes in the gulf area."

That isn't a knock on global warming.  It is a knock on the claim.

You see, I did have one English class.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm betting I'm pretty representative of what's going on with a good portion of Democratic folks.

First, my credentials. I oppose George Bush. I think he's the worst President in history.  But contrary to your assertion, I don't think he intentionally underfunded the levees in New Orleans.

No President wants something like this to happen.  No real human being can ever want to allow such tragedy to befall others.  And if he is the man the Republicans believe he is, then I believe he is just eaten up tonight like the rest of us.

But what I do think--and what many Democrats think--is that the President's appointments are incompetent and his priorities are dangerous.  Not just wrong, but -dangerous-.  Thus, the strident tone.

I might tsk tsk at my spouse if he gave my kid candy before bed, but if he gave him a pill that I was convinced was poisonous, I'd screech like a banshee.  I might be wrong about that pill, maybe it's even medicine, but if I believe in my heart that it's poison, I can't sit by and watch it happen.

For the past few years, as a Democrat, I believe the policies being pursued by this President are poisoning my country.  So I fought. Maybe we're wrong, and Republicans are right, but what kind of people would we be if we didn't fight like hell for the country we love?

We are always looking for signs that will prove that the pill is poison.  Sometimes we find evidence, and sometimes we imagine it.  People are looking at this hurricaine with a sense of hysteria.  Like, "Oh my god, look, my worst fears are realized."

Sitting there, watching this tragedy all day, trying to help victims, donating blood, giving money, calling up aid organizations and being told that everything is in complete chaos and there's nothing we can do. . . that's frustrating.  And so we get mad.

And frankly, knowing that Republicans have been watching the same stuff all day, we find it bewildering that you're not angry too. Our fellow citizens are dying in massive numbers.  Is it not a natural psychological reaction to get angry?  Isn't that part of every grief cycle, with people shaking their fists at God?  And if you can't shake your fist at God, who comes next?  

I personally see nothing but incompetence at every level, from the Democratic local and state governments right on up to the top.  I am astounded at what seems to be a collective failure of government to properly prioritize, fund, plan, and execute.

And it leaves me wondering, do Republicans not also see these things?  Does this seem like it is all going as it should?  If not, doesn't it make you angry, and if not, why not?

My guess is that watching this tragedy has made you furious, and the only difference is where you're pointing your rage.  Democrats are pointing it at Bush, and you're pointing it at us. I think it is all part of the same phenomenon.

I personally see nothing but incompetence at every level, from the Democratic local and state governments right on up to the top. I am astounded at what seems to be a collective failure of government to properly prioritize, fund, plan, and execute

You are correct in observing the incompetence. Where you are missing it is in assuming it could be otherwise. Humans are incompetent. This is simply a fact of Nature that cannot be overcome. You are incompetent. I am incompetent. All God's chillun are incompetent.

The best we ever do as a species is to get a lot of things right. But there is no human organization on this planet, and there never has been, that got everything right. You can always find one guy still sitting on his roof with water all around him, and ask, "Why haven't they picked him up yet?" What, you think they don't already have every rescue helicopter within a thousand miles flying over the city looking for people? Sure they do. And they're picking them up as fast as they can. But you know what? They're gonna miss some. When this is all over, they will find people who died on their roofs because nobody in a helicopter saw them in time. This is reality. This is the human condition. We never get everything right.

All the hysterical screaming about "Here's a person who hasn't gotten a water bottle yet" just adds to the misery of the people who are trying to hand out the water bottles. Last week they were happily at work in the pickle factory, and this week they're in a National Guard uniform standing waist-deep in fetid water while frantic mobs rush them trying to be the first to grab a water bottle. Let's give these folks a break, huh?

Here's reality: people are going to die in this mess because our supposedly well-organized disaster relief efforts were not perfect. Accept this, because it is going to happen. Humans cannot be otherwise.

I am not suggesting callousness toward this. Things could always be better, and we continually strive as humans to make them better. But we never reach perfection. So let's have a little humility in the face of Nature.

Saying nobody is perfect is obvious, and meaningless. A better question: what mistakes were made that an admittedly imperfect person should have avoided? How you can be so blase about this is beyond me.

It's nice to see the "they're blaming the troops!" rhetoric get hauled out immediately. Because anyone who voices concern over how the rescue operations were directed is clearly critical of the National Guardsmen handing out water.

Blanket dismissal of criticisms here is the flip side of blanket condemnation elsewhere.

How you can be so blase about this is beyond me.

Two reasons:

1. I am reasonably confident that when this is all over, we will have saved 95% of the people who were savable.
2. I have been involved in the management of enough large things to know that this is simply reality. Humans make mistakes. Period. How many catches has Jerry Rice dropped? Plenty. Is Jerry Rice no good? Does he not practice? Has he had bad coaches? No. And yet he drops some. In this game, every dropped catch is a dead person. But not even Jerry Rice could catch them all.

But the proper comparison is between Rice and Joe Nobody, not Rice and perfection.

1.  Bush and this administration have spent every day for the past four years using a tragic event for political gain
   
2.  The issue is less the level of federal preparedness, which we can argue about forever, and more the level of federal action days after the event, which seems pretty self evidently abysmal.

Yes, they have. And they strangle kittens behind closed doors.

The transporters have been down.

I've seen the response time to smaller hurricanes in better situations. This is extremely normal.

address the second.  That's a pretty low bar to set for your government if you can say: there may be massive looting and people dying etc..., but this response time is on par with other situations in which these things didn't occur, so I see no problem here

I do not expect government to be Superman. I expect them to do the best they can. I have family -- I hope -- trapped there. (The alternative is that they're dead.) With the situation on the ground, it looks like Superman was caught briefly off guard by how quickly things went to pot, then in very short order went up, up, and away.

This is, finally, the difference between left and right. You expect perfection of government. I expect those fallible humans to make their best shot. If they don't, I want them gone. If they do, then we can talk.

Your first point did not merit a response.

And earned some respect from me today.  If he can see that it's unacceptable, and he can find a way not to make excuses for a job that could have been better done, why can't you?

directly blame Bush and the admin., but I do think that it's constructive to take a step back and continue on your outline by not only deciding whether they took their best shot, but whether their best shot is good enough.  As people they can be forgiven if it's not, but as elected officials there should be investigation and accountability.  I don't expect perfection, but I do expect progress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad
dress=104x4582698

I did not stop to help a [Bush] supporter today.

I had no idea how deeply my hate for that man ran. My lack of an interaction, with a * supporter is still haunting me a couple of hours later.

I was on my home and was on the ramp getting off the highway. I saw a mini-van on the side of the road. There was a lady standing next to the van and in her arms she held her child. I can only assume her mini-van had broken down. I don't know, perhaps with so many gad stations being out of gas, she had also run out. I slowed down and started to pull over to offer her a ride. At the very last second I noticed a "W" sticker on the back of her vehicle and I sped up and drove off.

I feel really bad as a human being. That child is not responsible for their parent's belief system. They are innocent and do not deserve to be out in the heat. (It is warm but not so bad that they would even break a sweat) I try not to punish people for what they believe.

On the other hand, so many hateful thoughts went through my head. I wondered how a person could see what was going on in NO and still have one of those awful stickers on their car. How could they support an awful excuse for a human being that has let our country down and is letting Americans die after they have made it through the storm? How can someone be so blind and so stupid?

I thought that if she loves * so much, maybe he would come along and help her the same way he is rescuing all of those poor people in the weather stricken part of our country. Let's see what her hero can do for her.

I never did go back. I was so upset with that sticker and with the fact that someone would support an idiot who is so clearly running our country into the ground.

So why am I writing this? It is not to boast, I really feel bad about passing this child and not picking up their mother. Perhaps it is for a catharsis of sorts? That would be an educated guess. I suppose it is because I feel conflicted and I am writing this to try and sort through what I am feeling. There are two emotional sides, for me, on this incident and neither seems completely right or wrong to me. Even writing this, I am still not able to work through what happened. I feel like I am floating between right and wrong and am unable to grab either side.

Thanks for listening.

Because I'm not a politician. The next time we have a disaster on this scale, things will suck just as badly. And whoever is President then will say the same thing.

But you're right, I did mean "affect." I'm vaguely ashamed now.

I couldn't resist.  That particular error is one of my pet peeves. It's usually only detectable when written.

It sits right up there with "going with he and I."

No malice intended.

I am just trying to point out that solving one problem can aggravate another. If "Bush" had built up the levees (assuming he is the "one" who makes these decisions), he would be assailed by environmentalists for acceleraling the destruction of Louisiana's coastal wetlands.  

You may take issue with the supposedly poor response of FEMA, the Coast Guard,  the National Guard and various other Federal entities, and you may lay all of you complaints at Bush's doorstep, but to blame Bush for failures which caused this disaster ignores the the awesome power of federal agencies such as the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Dept. of the Interior.  These agancies are staffed and managed largely by people who were there before Bush was elected, and who will be there after he is gone.  Likewise, the policies and theories under which they operate are mostly beyond his influence.  When these Federal entities and their money interact with State and Local governments, things get even more complicated.

I am not absolving Bush of any blame for the whole disaster and its aftermath, but I am less concerned with blaming anyone than I am with solving real environmental and geographic dilemmas minus the the political static.