Pangloss

Good post IMM. It's worth noting that both Bob Geldoff and Bono agree with IMM's post above. The primary intention of their recent efforts is to build a self-sustaining economic infrastruture in Africa. Put another way, "capitalism." It's very revealing to watch what ideologues do when they set aside their ideologies to get something done. You can learn a lot about where the spin stops and the truth begins.

And that has what, exactly, to do with the disaster in New Orleans? Please explain to us the political "win" for President Bush to let everyone in New Orleans die horribly, alone and unaided? "The strong are weaker than the meak because they think before they speak." - Mozart, The Magic Flute

Sure, sure, I'm a Bush partisan, in spite of the fact that I voted for Kerry in 2004, opposed the Iraq war, oppose intelligence design, favor abortion rights, oppose religion in schools, etc etc etc etc etc. Yeah, I'm just a Bush partisan, that must be it. All of which cleverly obfuscates the fact that you've turned an event of massive human suffering into a crass, superficial political issue.

This came up in Florida when Katrina hit just over a week ago. It was only a Category 1 and there was no mandatory evacuation, but I believe it was stated that sexual predators were to be denied entrance to the two hurricane shelters that were opened. What I have not yet found is anything stating whether the prisons were opened for them. (That was the order that was given, so I assume it was carried out, but I've not yet heard if there were any issues, if anyone took them up on the offer, and so forth.) I'm afraid even the local news has been dominated by Katrina's second strike up on the gulf coast, so it may be some time before we get the full story there. But I am keeping an eye out for it. In fact, I think I'll write a couple of reporters I know and see if they heard anything along those lines.

Aid was refused from Canada (and 19 other nations) temporarily because the problem is not the amount of aid, but rather the logistical difficulties of getting it into place, the security of aid workers in New Orleans, and the lack of sufficient local management on the scene. It's notable that the countries affected by the tsunami did exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons. This is not a political issue. The country is not "going down". The sky is not falling. But if it makes you and YT feel better to wear tin foil hats, you go right ahead. This has nothing to do with President Bush, the problems of the oil industry, the war in Iraq, Democrats or Republicans, and you people should be ashamed of making a political issue out of people's suffering merely so that you could make an ideological, partisan statement about Bush. For shame. Frankly if someone had done that about Britains 7/7 attack, that person would have had no end of scorn heaped upon them. But because it's about Bush, anything goes. Political correctness at its finest.

I used to do the commute down I-85 to downtown Atlanta every day, so I know where you're coming from. I can't remember how many times I was cut off, blocked, ignored, maligned, and worse. It's ugly out there.

For the record, I formally and strenuously object to this thread. It is completely inappropriate, inhumanly crass, blatantly partisan, deeply offensive, and totally off the hook to have this discussion on the political board at this time.

I'm making things up? - You started this thread - You started it on the politics board - You filled this thread with comments about Iraq, Bush's vacation, and more I dare you to say that again with a straight face. (shrug) I rest my case. I don't think you would have liked it if someone had blamed the London bombings on Tony Blair five days after they took place. Yet here you are rubbing it in about Bush (a man I didn't even vote for in 2004, yet here you are accusing me of being a Bush apologist). To clarify, I have no problem with the notion that something has gone wrong. Obviously those people stuck in New Orleans have waited entirely too long for a sufficient force of guard units to arrive, and there's clearly not enough management in place. My objection is to the politicization of the issue without a shred of evidence that it's a political matter. That's shameful, and I predict you will eventually be embarassed by the fact that you started this thread, probably right about the time you realize that this is a two-way street you're driving down.

I apologize for the "Brit" comment, by the way. I didn't mean that to come across in such a perjorative fashion. I just don't understand where you're coming from in attacking Bush on this subject, or why this is on the politics board, etc. But I didn't mean to insult you.

It's an intriguing point, isn't it? The general idea behind that particular bit of political spin (which is what it is) is that the British, even as they were abolishing slavery at home, had no compunction about instituting it in their colonies. The reasons were more or less logistical in nature. If you want to ship large quantities of goods for consumption back home, it takes a lot of people to run a plantation, and the indians weren't going to do it for them. The more labor they brought in, the more ships they could send back to Britain with full cargo holds. Everyone's making money, and there are no slaves in Britain, so everyone's happy. It's also worth noting that Britain had done nothing about removing slavery from the colonies by 1776. It seemed quite content with the situation and would likely not have changed anything even if they'd managed to hang on to the colonies. I don't think any of this really means anything on a moral level. I just think the politics of the time are interesting. They're much more complex and intriguing than people today generally realize.

Why have you ignored the points I posted earlier in response to your ranting? - The aerial rescue effort has been incredible -- 5,000 people rescued via helicopter, possibly the largest number in one event ever in the history of the world - FEMA was on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi BEFORE THE HURRICANE STRUCK - State AND Federally-lead rescues were being conducted the night of and the morning after the hurricane - Alabama's power is almost fully restored - Mississippi's power is back on to all rescue areas and any areas not destroyed - All victims in Mississippi and Alabama are in powered shelters receiving food and water - Half a million victims from Louisiana are in powered shelters receiving food and water The national guard was on the ground THE DAY OF THE HURRICANE. The only issue here appears to be the numbers and the logistics -- bigger than they thought it would be. I have no problem with saying that mistakes were made. My objection is to your drawing of POLITICAL conclusions based on a complete and utter LACK OF EVIDENCE. May I just remind you of a couple of your statements in this thread? And these utter falsehoods which I have thoroughly debunked above: I'm telling you, you need to calm down and stop leaping to conclusions based on your political ideology. The people of New Orleans need HELP, and YOU are POLITICIZING their tragedy. Why are you doing that, sir? Why? Jean Charles de Menezes, YT. Jean Charles de Menezes. By the way: Given that the present disaster is the SIZE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF BRITAIN, I seriously doubt that's the case. But you're welcome to your illusions.

The only real problem right now is that a vast number of people are on the ground in New Orleans with no real oversight. They may very well determine over time that there was a lack of preparation here. But I think the situation is not really something that could have been fully anticipated. MANY tsunami victims waited WEEKS for aid. The victims on the gulf coast, for the most part, already HAVE it. It's only in the heart of New Orleans, where so many have congregated and created a massive logistical issue, that a serious problem remains. I'm not making excuses for anyone, I'm just saying that this is a logistical problem, not a political one. Bush isn't "playing at" anything, and it makes ZERO political sense for him to do so. What are you thinking, that he WANTS people to die? Come on.

YT, the truth is clearly that you wouldn't be angry at all if Bush wasn't the president right now. I'm really disappointed in your ideological, partisan spin on this. It's shameful, and you should be embarassed. Jean Charles de Menezes, sir. Jean Charles de Menezes. 1) The armed forces have plenty of domestic capability. 30,000 troops are headed for the region or already there, and that's just federal troops, not counting local guard units. 2) This statement is patently false:

No, he flew over the area on Wednesday. Today he's actually going there (or is that what you meant by "flew over"?), and will tour a disaster area the size of Britain. Blaming this on Bush, YT, is a little rash, don't you think? I have four words for you, by way of reminder about snap judgements: Jean Charles de Menezes. Help was "late" arriving in the tsunami areas as well. That's a standard complaint that you hear at all disaster sites. Clearly something has gone wrong here, but I think it's a bit early to be tossing blame around. Clearly there's been the lack of realization about how serious things were for the first two days. There may also have been a lack of preparation, but we'll only know that with the accuracy of hindsight. There's really no point in passing judgement right now. The main thing right now is to get these people shelter, food and basic assistance.

Nothing wrong with that, and I'm glad you shared your opinion with us. I wish you the best of luck with your career, and I hope you stick around with us on the forums as well.

In 1775 it wasn't a revolution yet -- just a rebellion. It wasn't until 1776 that they decided to actually declare independence. Did you know that there was a common perception (based on fairly logical reasoning) that the British were responsible for making the South's economy dependent on slavery?

I was actually a little surprised to see Bill O'Reilly asking oil companies to curb profits by 20% during this time of emergency in the aftermath of Katrina.

The amount of warning they actually had was about 40-48 hours. One of the peculiarities of this particular hurricane was that it kept changing direction. Many of those affected had no transportation -- no way to leave town. Something like a million people with no automobiles, nor any available public transit that would take them out of the city.

And I believe with Steve Forbes' current plan it's actually 40k.

Ah, in other words you expect people to just take your word for it. I see. Hey John, just FYI, your first link didn't work for me. Can you double-check it please? The second link went to an 18-page general document about the economy. Was there something specific in there you wanted me to see? The third link was interesting, and I agree that it supports your point. It does not, however, support mike90's much larger (straw man) argument about how horrible and disastrous he believes things actually are. Sure, growth in median income has been slow -- BLS statistics that we've quoted back and forth in various threads around here back that up (we've had this discussion before). Some call it stagnant, others call it slow growth. But while it's a reasonable point, the difference is a matter of opinion, and it's a long way from the bleak picture mike90 paints, which is simply not reflective of reality (which is why he cannot support it). NOW we're talking -- well said. That's a much more realistic picture, and one I can empathize with. I may not share your vision of ideological distribution of wealth, but I don't have a problem with "you make more, you pay more", and I'm even willing to compromise somewhat on a progressive tax (in the interest of compromise). Having a pessimistic outlook on America's economy is fine, so long as it's based on real economic factors and not ideological political beliefs. I.E. would you feel that way if a Democrat were in the White House? I believe you would, because you're a smart guy who understands a number of issues (such as debt-for-consumption), so while I don't share your pessimism, I respect it, and I think people who ignore the issues you raise are making a huge mistake. I don't think you agree with mike90 as much as you might think. He wants everyone paid that elusive, mythical "living wage", regardless of whether the company can afford it or not, regardless of whether the economics support it, regardless of what other impact that might have. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need -- that is mike90's guiding principle. But I don't mean to slam mike90. Everyone has their point of view, and there's no harm in sharing. Kudos for stepping up and stating your opinion and all that. Certainly better than sitting back and watching.

Right, that's why high gas/energy prices are consider an indicator of inflation.

I don't have any problem with speculation that the economy is not what it appears to be at face value (that there are hidden problems and issues that statistics don't show). I don't have any problem with speculation that the standard of living may be going down. Those are perfectly valid points of view. It's the sweeping generalizations like these, without any basis in fact or figures, that have to be challenged, lest we just end up making the same stupid mistakes we always make whenever we act without evidence. (Or is this not the SCIENCE board? Hmm?) - "We hear the economy is great, but for who?" (Does ANYONE understand the meaning of the phrase "straw man"?!) - "Granted, we may have more gadgets and our houses may be worth more, but it takes more education and both parents working to acquire a decent income." (The key phrase being "decent income". Why do idiots put themselves in debt just to keep up with the Joneses? I don't understand.) This kind of thing is just ABB 2.0. It's nonsense, it has to be challenged, and if you post something like that without any kind of support, you're going to get challenged on it, so long as I have something to say about it. And I really don't care how politically correct you're being. So there. Pardon me if I sound a little snippy about it.

Interesting perspective.

An excellent suggestion, but I'm afraid I've already read it. Do you have any other suggestions for my education? Er, you're not one of those people who instantly adhere's to anything he reads as the gospel truth, are you? Lordy, I hope not. So what else ya got? Just out of idle curiosity, did you know that the average profit margin of a Fortune 500 company in 2002 was only 3%? Source And did you know that around half of all new businesses fail within four years, and that one of the most common factors is high labor costs? Source and Source Just curious if you knew all that. Being so well-read and all. Of course. Did you want them to pay everyone the same rate? So the guys who've been there 15 years and have three college degrees and 15 years service to the company should be paid the same as the guys who are just starting out, merely because that's the "living wage" you think is necessary? Whatever happened to working your way up? Shooting for the stars? Making your mark on the world? Getting ahead based on your own hard work? Are these concepts ridiculous and unworthy, merely because some people haven't done what it takes? If we are all to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, what incentive will anyone ever have to get ahead, to break NEW ground, to IMPROVE the company, to work their way up to the top? Hmm? Boy you are just a pyromaniac in a field of straw men! Well, no matter. What happens if a company decides to keep wages too low? We've covered this before. The employees leave. Happens all the time.