Saturday, September 3, 2005
The blame game
Mother Nature is ultimately responsible for the horror that continues in New Orleans and Mississippi - yes, Virginia, there were huge destructive hurricanes before global warming. Even a perfectly unbureaucratic government wouldn't have been able to fix the ghastliness quickly considering all the water and the political broohaha. For one thing, the local and state governments there deserve loud excoriation. Given the passion with which some people dislike Bush 43, it's inevitable that he's being blamed for the continuing horror in New Orleans but it was the locals who knew the very real possibility of the levees breaking and yet didn't hire enough policemen and didn't have adequate preparedness procedures in place. (3.5 policemen per thousand just isn't enough in a city with a huge murder rate, let alone the danger of devastating flooding.) It was the locals who refused federal aid for rebuilding the levees and they didn't push all the (admittedly ridiculous) bureaucratic buttons until Thursday. And they told the president not to come until Friday when, obviously, his earlier presence would have helped emotionally and, probably, financially. Remember David Duke? Remember Huey Long? Read the numerous articles on how incompetent Louisiana and New Orleans politicians have been and then - only then - decide who's to blame.
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 11:04 AM
jau — at 9:27 AM, September 05, 2005:
— at 12:43 PM, September 19, 2005:
jau — at 11:25 PM, September 30, 2005:
| posted by jau at 11:04 AM
4 more:
jau — at 9:27 AM, September 05, 2005:
Thanks for your comment. I don't necessarily entirely disagree with you, either, but I'm always pleased to take part in discourse. For me, that's a most essential, interesting and vital part of life.
Just to continue this, I wonder why you say "well-heeled right" as if people on the left aren't mighty wealthy? Recent examples, John and Teresa Heinz, all Kennedys, Tipper and Al Gore. And do you really think Republicans are so long-term thinking as to have a "master plan" of the scope and length of time what you describe would entail? And I completely disagree with creationism but I'm not sure why kids shouldn't learn about ideas that are probably wrong along with everything else. How can intellectual discussion ever hurt?
Just to continue this, I wonder why you say "well-heeled right" as if people on the left aren't mighty wealthy? Recent examples, John and Teresa Heinz, all Kennedys, Tipper and Al Gore. And do you really think Republicans are so long-term thinking as to have a "master plan" of the scope and length of time what you describe would entail? And I completely disagree with creationism but I'm not sure why kids shouldn't learn about ideas that are probably wrong along with everything else. How can intellectual discussion ever hurt?
< home >
— at 12:43 PM, September 19, 2005:
I get you, those wealthy lefties exist (and are sort of an odd bird, as far as I'm concerned - either the likes of the kennedys, or theresa, or some bat-s*** crazy celebrity who wants to weigh in). I guess the difference I see is a need to take a moral/values/missionary agenda to the public (with the exception of the occasional crazy celebrity). For instance, in the '04 debates, when asked about abortion, Kerry's response basically contained, (I'm paraphrasing) "whatever is an article of faith for me, I can't try to force legisilation to make it the law of the land". That resonated with me fairly strongly. Now, somewhere along the line, I've heard said that Bush is born-again, evangelical. If that's true, I understand he thinks you're going to Hell if you're not that. So one of two things is likely true - either he believes that to his core and is running his presidency with that in mind (uh oh), or he doesn't necessarily and he and Mr. Rove et al. are exploiting masses of people, getting them to vote against their own economic interests by distracting the electorate with these other issues (you may want to check out Thomas Frank's book about Kansas for more on that). Neither answer leaves me very comfortable for the way forward. Not so much a 'master plan' as a playbook to win elections and cut the amount wealthy have to pay in to run the country at the same time.
With respect to the current stories on managing our country's finances (forcing tax cuts in the face of increased need for funding), I suspect Clinton and Biden will be knocked about as playing partisan politics, but it will be interesting whether Delay, Gramm, etc. can make themselves heard. At some point we get what we pay for, collectively. If these stories don't disappear in the next few days, the mid-terms will be very interesting this time around...
Sorry for the long post. The stories today reminded me that I meant to respond....
With respect to the current stories on managing our country's finances (forcing tax cuts in the face of increased need for funding), I suspect Clinton and Biden will be knocked about as playing partisan politics, but it will be interesting whether Delay, Gramm, etc. can make themselves heard. At some point we get what we pay for, collectively. If these stories don't disappear in the next few days, the mid-terms will be very interesting this time around...
Sorry for the long post. The stories today reminded me that I meant to respond....
< home >
jau — at 11:25 PM, September 30, 2005:
I totally didn't see that you added more to your first "essay". I have to read what you wrote more carefully and then respond again. Thanks so much for writing!
< home >
< home >