New Orleans refugeees

[SPURSX3]

I am going to be volunteering at one of the shelters (KellyUSA) this weekend.  It's the least I could do to help.  

 

[Guest_Randy]

Skander,

And if I had 4 children all under age 5, you can bet that the moment the word came down to run, I'm going to be the FIRST person to run. To the local bus station...airport...church...anywhere I can, because I'm smart enough to know that the government isn't going to help me any more than it ever did in the past. Though it takes my life savings, I'm going to get the hell out of there! Heck, I've got my kids to save!

See, I have precious little faith in the government to do anything but take my money. They're *REALLY* efficient at that. Anything else, and I figure bureaucracy is going to rule the day, which means I'm going to have to fend for myself. And in such a case, I'm going to be the FIRST in line to get whatever help is available at moment 1. And if that means running on foot, then YES, that's what I'll do, and trust in SOMEONE on the way out helping me. Somebody is going to be passing along the way and have a little extra room and a little compassion in their heart.

I trust in the good nature of the ordinary citizen FAR more than the kind and caring nature of the government. In a crisis situation? Even more so.

Your point, that the citizens who stayed are to be blamed, would be more valid if Hurricane Katrina was the thing that did the damage.  It wasn't.  New Orleans, in fact, was only hit with the edge of the Hurricane.  Had Katrina hit N.O. dead on it would've wiped the city and all surrounding area off the face of the planet.  Those stubborn citizens would have died.  What caused most of the damage to the city was the levy breaking and the Lake flooding the city.  This did not happen right away.  

Instead of making sure to get the transportation in place to evacuate the entire city, they decided to sit around and wait.  Meaning people who had the foresight to up and leave their homes and get to a bus station found that there were no buses at the station.  Then the levy broke.  Some became trapped, even died, but most made it to several locations where they were told transportation was on the way.  It didn't come, one, two, three, four days later.  

So 1) we failed at getting people out of harms way (100,000 people would've had to take your suggestion to get on the freeway on foot, don't know that the people in bumper to bumper traffic "Running for their Lives" would be generous to ALL those people), 2) we failed to move people to drier areas when the worst case scenario happened and the levy broke, 3) we failed at responding in time knowing FULL WELL the conditions these people were in for a prolonged amount of time.  Way more people died, or are sick and dying than should have if even the laziest, most careless government in the world had an iota's sense of urgency.

Skander,

You are right on this one -- but this wasn't FEMA's fault -- this one was the Mayor of NO's fault.  They actually had a convoy of school buses set but they didn't employ them until it was too late.  I think they actually managed to load a few (I saw one picture of them loading a bus with water almost up to the bottom of the bus) but most became flooded and drivers had to escape for their own lives.

There IS enough blame to go around on this one.  I'm not trying to stick up for the FEMA director but he seems to be the only one getting any of the blame (along with Bush) and the fact is that the mayor, governor, FEMA and Bush are ALL responsible for this one.  However, nobody seems to be blaming the governor or the Mayor.

It's the MAYOR'S job to protect and provide for the citizens of NO.  It's FEMA's job to help support that.  I don't think FEMA had a plan until AFTER the hurricane -- but it's pretty obvious that the Mayor had some ideas but didn't act on them until it was too late and then he curses and blames everyone else for his lack of action.  The governor should have asked troops to be put on standby -- the federal government CAN'T send in troops until the governor asks for them (bound by law).  Granted, if I were a general in charge of National Guard troops in a nearby state, I'd already begin contacting my troops to put them on alert so I WOULD be ready at a moments notice (and begin to mobilize vehicles, etc. to get ready to move).  Personally, I think that should have been a natural preparation.  But those troops couldn't move into another state until the governor asked for them -- and that request came WAYYY too late.  But why isn't the governor mobilizing his OWN guard BEFORE the hurricane hits.

The fact is that FEMA, Bush, the governor AND the Mayor all failed.  Some residents failed to be responsible as well -- and there is no excuse for them either.  Some residents were unable to move from their homes but it's difficult to tell who couldn't and who didn't.  

The fact is that once we determine it's the governments job to care for people, I think we have all resigned ourselves to giving up caring for ourselves.  I don't think that the federal, state or local government is responsible for caring for people -- I think it's THEIR responsibility to care for themselves.  It's the governments job to help in times of need, catastrophe, etc.  

I watched a few homeowners interviewed after the waters receeded from their homes -- the water damage was about two feet up their walls and they interviewed several homeowners who were furious.  One guy made the comment "where is the **#**#* government?"  I guess my question is why is the hurricane the governments fault?  I'm not trying to make light of the loss -- the loss is horrible but why is it the governments job to protect a home built under sea level from a class 5 hurricane?  I don't think that the government CAN protect that home adequately!  And sure, we can spend billions of dollars on a levee to protect homes while millions of americans go without healthcare.  

Fact is, I don't think the federal government has a clue how to spend money wisely and it really doesn't make any difference which President is in power and which party he is from -- the fact is that the federal government has a long history of reacting, not planning!

[rickortreat]

A category 5 hurricane was going to cause major damage no matter what.  But the truth is the Army corps of Engineers did a study, and demonstrated that the levy system needed to be upgraded.  Congress allocated the money and then Bush took it away to pay for his war in Iraq.

The government IS responsible to protect private property and they WERE going to spend the money until BUSH took it away.

Would NO have flooded anyway?  Possibly.  Did the Mayor, and the State government fail to meet their responsibilities?  Absoulutely.

But Bush is the man ultimately responsible, and he destroyed NO by misallocating funds needed to protect a primary gateway to the US, as surely as if he made the hurricane himself.

NO is now a total loss.  This is the second disaster that has occurred on Bush's watch, and both could have been prevented with better planning.  

It's laughable that he's now doing a study to find out what went wrong.  He's what went wrong!

Homeland Security was suppossed to coordinate local, state and federal efforts.  It is obvious that they were not up to the task.  
 

[Ted]

A category 5 hurricane was going to cause major damage no matter what.  But the truth is the Army corps of Engineers did a study, and demonstrated that the levy system needed to be upgraded.  Congress allocated the money and then Bush took it away to pay for his war in Iraq.

The government IS responsible to protect private property and they WERE going to spend the money until BUSH took it away.

Would NO have flooded anyway?  Possibly.  Did the Mayor, and the State government fail to meet their responsibilities?  Absoulutely.

But Bush is the man ultimately responsible, and he destroyed NO by misallocating funds needed to protect a primary gateway to the US, as surely as if he made the hurricane himself.

NO is now a total loss.  This is the second disaster that has occurred on Bush's watch, and both could have been prevented with better planning.  

It's laughable that he's now doing a study to find out what went wrong.  He's what went wrong!

Homeland Security was suppossed to coordinate local, state and federal efforts.  It is obvious that they were not up to the task.

Oh please Rick. More than anyone else I've seen online or in the media, you're completely over-politicizing this. To simply say that New Orleans flooded because Bush reappropriated funds from the levee upgrade is ridiculous. Have you read any of the details about the power of the storm?

This category 5 hurricane created a 28-FOOT STORM SURGE, in New Orleans, not just Mississippi. At the point when the levee broke, water was already flowing OVER the levees, in some places the surge was 10 feet higher than the levee. Be realistic man . . . New Orleans is below sea level, as much as 20-30 feet in some places.

If you decide to build a house straddling the San Andreas fault, is it George Bush's responsibility to make sure your house doesn't spit in half in the next earthquake, which you know is coming and which you know you can't stop.

Of course Bush failed to react. He should have been down there the next day. He was wrong to divert funds in 2004, but this disaster was going to happen anyway. Even if he hadn't diverted funds, the needed construction wouldn't even be close to being finished. These levees aren't being replaced, they're being raised—it's not that these things are falling apart. They are actually sinking, and it's something they're always going to do.

And the real problem isn't the fact that New Orleans is flooded—there are a hundred ways for levees to break and for a city under sea level to be flooded. The real problem is that people are being left in the middle of a twenty-foot-deep lake of E. coli-infested sewage and petroleum.

To say that the federal government diverted funds and let New Orleans get flooded by a category 5 hurricane is an incredibly oversimplified take.

[rickortreat]

The point is Bush took money away, when it was already clear that work needed to be done.  Even if water was comming over the levees, the city has pumps in place to pump the water back out again, but there's no way they can keep up once the levee was breached.

Bush is the most irresponsible president from a financial point of view in the history of this country.  This is not hyperbole, it is a fact.  The dollar has gone down dramatically thanks to his tax cuts and his increase in spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his huge expenditures for a homeland security system that based on the performance in NO doesn't work, and other initiatives that have as much sense behind them as the idea that the moon is made of green cheese!

Both the account deficit, and the budget deficit are rising at an alarming rate, and I don't  know about you, but I feel considerable LESS safe now than I did when Clinton the clown was in the White House.

Remember his ideas for social secuity?  How about his idea that they should teach "intelligent design" in schools, even though it's not a scientific theory.

Rather than continue to point out his myriad failings, I'd appreaciate your explaining how Bush is a good president, that doesn't deserve to be impeached.        

[Guest_Randy]

The point is Bush took money away, when it was already clear that work needed to be done. Even if water was comming over the levees, the city has pumps in place to pump the water back out again, but there's no way they can keep up once the levee was breached.

Rick, the levees were NEVER going to be built to face a category 5 hurricane -- EVER!  Those levees were HISTORY no matter how much money were going to be given to them.  Not to mention, even if the levees had been started, they wouldn't have been finished yet.  

How about his idea that they should teach "intelligent design" in schools, even though it's not a scientific theory.

Hey, if you are going to teach something like evolution (which by-the-way, CAN'T be proven) then why not teach another theory because that's what BOTH of them are.  There are soo many wholes in the theory of evolution but for years and years it has been taught as FACT!  I can tell you that when I was in college, I had to write a hypothesis and then PROVE my hypothesis -- if I couldn't prove my hypothesis, I got an F!  Evolution is a hypothesis -- one that has never been proven but yet taught as fact (I was always amazed that my science teachers refused to address this hypocrisy).  I don't mind them teaching evolution as theory -- but the fact is that it's just a theory -- isn't other theories just as valid?  Because one thing the Supreme Court HAS ruled on is that Evolution is just as much a "belief system" as "intelligent design."  

Rather than continue to point out his myriad failings, I'd appreaciate your explaining how Bush is a good president, that doesn't deserve to be impeached.

If you believe that it's the Presidents job to totally protect citizens homes (from weather, etc.), protect our country from religious zealots who are willing to give their lives for their cause, balance the budget, provide jobs for everyone, keep the dollar high against foreign currency, and I could go on (but I won't).  Then you are going to want to impeach every man who becomes president from  now on!

[Ted]

The point is Bush took money away, when it was already clear that work needed to be done.  Even if water was comming over the levees, the city has pumps in place to pump the water back out again, but there's no way they can keep up once the levee was breached.

Bush is the most irresponsible president from a financial point of view in the history of this country.  This is not hyperbole, it is a fact.  The dollar has gone down dramatically thanks to his tax cuts and his increase in spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his huge expenditures for a homeland security system that based on the performance in NO doesn't work, and other initiatives that have as much sense behind them as the idea that the moon is made of green cheese!

Both the account deficit, and the budget deficit are rising at an alarming rate, and I don't  know about you, but I feel considerable LESS safe now than I did when Clinton the clown was in the White House.

Remember his ideas for social secuity?  How about his idea that they should teach "intelligent design" in schools, even though it's not a scientific theory.

Rather than continue to point out his myriad failings, I'd appreaciate your explaining how Bush is a good president, that doesn't deserve to be impeached.

Oh Rick . . .  :rolleyes:

When water starts coming over an earthen levee, that levee is done for, even if its been reinforced with stone and concrete. They are not built to withstand water levels higher than their own.

Have you read the article from the Post? You should. And remember, it's the Washington Post, not the Washington Times, Bush haters can read it without fear of being fed conservative bull crap.

[rickortreat]

Hey, if you are going to teach something like evolution (which by-the-way, CAN'T be proven) then why not teach another theory because that's what BOTH of them are. There are soo many wholes in the theory of evolution but for years and years it has been taught as FACT! I can tell you that when I was in college, I had to write a hypothesis and then PROVE my hypothesis -- if I couldn't prove my hypothesis, I got an F! Evolution is a hypothesis -- one that has never been proven but yet taught as fact (I was always amazed that my science teachers refused to address this hypocrisy). I don't mind them teaching evolution as theory -- but the fact is that it's just a theory -- isn't other theories just as valid? Because one thing the Supreme Court HAS ruled on is that Evolution is just as much a "belief system" as "intelligent design."

Intelligent Design is not a theory.  It's an opinion with no basis in fact whatsoever.  It presumes the existance of a god (unprovable) and assumes that he/she/it is the source of life.  Evolution is a theory, based on a scientific definition of what a theory is,  a hypothesis based on observable evidence.

Although it's not proven definitively, it is now pretty much established as scientific fact.  Consider that the theory has been around for over 100 years and there as yet is no evidence to refute the theory.  A study was recently completed of the Chimpanzee Genome, the genetic code that is found in their DNA.  It is 97% identical to the Human Genome.  It is hard to believe that the two don't have a common ancestor considering how close their are down to their DNA!

Look, there are all types of opinions out there about the nature of things, but scientific theories are at least logically consistent, based on proovable assumptions, and based on observable evidence that can be repeated by others.  Demanding logical consistency and validity is a good step towards separtating the truth from somone's uninformed opinion.

If you can't see the difference between the two, then you have a serious problem with your thinking!  

[WayOutWest]

If you can't see the difference between the two, then you have a serious problem with your thinking!

Unfortunately so does a majority of this country.

There is a HUGE difference between the two but there are some people who will actually try and argue the point.

My belief is that aliens came down from outerspace and created our civilization, I have just as much proof about my beliefs as the Jews, Muslims and Christians have about theirs.  IMO there is NO difference between the Scientology nuts and all the other religions out there yet people from the other religions will argue that point as well.  Such silly sheep.

[SPURSX3]

If you can't see the difference between the two, then you have a serious problem with your thinking!

Unfortunately so does a majority of this country.

There is a HUGE difference between the two but there are some people who will actually try and argue the point.

My belief is that aliens came down from outerspace and created our civilization, I have just as much proof about my beliefs as the Jews, Muslims and Christians have about theirs.  IMO there is NO difference between the Scientology nuts and all the other religions out there yet people from the other religions will argue that point as well.  Such silly sheep.

SCIENTOLOGIST!!!   RUNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[rickortreat]

Nothing can be done to improve the quaity of life for man, due to his nature.  A great many are not rational, logical beings, but are driven by emotion, feeling and blind instinct, derrived from group learning.  Other men, use this knowledge to exploit this weakness, and harness these individuals for their ends.

What is so amazing is that these individuals are so dumb, that they defend these beliefs to the death, without realizing that they are based on false assumptions and unprovable facts.  

It has been my observation that rational men and women are in the minority, and allways have been.  This explains why man's history is filled with cycles of expanse and decay as intelligent men, all things being equal will eventually establish a functioning system of governent and civilization, which will eventually deteriorate as the more successful it becomes, the more weak minded people are supported by the system.  Eventually the society collapses under it's own weight as the irresponsible ones outnumber the capable ones to such an extent that the system breaks down.

Under relatively benign conditions, the ones that survive and flourish are the ones that can master the tasks they need to survive.  The ones less capable, left to fend for themselves die off.  Under these conditions, the population of weak minded people declines, relative to the capable thinkers.  

 

[Joe Vancil]

First of all, I'm getting really tired of this statement that "Intelligent Design" assumes that there is a God.  Now I know that's what most folks who share my belief in God want you to think.  Unfortunately, in addition to being a Christian, I'm also well-versed in science.  And science and Christianity are not incompatible - provided that BOTH keep open minds.  I doubt that some of the (other) fundamentalists intend this, but if they want to play in the ballpark of science, they have to play by scientific rules.

Intelligent design means just what it says:  that the development of life on earth was planned at some level - whether natural or "supernatural."

In other words, if an alien race seeded the earth with organic material or lifeforms, that would constitute "intelligent design" the same way which an all-powerful God creating life would.  BOTH are "intelligent design."

The real problem with "Intelligent Design" is that it is exposing the fact that scientists aren't nearly as open-minded as they want you to think that they are.

Let me give you a scenario - whether it is actually the case or not is unimportant.  The premise of science is that it leads us to knowledge, understanding, and "TRUTH."  Therefore, to accomplish its goals, science *MUST* cover every circumstance.

Pretend that life was "created" by a supernatural force - by God.

In order for science to arrive at the truth, it MUST end up with the conclusion that God exists.  Obviously, in order for science to arrive at that conclusion, they'll have to either a) theorize that God exists - in other words, make a "best guess" - or B) prove that God exists.

In order for science to arrive at the truth, they must be open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.  Ditto with aliens.  Ditto with the forces of randomness and chance.

Any scientist who does not leave their mind open to the possibility that God exists (until conclusively proven that God does NOT exist) is not practicing good science - he's practicing RELIGION, where faith alone is good enough.  In this manner, he is violating the scientific method.  And I do not advocate teaching this type of science in anything other than in a religious institution.

As you can guess, I'm in favor of teaching what few "facts" are proven about "Intelligent Design" - which, to my knowledge, is none.  Until then, only the questions posed by "Intelligent Design" are necessary to be taught - QUESTIONS are *ALWAYS* supposed to be taught when dealing with THEORIES.  At this point, "Intelligent Design" should be referred to as a HYPOTHESIS.  Likewise, Evolution should be referred to as a THEORY (a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence).  Scientifically speaking, that's what each is.  And I believe that for true knowledge, we need people investigating - via the scientific method - the HYPOTHESIS of Intelligent Design.

The method I propose - the pure scientific method - will eventually lead to the truth - whether life was created by God, by Evolution, or by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Neither religious nor scientific fanatics can say the same about their methods.

Sorry, but when I see "Intelligent Design" being attributed only to "God" *OR* when I see hypotheses being dismissed without cause, I get a bit upset.  Science prides itself on precision and accuracy.  Semantics matter.  (Call it the engineer in me, I guess.)

 

[SPURSX3]

First of all, I'm getting really tired of this statement that "Intelligent Design" assumes that there is a God.  Now I know that's what most folks who share my belief in God want you to think.  Unfortunately, in addition to being a Christian, I'm also well-versed in science.  And science and Christianity are not incompatible - provided that BOTH keep open minds.  I doubt that some of the (other) fundamentalists intend this, but if they want to play in the ballpark of science, they have to play by scientific rules.

Intelligent design means just what it says:  that the development of life on earth was planned at some level - whether natural or "supernatural."

In other words, if an alien race seeded the earth with organic material or lifeforms, that would constitute "intelligent design" the same way which an all-powerful God creating life would.  BOTH are "intelligent design."

The real problem with "Intelligent Design" is that it is exposing the fact that scientists aren't nearly as open-minded as they want you to think that they are.

Let me give you a scenario - whether it is actually the case or not is unimportant.  The premise of science is that it leads us to knowledge, understanding, and "TRUTH."  Therefore, to accomplish its goals, science *MUST* cover every circumstance.

Pretend that life was "created" by a supernatural force - by God.

In order for science to arrive at the truth, it MUST end up with the conclusion that God exists.  Obviously, in order for science to arrive at that conclusion, they'll have to either a) theorize that God exists - in other words, make a "best guess" - or B) prove that God exists.

In order for science to arrive at the truth, they must be open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.  Ditto with aliens.  Ditto with the forces of randomness and chance.

Any scientist who does not leave their mind open to the possibility that God exists (until conclusively proven that God does NOT exist) is not practicing good science - he's practicing RELIGION, where faith alone is good enough.  In this manner, he is violating the scientific method.  And I do not advocate teaching this type of science in anything other than in a religious institution.

As you can guess, I'm in favor of teaching what few "facts" are proven about "Intelligent Design" - which, to my knowledge, is none.  Until then, only the questions posed by "Intelligent Design" are necessary to be taught - QUESTIONS are *ALWAYS* supposed to be taught when dealing with THEORIES.  At this point, "Intelligent Design" should be referred to as a HYPOTHESIS.  Likewise, Evolution should be referred to as a THEORY (a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence).  Scientifically speaking, that's what each is.  And I believe that for true knowledge, we need people investigating - via the scientific method - the HYPOTHESIS of Intelligent Design.

The method I propose - the pure scientific method - will eventually lead to the truth - whether life was created by God, by Evolution, or by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Neither religious nor scientific fanatics can say the same about their methods.

Sorry, but when I see "Intelligent Design" being attributed only to "God" *OR* when I see hypotheses being dismissed without cause, I get a bit upset.  Science prides itself on precision and accuracy.  Semantics matter.  (Call it the engineer in me, I guess.)

You believe in "flying spaghetti monsters" too!!!?

j/k


Look, I think it's great that people can have their own opinion about what is "real" and what is not "real."  It's great that Rick choses to base everything on Scientific Method, that's cool.  But I agree with Joe, science IS and CAN be perceived as a RELIGION if it is not applied the right way.  Because I have FAITH that God exists that makes me WEAK minded?  What would I be if I did NOT have faith in God or any diety and still based my decisions on the same type of moral structure?  Would that make me WEAK?  I don't think so.  Even if I did not Believe in God, it does not mean I would think in the same manner as you do - which also means you may perceive me as being "weak minded" just the same, or in some other form or fashion.  The fact that people of faith - no matter what religion - are in high number does not mean the world is full of weak minded people - atleast NOT because they are religious.  Look at economies, educational systems, living conditions, etc - there are a number of reasons that could better explain your idea that weak minded people overpopulate the earth.  Faith has nothing to do with sceintific method, if you chose to believe in something then you CAN chose to do so regardless of the fact that it may not be based on science - that does not mean you are a weak minded person.  The idea that there could be a diety of such power that the laws of science does not apply is not a stupid idea.  Science, in all of it's method, can very well be "limited" when it comes to proving the existence of a god.  Science cannot agree on the origins of the universe, even with certain bits of evidence, there is still no ONE answer to the question.  there are plenty of theories, but thats it - it's a guess Rick.  Where we are at at this point in time with science does not mean proving the existence of God is a no brainer - believe it or not is is still a "false assumption or unprovable fact" based on teaching of those who might like to exploit those weak minded individuals for other means.  After all, the subject of the existence of God, is still open for study why assume that because you have some bits of information this solidifies your answer to the question.  Science cannot prove God does exist - it also cannot prove God does not exist.  Athiests can be perceived as RELIGIOUS in their beliefs - and more then likely you have a large number of them that could be seen as "weak minded", stupid, etc.  Don't assume that because somebody has faith in something it makes them weak in any form or fashion, or that faith in general tends to make people stupid and easily exploited.  

[Joe Vancil]

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a web site creation created as a protest against Intelligent Design.  The idea behind it is that some things are so ridiculous that they shouldn't be considered...such as the belief in God.

What it fails to recognize is that it creates its own "theory" (misused), which it sees in opposition to the theory of Evolution and the "theory" (misused) of Intelligent Design, and demands equal time with the other two.  Actually, scientifically speaking, Spaghetti Monsterism *IS* part of the "theory" (again, misused) of Intelligent Design.  That's the first place it falls down.  The second place it falls down is in demanding the teaching the nature of the FSM.  Obviously, that would be religion.  I would argue that the science class should not be teaching the "nature" of God, even if the hypothesis (used correctly) of Intelligent Design is taught.  The "nature" of God is for theology - not science.  Science would only concern itself with HOW God did it - how it could be predicted, evaluated, and controlled - if Intelligent Design moved from hypothesis to theory.  "Why?" would be a question for theologians or philosophers.  (Just as "why" Darwin proposed his theory of Evolution is irrelevant to scientists.)

I wish I still had the site link.  It shows the snobbish, sarcastic nature of what I refer to as "intellectualism."  This type of dismissive nature is contrary to the scientific method.  Attack the theory or hypothesis - NOT the proposer.  And attack it with EVIDENCE - not with propaganda.

[WayOutWest]

Joe,

Well there's the problem with "God".  Evidence, facts, examples, ect...

If I wanted I could provide as much "evidence" to back up my "Q from Star Trek Intelligent Design" line of thinking.

The Bible is always being thrown into this discussion around our campfires.  I always have to ask which VERSION of the Bible are we going to discuss.  Will we bring in the other gospels and scripture into the discussion or only the ones that were CHOSEN BY MAN to be included into the "good book"?

Seems to me a discussion of anything under the sun including religion and politics would be quite the fun experience with you Joe.  You don't seem to get offended by the mere questioning of your beliefs.   Ted is the same way IMO.  Others seem to get "huffy".