Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
In reply to Re: ?? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 16:02:25
A lot to answer, from several posts. Let's see if I can kludge together something coherent.
---------------------------------------------------
"Not at all. The Kiwi is a New Zealand bird. While it may well have the support of the people and the government, it would continue to be a New Zealand bird even if we hunted it into extinction."
Big difference - we were originally talking about man made things.
-----------------------------------------
> "Because... The cycle has to stop somewhere. "> But we also know that appeasement doesn't work. And if you would like some verification of that I'll give you the email addresses of some of my friends in Poland.
Sorry, I'm not too sure what 'appeasement' means. Doesn't work to do what?
----
It doesn't work to stop the cycle. It only prolongs it. Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia come to mind.
---------------------------------------------------
> because I am horrified by a leader who will use chemical gas on his own people, and by many other things that this particular leader did. The rape, the murder, the torture....
Yeah. And I'm sure there was a lot of information out there on this particular leader (mostly American in origin). People do worse. There are people doing worse in other parts of the world. Is the american government planning on taking them all on? Or just those whose countries have oil?
------------------
Well, I'm hard pressed to know what could be worse, but I personally thought we waited too long to help out Bosnia and I personally think that we maybe *should* get more involved in those situations.
But I'm a liberal.
-------------------------------------------------
> Well, yes I do disagree. If not for NASA then I would probably not have gone into the sciences. I wouldn't have known to follow dreams. And before you say 'that was then' my youngest went to Space Camp twice - and she became fired up about sciences herself.
Yeah. And that is a terrific thing. I hear you. But... What I was thinking... Was that money could probably be better spent on... Oh... On equal access to healthcare for all; equal access to education; equal access to 'basic' needs like food and shelter and so on. I bet those kinds of things... Would inspire far more americans to make something of their lives...
------------------
Maybe - but, human nature being what it is, people tend to appreciate things less if they are free. Or maybe that's a bad way to put it. People tend to get comfortable when they have a lot. Necessity is the mother of invention? No progress without pain? Any more trite cliches?
Marxism was a wonderful ideal, as is Lennon's "Imagine" but as long as humans are involved it just aint gonna happen. Sad. I wish it weren't true.
--------------------------------------------------
"I'm talking about countries as abstract entities
Where their laws and policies define what the nature of that country is when we consider that country as an abstract entity."I think that is backwards. It's the nature of the country that defines the laws and policies.
Our history is one of second sons, religeous outcasts, refugees - those with adversity that want to work their tails off to make a better life for themselves. People didn't come here because their life back home was a bed of roses.
Those who came over here (willingly) had their fill of government interference and frankly didn't want any more. And with governemt help comes government strings.
Now, I don't mean that folks should be made to go hungry or have good oppertunities. But the majority of the people here just don't think it's the government's job to make able bodied healthy people *comfortable* - that they should feel enough discomfort that they *do* become self sufficient.
Is healthcare equal? No - but it's available. Is it equal elsewhere? Not that I've seen. In the UK for instance, there is national health, but those with money or good insurance get better care.
Is education equal? No - but it's available. Even the poorest school districts have good enough schools for those who really want to study and get ahead. Yes, there are better schools for those with money - but I'd bet that is true worldwide, too.
Food and shelter? available.
==============================================
On the levee system
" But I heard...
That the engineers had been saying that the walls needed reinforcing or precisely this was going to happen. I dunno what its called... But congress or whatever were going to spend this money on doing that... And then Bush declares 'state of war!' and diverts the resources to Iraq.
You need engineers in Iraq you see...
Is that right?????"
Well, yes and no. Each bit - 'engineers warning' 'Bush declares state of war' etc are correct. But together they aren't the true picture.
Appropriations of the money had nothing to do with Iraq.
The number of engineers in Iraq are a minuscule part of the total number of engineers.
Warnings were there, and a feasibility study on beefing up the levees was ongoing at the time of Katrina.
------------------------------------------------
"I'm wary of potential scapegoating...
Blaming New Orleans for the tragedy is one way for the government to say they are justified in leaving them to deal with the situation with less government support. Blame someone on the local level and try and use that to absolve the government from responsibility to its citizens..."Don't be too wary of scapegoating.
Forgive me, Dinah, if I'm a bit too indelicate here.....
New Orleans is largely below sea level. Years ago (1940s) a levee system was started around it to protect it from the Mississippi river. Before the levee system the river would occasionally flood (which btw added silt, helping keep the city at a higher elevation.)
The levee system wasn't designed for a Katrina type storm at the time. As the city subsided the system was added to and modified.
People in the meantime have warned that a major flood could be catastrophic.
BUT if the building of the levees had been done properly in the first place - it would have protected the city far more than it did.
Now comes the indelicate part.
Lousiana has been joked about for years - about corrupt politicians, Huey Long and his cronies among the worse (though as corrupt as Huey was he *did* get a lot done)
It is looking like corruption might have played a part in the failing of the levee system, though I'm not familiar with the dates of these particular additions to the system. Parts of it, under the direction of some local people, were built correctly. Other parts were not.
Which parts failed possibly has a *lot* more to do with which politicians were in charge of those particular spots at those particular times than the economic class of the people they were supposed to protect.
At least I think that's what Dinah was alluding to when she was talking about failures at the local level.
-------------------------------------------------
"There was a comment... Something about america being stronger after this... I have heard comments... About how very much that sounded like the country is better off after some elimination of the 'unsuccessful' went on..."
"And for those who were in poverty to start with... What are they going to do?"
At the risk of sounding like Barbara Bush the truth is that the less you had to start with the less you lost. The truly poor will probably continue on as before.
And the wealthy will continue on much as before.
It's those in the middle, as usual, who have the toughest time of it.
But things are being done, if not by the feds.
Habitat for Humanity is building hundreds of houses, for example.
I predict New Orleans will rebuild. The rest of the country wouldn't have it otherwise - the locals aren't the only ones who love the city, it's wonderful history and architecture, the parties, the people, the food......
poster:AuntieMel
thread:574039
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/575350.html