![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:12
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on October 31, 2005, at 22:07:09
If you're too thin skinned then so am I.
My brother and I don't have a lot in common in general, but I'm very proud of his military service. And he's as gentle a soul as you could wish.
And you've never seen people so happy to see men (and women) in fatigues with guns on our streets as I and my family and my neighbors were.
Thank you for your 22.5 years of service, 10der.
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:12
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » 10derHeart, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 23:12:28
If you're too thin skinned then so am I>>
I did not mean to imply that I consider it the fault of military personnel that foreign and domestic policy has taken such a turn.
i think that the scandals that have been plaguing the miltary such as abu ghraib are the result of the upper chain of command having been given free reign.
If anything I was saying that the policies and actions I was describing undermined national security by weakening our intelligence forces and so putting our armed forces at greater risk. i did not say that explicitly, but it is a natural corollary of what i was saying. if the CIA and the executive branch are truly at odds, and the executive branch is making wartime decisions, that does not bode well for the common soldier.
and this is also something consider: cheney has proposed abolishing restraints on torture for guantanomo inmates. the problem with this is that any soldier captued by an iraqi insurgent can be brutalized, and our own moral high ground is forfeited by our own policies. john mccain, a former pow, has pleaded with cheney to reject this idea. i think it is not in the interest of the u.s. military to adopt this idea.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:12
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on October 31, 2005, at 22:07:09
I'm sorry...
I didn't mean to hurt.
I just wonder what somebody has to say to someone...
What somebody has to say...
To get one human being to kill another
And to believe that that is justified.And I know some people have the best of intentions
And I know military is supposed to be about national defenceBut...
Tell it to the people who have died at the hands of the military
Not just on foreign soil.
And I suppose...
Its about the educational system
What you have to say for someone to believe that is justified...And yeah
Its about thinking that lives have been wasted
The people who gave up their lives
Because of some ideal somebody gave them
They gave up their lives
The lives of people who we have come to care aboutAnd its a damned shame.
Sorry.
But I think it is...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:13
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 4:21:33
I'm sorry... I don't mean to be harsh.
I know a lot of people sign up with the best of intentions and stuff...
Its just the people dying that gets to me.
People dying in the name of peace.
People being shot in the name of aid...And I don't think its something I'll ever understand.
Because...
The people who call the shots.
The people who decide who are going to be sent out there to risk their lives
The people who decide who is going to be the next target
They aren't the ones risking their lives.Their friends and family aren't the ones risking their lives.
But for some reason or other...
They have you people convinced that you should risk your own lives
You should accept other people
People you care about
Risking their lives too
And maybe even taking other peoples lives
But thats okay
Because someone told them it was for the good of the country
So it must be so...I appreciate lives have been lost
But they are lives from both sides
And not just the lives of the enemy
Whoever that may beThe cycle has to stop somewhere...
Where does it stop?
Why can't people just be nice to one another.
Here, on the boards its just words
And we know how much words can hurt
Imagine what it must be like IRL
But then it doesn't matter what we do to them because someone (who we trust with our lives, clearly) someone pronounces them to be a 'terrorist' involved in some 'militant group' and then what? You can do what you want with them?I don't understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:13
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 4:40:15
lol and that was a bit repeditive...
bit stoned sorry..
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:13
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 21:11:06
to clarify...
>> and we are told we are fighting a war on terror
> lol. how many people have the CIA and US military 'terrorised'?
what is terror?
it is a feeling. it is how somebody responds to a situation.
but typically... not just the situation as it is in itself but a particular line or angle or take on the situation.so the line is that the US felt 'terrorised' by acts that non-americans have committed.
right.
but how many people outside the US have felt 'terrorised' by acts that people in the US military / CIA have committed?
Its a cycle...
Thats what I meant...
To pinpoint someone and say 'you are a terrorist'
And for that to be a lisence to do what you want to them...That frightens me a great deal.
Who gets to decide who the 'terrorists' are frightens me.
Because from one point of view the terrorists are wherever the american admin says they are...
But from another point of view the terrorists are those who control the US military / CIA...
And...
Well...
The trouble is there would seem to be truth to it from both sides
When both sides are killing each otherAnd when will it stop?
I don't understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:13
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 4:56:14
and the military are pawns
and the admin staff hide in big white houses...
hmm
hmm
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 6:20:13
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 4:56:53
aw sh*t.
i'm sorry 10.its not so much about the particular people...
as it is about the system
the system
its always the system...
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2005, at 12:43:50
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » 10derHeart, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 23:12:28
> If you're too thin skinned then so am I.
Nah...I think you do much better. But maybe with practice.....
>
> My brother and I don't have a lot in common in general, but I'm very proud of his military service. And he's as gentle a soul as you could wish.That's very cool...
>
> And you've never seen people so happy to see men (and women) in fatigues with guns on our streets as I and my family and my neighbors were.yeah. I've been retired only 1 year, still adjusting. It'll take some more time to not miss terribly certain things. And to quit denying how deeply I miss them. (It's a good therapy issue since my T. is also ex-Air Force and so understands all too well.) One of the things I hate not being able to do now - I mean *officially* - is, at a moment's notice, to go and help people in dire need. I didn't get to do it as much as I would have liked on active duty. Now I have tis urge to fill sandbags, pass out water, or something. With all the internal, external, political, idealogical debate, for the most part, we do really rock....and can get stuff done like no other organization on the plantet, IM-not-so-HO. And mostly, love[d] doing it....:-)
>
> Thank you for your 22.5 years of service, 10der.You are totally more than welcome. It was a difficult life at times, but also an honor every day. ((Dinah))
Posted by Declan on November 1, 2005, at 13:32:24
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dinah, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 0:06:36
I'm pretty ignorant about US politics, but I was thinking about McCain......he's proof that political position is much less important than personal integrity. That's my version of personal integrity I guess, but being straight with the public is part of it. (That's the awful thing about politics, the good guys always lose).
Declan
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 20:14:55
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » zeugma, posted by Declan on November 1, 2005, at 13:32:24
> I'm pretty ignorant about US politics, but I was thinking about McCain......he's proof that political position is much less important than personal integrity. That's my version of personal integrity I guess, but being straight with the public is part of it. (That's the awful thing about politics, the good guys always lose).
> Declansad to say that I agree with you there.
What I am preoccupied with is the danger the current policies are causing for the general public and for the u.s. military. see this article
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/10/guantanamo-process-as-public-danger.php
It is worthy of note that the writer of this story calls for more rigorous investigations, 'pounding the pavement' as they say. But since the CIA appears to be so at odds with the administration, who is going to be punding the pavement? And also, sloppy investigation of detainees, reliance on torture, leads to suffering that one does not like to contemplate in anyone not implicated in a plot to blow up a city (that sentence pains me to write also, as i do not condone torture for even sucha figure, even as i understand the pain that one might feel if one was the target of a successful attack).
note rumsfeld's statement at the end of this article describing policies at guantanomo. I believe it to be an extremely civil statement, in the sense that Lao-tzu meant at the end of his poem when he said that "ceremony remains...all disorder's origin." That is also my civil comment on the civility rules here.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 21:17:52
There is an article that I would dearly like to post here, but will refrain from doing so as, unlike Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that he is not a doctor and so does not know what torture is, it contains words that are clearly not civil.
it is about FEMA operation in the era of the Bush Administration.
the article is from USA TODAY, not noted as a purveyor of needlessly inflammatory statements.
Not here. This is not the place. This is a Politics board, based in the U.S., shining light of liberty to the world, run by a distinguished practictioner of the healing arts.
On an unrelated note, I weep for what has happened to my country.
-z
Posted by Declan on November 1, 2005, at 22:55:34
In reply to McCain is right » Declan, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 20:14:55
Once you start a war all this stuff is par for the course. I was wondering if I should do my politics posts on the grief board. It bugs me that the war is not in anyone's interest (Halliburton et al excepted), and especially not in the interests of those in Iraq who would like to have seen liberal democracy. The Lao Tsu thing's good.
Declan
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 23:24:26
In reply to Re: McCain is right » zeugma, posted by Declan on November 1, 2005, at 22:55:34
The Lao Tsu thing's good.>>
we have a similar taste in literature. King Lear, Kubla Khan, et cetera.
-z
Posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 13:02:45
In reply to the Ministry of Civilty, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2005, at 21:17:52
I too feel like weeping for what has happened to your country and the world, and then I think first, what if we lived in really interesting times (not hard to imagine now), who would survive? (not me), and secondly how easy it is to destroy/damage human arrangements.
It used to be conservatives who thought like this, 50 years ago, and now it's lefties.
Declan
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:47:01
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2005, at 12:43:50
i dunno if you guys are still reading but...
10 - i appreciate that people sign up so as to help out with aid. help out US citizens in a state of emergency etc.
but... the US military didn't do anything to help out US citizens in a state of emergency for quite some time for the simple fact that most of them were fighting a war on foreign soil.
Now... Thats not the fault of the US military. Thats a decision that lies with the person who sent the order... That person isn't even in the US military themself, I bet. But the point is the order is made and then thats the way it goes.
And the welfare of the citizens needing US aid is put on the back burner...
Because war is the priority.
And the military have to do what they are ordered to do...
And, I'm sure thats just as frustrating for the people within the service as it is for the people outside the service...
But there it is.
Some guy calls the orders and people risk their lives. Despite what they want to do (ie stay in America and help out from there). And thats to say nothing of the point that when 'terrorists' attack on 9/11 what do they do but send the majority of the military off US soil (smart move incase it happens again...) to go pick on somebody overseas...
Dinah - You know the military weren't so nice to some people after the tragedy right? I read stories about shoot to kill orders etc.
Why were the mortality rates so high in the better off neighborhoods? Why couldn't those people get out?
I only get what I can see on the news...
And some stuff I've read off the internet...But my understanding was that the poorest areas were the hardest hit
And the slowest to get aidWas that wrong?
Posted by AuntieMel on November 2, 2005, at 15:35:35
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 21:11:06
Alex, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it so often seems to me that you have problems with America, and not just some government policies.
-----------------------------------------
"Because schools have been inundated with American creationist literature being sent to them."I would think it was possible that some more zealous churches would send literature, but "American creationist literature" makes it sound to me like the whole country
------------------------------------------"how many people have the CIA and US military 'terrorised'?"
I guess that depends on your definition of terrorism, doesn't it. Granted "W" over-uses the word, but terrorism is generally believed to be the attack of innocent civilians to scare the populace.
Yes, if there is a battle there will be civilians hurt, but terrorism has to do with the *intended* targets of women, children, young, old, etc. civilians.
-----------------------------------------------"They have you people convinced that you should risk your own lives"
You people? Americans are not YouPeople! We are all individuals with our own hopes and dreams, not a bunch of cattle that can be led to slaughter.
--------------------------------------
"the US military didn't do anything to help out US citizens in a state of emergency for quite some time for the simple fact that most of them were fighting a war on foreign soil."
"Because war is the priority."
"to go pick on somebody overseas..."
Honest, Alex, we're not all bullies, and for the most part we don't *want* military sent in for natural disasters. Sending in military is a last resort thing.
----------------------------------------------
"I only get what I can see on the news...
And some stuff I've read off the internet..."Try some other sites?????
------------------------------------------------
And from my chair, it seems you don't just talk about the military, it seems that you don't like anything American.
Not the way we spend money? About NASA:
"i think its all pretty interesting
but... i'm sure people won't have too much of a hard time thinking of better uses for the $$$"You have also mentioned our "wealth distribution" our health system, our welfare system, etc, etc.
Is there anything about us that you *do* like??
MelAnd one aside:
"but neglects to mention they are 100% effective IF USED PROPERLY. "
I know for a fact that this is incorrect.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 2, 2005, at 15:41:26
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2005, at 12:43:50
I thank you, too, for your years of service.
I remember very well the Vietnam war. I was one of those flower toting peace loving protesting folks. Still am in a lot of ways.
But I never could understand why the poor soldiers were treated the way they were when they got home.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 16:18:06
In reply to Re: ?? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 2, 2005, at 15:35:35
> Alex, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it so often seems to me that you have problems with America, and not just some government policies.
Well... Depends how you define 'government policies' I suppose. If thats broad enough to include education etc then yeah, I have problems with America. But I have problems with Australia and England and New Zealand too, don't get me wrong ;-)
>> "Because schools have been inundated with American creationist literature being sent to them."
> I would think it was possible that some more zealous churches would send literature, but "American creationist literature" makes it sound to me like the whole countryOh no, I just meant that the literature is coming from America. It is people from America that are sending it. I didn't mean to imply that *all* Americans are in on that - I know they are not. I know... Some Americans are just as pissed off with it as some of us are over here. And of course there are some supporters to be found over here too. Its just that the literature seems to be coming from America.
> "how many people have the CIA and US military 'terrorised'?"> I guess that depends on your definition of terrorism, doesn't it. Granted "W" over-uses the word, but terrorism is generally believed to be the attack of innocent civilians to scare the populace.
Yes, it does indeed depend on your definition of 'terrorism'. And in a way... Thats my point. Yup, "W" does indeed over-use the word. What I was trying to say here was that... Just who the 'terrorists' are depends on where you are standing. If you are a citizen living in Iraq looking down the barrel of a US soliers gun then who do you think the terrorists are likely to be perceived as being? Just look at it from the other side, thats all I'm saying. How many innocent people have died in the 'war on terrorism'? Thats my point. I don't think a 'war on terrorism' justifies acts of terrorism. I don't see how a 'war on terrorism' where innocent people die doesn anything other than encourage other people to commit further 'acts of terrorism' against America in protest.
Because... The cycle has to stop somewhere. And the trouble with 'us against them' the trouble with war is that its a cycle. Be interesting to look at the drama triangle and how conflict escalates with respect to war...
> Yes, if there is a battle there will be civilians hurt, but terrorism has to do with the *intended* targets of women, children, young, old, etc. civilians.Ah. So when Americans die then that is because other people *intend* innocent people die. But when Americans are doing the killing then innocent people dying is what - 'collateral damage'?
'Intentions' must be interpreted... I think we are more inclined to be charitable to our own, and more likely to be uncharitable to other people especially when their actions conflict with what we would like for them to do...
We get *informed* of the intentions of people via the media. The noble and honourable intentions of the US, for example. The un-understandable and *crazy* intentions of 'mass militant groups' and 'terrorists'. I don't believe... We get anything like an objective (or an appropriately inter-subjective) take on things.
Not even when it comes to intentions.
I have to say...
I don't give a sh*t what someones intentions are
When they carry weapons
Somebody is going to get hurt
Whether you intend it or not
You can have the best intentions in the world and still do wrong
You can have the worst intentions in the world and still act in accordance with morality because there is something in that for youSometimes... Intentions aren't so relevant as we might suppose...
> "They have you people convinced that you should risk your own lives"> You people? Americans are not YouPeople! We are all individuals with our own hopes and dreams, not a bunch of cattle that can be led to slaughter.
But some people do allow themselves to be led to the slaughter... Have you read any of the poetry that was composed by the British poets before and after world war one?
It starts a little like this
'blow out you bugles over the rich dead'
'if i should die think only this of me
that there is a corner of some foreign field that is forever england' etc etcand it progresses a little like this
'like cattle to the slaughter we were led'
'if you too could pace
behind the wagon we flung him in
and watch the white eyes writhing in his face
his hanging face like a devils sick of sin
then you would not tell your children with such high zest the old lie:
dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'
(it is a sweet and fitting thing to die for your country)By 'you people' I didn't mean *all* americans. I meant the ones who think there is something particularly noble about risking their lives, the lives of their family and friends to follow the orders of someone who is not prepared to risk their own life or the lives of their family members and friends.
For those who think there is something noble in that... Those are the ones I was talking to.
Because war is a tragic waste.
To make it in to something 'heroic'
Is to do a disservice to those who lost their lives
Those who messed up their lives real bad after going over there and fighting
They were promised fame and glory and rememberance
And they came back home and found what?
That most people didn't even support the war.
They risked their lives for what?
And what fame and glory and rememberance and honour do they receive?
Does it make up for the traumatic memories?
Does it make up for the loss of life?
Does it make up for the loss of limbs?The old lie...
Is perpeptuated still.It was those who I was talking to...
> "the US military didn't do anything to help out US citizens in a state of emergency for quite some time for the simple fact that most of them were fighting a war on foreign soil."
> "Because war is the priority."
> "to go pick on somebody overseas..."
> Honest, Alex, we're not all bullies,Talking about the person who called that one. I'm talking about the person who gave the order to get the military fighting a war. The person who thought sending the military overseas was likely to be more beneficial to Americans than it would be to keep those personel and resources etc at home to manage domestic affairs. The person who failed to give the order to get those choppers and troops out of there and to get them the hell home to look after the people the military is supposed to be protecting...
> and for the most part we don't *want* military sent in for natural disasters. Sending in military is a last resort thing.
Oh. Sorry... That is my view of the role of the military then I suppose... I thought that was shared but maybe thats just my idiosyncratic view... I thought the military was supposed to be about looking after the citizens. To be there in the case of natural disaster etc. Last resort, yup. You didn't think things were at that stage in New Orleans?
> "I only get what I can see on the news...
> And some stuff I've read off the internet..."
> Try some other sites?????LOL! You don't know what sites I have been looking at. We get a variety of news sources in NZ. British, American, Australian, increasingly New Zealand sources too... I think... Us New Zealanders are considered 'neutral' rather than 'friendly' towards the US for a reason...
> And from my chair, it seems you don't just talk about the military, it seems that you don't like anything American.
?
I like to engage in social critique / commentary. I've talked about problems I have with New Zealand too... But maybe it doesn't worry people on the boards so much when I'm critical of the New Zealand government??? In fact... People tend not to get involved in those threads. When I talk about America well... People seem interested at least...> Not the way we spend money? About NASA:
> "i think its all pretty interesting
> but... i'm sure people won't have too much of a hard time thinking of better uses for the $$$"Yup. Do you disagree?
> You have also mentioned our "wealth distribution" our health system, our welfare system, etc, etc.Yup...
> Is there anything about us that you *do* like??Yeah. Some of the people from there are terrific :-)
> And one aside:
> "but neglects to mention they are 100% effective IF USED PROPERLY. "> I know for a fact that this is incorrect.
Okay. I know for a fact that no condom company in America is likely to say that for the simple reason that they are leaving themselves open to mega-legal suits.
Close to...
Close to ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 19:03:41
In reply to Re: ?? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 16:18:06
For:
1. Oreo cookies
2. Ticket to ride www.daysofwonder.com
3. Quentin Tarintino (and quality films like "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction"
4. Cars (thanks Mr Ford)
5. Apple pie (pecan pie, pumpkin pie) mmm... pie :-)
6. Satellites (internet and co.)
7. Tourism (ha!) ;-)
(this is getting hard...)
8. Coke
9. Marlborough (the american ones have a very nice distinctive taste in the softpacks which the Australian ones lack...) - or are these south american??
10 all the lovely babblers from america :-)
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 19:59:29
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:47:01
> i dunno if you guys are still reading but...
>
> 10 - i appreciate that people sign up so as to help out with aid. help out US citizens in a state of emergency etc.
>
> but... the US military didn't do anything to help out US citizens in a state of emergency for quite some time for the simple fact that most of them were fighting a war on foreign soil.Well, that's not quite correct. The military didn't do anything to help for quite some time because of bureaucratic snafus and the dinner plans of the head of FEMA, not to mention interbureau squabbling over whether having to actually oversee the disaster operations was meet and fitting for the head of an agency. (Do a google search on Marty Bahamonde's testimony before Congress, complete with emails). Plus the total and utter lack of communications and coordination at the site of the disaster, which led to wild and false stories being spread by people in authority who probably believed what they were saying because communications were so d*mn bad. Cell towers not functioning, telephone not functioning. Not anyone's fault, but it led to chaos. And I'm not sure how well some of our local officials did either. I guess we'll find out in time.
>
> Now... Thats not the fault of the US military. Thats a decision that lies with the person who sent the order... That person isn't even in the US military themself, I bet. But the point is the order is made and then thats the way it goes.
>
> And the welfare of the citizens needing US aid is put on the back burner...Again, not quite the case. The fact is that the entire thing was bungled, but not because the military was in Iraq. The stories I've heard...
>
> Because war is the priority.
>
> And the military have to do what they are ordered to do...
>
> And, I'm sure thats just as frustrating for the people within the service as it is for the people outside the service...
>
> But there it is.
>
> Some guy calls the orders and people risk their lives. Despite what they want to do (ie stay in America and help out from there). And thats to say nothing of the point that when 'terrorists' attack on 9/11 what do they do but send the majority of the military off US soil (smart move incase it happens again...) to go pick on somebody overseas...
>
> Dinah - You know the military weren't so nice to some people after the tragedy right? I read stories about shoot to kill orders etc.Again, there are lots of stories out there. Most have proven to be false. There is a report of shots being fired that seems to be true, but it wasn't shoot to kill, and it wasn't the military. The city mayor says that the officer shot in the air above a crowd of desparate people who were about to riot. I don't know the truth of that either. There are other theories of what the shots meant. And several local law enforcement officials were a bit John Wayne-ish about the looters. I'm not sure if there was any follow through on that or if it was all talk. But it wasn't the military, and shots weren't being fired right and left or anything.
>
> Why were the mortality rates so high in the better off neighborhoods? Why couldn't those people get out?The mortality rates were high among the elderly who didn't perhaps have the means to leave (as in the ability to drive a car long distances), or the ability to chop through to their attics or to swim to safety. Or who thought they were safe because they'd always been safe before. The evacuations had always been false alarms before.
And one of the big reasons is... The storm didn't cause the damage in most of the city. Only in New Orleans East, St. Bernard, lower Plaquemines. People thought we were ok, that we had ridden out the storm. People were out walking the streets after the storm. Then the levees broke. And yes, the Army Corps of Engineers were in charge of designing the levees, and yes they knew about the layer of peat directly below the end of the sheet metal pilings. I don't know whose fault it was, but I'll tell you one thing I learned just today. The pilings on one side of one of the canals, the side on Orleans parish, were 18 feet deep. That's the side that gave out. The layer of peaty soil from the swamp underlying the built up subdivisions was filled with water from the storm surge and the levee walls slid like the top layers of a layer cake on top of slippery frosting. They slid and the city levelled out with the lake. The very nice homes immediately adjacent to the levee were inundated, and the not at all poor people who lived there, if they stayed there, were in the same shape as anyone else. Money doesn't buy you protection from an incoming lake.
But the thing is, the same d*mn canal, the same Corps of Engineers, but a different parish, and a different contractor, the other side of the canal had pilings driven thirty feet deep and didn't flood. Now you tell me.And it wasn't income either. The side that flooded was Lakeview, possibly the second highest residential tax base in the city. And the highest tax base you ask? Well that's built where the original settlers of New Orleans built, and they apparently had the sense to build on slightly higher ground along what is now St. Charles Avenue.
It wasn't demographics. It wasn't racism. It was something to do with those d*mn flood walls along the canal. I won't hazard a guess as to what until the investigation is complete, though there are a couple of theories that come to mind. None of which has to do with demographics per se.
>
> I only get what I can see on the news...
> And some stuff I've read off the internet...
>
> But my understanding was that the poorest areas were the hardest hit
> And the slowest to get aid
>
> Was that wrong?For the best information on the disaster go to the local sources
www.wwl.com
or
www.nola.com
or
www.wwltv.com
By the way, I personally know people who were in the Superdome, people who were at the Convention Center, and people who drowned. White middle to upper class people. People like me in every way. Except that they didn't evacuate. They thought they were on high enough ground. Their houses didn't ordinarily flood. Their houses wouldn't have flooded were it not for the failure of levees that were either poorly designed or poorly built.
This disaster didn't know social class, Alexandra. People all over New Orleans and the surrounding areas are suffering. And the National Guard did a d*mn bit better helping than did the civilians who were supposed to be helping.
The only difference is that people with resources can cope better *after* the disaster. They can go to hotels, they have job skills to relocate, they aren't going to stay long term in shelters because they have finances to do something else. (Although my brother stayed over a month in a shelter.) They can hire contractors even before their insurance money comes in. They probably have better insurance. But that's not the government. That's just reality.
I'm all for putting FEMA under military jurisdiction. They know how to get things done efficiently and quickly under horrific conditions. The people in charge didn't.
Alexandra, I'm *here*. I've been listening to stories from people who are *here*. I'm telling you it's been h*ll for people from all economic strata.
Posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 20:31:19
In reply to god bless america!!!!, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 19:03:41
Alex, music. Nothing in the entertainment industry comes near American music. Their films?......they need sciptwriters, the odd one's OK, but films are best left to non-English speaking filmakers IMO.
Declan
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 20:35:52
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 19:59:29
> Well, that's not quite correct. The military didn't do anything to help for quite some time because...
Because they weren't given orders to...
> > Now... Thats not the fault of the US military.
I know that.
> > And the welfare of the citizens needing US aid is put on the back burner...
> Again, not quite the case. The fact is that the entire thing was bungled, but not because the military was in Iraq. The stories I've heard...
You don't think the war was a factor?
A lot of military people being otherwise occupied?
And the expense involved with that...Yeah... It is hard to know about the stories. Really very hard to know. And I appreciate that there are a lot of people who think that points can be made on the basis of what happened (points about the current administration, or points about poverty, or points about racism or whatever), and I know that sometimes the truth in comprimised in order to make a point or two...
> The mortality rates were high among the elderly who didn't perhaps have the means to leave (as in the ability to drive a car long distances), or the ability to chop through to their attics or to swim to safety. Or who thought they were safe because they'd always been safe before. The evacuations had always been false alarms before.
Okay. So from the wealthier neighborhoods... It was the elderly and infirm who tended to be hit the hardest? Or those who chose not to evacuate. I'm just wondering whether in the poorer neighborhoods... It might have been more than the elderly and infirm, and less who *chose* not to evacuate seeing as they didn't really have another option...
Yeah. I heard the pilings gave out. That thats why it flooded. And that that had something to do with... spending money on the war instead of infra-structure. Budget cuts for infra-structure which impacts on most people vs war...I know the flood just flooded. It didn't choose to flood the poorer people worse or anything like that. It is just a matter of how fast aid was sent... What aid was sent... And whether that aid would have been sent faster... If the people in the dome had been on average a whole heap wealthier than they were...
> By the way, I personally know people who were in the Superdome, people who were at the Convention Center, and people who drowned. White middle to upper class people. People like me in every way. Except that they didn't evacuate.
Yeah. But on average... On average...
> People all over New Orleans and the surrounding areas are suffering.I know that Dinah. And I most certainly do not mean to undermine that. Really. It is a tragedy all round.
> And the National Guard did a d*mn bit better helping than did the civilians who were supposed to be helping.
I would hope so! They are trained to do that after all and they should have the means to get lots of supplies etc in there.
> The only difference is that people with resources can cope better *after* the disaster. They can go to hotels, they have job skills to relocate, they aren't going to stay long term in shelters because they have finances to do something else. (Although my brother stayed over a month in a shelter.) They can hire contractors even before their insurance money comes in. They probably have better insurance. But that's not the government. That's just reality.
Yeah.
Though we could of course talk about how the greatest predictor of level of education, of level of income etc is what your parents were up to... We could talk about how that is perpeptuated by an individualist world view that treats everyone as being equally placed in the world with equal opportunity and yet how the society does very little to work towards this actually being the case...
> Alexandra, I'm *here*. I've been listening to stories from people who are *here*. I'm telling you it's been h*ll for people from all economic strata.I know.
I don't mean to undermine that.
Really.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 20:37:01
In reply to Re: god bless america!!!! » alexandra_k, posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 20:31:19
> Alex, music. Nothing in the entertainment industry comes near American music.
Such as????
Yeah I thought of that too...
And I like rap, that is true...
But most of the other stuff...
I'm finding to be British ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 20:37:30
In reply to Re: god bless america!!!! » Declan, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 20:37:01
oh.
blues and jazz and country?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.