A Really Important Question
-
First definition.
the word has connotations well beyond that definition. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. I've seen a couple of good stories, FoxNews has reported a couple of such heroics. No a lot, but some. Marc Clifton wrote: I think what surprises me the most about this whole situation is how easily people expect to be rescued by "the system" In many regards, we've lost touch with what I believe to be our roots. By that I mean the country always had a sense of self-reliance, at least through the 70's. We've gone from neighbors, church members, co-workers, etc. - lending a helping hand, to holding our hands out, the nanny-state populated by children who expect to be taken care of. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: By that I mean the country always had a sense of self-reliance Indeed. For some reason I keep thinking of 100 years ago when people living in the middle of nowhere had to rely only on themselves and their neighbors. Though, I guess my John Wayne image of this is certainly far from reality--many of these adventurers ended up dead! Maybe modern people just don't know how to rely on themselves anymore. They've gotten so comfortable at relying on the support system around them that they totally freak out when that system breaks down. The psychologists are going to have a field day, I'll wager. Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: One of the things I have not seen discussed in any thread ever is a contrast between "professional politicians" and competent individuals who decide to serve their community (local, state, federal) by serving a term or two then going back to their normal life. I think you bring up a good point. Any mass of people definitely benefits from a few people that take a strong leadership position and "get things done", otherwise chaos reigns. Hmmm... I think what surprises me the most about this whole situation is how easily people expect to be rescued by "the system" and how quickly they put blame on their leaders when the system fails. I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. It seems more that it was a free-for-all where no one gave a damn about anyone else. That's the thing that saddens me the most. Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface
Marc Clifton wrote: I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
the word has connotations well beyond that definition. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Yeah, that's why i used it. Portentous times call for portentous words...
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? Excellent story. Thanks for the link. On another note, it's easy to condemn the authorities for not initially letting them in to the SuperAstrodome, yet it's also necessary to maintain some sort of order. Thank goodness though that the police told him he could take the bus! What a mess, having to balance self-initiative with maintaining control and order. I can see why people blame the system, when they are incapable of taking initiative because of the threat posed by the guys with the guns, tazers, mace, and nightsticks. Well, I'm starting to ramble. Goodnight! Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface -- modified at 21:42 Thursday 8th September, 2005
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: You can't and shouldn't. FEMA, for example, consists of 2,500 people. An organization designed to coordinate, period. To coordinate they need the cooperation of local officials because based on our system of givernment they can't really do anything until asked, then only if the locals cooperate. But what happens if the local officials are no longer there to coordinate with? Are you saying that despite the fact that we all pay federal taxes, we should not expect our federal government to have the ability to act effectively in response to any crisis? Why do we call it "Homeland Security", and not "Federal Government Security"? Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, I know you said you're a registered Republican. I've also read your threads and you have a liberal bias and are so anti-Bush you're willing to take a shot at his mother. I find that despicible. No. Barbara made her assinine, demeaning comments all on her own. She did not need any help from me!! LOL!! [EDIT] Besides SHE made her comments on PUBLIC radio. You know, I really don't give a fat fuck who she is - anyone who speaks on public radio is fair game for criticism. Even Bush's mom. Unless you belive in Communism or something? [/EDIT] But you are right about one thing. I don't like Bush. And I have a good reason. Since 2001 he has increased our Federal deficit by almost 4.5 TRILLION dollars, and in the process also doled out a lot of rhetoric about making us "safer". I would like to know just exactly how he has made me "safer"? And as part of 4.5 trillion dollars of deficit spending, yes I think agencies like FEMA should be able to respond like a well oiled machine! If we should not expect to depend upon the Federal government in any sort of catastrophic emergency as you and other suggest, that is fine with me. But if that is the case, I would like to see the post 911 hemorrhage of deficit spending brought under control. If not, I want to see something for my money. -- modified at 22:27 Thursday 8th September, 2005
rwestgraham wrote: If we should not excpect to depend upon the Federal government in any sort of catastropihic emergency as you and other suggest that is fine with me. But if that is the cased, I would like to see the post 911 hemorrahage of deficit spending brought under control. sometimes ya gotta wonder if Starve The Beast and Drown It In The Bathtub isn't the plan. hyper-expensive medicare benefit that does more for pharma than for patients; "solve" SS by adding trillions of $ of new debt; sink billions into agencies and staff them with incompetent cronies, etc. if the real plan is to make govt look like it can't do anything right except spend money, they're doing a bang-up job. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote: how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? Excellent story. Thanks for the link. On another note, it's easy to condemn the authorities for not initially letting them in to the SuperAstrodome, yet it's also necessary to maintain some sort of order. Thank goodness though that the police told him he could take the bus! What a mess, having to balance self-initiative with maintaining control and order. I can see why people blame the system, when they are incapable of taking initiative because of the threat posed by the guys with the guns, tazers, mace, and nightsticks. Well, I'm starting to ramble. Goodnight! Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface -- modified at 21:42 Thursday 8th September, 2005
Marc Clifton wrote: Thank goodness though that the police told him he could take the bus! i've heard it told that he took it without permission. maybe that's wrong. or maybe he stole it to take people out and then the cops said "no problem" when they saw him. whatever the story, it looks like he did a good thing. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
A lot of people seem to be mostly interested in a pissing contest over who should take the blame for the mess of Katrina. But take a critical look, not at the preventative measures that could have been taken, but rather only at the response that was mounted after the disaster had indeed become a reality. I believe that it is hard for a person not blinded by their particular political and ideological persuasion to disagree that the post-disaster response that has been mounted has been characterized by a disturbing level of, uhmm, shall we say, "ineptness". We have had almost 4 years since 911 of living in a world where every person is acutely aware that a terrorist catastrophe can occur on our own soil. Now, given the recent test of our ability to respond to a catastrophe involving on the order of roughly 100,000, where we had advance warning to boot, what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning???
OK, I'll rejoin the blame game. Actually the response was almost perfect. A major portion of the gulf coast was obliterated and relief was pretty much immediately available. Only two decisions of any real detrimental significance occured. One, was the Mayor's refusal to respond as early as sunday with readily available transportation to move large numbers of people from vulnerable areas. The other was the state's refusal to allow the Red Cross supplies, which had been forward postitioned by FEMA, and were available in large amounts, to enter New Orleans in time to be available before the city began to flood. Those two simple, bureaucratic blunders, were primarily responsible for the chaos and inconvenience that could have been avoided by any one in any position of authority once the actual danger was recognized. (Questions concerning why the flood control system protecting New Orleans failed is an entirely separate issue and is not really germane to how we would respond to a large scale attack.) So, frankly, all political bias aside, I'd say we look pretty well prepared for a simple 'dirty bomb' attack. Things will never go perfectly (there are bugs in any complex system, after all), but for the most part it looks as though we can be confident in our leadership. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: You can't and shouldn't. FEMA, for example, consists of 2,500 people. An organization designed to coordinate, period. To coordinate they need the cooperation of local officials because based on our system of givernment they can't really do anything until asked, then only if the locals cooperate. But what happens if the local officials are no longer there to coordinate with? Are you saying that despite the fact that we all pay federal taxes, we should not expect our federal government to have the ability to act effectively in response to any crisis? Why do we call it "Homeland Security", and not "Federal Government Security"? Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, I know you said you're a registered Republican. I've also read your threads and you have a liberal bias and are so anti-Bush you're willing to take a shot at his mother. I find that despicible. No. Barbara made her assinine, demeaning comments all on her own. She did not need any help from me!! LOL!! [EDIT] Besides SHE made her comments on PUBLIC radio. You know, I really don't give a fat fuck who she is - anyone who speaks on public radio is fair game for criticism. Even Bush's mom. Unless you belive in Communism or something? [/EDIT] But you are right about one thing. I don't like Bush. And I have a good reason. Since 2001 he has increased our Federal deficit by almost 4.5 TRILLION dollars, and in the process also doled out a lot of rhetoric about making us "safer". I would like to know just exactly how he has made me "safer"? And as part of 4.5 trillion dollars of deficit spending, yes I think agencies like FEMA should be able to respond like a well oiled machine! If we should not expect to depend upon the Federal government in any sort of catastrophic emergency as you and other suggest, that is fine with me. But if that is the case, I would like to see the post 911 hemorrhage of deficit spending brought under control. If not, I want to see something for my money. -- modified at 22:27 Thursday 8th September, 2005
rwestgraham wrote: Since 2001 he has increased outr Federal deficit by almost 4.5 TRILLION dollars, and also doled out a lot of rhetoric about making us "safer". I would like to know just exactly how he has made me "safer". And as part of 4.5 trillion dollars of deficit spending, yes I think agencies like FEMA should be abloe to respond like a well oiled machine. Now if we only had someone to vote for that would actually cut federal spending... It is almost as if we need a sane opposition party or something. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
rwestgraham wrote: If we should not excpect to depend upon the Federal government in any sort of catastropihic emergency as you and other suggest that is fine with me. But if that is the cased, I would like to see the post 911 hemorrahage of deficit spending brought under control. sometimes ya gotta wonder if Starve The Beast and Drown It In The Bathtub isn't the plan. hyper-expensive medicare benefit that does more for pharma than for patients; "solve" SS by adding trillions of $ of new debt; sink billions into agencies and staff them with incompetent cronies, etc. if the real plan is to make govt look like it can't do anything right except spend money, they're doing a bang-up job. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Yes, the "right" rails against the possibility of a government that saddles the taxpayers with social programs. I really don't want that either. But it seems to me that right now we are saddled with a government that is content to saddle the taxpayers with a huge deficit that is simply pissed away completely. X|
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: we're in deep sh*t as long as we have weak politicians in local leadership positions. If you want to look at the picture in the light you're attempting to place it, contrast 9-11 with New Orleans debacle. The difference was in the quality of local and state leadership. Oh, and guess what. New York State and New York City were run by Republicians. D'oh. Still stuck on your political agenda, I see. Sigh. What makes you so sure that anyone who asks questions is a Democrat? I am a registered Republican, although I do not ever vote a party ticket. Actually, what I am really looking at is not a political debate, but rather how much can we depend upon Federal agencies for a rapid, effective response? Consider that if you happen to live in a large metropolitan area like Atlanta, where I live, then an event like a dirty bomb has not only severely crippled your local government, but also your state government. In such a scenario, the primary response probably has to be a Federal one.
rwestgraham wrote: Consider that if you happen to live in a large metropolitan area like Atlanta, where I live, then an event like a dirty bomb has not only severely crippled your local government, but also your state government. In such a scenario, the primary response probably has to be a Federal one No...it's still local first. The feds can't respond within the first 48-72 hours. It's impossible unless they just happened to be sitting next door at the time. rwestgraham wrote: I am a registered Republican :laugh: ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: we have our far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis. uncomfortable? they ruin the whole fucking party. seriously. get rid of the theocrats and bigots and keep (errr... get back to) the fiscal responsibilty and you've got yourself a real attractive party. as it is now, the GOP is completely poisoned. Mike Gaskey wrote: The facts remain, 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans and Katrina-New Orleans was mishandled by people labelled as Democrats ah. as long as the right label wins, regardless of what the people actually stand for, it's all good. go team! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 8:00 Friday 9th September, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote: uncomfortable? they ruin the whole f***ing party. seriously. get rid of the theocrats and bigots and keep (errr... get back to) the fiscal responsibilty and you've got yourself a real attractive party. as it is now, the GOP is completely poisoned. ACtually, that would just be the left making stuff up about the Republicans. It isn't too hard to get support from the religious community when the democrats are doing every thing possible to alienate them. The only reason the Republicans are the party of the "theocrats" is becasue the democrats are the party of rampant, mad dog, secularism. As to the 'bigots' find me one... I agree with you about the fiscal responsibility though but then that isn't exactly an endorsement of democrats. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
rwestgraham wrote: Actually, what I am really looking at is not a political debate, but rather how much can we depend upon Federal agencies for a rapid, effective response? You can't and shouldn't. FEMA, for example, consists of 2,500 people. An organization designed to coordinate, period. To coordinate they need the cooperation of local officials because based on our system of givernment they can't really do anything until asked, then only if the locals cooperate. rwestgraham wrote: Sigh. What makes you so sure that anyone who asks questions is a Democrat? I don't. Have you asked why Hillary voted to fold FEMA into Homeland Security and now complains that it is ineffective because it is a part of Homeland Security? Yes, I know you said you're a registered Republican. I've also read your threads and you have a liberal bias and are so anti-Bush you're willing to take a shot at his mother. I find that despicible. rwestgraham wrote: Consider that if you happen to live in a large metropolitan area like Atlanta, where I live, then an event like a dirty bomb has not only severely crippled your local government, but also your state government. In such a scenario, the primary response probably has to be a Federal one. Read the Lord of the Flies. Own a firearm. Make sure you have a store of food and water. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: FEMA, for example, consists of 2,500 people. I don't think you should be underestimating FEMA - I'm not sure bout what it is like now that it is under Homeland Security -but what they CAN do is fairly scary - they can basically suspend the Bill of Rights indefinitely. They can take what they want, when they want. "Intelligent critics from both left and right have for years painstakingly documented FEMA’s paramount leadership role in Continuity of Government (COG) operations and planning. Better described, COG is what will happen if Congress is nuked, if a major catastrophe makes “normal” government operations impossible, or if there is major civil unrest (or total economic collapse). Much of FEMA’s infrastructure is really dedicated to this task and not to disaster relief. The COG function and authority has been greatly expanded since 9/11." http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090605_greeks_gifts.shtml[^] From a former LAPD cop. -- modified at 23:52 Thursday 8th September, 2005
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: I have yet to read about a single story in which a local nobody rallied his neighbors/community to the benefit of the group. how about Jabbar Gibson[^] ? But, ya see, Chris, Mikey hasn't read that story.. and he won't, thereby maintaining the purity of his ignorance.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: in any other state (except CA and new england), guys like Pataki and Rudy G would be, gasp, Democrats. JFK Democrats. Just as there are (Reid, Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Waters, Rangel, etc.) lefties that make it uncomfortable for the likes of Bayh, Leibermann, and a few others we have our far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis. But what is your point? The facts remain, 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans and Katrina-New Orleans was mishandled by people labelled as Democrats. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: 9-11 was effectively handled by people labelled as Republicans You're saying that GW's dismissal of Dick Clarks' warnings - essentially shutting down the government's counter-terrorisom efforts and thereby allowing 9-11 to happen - is effective handling? It is to laugh.. if not to cry.
-
A lot of people seem to be mostly interested in a pissing contest over who should take the blame for the mess of Katrina. But take a critical look, not at the preventative measures that could have been taken, but rather only at the response that was mounted after the disaster had indeed become a reality. I believe that it is hard for a person not blinded by their particular political and ideological persuasion to disagree that the post-disaster response that has been mounted has been characterized by a disturbing level of, uhmm, shall we say, "ineptness". We have had almost 4 years since 911 of living in a world where every person is acutely aware that a terrorist catastrophe can occur on our own soil. Now, given the recent test of our ability to respond to a catastrophe involving on the order of roughly 100,000, where we had advance warning to boot, what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning???
rwestgraham wrote: what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning??? From Keith Olbermann[^]:
[T]his is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison Awasu 2.1.2 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
rwestgraham wrote: what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning??? it tells us: we're fucked Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
i rekon you get so many hurricanes that dont do too much damage that you dont prepare for them I am sure you are prepared for a terrorist nuke the same way we prepared for bombs in london. when it happened, we were right on top of it. Nunc est bibendum!
-
rwestgraham wrote: Actually, what I am really looking at is not a political debate, but rather how much can we depend upon Federal agencies for a rapid, effective response? You can't and shouldn't. FEMA, for example, consists of 2,500 people. An organization designed to coordinate, period. To coordinate they need the cooperation of local officials because based on our system of givernment they can't really do anything until asked, then only if the locals cooperate. rwestgraham wrote: Sigh. What makes you so sure that anyone who asks questions is a Democrat? I don't. Have you asked why Hillary voted to fold FEMA into Homeland Security and now complains that it is ineffective because it is a part of Homeland Security? Yes, I know you said you're a registered Republican. I've also read your threads and you have a liberal bias and are so anti-Bush you're willing to take a shot at his mother. I find that despicible. rwestgraham wrote: Consider that if you happen to live in a large metropolitan area like Atlanta, where I live, then an event like a dirty bomb has not only severely crippled your local government, but also your state government. In such a scenario, the primary response probably has to be a Federal one. Read the Lord of the Flies. Own a firearm. Make sure you have a store of food and water. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: If you want to look at the picture in the light you're attempting to place it, contrast 9-11 with New Orleans debacle. The difference was in the quality of local and state leadership. Oh, and guess what. New York State and New York City were run by Republicians. D'oh. Apples vs oranges. Terrorist attack (sudden, office buildings, caused by evil humans) vs Hurricane (anticipated, entire cities, caused by evil deity). I think it's more appropriate to compare FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina[^] with their response to the Hurricanes of 2004[^] (which occurred prior to the 2004 election *wink* *wink*). Mike Gaskey wrote: Have another drink of kool aid. Sure, but mine is sweetened with the truth[^].
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Sure, but mine is sweetened with the truth[^]. I am astounded that you would call that left wing grabage propaganda rag "the truth". You reall are drinking all of the kool aid, aren't you. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
OK, I'll rejoin the blame game. Actually the response was almost perfect. A major portion of the gulf coast was obliterated and relief was pretty much immediately available. Only two decisions of any real detrimental significance occured. One, was the Mayor's refusal to respond as early as sunday with readily available transportation to move large numbers of people from vulnerable areas. The other was the state's refusal to allow the Red Cross supplies, which had been forward postitioned by FEMA, and were available in large amounts, to enter New Orleans in time to be available before the city began to flood. Those two simple, bureaucratic blunders, were primarily responsible for the chaos and inconvenience that could have been avoided by any one in any position of authority once the actual danger was recognized. (Questions concerning why the flood control system protecting New Orleans failed is an entirely separate issue and is not really germane to how we would respond to a large scale attack.) So, frankly, all political bias aside, I'd say we look pretty well prepared for a simple 'dirty bomb' attack. Things will never go perfectly (there are bugs in any complex system, after all), but for the most part it looks as though we can be confident in our leadership. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."