George, Katrina and CCTV
Apparently George knew everyone in New Orleans might die, but did nothing. This leaves several possiblities, ranging from the forgiving to the seriously mental.
1) He figured they probably wouldn't be able to build up the levees to sensible levels, so suggested to the town Mayor to evacuate if the weather turned bad. The Mayor encouraged evacuation, but lots of people stayed and died.
2) He said 'Great, they're only poor people and poor people don't vote for me. I think I'll wait for the diaster, then head down, kiss some babies, shake some hands and get boosted ratings, both from the lower porportion of poor people in the area, and the general media love.'
3) He had rather a lot on that morning and weather phenomena were bottom of the list, after management of the war we're officially not still fighting in Iraq, peace process in the Middle East, removing opportunities for anti-Semetic nuclear weapons acquisition in Iran, managing an energy crisis at home (probably), economic difficulties (maybe), bloody-minded activists and smiling for the camera and getting the words in the right order.
Anyway. Doubtless the news in this country will tell us how evil George is, and the news in the US will say how well-prepared he was and how it could have been so much worse. It's not news really - 'Busy politician ignores one of a hundred life-or-death warnings he receives every day'. I only wrote it cause the site was quiet.
1) He figured they probably wouldn't be able to build up the levees to sensible levels, so suggested to the town Mayor to evacuate if the weather turned bad. The Mayor encouraged evacuation, but lots of people stayed and died.
2) He said 'Great, they're only poor people and poor people don't vote for me. I think I'll wait for the diaster, then head down, kiss some babies, shake some hands and get boosted ratings, both from the lower porportion of poor people in the area, and the general media love.'
3) He had rather a lot on that morning and weather phenomena were bottom of the list, after management of the war we're officially not still fighting in Iraq, peace process in the Middle East, removing opportunities for anti-Semetic nuclear weapons acquisition in Iran, managing an energy crisis at home (probably), economic difficulties (maybe), bloody-minded activists and smiling for the camera and getting the words in the right order.
Anyway. Doubtless the news in this country will tell us how evil George is, and the news in the US will say how well-prepared he was and how it could have been so much worse. It's not news really - 'Busy politician ignores one of a hundred life-or-death warnings he receives every day'. I only wrote it cause the site was quiet.
Welcome back Jen, hope you're well and your man is safe.
The thing about a controversial politician running for re-election is that they are pretty difficult to beat. Bizarrely, this is because they are so unpopular. So unpopular that loads of different groups think they can beat them and they all put up their own man. Lots of candidates, vote is split, sitting candidate has a larger core vote and usually wins through…
What’s 43?
Posted by
Ben |
Mon Mar 06, 08:17:00 am
It's an affectionate name for your mate George, Ben.
Personally, I think the wonderful thing about him being in charge is that you can blame anything you like on him. When people start throwing around phrases like Martial Law, and when people are having to guard supermarkets with firearms, then I think it becomes everyone's responsibility. If it then comes to light that the situation was exactly as had been predicted, then anyone who knew it was going to happen should have done something, and so can be held responsible for not doing something.
In reality, of course, meteorology isn't that reliable. There would have been reports only a couple of days beforehand, that were worth listening to, and there's only so much anyone can do in a couple of days, Bush, Nagin or anyone else.
In a society as litigious as America (and we're right behind them on that front) people are always going to look to blame someone else. Considering how thorough the media attention was, no-one could have been unaware that Katrina was coming. Fundamentally, if the means to evacuate were provided, and you were able-bodied enough to use them, then the first person to blame in a lot of cases is number one. You can't force people to leave. Well, you can force them to choose between leaving and being shot, but that's not considered good form in civilised society.
Posted by
Matt |
Mon Mar 06, 08:50:00 am
Glad to hear your man is on his way home, and out of danger.
Hey, I didn't say it was his fault, merely that the media were suggesting it might be. I'm with option 1, I think he probably did everything that could be expected. But I think the state of certain parts of MS and LA (the armed guards at supermarkets I was talkign about) are an obvious consequence of a natural disaster on the scale that was predicted, so I don't think they're irrelevant - if people weren't successfully evacuated then it was a foregone conclusion that it would get messy.
I'm with you - no-one should have to endure that, and it's tragic that it killed so many. Whether more preparation would have helped, from state, federal government or on a local level, is largely academic for the victims.
Posted by
Matt |
Mon Mar 06, 01:58:00 pm
Surely what those who blame the federal government are suggesting, is that embarking on an absurd overseas adventure in Iraq drew attention and resources away from saving coloured folk on the bayou.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Wed Mar 08, 05:48:00 pm
Graham, are you Michael Moore?
Posted by
Ben |
Thu Mar 09, 01:30:00 pm
Obviously there is a point of view that says that money spent on invading and ocupyingIraq should have been spent on other things. Don't invade iraq. Spend money on internal issues like leavies, or don't run up a huge deficit. Thats the timeline.
I'm sure Mr. Moore has this on his list of why America would be better off if he hadn't invaded Iraq and yes, its conjecture.
It wouldn't get on my list.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Thu Mar 09, 06:48:00 pm
US military budget 2004 = $437.111 Billion
US Aid budget 2003 $11.4 billion in foreign aid with an additional $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.
Eh... which is completely off the point, which was
US military budget 2004 = $437.111 Billion
Total budget request for Southeast Louisiana Project 2004 and 2005(to build leavees) = 33.5 million.
Total supplied = 11.2 million.
On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Posted by
Anonymous |
Fri Mar 10, 11:56:00 am
Matt, Godwin’s Law proved after just 12 posts! Impressive.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Fri Mar 10, 12:20:00 pm
If you'd read the article you linked to, you'd spot its reference to Hitler as an example of generalisations not applying. We didn't prove anything.
I'm a scientist by education - which is one reason politics winds me up so much, and the main reason I hate people saying 'proof that...' or 'Up to 85% shinier' in shampoo adverts. Up to 85% includes 0% shinier, you smug fuckers.
Is there a law about the word fuck being included in an internet discussion?
Posted by
Matt |
Fri Mar 10, 01:01:00 pm
Jen wins! A jolly sneeky way to get the words 'fuck' and 'cunt' into the same sentance.
A typical shabby Nazi trick, pike.
Wait a minute, now I win!
yey.
Posted by
Ben |
Fri Mar 10, 11:14:00 pm