On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:35:14 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message news:0n7fi1dbusci32b6vs1pall1acb99q74cc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:52:12 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
Brown got canned because he was drawing heat? Drawing heat for what?
He got sacrificed by the Republicans just for drawing heat? He didn't do
anything wrong? Any of you Republicans agree with that? Will Republicans
throw someone to the wolves that didn't do anything wrong just for drawing
heat?
I see you didn't want to address this.
You keep avoiding my words. I said it was politics.
I didn't avoid anything. I saw your original "politics" answer and was incredulous at
such a simple minded answer; therefore, the follow up questions. You refused to
even acknowledge the follow up questions and I pointed that out.
What's simple minded? It's a simple fact. A lamb was offered up as a
sacrifice on the alter of politics. You think that's complex?
By all reports, FEMA responded to this disaster than they have to any
other disaster in their history.
All reports? Check the latest Newsweek for just one of many different views.
(If you would like to make a point, it would help to specify HOW you claim
they responded. I'm guessing you wanted to claim faster.)
Newsweek is a bit populist rag that appeals to emotions. It's writing
is a bit sensationalist for my taste.
Well, you did say "all reports" and I mentioned Newsweek to show that you,
once again, got it wrong. Newsweek is not the only one. I'll get you more.
So to clarify, it's not "All reports?"
BTW, what did Newsweek say that wasn't true?
Turns out that "all reports" are not "all reports" after all but you also ran away
from addressing that.
BTW, what did Newsweek say that wasn't true? You ran away from that also.
I no longer read Newsweek; I found that it only reports what it wants
me to know. You didn't post anything from Newsweek, so I didn't
either.
Funny, I remember posting quite a lenghty piece from Newsweek and you said you
read it all! Matter of fact you said: "I read that entire post and found zero facts
concerning the hurricane. Fineman and Underwood are basically using their pulpit
for political reasons. -- msosborn at msosborn dot com." I keep covering for you
Matt, saying ignorance, but at some point, if you keep this up, someone might start
using the liar word.
My apologies Tutor, I read the article instead of where it was
published. Yes, I do remember the Fineman and Underwood article. It
was mostly a vitriolic article similar to all the other political
garbage they foist off as reporting.
But, that you read or don't read Newsweek is immaterial and that you make such
a detailed fuss over it is just a red herring to detract from what else you said, which
was:
"By all reports, FEMA responded to this disaster than they have to any other
disaster in their history."
I assume that you meant to say better or something similar. If not, I'd be interested
to hear what you did mean.
If you did mean that they responded better, faster, mightier, more compassionately
or whatever you left out of that statement, your qualifier that it is "by all reports" is a
product of your imagination. It should be obvious to anyone over the age of 10 that
there is a huge controversy over the way FEMA handled the disaster. Ignorance is
simply not knowing; your declarative statement of "all reports" I will charitably call
spin but I can see where some might call you a liar.
Thank you for pointing out my omission. I did indeed mean better.
Especially when you consider they were operating in eight states
simultaneously, they still managed to evacuate somewhere between
20,000 and 200,000 people from New Orleans alone in less than three
days. (For all the reporting, the news media seems profoundly lacking
in real news.)
If you wish to learn what the standard is rather than what the media
thinks it should be, read this.
<http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf>
I've quoted Appendix 5 so you don't have to read the whole thing.
Appendix 5
Overview of Initial Federal Involvement Under the Stafford Act
This overview illustrates actions Federal agencies likely will take to
assist State and local governments that are overwhelmed by a major
disaster or emergency.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
I stopped reading at "actions Federal agencies likely will take." That has
about as much force as "We would hope that" or "Chances are they will."
Now you're getting the picture. Those who would depend upon the
Federal Government are always going to be disappointed.
I point out the fault in your extended cut and paste and you turn that inside out
to "Now you're getting the picture." Apparently it's YOU who lacks the tools
to get the picture. You seem to prefer quantity posts over quality posts.
But you're right about the disappointment. I'm disappointed in Bush and his
Uncle ***** to the point of tears. Glad you see that too.
No, Tutor, you tend to have a rather rigid learning scheme. If you
don't like what you hear, you reject it. For instance, when I pointed
out that it takes 50lbs of food, water, clothing and medicine per
person per day in a relief effort, you went over the wall so to speak.
"rigid learning scheme?" Interesting term. Somewhat nebulous. Not that
I accept the idea that I have one but is someone with a rigid learning scheme
automatically wrong. Couldn't someone with a rigid learning scheme be correct?
Might not rigid learning mean requiring solid proof?
I don't like to hear that the Earth is the center of the universe. I reject that.
What exactly does that prove?
I also reject that it takes 50 lbs of food, water, clothing and medicine per person
per day in a relief effort. I would go as far as to say that you could survive on one
bottle of water and a single MRE a day for weeks! You're supposed to be a
Vietnam Vet, did you consume 50 lbs of supplies a day? Even doing heavy work?
You did do heavy work, didn't you?
Five gallons of water weighs over 40 lbs. Add a couple of pounds for
the can it comes in, give some to your buddy, shave, wash your hands
twice and the next thing you know its gone.
Standard logistics comes to play here. Some people need only 1 gallon
of water a day; it keep them healthy and strong, but it will stave off
dehydration in temperatures of 80 or better.
Others need much more water. A menstruating woman, for example, needs
at least five gallons for washing herself. Babies also need extra
water for bathing if they are to be kept healthy.
All in all, logicians schooled in such things plan on an overall
average of 5 gallons per person per day (plus shipping and handling).
I was a radio repairman in Viet Nam. My unit, the 3rd 8" Howitzer
Battery maintained two or three fire bases in the country side and we
changed fire bases several times. We did not, however, mount up for
week long patrols in the mountains. We did day patrols and night
listening posts in our local area.
I drove vehicles more often than anything else. I took my share of
patrols, perimeter guard and such. My job was not nearly as strenuous
as those in the infantry.
That was our first encounter if I recall, and it went downhill from
there. Not because you came up with different numbers, you just said
my numbers were wrong.
Why would you need a detailed account of a ridculious set of numbers?
If you do, see the above.
Those numbers are not ridiculous, they are common every day rule of
thumb numbers. I know them from personal experience.
Take a look at this number:
"Water purification units provided to Tamil Nadu and the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands provide 100,000 litres of clean water each day for
1,000 people"
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/DDAD-69XPK7?OpenDocument
That's 100 liters per day per person or 26 gallons per day per person.
I think their numbers are high, most estimates are 5 gallons per
person per day.
"Example 2. A 40-man platoon doing a variety of work over an entire
day.
The platoon requires 4 gallons of water per man per day for drinking,
and 2.5 gallons per man per day for personal hygiene, or 6.5 gallons
per man per day. For the whole platoon, 260 gallons (6.5 x 40) per day
are required. (Meals not considered.) "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-3/Appg.htm
Again these numbers are higher than mine, but they're dealing with
healthy young men.
What we were talking about was this storm and emergency supplies. You said:
"Why should we have organized for this storm and not every storm? The
logistics are overwhelming.
Each person will require 50 pounds of food, water, clothing and
medicine every day. With 50,000 people, we're looking at a minimum of
2.5 million pounds of supplies each and every day."
In an emergency, I'm saying that even 1 bottle of water and 1 MRE per day will
save lives. I'm saying that waiting to get 50 lbs of supplies per day per person is
too goofy to take seriously.
After the emergency, bring in whatever is needed but immediate needs and survival
do not require 50 lbs of supplies per person per day!
And I pointed out that nobody was starving, that they already had MREs
and bottled water, that the dead died from either drowning or illness,
not starvation. You seemed to find that hilarious.
What we have here is a failure of expectations and misplaced faith.
Exactly! Failure of expectations and misplaced faith in Bush/Cheney!
You chastise me when I cast doubt on the government's abilities
further on in this post for bring 'politics' into the post. It seems
you don't think your above point has a political message?
You introduced politics into this with defend Bush in whatever he did
and you did it long ago. You even answered one of my posts with the
single line: "Tell the truth, now, tutor, you're a Democrat aren't you?"
I'll answer in kind.
I wasn't defending Bush. In fact I thought it was ridiculous that he
was getting the press he was getting. I was countering the widely
held impression that the relief effort was a failure. It most
certainly was not a failure, 32,000 people rescued in three days is a
tremendous accomplishment.
No, I didn't blame them, I said the Feds were doing a good job. I
don't believe you know how good of a job they did. Look at these
numbers:
"I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting
New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:
More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops
by Coast Guard helicopters.
The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and
begun pumping water out of New Orleans.
Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000
refugees."
Make up your mind. You also said "Now you're getting the picture. Those
who would depend upon the Federal Government are always going to be
disappointed."
You seem to deride or defend the government by whim.
The Feds did good, but the locals could have done better.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
If you listened to Bush, you would know he isn't taking the blame for
anything. He said he was responsible for what the federal relief
effort accomplished. You think it failed and because you think that,
you think Bush also thinks it failed.
Bush does intend to determine what could be done better, but he
certainly doesn't think that it failed.
Bush doesn't think that? He's only taking responsibility for the
accomplishments? You're taking spin to higher RPM.
Matt says: "This is flat out wrong, Mr. Stender, apparently you don't
read the NY times."
Glad to know that you're a fan of the NYT's Matt. Here is a page one
story:
Washington, Sept. 13- President Bush said on Tuesday that he bore
responsibility for any failures of the federal government in its response
to Hurricane Katrina and suggested he was unsure whether the country
was adequately prepared for another catastrophic storm or terrorist
attack."
Do you get it Matt? Responsibility for failures NOT accomplishments!
Of course there are quite a few who think as you do. That only the
mistakes are counted, the accomplishments are ignored.
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all
levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't
fully do its job right, I take responsibility,"
http://premium.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/13/katrina.washington/
I don't really see 'failures' in the statement.
There were three groups who performed with excellence and competence.
Churches, private organizations and the military.
I want to believe this but unlike yourself, I don't know it for fact. How you
know it is beyond me but then I do know that you like to make general,
sweeping statements that make it sound as if you know what you're talking
about (you most often don't.)
Has the Mayor or the Governor complained? Have the Media played up any
short comings? If not, I think we have a clue as to what happened. How
many people are still in the Astrodome? 6,000, maybe 10,000? Where
did the rest go? Churches and their members took refugees into their
homes.
As I said, I don't know. What I wondered was, how did you. You deal out
praise and blame rather handily. Some might call you a "know it all" but I was
just wondering where you got all this information. I might also add that you
check this info a little more closely, a lot of it appears to be horseshit.
Have you heard bad things about the churches, the private
organizations and the military? Certainly you know they are
performing yeoman's work in all of the coastal areas. Maybe you
really don't know, Newsweek wouldn't report that stuff.
From a conservative perspective, it is a slam dunk. Keep the
government's role to a minimum and when we do involve the government,
let them provide the cash and material and allow those who know what
they're doing actually run the show.
Good point. Put competent people in charge of important projects instead
of political payoffs to the party faithful.
Unanswered! But a closer reading reveals an interesting turn. I suppose that we
are all now familiar with what a conservative "slam dunk" is. LOL!
Do you actually expect an answer to every word you write?
Thank goodness we don't have national health care. We would see this
same performance there except that it would happen to us one at a time
and nobody else would know.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
In the face of a natural disaster, you can't resist bringing your political agenda
into the discussion.
See above, I'll quote it for you:
yours - Exactly! Failure of expectations and misplaced faith in Bush/Cheney!
Now, which of our two statements introduced politics?
Same answer applies here as above. Remember this single sentence response to
a previous post of mine? "Tell the truth, now, tutor, you're a Democrat aren't you?"
Out of few thousand lines, this was the door opener for you. Well,
with an attitude like that, I say something and you slam the innocent
in response, I'll bet we can count the conservatives you've voted for
on less than one finger.
I guess the good news is that you won't accept Medicare benefits if you live
to be 65. You don't believe in that, right?
So I should pay for something and not use it? Tell you what, give me
back all the money I've paid and I won't use it. Deal?
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
Oh no! You paid and you get the benefit. It's just amusing to me to see someone
rail against something so strongly but when he sees the advantage to himself, why,
he gets right in line!
I'll vote to end it today. Will you?
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
.
