On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:50:10 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message news:reshi19b5q4ar2qr2mgh2mrinrescrpt8d@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:35:14 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
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?
No I don't think it's complex. That's why I said it's simple minded. Get it?
Simple NOT complex.
And it's not a simple fact, it's a simple opinion! The melting point of lead is fact;
Brown was offered up as a sacrifice is your opinion.
There is a difference and obviously you don't get it.
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.
Matt, when you write things like "I read the article instead of where it was published"
you risk having you champion defender, sharky, get confused.
And now that you admit that you did read it, I ask again, what in it was not true?
I did answer your question. I said it was vitriol, not news.
"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.)
Are we talking about the same FEMA? In the food and water to the Superdome
controversy you said that:
" The food and water was pre-positioned by FEMA. You see, FEMA doesn't
have trucks, drivers and such. They have communications, organization
and funds. FEMA has to work through others, such as the National
Guard and the American Red Cross.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
So how did FEMA do all that without "trucks, drivers and such?"
My contention is that it was done IN SPITE of FEMA and that's why Brown
got the boot.
As I said, they used the Louisiana National Guard to deliver the
supplies. FEMA organized the food and water, then they organized the
Louisiana Guard to deliver the food and water. Just as I said in my
post.
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.
Matt, Matt, Matt. You keep beating the same old drum. We're talking about
day 1, 2 and 3 of the disaster. Survival! Not shaving water or bathing water.
I repeat what I have already said: most people can live on a bottle of water
and a single MRE per day, including menstruating women. It won't smell nice
or look nice but it can be done.
Once again, FEMA already supplied food and water for three days before
the hurricane struck, They supplied another 3 days worth on the day
the storm struck. Just to make it clear, FEMA organized the Louisiana
National Guard to deliver the food and water that FEMA had
prepositioned.
Do you finally understand that nobody was starving to death, ever?
That in any case, most people need a month or two to starve to death?
That most people need at least a week to die of dehydration? The
immediate needs of all the refugees had been met before the hurricane
struck. There was no need to do that again.
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.
Thank you for your service but you're not, thank Heaven, involved in planning
for catastrophic disasters.
I agree, I wouldn't find that task to my liking. I lack the patience
to deal with the incompetent and I would be very severe with those who
did not take care of themselves without good cause. Where the ill and
disabled have good cause, those who live a life of dissipation do not.
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.
You overstate what you pointed out. Are you referring to the water and MRE's
at the Superdome? That was hardly enough for all but even if it was, you seem to
be arguing the other side now. Nobody was starving or dying from dehydration
and it was obvious that they weren't getting 50 lbs of supplies per day per person
so they must have been surviving on limited rations. Like one bottle of water and
one MRE or LESS per day!
We seem to overlook that on Monday, it appeared that the New Orleans
had been spared. FEMA was then looking at bringing food and water
into New Orleans instead of bringing the refugees out of New Orleans.
Once it became apparent that the newly repaired and strengthened levee
broke, then there no longer any need to bring food and water into New
Orleans, as they immediate requirement now was to get the refugees out
instead.
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.
If you weren't defending him, maybe you should be. You paint him in a light
that even he doesn't do. Here's an exact quote from Bush:
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels
of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do
it's job right, I take responsibility." Even he, begrudgingly it seems, takes
responsibility for the feds not fully doing it's job right. That's what he says
anyway. I think (my opinion not fact) that he's doing it to stop the criticism.
Now he can say when criticized "Hey, I already said I accept responsibility."
I was defending the efforts of those who worked so hard to bring
relief and safety to those who were caught in the maelstrom. The
politicians can fend for themselves.
You seem to deride or defend the government by whim.
The Feds did good, but the locals could have done better.
There is good and bad everywhere you look. Feds, local, military
private organizations and right at the top is private individuals.
But as the saying goes: "Mistakes were made!"
We are, after all, only human.
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,"
I don't really see 'failures' in the statement.
Do you see "to the extent the federal government didn't fully do it's job right"
said by the President Of The United States?
I'm surprised at the stubbornness of someone who professes to dislike government
to defend it to such a degree in the face of so much obvious mismanagement.
You make this sound like a victory speach. It's not.
Yes I saw that. I don't interpret a mistake as a failure. The task
was accomplished in very short order under extreme circumstances.
Wars are controlled chaos, so are natural disasters. Perfection
exists in neither.
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.
Nothing bad about churches but then I didn't expect to. They did what they
could and that's all that can be expected. Nothing extrodinary that I heard of.
The military? Didn't hear anything bad. Also didn't expect to. Were they
utilized to best advantage? I don't know. Seems they could have had a
bigger presence at the convention center and Superdome but I'm guessing.
I don't know.
I'm one of those who considers the New Orleans 'Big Easy' way of life
to be very detrimental to its society. I believe the 'Big Easy'
attitude had a lot to do with the immediate response to the storm.
Private orginazations? Seems to be a mixed bag. Online scams abound.
The stores we love to hate (Walmart) stepped up. Nursing homes are facing
some hard questions. This will take a while to sort out. If you give 500 million
today you'd be a hero. If, in a year from now, they found you collected a Billion
and kept the other half, well, you can figure that out.
Private indiviuals? Seem to me to have done the best. Record amounts of money.
Many extrodanary tales of selfless acts too numerous to record.
Scams are everywhere. We cannot and should not judge the effort as a
whole based upon the foibles of the few. Some 100,000+ people have
new homes, dinner on the table and their children attending school
thanks to the efforts of other citizens.
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?
I did. That's the purpose of this whole setup but I finally realized that people write
themselves into corners and just stop responding to questions that they don't like.
I can't stop that but I can make note of it.
Knock yourself out.
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.
This line of reasoning has always interested me. You say that out of a few thousand
lines, this was a door opener for me. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's
say a big politician was giving a 3 hour speech at the UN. In the speech he preached
against war, was against poverty, wanted to eliminate world hunger and praised all
the churches except the last three words of his speech were "***** the Jews!" Could
you excuse his behavior by saying that out of the thousands of words he spoke, only
3 were bad?
And further, I picked that quote because it fit the answer I was preparing. Does
that seem strange to you? Was I supposed to pick something at random?
And further still, how do you consider that an attitude? And how does that type
of attitude make me slam the innocent. Are you claiming to be the innocent in question?
Riddles are kind of hard to answer.
No, Tutor, I was remarking upon your elitist attitude. By that I mean
your parroting of the media line. Hands waving in the air, the
administration has failed, tens of thousands dead, New Orleans under
water for months, the Feds have failed to respond, etc. People who do
that are invariably Democrats, though when asked, most say they are
independent.
I asked, you answered.
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
Hell no man! It works!
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
.
