New Orleans

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
psilord
Textkit Member
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Post by psilord » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:25 am

Lucus Eques wrote:Just to inform a bit on the United States' education system: the States run the public schools, not the Federal Government.
Yeah, I realized I should have made that clear when I saw PeterD was from Canada and might not have known this. But, predictably, it was after I posted. :)
Lucus Eques wrote:Moreover, the budget decisions in this country are not arbitrarily decreed by a tyrant; we have an entire Congress of our representatives whom we have elected democratically to represent our interests. If you, or any majority of us believe spending should be reallocated, then so be it! let us vote on it in the next election, and place in Congress the representatives who represent us best, if they do not do so now.
This is supposed to be how it works, but since as a whole, we can't tell if spending should be reallocated, we don't vote properly.

As for the tyrant bit, when a single, and I might say very well connected, party controls the legislative (house/senate) and executive branch, the chances of something extreme happening are a lot greater.

The problem is the Supreme Court usually fixes it *years* after the fact, but, by the luck of the draw, a right-leaning executive/legislative branch can appoint for life "morally conservative" judges, which don't do too well for women's rights, worker's rights, and do nicely for company's rights.

Carola
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Carola » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:30 am

I won't quote the article from the BBC (from Democritus) as it is quite long, but I have been noticing this for a long time. We get Fox, CNN and BBC etc on cable and I just can't watch Fox or CNN any more, they seem to have such a strange attitude to some news items. I haven't got an example here in front of me, but I have seen video coverage of events on BBC and Fox (same video), BBC will say "here is an armed confrontation in Iraq, people protesting against ... "(whatever - and they clearly look upset) and Fox says "here are Iraqi citizens welcoming troops etc etc" which doesn't look like what is happening at all (the rocks being thrown are often a dead giveaway!) At first I thought it was just sloppy reporting or a mix-up in video footage, but then I realised it was just, well....lies.
As R Murdoch was born in Australia we can hardly blame all USA reporters, and anyhow, look at all the great investigative reporting in the past - Watergate, uncovering various crooked dealing etc. This seems to be a very recent change and a great pity things have come to this.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:20 pm

Hi, Paul.

Democritus (and Carola) gave an excellent reply. Democritus is worthy of his name. :)
Paul wrote:So for what exactly, Peter, is Bush to blame?
For starters, for ignoring the ample warnings. They knew there was a high probability it was going to be a H5 or H6. As you correctly stated, the levees were built to withstand, at most, a H3. Where were the troops? The provisions?

Second, for cutting funding to the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as diverting FEMA funds to the Dept. of Homeland Security, to fund the Iraqi war.

Third, for appointing idiots like Michael Chertoff and Michael D. Brown.

Fourth, for not signing the Kyoto Accord. Let's see him try and make light about the effects of global warming now!

Fifth, he "does not care for black people." If am not mistaken, the primary role of government is to protect its citizens, including its black citizens. The U.S. government failed miserably!

So... with whom does the buck stop? Alfred E. Neuman or George W. Bush?
Paul wrote:Here's some 'fun'. Let's contrast something I said (in The Academy) about Peter's thinking with his own words from this thread:
Paul wrote:
Peter I know you to be a generous and compassionate guy. You are quick to recognize and identify with the plight of "the victim". But do I detect in this compassion for the victim a tendency to identify and vilify the seeming "cause" of the victim's suffering? You are quick to move from the plight of the victim to the responsible villain. Your array of villains seems to include capitalists, Republicans, the rich, conservatives, etc. I worry that the plight of the victim is a pretext that provides you access to a darker, more subterranean, revolutionary drive, namely revenge against "those responsible". Please say it ain't so.
And in this very thread:
PeterD wrote:I say what I say about GWB because he is a horrible, stupid man causing much destruction and death all in the name of the mighty dollar.
The bloated bodies of loved ones are still floating, unrecovered; but you've quickly moved from their suffering and the the plight of their families to the 'responsible villain'.
Are you saying that the mighty United States of America can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Trust me, you can do both! Americans deserve no less.
Q.E.D.
If I may quote my "favourite" President, "There you go again." You must stop it with the Latin, especially Latin acronyms. I know you're doing it just to bug me. :)

Take care.

PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:59 pm

psilord wrote:
Lucus Eques wrote:Just to inform a bit on the United States' education system: the States run the public schools, not the Federal Government.
Yeah, I realized I should have made that clear when I saw PeterD was from Canada and might not have known this. But, predictably, it was after I posted. :)
Indeed. According to the 10th Amend. of the U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Because education is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is, as Lucus Eques stated, run by the States. But if the U.S. Supreme Court were to declare education to be a fundamental interest, then it rises to constitutional protection.

But I was kinda thinking of the No Child Left Behind Act which is terribly underfunded.

Take care.

Peter
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:04 am

Bert wrote: You were not lying but you arranged the truth in a misleading way.
That reminds me of a similar sort of thing I saw only a few days ago.
" It says in the Bible; Judas went and hanged himself. You go and do likewise."
Just a clarification Peter.
I was just arranging two quotes from the Bible to prove how misleading the arrangement can be. I was not suggesting that you hang yourself. :)

Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:24 am

PeterD wrote:For starters, for ignoring the ample warnings. They knew there was a high probability it was going to be a H5 or H6. As you correctly stated, the levees were built to withstand, at most, a H3. Where were the troops? The provisions?
Pay attention: in this country responsibility begins at the local level. Given your profound knowledge of America, I'm sure you know why.

Both the city and state were slow to act. The Bush administration called Blanco late Friday evening and urged her to allow a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans. She refused. Don't believe me? Read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html . See especially the 4 paragraphs beginning "Behind the scenes...".

Perhaps more importantly, the Mayor violated his own hurricane planning. Specifically, the city's planning calls for evacuation to begin at a minimum of 72 hours before a category 3 hurricane. Don't believe me? Read http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26 . But Nagin didn't order evacuation (an order he was unable or unwilling to enforce) until 24 hours before a category 5 storm!
PeterD wrote:Second, for cutting funding to the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as diverting FEMA funds to the Dept. of Homeland Security, to fund the Iraqi war.
As I already pointed out the 17th Street Canal levee was newly reinforced. Army Corps of Engineer staff expressed surprise that this very section gave way. Suppose that the Corps project was fully funded: how much stronger would this newly reinforced section have been? Would it have been any stronger? How do you know it would have stood up to this prodigy of nature?

But the deep secret here is that had the project been fully funded and finished on time; and had the hurricane still broken the levee, whose fault would it be? Come on everybody! Join me in this familiar refrain: Bush's fault!
PeterD wrote:Third, for appointing idiots like Michael Chertoff and Michael D. Brown.
I may not be overly impressed by these cats, but Nagin and Blanco are the real incompetents in this tragedy.
PeterD wrote:Fourth, for not signing the Kyoto Accord. Let's see him try and make light about the effects of global warming now!
How moronic! Even the New York Times is running articles about what sloppy science it is to blame the force of this hurricane on global warming.
PeterD wrote:Fifth, he "does not care for black people." If am not mistaken, the primary role of government is to protect its citizens, including its black citizens. The U.S. government failed miserably!
What an ugly lie! I try to provide solid sources for my claims. You quote a rapper.
PeterD wrote:Are you saying that the mighty United States of America can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Trust me, you can do both! Americans deserve no less.
No. Pay attention. I'm saying that I fear your 'compassion' may mask a vengeful nature. As a Christian, you might want to look into that.

Also, you sure have a lot to say about America. Yet you know absolutely nothing about it. So why don't you stop telling us what America is supposed to be? Pretty much everything you say is wrong.

Why don't you pin your revolutionary hopes on your homeland? There must be some problems in Canada you can devote your energies to....

Cordially,

Paul

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:05 am

PeterD wrote:But if the U.S. Supreme Court were to declare education to be a fundamental interest, then it rises to constitutional protection.
I personally am not in favor of the Supreme Court or any unelected body writing legislation for this country. The laws that govern the people should be formed by the people as closely as possible, whether by direct democracy or representative democracy.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:06 pm

[So that everyone knows, Paul and I are very good friends. Now and then (regarding politics, of course), we both might get a little steamed and unleash some verbal jabs at each other, but all is cool. If anything, the exchanges are never dull.]

Hi, Paul.
Paul wrote:Both the city and state were slow to act. The Bush administration called Blanco late Friday evening and urged her to allow a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans. She refused. Don't believe me? Read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html . See especially the 4 paragraphs beginning "Behind the scenes...".
For the record, the Washington Post has issued a retraction :oops: to the above story, which reads:

"A Sept. 4 article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. 26."

In other news:

Henceforth, I shall be residing online on the Greek/Homeric Boards and at www.greekgeek.org. It's about time I revived my Greek studies!

~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:11 am

Also, you sure have a lot to say about America. Yet you know absolutely nothing about it. So why don't you stop telling us what America is supposed to be? Pretty much everything you say is wrong.
Am I right in assuming (a) that Peter is a Canadian, and Paul is an American; and (b) because this is so, Paul believes that Peter is not qualified to make a reasoned statement about America?

If both my assumptions are right, may I say that I am amazed (and slightly delighted) that this form of argument is still alive and kicking!
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:56 am

Phylax wrote: Am I right in assuming (a) that Peter is a Canadian, and Paul is an American; and (b) because this is so, Paul believes that Peter is not qualified to make a reasoned statement about America?

If both my assumptions are right, may I say that I am amazed (and slightly delighted) that this form of argument is still alive and kicking!
It is difficult to get to know people over the internet so I guess it is possible that I gauged Paul wrong but my impression of Paul is that he will not base that judgement on Peter's nationality but on the content of his messages.

Post Reply