PDA

View Full Version : What really bothers me about the katrina fiasco



BobMcGee123
10-25-2005, 10:25 AM
I had been sort of the token conservative on the boards, a staunch supporter of the war in iraq and various other bush issues, so I figured you guys would derive pleasure from seeing me express utter distain for the emperor.

One of the things that truly bothers me is that after 911, and all of these major changes in the dept of homeland security, blah blah blah, the federal government clearly doesn't have a mechanism in place for being able to evacuate a large city after a large-scale disaster, whether it be a terrorist attack or an act of god. Bush can manage to put a large force into the euphrates area halfway across the world, a region perpetually fought over throughout history, but even after the worst attack on US soil people were left unprotected and without supplies for far too long, often for dead. The american people showed more proaction by donating blood, supplies and money (which we should still be doing) than the damn governing body of the most powerful country in the world.

This, to me, is as scary as the possibility of a terrorist attack.


End rant.

Discuss.

ober
10-25-2005, 11:01 AM
uhh... we all knew that about a month ago. What's your point?

BobMcGee123
10-25-2005, 11:32 AM
My point is that not everybody makes the connection between these two seemingly unrelated events: 9-11 and the disaster. On the news they hype the emotional part of it about the suffering of people, relief funds, etc, but a large problem I haven't seen adequately touched upon is that even after 9-11 the federal government can't efficiently respond to something like this. And obviously a month means nothing, since homeland security has allegedly been undergoing radical reform for the past four years. It's supposed to be designed to handle nuclear fallout of three major cities simultaneously, but can't handle this.

That's my point.

EDIT: and I thought it was important enough to start a thread that might lead to a discussion about, you know, better protecting the states since the government clearly can't do it. Hell, maybe we can all sign a petition and send it to congress (or to the CProg special interest lobbyist) :)

ober
10-25-2005, 11:48 AM
You read the news, right? ... Actually, it seems you might not. And no offense, but talking about this on an internet forum between a bunch of geeks and nerds isn't going to protect the states any better. What are you going to do? Go out and create a well-funded, live-to-donate national militia that isn't going to be squashed by the government?

Excuse me while I sit here and laugh.

kermi3
10-25-2005, 11:55 AM
Ok...I'm going to make a little bit of a distinction here.

There was a plan to evacuate New Olreans. It is called counta-flow, and it was put into effect for the second time ever for Katrina. It was used the first time for a hurricane last year - and it was a complete fiasco. However, the revised plan used for katria worked very well.

The plan basically involves stoping all inbound interstate traffic to the metro area and using all the lanes of I-55, I-10, and other highways to go outbound:
http://www.dotd.state.la.us/maps/Web_ContraFlow.jpg

It was very effective. The problem with evacuation was that people either (a) would not leave, (b) medically could not leave, (c) finicially could not leave, or (d) did not believe that the risk from the hurricane was greater than the risk of missing work for a few days. The fact that there was no plan to get the poor and the sick out - yea, that was somebody's fault. The fact that people didn't leave - that's arguably someone's fault.

The fact that supplies weren't ready to go in as soon as the dust started to clear - that's someone's fault. The fact that the FEMA director was a political appointee with no expirence, that's someone (Bush's) fault. The fact that the pump houses were not built to withstand a hurricane, that's someone's fault. The fact that the levies had not been updated despite Army Corps and Louisiana's congressional delegation's warning, that's someone (congress') fault. There are plenty of things that are someone's fault, lack of an evacuation plan for the general population was not one of them.

ober
10-25-2005, 12:53 PM
Well, I don't think Bob is keying on the evacuation process here ... I think he's taking a poke at the recovery process.... which again, is like beating a dead horse.

white
10-25-2005, 03:05 PM
I 'll try to make a different point....imagine (doesn't require a lot of imagination since you know exactly what happened) how long help took to take place (I mean food medicine..etc) inside the US. Now image what kind of help people in Iraq get.... I am just saying this because some people are actually believing the the US helps Iraqi people.

And what happened happened because all the funds went into a meaningless stupid war (I mean North Korea is a greater threat to the US than Iraq but nothing happens there)..so with no money no one could fix the cities to withstand a hurricane or whatever physical disaster.

Apart from that it is far from obvious by checking some simple statistics that US might be the one to blame for the strength of Katrina. EXPLANATION: All natural phenomena and especially all hurricanes have increased their strength by 50% tha last 30 years around the US and China. Guess what US and China has the most pollution compared with anyone...and it's not due to the size...if someone will go to beijing will know exactly what I mean.

China and the US has to stop disobeying international pollution limits...because it affects us all

Govtcheez
10-25-2005, 03:44 PM
> All natural phenomena and especially all hurricanes have increased their strength by 50% tha last 30 years around the US and China.

Oh, bullcrap. I'll be the first to say global warming probably increased the strength, but you're going ot have to back that statistic up.

> China and the US has to stop disobeying international pollution limits...

I've never heard of such a thing. Back it up.

kermi3
10-25-2005, 03:45 PM
Ober, I realize, I just wanted that first point clear. Thanks.


White - might I recommend that you not make a statement like that without offering data or a reference to a peer reviewed article?

While pollution is a problem, there are more scientific wholes in your statement than in the proverbial Swiss cheese.

For example:
1. A reference
2. Has there been an increase in storm strength elsewhere?
3. Does a third, fourth, or fifth variable account for the change in storm strength?
4. Our detailed history of storm strength only goes back about a 100 years. That's no time at all in the geological/meteorological timeframe.
5. and most importantly CORRALATEION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION - there is a direct correlation between the number of preachers/ministers in a town and the amount of alcohol sold there. That does not mean ministers cause more people to drink.

Decrypt
10-25-2005, 04:25 PM
CORRALATEION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION
Amen. The first rule of statistics, so often ignored. Brings a tear to my eye to hear someone else yell it for once.

There are plenty of disturbing issues when it comes to this whole situation. So much so, it's hard to pick one to be most concerned/furious about. Take the events listed on this (obviously biased) website:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bush_orleans_photos.html

I read about most of these shortly after they happened, but I didn't write the links down, so I can't find the better ones anymore. This has them all in one place, though.
However, beware the second link. (NOLA). Wow. It seems to be a very anti-semetic forum. It's pretty scary in there. The Salt Lake Tribune and senate.gov links are the most reputable ones, my German isn't so good these days so I can't vouch for the two german links...

Food for thought, anyway.

MadCow257
10-25-2005, 05:03 PM
I've never heard of such a thing. Back it up.
The US and China are the number 1 and 2 emmisors of greenhouse gases. If global warming is causing the increase in disasters, then you could partially blame the US goes the argument. The international thing probably refers to the US not ratifying Kyoto, and China was completely exempt.



Oh, bullcrap. I'll be the first to say global warming probably increased the strength, but you're going ot have to back that statistic up.

Statistics say that in the past fifty years, the oceans have warmed 1 degree. With that, the number of catergory 4 & 5 hurricanes has doubled.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9429241/)

EDIT
BTW, I'm not saying that warming is the #1 cause of these hurricanes

Thantos
10-25-2005, 05:50 PM
*Devils Advocate*
Ok so in the last 50 years the oceans have warmed 1 degree. You still haven't shown the cause of it. You imply a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming, but you have not shown that its the only cause of the warming.
Possible other causes: A natural warming cycle of the earth, increased solar activity. You imply that since the oceans warmed by 1 degree thats the causes of the stronger hurricanes, but you haven't proved the connection nor have you shown its the only cause. For all we know it could be a predictible weather pattern when viewed in the span of 500 years.
*End Devil's Advocate*

JaWiB
10-25-2005, 06:06 PM
Politics is politics is politics...

adrianxw
10-26-2005, 02:21 AM
Much technical evidence for the effects of global warming, (substitute "nuclear power", "fusion", "disease X" etc. as required), requires an understanding of many inter-related and highly esoteric disciplines.

As always, the problem is, to understand "it", you need to know far more about "it", and "it's" environment/interelationships. The average Joe, and definitely the average sound bite politician will not.

You cannot expect a topic, which takes dedicated study for many years, to be understood by the public from an evenings research on the 'net or worse, the media.

What tends to happen is a few simple to understand concepts float to the surface, which are grabbed my the media and presented in a yet simpler form, (anecdotes and analogs), and the whole truth of the matter is lost. Still, it sells the papers so that's fine.

kungtotte
10-26-2005, 04:10 AM
I'm reading this thread trying to spot where it went from the very real issue of the US government being unable to help their citizens to discussing the uninteresting issue of "Who is to blame for the hurricane".

Like Bob, I find it frightening that the US can mobilize, invade and conquer a foreign country half-way around the world in a relatively short amount of time but they are yet unable to deal with a natural disaster on their own soil.

white
10-26-2005, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by:Thantos
Ok so in the last 50 years the oceans have warmed 1 degree.
Milankovitch cycles (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node199.html)

....occurs once every 26,000 years.... from the prementioned site

so 1 degree over 50 years is a lot. The earth would be resonable to start heating if we where in an Ice age...but even if we were instead for the 26,000 years for the climate change with this rate it would occur in 2,500 year.

I don't support that heat change will cause Ice age as many scientists do, but there are certainly going to be consequences

interesting statistics (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-pollutioncomparisons.htm)

iam pasting tthree interesting ones


Average price of a gallon of gas:

Sweden $4.85
Denmark 4.46
United Kingdom 3.56
Germany 3.05
Netherlands 3.02
Japan 3.01
Canada 1.40
United States 1.07


Energy Units of oil burned annually:

United States 791.5
European Community 501.4
Japan 234.3
Germany 108.5
United Kingdom 81.3
Canada 80.4
Netherlands 24.1
Sweden 16.3
Finland 11.1
Norway 9.3
Denmark 9.0 the most overcrowded overpopulated country is not on the top

Percent of all paper and cardboard recycled:

Netherlands 62.0%
Japan 54.4
Germany 37.0
Denmark 32.0
United Kingdom 13.0
United States 8.4

kungtotte
10-26-2005, 06:28 AM
The reason for our (Sweden) high gas price is the extreme, massive amounts of tax we pay on gas.

Right now, we pay 5.24 USD for a gallon of gasoline (price varies quite a lot all over sweden, but that's the average price). Out of those 5.24 USD, only 2.14 USD make up for the actual cost of the gasoline.

The cost (2.14 USD) covers:
* Some dude pumping it out of the ground.
* Some dude transporting the crude to a refinery
* Some dude refining it
* Some dude transporting it from the refinery to Sweden
* Some dude transporting it to the gas stations
* The miniscule profit margin for the gas station.

The tax (3.1 USD) covers:
Absolutely nothing.

The swedish government is raking in 8 779 631 000 USD per year on gas-taxes alone. To put it into perspective, every hour the goverment earns 1 003 386 USD. One million dollars an hour that goes straight into their pocket.

So americans? The next time I hear you ..........ing about your high gas prices, I'm coming over there and I'm slapping you.

So, now that we've covered that interesting point, what on earth has it got to do with global warming, pollution or the US government's inability to help its citizens?

ober
10-26-2005, 06:33 AM
It's not our fault your government is ........ed up. ;)

I work for a Swedish company and you couldn't pay me to live there.

rockytriton
10-26-2005, 06:37 AM
did anyone see the new southpark episode, it makes fun of the whole katrina fiasco and the whole global warming crap

kungtotte
10-26-2005, 07:06 AM
ober, IKEA? ;)

white
10-26-2005, 07:41 AM
So, now that we've covered that interesting point, what on earth has it got to do with global warming, pollution or the US government's inability to help its citizens?

It has nothing to do directly...but nowaday things are so "complex" that one has to spot indirect relations in order to make sense.

Two things are for sure.
The money that they spend on various wars etc could go into fortifying and generally preparing cities.


Taking measures against global warming and the such ...could prevent such disasters. Even if global warming has nothing to do with such phenomena ...life would be a lot better

kermi3
10-26-2005, 07:58 AM
White, are those figure per capita?

I don't think anyone disagrees with the distinc possibility that global warming is affecting our weather. What I take issue with is your unsupported and obviously biased view that the US is the big bad guy who is to blame for it. I think one should note that England is the one who started the industrial revolution - one could easily place blame there.

As adrian implied, there are issues besides disliking Bush's enviromental policy at play here. (Even if you hate that policy)


Besides, we all know that Hurricane Katrina was steared into New Orleans (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/09/23.html).

kermi3
10-26-2005, 08:17 AM
It has nothing to do directly...but nowaday things are so "complex" that one has to spot indirect relations in order to make sense.

Two things are for sure.
The money that they spend on various wars etc could go into fortifying and generally preparing cities.


Taking measures against global warming and the such ...could prevent such disasters. Even if global warming has nothing to do with such phenomena ...life would be a lot better


I'm sorry. But you're making unfounded statements again. I don't know what educational level you are currently at, but supporting yourself really is important. Only 19% of the US budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_(United_States)) goes to foreign affairs. The rest goes for domestic uses.

I agree with you that the world would be a better place if there was less pollution. I’ll even go as far as to say that I think global warming is a problem – though I don’t know enough to talk truly intelligently about it, but you can’t make sweeping statements without backing them up. You just sounds dumb.

white
10-26-2005, 08:55 AM
I just heard it on CNN...if I find any relevant link i'll post it. 19% sounds like a big percentage to me by the way...And No ...as far as it concerns me ...US is not the worst.

as far as it concerns founded statements ...I am not writing any paper at this moment, just making a friendly talk. But at my educational level I know one thing...If someone want to back up a statement ...he can...even if it's a lie. Didn't you hear :) :) Yakuza was behind Katrina


“A meteorologist in Pocatello, Idaho, claims Japanese gangsters known as the Yakuza used KGB inventions to cause Hurricane Katrina, Wireless Flash reported Thursday. Scott Stevens says after looking at NASA satellite photos of the hurricane, he’s is convinced it was caused by electromagnetic generators from ground-based microwave transmitters… Stevens suspects the Japanese Yakuza created Katrina in order to make a fortune in the futures market and to get even with the U.S. for the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima.”

http://councilcommunist.gnn.tv/blogs/8762/Katrina_Caused_by_KGB_Japanese_Mafia
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/08/kgbkatrina.shtml

and by the way there is a book about it in Greek at
www.liako.gr

a lot of people believe things like that you know...a scary percentage

axon
10-26-2005, 08:55 AM
the gasoline prices seem a "little" outdated....what year are those stats from anyways? early 90's?

white
10-26-2005, 09:01 AM
>>> by axon: the gasoline prices seem a "little" outdated....what year are those stats from anyways? early 90's?


yeah '92
but the differences are more or less of the same type

ober
10-26-2005, 11:12 AM
ober, IKEA? ;)

No... Volvo Trucks.

BobMcGee123
10-26-2005, 12:14 PM
>>Well, I don't think Bob is keying on the evacuation process here

Oh?

>>And no offense, but talking about this on an internet forum between a bunch of geeks and nerds isn't going to protect the states any better

Excuse me while I sit here and ... *sigh*...wiki sarcasm



> China and the US has to stop disobeying international pollution limits...

I've never heard of such a thing. Back it up.

To be fair to him, somehow or another it does need to be checked. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal hippy by any measure, but, global warming is something that needs to be addressed. Parts of the arctic circle have thawed enough that shipping lanes can be opened.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28130/newsDate/12-Nov-2004/story.htm


Seeing as how this thread is taking an interesting direction towards other global issues that are at least loosely related to the original topic (not a bad thing) this article is an interesting read, the title 'will the end of oil mean the end of america.' I don't agree with some of what he says (that we have a police state in the US because of the patriot act...makes it sound like gulag) but for the most part he makes you think. Kind of a lengthy article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm

bithub
10-26-2005, 12:55 PM
interesting statistics (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-pollutioncomparisons.htm)
Those statistics were far more interesting back in 1992 when they were relevant. I'm currently paying $3.15 per gallon for gas which is a far cry from the $1.07 listed there. Also the absense of China and India in those statistics speaks volumes regarding how outdated they are.

novacain
10-26-2005, 07:35 PM
The real disgrace in Katrina was FEMA not knowing that there were people at the Convention Center.
I knew there were people there because I had seen it on TV (even though I live on the otherside of the planet) but no-one at FEMA did?
I suppose that FEMA knows you can't trust anything you see in the media.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002520986_katmyth26.html

I expect that these reports created quite a panic within the New Orleans refugees....





I think that the more powerful storms we are seeing is another piece of evidence that we are starting to have a detrimental effect the climate.

We have 'Global Warming' and now 'Global Dimming'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html

The combined effect appears to be that the earth is to trapping more energy in the atmosphere.

The storms are just this energy being released.

Govtcheez
10-27-2005, 06:36 AM
> To be fair to him, somehow or another it does need to be checked.

I never said that. I fully accept that global warming is real and exacerbated by our reliance on fossil fuels. I'll even say that the US and China are the top couple countries polluting. I was saying that I've never heard of such and "international pollution limit".

> United States 1.07

Haha, I wish. I paid 2.39 this morning, and was damn happy to do so.

> I suppose that FEMA knows you can't trust anything you see in the media.

It's just that damn liberal media, telling us what to think.

rockytriton
10-27-2005, 08:57 AM
I saw a couple articles today and yesterday about oil companies showing record profits last quarter. For instance shell was up 68% in profits, hmm... I wonder where all this money came from???? :confused: :mad: :confused: :mad: :confused: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

rockytriton
10-27-2005, 10:28 AM
oh, and here's another one, our good friend Exxon up 75%
http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=bus&src=202&news_id=bus-rob743705&date=20051027