Katrina Disaster

[Pure]

facts are always nice

(Note: I did not intend to focus the discussion on the NO police; rather simply to point out that various state and local authorities bear a portion of the blame. In relation to the preliminary figures below, I'd suggest that Chief Compass bears some responsibility. If about 400 are missing, and if (of the 400) about 200 declined to report (barring saving the life of one's family as a POSSIBLY valid reason), the Chief picked 'em and trained 'em.)


New Orleans police chief defends force where up to 200 'cowards' have deserted
Not since The Spartans at Thermopylae have a group of people displayed such courage under pressure as the New Orleans police department, the force's chief said last night at an emotional press conference. Only a few cowards, Eddie Compass said, had quit and run.

The outburst invoking loyal heroism, delivered with Jesse Jackson at his side, came in the wake of news that two of his officers had killed themselves and up to another 200 had apparently gone absent without leave. They were said to have been alarmed and dismayed at becoming a target of snipers and looters. One of their number had been shot, not fatally, in the head last week.

"All you could find was a few cowards," said Mr Compass, rounding on the media. When asked how many "cowards" he was referring to, he replied: "We don't know the numbers, we're doing a roll call now."

Mr Compass has become increasingly angry at rumours that his officers were fading under pressure. This was his first public rebuttal of the charges of mass desertion.

Guardian UK

---
Command Staff - Chiefs / Sheriffs Article:

http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/118579/

| Print this article | EMail this article to a friend |
09/06/2005

N.O. Chief Compass defends NOPD

MELINDA DESLATTE
Associated Press Writer

BATON ROUGE, La.- Fed up with reports of mass desertion and criticism of tactics, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass said Monday that his officers held their ground without food, water -- and even without ammunition in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
''In the annals of history, no police department in the history of the world was asked to do what we (were) asked,'' Compass said with a mix of anger and pride, at the emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, the first time he left New Orleans since the storm hit and the city descended into chaos.

Two police officers killed themselves. Another was shot in the head. Compass said had to be rescued from eight feet of water and others had gotten infections from walking through the murky soup of chemicals and pollutants in flooded areas of the city.

But Compass denied police officers deserted in droves, acknowledging some officers abandoned their jobs but saying he didn't know how many. He said the department was doing a roll call and he would know how many walked off the job within a few days.

At a news conference earlier Monday in New Orleans, Deputy Police Superintendent Warren Riley said between 400 and 500 officers on the 1,600-member police force are unaccounted for, Riley said. Some lost their homes and some are looking for their families, Riley said. ''Some simply left because they said they could not deal with the catastrophe,'' Riley said.

Compass said New Orleans had police ''who made the ultimate sacrifice for this city.'' ''We had no food. We had no water. We ran out of ammunition. We had no vehicles. We were fighting in waist deep water that was infected and polluted,'' he said. The looting and criminal activity involved a small group of people preying on the weak after being thrust into evacuation areas with regular citizens, Compass said.

And as for reports that police officers stood by while women were raped and people were beaten, the police chief responded, ''Are you crazy? We did everything that was humanly possible to protect human life.'' Without communication or lights, at night or inside dark buildings officers had to follow the traces of light made by fired weapons and physically wrest the guns from individuals' hands, Compass said. He said he didn't know how many people were shot by police since Katrina came ashore.

When asked what he thought of federal and state officials' response to the storm, he didn't offer criticism. ''I'm not a bureaucrat. I'm a police chief. Those type of questions I don't really answer ... We needed more resources, but those resources didn't come,'' Compass said. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

{note to Colly, at end}

a near clone of our friend amicus, 'cept Tracinski knows that objective arguments support a woman's right to choose.

TIA {The Intellectual Activist], where he(T) published, is a periodical he edits as an 'objectivist'; the periodical, at one time, had Rand's blessing.

There is more than a grain of truth in the article, as a descriptive level: housing projects do not bring out the best in people; many welfare schemes are self perpetuating. Of course his conclusion is wrong (do less, forget them); there are functioning 'unemployment schemes' that actual do re train and re assign (in Europe).

Tracinsky: There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two
populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to
live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the
deluge hit-but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from
two groups: criminals-and wards of the welfare state, people selected,
over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced
helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep-on whom the
incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city
government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city,
despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted
by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow
of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political
supporters-not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

Aside from the usual 'blame the victim' is the rather stupendous claim that the city was 'corrupted by the welfare state.' It's pretty commonly known that the poor states have the least 'welfare safety net.' So LA, like MISS, is undoubtedly among the stingiest in welfare.

On a factual basis, then, Tracinski is quite mixed up. IF welfare corrupts, the people of the Old South should be the least corrupted. He is making the case that LA is among the most corrupt. Probably it is, but that's just rampant greed, cronyism, graft-- the stuff of American politics. In effect, it's a kind of amicus/Rand 'free market', where buying and selling are not controlled, hence, say, buying a police department is just like any other sale.

But we can ask a similar question to T: Why the outlawry in NO, that is not, apparently, in MISS. Why the firing on medical helicopters.

People being poor, or formerly in jail does not seem to account for this.

It makes me think of Watts (iirc) where firemen were not safe. It makes me think of Somalia, as in Black Hawk down. Essentially there is reversion to 'law of the jungle' and competing gangs and local (would be) crimelords (warlords, as they were called in Somalia).

So I say, one fires on 'aid' persons and planes because they are not in ones control, and, they are likely aiding those without clear allegiance (to the gang in question). A gang wants control of the resources: in Somalia and Miss, the food. They are doled out first to the gang soldiers, then to supportive civilians.

The other factor, imo, is the 'nothing to lose' syndrome; blind hatred of the 'white state' by those utterly dispossessed and being left to die.

PS to Colly:
I actually do not think that many Mississippians, in the final analysis, agree with Tracinski. I'd suppose belief in 'charity' (doing something helpful), even 'Christian charity' are not uncommon. The Randian concept of a godless world where there is a 'virtue of selfishness' does not seem like Red State thinking. There is an overlap is the 'low tax', minimal goverment area--as a popular set of beliefs. But I think the average Mississippian is not averse to churches playing a role in supporting the poor in an emergency.

J,

I posted it because it's going around in conservative circles. I've recieved it from at least 15 different people. And it does have resonance. Not because of the Randyan view point, nor because of the racist undertones.

Simply because folks who came up before the idea that government was responsible for people can easily relate to the idea that people who are wards of the state have less interest in saving or rebuilding than people who own a home or a buissness do.

I have seen this particular phenomena in action. When Jacklson was flooded in 1979, those who rented in this neighborhood, came back, salvaged what they could and moved on. Some never even came back. Those who owned homes, were the first ones back in and the ones who worked the hardest and the ones who pitched in to help each other.

The article, will read differently to different people. It really depends a lot on what fundamental assumptions you as a person are making about how life, government, and people work. The slant, is almost completely infered as the article isn't written in superlatives. Doc & sher see a very racist slant, even though race isn't mentioned. Most of the older folks I've overheard discussing it, relate very strongly to the idea those who have no stake in a place aren't likely to give much thought to saving or rebuilding. A rayndian might well take away the point I think the author is striving for, that the welfare state is bad.

Whatever you took from it, you basically took into it when you read it. And I was trying, and apparently failing miserably, to say we all need to look at our base assumptions and then try to look at each other's base assumptions to see how people can start at te same place and end up with such wildly divergent ideas on it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

As an attempt to show you what that article made me feel, let me recast the whole thing from the other side.

Let's say I was posting something here, and I said: Here's an article that's being passed around up North. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but a lot of people around here believe it.

The article says: Everyone knows that the Gulf Coast of Mississippi is inhabited by rich white bigots who made their money by screwing people. They chose to live where they did, knowing the perils, and they're bastards anyhow. Therefore, why should we give them any sort of aid for rebuilding? They brought this upon themselves.

Let that sink in. Try to imagine that as a "serious" piece of journalism.

Now I ask you, Colleen, what would be your response to such a post? Rational discourse?

What do you think of these people who think that Mississippians are rich white bigots who made their money by screwing people? Do you honor their opinions and try to meet them halfway? Do you say, "Well, maybe they have a point," and try to see things from their perspective?

The analogy isn't perfect, I admit, but the sweeping generalization, the fixing of blame, the sheer wrongheadedness of it, conveys a taste of what I felt when I read that article.

Point taken Doc.

However, my point was not to ask anyone to accept the assumptions of the author, merely to try and see how they could be arrived at in a value neutral format. As a mental exercise, I could try to do that even with your hypothetical piece. No guarentee I could succeed, but I could try.

But so few are willing to try anymore. And that surprised me. It shouldn't have, but it did.

In any case, I'll say Mea Cupla. I was not as careful in chooseing an example article as I should have been.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I dunno. Just because you're a police officer, doesn't mean you can survive without food and water and sleep for days and days on end, especially if you're trying to save people and keep the peace and protect yourself from getting shot at and you're wading in 8 feet of water and you can't communicate with anyone and you just lost your house and everything and dead bodies were everywhere...

Were the cops really expected to hold down the fort indefinitely? Are we gonna start blaming the fire fighters and EMTs on the ground for whatever they did or didn't do, too?

We have no idea what individual officers had to contend with. They're people, not superhuman.

 

[Pure]

well, Colly, there is the old maxim "no one ever washed a rented car."

but the concentration of poverty in NO, a major city is the world's greatest military power, also bears explaining, no? and that would go beyond a Tracinsky type claim that NO is a magnet for the welfare dependent and lazy.

----
as to the calibre of T's thinking, I offer this. it seems a weird mixture of fact, Randian inferencing, and just plain la-la-land (see bolded part).

From his TIA daily, an essay of his, about Islam, in the mid 90s, after some terror attacks.

The Islamic world, by contrast, never had an Aquinas. Throughout the Middle Ages, the study of Greek and Roman science and philosophy had been more widespread in the Islamic world than in Europe. By the time of Aquinas, however, these philosophers were largely ignored and their works banned. While Europe experienced a Renaissance, the Islamic world rejected reason and science and lapsed back into primitive religious fanaticism.

Hence, the present-day Islamic prohibitions on the education of women and on the free expression of ideas, as well as the strict Islamic code requiring women to keep their bodies covered (lest they should excite men’s sexual desire), the prohibitions on alcohol, on music and art, and even (in some areas) on shaving or trimming one’s beard—which is considered a worldly luxury. These religious prohibitions outlaw every manifestation of man’s survival and happiness in this world.

America stands as a blatant affront to this fundamentalist outlook. Except for a few radical fundamentalists, Americans are secular; religion is not central to their lives. Predominantly, Americans embrace this-worldly values—wealth, physical beauty, sexual pleasure—and they base their intellectual and political institutions on rational debate and discussion.

In the intellectual realm, even those who attack reason (such as Kant and his present-day followers in academia) usually do so, not by citing religious texts or the pronouncements of prophets, but by constructing pseudo-rational arguments for their positions. In the political realm, America has enshrined free speech as a centerpiece of its political system, allowing decisions to be determined, not by the decrees of religious leaders, but by the persuasion of voters and politicians through public debate.

This is why America is the target of Islamic fundamentalists’ venomous hatred. America represents a dangerous example of secular values—all the more dangerous because it is successful and powerful, and because it exerts that power over the Islamic world. America broadcasts television programs like "Baywatch" to the illegal satellite dishes of Iran; it harbors "blasphemous" writers like Salman Rushdie; and it uses its advanced technology to crush Iraqi soldiers in battle. Menachem Klein, an expert on Islam at Bar-Ilan University in Jerusalem, explains the conflict this way: "Islam puts God at its center. The Western world, on the other hand, is concerned with liberalism, freedom, and democracy. It’s absolute heresy. And worst of all, from the Islamists’ point of view, this culture is increasingly successful."

It is natural that the Islamic fundamentalists would choose terrorism as their means of striking back. Consistent with their rejection of reason and secular philosophy, they have no arguments to offer. They do not regard religious ideas as a matter for rational discussion, but as a matter of pure faith. Thus, they have no other alternative but to choose force and terror as a means to punish the "infidels"—literally, those "without faith".

There can be no compromise or friendly relations with those who hold this ideology in any form. But just as they refused to recognize the vicious nature of Communism and sought a policy of detente, so our leaders now refuse to recognize the vicious nature of Islam and its irreconcilable conflict with the West. To see what our leaders do not, Americans must reject both the "politically correct" dogma of "respecting all cultures" and the timid fear of offending anyone of any religion. Otherwise we will be doomed to continue our self-destructive policy of appeasement and conciliation toward those who wish to destroy us.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Left vs Right

Oops. Posted this in the wrong place.

See the new thread, Left vs Right.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=14056718#post14056718

 

[amicus]

That Colleen Thomas felt the need to offer Mea Culpa, to seek forgiveness, for presenting a rational discourse in opposition to the overwhelming Leftist trend on this forum, is a sad comment.

One needs to recognize that the self avowed Leftists, like Pure, Mabeuse, Cantdog, Luc, Bullet and others, are as dogmatically tied to their ideology as are radical Muslims.

They 'believe' in the innate evil of the United States and the very concepts this nation has lived on.

There were Muslims that celebrated when the Towers fell four years ago, the are Americans who celebrate the Katrina disaster as an example of the failure of Western values.

They, without apology or scruples, use any example to broad brush black any American ethic or reason, rationality and respect for individual human rights.

Most Americans know deep inside that it is the individuals responsibility to provide for himself, his family. They know it is not the function of government to provide food, shelter, jobs, health care or retirement.

Most Americans know fully that human dignity is gained through self sufficiency and pride of possession of the means to survive.

The Leftist thinkers, since the turn of the 19th century, since the formal emergence of Communism in Europe, have steadily worked to incorporate the 'welfare state' as a way of life in America.

The Left basically created the vast welfare army of public assistance that dominated the lower class in New Orleans and dominates the lower class in all major urban areas.

An army of dependent people who look to government to provide their livlihood. Those who have acquiesced to being a ward of government have discovered that there is no self esteem and no individual honor in being reliant on government for their existence.

No one should feel the need to 'apologize' for taking on the Liberal Left that continuously espouses the welfare state and will stoop to any level to attack freedom and individual honor.

Yes, real Americans who cherish individual freedom are hoping that political means to reverse the century long trend to the left can be managed through elections and political appointments, especially to the Supreme Court.

We, the real Americans, want government back to what the Constitution intended, a small entity, limited in scope to the protection of those innate and unalienable rights ennumerated in that document.

So, no apologies to the lunatic left, boil the bastards in their own oils.

amicus...

 

[thebullet]

there goes Amicus off on one of his crazed diatribes.

And he calls everyone Un-American.

Amicus is very proud of his narrow mind, as well he should be.

It amazes me that he can fit so many words in a mind so small.

 

[amicus]

Nothing changes, theBullet can not present a defense and like a little bully goes around name calling, samo, samo. Nothing new, the Left has no defense, no argument, no position except to be in adolescent rebellion against everything.

 

[oggbashan]

I ought to feel sorry for Amicus. I don't.

I am sad that the disaster in New Orleans has caused such bitter infighting between people.

For those involved in the disaster as victims, as rescue workers, as police, engineers and yes even politicians, this was unimaginable in detail.

Forecasting that one day the levees might be breached was one thing - forecasting exactly what happened was very different. I am not sure that any country could respond instantly and efficiently to a disaster of this scale.

Things went wrong. Some acts could have been better with the clear view of hindsight. Much still has to be done but the effects will be felt for years to come. The US itself must be changed by the experience. I hope that it will learn from the compassion shown by communities across the nation reaching out to the victims and not learn to play the blame game to excess.

Whether I or anyone else could respond better than some of those on the spot? How do you know unless you were there?

It is better to try to help than to play politics over who was responsible for what. If the US ends up with a better resourced disaster organisation ready for whatever might happen in the future that will be a benefit. It will never compensate for the deaths and injuries.

Og

 

[amicus]

I ought to feel sad for Oggbashan and his fellow Brits...and I do for, 7/7/05 as when I visited London, I tread upon some of the sites bombed.

And the Brits too, will do a better job than shooting an innocent man 7 times in the head, or was it 8?

After the blitz of London in what, 1940, even before the US was in the war, Londoners were sending their children to safety in the countryside, just as those in New Orleans send their children off to safety and stay behind.

Yes, we will learn from events, we always do, in some cases better than others.

But very few took the occasion of the London savagery to attack the British government. So many here have used Katrina as an indictment of not just Bush, Fema, and the entire Federal apparatus, but America and our way of life in general and that, as stated before, I find despiccable.

amicus

 

[Pure]

Ooops, ami

A We, the real Americans, want government back to what the Constitution intended, a small entity, limited in scope to the protection of those innate and unalienable rights ennumerated in that document.

Neither "innate" nor "unalienable" rights are mentioned as such in the US Constitution.

Indeed such a philosophical stance is not appropriate to a constitution.

"Real American" are literate enough to know that 'inalienable' rights are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as coming from man's Creator, and are only three in number. They do not include a right to private property.

Further, since the Declaration precedes the present Constitution--and the existence of the present United States of America--by 13 years, afaik, it is seldom if ever invoked in matters of constitutional law.

 

[Liar]

But very few took the occasion of the London savagery to attack the British government. So many here have used Katrina as an indictment of not just Bush, Fema, and the entire Federal apparatus, but America and our way of life in general and that, as stated before, I find despiccable.

Dude, you seem to find anything that doesn't sing in perfect unison with your divine harmony despiccable. Or loathsome. Or sub human now and then.

The very key identifier of an extremist, that is.

That, and your claim of supernatural abilitites, like mind-readig. You must have that since you put values in the mouths of your enemies that they have never uttered nor hinted at, as well as knowing what most americans deep down believe.

Really, amicus, I enjoy having you here. Opposing views are what makes debates good. That's why it's such a bloody shame that all you do nine posts out of ten is raising walls of fallacies too ridiculous to penetrate, instead of actually debating.

 

[Pure]

Back to the horses, or upwards to Secretary of Defense? Supreme Court?

Michael Chertoff's Announcement


Published: September 9, 2005

Following is the text of a press conference on Friday afternoon by Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, as recorded by The New York Times:

SECRETARY CHERTOFF. Good afternoon.

The effort to respond and recover from Hurricane Katrina is moving forward expeditiously.

We’re not prepared to move from the immediate emergency response phase to the next phase of operations.

Importantly, we have to have seamless interaction with military forces as we move forward with our critical work in New Orleans, the surrounding parishes and in Mississippi and Alabama.

At the same time, we are still in hurricane season. We need to be prepared to deal effectively with the possibility of other hurricanes as well as other disasters, whether they be natural or man-made.

Therefore I have directed Mike Brown to return to administering FEMA nationally and I have appointed Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard as the principal federal official overseeing the Hurricane Katrina response and recovery effort in the field.

Joe Picciano from FEMA will continue to be deputy P.F.O. in Baton Rouge to support Admiral Allen’s effort.

Hurricane Katrina will go down as the largest natural disaster in American history.

Mike Brown has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge. I appreciate his work, as does everybody here.

I also appreciate the tireless efforts of the men and women of FEMA, many of whom were shoulder to shoulder with those who were victims of the hurricane and the flood, as well as the efforts of our federal, state and local partners. Vice Admiral Allen is doing an exceptional job, is working very closely with General Honoré who’s also doing an exceptional job. Admiral Allen has my full support in the very important work ahead.

Let me just make two other observations about what lies before us.

We have here on the ground some enormous challenges in Louisiana and in Mississippi. In addition to the situation in New Orleans as we continue with the process of evacuation, which remains very urgent, as we begin the process of cleaning up the city and the surrounding parishes, we are confronting very serious environmental problems and catastrophes based on oil spills and other kinds of environmental spills, both on land and in the water.

The E.P.A. and Coast Guard are working very aggressively to contain these spills and to begin the process of cleaning them up. But that is going to be a very, very significant challenge ahead.

 

[amicus]

Pure, Liar...were I penning a graduate thesis I would take the time to prepare a more layered presentation with the knowledge that those reading would rationally judge the content.

On this woebegotten gathering of Leftist, anti American extremists location, I am content just to wave a flag in your silly faces and watch you avoid and evade issues in favor of Liberal mantra.

Although I suspect it is beyond you, the self evident right that each human being has by simply being born to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit...is an axiom. Corollary to that axiom, that the 'means' to enjoy Life, Liberty and Happiness. e.g. the ownership of property, (food, clothing, shelter) are also basic human rights.

As you left wing pukes would have it, there are no 'absolute' axiomatic rights, all human rights are political fabrications, given or withheld by the current thugs in power.

Am I an extremist? Indeed so and quite proud of it. "Give me Liberty, or give me death..." That fellow was an extremist also and I am pleased to be in the company of such men.

It is the extreme nature of man that permits him to risk his life to defend his own and those who depend on them. It is the value that lies in the hearts and minds of the young men who have defended us from the Lexington Greens to the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans.

All values stem from human life itself and without the respect required for human rights and liberties, there are no rights.

That is where you various 'collectivists' 'statists', socialists and communists fall deathly short of understand the nature of man and the nature of his associations with other men.

You advocate the use of force to compel obedience to a common goal set by the ruling authority. Those of us who acknowledge human rights, acknowledge that the individual is the root of all rights and we act to protect those individual rights, even yours as you pronounce your hatred of the land of the free and the brave.

Bite me.

Throughout this thread, supposedly devoted to a discussion of a natural disaster, most of you have used it to fuel your own limited political antipathy towards the United States.

I just wanted to point it out.


amicus....

 

[oggbashan]

I ought to feel sad for Oggbashan and his fellow Brits...and I do for, 7/7/05 as when I visited London, I tread upon some of the sites bombed.

And the Brits too, will do a better job than shooting an innocent man 7 times in the head, or was it 8?

After the blitz of London in what, 1940, even before the US was in the war, Londoners were sending their children to safety in the countryside, just as those in New Orleans send their children off to safety and stay behind.

Yes, we will learn from events, we always do, in some cases better than others.

But very few took the occasion of the London savagery to attack the British government. So many here have used Katrina as an indictment of not just Bush, Fema, and the entire Federal apparatus, but America and our way of life in general and that, as stated before, I find despiccable.

amicus

Amicus,

A couple of points.

1. The evacuation of children in 1940 was ordered by our government. All our children went irrespective of race or wealth. Most of them came back voluntarily over the next couple of years.

2. No US police have ever shot someone by mistake? When suicide bombers were known to be operating in the vicinity? We will eventually be told exactly what happened by lawyers poring over events that took split seconds. It is easy to judge in retrospect. What happened was wrong and I feel sorry for the man's family. I can understand why it happened. That doesn't make it right.

3. My view is that had it happened in the UK, we could have been in the same position because we were equally unprepared for a disaster on that scale. That view is shared by many. Today there has been a conference in London to look at the lessons we need to learn from Katrina. The message from the conference is 'There, but for the grace of God, go we'.

4. When we had our flood disaster in 1953 we were unprepared. The response was slow and mainly by individuals on the ground at the time including one very brave GI who saved many at the risk of his own life. We could repeat 1953 tomorrow if the same weather conditions recurred. I'm not sure our response would be any better.

Og

 

[Liar]

Pure, Liar...were I penning a graduate thesis I would take the time to prepare a more layered presentation with the knowledge that those reading would rationally judge the content.

On this woebegotten gathering of Leftist, anti American extremists location, I am content just to wave a flag in your silly faces and watch you avoid and evade issues in favor of Liberal mantra.

Although I suspect it is beyond you, the self evident right that each human being has by simply being born to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit...is an axiom. Corollary to that axiom, that the 'means' to enjoy Life, Liberty and Happiness. e.g. the ownership of property, (food, clothing, shelter) are also basic human rights.

As you left wing pukes would have it, there are no 'absolute' axiomatic rights, all human rights are political fabrications, given or withheld by the current thugs in power.

Am I an extremist? Indeed so and quite proud of it. "Give me Liberty, or give me death..." That fellow was an extremist also and I am pleased to be in the company of such men.

It is the extreme nature of man that permits him to risk his life to defend his own and those who depend on them. It is the value that lies in the hearts and minds of the young men who have defended us from the Lexington Greens to the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans.

All values stem from human life itself and without the respect required for human rights and liberties, there are no rights.

That is where you various 'collectivists' 'statists', socialists and communists fall deathly short of understand the nature of man and the nature of his associations with other men.

You advocate the use of force to compel obedience to a common goal set by the ruling authority. Those of us who acknowledge human rights, acknowledge that the individual is the root of all rights and we act to protect those individual rights, even yours as you pronounce your hatred of the land of the free and the brave.

Bite me.

Throughout this thread, supposedly devoted to a discussion of a natural disaster, most of you have used it to fuel your own limited political antipathy towards the United States.

I just wanted to point it out.


amicus....

One: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/subsup.htm

Two: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Three: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

For starters.

This is getting old. I tried for a while, but I'm done trying to sift through the bile to find your message.

You're not the only one here pulling stunts like those by the minute, but you're the only one I've seen who tries to do it with a straight face.

 

[Pure]

confused?

Ami: Although I suspect it is beyond you, the self evident right that each human being has by simply being born to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit...is an axiom. Corollary to that axiom, that the 'means' to enjoy Life, Liberty and Happiness. e.g. the ownership of property, (food, clothing, shelter) are also basic human rights.

As you left wing pukes would have it, there are no 'absolute' axiomatic rights, all human rights are political fabrications, given or withheld by the current thugs in power.

Well, the US Constituion and Bill of Rights do not mention these 'axioms.'

But since you admire the Declaration of Independence (1776) so much, let me ask you a simple question:

Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[amicus]

Why do you not just display the courage to ask an honest question?

That question would be, how can one who does not believe in Santa Claus respect a document that refers to a Creator?

The world was full of religion away back then, you and I both know that.

However, should I choose to define 'Creator' as the evolution of the human species on planet earth, would you debate that also?

Still, my faith or belief or non belief, is not an issue. You constantly carp and avoid dealing with basic issues of human rights.

There have been critics of the American Constitution since before it was ratified, there are Constitutional scholars by the barrelful that attack and defend the essential intentions of the founders and framers.

Nearly 300 years later there are still some foolish few who prefer a monarchy or other paternal form of government to tell you poor little pukes how to live.

Quit lookin for your daddy to lead you through life and stand on your own ability and mind to make choices.

It really does come down to that. Grow up!


amicus...

 

[Liar]

That question would be, how can one who does not believe in Santa Claus respect a document that refers to a Creator?

The world was full of religion away back then, you and I both know that.

However, should I choose to define 'Creator' as the evolution of the human species on planet earth, would you debate that also?

I'm a lil curious too where Pure is heading with that. Toss him a "yay" or a "nay" and see what happens.


Ma and Pa and my Creators, cuz they did the special Ma-and-Pa-hug and made me.

 

[Guest]

According to an article in my morning paper, they fear a good number of those police may be dead.

I won't post the article as the web site for my paper won't display it unless you register, but apparently about 700 of the police were told to stay home until Katrina passed.

Now about 400 of those are unaccounted for.

I really think we ought to chill until we have a much clearer idea of what's going on. Better to do what we can to help, and pray for those who need it.

Go back to the police for just a moment, please.

How can they truly be blamed? For anything?

Many of them lost their homes. Their own families were scattered as they tried to help New Orleans citizens.

They tried to do their jobs, the ones they were trained to do. But after the flooding when they had no electricity, no transportation, no ammunition, no communication with their own colleagues, how in the hell could they?

Their job no longer existed. Instead, it was a war zone and the police were hopelessly outgunned and completely outnumbered.

They were facing an impossible situation. We don't yet know the numbers that may have died during the hurricane, but I imagine many more would have died after if they hadn't defected from this monumental cluster-fuck.

 

[Guest]

And ami?

You know you want me.

 

[amicus]

Only now and then do I get what I want, but....thanks for the smile.


amicus (who wants sweetsubsarah)

 

[sophia jane]

The first laugh I've gotten on this thread. Thanks Sarah (and you too, Amicus)

 

[Weird Harold]

Go back to the police for just a moment, please.

...
Their job no longer existed. Instead, it was a war zone and the police were hopelessly outgunned and completely outnumbered.

They were facing an impossible situation. We don't yet know the numbers that may have died during the hurricane, but I imagine many more would have died after if they hadn't defected from this monumental cluster-fuck.

Sarah, the job of the police still existed whether they had any hope of accomplishing it or not.

Please note, I'm NOT complaining about all of th 300-400 missing officers, just those characterized as "some just left."

Their departure contributed to the fact that the police who remained were "outnumbered and outgunned" -- which may or may not have been the actual case, but It's not much different from the situation most police departments are in everyday anyway; police all over America are always "outnumbered and outgunned."

It has been nearly 12 days since Katrina made landfall and any Police officer who wanted to could have made his way back to headquarters and added one more small bit of law and order to the City of New Orleans. Even if he stopped along the way to rescue someone or organize a group of surviviors there has been more than enough time for a police officer with any kind of commitment to do the job he was hired to so to have done so and still reported in for more.

Every police officer that died or deserted added to the chaos and problems in New Orleans. I can't fault the ones who died, but I can certainly fault the ones who deserted because their job was NOT gone and they were needed on the job more than any other time in their life.

Of course, my military background and the values I was raised with in the immediate aftermath of the Korean War are much different than the kinder gentler "no-fault" civilian society we have now, but I find I have no desire to moderate those prejudices whenit comes to someone who is hired to do a difficult job who leaves his comrades in the lurch when the job actually gets difficult. I don't expect a polie officer to be a super-hero or more than human, but despite the impression the media is portraying, the situation in New Orleans didn't require supermen, just ordinary human beings with a will to do whatever they could to help.