Why aren't we raising hell about this?

[shereads]

Lady Jeanne...I thought I addressed that before.

In terms of the Patriot Act, we are at war. Nations during wartime enact legislation that temporarily limits some of the constitutional liberties we cherish. It is not a new thing.

The Patriot Act was made law long before the war in Iraq. If you are referring to the War on Terror, which is a continuing process like the War on Drugs or the War on Crime or the War on Hunger, then you are accepting a definition of war that is open-ended and you must accept that your civil liberties can be denied until the number of terrorist acts in the world is sufficiently low to meet a non-specific criterion. Will we receive our civil liberties again when there are no more Al Queda terrorists, or no more Islamic ones, or no more terrorist threats to the United States? Or does the War on Terror encompass acts like the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building? If we declare a victory in the War on Terror after a period without any Islamic extremist threats to the US and its allies, will it begin again in response to an IRA attack in Britain, or an attack by leftists against tourists in Peru, or the emergence of another anti-government bomber in the U.S.?

That question, and the issue of what constitutes a war, is what makes the Patriot Act objectionable. Its creators justified it as necessary to win a war that is so vaguely defined, it can ostensably be permanent.

 

[amicus]

Lady Jeanne...Shereads....this is fun...but after a few hours, a little tiring.

There is no doubt you love the ACLU and picture it as an honorable organization defending civil liberties and rights. Many do not see it that way. they see it as a left wing organization fighting to legitamize secular humanism in the institutions and laws of this nation.

As I said before, I am not an expert on the workings of the ACLU and have not conducted an in depth study of their agenda. Thus, much of my information and opionion comes from secondary sources. However, I feel certain that when I do a little research, I will be equiped to support my contention that it is, in fact and deed, and by agenda, a left wing organization intent on challenging custom and tradition in this nation.

While they have the right to do that, at least in this country, to pawn them off as being in support of some of my nearest and dearest rights, I think you stretch a point to incredulity.

I am well aware that you know the differences and use your subtlety well. While I support equality under the law, I do not support forceful implementation, such as forced school busing, mandatory hiring practices, quota systems (affirmative action) gay marriage, on demand abortion, et cetera.

I know of course that will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, there it is.

On the Katrina disaster; I have watched and listened to hours and hours of Cspan's coverage of the various hearings and investigations of all aspects of that event.

You want someone to blame, fine, grind that axe.

I personally think there is sufficient blame to go around, but I think it begins at the local level with an incompetent mayor and governor.

I have said many times that I do not trust government at any level. That being said, government still must function on the macro level or coordinating mass response to events such as Katrina.

There is room for criticism at Fema being relocated within the format of government to a lower level. It is apparent that the Director was a political appointee, in no way skilled or experienced in disaster management.

It has pretty much always been thus. FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Management. Managers are not always skilled in the actual meat of those they manage.

Further, FEMA is not the source for the equipment, supplies or services, they simply manage the distribution of those resources. Even private corporations sometimes bring in outside managers who are not experienced in the field.

I have attempted to respond rationally to your outbursts, but I guess I am goading two of your sacred cows, the ACLU and the Bush Administration, one you love, one you hate. So be it.

I listened to the investigations wherein FEMA prepositioned supplies of all kinds, in sufficient amounts, to meet the needs and were not given permission to move them forward by local authorities.

The same applies to the National Guard. Sufficient forces were nearby and prevented from moving into the area by local politicians.

The news reporting is suspect also. There were food and water supplies and Louisiana National Guard troops at both the Superdome and the Convention center. The news got it wrong, as they did by broadcasting reports of murder and rape at both locations; none occurred. There was one death in the Superdome, a heart attack suffered by a senior citizen as I recall.

Although news crews did manage to get a few vehicles into the area quickly, most roadways were flooded or destroyed and local communications facilities failed to provide alternate routes and permission for Guard troops and Red Cross units to enter the area.

Criticize all and whomever you wish, in most cases, the response was quick and overwhelming by all federal agencies involved.

As I have said, time and time again, I have no love for government or the Bush administration and no call to defend either on a general basis. But truth is truth and you play fast and loose with it far to often in support of your personal agenda.


amicus...

 

[shereads]

Lady Jeanne...Shereads....this is fun...but after a few hours, a little tiring.

There is no doubt you love the ACLU and picture it as an honorable organization defending civil liberties and rights. Many do not see it that way. they see it as a left wing organization fighting to legitamize secular humanism in the institutions and laws of this nation.

As I said before, I am not an expert on the workings of the ACLU and have not conducted an in depth study of their agenda. Thus, much of my information and opionion comes from secondary sources. However, I feel certain that when I do a little research, I will be equiped to support my contention that it is, in fact and deed, and by agenda, a left wing organization intent on challenging custom and tradition in this nation.

While they have the right to do that, at least in this country, to pawn them off as being in support of some of my nearest and dearest rights, I think you stretch a point to incredulity.

I am well aware that you know the differences and use your subtlety well. While I support equality under the law, I do not support forceful implementation, such as forced school busing, mandatory hiring practices, quota systems (affirmative action) gay marriage, on demand abortion, et cetera.

I know of course that will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, there it is.

On the Katrina disaster; I have watched and listened to hours and hours of Cspan's coverage of the various hearings and investigations of all aspects of that event.

You want someone to blame, fine, grind that axe.

I personally think there is sufficient blame to go around, but I think it begins at the local level with an incompetent mayor and governor.

I have said many times that I do not trust government at any level. That being said, government still must function on the macro level or coordinating mass response to events such as Katrina.

There is room for criticism at Fema being relocated within the format of government to a lower level. It is apparent that the Director was a political appointee, in no way skilled or experienced in disaster management.

It has pretty much always been thus. FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Management. Managers are not always skilled in the actual meat of those they manage.

Further, FEMA is not the source for the equipment, supplies or services, they simply manage the distribution of those resources. Even private corporations sometimes bring in outside managers who are not experienced in the field.

I have attempted to respond rationally to your outbursts, but I guess I am goading two of your sacred cows, the ACLU and the Bush Administration, one you love, one you hate. So be it.

I listened to the investigations wherein FEMA prepositioned supplies of all kinds, in sufficient amounts, to meet the needs and were not given permission to move them forward by local authorities.

The same applies to the National Guard. Sufficient forces were nearby and prevented from moving into the area by local politicians.

The news reporting is suspect also. There were food and water supplies and Louisiana National Guard troops at both the Superdome and the Convention center. The news got it wrong, as they did by broadcasting reports of murder and rape at both locations; none occurred. There was one death in the Superdome, a heart attack suffered by a senior citizen as I recall.

Although news crews did manage to get a few vehicles into the area quickly, most roadways were flooded or destroyed and local communications facilities failed to provide alternate routes and permission for Guard troops and Red Cross units to enter the area.

Criticize all and whomever you wish, in most cases, the response was quick and overwhelming by all federal agencies involved.

As I have said, time and time again, I have no love for government or the Bush administration and no call to defend either on a general basis. But truth is truth and you play fast and loose with it far to often in support of your personal agenda.


amicus...

Again, you're guilty of the thing you accuse us of doing: filtering facts to support your views. News reports are reliable when they support what you choose to believe, and are flawed when they contradict your beliefs. You know for a fact that help was delivered in a timely fashion because you saw it reported by a source you trust; other sources can't be trusted.

And you're wrong about FEMA always having been this way. I lived here during Hurricane Andrew, and although FEMA was limited in would it could do - and was facing a test of unprecedented scope - they performed well. They arrived on the scene at the same time the national media arrived, as soon as there were places to land or park or drop anchor. They coordinated the efforts of federal, state and local responders; i.e., "managed."

No doubt, there was bureaucratic red tape as in any large organization, and of course there were not enough resources to satisfy every possible need. No one can reasonably expect there to be. But if, as you imply, all administrations entrust political appointees with positions where experience could mean the difference between life and death, we couldn't tell by the way Hurricane Andrew was managed.

 

[shereads]

Shereads....this is a little off topic, but reading your last made me think of it.

Although I am and present my views as 'absolute', I do appreciate the necessity of opposites.

While I reject most of which you stand for and oppose it at every opportunity, it is that conflict between opposites that challenges one or both, to be more precise and accurate.

I find that this, 'Yin/Yang' observation appears valid in many aspects of life.

This may also shed a little light on my apparent misogyny, a love/hate relationship without a doubt.

I often over simplify issues, such as left and right, freedom and slavery, knowing full well that grey areas no doubt exist, even if only in perception and not reality.

Not that it matters, but when I stop and consider the past few years here on this forum, it is usually your s/n Shereads that comes to mind, although you do seem to have a royal hissy fit from time to time.

grins...


amicus....

Royal is the only kind of hissy fit that meets my high standards.

I must have you.

 

[Weird Harold]

On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center.

In 1969, I was at Lowry AFB for training. Even then, the Denver bus system ran some of their bus routes through government installations and ID checks were done at the gates instead of the two or three bus stops inside the base. In the case of Lowry AFB, an MP would ride the bus while it was inside the base to monitor those who weren't military to insure they did indeed ride through.

I don't know if she has a case, given that the ID check was at the gate of a government installation. The Denver Bus system used to have a "conditions of service statement" posted in the busses that ran through Lowry that required showing ID to the gate guards a conditon of being allowed to ride that part of the route -- even to pass through the base to the rest of the route on the other side of the base.

She probably would have a case, if not for the thirty-five-plus years of precedence for ID checks at the gates of government installations that Denver's public bus system has routes through and the terms and conditions of service notices she never bothered to read. (If they're still posted on the busses as they were thirty years ago.)

 

[Pure]

What's neat

about the folks who say they know the absolute moral standards, is to find two of them who disagree, and bring them into the same room (forum, or whatever).

E.g.

much pounding on the Bible vs much pounding on the Fountainhead.

 

[shereads]

about the folks who say they know the absolute moral standards, is to find two of them who disagree, and bring them into the same room (forum, or whatever).

E.g.

much pounding on the Bible vs much pounding on the Fountainhead.

That's a no-brainer, Pure. One of them is absolutely right and the other one is absolutely wrong. (Possibly due to the influence of Satan, or Lenin, depending on which side you're on.)

Read "Under the Banner of Heaven," which includes a jailhouse interview with a religious extremist (Mormon fundamentalist) who murdered his brother's wife and child because they posed a threat to God's plan. Asked how he is different from Osama bin Laden, he replies, "I serve the true God and Bin Laden serves a false God."