{OT} New Orleans Vs. Iraq

[robtronik]

I'll say it again: Its ridiculous to blame Bush for a Category 4/5 hurricane and the damage it did to the coast.

Secondly, the funding of the city infrastructure is primarily a state issue, not a federal one. Please note that the backup generators for the levee pumps did not work. That's a mechanical falilure that is hardly due to a funding failure. The funding is there to upkeep the pumps and they didn't work. Plus factor in a category 4/5 hurricane, a city that is under sea level, and you have a disaster waiting to happen. That's what happened folks.

Thirdly, there is no proof that any global warming has anything to do with Hurricane acitivity. These are bunk arguments for those wanting to politicize this natural disaster. (For those that care, the amount of hurricane activity has trended downward during the time that global warming has ostensibly been going up).

I like what Adonis said: No blame game, we should just help where we can (donations, time, etc.).

The anti-Bush thing makes me chuckle.

.02,

rob.

[robtronik]

American gas-guzzling SUVs, greenhouse gases, and the growing hole in the ozone layer probably didn't help, either.

As I said above, this not related to a category 4/5 Hurricane. Remember, the trend for severe hurricanes has been going down, not up - which does not mirror the trend of global warming impact. FYI.

From the NYTimes:

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's.

More data to consider:

http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/eu-e ... r-one.html


rob.

[Machinesworking]

More data to consider:

I read that, it was pretty obviously some sort of right wing blog thing? I tend to think that information gathered from either the far left or rights sources, is biased.

First of all, for the most part what people are saying is not that the hurricane frequency is on the rise because of global warming but rather that the intensity or wind speeds of the hurricanes are going up because of global warming.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 02,00.html

Funny how the spin put on statistics can affect what you perceive to be the truth. If you simply ignore that people are blaming global warming for more intense hurricanes, and counter with charts proving that the occurrence of hurricanes hasn't gone up because of global warming..........

BTW Time, to me, is very much a conservative magazine. I don't know what conservatives think of it, probably that it's not conservative enough......

I agree that GWB isn't responsible for the disaster per say, but I hope he does the right thing, and allocates a large amount of money and government resources to rebuilding the cities affected. We'll see I guess.

[computo]

Secondly, the funding of the city infrastructure is primarily a state issue, not a federal one. Please note that the backup generators for the levee pumps did not work. That's a mechanical falilure that is hardly due to a funding failure. The funding is there to upkeep the pumps and they didn't work.

Dude, you have NO clue what you are talking about.

We are talking about projects that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a city or state to fund.

whther you believe in Global warming or not doesnt matter. Those folks wouldnt be underwater if the Fed had funded proper safety measures.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 55,00.html

[robtronik]

safety measures or maintenance measures? State funding provides the maintenance of the pumps. I'm happy to be wrong, but show me otherwise with links to government budgets.

Facts are facts. The number and intensity of Hurricanes has gone down. Did you notice that I also included a quote from the NY Times which is certainly no "right wing" mouthpiece. IOW, two sources of different/admitted political preference saying the same thing. Now its speed of the wind? Okay... possible, but unlikely.

All I am trying to do is to get this ridiculous theme/meme of "its Bush's fault" off the plate.

rob.

[Jordan Vesteyo]

Djadonis206, Robtronik


Well put, totally agree with you guys...........

[robtronik]

Secondly, the funding of the city infrastructure is primarily a state issue, not a federal one. Please note that the backup generators for the levee pumps did not work. That's a mechanical falilure that is hardly due to a funding failure. The funding is there to upkeep the pumps and they didn't work.

Dude, you have NO clue what you are talking about.

We are talking about projects that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a city or state to fund.

whther you believe in Global warming or not doesnt matter. Those folks wouldnt be underwater if the Fed had funded proper safety measures.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 55,00.html

Ah, yes, Spiegel, a bastion of well reasoned and balanced reporting. I especially like the sensational headline:

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

TO PAY FOR THE IRAQI WAR.

This hilariously shows the opportunistic nature of the "reporting" to get a rise out of the intended reader AND also shows a fundamental misrepresentation of the government budgeting process (or at worse, represents a falsehood in order to get a rise out of the reader).

Love it. All of this stuff (both on the right and the left) really moves clicks and paper sales. Its all in the name of business you know.

I try to remain rational in all these things taking a grain salt from both sides and it should be noted that criticism is important. But let's make it rational at least. Otherwise its a partisan joke on all of us.

.02,

rob.

[Voodu]

I find the fact that anyone that lives in america (like myself) can defend George Bush very disturbing. Granted he is in no way shape or form responsible for the hurricane, however the fucker has done enough damage on his own.

The fact that I was in the military for four years may have my view skewed here, but I really don't understand why the fuck we are in Iraq. Every reason his whole administration has given to go over there has been proven wrong. Not that you would know by listening to GW's dumb ass because he never admits he's wrong about anything.

Let's discuss the reason we are over there this month. I say this month because the reason changes often. "the war on terror" Let's face it, that stupid prick is creating more and more terrorists every f-ing day over there. People still don't have basic human services, get killed at checkpoints...etc.

I'm really off topic here, and I rarely post on this forum, but watching somebody all gung-ho and cheerleading for George W really gives me a case of the red ass. He has not done one positive thing his entire time in office, and he will surely burn in hell for the 1000 + service people whose deaths he is ultimately responseable for. Not to mention god knows how many Iraqi civillians.

The fact that he got re-elected is nothing short of shocking and tragic, and also show's why our roads are so dangerous. They are full of fucking idiots...

[Diskclaimer]

AAAAARRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGH (pokes eyes and ears out with an ice pick)

[computo]

and the fact that all you people actually think he was legitimately elected proves how gullible you really are.

[computo]

Ah, yes, Spiegel, a bastion of well reasoned and balanced reporting. I especially like the sensational headline:

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

TO PAY FOR THE IRAQI WAR.

This hilariously shows the opportunistic nature of the "reporting" to get a rise out of the intended reader AND also shows a fundamental misrepresentation of the government budgeting process (or at worse, represents a falsehood in order to get a rise out of the reader).

Love it. All of this stuff (both on the right and the left) really moves clicks and paper sales. Its all in the name of business you know.

I try to remain rational in all these things taking a grain salt from both sides and it should be noted that criticism is important. But let's make it rational at least. Otherwise its a partisan joke on all of us.

.02,

rob.

Pay for the Iraq war?

You are going to try and defend THE definitive cause of the American Financial shortfall, in the face of the people effected by this disaster?

"Yeah, uh, sorry folks, all the money and manpower that you are guaranteed in the time of an emergency is oversees right now, so....sorry. Go ahead and loot, if you have too. "

Oh, and the jibe about finding the government budget reports to prove the Feds were the ones who are supposed to pay flood protection? Thats funny...As if I give a fuck about proving the validity of this story to you...laughable...

I find it hilarious, that you run through every reason that there isnt funding, and they're all Bush-inspired reasons...

[atmofunk]

the thing i find funniest about people's arguments regardinglack of preparation is that in reality, we can't really prepare ourselves... not against something like that...

Sure, we could shore up the beaches, but then maybe an earthquake will sneak attack and level the city. What then? People will start criticizing the lack of preparation in case an earthquake struck.

Oh but wait... city X has earthquake proof buildings, and has protected it's shoreline... shit.. a friggin volcano just exploded! Well damn... blame the government on that one for not having special lava-channeling reservoirs.

case in point : mother nature does shit without warning. We as humans can *try* to be ready for disaster X, but there's really no science behind it. in the end, somebody is gonna get screwed one way or another lol

[computo]

and finally,

At least we're placing blame in a reasonable direction...

the israelis-
http://www.jnewswire.com/library/articl ... icleid=676

the christians-
http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html

lovely

[computo]

atomfunk, why dont you tell that to the people of Amsterdam?

They, mcuh like NO, live beneath sea level. There are damns, dikes, plently of protection. There is TONS that can be done to prepare. For instance, why are they still sandbagging now? they should have been doing that DAYS in advance.

And a Volcano?

Please excuse yourself, before you make a bigger jackass of yourself.

If Volcanos started erupting in places where there are no Volcanos, then there would be a lot crazier shit going on than a natural disaster. That would be a physics disaster.

[atmofunk]

not gonna argue with you about that computo, but obviously my point was lost on you. At any rate, i'll reiterate:

you can't predict mother nature. You can only prepare so much. if you take into account every single POSSIBLE scenario that could possibly happen to any given city then, well.. peopel will be living under forcefields and glass bubbles... By no means did I mean that we shouldn't do anything..

Personally,i think they shoudl be erecting 100 foot high metal barriers up and down the west coast from Vancouver BC to San Diego cuz who knows when the next tsnuami is gonna hit. I'll bet you anything when it does people are gonna complain about how unprepared we were. And this is the true root of my point:

You never know how prepared you needed to be until the shit hits you in the face. It's all retrospect. go ahead and prepare for hurricanes, but what if a hurricane hits that's 100 times the size of any other hurricane ever seen? What then? Do we complain about being unprepared? No, we learn from it and are ready for the next time. butthere's no way we can predict it until we've seen the worst of it. that's all i'm trying to say.

i just thought the hurricane in Louisiana was "just another south eastern US hurricane" -- as did most people i know. they get them all the time. To a degree, they *are* prepared. But I didn't realize until afterwards that this was fucking HUGE... dunno if i should say unprecedented, but holy cow.. did anyone really see this coming?

for what it's worth, my previous reply had my tongue planted firmly in cheek as i tend to use extreme examples to either make someone laugh or drive the point forward in a sarcastic tone (and there's a lot of it here as well). Sorry if you took it the wrong way.