The disaster throughout the Gulf Coast has rightly captured the attention of Americans. Thousands dead and missing, citizens scattered in shelters throughout the region, overwhelmed state and federal services and the political fallout make for compelling coverage in the 24-hour news cycle. Thus shall pass the four year anniversary of September 11th, with few mentions and fewer reflections.
Perhaps this is how it should be. As a country, we've moved on. The terrorist mastermind responsible for that awful morning is still at large, and fighting continues in Afghanistan. A country that stood united, ready to shoulder any sacrifice is now turned inward, pledging support on telethons again for the victims of a preventable catastrophe.
Yes, I said it. Again, our government has dropped the ball, leaving citizens dead, homeless and unprotected. Twice in four years, our government has been warned of impending disaster. Twice there has been no response and Americans have died. This is a failure of a basic purpose of government.
Governments are formed so citizens have protection from outside threats they cannot control themselves. No matter anyone's political outlook, everyone agrees on this. Why else have government? Individual people cannot build fighter aircraft, interstate highways or flood control levies.
A search of pre-Katrina articles yields an astounding piece published just last year in National Geographic. In October 2004, the magazine predicts the aftereffects of a category III hurricane hitting New Orleans. Geographic predicted the damage, followed by flooding from levies unable to hold back the storm surge. Perhaps the article was ignored because the magazine also highlighted the loss of "barrier" land south of New Orleans due to overcontrol of the river. See, they were just alarmist environmentalist wackos.
The city of New Orleans had asked for additional federal money to shore up the levies. The Army Corps of Engineers had earmarked that program as a high priority. Instead, the federal government gave money for a multi-million dollar bridge to an island in Alaska inhabited by 50 people. Other pork-barrel spending in the last two transportation bills rivals that bridge in ridiculousness.
The left wing talking heads gleefully place blame on the administration. The right wing talking heads spin blame to the democratic governor and mayor, and decry the "blame game" as injecting "politics" into a terrible disaster. I agree. Politics has been injected into this mess, because our government is a political construct and our government is not following its basic "by the people and for the people" foundation.
Party does not matter at this point. Our elected officials have turned away from the reason they are put in power: to serve the people. Staying in power has become the basic purpose of elected officials, followed by doing favors, usually with the people's money, for their political friends. All of them, democrat and republican, need to go. Every single stinking, self-serving, pork-barrel spending, log-rolling, buck-passing, camera-chasing, incompetent elected official from the Vacationer in Chief down to the moron who didn't release city buses to evacuate New Orleans.
I've had enough of watching our government serve everyone but the people. I've had enough of watching people die because they don't have the political pull to get the government protection they pay taxes for. I'm tired of watching the ruling political class in this country connive to keep each other in power. The new parties should be the incumbents vs. The challengers, and I'm voting straight challengers.
Categories: Politics
33 comments:
The problem is people vote for the name they like better, or the more handsome candidate, or who represents their party. No one bothers to learn about a candidate before they pull that lever. The staggering number of people who are uninformed is inexcusable in this information age and it only stems from a disintrested and apathetic electorate.
This isn't about republican and democrat as jay said it is about qualified and unqualified, intelligent and unintelligent, thoughtful and thoughtless. After voting in the 2004 presidential election a staggering number of people were unable to match the candidate with their proposed policy.
Our government will be a festering pool of stagnation until the people of this government for and by them throw off the chains of apathy and take on their duty of electing the best representative.
...and that, my friend, is why I want to teach.
I agree.
I have no confidence in our governing leaders right now. Where is Janet Reno when you need her?
There is no excuse for spending money on a bridge that 50 people will use, instead of spending it on New Orleans. At the time congress passed that bill, none of our 2 and 6 year leaders realized that there would be a category 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans in 2005. Nice f***ing job Rick, Arlen, and Jeff.
A serious problem stands in our House of Representatives. The idea of giving the people more of a voice through more representation is a crock of poo. I don't know a single person that even remembers who they voted for in the House election. Maybe it's because no one cares... Hell, I could be elected into the House.
Maybe more stress needs to be put on congressional elections. It's their fault that 50 people in Alaska can make a monthly trip to the Wal-Mart Supercenter, but millions of New Orleans residents don't have homes.
People don't even think about what they are voting for in the Presidential election. Do you think the voters have even heard of the Congressional runners before they read their names on the ballot?
Our government is slow as molasses in a north-pole igloo. I really doubt Bush even looked over the bill to build that bridge in Alaska. He was too busy trying to figure out another bone-headed way to use the U.S. Army. (let's throw darts at the middle east...uh oh, I smell WMDs.) There is no use blaming the government for this. They won't realize what we are blaming them for until the next thing happens. They sure aren't going to fix anything until next time.
FYI, molasses flows faster when it's cold.
Are you serious? Damn. Blows that comparison.
A lot of people might get angry at this comment but I don't really care. I know that recently there has been loads of propoganda urging the american public to "get out and vote," even going as far as saying, "Vote or Die." That is absolute bull shit in my opinion. If you have no political opinion of your own; If you are voting soley on the opinion of friends, family, or whos name looks cooler, DON'T VOTE. The democrats want the minorities to vote. The republicans want the whites to get out and vote. YOU ARE BEING USED. They don't want YOU to vote, they want your demographic to vote. Government could care less about individuals. They want you as a number.
They need to totally abolish political parties in my opinion. Really what purpose do they serve? Instead of having party primaries, just have an all-candidate primary. The top two PEOPLE, not party representatives will be elected for their personal views and beliefs, not that of their party. And then the one most popular with the country, not the countries majority party percentage will be elected. WHAT THE HELL IS SO HARD ABOUT DEMOCRACY?!?!
Political parties are there cause no single person is able to raise sufficient ammounts of money to run a race thus needing the backing of a large heavily funded party. That is the reason for political parties. Oh yeah and people need to not be dumbasses. That would be nice.
Why should money matter? Shouldn't any and all citizens of the United States (exluding imigrants however under constitutional laws)be they rich or poor or whatever be allowed and capable of running for President? They spend their money on airing commercials slandering their opponents. Why is it that all of the money they raise personally is spent on being elected and re-elected, however when a huge hurricane or terrorist attack hits, they don't turn to those same people and ask for more donations when it really counts? People are not dumbasses. People are stubborn. You need to realize that change isn't always a bad thing. We need to start taking steps toward an un-corrupted, less gluttoness and uber capitalist society, and more towards a socially reformed deomcracy. Things can always get better.
Right now many presidents have the point of view I'm about to describe. But lets focus on W. He is playing the part of the mall security guard. He just sits around all day in his office. From time to time there will be a little problem he will look at it and act all tough. He can't just sit around and make sure everything stays in control. He needs to look at ways to make the country better. He can do it if he stops being so damned stubborn. Hell, anyone could do it. There is so much room for improvement right now in this country. Why is nothing being done? Why is he just sitting around, biding his time until his tenure is done? He isn't actually doing anything, other than just sitting around. We need to start moving as a country and people need to start actually having beliefs of their own. Then will the country become a more advanced society.
I feel that I must point out that our Founding Fathers did not want America to become a country of political parties, because they were afraid of what political parties do to a government system(correct me if I'm wrong, someone). I am not putting in any opinion here, just stating this. I don't want to pick a fight. Now, that doesn't mean I don't want to watch one...
If the Feds had gone in earlier before the state and local governing officials gave them permission, they would have violated the Constitution, and we'd be having a whole different discussion.
ok, now this is gonna be a looong opinion...
Why do most people belive that the federal government is responsible for just about everything? And what, when something goes wrong, suddenly makes the federal government responsible? Why does the federal government have to be responsible for so much in our lives. Some of us want a limited (national) government, really! The national government is not the be-all, end-all of our lives and should not be. This country needs to stop relying on the national government and start relying on itself, like it was meant to.
Why is there talk of a commission to investigate the federal government's response to Katrina? If the threat to New Orleans was such a big deal, why was there not a commission years ago, or even a month ago, before the hurrican even formed? Where were all the blame-gamers and investigators then? If there's more fault to be assigned, I think these positions could use a little:
1) Lousiana Congressmen- If those guys are getting 'outporked' by Alaska Congressmen building a bridge to nowhere while their largest city doesn't get money to keep itself from being destroyed, then I really think it's time they grew a pair and learned to stand up for something (no offense to any female congresswomen from LA). I'm sorry, but if it was really that important, they should have done something. Threatening other Congressmen with being responsible for thousands of deaths might have moved some dough, no?
2) Governor of LA- I've heard that she had complained about not getting enough troops in NO and blamed the feds. Helloooo- the state National Guard is completely under the governor's control until they release it! The Lousiana National Guard answers first to the Governor of Lousiana, not the president. So how is it Washington's fault that they didn't get enough there fast enough? Also for the governor, since apparently the state's congressmen in DC are too inept to secure funds to protect NO, why weren't state funds used? I haven't seen a state bugdet for LA, but I'm sure some people are now wondering why more money wasn't spent on levees. Again, the federal government is not the be-all, end-all. THINGS CAN GET DONE WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (just like to emphasize that).
3) The mayor of New Orleans- he's screaming at FEMA for not responding fast enough AFTER the hurricane. I think some people should be screaming at him for not responding enough before it hit. If he saw this coming, why wasn't the city evacuated? Oh, yes, he's doing such a brave thing, sacrificing his political career on TV, oh yes, feel the sympathy...wait...isn't the mess kind of his fault? I think there might be a few less bodies in New Orleans right now if a mandatory evacuation order had gone out, no? Or wait, why didn't the federal government issue one? Maybe because it's not the federal government's job! If people in Lousiana say that everyone saw this coming except for the Feds, then how come New Orleans was not evacuated? Local and state authorities issue those evacuation orders, not Washington. So how is this "entirely" Washington's fault again?
Whew. I think my point was supposed to be for a more limited national government and for other levels of government to step up to the plate for their own people. This is not an attack on what other people have said here, so please don't anyone take it that way. Also, this comment is not to be taken as that I agree and like everything the federal government is doing, either. Please do not twist my words around to attack me.
I'm going with foxbat.
Great ideals guys, but we live in a very very large and diverse country. Not a small european semi-socailist republic.(sure life may be great there, but that is not the USA).
To add foxbat. Could everyone please get out and examine any piece of legal tender. Now what is the name of the country written across the top... Right, the United STATES of America. Not the Republic of America. The first place where we will change our slow moving semi-corrupt governemt is with our states. The states control a lot more about your life then the fed does. Sure the fed makes a bunch of polices but it is the states the usually put policy into practice.
And FYI, LA and New Orleans are some of the most backwards and corrupt governments in the U.S. of A.
Hooray for bureaucracy!
"If people in Lousiana say that everyone saw this coming except for the Feds, then how come New Orleans was not evacuated?"
If people in Lousiana say that everyone saw this coming, why the hell didn't they get out of the way?
Everyone saw it coming. Everyone needs to get on some educational 'roids and realize that category 5 does not equal sit in the basement. Category 5 means get in your car and drive north. Maybe that will help with the voters. And the elected. Everyone needs to be smarter, that's all.
No Child Left Behind is a good idea after all...
Good point, Steve. I didn't catch that. I concur with you. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't try to ride out a Category 5 in New Orleans.
Not everybody had a car to drive north in. But the mayor wouldn't use his fleet of school buses to evacuate people--he insisted on Greyhounds and Trailways type buses. And Amtrak offered lots of free seats to people as they got their rolling stock out of town, but the mayor told Tim Russert yesterday that "he didn't get that memo." Seems to me the problem, like Bro X said, was right there at home.
Steve, don't get me started on No Child Left Behind.
Kirk, in response to what you said:
Why, if goverment should not be a critical part of our life, is the pledge of alliegence said every single day in school? Why are there acts like the Patriot Act? Kirk you can want to move more towards an anarchist society (which is just a governmentless society, not total chaos)however this is not going to happen. Government does control basically every aspect of our lives, or at least plays some small part in it. Yes we are the united STATES of america but we are also the United States of America, ONE NATION. It would be nice to have the states have more power I suppose, but it would be far greater for the individual to have more power. I think you can blame the Local officials. However, you have to remember that they were ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. Maybe, as I say yet again, we should put more thought into who we elect instead of just what party they represent. I just think there is a lot of room for change in our goverment today. Its time for new chapters in the history books in my opinion.
What do you have against the Patriot Act?
Are you a terrorist?
Then you have nothing to worry about. End of story.
It protects us innocent people from people like Adam Gadahn, Timothy McVeigh, Theodore Kaczynski.
By the way, the bill for the bridge for the 50 people in Alaska was during the CLINTON ADMINSTRATION.
I believe Drew that you are referring to the Libertarian Party, which focuses on individual responsibility rather than the government taking control of everything. Would that be a correct interpretation of Kirk's political persuasion. Generally conservative, but definitely not in line with the current adminstration, which believes in REALLY HUGE government.
I can't say that I agree with Drew's position that the president sits around all day and does nothing. He has an agenda, not mine (of course, that's obvious), but definitely has one.
You can point a lot of fingers at a lot of people. Manditory evacuations are challenging. How are you going to enforce leaving if people have no where to go and no way to get there, and more importantly no resources to help fund your way? What about the pets, and elderly/sick who couldn't travel. It's a complicated picture.
One of my biggest governmental pet peeves is the absense of primary prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Spending a little money to repair thh levee system before this would have been the most economical and simpliest solution. Why only plan a levee system to withstand a category 3 hurricane when a category 5 hurricane hit NO in the past. We do this all of the time in this country. Tertiary prevention is the most expensive kind because it isn't prevention at all!
I agree Emily, but I'm just emphasizing that you don't need to just make sure daily life goes on as it has, you can always find ways to actually make it better for the people, and not just the president and his daddy's friends.
Steve, back to the patriot act. You say that if we are innocent, we have nothing to fear. Let me put it this way. You are at home trying to sleep. There is a man outside your window. He is a government official. He is watching you, listening to you, marking down everything you do. You haven't done anything wrong, but the fact that you cannot go to sleep without someone watching you; you cannot talk to your girlfriend on the phone without someone listening to what you say; you cannot TYPE ON A BLOG without the government getting involved. Even if you are not doing anything wrong, you feel uncomfortable. Would you want a teacher standing over you watching you while you take a test? NO! Its not the fact that we aren't doing anything wrong, its the principle that we have rights as citizens of this "great democratic free society of America" that are being infringed upon. I don't want to even compare this to a Stalinst Russia, because its not at all that extreme. I don't want to say that its like George Orwell's 1984, because its not. But we are moving in that direction as opposed to the other, more free and self-supportive direction.
I'm sorry, but do believe that once the government's suspicions have been proved false that they will continue to monitor you in such a discrete way? I don't.
I don't care if the govenment watches me sleep, from a car outside my house. I just hope they don't mind me walking around in the nude in the middle of the night.
Please tell me what rights the government would be infringing on, because last time I checked, there is no "right to privacy."
That may be true, but don't you think there should be?
A "right to privacy" or the closest thing to it is stated in the 4th amendment to the Constitution (no illegal searches or seizures).
The government has to have a warrant or some well-held belief that you are up to no good in order to spy on you.
I'm not up to no good. I'm fine. I sincerely doubt that you are up to any "no good" that would attract the governments attention.
"Being up to no good" is too open to interpretation.
That's why we have the courts. To interpret everything.
The actual amendment reads as follows:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A bit more clear, though filled with jargon. I personally believe that the federal Government randomly bugging my telephone is "unreasonable." But I do see your point.
There is also a clause in the Constitution that says it is to look out for the general welfare of the people.
Article 1 Section 8 states that the government has the right to instate laws that are fair and proper.
Now, I see how the fair doesn't really cover the Patriot Act, but it does have the interest of general welfare for the people. Yeah it may be annoying to you, but what about some "questionable citizen" that lives two houses down? When they get to his phone, it will be a good thing, and it will be protecting you from that "questionable citizen." For as many setbacks and inconveniences the Patriot Act has, it is still justifiable. Yeah, it could be annoying to have someone tap your phone, but when the phone tap picks up something from someone else, it's a very good thing, and justifies the inconvenience it caused you.
All very good arguments you make Steve. The truth is, the Constitution was written very loosely more than 2 Centuries ago. It has been absolutely open to interpretation over the years and always will remain open to interpretation, thus allowing us to argue on a point endlessly. Anything in the constitution could be brought up in court. Most likely, the side that will win will not necessarily be the side that is "more Constitutional," or the side the founding fathers would have sided with, but instead the side with the better lawyer.
I will always feel that the Patriot act is a violation of my privacy and my rights. You cannot deny the fact that it is a violation of your privacy. However, you can argue that it is indeed protected under the constitution (which we just have argued about) and you can argue that it is in your best interest (which you have). This is one issue that doesn't necessarily have a right or wrong answer.
I concur.
Haw baut dem stellers?
Dem stillers were awesome this weekend. Here's to them keeping it up all the way to February.
(my word is "nikaa". sounds like some kung fu move)
Steve, the problem is. If the government decides that you are "Up to no good," you then are responsible for proving that you aren't.
I have found that one of the biggest headaches of being an adult is cleaning up messes that are the responsibility of others. I could name a dozen that have taken up hours of my time, but the most recent one was the car accident last September. We were offered money for "pain and suffering" or "Non-material damages," but then were responsible for arguing and documenting damages and problems. Twenty to thirty hours of hassle to "prove" something that wasn't our fault anyways.
Or what about the time that we got a non-existant ticket from the city of Pittsburgh. Our car was in Point Breeze on night at 5am (why weren't we invited). We got a notice of a 50$ ticket (b/c we didn't pay it). Jay had to waste 4 hours one day and 15$ in parking downtown to prove that we weren't guilty. The judge ruled that since we had no way to prove that we weren't actually there, we had to pay a portion of the fine. So basically, the city of Pittsburgh can make up parking tickets for people, send them to their homes, and then the people are responsible for "proving their innocence."
My point is, that (and please don't take offence as you will soon learn this) teenagers don't realize how much time,energy, and emotion you spend as an adult dealing with these little slights and problems of which you are truly innocent(at least I never knew because my parents dealt with it), but then you have to prove that you aren't at fault. (Another example, my mother was once sued by a passenger in a vehicle who hit her after running a stoplight. Yes, she was innocent, but what a pain to have to deal with!)
I can only imagine how much hassle it would take if someone was accusing me of some unpatriotic or extremist activity (think back to the MacCarthy era).
Sorry, I couldn't help but comment... very nice debate guys, and super cordial. If only politicians could play as nicely.
Have you ever seen a debate in British Parliament? That gets intense!
Post a Comment