sda2.jpg

September 2, 2005

Trudeaupiate

The President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus has a blunt, and timely message for Europe, and by extension, for all western governments and those who elect them.

The question is what kind of ideas is favoured by the intellectuals. The question is whether the intellectuals are neutral in their choice of ideas with which they are ready to deal with. Hayek argued that they are not. They do not hold or try to spread all kinds of ideas. They have very clear and, in some respect, very understandable preferences for some of them. They prefer ideas, which give them jobs and income and which enhance their power and prestige.

They, therefore, look for ideas with specific characteristics. They look for ideas, which enhance the role of the state because the state is usually their main employer, sponsor or donator. That is not all. According to Hayek "the power of ideas grows in proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness". Hence it is not surprising that the intellectuals are mostly interested in abstract, not directly implementable ideas. This is also the way of thinking, in which they have comparative advantage. They are not good at details. They do not have ambitions to solve a problem. They are not interested in dealing with the everyday's affairs of common citizens. Hayek put it clearly: "the intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties." He is interested in visions and utopias and because "socialist thought owes its appeal largely to its visionary character" (and I would add lack of realism and utopian nature), the intellectual tends to become a socialist.

In a similar way, Raymond Aron, in his famous essay "The Opium of Intellectuals", analyzed not only the well-known difference between the revolutionary and reformist way of thinking but also - and this is more relevant in this context - the difference between "prosaic" and "poetry". Whereas "the prosaic model of thinking lacks the grandeur of utopia" (Roger Kimball), the socialist approach is - in the words of Aron - based "on the poetry of the unknown, of the future, of the absolute". As I understand it, this is exactly the realm of intellectuals. Some of us want to immediately add that "the poetry of the absolute is an inhuman poetry".

[...]

Fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become - under different names, e.g. the welfare state or the soziale Marktwirtschaft - the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution.


In Canada, the "poets of soziale Trudeapia" are running amok.
Health Canada is calling for a change to the law that prevents peers and nurses in the city's sanctioned safe injection site from helping people inject.

Health care workers can only supervise and offer medical assistance if a user hurts themselves and gets sick or overdoses.

If nurses help an addict shoot up, they could be charged with possession or trafficking.

"We need them to help," said Ms. Tobin.

"And we need more places like the safe injection site. It's so busy now, it's being used all the time and people are sitting on the street, getting people who don't know what they're doing to inject them."


In today's modern, increasingly socialist democracies, nanny-state legislation (if it saves one life!) and cradle-to-grave "social safety nets" are the opiate of the middle class, while the politics of race and identity, envy, and "social justice" are the stock and trade of the economic underclass.

The net result is a society of entitlement that absolves the individual of personal responsibility and creates an illusion that consequences are made to be avoided. There is always "failure of society", a previous generation, or corporate dynasty at whose feet the blame for personal failure lies, always someone else with more "ability to pay" to pick up the tab.

"They owe you" .

Consider a city built, unwisely, below sea level, protected by massive levies and powerful pumps provided by the state, maintained by the state, with all the apparent permanence of the state.

In the unthinkable event that those fail, experts and engineers plot strategies for worst case scenerios. They conduct disaster drills, with fake victims and fake blood. The state provides modern highways and mass transit, and communications systems and weather satellites.

Then, when the day comes that the unthinkable becomes possible, the planning and technology move into high gear. Government officials, with the assistance of private and public media, warn of a tremendous hurricane as it grows in strength. The images are available world wide as satellites track its path, and local TV records the destruction of those it has already battered.

Government officials and elected leaders urge the citizens to evacuate to save their lives. They warn of the scope of the impending storm and the potential of devastation. They mobilize and priorize. Hospital staff stay on duty to care for the sick and infirm. The doors to the largest facility available that may withstand the storm are opened in hopes that those who had no way of escaping, or somehow learned of them too late, can find refuge.

And tens of thousands ignore them and remain in their homes.

Many of them have cars parked in their driveways. Many who don't are able-bodied and capable of walking. They ignore the warning and simply remain where they are, though they have children and elderly in their care.

With the storm passed, the waters rising faster than the heat, electricity failed and supplies running out, when the truth begins to dawn on the survivors - that the state is not all-powerful, that the mere human beings charged with coming to their aid,are, in fact, mere human beings who cannot come sweeping to their rescue like the cavalry over a Hollywood hill, that there are so many to rescue, because like they, so many have ignored the warnings - do they pool their resources?

Do they find strength in human dignity and sanctity of life? Do the strong come to the aid of the weak? Do they summon patience and resolve in the knowledge that help is on the way, if only they can find the courage to help themselves a little longer?

What is their response to this consequence that has befallen them, a consequence largely of their own making?

"You owe us" .

They take what others have failed to provide, those things required to sustain life - jewelry and television sets. And when taking isn't enough (it never is), they devolve into predation and anarchy, abandon the weak, turn upon the innocent and each other - and all in a matter of days.

In former times entire nations found the strength to rise to the occasion, ordinary people understood that survival depended on their shared common decency and respect for their fellow citizen. That, by co-operating and persevering, they might create coping mechanisms through pooling skills and resources, and to be sure, the majority of those trapped in New Orleans will have done just that.

But, in former times, whole nations were not living in a time of entitlement, where all and any are provided for by an all-encompassing "social safety net", funded by those faceless others with more, who have life easier, whom we have been trained to envy.

Those human failings, irresponsible and anti-social behaviors that once brought consequences in the community - shame, ostracization, and deserved personal deprivation - are today excused, assigned new and neutral nomenclature (all the better for medical diagnosis), prescribed "tolerance", and if possible, assigned the politics of race or class, so that collective guilt may be mined to ensure that self-destructive behavior gains not only acceptance, but state funding.

The predatory violence and anarchy befalling New Orleans is not the result of a freak convergence of forces brought on by unnatural disaster.

It's a warning.


(See also: American Spectator: Masques of Death)


Posted by Kate at September 2, 2005 8:11 PM
TrackBacks

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/1303-.html from Maggie's Farm
From Kate at small dead animals:Government officials and elected leaders urge the citizens to evacuate to save their lives. They warn of the scope of the impending storm and the potential of devastation. They mobilize and priorize. Hospital staff stay on [Read More]

Tracked on September 2, 2005 3:13 PM

Raymond Aron from Plato's Stepchild
Because Small Dead Animals mentioned Raymond Aron, I'm linking you to Roger Kimball's May 2001 article in the New Criterion on Raymond Aron. I very much like the politically incorrect stogie pictured below. I am also linking you to the [Read More]

Tracked on September 3, 2005 12:41 AM

Diagnosing New Orleans: a Canadian Perspective from protein wisdom

In former times entire nations found the strength to rise to the occasion, ordinary people understood that survival depended on their shared common decency and respect for their fellow citizen. That, by co-operating and persevering, they might c...

[Read More]

Tracked on September 3, 2005 1:46 AM

Houston Responds from The Colossus
In the midst of all the insane media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, there are a few stories that need to get out. The city of Houston is helping in every way it can. I found this comment on Jeff Goldstein's site; where the political ramifications of th... [Read More]

Tracked on September 3, 2005 11:16 AM

If Kanye West Is Racist from Cobb
If Kanye West is racist, then so is every reader of Dean's World. [Read More]

Tracked on September 4, 2005 9:55 PM

Dispatches from a society of entitlement from Tart Cider
CNN's Drew Griffin (scroll down to 6:24pm): I am stunned by an interview I conducted with New Orleans Detective Lawrence Dupree. He told me they were trying to rescue people with a helicopter and the people were so poor they... [Read More]

Tracked on September 6, 2005 7:31 PM

Entitled... to your wrong-ass opinion. from On the Fence
To paraphrase: The poor folks who stayed or were stuck behind in New Orleans did not follow government directives to evacuate, because they are too reliant on the government. What? What!?! [Read More]

Tracked on September 7, 2005 8:10 PM

Comments

Nice to see our own Fraser Institute credited in Mr. Klaus' bibliography.

Posted by: kdl at September 2, 2005 11:11 AM

You have been watching the demise of a great nation for decades. It is being brought to it's knees by political correctness and multiculturalism, by creeping socialism and growing demands that the state provide all. It is a gigantic battle taking place now for America's future. The world is a spectator to an ancient Rome; the decline is not certain but no longer abstract. The fight is still on.

Posted by: Paul at September 2, 2005 11:26 AM

One of the best posts ever Kate!

The opiate of the elite is unaccountable pwer, prestige and absulute conformity to their ideas.

In Canada this cloistered illuminati is an extention of the "natural ruling party" and promoters of the single party state. This clique of political/academic elites (the master ukase) , are a integral wing of the federal Liberal political cartel.

They seem to celebrate diversity in everything except opion, ideology and political debate.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 2, 2005 11:41 AM

Truer words have never been spoken, although we all know it is GW's fault. Now that the MSM have run out of "exclusive" coverage of mother nature's damage, they are all wondering aloud why there is not a guardsman (err, person) on every street corner. The race card is coming out as well as the social-economic (sp?) class struggle. In the midst of all this there is some glimmer of hope. There are actually some stories leaking out of people helping people, family giving their whole house for others to use and complete strangers lending assistance.
The question now is:"What have we learned from this?"

Posted by: Texas Canuck at September 2, 2005 11:43 AM

Paul; it is not just the US we see crumbling; it is Western democracies in general. Kates essay is absolutely right on. We as citizens do not feel a sense of personal responsibility anymore. Our personal integrity has dropped and our sense of entitlement has exploded. Look at our health care system in Canada. What gets me the most is the United States government will still stand up and make difficult decisions and is therefore resisting the tide much better than Canada whose leaders won't make any decisions without doing a survey to determine wind direction. Can you imagine Canada's response to a tsunami on the west coast.

Posted by: Dave at September 2, 2005 11:44 AM

I should think that the leftists would be all excited about the disaster in New Orleans. We're just watching Darwinism and Evolution in action in N'awlins right now, yes? They should be encouraging Bush to keep the troops out so as not to interfere with a natural process.

Posted by: Sean at September 2, 2005 11:48 AM

In one corner...

A BATTERED CITY’S NO-NONSENSE LEADER
NEW ORLEANS MAYOR IS THRUST INTO SPOTLIGHT
By SHAWN MCCARTHY
September 2, 2005

...Mr. Nagin has approached this crisis as he approached his job all along: with methodical determination and a no-nonsense style.

Earlier this week, he faced a group of anxious residents who had taken refuge at the Hyatt. They wanted reassurance and a sense of when they could return to their homes and resume their lives. He offered no sugarcoating.

"You need to listen very carefully," Mr. Nagin told them. "For the next two or three months, in this area, there will not be any commerce at all. No electricity, no restaurants. This is the real deal. It's not living conditions."...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050902/STORMNAGIN02/TPInternational/TopStories


and in the other corner...


HURRICANE KATRINA EXPOSES
RACISM AND INEQUALITY
By Lee Sustar
01 September, 2005
Socialist Worker

Decades of official neglect, racism and the impact of global warming magnified the destructive impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and other parts of the South….

..."Affluent white people fled the Big Easy in their SUVs, while the old and car-less--mainly Black--were left behind in their below-sea-level shotgun shacks and aging tenements to face the watery wrath," activist Mike Davis wrote of the evacuation plans for Ivan. "New Orleans had spent decades preparing for inevitable submersion by the storm surge of a class-five hurricane. Civil defense officials conceded they had 10,000 body bags on hand to deal with the worst-case scenario. But no one seemed to have bothered to devise a plan to evacuate the city’s poorest or most infirm residents."...

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-sustar010905.htm

Posted by: JM at September 2, 2005 11:53 AM

Best article ever, Kate. Less Kumbaya, more tough questions are needed right now.

Posted by: Anonalogue at September 2, 2005 11:53 AM

Kate, good post but I should point out that evacuation is not always possible or desirable.

If a similar calamity were to befall Toronto, I have two very elderly (80s and 90s) relatives here who are ill and have zero mobility. One of them, although she cannot feed herself, get groceries, or remember what medication she is supposed to take, is still deemed healthy enough by her doctors to remain at home alone. (She is not alone, though, I'm constantly around to help her.)

In a situation like NOLA where streets are impassable, food and water nonexistent, I would be very reluctant indeed to evacuate, knowing that these two relatives would be forced to remain behind. They cannot even walk up their own stairs let alone trek across a city on foot. For their sake I would have to remain behind to render whatever assistance I could. I could not evacuate and condemn them to certain death.

Posted by: Chris Taylor at September 2, 2005 12:13 PM

Chris - Bush declared a state of emergency two days before Katrina hit. Those who had elderly family members at risk had a responsibility to move them, if they had any means available whatsoever.

I understand that not everyone had those means - but that is the purpose of the post itself. The social decay of New Orleans is responsible for the scale of this disaster - the hurricane was just the catalyst.


Posted by: Kate at September 2, 2005 12:26 PM

Vaclav Klaus's piece is excellent.

Was it only me that could'nt shake a scary mental picture of the "Intellectual" personified as John Raulston Saul and his wife ex GG Her Eminence.

Agreed, Best post ever Kate !
Couldn't agree more.

I have a feeling that this storm somewhat like the OJ trial will further divide, not unite North Americans.

Posted by: richfisher at September 2, 2005 12:28 PM


Over the past 36 hours, I have been watching
video clips of people chanting "We want help.
We want food". I found myself wondering what
they were doing there? They had time to
evacuate; if they were going to stay, why didn't
they stock up on food and water?

I also wonder at a city staff that tell people
to congregate in large buildings and not make
provision for water and sanitation.

I also wonder at FEMA pleading they didn't know,
although it was on CNN. I wonder at the absence
of martial law.

But most I wonder why the city wasn't evacuated
by the city or the people.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at September 2, 2005 12:31 PM

The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana are Democrats, members of a political party that is historically renowned for corruption in that state. They've done nothing before this catastrophe except keep their voting constituency poor and minimally fed with deeds and maximally fed with promises and resentments. It's a culture of helplessness with government as more the benefitted rather than the benefactor. What we're witnessing, as history reveals how it has occurred in the past, is the frailty of feudalism. The elites need their serfs to rule, and will abandon them to fate when dire circumstances ensue. The Leftist elites that rule Canada would cower and wail in the same manner as the Louiiana officials have done if a catastrophe crashes their house of cards. As the saying goes, "The truth will out."

Posted by: Jeff in Pullman, WA at September 2, 2005 12:48 PM

Absolutely perfect analysis, Kate.

Posted by: ET at September 2, 2005 12:51 PM

Some practical hardware thinking; [No time for the pleasure of ivory tower artsy - fartsy theory]

I have suggested a drug - rehab centre in the far north before, but not with this twist.

A cooperative *U.S. and Canada*, drug recovery complex up north in the NWT.

We have cooperative Military sites in the North and they work just fine.

The Mayor of New Orleans seemed broken with his inability to contain the horror of crazed and armed drug addicts breaking into pharmacies, Hospitals and medical centres to make up for their lost connections. They were committing rape and murder, as well as looting.

What is Vancouver going to be like when the next big quake hits and with tsunami flooded streets, our crazed junkies go on the rampage looking to take the *edge* off?

Even on Vancouver Island here, the police scanner makes it clear that the druggies gang is growing.

The shoot-up Centre in Vancouver's Gas Town is a limp-wristed effort by City Hall to get a good number of junkies off the streets in time for the coming world games.

They don't give a damn about all the dying addicts. Drug re-hab places simply do not work very well in Cities. There is no way to control the drug flow.

In the NWT one only has to keep an eye peeled for aircraft or helicopters dropping small packets. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 2, 2005 1:00 PM

Yes, a most excellent essay, Kate!
Events such as these that shine a cold, clear light on the real effects of creeping socialism should be an education to all. Unfortunately I fear a majority of people will not see the connection between their political philosophy and real world outcomes.
When discussing socio/political issues with others, I usually run into a problem of the scales people use. Most people conciously or unconciously see the social choices on a scale consisting of Left and Right, the extremes being being ant-like communism on the Left and jack-boot fascism on the Right. Hence the success of politicians claiming to occupy the "middle ground". When I have used another "scale", specifically totalitarianism on one end and anarchy on the other, the "middle ground" choices people make are frequently quite different. Personal freedom and responsibility come to the fore. One scale is based on statism, the other on human beings.
I may be pissing in the wind here, but I think the reason many otherwise intelligent and rational people make bad choices is based on an incorrect world view. Thoughts, anyone?

Posted by: Mad Mike at September 2, 2005 1:04 PM

Actually, Mike - jack-boot fascism is also the traditional territory of the left. It's just that when they get caught, they get busy reassigning the dictators their ideology spawns as "right wing".

The hard right in my view, is more akin to Ayn Rand objectivism, in which government provides only minimal services, and individuals number one responsiblity is to themselves and for themselves, and by extension to the support of a healthy, self-sustaining society.

This is why I scratch my head when others use "right wing" as a perjorative.

Posted by: Kate at September 2, 2005 1:11 PM

I dunno, Kate. I guess I basically agree with the overall theme here, i.e. "civil society isn't faring that well".

But you start by arguing that the intellectuals have gotten us into this mess; then move to the topic of Katrina, and argue that the underclass screwed up by not listening to the experts. It looks like pulling on both ends of a rope to me.

At least the assumptions of the underclass, under your characterization, are consistent: last month they assumed someone else would look after them, and they still believe that today. It's the message to them from above that's changed.

Can you think of any (say) politician who has ever admitted, "When worse comes to worst, and in the end, you're all on your own, and we can't help you"? Before Tuesday, anyway? This kind of frank acknowledgement of reality, if it was stated on some kind of regular basis, would seem to be a necessary precondition for wider self-reliance by citizens as a whole.

Posted by: Matt at September 2, 2005 1:11 PM

I suggest you read the entire Klaus piece, and not just the quotes.

:)

Posted by: Kate at September 2, 2005 1:13 PM

Comprehensive and well written - a masterpiece Kate! This post should be in every Canadian and American newspaper, on the frount page. People who choose to throw their freedom away in favor of being "kept pets" of control freaks are setting themselves up for abandonment.

Posted by: Jema54 at September 2, 2005 1:29 PM

"...because the state is usually their main employer, sponsor or donator. - ...the intellectuals are mostly interested in abstract, not directly implementable ideas." Hayek

Edwina, you must have passed something when you read this? Is it hard to espouse conservative values while at the same time depending on the largesse of the federal Liberals? Isn't there a word for that?

Kate, I have to say that you view of the big picture is absolutely first rate. I dare any MSM paper to print that on the opinion pages. Thank you for a good read.

Posted by: Maple stump at September 2, 2005 1:30 PM

Kate; As much as I admire your succint posts, this effort was superb. How about every Friday, as a special treat, run up another post of this length.

Posted by: rebarbarian at September 2, 2005 1:33 PM

OK Kate, I read the whole Klaus piece. It's very good, and I think your excerpt is pretty representative. Again, I think the point that our politicians, leaders, "intellectuals", whatever, have done society a disservice is a good one.

The logical segue from this should really be, "No wonder the underclass behaves so dependently!" Shouldn't it? Whereas I read your post as also being very critical of the underclass that didn't do what it took to leave, and it undermines or even contradicts the broader point.

However, judging by the rest of the comments, which amount to a bunch of sloppy kisses, I may be misreading you. What can I say? :)

Posted by: Matt at September 2, 2005 2:06 PM

Politicians exploit the dangerous ideology of intellectuals, by creating classes of people divided by race, by "sexual orientation", by gender or culture or whatever other identity they can use to shoehorn their message of intitlement to. They create a dependancy on the state with the false message that the state can always provide.

They tell people (aided and abetted by the afore mentioned intellectuals) that they are not responsible for their choices, that they are being held down, or held separate, and in so doing, ensure they are further hindered from finding their own solutions and joining the rest of mature society.

That's been going on for generations. The more dangerous development is more recent - it's a message to the middle class that they too, are entitled. This time to the earnings of their fellow citizens, and more importantly, corporations and the very successful, that their need for ever more expansive social programs - think medicare, federal child care, are the responsibility of government.

The problem is that it doesn't work, and like any other pyramid scheme, when it fails, it's the guys at the bottom and middle who get shafted.

It's happened in New Orleans, it's going to happen here, if some of our so-called leaders do not stop shrinking from accusations of racism, fascism, bigotry etc. every time they try to discuss the problems created by identity politics, and the resulting culture of sloth, dependancy, permissiveness, self-destructive behavior, and the crime it spawns.

Posted by: Kate at September 2, 2005 2:22 PM

Thanks, Kate.
Yes, evidently we both use the same "scale". Refreshing. I use the term "anarchy" as an EXTREME example only with people who may not be familiar with Randite objectivism.
I also think the incorrect "scale" is the cause of so many people being confused as to why I can be a libertarian and also support Conservative principles. Definitians are important! Heinlein's concept of the formal study of semantics would be great.
David Webers' description, in his "Honor Harrington" series, of the long slide of the "Republic of Haven" to disaster comes to mind. The inevitable end leading to war or blood in the streets.
On another note, I've been contacted by some of my compatriots in the Navy for input on what they should take to the Gulf of Mexico should they be deployed (we fought the Manitoba floods). I doubt we will be deployed, but...

Posted by: Mad Mike at September 2, 2005 2:22 PM

I keep finding myself hoping there isn't a major terror cell ready to push up their operations to take advantage of the massive mobilization of the national guard to the gulf states. Another few days, and America will probably be at her most vulnerable point ever for such an attack.

Posted by: Kate at September 2, 2005 2:38 PM

An example of why the Canadian Left truly sucks, courtesy of Robert McClelland.

  • Give To The Truly Needy
  • Posted by: San Diego Gary at September 2, 2005 2:49 PM

    Definitely belongs in the Best of SDA column!

    Jason

    Posted by: JustAnotherJaybird at September 2, 2005 3:01 PM

    I would love to see your piece as a column in the National Post. Great one, Kate.

    Posted by: EBD at September 2, 2005 3:01 PM

    Bravo Kate. You've outdone yourself.

    RG

    Posted by: RightGirl at September 2, 2005 3:22 PM

    In reply to Maple Stump - no, it's not hard to 'espouse conservative values while depending on the federal largesse'.
    You see, in Canada, no private universities are allowed, so, if you are an academic, and stay in Canada, by definition, your pay comes out of the same purse as pays the corrupt politicians.

    But, what you are suggesting - that IF one is paid by the State, THEN, one must be a servant of that state - is, in my view, unethical. Why?
    Because it denies freedom of thought and speech.
    It says - "I have purchased you; I am Master and you are Slave. Very Hegelian..and I'm not a fan of Hegel.

    After all, that would mean that you, as an individual, have permitted yourself to be bought, enslaved, corrupted. Does a scientist, a doctor, who is paid by a research centre, necessarily become a sycophant of that centre? Does a doctor become enslaved by the hospital which pays him? Do our Canadian doctors, all bound into a public health care system, become enslaved, intellectually, by the government which pays them? I hope not.

    I've been a constant critic of the academic world, which is filled to the overflowing brim with leftists, with anti-Americans, with the most sloppy, ignorant illogical, self-serving, arrogant, power-hungry people ..you may not be able to imagine how bad it is. That includes faculty, who jostle and denigrate each other for appointments; it includes the federal research funding agencies - where 'peer review' has become demoted to politicization of funding; it includes the university faculty unions..And so on.

    Academics get paid, in my view, far more than they are worth...I taught 9 hours a week -and my faculty union moaned about this 'load'! Can you imagine! Nine hours! And no, it doesn't take another nine hours to set up a lecture or mark papers! How about those who've been teaching the same course for 20 years??? I know LOTS like that. You'd never last in the business world with that type of behaviour.

    In Europe, I know those who teach 18 hours a week. Every three years at my university, we get a half term off (which amounts to 8 months paid leave)..I know those in Europe who, in 20 years, have never had a term off. Canadian and American academics are a spoiled group.

    And - I've been extremely isolated for this outspokenness. But so what? Why would I want to associate with such ignorance, such arrogance, such constant elbowing for power, such consant denigration of others?

    The academics whom I work with, are not, for the most part, Canadians, who fit very neatly into Vaclav Klaus' outline of them. I work primarily with people in the natural sciences, maths, computers - rarely, rarely, with people in the social sciences or humanities, because their fields permit them the relativist abstract emptiness of postmodernism.

    And I work primarily with people in the US, Europe (not France! - because the francophone researchers tend to isolate themselves by language)...and Australia, Brazil.

    Canada - no; they are about 20 years behind in research..all due to the paternalistic top-heavy hand of Ottawa, which has centralized and politicized research.

    Does that answer your question?

    Posted by: ET at September 2, 2005 3:46 PM

    One can see here in Canada -- at the CBC, and among the state-sponsored poverty-pimps -- the same kind of characters he describes as having power and influence before the fall of communism. He writes that when the constraints were removed "the first frustrated and openly protesting group were "journalists, teachers, publicists, radio commentators (and others)." He says "They especially understood that their valuation by the impersonal forces of supply and demand (was) less favorable than their own self-valuation."

    That may explain the reflexive attempts at mob-rule that we see whenever there is the first hint of even minor restructuring of the socialist paradigm.

    Posted by: EBD at September 2, 2005 3:48 PM

    The "criminal" "insurgence" of New Orleans will be crushed harder than Fallujah.

    Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at September 2, 2005 8:44 PM

    This is the best post I have seen on the subject of post-Katrina New Orleans. Not what the apologists of Republican or Democrat partisans would like to read, but the truth amidst the wailings and gnashings.

    Posted by: MapMaster at September 2, 2005 8:49 PM

    Bravo, Kate. You have outdone yourself with this masterpiece, the best I've hitherto seen on SDA. Once again I feel heartened that I'm not alone when it comes to understanding the intricate realities of contemporary society. It is your serious, bluntly honest examination and expression thereof that reminds me as to why I respect you so. Each time you do this, my day is made. You're for real. Seldom am I able to say this about anyone, society being as it is nowadays. There isn't any wonder whatsoever as to the reason for so many of our fellow "right"-leaning citizens praise you as above.

    So many points above, so little time and space to concur with all of them. So I'll be selective: the three words you used, describing the mentality of the masses these days, "You owe us", reminds me of something I posted awhile back when debating leftists Dr. Dawg, TB and others I've forgotten about. I had declared that we don't owe anything to people of such mentality. What, after all, have these people, the greedy, selfish leftist elites and their millions of dependents, ever done FOR us, the ordinary folk who refuse to surrender our intellectual and spiritual sovereignty despite being expected to do so? Have they ever asked if we wanted any particular worthless or even harmful policy or program or even made the case for it? No. They simply imposed it, fully funded by us. And forced us to suffer the social, economic and personal consequences of dogmatic leftist philosophy. Yet, ever so galling, these same people vociferously demand absolute scientific proof that our Conservative representatives in the CPC have workable policies. We bluntly honest, knowledgeable folk need not justify to the left what they could, with free will, undertake to prove to themselves but are too lazy and intellectually small to do so, which is their own fault, not ours.

    I have observed their responses, with, for example, ad hominems about early-thirties Germany. They accuse US of elitism. They mutter something about us wanting to have a "totalitarian" regime. They say they "hate the bastards". David Herle is on record as declaring the Liberals must marginalize us Conservatives as being on the "far right" to the electorate, obviously code for more of the same sort of slurring and dehumanization the likes of which we've seen in Elinor Caplan, Hedy Fry, Judy Sgro, Svend Robinson, Scott Brison et al. I fear that Conservatives may again allow them to get away with it. It cannot be let alone. It must be dealt with with fight-fire-with-fire actions, such as presenting irrefutable proof of Liberal bigotry, racism, sexism and all kinds of extremism, not to mention their hidden agenda to implement communism via the burglarization of Alberta's 100%-owned resources just to satisfy the misguided fools who envy anyone who rightfully earns a good living and who must surrender ever-increasing bushels of the rightful fruits of their labors. I would say to the leadership of the CPC that they shouldn't fear utilizing the sledgehammer of brutal truth upon their, after all, deserving opponents. We are in the right, the just and honorable position, to pulverize the real enemies of good society, good government and genuine democracy.

    I look forward to the campaign. I will not sit idly by this time. I want to be a part of it however I can. It's after all, critically important.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 2, 2005 8:52 PM

    On November 25, 2003, UPI reported that: "Last week, the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg released a 400-page report that found "systematic problems, over-estimations, faulty transactions, significant errors and other shortcomings" in the EU's budget. EU's auditors could only vouch for 10 percent of the $120 billion the EU spent in 2002. It was also the ninth successive year the auditors were unable to certify the budget as a whole.

    "Europeans are yet to face such "serious underlying issues," [Czech President Vaclav] Klaus said, because "they are still in the dream world of welfare, long vacations, guaranteed high pensions, and cradle-to-grave social security, and which obviates the imperative need to face reality."

    "The biggest challenge for the Czech republic, Klaus said, is how to avoid falling into the trap of "a new form of collectivism." Asked whether he meant a new form of neo-Marxism, he said, "absolutely not, but I see other sectors endangering free societies."

    "The enemies of free societies today are those who want to burden us down again with layer upon layer of regulations," president Klaus explained. "We had that in Communist times."

    Posted by: Tony at September 2, 2005 9:10 PM

    Matt : "Can you think of any (say) politician who has ever admitted, "When worse comes to worst, and in the end, you're all on your own, and we can't help you"? Before Tuesday, anyway? This kind of frank acknowledgement of reality, if it was stated on some kind of regular basis, would seem to be a necessary precondition for wider self-reliance by citizens as a whole.">>>>>


    Putin meets with Beslan mothers (Friday, 02/09/05)

    President Vladimir Putin acknowledged to a group of mothers from Beslan that the Russian government could not guarantee complete security for its people in the face of terrorism.

    But he said that was no excuse for government officials to have allowed such a terrible tragedy as last year's school hostage seizure to take place.

    In brief televised remarks, he told a delegation of mothers and other relatives of victims from the grief-stricken southern town that no country in the world could provide such protection -- much less one, like Russia, that has undergone so many wrenching changes in the past few decades.>>
    http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1881862005

    Posted by: maz2 at September 2, 2005 9:30 PM

    ET ends his comments with * the paternalistic, heavy hand of Government that has centralized and politicised research.*

    Thank you for venting the fetid gasses from the enclave you occupy. It was very interesting and refreshing.

    You have added firmness to many of the perceptions I had formed from the outer edges of higher halls of learning.

    I am still somewhat amazed at how the basics of integrity are so easily ignored by so many professors who will participate in a Government sponsered study or project and cheerfully collect two and sometimes three paralell fat paycheques.

    Yes, I know, I am supposed to accept that they are doing three jobs expertly and diligently while holed up in Cape Breton's finest holiday hotel, sweating bullets over a Government oil - spill study.

    I always choke on pills that size, but I certainly enjoyed your insights ET. 73s TG

    Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 2, 2005 10:04 PM

    Good post, Kate, though I would slightly disagree. For those who cared to look, it's been obvious that America has some 'hoods where this type of predatory violence and anarchy is pretty much the norm and has been for a few decades. I recall working on a project in Brooklyn where the other side of Flatbush Avenue may as well have been in Haiti or Somalia, for all the law and order that existed. East St. Louis is similar.

    It's just that most people prefer to avert their eyes from these 'hoods and simply pretend they don't exist.

    I've never been to New Orleans, but their behaviour seems to indicate they have areas where law and order has been ceded to neighbourhood gangs, too. So I'd say it's not so much a warning as it is shining a light into a dark corner that most prefer not to look at.

    And I'm not so sure I'd lay the blame so heavily on socialism and entitlements, though that may have played a part in shaping the culture. Places like Haiti, Somalia and Liberia didn't get the way they are through socialism and entitlements - there's a coarse and violent culture at work in those places. And it finds an echo in the gangsta rap culture that reigns in certain 'hoods.

    Posted by: Trudeaupia at September 2, 2005 10:13 PM

    Pertaining to the idea of helping junkies shoot-up.I thought in this country it was illegal to aid and abet a suicide.Can anybody help on this??

    Posted by: Justthinkin at September 2, 2005 10:18 PM

    ET wrote: "in Canada, no private universities are allowed"

    This is not correct. The DeVry Intitutes of Technology are degree-granting institutions, and have conferred BSc degrees in Canada (at least at their Calgary campus) for several years.

    Posted by: Ed Minchau at September 3, 2005 1:24 AM

    Holy smoke, Kate!
    You- and the people on this site- are making me work! Damn, but that is nice, and rare treasure indeed!I feel as if I owe you something. As one of your other posts said- "TANSTAAFL"
    So, 4 of our ships are going to New Orleans. If I end up going, I'll miss your missives...

    Mike

    Posted by: Mad Mike at September 3, 2005 1:51 AM

    My goodness, how unkind and hateful you are. How judgemental, in your cozy home with your fuzzy slippers and a coffee cup nearby. Perhaps the folks who did not evacuate New Orleans were plain old POOR. Perhaps they had only $7 in gas money and no credit card for a hotel. And if they left, they'd have to take Granny in her wheelchair and the babies, too, cause they couldn't take one generation and leave the others, could they? And how would they all go in one beat up car? And where would they go? The Storm Center said get out but who would take them all in? There were no shelters open at that point. And there had been a hundred hurricanes hit the coast. They thought the storm would hit north, or east, not hit them dead on.
    How dare you accuse them of being good-for-nuthin' because they reached out their arms and said 'Help Me' when hell unleashed itself on their town.
    Please stop spreading this hateful message. It's wrong and so incredibly mean-spirited.

    Posted by: suz at September 3, 2005 2:00 AM

    All I have to say in response to you "suz", is to advise you work a little on your reading skills.

    Posted by: Kate at September 3, 2005 2:20 AM

    Just came from a protein wisdom link and was moved to comment because I wanted to point out, contra-"suz", that this didn't come across as mean-spirited in the least. Good post all-around.

    Posted by: Jer Olson at September 3, 2005 2:43 AM

    "You owe us"

    Reading Rand, von Mises, and Hayek fifteen years ago was a real eye opener for me. It is good to other people quote from their wisdom. Well done President Václav Klaus and you too Kate.

    Posted by: qwerty at September 3, 2005 8:25 AM

    Trudeaupia wrote: "Places like Haiti, Somalia and Liberia didn't get the way they are through socialism and entitlements - there's a coarse and violent culture at work in those places. And it finds an echo in the gangsta rap culture that reigns in certain 'hoods."

    Isn't it astonishing that in such enlightened, leftist-dominated, claiming-to-care nations as Canada and America with all this redistribution of income towards people on the basis of race and all this discrimination in favor of them, we nevertheless see worsening ghettoization in whole areas of cities or geographical areas predominated by citizens, namely Americans of color and Canadians of so-called "Aboriginal" status?

    It wouldn't be unreasonable, therefore, to hypothesize that this favorable treatment, this socialism and "righting of past wrongs", is misguided, ill-advised and having no positive effects whatsoever if, as we've seen in Nawlins and in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial verdicts and the recent, worsening spate of largely identifiable-group perpetrated handgun violence in Toronto (now being dealt with by some sort of proactive prevention for "at-risk" youth, merely throwing cash at the problem w/o any understanding that it won't work, as Vaclav Klaus put forth) there is a worsening "coarse and violent culture at work" as Kevin Jaeger put it.

    Therefore, I cannot help but conclude that this state-sponsored soft racism and socialism regardless of how much income gets "redistributed", the "answers" being made by today's administrations are having no positive effects whatsoever as we see now in the real world. Kevin Jaeger, after all, has compared Nawlins to Haiti, Somalia and Liberia. What about the situation wrt Aboriginals in Canada? Remember Oka? See the racial violence stemming from race-based fishing rights which only cause powerful resentment in nonAboriginal fishermen who, after all, do have a Charter guarantee to equality regardless of any racial differences? Why should centuries-old treaties signed before the existence of Canada, the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms take unquestionable precedence over human equality?

    I dare any leftist to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that racial favoritism is working and that having a system that treats ALL persons as equal will not have any positive effect. I dare all leftists to be civil, logical, rational, state indubitable facts and use them in a calm, cerebral manner to back up their claims that state-sanctioned racism will help persons of minority status to achieve a better life, both individually and as communities. I double dare the left to judiciously refrain from any tortful defamatory namecalling or dehumanization of those of us who only want to see people have genuinely equal opportunities to succeed and not be trapped in erroneous-socialist-thinking-caused hopeless situations that invariably lead some to behave in uncivilized manners (for which the state and their electors must bear some responsibility for not pursuing full equality for all).

    BTW, I admire Bill Cosby for standing up to those who then soundly and erroneously denounced his rational, logical and true criticism of current racially-oriented defeatist and entitlement culture.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 3, 2005 8:28 AM

    I figured it wouldn't be long before the Right began to blame the victims of the disaster. Classic. "Suz" read this piece just right: I have no idea what Kate's little put-down was referring to. My own reading comprehension is just fine, thanks, and it was a hateful post.

    A few gems, if that is the word:

    "And tens of thousands ignore them and remain in their homes. Many of them have cars parked in their driveways."

    Far more of them did not. Nothing like telling people to evacuate when they have no means of doing so.

    "But, in former times, whole nations were not living in a time of entitlement, where all and any are provided for by an all-encompassing 'social safety net', funded by those faceless others with more, who have life easier, whom we have been trained to envy."

    So the disaster and suffering were the fault of liberal ideology. If there is political parasitism in evidence, it's the Rightists flailing away at the moment to find the victims at fault.

    "The predatory violence and anarchy befalling New Orleans is not the result of a freak convergence of forces brought on by unnatural disaster."

    Starvation doesn't exactly bring out the best in people. But the writer's compassion, in any case, stands out a a model for the rest of us to follow. As does the warm fellow-feeling of others here. What a lovely bunch.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 9:14 AM

    Look, Dr. Dawg - watch your adjectives and don't go into the extravagant imagery.

    The people in NO were/are NOT starving; being without substantive food for three days is not starvation. Limited food and water supplies - yes. But not starvation, which is more accurately a result of several months of severe lack of food. Use your definitions correctly. I know that your agenda is to incite emotional horror, but, even if you want to do that, please do your inciting properly.
    Genuinely starving people - as in Africa, as in Stalingrad during the war - don't get involved in stealing televisions, breaking store windows for guns..

    The people were ordered to evacuate the town; they didn't - and watch your definitions - No, it is not accurate to say, as you are, that ALL who did not evacuate were without cars, that ALL had 80 year old grandmothers and so on. Quite a few had neither, and chose, chose, chose, to stay. That included the famous 'Fats'..who had to be rescued by air (cost??).

    As pointed out, the first and most important zone of self-governance, is the local zone. The personal and then, the community. You don't sit back and wait for the Top-Down Centralist gov't or God. You work from the contextual zone first; that's your immediate env't..the zone that you have the most control over, and, which has the most control over you.

    You, of course, have an agenda. Blame Bush. Others have an equally simplistic and self-serving agenda. Blame the people because they have sinned; God is punishing them. And, then, there are those who want to blame The Whites, who have, somehow set this up to Harm the Blacks.
    All such bivariates - simplistic reductions - are fallacious. But, they are easy to use, require no data just assumptions..and..heck, you can get quite the emotional surge from your assertions of Who Hates Whom; and Who Is Evil.

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 10:04 AM

    By the way, there's a good analysis of the political response to Katrina on Captain's Quarters.

    The National Guard is activated by the Governor. Not Bush. The US is not a dictatorship; the powers of each of its political authorities are checked and balanced. Captain's Quarters lays the blame for the National Guard not being there - on the Governor.

    Evacuation of those who either were unable or refused - the blame for that must go to the City. That's the duty of that by now infamous mayor who is now hysterically busy flinging blame at everyone but himself. Poor planning - with assumptions that the Dome would only be used for 48 hours at most; no proper evacuation plans etc.

    Planning for 'what to do in our domain' has to, and MUST, remain with the ownership of those who live in that domain. A gov't mustn't move in and take the power to define and control their lives away from the people. People are not, as in a communist socialist society, reduced to powerless obedient sheep. The point of a democracy is that you, the people who live in a local area, retain control over that area.

    Instead, the City politicians - rejected this control. They didn't plan. Same with the State government. They didn't plan.
    And now - they blame..the feds..and particularly..Bush.

    It's the same everywhere; people always blame others rather than taking responsibility for their own failures. They want power, but, no responsibility.

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 10:40 AM

    Come on, ET, you're flailing.

    Being without food or water for several days is starvation, especially for babies and young children and old people. What do you suppose the people were dying of? Bad attitudes? (I referenced over at my place an old man on a median dead in a chaise lounge, and an old woman dead in her wheelchair nearby. There were many, many others.)

    "No, it is not accurate to say, as you are, that ALL who did not evacuate were without cars, that ALL had 80 year old grandmothers and so on."

    I said nothing of the kind. This is what I did say, with reference to "cars parked in the driveway":

    "Far more of them did not. Nothing like telling people to evacuate when they have no means of doing so."

    And they did not. They were not in the Superdome and the Convention Centre out of choice.

    I don't think that you'll find my own piece completely "bivariate," although it points to the utter failures of the administration and the big racial elephant in the room. You will like my next post less. The response here and elsewhere in the right half of the blogosphere to the human tragedy unfolding in New Orleans makes me realize, once again, why I'm not of that persuasion. You people simply lack empathy. End of story.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 10:56 AM

    I saw a teary mini-telethon hurricane relief plea with Harry Connick JR and Mike Myers last night. It added so much validity to Kate's assessment of the nanny state-induced entitlement mentality.


    They had some guy in the studio who they say they rescued from the New Orleans disaster area, all he did when they gave him a microphone was rant on about how "gummint" was too slow providing him and his pals with a new place to live....that this was on purpose because they were black and finally; that GW Bush "hates" Blacks because he wasn't "doing enough"....then they cut the feed from his mic off abruptly...frankly, I don't know how Mike Myers kept a straight face ( he was standing beside this comical, welfare state Black Panther) without cracking one of his timely jokes on zany human foibles.

    I sat in rapt awe of the attitude this guy had...he lives in a place prone to natural disaster, he probably didn't have any of his property or possessions insured accordingly and in all likelihood had not provided for himself with emergency savings for such an unforeseen catastrophe....he placed ALL his responsibility for personal security and welfare with the government...and when the fecal matter hit the rotating oscillator he was openly bitching out the nanny state for not providing for his immediate needs and long term housing requirement. “We need a new place to live” was his demand.

    FDR's introduction of American socialism has bred generations of these dependent entitlement addicts in the core of all major US urban centers. This is the permanent underclass that the American intellectual left has milked to expand the socialist state...this is their "plantation"....the inner cities. We note that their social welfare policy never diminishes the number of "poor" who are the left's reliant sold voting block.

    Hayek in his tretiste "the Intellectuals and socialism" stated that the illuminati who promote and run the social welfare state never see social/economic policy failure as a matter of not working...just a matter that their policies need to be expanded to work fully...this is evidenced by the left's penchant to simply raise tax and throw more money into losing causes...it is their first reaction to policy failure in the welfare state...just as Hayek had predicted. It also displays the intellectual vacancy of the socialist intellectual.

    It stands to reason if welfare state wealth redistribution worked to relieve society of the “poor”, we should see less “poor” after 72 years of “new deal” socialism.…but we don’t….because without a welfare reliant “poor” class we would have no need for socialist intellectuals or their ever expanding fallible welfare state bureaucracy.

    Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 3, 2005 11:11 AM

    Dr. Dawg

    It is not that we do not care about those poor souls in NO . Most of the posts are in response to the crazy blame Bush for everything crowd that seem to want to take advantage of a natural disaster.

    The underlying tone in most of the left seems to me to be that the FEMA and National Guard were deliberatly slow to maximize poor and black deaths. Is this you're contention also? If so I have nothing but contempt for you.

    Posted by: Quidnunc Savant at September 3, 2005 11:13 AM

    WL

    That was a a Rapper that went off on Bush last night during the fund raiser. Kanye West I think.
    Just named by Time mag. as one of the smartest men in Rap music.

    Posted by: Quidnunc Savant at September 3, 2005 11:17 AM

    "The underlying tone in most of the left seems to me to be that the FEMA and National Guard were deliberatly slow to maximize poor and black deaths. Is this you're contention also? If so I have nothing but contempt for you."

    "Deliberately?" That would be stretching the point. The response to this crisis was a lackadaisical one, compounded by FEMA's incompetence. What we saw here was a lack of caring, not a deliberate extermination plan. But the victims are just as dead.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 12:02 PM

    The socialist policies of AdScam Martin,left liberal son of Chretien, at work.

    Get your free taxes, free socialism, free utopia, free everything, for free, yes free, from the socialist left liberals.>>>>>

    Canadians' standard of living slips further behind U.S.

    Eric Beauchesne Sound Off
    The Ottawa Citizen

    Saturday, September 03, 2005

    Canada's economy and living standards will continue to fall further behind the U.S. over the next few years, a Bay Street think-tank says.

    "Over the 2003-2006 period, growth in Canada will fall short of that in the U.S. every year, and cumulatively this will add up to about 3.3 percentage points of growth over the four-year period," Global Insight said. "That is more than one full year's worth of growth over a four-year period. As a result, Canada's standard of living will fall from 87 per cent of the U.S. level in 2002 to about 84 per cent by the end of 2005." more>>> http://www.rapp.org/url/?2ANMW5HO
    Ottawa Citizen Business

    Posted by: maz2 at September 3, 2005 12:27 PM

    Excellent post, Kate, and I'm linking to it on my site. I took it as warning, too. I live in So Cal and realized that it's finally time to face reality and get my earthquake kit together.

    Posted by: Patricia Ducey at September 3, 2005 12:39 PM

    Suz said: "My goodness, how unkind and hateful you are. How judgemental, in your cozy home with your fuzzy slippers and a coffee cup nearby. Perhaps the folks who did not evacuate New Orleans were plain old POOR. Perhaps they had only $7 in gas money and no credit card for a hotel. And if they left, they'd have to take Granny in her wheelchair and the babies, too, cause they couldn't take one generation and leave the others, could they? And how would they all go in one beat up car? And where would they go? The Storm Center said get out but who would take them all in?"

    Suz -- there's a photo on Yahoo news of -- what appears to be -- 100s of school buses up to their roofs in water in New Orleans.

    Why couldn't the Mayor have used those to move as many residents who "didn't have gas money", "a car", to move them at least out of an area that was below sea level?

    I'm sorry that many of the 67% of New Orleanians elected this Mayor, and that N.O. has a police force that is so corrupt that the FBI was nearly called in (before the hurricane) to run the department. But, if you accept the premise that it was likely that the city would flood in this event, then the Mayor COULD have taken some City resources (now, proven to be sitting in water from Lake P.) that are obviously capable of transporting people. If you don't accept the premise, then you can't blame people up the governance food chain -- unless it is their job to protect NO from incompetant mayors.


    Posted by: FlyingTigress at September 3, 2005 12:55 PM

    "The response to this crisis was a lackadaisical one, compounded by FEMA's incompetence. What we saw here was a lack of caring, not a deliberate extermination plan."

    You're nuts if you think caring had anything to di with it. Honestly, why do so many people place somuch emphasis on politicians feeling their pain? If a politician is running around claiming he's felling your pain, he's a fucking liar. And even worse instead of working to fix the problem he's going around schmoozing people. Next time the politicians tell you they feel your pain, kick them in the ass. You're not a child. You don't need them to feel your pain.

    Posted by: mariana at September 3, 2005 12:55 PM

    Your post is excellent. I must point out that the Mayor of NO did not use his local resources to help his constituents. There is a photo on many US websites of hundreds of school buses in NO parked in a lot and underwater. Did anyone in the local government of NO think to use these buses? They abandoned their poor and now blame the federal government. I am sickened by what happened in NO but even more sickened by the blame game that goes on in the media and on the internet. My only wish is that maybe, just maybe, we will see the light and stop life long welfare which has turned generations into herds of human veal.

    Posted by: Kelly at September 3, 2005 1:05 PM

    Oh, yeah, the schoolbuses. Proof that it was the Mayor's fault.

    Think about this for a moment, if you have time. Schoolbuses require drivers. The drivers were no doubt among the fortunate evacuees who left before the levees broke. How many of the people remaining could drive a bus?

    Honestly, sometimes people on the Right seem to allow their self-righteousness to completely overwhelm their cerebral functions. Give your heads a shake and stop pushing this schoolbus meme. It won't get Bush off the hook.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 1:13 PM

    The left is already maneuvering to spin Katrina into a platform from which to shout that America is still a vile, racist nation that does not care about blacks. Its all about the caring, as manifested in a paternalistic nanny state accompanied by a healthy dose of identity politics.

    The relentless eye of the media spotlight shows us the grim results of the welfare state run by the politically-correct. We can now ask ourselves: do we want more of the same, or do we want to ask some hard questions w/r to what exactly has 30 years of identity politics done for blacks in America.

    Posted by: TerryH at September 3, 2005 1:17 PM

    the mayor...the governor could have called in the National Guard or requested volunteers..sure, that may not have given every bus a driver but it would have been better than doing nothing at all, unless of course you like to sit around and blame other people for their inaction. The response of FEMA is a federal problem and I have no problem laying blame at the foot of the administration for that. The fact that the mayor nor the governor used their resources to help their own people astounds me to no end. If we're lining up people to blame, they should be first in line.

    Posted by: kelly at September 3, 2005 1:31 PM

    The Dawg said: "...sometimes people on the Right seem to allow their self-righteousness to completely overwhelm their cerebral functions."

    Look who's barking. :-)

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 3, 2005 2:02 PM

    If you know how to drive a car, driving a bus is very similar. A pro-active mayor may have deputized 250 citizen to be bus drivers but I'm sure the mayor's legal staff would advise him that if there was an accident, the mayor would by liable.

    Just thinking outside the box.

    Posted by: qwerty at September 3, 2005 2:18 PM

    "Thinking outside the box" is something the left seems completely unable to do.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 3, 2005 2:36 PM

    Dr. Dawg said "The response to this crisis was a lackadaisical one"

    What do you call the response to the evacuation warning giving two days before Katrina hit?

    Blame Bush for the hurricane. Blame Bush for the flooding. Blame Bush for the anarchy.

    BLAME BUSH! BLAME BUSH! BLAME BUSH!

    It's so easy isn't it? Doesn't even take much thought. Just rolls off the tongue. Repeat it fast enough and it turns into LAME-MUSHE.

    Posted by: Colin at September 3, 2005 3:07 PM

    Oh..this post was cute! I love when Canadians think by pandering to the worst elements of American dogma that they somehow magically become Americans too. And before any of you rail off, I'll preface..I AM AN AMERICAN AND CANADIAN (and Albertan!). Can any of you challenge me based on real-life experience and not something you read in a book or the Fraser Institute told you? No. I doubt it but I'd love to see it. I'd love even more if someone wanted to contradict me based on it.

    Of course, it's also funny when Canadians bash Americans for no real reason but you fall into the former so I'm concentrating on that. Does Canada definite itself through the US all the time or just 98% of the time?

    Now, I suppose I probably won't be able to cut through the orgy fest of backpatting here but let me just say that this post, more than any I have seen, shows a complete lack of comprehension of the American dynamic today. You're honorary US Citizenship is NOT in mail so don't get all excited. It's much easier to blame the victims when they don't look like you, or talk like you and you have never lived like they have been made to.

    I'm not really going to comment on the rest of the spew here other than it's just more examples of how people use the internet to say things they have no balls to say in public.

    I'd love to tell you you're wrong..but then you'd blow me off. I'll let life do that instead.

    Blame Bush? Yes..and the rest of the Republican hegemony that's lied to the American people for the past 30 years. They've been in power the longest and this America that's "faltering" has done so sqaurely on their watch.

    Posted by: Canadian Perasma at September 3, 2005 3:42 PM

    Colin is correct. The left refuses to comprehend that the state absolutely cannot do absolutely everthing for everybody all the time. Even in socialist Canada, hardly anything ever gets done by the state for the people, the gargantuan tax grab notwithstanding. Funny the Cdn left won't blame Paulie. Must be all the candy he keeps giving them. And all the dope he lets them smoke.

    Yes, the left the world over won't take responsibility for its own stupidity, therefore it's only too easy to blame Bush. Never will they blame themselves. I delight in exposing their attitudinal 'nads. I will continue to do so, as humanity desperately needs a new, positive direction.

    I bet now they're going to get out their flamethrowers...

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 3, 2005 3:59 PM

    No, Stephen, I'm going to get on my knees and pray for you. That one day you won't be killed when karma comes and bites you so hard that your life will never be the same. It sounds like you have it coming to you, bless your heart. God bless you, Stephen, and all the rest of you on your lofty perches.

    Posted by: suz at September 3, 2005 4:14 PM

    Dr. Dawg- you are really str-e-tch-ing for excuses.
    Now, you inform us that The Reason that the Mayor didn't get those buses loaded with people and sent off, was Because All the People Who could Drive had already left.
    Wow- that's quite a meme all done up by yourself.
    Now, if you could provide even one snitch of proof that there were NO, NO people able to drive...that all drivers had left...Just one teensy bit of proof...

    No, I'm not flailing; you are; you have one agenda and only one. Blame Bush.
    Starvation is not a result of three days. Check out the definition.
    Those people who died; you provide two examples of senior citizens - might have died due to the trauma even of being moved from one site to another - and this had nothing to do with any lack of food/water..or Bush. You then inform us that there were 'many many others'. Sorry, that's unacceptable. You have to be specific. "Many many' is empty rhetoric. Useless.

    What I find interesting, is your certainty; you state that people did not leave because they had no cars. Proof? What if they didn't leave because they didn't want to; because they didn't believe 'it could happen to them'...?

    The problem with your type of rhetoric, Dr. Dawg, is that it rests on Nothing. Pure talk. You provide us with no evidence, no proof, just opinion after opinion after opinion. Do you know what opinions are? They are worthless.

    Equally, your charges of racism are fallacious; they are an example of 'special pleading' and that's a fallacy. Why, you can come up with a special pleading tactic for anything! All you have to do is select some characteristic; say, without proof, that it is 'unaccepted by The Evil Authorities' and then, claim it as causal. Hey- get your logic in order.

    By the way, isn't Ms Rice, the Secretary of State, appointed by Bush, whom you claim 'hates blacks'..isn't she...ummmm??

    And no, Dr. Dawg, 'empathy' is irrelevant. That's yet another fallacy you have fallen into; called, in English, an 'appeal to pity'. You can't merely say, when someone refutes your illogical and unsubstantiated claims that the people who criticize you 'lack empathy', for empathy doesn't validate anything. Because one feels empathy for the people in NO, and we do, is NOT the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is - who/what is to blame for the incomplete evacuations and the looting?
    You haven't addressed these - except to Blame Bush. What we are criticizing, Dr. Dawg, is your utter and complete lack of rationality, your indiffence to empirical facts and your open agenda - to Blame Bush.

    That's the problem; and it's your problem, Dr. Dawg. You see, you have an a priori agenda (Hating Bush) and therefore, no matter what happens, you jump in..to satisfy that agenda. Rather like a drug addiction..

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 4:57 PM

    Suz said: "It sounds like you have it coming to you, bless your heart. God bless you, Stephen, and all the rest of you on your lofty perches."

    I don't know what you're talking about. Lofty perches? So little you know about me. You've no idea. I bet YOU have a far loftier perch than I. And I don't ask anyone to kneel before me, unlike Candyman Martin. You may pray for HIM. He needs it. HE has it coming. Karma and all that.

    My karma will run over your dogma. :-)

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 3, 2005 5:39 PM

    "Now, you inform us that The Reason that the Mayor didn't get those buses loaded with people and sent off, was Because All the People Who could Drive had already left. Wow- that's quite a meme all done up by yourself."

    It's as good or better than the one you guys thought up: "The Mayor forgot about them." Mine is a reasonable piece of speculation, in fact: I have driven for decades, but I couldn't drive a bus to save my life, no pun intended. And most of the folks left in NO were likely without driving experience, being "welfare bums" and all.

    "You then inform us that there were 'many many others'. Sorry, that's unacceptable. You have to be specific. "Many many' is empty rhetoric. Useless."

    What, I have to prove to you that there were more than two corpses in New Orleans? Do your own homework. I can't believe you're serious.

    You are placing much on the precise definition of "starvation": when up against it, the Right always runs desperately to the dictionary. Being without food for several days does, in fact, begin the starvation process (I have nowhere claimed that lack of food for a few days causes death, except in the vulnerable). Let's add to that, thirst; exposure to high temperatures; stress. Better? Does it improve your point any?

    My reference to lack of emapthy was not an argument, but an observation, incidentally. As to your reference to the fallacy of special pleading, I beleive you have this wrong. I am not arguing exceptions here. Finally, this is just a Comments section. You'll have to go over to my place if you want references. I've posted a ton of 'em by now.

    "The topic of discussion is - who/what is to blame for the incomplete evacuations and the looting?"

    Why, the people you have "empathy" for. Right?

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 5:57 PM

    25% of people in NO live below the poverty line. Many people simply did not have the means to get out of town (cabbies were apparently charging upwards of $1,000 to take people to the airport from down town on Saturday) or more importantly anywhere to stay if they did leave. As Suz pointed out, riding out a category 4 hurricane in the open is not a wise idea and they would had to of gone a long way out to avoid it. (Although not the strongest hurricane on record by any means, the hurricane was largest in terms of actual size ever recorded.) The mayor realized this and provided shuttles to bring people to various shelters (e.g., the Superdome).

    “They take jewelry and TVs.”

    Who are “they”? NO African American community who just so happened to make up 68% of all people living there?

    “In former times entire nations found the strength to raise to the occasions …”

    Such as and where are you going with this? Look, NO is not a third world city. The citizens of NO had every reason to believe that Federal and State governments would act in a timely and efficient fashion to prevent civil unrest, to evacuate the sick, old and very young and to provide them with a basic level of comfort. By “reason” I am not talking about a sense of entitlement, but rather a expectation that government would act in a certain manner based upon reasonably well grounded beliefs. The various levels of government did not act as people thought they would and not surprisingly things quickly degenerated. You seem to think that a sense of entitlement was the problem. You have things ass backwards. It was because people lost faith in the government’s ability or willingness to act that things started to degenerate. In other words, it was when people started to feel like they were abandoned and that they must fend for themselves and families that they started to do what only you would hope for, viz., namely take matters into their own hands. Many people started doing things that they would never otherwise do, (e.g., loot goods they felt they needed). (To be sure, the roving bans of young men rooming the streets taking anything that was not tied down implanted the idea in people’s minds. I doubt people would have started to loot grocery stores as quickly if this was not the case. As the old saying goes, when in Rome ….) All of this led to some rather strange situations in which some looters would go to pains to show reporters they were not stealing anything other than necessities and surreal site of women of child baring age carting away armfuls of diapers.

    Posted by: koby at September 3, 2005 5:58 PM

    Here is the "solution" from the left liberal/socialists:

    More state control/regulation/coercion/central planning: free advice from Jack & Jilles. Back off, commissars!**********

    Duceppe calls on Ottawa to deal with soaring oil prices
    MONTREAL (CP) - Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe has joined the NDP's Jack Layton in calling on the federal government to do more to regulate skyrocketing oil prices...
    canoenews.ca

    Posted by: maz2 at September 3, 2005 6:17 PM

    Dr. Dawg (and what's the basis for the 'Dr'? What are you a doctor of?).

    I am very serious. No, you cannot expect us to accept your reason that 'All the people who could drive had left'. You have to provide proof for that claim. And, you can't claim that we should accept it, because you claim that it's better than 'the Mayor forgot about them'. That's only your opinion and I'm not overwhelmed by the logic or rationality of your opinions. You cannot claim that 'most of the people left in NO couldn't drive because they were 'welfare bums'. That's fallacious; You cannot, cannot, cannot link those two variables: 'Being on welfare -->not able to drive.'
    And what does 'welfare bums and all' mean? What does 'and all' mean?

    The other reason - that the Mayor 'forgot', which implies an ignorance about the size of the population in his city, and implies an ignorance about the activities of the population in his city also requires proof.

    What we know, is that the municipality, which is has the FIRST responsibility to the citizens, failed to evacuate the full population. That's a failure of the municipality, of the mayor.

    Starvation? Yes, you have to use the correct terms. This has nothing to do with 'left' or 'right' perspectives; it has to do with validity. You see, if I misuse a term, and, for instance, call you a 'racist' because you are always focused on 'poor blacks' and ignore 'poor hispanics, poor whites, poor..'..then, I might be misusing the term of 'racism'.

    So, if you inform the readers of this and other blogs that 'many many people' starved to death in NO, then, your misuse of the term misleads the reader. And no- it's not up to me to find the proof of YOUR STATEMENTS. It's up to you, the writer, to provide them. Otherwise, you are engaged in propaganda, in rabble-rousing, in specious empty chatter. Why?

    Yes, if YOU, YOU, YOU, inform readers that 'many many people' died, then, you have to provide proof. Otherwise - you are not merely misleading the readers; you, you, you - are lying, you are deliberately manipulating facts, to provide a false scenario of what is really happening.
    Therefore- I have to ask you - why are you deliberately distorting reality? Why are you presenting a misleading scenario? Why are you misleading the reader? What's your agenda?

    Here's your statement on starvation. Remember, you are the one who brought up the theme of starvation and claimed that the people were starving. Then, you go on:

    "Being without food or water for several days is starvation, especially for babies and young children and old people. What do you suppose the people were dying of?"

    Now- that's pretty clear. You've defined starvation as 'being without food or water for several days is starvation". OK?? That's YOUR definition.
    You then move on to deaths. And you claim that they were dying of this starvation. OK?

    So- your new claim that it doesn't cause death 'except in the vulnerable' is false. Why did you bring it up in the first place? Your first post didn't add any values to it (babies, children, old people); it just claimed that the people were starving. When I criticized your use of the term, you moved onto claim that this set of people (babies, young children, old people) were dying of starvation. I criticized this, asking for proof. So far - you haven't supplied any proof. You are saying that 'in the abstract' people can die of starvation. So???? What about in reality, in NO, - did it happen???? You claim it did. I say you are lying and misleading the readers.

    You ARE arguing exceptions. You are trying to make a case that 'right treatment', has been denied to the 'poor black people of NO'. You do not provide us with any information about this denial, for it is complete speculation on your part. You provide absolutely no evidence. It's as bad as 'the witch on the hill caused my disease'. No proof. You ignore the rest of the population, including poor whites, poor hispanics, and..the middle class blacks and so on. Did they receive 'right treatment'? Did they look after themselves? Did they expect others to look after them?

    Oh- and why, why, why, do you insist that Bush is at fault? For what???? I know, according to you, he caused the hurricane. But really...

    Your last sentence 'the people you have empathy for'..doesn't make any sense. You haven't answered my question. I said that 'empathy' is irrelevant. So, why do you bring it up? What is relevant is - the lack of municipal and local planning and activity. That's what is at fault in this scenario. AND, the culture of 'expecting others to do everything for you' - the ideology of socialism, is the other half of the problem.

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 7:31 PM

    Open invite to Dr Dawg and Suz:

    Come on down here and help out. Or put your money where your mouth is. Being here within a 10 minute walk of the Astrodome in Houston, I am getting to see first hand what is happening to the 25,000+new neighbours down the road. They are actually turning away volunteers right now. Many of the displaced are out and about the area looking a heck of a lot better with some clean clothes, shower, sleep and food. Most I've met are glad they are here but concerned about loved and missing ones.
    Yep, the mayor and governor of LA did indeed blow it big time. The post mortum will show that. Dawg probably didn't hear that one of the first busses to arrive here was driven by a 15 year old who drove 70 souls 300 miles to safety. Imagine that, someone who did something for his fellow man rather than waiting to see who would take care of him. That lad will go far in life.
    This is not over by any means so if you can, the Salvation Army, Red Cross and all those other organizations can still use cash.

    Posted by: Texas Canuck at September 3, 2005 7:46 PM

    Last line of this excerpt grabbed & held!! SDA reported this story; in the blogosphere. Figured out by SDA; no editors, no reporters, no MSM to assist. Just a little/big blog telling the story.>> Blog on!

    Excerpt:
    "An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

    Sep 02, 2005 by Robert Tracinski
    My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

    What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. 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 apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But 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.

    No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell...">>>>>>> SDA reported this!!!!
    more: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476662/posts

    Posted by: maz2 at September 3, 2005 8:18 PM

    Dawg just had his nose rubbed in his own droppings. [:

    Posted by: richfisher at September 3, 2005 8:31 PM

    Incredible/incroyable! The left socialists are nuts/bats/mad/bonkers/evil & cunning: Doc Whacko conscripts his mental patients as supporters. It's Cancer Ward, PQ. Is Nurse Ratchit on the loose, too? >>>>>

    OK, Doc, get up here on this couch:>>>>


    Cormier quits PQ leadership race

    By RHÉAL SÉGUIN

    Saturday, September 3, 2005 Updated at 8:28 PM EDT

    QUEBEC -- Hugues Cormier, who became an official candidate for the Parti Québécois leadership only last Tuesday, dropped out of the race yesterday after allegations that he attempted to recruit mental patients to support his leadership bid.

    The 51-year-old psychiatrist, who is a professor at the University of Montreal, was suspended on Aug. 19 by the Honoré-Mercier Psychiatric Clinic at the Louis-H. Lafontaine Hospital in Montreal for allegedly soliciting the support of patients. The hospital said the practice posed serious ethical problems....>>>>>
    googlenewscanada

    Posted by: maz2 at September 3, 2005 8:40 PM

    Wow- maz2. What an excellent article. And yes, that is the story that no-one is reporting.

    Instead, what we are seeing is what I long ago called 'Fictional Sociology' - where pundits present the world with completely fictionalized narratives of the world. They'll select bits and pieces from reality, and then, twist and weave them into a Story, a Narrative that embodies their own personal values. In so many cases, these values are: Bash Bush. But- he's not responsible for the municipality and state; those are governments, on their own, with their own mandates. That's what I find so confusing - why do these leftists blame Bush? Why do they expect him to have meddled with (and that's what he would have been rebuked for doing)..the mandated responsibility of a State Government and a Municipal Government?

    Why don't these Bush-Bashers blame the major and governor? Are these people Democrats? Is that the reason?

    These two governments, the municipal and the state, failed the people. And, the leftist, socialist, democratic ideology, which has enculturated a generation of welfare-dependents, set up the people to reject self-dependency.

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 8:43 PM

    This extract from the above article is exactly what Saddam Hussein did just prior to the liberation of Baghdad/Iraq.

    Saddam Maddas Hussein allowed convicts/murderers/rapist/denizens of the underworld to walk/run/slither away from prisons in Iraq; these monsters then moved to slaughter other Muslims, including women and children, the aged. Evil abounds; good shall triumph.>>>>

    "...early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city [New Orleans, Louisiana] had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose."
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476662/posts

    Posted by: maz2 at September 3, 2005 9:22 PM

    Maz2, A real - time example of exactly what ET and I outlined at sept 2 - 3:46pm & 10:04pm. above.

    What a perfectly timed example of the total lack of integrity of Professors and overly ambitious research *experts*.

    There was a recent poll done under the professional guidance of a university professor. I promptly called it for what it was.... pure BS.

    When a professor does a poll for a group, you can bet it's because his *expertise* will guarantee the exact result paid for. 73s TG

    Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 3, 2005 9:30 PM

    ET, you've lost it.

    "Yes, if YOU, YOU, YOU, inform readers that 'many many people' died, then, you have to provide proof. Otherwise - you are not merely misleading the readers; you, you, you - are lying, you are deliberately manipulating facts, to provide a false scenario of what is really happening."

    So your claim is that no one but a handful of people died of exposure in NO. I won't call you a liar: you're simply delusional.

    **************************
    "Among those who underestimated the storm was this newspaper. While her lust for blood will still fall far short of the Asian tsunami to which we'd cautioned people against drawing comparisons, Katrina will kill many times more than the few hundred people we predicted. In Mississippi alone more than 100 people are known dead; in New Orleans the number could be in the thousands. That includes not only people killed by the storm herself, but by the terrible conditions of starvation, dehydration and disease Katrina leaves behind."
    http://www.hendersondispatch.com/articles/2005/09/03/news/opinion/opin01.txt
    ***********************

    "Therefore- I have to ask you - why are you deliberately distorting reality? Why are you presenting a misleading scenario? Why are you misleading the reader? What's your agenda?"

    Telling the truth as I (and so many others) see it. While you're doing the equivalent of Holocaust-denial, they're burying a whack of people in NO. They didn't all drown. Do your own homework, like I said before: screaming "liar! liar! liar!" just makes you look foolish.

    My speculation about the non-use of schoolbuses is--speculation. I didn't claim it was anything more. It was far more informed, though, than the one explanation you people are inventing--that the Mayor was too stupid (no doubt because he's Black) to figure out they could be used in the evacuation.

    Maybe I'll prove to be wrong on this. You will certainly prove to be.

    Here's brilliance:

    "Here's your statement on starvation. Remember, you are the one who brought up the theme of starvation and claimed that the people were starving. Then, you go on:

    ""Being without food or water for several days is starvation, especially for babies and young children and old people. What do you suppose the people were dying of?"

    "Now- that's pretty clear. You've defined starvation as 'being without food or water for several days is starvation". OK?? That's YOUR definition.

    "You then move on to deaths. And you claim that they were dying of this starvation. OK?

    "So- your new claim that it doesn't cause death 'except in the vulnerable' is false. Why did you bring it up in the first place? Your first post didn't add any values to it (babies, children, old people); it just claimed that the people were starving."

    You quoted me, correctly, as noting that the very young and the very old were susceptible. Now you want to quibble about the word "starvation," because you don't have a leg to stand on. But mere bluster won't do. By all means, add to "lack of food," lack of water, excessive heat and stress. I don't have a problem with that; I said that earlier. Now, are you still going to sit there and tell me nobody died? Bush is lucky indeed to have acolytes like you.

    "You ARE arguing exceptions. You are trying to make a case that 'right treatment', has been denied to the 'poor black people of NO'. You do not provide us with any information about this denial, for it is complete speculation on your part. You provide absolutely no evidence."

    Oh, bullshit. I invited you over to my place, where the references are provided. You're just blowing smoke: as when you refer to the hispanic population of NO--all 3.1% of them. Or the whites, so visible in all the crowd scenes. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

    "Your last sentence 'the people you have empathy for'..doesn't make any sense. You haven't answered my question. I said that 'empathy' is irrelevant."

    Which about sums it up. That's where I came in, as I recall.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 3, 2005 9:49 PM

    No, Dr. Dawg - I made and make no claims about how many died in NO. For whatever reason.
    YOU are the one who has made the claim. Your claim is that 'many many died'. I've asked you to provide proof. You are simply unable to do so.

    The newspaper article by Henderson is not proof; it is speculation. It says that the death toll 'could be'..That's speculation. Do you know the difference between speculation and FACT? Don't you know how ignorant and illogical it is - to use 'speculation' as 'fact'???

    YOU are the one who provided a specific cause - starvation. And YOU are the one who provided an evaluative term for those who died - and starvation was your main causality. Your term was 'many many' HAD died. I asked for specific data (how many) and proof of causality. Still - you are unable to provide specific factual data or proof.

    No- you are NOT telling the truth. You are writing a Narrative, a Fictional Story. In order to be accepted as truth, you have to be specific, you have to provide specific actual data, and you cannot, ever, resort to the fictional tactics of evasive terminology. These include terms such as 'many many'; this includes your insistence that the cause was starvation; this includes your new ambiguous term of 'burying a whack of people'. First- provide NUMBERS; be specific. 'Whack' is a meaningless term. Then, provide causality. OK? If you can do those simple tasks - you might be moving out of the purely fictional..and becoming ACCOUNTABLE for what you say. At the moment, your story is fiction.

    No- don't start with an ad hominem attack against me - 'holocaust denial'. How juvenile. Stick to YOUR problems - which are that you are refusing to provide FACTS and instead, are writing STORIES.

    And - no, I've never, ever said that no-one died. But, I'm not into writing stories and expecting people to accept those stories as FACTS. I haven't, for example, claimed that the people who died - died of starvation. You have.

    I checked out your site. References to other fictional tales are not acceptable. That's like one individual, who claims witches cause diseases, attempting to 'prove' their case by citing another reference to another claim that 'witches cause diseases'. That's invalid.
    Your references are not factual, are not empirical, and provide NO EVIDENCE AND NO PROOF. Your references are not facts; they are just more story-telling.

    Again- YOU informed us all, that many many people had died of starvation. You still haven't been able to provide one single iota of proof for your claim.

    Empathy- is not relevant to your lack of proof. Again, you are using a fallacious tactic. My or your, or anyone's empathy or lack of it - has no relationship to your fictional tales, and your inability to provide factual evidence to support your fictional tales. Are you seriously suggesting that I should ACCEPT your stories, just out of empathy for the people in NO???? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who does not accept your fictional tales, as truth, lacks empathy?? Wow - that's quite a Truth-Requirement. In order to be a 'person of empathy', I must accept your fiction as truth. If I do not accept your fiction-as-truth, then, I lack empathy. That's so illogical it's unreal!! How do you come up with such claims???

    I'll only accept your stories when they cease to be stories and become factual. So far - you haven't been able to supply a shred of proof for your claims that 'many many people died of starvation'.

    Nor have you been able to provide any proof that 'it's all Bush's fault'. I've pointed out to you, that the failures are LOCAL. The mayor the the city has a mandate to govern that city; he failed, disastrously. The governor of the state has a mandate. The President can't walk over the authority of the state or mayor. Why, you democrats would be freaking out if he did (and you are obviously an American Democrat who hates Bush).

    What puzzles me - is why you ignore the mayor and governor. I'd bet they are democrats; are they? Is that what it's all about?

    As for hispanics and whites - they count too. And whether the MSM chooses to portray them or not - is not the point.

    So, Dr. Dawg (I asked you if you had a doctoral degree???)... you are writing Fiction. How about moving out of fiction, and insisting, all by yourself, that your writing provides empirical facts, specific data, and logic. Hmmm?

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 10:40 PM

    Here is the best post I have read so far to explain the cluster-jerk that is NO.


    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/09/president_is_no.html#comments

    Posted by: Quidnunc Savant at September 3, 2005 11:00 PM

    Oh, Dr. Dawg..and now you are changing your story about 'the schoolbuses'. Here's your original claim:

    "Think about this for a moment, if you have time. Schoolbuses require drivers. The drivers were no doubt among the fortunate evacuees who left before the levees broke. How many of the people remaining could drive a bus?

    Honestly, sometimes people on the Right seem to allow their self-righteousness to completely overwhelm their cerebral functions. Give your heads a shake and stop pushing this schoolbus meme. It won't get Bush off the hook."

    You are not speculating; you are very clear in your causal link. The reason that the buses weren't used was because the drivers had all left. As you say, there was 'no doubt' about this. It's not speculation. And, you chide us who don't share this opinion as not thinking, as having problems with our 'cerebral functions'.

    Now - you are changing your story. Here's your latest:

    "My speculation about the non-use of schoolbuses is--speculation. I didn't claim it was anything more."
    Oh really??? I didn't notice that you informed us that is was 'speculation'. You were quite insistent that it was due to your ability to think, and that we, who did not share this reason, had 'cerebral troubles'.

    Then - you continue:
    "It was far more informed, though, than the one explanation you people are inventing--that the Mayor was too stupid (no doubt because he's Black) to figure out they could be used in the evacuation."

    Wait - isn't your 'speculation' an 'invention'? So, why are you using the term 'invention' when your original explanation, the 'all the drivers have left the sinking ship'...didn't imply invention, didn't imply speculation..but..insisted that it was the result of THOUGHT. Not invention, not speculation, but..having functional cerebral processes. Well??

    And no- who has suggested that the Mayor was 'too stupid because he's black"???? Please provide this link: stupid-because-he's-black'. Show us. Who said it? Who implied it?
    I, for instance, have no idea and don't care, about his skin colour. He failed to organize the city - and who cares what colour his skin is?

    But- you care. And you are claiming that we who are criticizing him, are defining him as stupid (I think we are defining him as incompetent) - and that we are relating his 'being stupid' to his 'being black'. Again - YOU are the one who has said this. YOU made the connection. Prove it.

    You've used one of your favourite phrases - no doubt'. So, no doubt you've got the proof that we, who are criticizing the mayor, for incompetence, are in reality defining him as Stupid-Because-He-Is-Black.
    Prove the link. You are the one who said it.

    Posted by: ET at September 3, 2005 11:01 PM

    ET

    It seems Dr. Dawg is a mind numb troll and it is best just to ignore him, for your own well being at least.

    Posted by: Quidnunc Savant at September 3, 2005 11:28 PM

    A short course in dawg logic:

    Our perception is our reality.

    Dawg logic further requires that if reality contradicts perception, then reality itself must be in error

    Division by zero is also useful.

    Posted by: TerryH at September 3, 2005 11:43 PM

    Common sense says the people living below sea level should have an out. Or am I being presumptious?

    Posted by: kelly at September 3, 2005 11:47 PM

    I always have to smile when others tell me about what "poor people" are and aren't capable of doing for themselves.

    I lived my first five years in a single floor dwelling that measured 24' by 24', with no running water. Which was a good thing, as any water in the house froze at night during the winter.
    '
    Compared to the previous residents - a family of 13, it was rather spacious for five. I still remember looking out the kitchen window one morning to see the backhoe (?) digging the basement of the new house. We lived in that basement for 5 years too, until there was enough money saved to put up a shell above ground.

    I can also remember visiting neighbors who couldnt' afford to bring electricity to their farm, and watching them play cards with my parents and grandparents by oil lamp.

    So, prattle on about how this poor person can and can't do this, and about how it's my fault, or his fault, or Bush's fault, or the Rethuglicans fault, but I can tell you one thing as sure as I'm sitting here - if a human being is alive and sound of mind and body on this continent, the first person they need to confront about their chronic state of poverty and dependancy is the one in the mirror.


    Posted by: Kate at September 4, 2005 12:21 AM

    "Common sense says the people living below sea level should have an out. Or am I being presumptious?"

    Common sense also says you need a port at the mouth of the Mississippi: trains, planes and automobiles notwithstanding, most of the world's material commerce still moves by water.

    Common sense when Bienville and Iberville founded the city is EXACTLY why it is where it is: where the river's still deep enough to bring ocean-going vessels; where access by land was limited to a few choke points to prevent attacks by the British, the Spanish or the local Indians; where the crescent bend makes attacking from the water extremely difficult and the lake gives you a third avenue of retreat; and where the tides from the Gulf and the currents from the river bring a supply of seafood in abundance and variety.

    If putting New Orleans there was stupid, the same exact thing could be said of Venice, or indeed of almost the entirety of the Netherlands. Much of the logic behind it may not be there any more, but it was hardly irrational at the time.

    But common sense is also far from common, in Louisiana particularly. I can't blame the president: he pleaded with the governor and the mayor to get people out earlier. I blame scores of local politicians for whom protecting their constituents was never a top priority and, while I do love New Orleans dearly, I absolutely blame its shortsighted "laissez les bons temp roulez" attitude.

    Posted by: Dave J at September 4, 2005 2:13 AM

    Dawg said "While you are doing the equivalent of holocaust-denial"

    (clap clap clap)

    Now THAT is brilliance! Pure genius! You must have been just itching to use that one.

    Posted by: Colin at September 4, 2005 4:22 AM

    littlegreenfootballs.com>>>

    Blanco Refused to Act

    At the Washington Post, in a story with a headline that gives no indication of the important information it contains, we discover that federal officials were desperately trying to get Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco to do something about the disaster in New Orleans—but she refused to act: Thousands Remain To Be Evacuated. (Hat tip: efuseakay.)

    Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state’s emergency operations center said Saturday.

    The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. “Quite frankly, if they’d been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals,” said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

    A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

    Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

    “The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana,” White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. “The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana.”

    Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state’s victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

    Posted by: maz2 at September 4, 2005 7:13 AM

    I don't want to be mean or anything towards Dr. Dawg, as he believes he means well, but he does need some constructive criticism.

    I've been following the discussion above, particularly the back-and-forth between Dawg and ET. I realize the Dawg *believes* he is making *arguments*, but really he isn't. He'll certainly "argue" against this point, but it doesn't take a genius to see that if he was in fact trying to argue, he failed. His unquestioning belief in leftist dogma prevents him from seeing the erroneous illogic and irrelevance of the supposed points he proffers.

    As I said before in the fairly recent thread with the left-right divide theme, the Dawg is merely being a master baiter (forgive any imaginary vulgarity). He is only trying to drive us nuts to the point we say something he'll misconstrue for his leftist purposes as proof that we have red skin, horns, a pointed tail and a pitchfork, all of us who refuse to surrender to the malicious dogmatism of the ultra-far-left, which everyone knows has been responsible for the deliberate murders of well over a hundred million innocents just to preserve its evil doctrines from independent thinkers and challengers who see its inherent dangers. I actually like the Dawg, but feel he needs constructive criticism, as such provision is not malicious but rather proof of caring born of genuine humanitarianism. I wish the left would someday learn the lessons I have and proceed to better themselves rather than try to steal ever more from those of us who work for what we have, however little or much be it.

    To the leftists: I don't speak from a "lofty perch". I'm probably lower on the socioeconomic ladder than many of the arrogant leftist dogmatists on this thread. Although I have a BBA degree with honors and an info tech diploma with a 93% avg, I am not rich in any sense of the word, financially. The left told me to get all that higher education and society would automatically reward me via "affirmative action" (I'm hearing impaired, you see), but there has been NONE. That's right; affirmative action is a LIE. Sure, we see all kinds of target group members working for gov't and the private sector. But why, then, has the response whenever I had interviews been along the lines of: "Your qualifications are impressive. Our organization could really use you, but, unfortunately at this time, there is no need for anyone of your specific education and experience. If anything comes up, we'll call you. Thank you very much." Nevertheless, I today run a tiny specialty coffee factory singlehandedly and have proven my worth very well, thanks a lot. Oh, and btw, I'm 33 and with all the debt I accumulated pursuing the education prescribed by the left, I still haven't the financial wherewithal to move out of the family home. STILL I KNOW THE LEFT IS WRONG. So any leftists who suggest I'm rich, privileged and spoiled compared to them and therefore look down on them for those reasons, I say to them, please fuck off. You never know what you're talking about anyway. Let me know when you've had an epiphany and acheived enlightenment born of learning to think for yourself based on reality.

    BTW, since finishing my IT diploma in 2002 and realizing there was practically no really financially rewarding opportunity after all where I live in NB, I actually felt quite down and disillusioned. I almost surrendered, brainlessly, to the left in the hopes of getting some patronage appt. for my syncophancy. But I was too strong. I still saw how horribly, dangerously stupid the left was, especially with Durban, the Intifada, 9/11, Iraq and now Nawlins. Fortunately I stumbled upon the blogosphere and people like Kate, who is a real inspiration.

    So I have no lessons to learn from the left, nor do I owe them anything.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 4, 2005 9:03 AM

    ET:

    "Your claim is that 'many many died'. I've asked you to provide proof. You are simply unable to do so."

    No, I was unwilling to do so, given the hundreds of news reports that are as accessible to you as they are to me. Here's one today:

    http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/index.html

    "More than 40,000 exhausted, overheated and angry refugees were finally ferried to safety from this storm-savaged city yesterday -- a long overdue rescue that left an untold number of residents lying dead because help came too late."

    This is duplicated all over the place. I didn't want to play to your disingenuousness. Here you'll seize on the word "untold." Next you'll be asking me for names.

    "Still - you are unable to provide specific factual data or proof."

    The proof is in the many reports now coming out of the Superdome--people slumped dead in wheelchairs, that sort of thing. The specific factual data is unknown to anyone at this point.

    (Here I must ask parenthetically what your point is. The "claim" of mine that you have been rabbiting on about was that "many" people died of "starvation." I was quite prepared, as I said before, to amend that to "starvation, thirst, heat and stress." The fact that many people died from those causes is simply beyond dispute.)

    "Holocaust denial" was way over the top. I apologize. What I was getting at was your apparent refusal to admit that people had died of the causes noted above, waiting for rescue. I found that quite upsetting, in fact, given the stream of reports to the contrary, many from eyewitnesses. There's a fair bit on this in the Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen and the New York Times today--for example.

    On the question of speculation, you're doing quite a frenzied little dance on that one, so let me simply respond that I advanced an explanation for the non-use of schoolbuses that could be objectively described as pure speculation ("a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence"), but which made more sense than the "Mayor screwed up" one that keeps going the rounds of the right half of the blogosphere.

    You have quoted me as saying "It's all Bush's fault." That is a barefaced lie. He obviously bears great responsibility--the buck does stop with him--but he was not the only player in this mess, and I've never claimed otherwise.

    As for my academic credentials, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Calling me an "American Democrat," though, gave me my first good laugh of the day. Thank you.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 4, 2005 9:10 AM

    "[Dawg] is only trying to drive us nuts to the point we say something he'll misconstrue for his leftist purposes as proof that we have red skin, horns, a pointed tail and a pitchfork."

    You mean...you don't? :)

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 4, 2005 9:12 AM

    No. Nor do I even have a red neck. I don't understand why the left thinks I do. :-)

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 4, 2005 10:38 AM

    Actually, my cartoon characterization of "the left" is that of a half woman, half baby - crying to be fed on one hand, and demanding the baby be fed on the other, but incapable of actually feeding itself.


    Posted by: Kate at September 4, 2005 11:20 AM

    The Dawg said: "You have quoted me as saying "It's all Bush's fault." That is a barefaced lie. He obviously bears great responsibility--the buck does stop with him--but he was not the only player in this mess, and I've never claimed otherwise."

    A quick visit to your blog doesn't leave one with that impression. The fingerprints of "blame Bush" are all over it, including a link to a vitriolic "blame Bush" rant with incredibly foul language which you "marvel and applaud". Is this your idea of taking the high road and raising the level of debate above Usenet babble as you claim is the mission statement of your blog?

    Posted by: TimR at September 4, 2005 11:33 AM

    Dr. Dawg

    Valid empirical evidence does not come from newsreports. It doesn't come from anecdotes, it doesn't come from 'eyewitness reports'. It comes from objective empirical tests and verifiable evidence, not interpretations.

    I asked you for empirical data about the exact number of deaths directly due to the storm; your term was 'many many' and you primarily attributed them to 'starvation'.
    Now - you are saying that you didn't provide me with exact figures, not because you didn't have them, but because you were 'unwilling'. You state that the data is available elsewhere.

    But, Dr. Dawg, you are responsible for what you write and say; you can't make claims and expect others to accept them, 'just because' you make the claim and/or because the data is available elsewhere. That's insisting on your Authoritarianism. Why do you insist that we accept you as The Authority?

    You have to provide this data.
    And - now, you are starting to provide us with what you say is 'evidence':

    (1) 'an 'untold number of residents'. Of course I'll refuse to accept that 'untold' is empirically equivalent to 'many many'. That's like saying that zero is = to 25,000!!!
    Factually, the two are not identical. No, don't denigrate your error in insisting that 'untold' ='many many'..by suggesting that I'll next ask for names. That's a red herring.

    (2) 'people slumped over in wheelchairs'. Sorry- that's not data.

    (3)Now, you say - the 'specific factual data is not available at this point'.

    4) But, you still claim that 'many people died' and you have now increased the causes to: 'starvation, thirst, heat and stress'. And you say: "the fact that many people died from those causes is simply beyond dispute".
    That's again, Authoritarianism. You won't permit us to question or dispute your statement.

    Hey. You now admit 'the specific factual data is not available at this point'. Therefore, how can you claim that 'many people died'??? And how can you know the causes? How can you say that your new opinion is 'beyond dispute' - when there is NO DATA available either on numbers OR causes????

    Yet - without any factual evidence, you continue to make the Authoritarian claim, 'beyond dispute' that 'many people died'..and you state that the causes are: starvation (I'd like to see some proof of that one!!!); of thirst (again - I'd like to see some proof of that!); of heat (possible, but, requires empirical proof); and stress (that's too ambiguous to be defined as a 'cause of death').

    That's what stuns me about your writing. You write opinion after opinion, without any evidence, you berate people who don't agree with your opinions, you provide no evidence - and chide the people who ask for evidence to 'find it themselves'; ..which is essentially saying "I am an Authority; Accept My Word'.

    I'm saying that your claims are unsubstantiated, are empty and as such, are fiction - geared to an agenda of hatred against..the gov't and in particular, against Bush.
    As you yourself wrote:
    "It won't get Bush off the hook"
    I don't see how the president bears 'great responsibility" as you claim. The states of the US have great powers and the checks and balances in place prevent the president from taking those powers. The responsibility is first, with the mayor, who failed completely. You never mention him, and second, with the governor, who also failed completely. You never mention her. Why not?

    Your 'schoolbuses' unable to be driven because all the drivers had left - was not, originally, offered to us as speculation but as Truth, and you berated any who denied your Authority as lacking 'cerebral functions'.

    Now- why does your conclusion that 'all the drivers left' make more sense than 'the Mayor screwed up'???? Why? What's your evidence to prove that the Mayor wanted to use the buses, but, all the drivers had left? What's your evidence to show that he had plans in place to use the buses, and, being a reasonable person, knew the buses would require drivers, and had plans for their drivers? Well?

    And why is this analysis only found on the 'right' half of the blogosphere?

    You are the one who uses the title of 'Dr' to your name; I merely wanted to know if you were entitled to do so.


    Posted by: ET at September 4, 2005 11:40 AM

    Tim R.: "A quick visit to your blog doesn't leave one with that impression. The fingerprints of "blame Bush" are all over it."

    Stay a while longer next time. Yes, I think Bush has much to answer for. But he's just one person: many others committed errors of their own. In any case, I was objecting to having a direct quotation attributed to me that I never made.

    ET: The horse is dead.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 4, 2005 12:02 PM

    TimR- yes, Dr. Dawg's blog is heavily hostile to Bush. Why?

    And maz2, that's an excellent link to LGF and its analysis of the real causes of the administrative failures in NO - which can be laid at the Mayor's door and the Governor's door. Blanco, the Governor, allowed NO to collapse because she was involved in a power struggle, she felt, against 'the Feds'.

    Posted by: ET at September 4, 2005 12:03 PM

    No, Dr. Dawg - you are refusing to be accountable and responsible for what you write. You insist that readers accept what you write, because you write it - that's Authoritarianism.

    You refuse both to use and provide, facts. You refuse to use logic and provide valid correlations.
    Instead, you write fiction and insist that the reader accept it as truth. That's Authoritarianism.

    What is dead, in your posts, is Truth.

    Posted by: ET at September 4, 2005 12:07 PM

    That's also leftism.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 4, 2005 12:22 PM

    ET ought to call home. The papers today are full of the "facts" he claims aren't out there. The man is wilfully blind. Fact: many people did die of heat, and lack of food and water, waiting to be rescued.

    One of hundreds of sources:

    "Still, Dr. Rolston acknowledged several people had died -- he refused to say how many -- at the I-10 collection point while awaiting rescue.

    ...

    "Yolando Sanders, who had been stuck at the convention center for five days, was among those who filed past corpses to reach the buses.

    " 'Anyplace is better than here,' she said. 'People are dying over there.'"

    http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=339897cf-a1bc-4da7-93b2-83384b4bde61

    Well, folks, that was my claim. No, I can't provide exact numbers, but "many" seems to cover it for now. As for "starvation," here's State Senator Cleo Fileds, of Louisiana:

    "We have lost more people from starvation and neglect than the hurricane itself…. To not have people in safe shelter right now is … unconscionable."

    http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-na-katrina4sep04,0,3253801.story?coll=ktla-news-1

    Incidentally, I'm hardly in a position, deep in enemy territory as I am, to "insist" that people accept what I write. I just call it like I see it, recognizing that anyone's vision will be incomplete. I'm sorry that ET feels oppressed by my "Authoritarianism," capital "A" and all. But I've by now provided more than enough material to buttress my original (and frankly uncontroversial) statement, and here I'll depart, leaving ET to his frantic flailing.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 4, 2005 1:30 PM

    Dawg, calling people your "enemy" and then expecting them to take you seriously is foolish. You seem to be very disfunctional at communicating. Just enjoy at arguing I guess.

    ET,
    It's not Authoritarianism, it's DAWG-MA !!!

    Posted by: Colin at September 4, 2005 2:14 PM

    No, Dr. Dawg - as you depart, think about this:

    You still haven't provided facts. I'm beginning to think that you don't know what empirical facts are. With regard to this situation: deaths due to Katrina. ..You have to provide proven evidence (1)of deaths; and (2) empirical evidence that the deaths were directly caused by the hurricane and hurricane results. You can't do this. No-one can, at the moment, because the death count has not been established; and causality has not been established. (Because someone dies of a heart attack can't be attributed to Bush/etc..).

    All that you provide are web links. These are not to scientific data, but, newspaper reports.

    But - newspaper anecdotal reports are not factual evidence. I'm surprised that you will accept such as evidence. It's like accepting all those reports of Loch Ness monsters as evidence that a Loch Ness monster really exists!

    Again - you state, authoritatively, that it is a FACT that "many people did die of heat, and lack of food and water, waiting to be rescued"

    No. It is not a fact. Neither you nor anyone else has provided such facts. It would be, empirically, at this moment, impossible to make such claims. There is no proof that the deaths that have occurred were due to: heat, lack of food and water. No proof. No proof, yet, of any causes. No autopsies have been done.

    The fact, FACT that you make this claim and expect us to accept it, without providing empirical evidence, is a fallacy- the fallacy of Authority. It's capitalized because it is a recognized fallacy (argumentum ad auctoritatem).

    1) Dr. Rolston's SEVERAL (not 'many many') deaths may or may not be due to the trauma; you don't know; you therefore validly can't use those deaths (no number provided) to support your claims of 'many deaths' due to starvation..etc. For you to do so, is a misuse of data.

    2) Saunder's claim that 'people are dying over there' - is an ambiguous abstract, and can't be used, empirically or logically, as factual evidence. Why not? Because it is a general and vague Statement, not a Particular Statement.

    3)The State Senator has no more validity than you; his claims that 'more people have died of starvation' is as specious and empty as your similar statement. This is, in your case, a use of 'authority'; you are using him, as Senator, to provide validation. But, his being a Senator does not mean that his medical expertise (or lack of it) enables him to provide factual proof of causes of death. So- your use of him as 'evidence' is fallacious.

    Whether you are in enemy territory or not, my critique of you as Authoritarian (i.e., constantly using the fallacy of Authority) and expecting people to accept your opinion, without factual evidence - stands as valid. To rely on your authority, whether among friends or enemies, is a fallacious tactic of argumentation. I'm not in the least oppressed by it; I'm offended by it.
    You ought to rely on facts and logic - and yet - you insist that people accept your conclusions, without providing us with either.

    No- you still haven't provided ANY material to support your allegations. None. That's the problem, Dr. Dawg. No facts, no evidence, no logic, just - your claims.

    My advice: check out some books on the difference between Fact and Fiction, check out some articles on the scientific method. Fiction is easy; but don't expect us to accept it as Fact.

    Posted by: ET at September 4, 2005 2:29 PM

    The Dawg's "arguments" are merely a more sophisticated version of the more common leftist screechery. Dawg's quite the cunning linguist, indeed, with an uncanny ability to spin 'a priori' beliefs so as to fool many into believing he knows whereof he speaks.

    We must not forget, however, that the Dawg remains a left-wing Dawgmatist. Consequently, his (almost) convincing "arguments", lacking as they do the obviously necessary empiricism, must necessarily be taken with a grain of salt, his oh, so superior intellect notwithstanding.

    At least he admitted he was way out of line in and apologized for his initial contention that we're "Holocaust-deniers" of a sort wrt the Nawlins catastrophe. Gotta at least hand that one to him.

    I look forward to more of his amusingly entertaining leftist sophistry. ;-)

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 4, 2005 3:56 PM

    Time to lighten up:

    http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/8823.html

    http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/10294.html

    http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/14801.html

    http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/15386.html

    Enjoy.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 4, 2005 6:15 PM

    I haven't followed this debate in detail, but Dawg - think for a moment. Starvation? STARVATION?

    The average human being can go weeks without food - think of the labour camps where men worked for months on a few hundred calories a day.

    And without getting too indelicate, from the photos and news clips I saw, the average New Orleans refugee has about 150 pounds to work with. As Bill Maher once put it - America is the only continent in the world where poor people are FAT.


    Posted by: Kate at September 5, 2005 1:49 AM

    Entitlement is an interesting theory, Kate. I've always envied Canada's National Healthcare, but now that Kate has explained the 'reasons' for the New Orleans tragedy I'm thankful we don't have it. Imagine what the death toll might have been perchance we had National Healhcare? I pay $520.00 (dollars) a month for me, my wife and two children for our medical insurance, that's $5,000+ a year for a healthy family. Now, before my wife wife was outsourced by Microsoft and we lost the medical beneifits provided by Microsoft that $5,000 went to our retirement, but hey, I feel much better. So bring on the floods and Kate, you can join us any time!

    Posted by: RT at September 5, 2005 2:28 AM

    In Canada, we still pay pretty much the same $520, give or take, a month for health care or whatever Paulie deems. We just don't see it as it's part of a bulk confiscation from our paychecks or other income source.

    Having a parallel private HC sector CAN improve HC overall in Canada as it's proven to work in some Euro nations, particularly France. I saw on GlobalNational, I believe it was, that the French have two tiers, but EVERYONE regardless of money gets immediate attention, no waiting. Yep, docs and nurses etc. are actually waiting for the patients, not the other way around. Therefore, it is possible to improve our HC but not under pure communism as Paulie still makes it. Those who say otherwise are defeatist and in denial.

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 5, 2005 8:04 AM

    Kate:

    "I haven't followed this debate in detail, but Dawg - think for a moment. Starvation? STARVATION?

    "The average human being can go weeks without food - think of the labour camps where men worked for months on a few hundred calories a day."

    Not to re-open a thread that's gone west, but I am certainly aware that a healthy person can go for weeks without food. The very old and the very young are, hoever, far more susceptible to an absence of nourishment, even for a few days. In any case, being prompted to reflect on this, I amended what I said earlier to include thirst, heat and stress as well as the absence of food.

    My original point being: that many people died of a combination of the above due to the lateness of the rescue. How some might find that statement controversial is anyone's guess.

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 5, 2005 8:34 AM

    The only people who were in real danger of dying as a direct result of the conditions they were in, in that brief a span of time, were the very elderly who required medication - insulin, heart conditions, oxygen.

    Here's something else to chew on, though. While everyone else was asking "where are the white people?" I was asking, "where are the men?"

    One of the trackbacks

    http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/004562.html

    to this post includes a comment from Rick Moran (Right Wing Nuthouse) that needs to be answered:

    "Those people sat around in the Superdome for 3 days and never got organized for protection, never took pride enough in their surroundings to keep them clean, never organized "johnny details" for disposal of waste; in short, the things that associative, functioning members of society would have done on day 1 (or 2 if it looked like they were going to stay awhile) did not even occur to people in the Superdom.

    Was this a function of race? Of class? Or dependency?

    Questions that I'd like to explore without the usual namecalling and caterwauling from the left."

    Able bodied people sat beside corpses for days. How bloody dysfunctional is it that nobody - nobody - organized to move these bodies to a central location?

    Posted by: Kate at September 5, 2005 9:00 AM

    There are, to put it mildly, conflicting reports. I posted a link or two at my place about the Superdome folks--sound like most of them organized themselves pretty well:

    *****************
    Donelle Deffina and Davonna Good, a couple from Eldorado Hills, Calif., near Sacramento, were two of the rare white faces still in the convention centre yesterday. Tourists who were booted out of their hotel after the storm hit, they were brought here Tuesday about noon, when the cavernous place was virtually empty, occupied only by the families of local police officers (who, the women say, were shortly afterward taken out).

    "Last night," Ms. Deffina spat furiously, gesturing at all those collapsed on the hard concrete floor all around her, "these people were told by a Louisiana state trooper that in four hours, 300 buses would be here.

    "Well, they put their elderly and their sick up front, all neat, and the babies. They cleaned up their own areas and then they stood in line until well after midnight. Not a single bus came.

    "We've been here four days and we have not seen one person of authority. No FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Authority]. No Red Cross. No National Guard. No one.

    "Don't you believe what you've been hearing," she said fiercely. "These people are great. They were brought here, as we were, by the authorities, lots of them rescued from rooftops, and they haven't received any medication attention, any water, or one word of encouragement.

    ...

    Nothing happens. Nothing changes. And yet as each new rumour arises of an army of buses on its way, they line up, orderly-like, their old people and babies up front, and wait.

    "They're treating us like animals," Rozz Smith, a 44-year-old motivational speaker, said yesterday. She also gave us a tour, hobbling because of the toe she broke when she was trampled in a stampede over something - gunshots in the night, rumours of food or buses, I forget which now. "Every night they say the buses are coming. They never come."
    The medic, Mr. Traham, said nine people have died in the centre named after Dutch Morial. They're kept in what everyone calls "the fridge." They were taken there, not by any authorities, not by police, but by the people who watched them die and wither away, and who now can hardly bear to remember that for a few days here, these strangers were family."

    ************************

    This reported by Christie Blatchford at this reference (sorry, subscription needed):

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050903/STORMBLATCH03/TPNational/Columnists


    And here's the Ottawa Citizen:

    "But authorities were heaping praise on the very people they had come to rescue. Long before the soldiers restored order and the buses arrived for evacuation, hundreds of ordinary New Orleanians banded together to prevent sheer anarchy from breaking out."

    http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d7ec9cbb-b5f1-40c2-b4d4-b1a59398879c

    See, Kate, they weren't all a bunch of lowlife scum paralyzed by a sense of entitlement.

    Finally, slightly OT, if you haven't checked this video link out, do so:

    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Broussard.wmv


    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 5, 2005 9:19 AM

    Mad Mike at September 2, 2005 01:04 PM
    Events such as these that shine a cold, clear light on the real effects of creeping socialism should be an education to all. Unfortunately I fear a majority of people will not see the connection between their political philosophy and real world outcomes.
    Your post interested me, because elsewhere I've seen much the same thing said, but with the word 'socialism' replaced with 'capitalism'. e.g. the rich/poor gap revealed in NO, funding for disaster had been cut, spending time protecting property from looters by shooting to kill (i.e. death penalty for theft) while ignoring those souls in need of rescue.
    I guess those on all sides can look at this disaster and see evidence to support their own pre-existing beliefs.

    Posted by: foreigner at September 5, 2005 9:37 AM

    Daily Kos: Strategies for the Coming Weeks

    The Kos Kidz are doing what they do best—cold-bloodedly calculating how to squeeze political advantage out of the worst natural disaster ever to hit the United States, before the bodies are even counted: Daily Kos: The Perfect Storm: Strategies for the Coming Weeks. (Hat tip: Kilgore Trout.)

    The answer is found in all of these comments, and it is simple: a multi-pronged, multi-level strategy. What you do depends on who you are and where you are.>>>>>>>>> LGF

    1. Everyone, everywhere. Find a way to help: donate money, donate supplies, open your home. whatever you can do. I read more than one poll yesterday where 40% or more had yet to do anything. If we care as much as we say we care, the donation rate among Dems and progressives must be 100%.

    2. Everyday folks, inside the disaster: Share your stories, good and bad. All that is needed is the truth. If, as Haley Barbour said, the situation on the ground in Mississippi is much better than NO, we should hear that. If you were at a checkpoint and they turned away relief supplies, we should know that, too. There is nothing more powerful than first-person. (I started to put something like “Take care of yourself” at the top of this section, but everything I wrote sounded trite. In no way do I mean to imply that people affected by this tragedy should first think of politics; their first task, and our first wish, is for them to be safe and cared for. But, the country still needs to hear from them, especially if there is beginning to be a media blackout.)

    3. Everyday folks, outside the disaster: Continue to raise hell. Write LTEs, contact your reps. Be direct, be concise, be respectful, but also be up front about your anger and disgust. Be sure to ask your reps, when are THEY going to speak out? As one state senator told me, “I’ve often wanted to speak out, but based on the lack of communications from my constitutients, I figured no one had my back.” Let them know we have their back.

    4. Mid-level politicians: Keep the buzz growing. Begin to call for action, change, investigations. When interviewed, raise the tough questions. Start some buzz in the halls of power, even with your Repub counterparts. Focus on “competence” and “lack of national security.” And, be sure to ask the local leaders in the areas you represent, how well are WE prepared, and how do we feel about counting on FEMA after this?

    5. Top-level politicians: Wait for the moment, then strike. Focus for now on the relief effort, and be quiet for now on the political ramifications. Give the nation’s anger a little more time to build. Hold back, hold on, hold it, hold it — then in one large, joint press conference (I can see Reid, Pelosi, Nagin, Blanco, and about twenty more), call for the resignation of Chertoff and Brown, and the censure of the President by Congress. List the reasons (should be a fairly hard-hitting list) and have a handout with sourcing and documentation.

    If this builds like I think it might, and if we follow the steps above, it could be a political Perfect Storm.>>>>>>>>

    Dr. Dawg & its moonbat allies plotting for the "Perfect Storm".

    Posted by: maz2 at September 5, 2005 12:59 PM

    Someone here claimed that the Governor of Louisiana was remiss, stepping in the way of the feds. Turns out to be another backside-covering lie. Blanco declared a state of emergency on the Friday before Katrina hit, and asked for federal assistancce in a formal memo the next day--again, before the hurricane's landfall.

    Sources: http://ca.geocities.com/section15@rogers.com/NewOrleans/48pro2005-Emergency-HurricaneKatrina.pdf
    http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976

    Posted by: Dr.Dawg at September 5, 2005 2:19 PM

    The world is a spectator to an ancient Rome

    With Bush as Nero. This tragedy, which rapidly turned into a travesty due to incompetence at the FEDERAL level is showing the rest of the world the utter bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement.

    And the "Canada=Socialist nanny state" meme is getting a little threadbare.

    Posted by: epictetus at September 5, 2005 2:33 PM

    "Trudeaupiate". I get it. The Trudeaupiate of the masses is entitlement, right? Keep them getting their fix and not having to worry about taking care of anything themselves and you can take their money, all the while taking their votes for granted. Right, Kate? It's like an opiate. And the left is addicted. Reminds me, I'd better mosey on over to the Shotgun and deal with Robert McClelland and some guy named Scott who think high taxes will fix all problems...

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 5, 2005 3:35 PM

    Foreigner: Sept. 5th, "...see evidence to support their pre-existing beliefs". Good point. Now, lets look at those "beliefs". Where do they come from? I have done no formal studies, I can only apologize that my views are self taught- from experience, literature of all kinds, and much introspection. Yet I have debated with more than one University-trained "intellectual" and discovered to my disappointment that they themselves had not thought things through. Most were simply parroting what had been told to them, without bothering with the effort of asking "why?" or "who told you?". The socialist, nanny-state views they expound were generally based on "But it sounds good!" or "Thats what everybody thinks!"
    Some others just want to help so much, that they think "helping" should be forced down everyones' throat. And can't be bothered to wonder why that doesn't work. The Robin Hood mentality is simplistic and defeating for both parties, and makes them BOTH moral criminals. As we see in New Orleans today.
    Last week our neighbors went to the lake. I went over there every day to feed their horses and cats, check their house, etc. No pay- they watch our place when we're gone, too. But, if she expected me to do all this after she were home and capable, she would get a rude shock, indeed. But that is exactly what the welfare state teaches. In the final summation, forced altruism is the ultimate sin. It is a poison that eventually destroys both parties. Minimum state interference with our lives creates the most positive outcome for the greatest number. I am very aware that if my society goes down the toilet, I go with it!

    But I am still hoping someone can come along with a good philosophical or empirical argument that I haven't heard yet...But I doubt it. The universe is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

    Where do your "pre-existing beliefs" come from?

    Mad Mike

    By the way, shooting looters is not "the death penalty for theft" - there's no court involved. It's just shooting looters. Horrifyingly simple.

    Posted by: Mad Mike at September 6, 2005 2:18 AM

    Hey there again Mad Mike.

    Re my pre-existing beliefs. Initially I think mine came from parents, school, religion. Then as I got older, also the same as you, "from experience, literature of all kinds, and much introspection." I have also done no formal studies personally, but I sometimes read up on the studies done by others. I try to keep questioning.

    But, if she expected me to do all this after she were home and capable, she would get a rude shock, indeed. But that is exactly what the welfare state teaches.

    I don't think the welfare state is for the capable. I distinguish between deserving and undeserving poor.

    How do Americans feel about receiving foreign *cash* aid at this time? I'm getting differing messages.

    Posted by: foreigner at September 6, 2005 8:46 AM

    You're absolutely right, the welfare state is not for the capable...And I also distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor. Herein lies the problem. Who is actually capable? Worse yet, how many have actually been encouraged to be incapable by the welfare state? In so many different ways? The majority, I suspect.
    What the welfare state has done to the potential of so many citizens, over generations now, is a crime of historic proportions. Unfortunately history shows the inevitable collapse of this failed philosophy is usually grisly.

    Mad Mike

    Posted by: Mad Mike at September 6, 2005 12:05 PM

    If what you actually wrote was true -- which it's not -- then the 'peoples' of NO and Miss would be in a far better situation. It's clear they aren't. The United States is nowhere close to being, or becoming, a welfare-state -- to think otherwise is misunderstand the term heroically. But that wouldn't help your argument, now would it?

    How multiculturalism and identity politics are thrown into your rebuke of Katrina’s ‘victims’ still escapes me – maybe you can explain that one. Are they considered victims by dint of identity politics or is it simply the MSM that categorize them as such? And is the real victim the oppressed white-majority? Is “In former times” supposed to substitute for evidence or will you offer historical parallels that prove your point? Though, nice attempt at constructing a deplorable straw man almost half believable, but you should really read up. I’m convinced you have no idea what your talking about.

    Posted by: Oppressed and White at September 7, 2005 11:29 AM

    If "O&W" is actually MWW, I would politely remind her to "conduct herself accordingly" and to speak to "Constable Paranteaux" re. defamation laws...

    Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 7, 2005 7:44 PM

    Mad Mike

    defining capable - what do you think about support for those who are capable of work at times where there is no work available?

    I don't have a problem with state funding for education. If a child is born to poor parents, that's not his fault. It benefits the country as a whole to have an educated population.

    It's hard to discuss "THE welfare state" as if it was just one thing, there are many variations.

    Back to the post above

    And tens of thousands ignore them and remain in their homes.

    Many of them have cars parked in their driveways. Many who don't are able-bodied and capable of walking. They ignore the warning and simply remain where they are, though they have children and elderly in their care.

    Isn't that the reason some gave for staying? They had elderly in their care, whom they did not wish to abandon?

    Posted by: foreigner at September 8, 2005 5:47 AM
    Site
Meter