Worst Adminstration Ever
Sep. 2nd, 2005 11:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarrick
We all know the Republicans don't care about human lives or the sorts of freedoms one would expect in, oh, say, a republic, and are more concerned with profit, consolidation and abuse of federal powers (a.k.a. turning the republic into an empire), and dog-wagging imperialism... so let's look at where they have failed in these terms:50% of U.S. food exports go out through New Orleans. There are only five nations on earth that produce a surplus of food: the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Ukraine, and Russia. Not only are the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama suffering the direct consequences, but soon people throughout South America, Africa, and Asia will have food shortages.
Between 15 and 20 percent of United States' foreign trade comes in through New Orleans. Most of the nation's steel and rubber comes in through New Orleans. What kind of impact is this going to have on the American auto industry? Most of the nation's coffee comes in through New Orleans - expect your morning cup of coffee to get a lot more expensive.
Understanding their own place and importance to the U.S. economy, the port of New Orleans had been requesting federal funds to upgrade the levees since 2001. Not only did the federal government not allocate the money, they reduced funding to a point that the levees were barely being maintained. Remember that prior to his election Bush had never been to any foreign country other than Mexico and didn't even know the name of the prime minister of Canada.
Between 20 and 30 percent of the United States' oil refining capability was (note the past tense) in the affected area. U.S. refining capacity typically runs at near 100%. Americans can expect gas prices to get a lot higher than $3/gal. And remember that it's not just SUV-driving suburban soccer moms that are affected by this. Ships, trucks, and trains need fuel, too, and with the port of New Orleans out of service, ships have to travel farther to reach alternate ports of adequite capacity like Los Angeles and New York, and subsequently goods have to be shipped farther at higher rates. This makes everything more expensive.
The word isn't in yet on how much lumber production in the south has been impacted, but it has been. Lumber prices are up around 15% and rising. 30% of the lumber normally consumed in the U.S. comes from Canada at a price that is artificially inflated 20% by illegal tarriffs. Add the increaces shipping costs from the more expensive fuel on top of that and understand that the price the average person is going to have to pay to rebuild their home is significantly more than it need be.
The cost of the war was already crippling the U.S. economy and driving up a debt so great that GNP barely covers the interest. He gambled with the most important port in the country by diverting federal funds for the levees to removing the rogue dictator installed by Reagan and Rumsfeld and fighting a war his own father avoided as untenable and fruitless, and lost the bet. There isn't one sector of the American economy that is not going to be affected by this.
The hurricane seasons of the last few years should have been ample warning that stronger storms are becoming more common, but remember that Bush doesn't believe the climate is actually changing (whether or not you think the change is the result of pollution or a natural variation, any idiot can see that change is happening). Shoring up and securing the most important port in the U.S. should have been a fundamental matter of national security - infinitely more imprortant to the American people than bringing "freedom" to a foreign nation - but unfortunately for us all, not glitzy enough to meet the political goals of power-hungry politicians too busy reading from Joseph Goebbels' Big Book of Propoganda How-To's (after replacing "Jew" with "Arab").
And with the American dollar being the reserve currency of choice for most of the world, its inevitable nose-dive is going to ruin the economy of most of the world. Countries like China that don't have U.S. currency reserves will prosper. Europe will proser as countries scramble to shift their reserves from dollars to euros (a trend that was already underway). This administration has taken the United States to the point where this disaster could easily cause the country to fall apart like the Soviet Union in the 1990's.
If this doesn't set off a major economic depression, I'll eat my hat (and if it does, I may have to). The irony is, as with the last depression, it is the "Red States" that will bear the worst of the economic damage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 10:54 pm (UTC)Maybe it's just God's Wrath for all them voting Republican? Condisering the mentality of the folks down there, that might just fly next election...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-02 11:33 pm (UTC)brilliant line...ha ha...
but seriously well written and much of what has been on my mind...not to mention the idiot was on his propaganda tour right after the hurricane giving a speech to prop up his unnecessary and illegal war...any other president would have been in louisiana and mississippi with the governors...and one has to wonder if most of the military helicopters wern't in iraq how many more people would be saved...though they don't seem to be panicking because they are only african american and likely democrats...this man is the biggest lame duck president ever, but even worse he's dangerous with his stupidity...it's not a wonder with the likes of dick cheney and karl rove advising you...the sad part is they are fucking up the rest of the world too, not just their own country...i'm linking to your post in my journal...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 03:10 am (UTC)Very well written and I couldn't agree more in many cases ...
Date: 2005-09-03 01:54 am (UTC)New Orleans knew this was going to happen someday. For many more years than the Republicans were in control of office. Now, I hate the current administration as the next, and you know how I feel about how horrible this is, but one thing that is overlooked is the reality of acting on things timely and properly. Granted, The current administration is crippled in not being able to send enough troops, helicopters, vehicles from the military angle because its wasting them away in Iraq where we do not belong.
The Levees:
Yes, New Orleans has been requesting funds for upgrading the Levys. They Got enormous sums of Money for upgrading the Levys. I Know this. Because my paycheck a few months back, was funded by the Army Corp of Engineers in both Mississippi and Louisiana, to do survey work, along the Levys of the Mississippi, to make sure that the work the military, state, and federal government was going to do on upgrading and fixing the levys would not damage the cultural history of Mississippi and Louisiana. I even became unemployed because one homeowner refused to let us come on her property to check things out before they work on the levys. They could of been the Army assumed control and walked over her individual rights with their right to come on her property and do what they needed - but no, they were respectful of her freedoms, heard her in court, and delaying the levy work for more months. Multiply that by every homeowner along the mississippi, and you can see the levy work delays. Its sad, but true. The Funds for Louisiana as well as Mississippi are for the entire states, not just (1) City. The Mississippi River is a vast river with Levys all the way up its entire course that protect homes, cities, people, wildlife, and cultural resources throughout the middle of the U.S. Everything upstream affects New Orleans, so not only was work needed on the Levys in New Orleans, but everywhere else. It was the stupidity of people residing where they shouldn't be residing, and trying to change the course of nature, and change a river. I visited a handful of "ghost towns" that finally were abandoned along the Mississipp through the course of history after the settlers gave up after flood after flood and came to their senses. Its sad to see, even historically. People don't listen, they will just find a way to fight off nature. I'm not trying to diminish the effect of what happened, it's horrible, and yes the administration couldn't respond amply because of Iraq eating up our troops and resources where we don't belong. But people don't listen. Certainly the poor who wanted to leave, couldn't. Hell, given some weeks in my life if I was doing fieldwork still in Louisiana, I probably couldn't of left. But I honestly believe the majority simply refused to go, or would of ridden it out. People are stupid. Hell, I was planning on driving right on through New Orleans and spending time at my ex's Katrina's right in the zone because sure it sounded horrible, but yeah, its just a hurricane. I've been through a few. That was stupid of me and I'm glad I was turned around when I was, but I was going to find a backroute even with authorities telling me to go back. I was stupid (even though I think I'm an intelligent person). People just don't expect the worse.
Re: Very well written and I couldn't agree more in many cases ...
Date: 2005-09-03 01:55 am (UTC)Just as I posted during the evacuation of New Orleans, since they simply didn't have the resources to move everyone out in time (or even be 100% that what they expected would truly happen) - they knew, as the governor relentlessly ordered 80,000 body bags just in case.
Just some points to consider ...
Re: Very well written and I couldn't agree more in many cases ...
Date: 2005-09-03 03:53 am (UTC)That's the point, they are. The three biggest ports in the US are New York, L.A. and New Orleans. New Orleans is the best connected of the three. The river connects New Orleans to the heartland of the country. New Orleans has more rail connections than the other ports. It is more centrally located. That's why it is where it is. New York State Governor DeWitt Clinton saw it after the Louisiana Purchase - the Erie Canal was dug to make New York competative with New Orleans lest New York become a backwater as the west was settled. I'm intentially ignoring the immediate human cost, and looking at the implications for the economy and security of the whole country. In that context that one city is and has always been more important than any other city on the river. Florida is nowhere near as important strategically or economically.
The projects to improve the New Orleans levees so that this vital port could withstand a category 5 had been going on since the 1960. The funding started to dry up in 2003, just when new studies in the wake of the 2002 hurricane season were coming out to show that the work remained inadequite.
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
The science to show what was needed in the light of increacingly violent hurricane seasons was done during this administration. The diversion of necessary funds away from an area genuinely vital to the security and economy of the United States was done by this administration. That article may likely have been part of the "everything we can".
And all that being said, it only redoubles the point that resources should have been marshalled as soon as it was clear the storm was on it's way.
You know me. I do my homework before I spout off. I agree that is was inevitable, but the port is there for a reason, and that reason is important. A president that can't see that isn't worthy of office.
And, by the way, Venice didn't sink. Venice was settled intentially by Roman refugees fleeing the Huns. It was consciously built on a swamp to make it inaccessible to the Huns' mounted armies. And because it worked it was spared a lot of the nastiness of the fall of the western empire and became an important hold-out of the ancient world during the dark ages. But that's a whole big story of its own.
Re: Very well written and I couldn't agree more in many cases ...
Date: 2005-09-03 05:26 am (UTC)before you spout off
motivated to show off your "intelligence"
in the end your vanity is your undoing
were you able to save any life in this one
or did you just preach AGAIN to the converted
liberals are super moronic
Eat me
Date: 2005-09-03 10:44 am (UTC)Real men don't need to bolster their egos with LJ communities like
One of the great cities of your nation is in ruins, and it's ruin will have ramifications you obviously can't grasp, let alone the human cost. Your president is a laughing stock in every nation on Earth, including his own. You are ingnorant of your place in the world and the importance of what is (and is not) happening. You are the problem because you believe the lies and elected the liar. Thousands have died simply to win your vote and that blood is yours to bear.
You are judged on what you do. Have you helped, not just now, but ever? Do you support those you love? Can you? Have you ever been bloodied and bruised for the sale of someone else? Have you ever run in to a burning building to make sure everyone was out safely? Have you ever looked anyone in the eye who has lost everything and given help without expecting or receiving reward for doing so? Have you ever stood up at your on detrement on behalf of those that were too afraid to stand up for themselves? I have.
And don't flatter yourself that this is wholly written on your behalf. This is a general reubuttal for the commonplace ignorance that leads to dangerous faith in despotic liars for which I find you archetypical.
Re: Very well written and I couldn't agree more in many cases ...
Date: 2005-09-03 01:02 pm (UTC)With New York is was only a half-dozen buildings ruined, some local infrastructure, and a communications hub that a replacement was jury-rigged for within 48 hours (I saw it, I wish I had taken a picture of it - the telephone switching handled in the WTC was replaced by a sea of Verizon vans linked by cables, it was impressive). If the levees were blown up in an obstenively millitary action designed to disrupt the port and refineries and the president reacted as slowly, imagine the outrage. The fact that this was an act of God, and the damage is actually worse than what could be accomplished with bombs really doesn't excuse the inaction.
Of course the lives matter, they matter greatly, but even looking at it from a wholly detached, strictly strategic and ecomomic (i.e. millitary) perspective thousands of lives would have and could have been saved incidentally by taking care of the "bottom line" from that detached perspective.
Now, not only is the port badly damaged and in need of costly repairs, but the "human resources" needed to repair and adequitely man the facilites won't have anywhere to live for months.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 02:26 am (UTC)You get a gold star!!!!
:)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 08:53 am (UTC)Do you have some kind of source for this assertion? According to what I've read, quite the opposite is true -- it took nine days for the support request to wend its way through the bureaucracy then, and this time there were 7500 troops on the ground within 24 hours --
http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/story.asp?id=1742
-- which sure looks to me like the response was a lot better this time.
And, while you're at it, could you please explain how Clinton was able to put troops on the ground after Andrew, exactly? Since the President on August 16-28 1992 was Bush Sr., kinda seems to me that any discussion of troops on the ground during Katrina should reference him, not Clinton. Interesting discrepancy there I await your elucidation upon.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 12:24 pm (UTC)Ports are a well established military targets for good reason. Leaving arguably the most important (and if not, then assuredly one of the three most important) ports vulnerable to any threat, natural or otherwise, is not something someone with national security in mind should tolerate. And regardless of that oversight, his lingering for a day on vacation playing guitar and eating birthday cake while a vital national resource is in disarray should be something that should utterly incense any conservative or patriot. Consider the outrage that would happen if he was this slow to respond to the levees being destroyed as a deliberate act of sabotage designed to disrupt port and oil refining operations! And that would be damage that is just a small fraction of what Katrina has done.
It infurates me, as a Canadian, because our economies are far too intertwined for us not to get dragged down along with them.
It's my fond (but unlikely) hope that this vulnerability will be a catalyst for Canada moving away from an economy based in foreign cash reserves. At the very least, better the rising EUR than declining USD.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 04:32 pm (UTC)... is a failing shared by all past administrations, local state and federal. In fact, if you meander over to my journal, you'll notice that I've graphed the actual facts as reported by the NOAA, which show that in the 1970s through the 1990s, there were *less* major (Cat 3-5) hurricane landfalls each decade than the 1850s-present rolling average. So whatever these recent warnings are you refer to don't appear to have any demonstrable factual basis.
The point here, in case you're not bright enough to grasp it, isn't that Bush is blameless here, it's that the problem of disaster prepardeness is obviously systemic and although scoring political points off demonizing one particular individual makes your little leftie heart beat faster and all, it's rather anti-productive in terms of addressing the real problem. Sure, you're all in chorus bleating *now* that the shortage of levee funds is Incontrevertible Proof Of Absolute Evil. But who was making a national priority out of them when they started? Or in last fall's elections? Sure, sure, Bush should have spent whatever it takes to shore up these exact levees. Okay, let's flip that: Why weren't the Democrats pointing out in last fall's election all the failings that your 100% hindsight presents now -- surprise!! -- as being so blindingly obvious? Are they in cahoots with The Evil Booooosh as well, that they actively hid this necessity from the people? Or do you think that The Evil Booooosh had some magical source of knowledge that the Democrats didn't have access to? Or -- stay with me here, I know this is going to be a really tough leap for you -- could it possibly be that this complete lack of fuss on the issue demonstrates that BOTH major candidate's parties, with access to the same information, independently made the same judgement that this lack of preparation wasn't something that amounted to a major national issue?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, that line of inquiry doesn't support the thesis that The Evil Boosh is uniquely devilish in the entire annals of history, so of course there's no way you could ever consider that without your little leftie head exploding. Neee-eever mind.
And regardless of that oversight, his lingering for a day on vacation playing guitar and eating birthday cake while a vital national resource is in disarray should be something that should utterly incense any conservative or patriot.
Yeah, yeah, and a year ago your kind was bitching at him for responding too quickly to hurricanes.
Even before the storm hit, the president declared four counties disaster areas to speed federal money to victims. But that quick response fueled suspicion that he is using disaster politics to help his campaign in one of the most critical battleground states, a notion the president dismissed Sunday.
"Yeah, and if I didn't come they'd have said he should have been here more rapidly," Mr. Bush said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/national/main636126.shtml
One thing your sort has to learn that when you spout manufactured outrage at absolutely everything the President does, when it comes to something like this where it's possible you might actually have a good point, people remember that you were vilifying him for exactly the opposite reasons in his response to a hurricane barely a year ago and proceed to discount your outrage as equally kneejerk and artificial this time around. Boy that cried wolf and all that.
(continued in part II after LJ-enforced length break...)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 04:33 pm (UTC)Oh, I don't know about that. Like anyone with a functioning brain cell or two, I'm overweighted in the Alberta oil sector these days in my investment portfolio, and it's doing very nicely indeed. Furthermore, the US softwood industry isn't up to handling the demand for new construction that's in the process of gearing up, so all of a sudden we have a really good lever for negotiations over the lumber tariff thing; for them to defend a now declared quite thoroughly illegal tariff on wood stocks being used to rebuild after this hurricane would be pretty indefensible you'd think. Sooo, at least for BC and Alberta which are the only parts of Canada that matter of course, I'm seeing a good bit of possible upside here.
Now, if your sort would just stop trying to throw all the roadblocks you can in front of offshore oil/gas exploration in this province as well, then B.C. could really get positioned to do a lot better in future by reducing the strategic importance of oil imports in general and this port in particular. Naaaaah, that actually makes sense, you'd never go for THAT.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 08:31 pm (UTC)And the problem here is with the legislative branch, not the executive branch, bending to to lobby pressures from southern lumber manufacturers. These manufacturers are going to screaming twice as loud over "lost business" now and since the tariffs feed back into their coffers they aren't likely to go away soon.
I know you don't read my journal regularly so I'll overlook the "your sort" dig about BC oil production. I'm a stong proponent of industry in British Columbia, primary, secondary and tertiary. I'd love to see not only a diversifcation of primary industry in BC, but the development of manufacturing industries here to do something with those raw materials. You've got me pegged wrong on that account.
I agree with you and was impressed by Bush declairing a disaster area before landfall, but he left the order toothless and unmanaged. To know, clearly and oviously in advance as the order indicates, that a city of fundamental economic and strategic importance was about to get its ass kicked and then not being right on top of it to ensure those federal departments over which the executive branch has direct control in a domestic emergency are coordinated and working is unforgivably bad management. I'll say it again, this is not Alligator Sinkhole, Fla. that got hammered, but rather the most well-connected port in America.
On a personal note, Alex, you know I don't need you to share my opinion any more than you need me to share yours, and you've got your journal for your opinions and I've got this one for mine. To date nothing productive has ever come from you and I beating heads, why should we continue to bother?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 09:36 pm (UTC)True, but the home-construction industry has always been on Canada's side, they're just not as well-organized and deep-pocketed as the timber companies. However, their side might get enough attention in the rebuilding to offset that is my thinking. 'Might' being the key word here.
I'm a stong proponent of industry in British Columbia, primary, secondary and tertiary. I'd love to see not only a diversifcation of primary industry in BC, but the development of manufacturing industries here to do something with those raw materials.
Oops. OK, I retract that bit then. I had no idea what your actual economic views were, just assumed they were anti-industry since that's virtually always associated with the whole Bush-bashing thing.
To date nothing productive has ever come from you and I beating heads, why should we continue to bother?
Hmmmm, well, I suppose I could claim that one can only be confident in the strength of one's views by seeking out the strongest possible opposition to validate them against, yadayadayada ... but that would be pretty much bullshit. Truth is, I just enjoy arguing, if everybody I knew on LJ was diehard Bush fans I'd be channeling Michael Moore at them to watch them splutter.