Jump on my motorcycle

Well it has been a very long time indeed since I last updated this site. I am not going to write much now either. I do plan to jump on my motorcycle and drive along the Skyline to enjoy the fall foilage. Maybe I'll have something to say then.

Below is article. My comments, when made, are in square brackets and colored blue.


The US Government did not fail its mission in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Contributed by: Ed Deak

Monday, October 03 2005 @ 11:31 AM MDT

Freedom Force InternationalTHE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSIONIN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINAAnalysis by G. Edward Griffin, updated 2005 September 30.

There has been widespread criticism of the response of US officials to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. The tone of these complaints is that the authorities failed to do their job quickly enough. Some commentators have said this is a racial issue, claiming that the government would have acted more promptly if the majority of victims had been white instead of black. Others have said it was an issue of the rich against the poor, the oil companies against the consumers, the land developers and contractors seeking to force people out of the city so they can rebuild without interference at taxpayers' expense. Democrats have said the problem is that Republicans were in control, and Republicans are indifferent to the plight of the common man.

[What assessment is made of the government's (all levels) obligation to empower individuals to prepare and respond to catastrophe? I am tired of being told to sit on my sorry ass, do nothing and wait for their hand outs and rescue.]

In news coverage of this tragedy, the most significant events often were buried beneath a blanket of heart-wrenching stories of personal survival, scenes of awesome destruction, reports of looting, and interviews with experts. However, the key to understanding can be found in the following list of news headlines, most of which did not make it into mainstream coverage. These reports make it clear that the government did not fail to respond in a timely fashion.

The problem was that it did respond - but in such a way as to actually hinder rescue operations.

[It is my personal opinion that no one is more willing to foresake logic and reason then a government employee dedicated more to a rigid set of policy and procedures rather then the spirit of its context.- worth repeating.]

There were too many instances for this to be merely a mistake or a bureaucratic snafu. There is a clear pattern here that cannot be denied. Why this should be so will be discussed in a moment, but first, here is the amazing record.

FEMA tells first responders not to respond until told to do so. FEMA News 2005 Aug 29

FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations.

FEMA News 2005 Aug 29 Offer of helicopters for rescue work is rejected. Narcosphere 2005 Sept 1

FEMA blocks 500 Florida airboat pilots from rescue work.Sun Sentinel 2005 Sept 2

FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck.Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 2

FEMA turns back volunteer Sheriff's deputies and medical team. Unknown News 2005 Sept 2

FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans.Tri Valley Central 2005 Sept 2

Pentagon says military mission in New Orleans is combat, not rescue. Army Times 2005 Sept 2

FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid.Daily Kos 2005 Sept 3

Homeland Security won't let Red Cross deliver food.Post Gazette 2005 Sept 3

Military turns back flood survivors trying to leave city. Thousands held at gunpoint and locked up in Superdome.Reuters 2005 Sept 3

FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital onboard. Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 4

FEMA cuts local emergency communications phone lines.Meet the Press 2005 Sept 4

FEMA turns away experienced firefighters.Daily Kos 2005 Sept 5

FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks.NY Times 2005 Sept 5

FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel.NY Times 2005 Sept 5

Navy pilots who rescued victims are reprimanded.NY Times 2005 Sept 7

US government turns back German plane with 15 tons of aid.Star Tribune 2005 Sept 10

FEMA officials forbid stores from re-opening. Sheriff defies their order and threatens to arrest them. Times-Picayune 2005 Sept 11

FEMA declines volunteer firemen for rescue operations. Uses them to distibute public relations pamphlets.Salt Lake Tribune 2005 Sept 12

FEMA orders doctor to stop treating hurricane victims.Advocate 2005 Sept 16

FEMA ignores offer of busses for evacuation of New Orleans.Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 23

[Although these headlines appear to only focus on FEMA or Federal agencies, I have no doubt that these types of issues had occurred thoughout all local and state levels of government as well.]

So what is going on here? Were agents of the federal government trying to kill American citizens? Were they trying to obtain the maximum toll and the highest level of human suffering? It would seem that way at first, but I would like to suggest that this incredible behavior stems from something else - something equally unsettling.

The only legitimate function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. In New Orleans, however, it was clear that the primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security was not to protect citizens, but to protect the government and keep it functioning. It can be argued that, if government does not protect itself first, it may not be able to protect its citizens, so that should be its first obligation. However, the government was not in danger in New Orleans. Aside from one or two snipers, its forces were never under attack, and its ability to function was never threatened; so the self-preservation argument is not valid in this case.

It was clear from the start that the goal of FEMA and Homeland Security was, not to resue people, but to control them. Their directive was to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. This is what they have been trained to do. The reason they failed to carry out an effective rescue operation is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well.

William Anderson, [not me] in an article posted to the the web site of the von Mises Institute, came to the same conclusion but from a slightly different perspective. He calls attention to the need for politicians and government agencies to be in the spotlight during emergencies so they can look good to the voters and claim credit for all positive results. They are not interested in sharing the praise. Williams writes:

The huge outpouring of private aid, from donation of money, food, clothing, time, and housing (many people simply have taken in refugees — white and black — in their own homes) stands in contrast to [Anne] Rice's "America is hopelessly racist and s the poor" [as Rice claimed in the New York Times] and strates that the will to sacrifice for those truly in need certainly exists in this country. While it is not surprising that the elitist New York Times would take this as its standard view, it also is a shame when the country's "newspaper of record" can't even record the right things.

Yet, for all of the public angst over the federal government's — and especially FEMA's — post-disaster response, most observers have missed what is painfully obvious:

the government's response was perfectly in character to how people in government act in such situations.

To say this in an alternative way, government was being government the same way that a dog is a dog.

As anyone knows, dogs are territorial animals, and governments are territorial entities. The first rule that a government agent follows when confronted with an "emergency" is to "secure the area." For example, when two young men were merrily going on a and spree at Columbine High School in 1999, the vaunted police "SWAT" team stayed outside and encircled the complex because someone said that the area had to be "secured" before police actually could try to save anyone. (Of course, we found out later that not only did police fail to save people, but at least one person bled to because police refused to get help until the man had died. This was not incompetence; it was the normal workings of the "I am in charge and don't you forget it" mentality that permeates government at all levels.)

Immediately after the hurricane had stopped in New Orleans, for example, a Wal-Mart had brought a truckload of bottled water; FEMA officials turned the truck away, declaring that it was "not needed." Before we dismiss this incident as yet another example of incompetent government, we should realize that the official's actions were completely within the character of government.

When governments act to provide services to individuals, they are done within a very different context than what occurs when private organizations provide services. [I insert caution here and a reminder of the large general and administration costs incurred by non-profit organizations. I suggest that any entity, given life as a going- concern ,will (have executives) try to control its surroundings as a natural extension of its very existence. Why is that corporations, and businessmen are naturally and automatically viewed by the public as evil and self serving, while the government, with its social programs are not?] The post-Katrina services performed by the Red Cross and other organizations such as civil groups and churches did not come with the threat of force attached to them. Church volunteers cannot arrest or even kill someone in those circumstances, but a representative of the government can perform such things without recrimination (and on more than one occasion did just that post-Katrina).

Moreover, government services are performed in as visible a manner as possible. Anyone who has watched some of the post-hurricane coverage has seen press conference after press conference after photo-opportunity of government officials from President George W. Bush to mayors, governors, FEMA and military personnel and the like, people whose job is to be seen doing "good" for political constituents. These things are done with the podium and the TV camera in mind.

[And this does not conflict with the objectives of the news media's agenda either. It was interesting to note that an absence of Bush's direct present on the scence quickly denoted judgements of apathy or low concern, while his previous appearance at ground zero raised cries of self promotion and political gain.]

The FEMA official who waved off the Wal-Mart truck was correct; FEMA did not "need" Wal-Mart to help. In fact, people from FEMA did not want Wal-Mart to help, as the company would have been able to steal some of the thunder that "rightfully" should belong to FEMA and other government agencies.

While the world is preoccupied with trying to fix the blame for the government's failure in New Orleans, the reality is that it did not fail at all. It was a huge success in promoting its own agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda was not to rescue American citizens. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical.

If there are new ist attacks against the United States or Great Britain or any other country, what we witnessed in New Orleans may have been but a fleeting glimpse into the future of global collectivism.

URL of this page:http://www.freedom-force.org/printerfriendly.cfm?
pffile=FEMA_Katrina_content.cfm

As I grow older I am becoming a Chauvinist, and if the truth be told…it doesn’t really bother me.

The MSN website had a link entitled, When woman overuse the “s” word. My first reaction was to figure out what the word was. I immediately came up with a list of all the different "s" words woman have called me, but knowing that it was probably none of these, I clicked the link. After reading I figured I would insert my reaction in green bold text.

Stop Apologizing When It's Not Your Fault
By Mary Mohler

Originally published in Ladies' Home Journal magazine, June 2005.

On a recent Saturday morning, I set a plate of pancakes on the dining room table. "I wanted waffles," grumbled my youngest.

"I'm sorry," came my reflexive reply. "I thought you liked pancakes."
Only later did it occur to me to wonder when, and why, I had become so spineless. After all, in a global sense, this kid is lucky to be getting breakfast at all. Yet somehow I've made myself responsible not only for preparing the food my family eats but also for preparing food that all of them like. And if they don't? Well, it's my fault, of course. And I apologize.

When I think about it, if I had a dollar for every time I've uttered the S word, I'd be shoulder to shoulder with Donald Trump. Countless are the occasions when I've mumbled, "Sorry, I need to use the ladies' room," or "Sorry, I need to go to bed before I pass out." Sure, it's partly a verbal tic, but it has also become my main posture. I mean, if such basic human functions as sleeping and relieving myself require an apology, how will I ever justify taking time away from my family for such "luxuries" as exercising or reading a novel? [Pity grope.] I'm convinced that the primary image my family has of me is my expressing how very sorry I am. [There, there you poor thing.]

But then I have lots of company. Women tend to apologize constantly and unconsciously, as automatically as we say hello and goodbye. We apologize to our husbands, our children, our bosses, our assistants; to salesclerks, to bank tellers, to hairdressers. For showing up early or showing up late. We are so ready with "sorry" that we seem to accept responsibility even for situations that are in no way under our control. You are not to blame for the fact that mosquitoes the size of DC-10s ruined your family's picnic, nor could you have prevented the rain that fell on your daughter's outdoor graduation party. But you probably apologized for both.
It's not that we believe, literally, that we are accountable for the behavior of insects or the vagaries of climate. But we offer our apologies anyway, employing them as an all-purpose emotional emollient -- what prominent linguist Deborah Tannen, PhD, calls grease for the conversational wheels. So we apologize to interrupt ("Sorry, could I just add a comment?"), to get attention ("Sorry, could we get menus?"), to backhandedly assert our needs ("Sorry, I really need a break"), to beg pardon for our fallibility ("Sorry, I didn't catch that").

So sympathetic but it hardly stops there. "Women, much more than men, use 'I'm sorry' to express sympathy or empathy, as in 'I'm sorry that happened to you,' as opposed to, 'I did something wrong and I'm accepting my culpability,'" explains Dr. Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C., and author of the best-selling You Just Don't Understand and Talking from 9 to 5.

In this context, the apologizer is simply acknowledging the other person's experience. In other instances, the ritual exchange of apologies is the verbal equivalent of a handshake -- a way of closing the subject. "It works like this," says Dr. Tannen. "I apologize to you for A, then you apologize to me for B, and we've maintained our equal footing." [Maintaining equal footing? Funny thing how woman view most everything as a power issue.] Apologizing can also be a means to prompt an apology from someone else, she points out. "If I'm annoyed that you broke a vase I loved, I might say, 'I'm sorry I yelled at you for breaking the vase.' The real point is to get you to say, 'No, I'm sorry -- I should have been more careful.'" [So if I am to understand this, woman say sorry to manipulate others into saying they are sorry. She is angry, and he wasn’t sorry about breaking a vase. Things happen. What was so special about that vase anyway?]

So what's wrong with any of that? [What’s wrong? How about denying true feelings of anger, or trying to manipulate someone by displaying a false reaction to elicit regret from the guy.] Don't such ritualized expressions convey empathy and reflect sophisticated interpersonal skills? [If woman are suppose to be better communicators and more in touch with their feelings, this paragraph doesn’t prove it to me.] Indeed they do. The problem is that for such rituals to work, both parties (read: both men and women) need to understand the terms. And therein lies the problem. "There aren't always clear rules about what 'sorry' means," bemoans my longtime friend Judy Grimm, a self-described "overapologizer" from Redlands, California. "When women say it, it means something entirely different from when men do."

"Women are accustomed to using apologies in a social way, but men tend to take a more literal view, seeing them as expressions of regret for their actions," agrees Dr. Tannen. "So they don't come back with the desired response. For example, if I apologize for A, and you merely accept my apology without reciprocating with B, I'm left in a weakened position." [Again, she makes it a power struggle.]

Let's imagine that your partner responds to your apology about the shattered vase with "yes, you're always overreacting to trivial stuff." [Seems like an accurate comment to me.]Now you will be seething not only about the broken vase but also about the broken social contract that your partner's lack of remorse represents. Such is the gulf that divides the sexes on this issue. [I'm never going to buy a vase for my wife. Seems like too much trouble.]

Furthermore, the gender difference is one of degree as well as of kind. "I teach etiquette, so I would never advise anyone of either sex not to apologize," says Barbara Pachter, a business communications consultant in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and author of When the Little Things Count...and They Always Count. Still, she adds, when an apology is warranted, women will extend it 10 times instead of the one that suffices for men. [Ten to one, ahhh you have to love the male's efficiency.]

Why We Do It
So what is it about women that makes us such a "sorry" lot? Robin T. Lakoff, PhD, professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Talking Power, suggests that our readiness to apologize may derive from our traditional position as second-class citizens. "Nobody apologizes unless they have to," Dr. Lakoff maintains. "Women have spent a lot of history at the mercy of the physically stronger sex. When your livelihood and your survival depend on someone else, you avoid annoying him [Stop right there. Women avoid annoying men? This is proof to me that this person has no idea what they are talking about.] -- or try to placate him if you do." Since women have been in positions of power for only the past 30 or 40 years, she adds, we remain creatures of this historical habit.

In our social roles, too, Dr. Lakoff says, much of what we do is designed to make people feel better and to forge personal connections: "We are the soothers, the conversational mediators." [Just don't break a vase!] And those roles are often reinforced by the kinds of work that women do. "Many of the jobs typically filled by women involve speaking on behalf of someone more powerful," Dr. Lakoff notes. "That often entails a lot of soothing." (As in "I'm sorry, he's out of the office" or "I'm sorry, we don't accept that credit card.") We're adept at these roles; consequently we feel comfortable in them.

But even if we consider apologies to be no more than entrenched social conventions, it's undeniable that women issue a great many more of them than men do, and in situations that are downright ludicrous. Attorney Sarah Weddington, the powerhouse who successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court, recalls her own "aha" moment, when she realized her tendency to apologize had gotten out of hand. As part of the research for a pending case involving environmental issues, she found herself the only woman accompanying a group of nine forest rangers who were traveling on horseback to examine lakes and rivers, with mules to carry provisions. "We all took turns having the pack of mules tied to our horse," she says. "When it was my turn, the lead mule got his rope tangled, frightening the other mules. Without thinking, I got off my horse, ran over to the mule and said, 'I am so sorry!'"

Once after she related this incident in a speech, Weddington remembers, a woman came up to her with an apology story that trumped hers: As an emergency room nurse, the woman witnessed a female patient whose first words after arriving in the ER with serious injuries from an accident [hmmm woman driver?] were "I'm sorry, I didn't have time to shave my legs." Lacking power or control, we default in such situations to an apology. It is an underdog's way to gain sympathy.

The Price We Pay
Using apologies like punctuation, however, can exact a subtle toll, says Pachter, particularly in the workplace, where women stand to lose the most. "As a strategic move, men like to deflect blame," she says. "If you are too ready with an apology, they are all too willing to let you take the fall."

Most men fail to appreciate the negotiating potential of the ritual apology -- "it's not part of male grammar," observes Dr. Lakoff -- and they sometimes won't take the time to decode the message. To men, saying "I'm sorry" means you have something to be sorry about. It is an admission of culpability and weakness. [Sounds reasonable to me.]

Group situations provide particularly fertile ground for women's "sorriness." How often have you introduced your contribution to a meeting with a phrase like, "Sorry, could I just interject something here?" Yet offering an apology along with your opinion tends to discount the merchandise, suggesting that you're not entirely convinced you have the right to speak or that you lack faith in the quality of your ideas.

"I really hate when I do that," says Grimm, "because it cheapens what I have to say." What happens, she adds, "is that women sometimes put more emphasis on the effects of what we say than on the content itself. And that keeps us from really speaking our minds."
Is the answer, then, to emulate men's speech? Not necessarily. [That would make too much sense.] (And why is it always women who are expected to change?) [Maybe because in this case, they are the ones with the issue?] The empathetic awareness of other's feelings is a virtue, a positive trait to which both sexes should aspire. "The world would be better off if men would apologize more," says Grimm ruefully -- and who would argue? [Wow, the entire world? This is really becoming too delusional. The solution of having men apologize all the time so that women won't, doesn't make sense. So men are the root cause of women’s sorry problem. For women tried of always having to struggle for power and control, here's an easy one, take control of your own emotions and actions instead of making men apologize for every little thing.] At the same time, it is important to realize that over an extended period, constantly apologizing diminishes not only what we say but also who we are.[Typical, woman want it both ways.Men need to apologize much more, and as soon as they do it will be too much.]

Yet the refusal to apologize carries the risk that men -- accustomed to seeing women in our conventional role of peacemaker -- may find us "abrasive" or "difficult" if they happen not to like the opinions we unapologetically express. And -- duh -- these are not adjectives that most of us willingly seek out.

Although Dr. Tannen cautions against assuming that a person's verbal style is a key to his or her psychological state, she says habitual apologies can be part of a pattern of self-effacing behavior. And Dr. Lakoff believes that one of the hidden costs of women's willingness to accept blame is that, as she says, "over time, we feel more and more blameworthy, less willing to be assertive." After all, repeatedly saying "I'm sorry" eventually sends the not-so-subtle message that our very existence is an imposition.

So what's the answer? Should we concentrate really hard and just stop saying "sorry" altogether? Of course not. [Huh?] But we do need to be a lot more mindful when we do. The next time that you find yourself automatically blurting out an apology, "stop and carefully consider why you're saying it and how it makes you feel," advises Dr. Lakoff. Start by keeping an informal tally of how often it is that you apologize (the numbers may be staggering). [Going a bit overboard, I think.] And, of course, remember to take the context into account. As Dr. Tannen points out, "what works just fine in girl talk may cost you dearly in the office." [I guess she is a Chauvinist too. Is there an assumption here that the boss is a male? What if the boss is a women?]

With practice, you will catch yourself and thereby thwart the nosedive in self-esteem that occurs every time you broach an idea with "Sorry..."
It's really not that hard. (Think of it as one small step for woman, one giant step for womankind.) [ Its a bloody movement.] Indeed, when you consciously look for other words with which to soothe or negotiate, you may just discover a whole new world of possibilities out there, including the greatest possibility of all: that you'll end up a more confident, self-assured person.

Well that’s the end of the article. Hope I didn’t offend anyone. If I did I’m sorry.

Another Thought

Our vanity prevents us from seeing our hypocrisy.