The American Spectator
09-07-2005, 08:52 AM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Mont Belvieu, Tx.
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The American Spectator A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:
1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.
2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.
3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.
4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.
5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.
6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.
7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.
8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.
9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.
10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.
11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.
12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.
God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.
****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:
More Mysteries of Katrina:
Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?
What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?
What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?
If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?
When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?
Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?
Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?
By Ben Stein
1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.
2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.
3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.
4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.
5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.
6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.
7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.
8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.
9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.
10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.
11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.
12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.
God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.
****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:
More Mysteries of Katrina:
Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?
What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?
What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?
If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?
When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?
Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?
Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?
By Ben Stein
Last edited by DJ's99SS; 09-07-2005 at 09:14 AM.
09-07-2005, 09:04 AM
#2
Teching In
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sachse,Tx
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 110% with everything you wrote. Yes what happened is bad but like you said it's up to the local and state to do things first then if they can't get it done ask for federal help. Like the FEMA guy said they are not a first response team that is up to the local and state goverments.
09-07-2005, 09:15 AM
#4
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pearland/Houston, Tx
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?
09-07-2005, 09:20 AM
#5
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Burleson/Ftw,Texas
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was all Michael Jackson's Fault, that damn moonwalking crap confused the winds in the 80's and it has cascaded to the Hurricane that happen today.
People always would rather point fingers instead of pointing the fingers at themselves
People always would rather point fingers instead of pointing the fingers at themselves
Trending Topics
09-07-2005, 11:26 AM
#8
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DJ's99SS
4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.
Actually, that is wrong. There IS overwhelming evidence supporting the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. The reason behind Bush's stance is that he found scientists who will say its not. (It's like the idiots who think they can scientifically disprove evolution by attempting to prove events in the Bible. The overwhelming majority is against them, but their existence alone is enough for Bible thumpers to use them as a basis for bringing Genesis into the classroom as "conflicting theory".) Bush decided that there was enough "disagreement" about the existence of global warming to warrant America ignoring the Kyoto treaty.
Third world countries, the worst polluters, were exempt because if they followed Kyoto then they would never have a chance to be anything but third world countries. Kyoto does have parts that apply to these countries though.
Global warming has been getting steadily worse - and jumped in the past hundred or so years. No, it's not Bush's fault. No, nothing Bush could do would fix or stop it. It takes a worldwide effort. However, Bush and especially his support of the oil industry isn't even the beginning of the changes that need to be made to help the future. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
And no, I don't think Bush caused the hurricane.
09-07-2005, 11:34 AM
#10
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
Actually, that is wrong. There IS overwhelming evidence supporting the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
09-07-2005, 11:43 AM
#11
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darwin's theory is over 150 years old. It has evolved. It has become a strong enough theory to base other theories on- in an incredible range of research areas. It is an idea that has been tested countless times and has survived this long under intense scrutiny. And it is constantly gaining more support as it is researched further.
And, btw, nothing is ever scientifically PROVEN. Ever. Theories can either be supported or DISproven. If it's supported enough, it becomes a scientific law- and even laws get disproven.
And, btw, nothing is ever scientifically PROVEN. Ever. Theories can either be supported or DISproven. If it's supported enough, it becomes a scientific law- and even laws get disproven.
09-07-2005, 11:56 AM
#13
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
And, btw, nothing is ever scientifically PROVEN. Ever. Theories can either be supported or DISproven. If it's supported enough, it becomes a scientific law- and even laws get disproven.
09-07-2005, 12:00 PM
#14
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
Darwin's theory is over 150 years old. It has evolved. It has become a strong enough theory to base other theories on- in an incredible range of research areas. It is an idea that has been tested countless times and has survived this long under intense scrutiny. And it is constantly gaining more support as it is researched further.
And, btw, nothing is ever scientifically PROVEN. Ever. Theories can either be supported or DISproven. If it's supported enough, it becomes a scientific law- and even laws get disproven.
And, btw, nothing is ever scientifically PROVEN. Ever. Theories can either be supported or DISproven. If it's supported enough, it becomes a scientific law- and even laws get disproven.
Last edited by cantdrv65; 09-07-2005 at 12:06 PM.
09-07-2005, 12:06 PM
#15
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
laws can certainly be disproven.
Darwin's theory began a wildfire of thought and research in a direction it had never been in before. It is a theory embraced by thousands of very respected scientists worldwide, who strive to understand more about the phenomenon daily. Are you saying that these people are wasting their time persuing a "scientific joke"?
Darwin's theory began a wildfire of thought and research in a direction it had never been in before. It is a theory embraced by thousands of very respected scientists worldwide, who strive to understand more about the phenomenon daily. Are you saying that these people are wasting their time persuing a "scientific joke"?
09-07-2005, 12:07 PM
#16
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
laws can certainly be disproven.
Darwin's theory began a wildfire of thought and research in a direction it had never been in before. It is a theory embraced by thousands of very respected scientists worldwide, who strive to understand more about the phenomenon daily. Are you saying that these people are wasting their time persuing a "scientific joke"?
Darwin's theory began a wildfire of thought and research in a direction it had never been in before. It is a theory embraced by thousands of very respected scientists worldwide, who strive to understand more about the phenomenon daily. Are you saying that these people are wasting their time persuing a "scientific joke"?
09-07-2005, 12:25 PM
#18
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
do you even know about evolution at all? or what kind of impact it's had on our understanding of disease, behavior, physiology, taxonomy, speciation, or countless other areas?
09-07-2005, 12:33 PM
#19
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL Sorry, I never said I knew anything about where the world came from. Your guess is as good as mine.
Just for clarification- evolution just explains what happened once the planet was here. It doesn't attempt to describe the processes of creating a world (or a universe).
Evolution doesn't have to contradict creationism- the problem is when people confuse the two.
Just for clarification- evolution just explains what happened once the planet was here. It doesn't attempt to describe the processes of creating a world (or a universe).
Evolution doesn't have to contradict creationism- the problem is when people confuse the two.
09-07-2005, 12:45 PM
#20
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmh21
LOL Sorry, I never said I knew anything about where the world came from. Your guess is as good as mine.
Just for clarification- evolution just explains what happened once the planet was here. It doesn't attempt to describe the processes of creating a world (or a universe).
Evolution doesn't have to contradict creationism- the problem is when people confuse the two.
Just for clarification- evolution just explains what happened once the planet was here. It doesn't attempt to describe the processes of creating a world (or a universe).
Evolution doesn't have to contradict creationism- the problem is when people confuse the two.
My argument is simply that a theroy means nothing when a contradicting theroy has just as much if not more supporting evidence. IE "Global Warming"