Yes, which happens every 2 to 4 years. Private industry is tested on an almost daily basis. Plus, it is incredibly difficult to tell whether a government is being efficient or not, we have to rely on the media which has its own agenda.

However inefficient the mechanism is...it is still there.

But then again..... When "sheep" reguritate spin instead of truly analyzing a situation and criticizing ALL of those who screw up and lie about it, then nothing will ever change. So truly who has the worst agenda..The media or the "sheep"? After all the media will go after anyone from any political party for a "good" story.

Pal: The reason why I suspect you're a left-winger is because of the things you say.  If you do not mean to come across as a left-winger, then perhaps you should relook at how you present things.  Jumping up and down yelling "I'm a centrist" means nothing.

For example, you keep assuming people are "blaming liberals".  Where is this liberal blaming coming from?  I'm not blaming liberals.  I think it obvious that the blame rests more with the local authorities than the federal government in this particular case.  But in either case, I believe that this incident demonstrates that the government, regardless of whom it is run by, is largely incompotent when it comes to helping people efficiently and quickly.

The president has so much power, he could lift a finger, call a few people, or even have his staff do it and poof he has a press confrence, millions in aid, and being the commander in chief to order to go and make order of the mess. No Jedi Powers needed!

I find it rather interesting that someone who claims to know so much about politics believes that the President has "so much power".  You'd think that someone with so much self-proclaimed knowledge would read a few Presidential memoirs.  What comes up time and time again in them is how little power Presidents really have.  They can give orders but the actual infrastructure under them has so many layers that bungling and inefficiency is pretty much a given.

If you can assume what political stance I have based upon a blurb on a blob, I would say that you really don't know politics very well at all.

I can say that the statements you make here cause you to sound like a left-winger. That's my opinion.  Me sharing your views has no bearing as to whether I know a lot about politics or not.

Prof writes:

I'm sorry but continually equating the views of the majority of the scientific community on global warming to those of a few on eugenics is disengenuous. This is a debate for another thread but have you read the links I posted on this?

You're missing the point - Eugenics had a broad scientific consensus.  It wasn't a "few" people. 

What it boils down is this:

In recent decades the earth's temperature seems to have risen (though for awhile it was going down hence in the 70's we had "global cooling" but we'll let that go for now).

A HYPOTHESIS has been given that this temperature rise is due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But we are supposed to accept that slightly higher levels of CO2 (and we're talking SLIGHT) is the primary cause? Why? Because "the scientists" say so.  Which scientists? THE SCIENTISTS! Oh. Okay. Well, let's close the book.

Before the industrial revolution there every 280 molecules in 1,000,000 molecules were CO2.

Today, it's 379 molecules in 1,000,000 molecules.

So a net increase of 100 molecules over a century out of a MILLION is compelling evidence that this is the cause of recent temperature increases?

I guess I'm just a skeptic but I don't find that compelling.    The last time I heard someone insist something poorly argued as being a fact because "THE SCIENTISTS" insisted it was true was one of those "have you been saved" people knocking at my door.

It does not require someone to have a PHD in Climatology to find the CO2 in the atmosphere argument dubious.  There have been volcanic eruptions that have spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in the past than the entire industrial revolution has put in in over 150 years. 

Global warming advocates sound very much like a religious sect to me.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that humans are having some impact on global weather or temperatures.  I'm not convinced of it but I could be.  But there are many ways humans could do that without clinging to CO2 molecules.

Someone asked, "where is Dick Cheney?"
He is busy figuring out with his buddies at Halliburton just how much money they will make with the non bidded awarded contract to rebuild New Orleans

Sanity in an insane situation.  Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

Draigonal,

Here is what you should read to understand the problems in New Orleans:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

The average IQ in Africa is 70--that is the equivalent of an 11 year old adult---11 year olds can do a lot of things including firing etc...

(I can't quote, as I'm not really signed in)

Me being a centrist. I'm correct, because I know the issues, and I know where I follow them. Your opinion of me being a 'lefty' is just wrong. So your opinion is wrong! My statements make me sound like a left winger? To who? You? You are no such athority in who is left and right!

Blaming the liberals? Go back to my first post for that one, and read it carefully (you know after the part where I said I was a centrist, I know you just stopped there!)

I'm not debating the incompetence of how federal government deals with these situation, but the timing of all of it.

Presidents are not chief of staff? That's in the constitution. I'll give you a link, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know it. Presidents cannot call a press confrence? This has nothing to debate, because they can do this whenever they or their PR team wants. Imagine if a WMD went off in St. Louis, the president could get aid there really quick really, they can. If you think they can press a button and this whole mess goes away, well that's incorrect, but they can do the last three. Congress is republican, and if he asked, they would grant in a flash. And that's what people are debating, that they didn't do enough in the beginning! Are you stating that the president doesn't have these three powers? Oh and which memiors are you talking about?

Just for clairificaiton yes, presidents complain all the time that they have little power, and they want to change the world. I'm just stating three things that they could do to make the situation better for themselves.

Have at it!

Professor,

you said:
Again, the focus is on Trent Lott, a rich white guy whom the people in New Orleans could not relate to? Trent Lott has the money to rebuild his house all over again. Is this supposed to be comforting and reassuring? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Why couldn't Bush take the opportunity to focus on the lower section, the section that is mostly underwater. What about those people?

Just adding to say, you clarified my point. I was aiming in that direction but just didn't get there. Thanks. I've been asking myself those same questions, Professor.

Jack: Wonder if the average person in Africa (there are whites in Africa, too, btw) can manage to:

Spell a name correctly. It's Draginol, not "Draigonal".

Post a link to a website. Like this.

The average IQ in Africa is 70--that is the equivalent of an 11 year old adult---11 year olds can do a lot of things including firing etc...

You do realize that a large number of men and women in our Armed Forces are black, right? Almost 9% of US Army Officers are black. Over 29% of enlisted service members are black.

It seems odd to me that our military, the finest in the world, would choose to accept, promote, and even make Commissioned Officers out of people who have sufficiently low enough IQ to qualify as mentally retarded.

A very detailed analysis, especially about race. It's hard to put the race thing into words, and you did a good job of it. By the way,
the first looters I saw on the telly(I'm not British), were women. One had diapers under her arms, the other had a cartload of stuff at Walmart. You could hear her saying, "I don't have any clothes!" She was much more feisty than some of the people left in New Orleans.
As for Walmart, they had time to ship their tvs and computers out of town before Katrina hit too. I don't feel sorry for Walmart. I did just shop there tonight, but, hey, what government red tape are they suffering from??? NONE.

You say:
Here is what you should read to understand the problems in New Orleans:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

The average IQ in Africa is 70--that is the equivalent of an 11 year old adult---11 year olds can do a lot of things including firing etc...

I say:
if you knew anything about IQ and you won't learn it reading that racist self-serving claptrap, you'd discover that not only would a normalised IQ in Africa be 100 (because it's an average - get it) but that an 11 year old would have their IQ measured with a WISC and that is not the same as a WAIS-R. You'd also understand how important it is to standardise IQ testing for cultural and sub-cultural groups, and how wary you must be about comparisons.You'd also know that it was important to look at the sub-scores across both performance and verbal tests and that 'IQ' has a limited role in understanding intelligence.

Post a link to a website

ya beat me to it mzw. wonder what jack's iq is?

I beg to differ... hurricanes may not be CAUSED by global warming but they may be getting WORSE because of it. From the MSNBC website By Michael Schirber Updated: 3:19 p.m. ET June 16, 2005 Climate change could make future hurricanes stronger, but whether the effect is measurable is still a matter of debate. It is also unknown whether it will change the total number of storms.

Your "Proof" Contradicts your point.  So dont beg.

Yes, you made my point: Global warming is fashionable today just as Eugenics was fashionable at a time. That doesn't make it good science.

Some of us remember the histrionics of the 70s that stated, unequivocally, that we were headed for a new ice age due to the same factors that they now claim are creating global warming.

There are three MAJOR issues.

First is the lack of action to prevent the damage caused by the storm. We had studies telling us what was needed and rather then make the changes Bush cut the funding and sent the money to Iraq.

Second, if Bush had used the Active Military OUTSIDE the area of the storm, they could have begun providing help on Monday not Saturday.

It is time to look at the Bush priorities. We need so many things in this country. The Gulf is only one area that needs massive rebuilding. We need to provide the resources needed and given the Federal Budget deficit, those resources are NOT available. We can not just BORROW more.

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

by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005

It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency—indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology, 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 those who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then told me that 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. [Update: I have been searching for news reports on this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]

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 incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. 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. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them—this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

The welfare state—and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages—is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005