Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Some observations
Published on September 3, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

I've been working massive hours these past two weeks so I haven't had much time to pay attention to the Katrina situation.  From what little I've seen, it's incredibly tragic and my thoughts definitely go to the families and friends of those who are involved in that terrible situation.

It's also amazing to see how the situation brings the best and worst out of people.  I've read a lot of articles on the subject this evening and I'm just amazed at the vitriol and emotion involved on it.

I thought I'd chime my 2 cents.

There was an article called "Why are all the looters black?".  I'm not sure what the point of it is.  Okay, the looters featured on television have more pigment in their epidermis than I do.  On average, the men and women seen looting on television are genetically a mixture of around 75% African ("African-Americans" have, on average, quite a bit of European genes in them).  So, okay, what's the point? Is the argument that that genetic mixture is more prone to stealing? It is a commentary on culture? It doesn't really say.  What's the point?  It seems to me that those who are economically not capable of leaving are probably more likely to be of that genetic type because several hundred years ago Europeans decided to have slaves that were visually easier to identify and collaborated with African tribes who were willing to collaborate with them to sell them slaves.  In turn, having only been released from slavery only a bit over a century ago -- but still very restricted in rights and being at a severe disadvantage due to not having an intact family structure have tended to be poorer.  Thus, if it's mostly poor people left in devastated areas and most poor people are genetically predisposed to having more pigment (i.e. "being black") then yea, they're going to be the ones looting.

I could just as easily say "Why are so many of the looters male?" or "Why is so much of the violence there being done by men?" 

On a similar vein, there's "Why are so many corporate criminals, white?"  I'd argue that it's pretty much the same as above but in reverse.  Most wealthy people are white, therefore most criminals who are wealthy will tend to be white as well.

Then there are numerous posts making the rather absurd argument that somehow this whole mess is the result of the Federal government.  Please.  First, not to be unsympathetic but for better or worse, the people who didn't evacuate when they were told to evacuate bear some of the burden.  This didn't sneak up on us, we knew for days that a category 5 hurricane was going to hit the area.  Second, the mayor of New Orleans sucks. The city busses should have been evacuating people before the storm hit.  Third, the governor of Louisiana sucks.  Why didn't they have their act together?  Why wasn't the national guard activated in full before it hit?  There have been plenty of studies that said that a good hurricane hit would wipe out New Orleans because of its levies.  They had days to prepare.  It's not the federal government's job to wipe the asses of the state and local authorities. Blaming Bush (or Clinton or whoever) is asinine.  It's as bad as blaming the weather on them (which would be funny except there are people out there who blame them for the weather).

This situation isn't quite like the Tsunami and I doubt it'll get anywhere near the outpouring of support it did.  For one thing, there was plenty of warning about this one. I did watch the coverage just hours before it hit and there were people on Bourbon street having a "Hurricane party". Come on.  The other issue is how out of control the situation is.  Regardless of how much pigment the looters have, images of people looting, shooting at police, raping, etc. do nothing to instill sympathy. 

The violence and mayhem going on in what is left of New Orleans also helps drive home (to me) how biased the reporting in Iraq has been.  Look how quickly Americans can turn on each other in time of crisis and when there is a vacuum or order.  Is it really any shock that there's violence in Iraq?  It really demonstrates how pathetic the "insurgency" in Iraq must be.  They should send over some New Orleans looters and gang members to Baghdad to teach the "insurgency" how to conduct a proper uprising.


Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Sep 08, 2005
As long as global warming has been invoked as a cause of the hurricane (thank you, RFK Jr. for so promptly reminding us that it's all about you), it should be pointed out that the frequency of US category 3, 4 & 5 hurricanes has actually been steadily decreasing every decade since peaking in the 1940's and has been below the 150-year average (6/decade) since 1971. The current decade appears to be on track to be "average."

Link

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Sep 09, 2005
it should be pointed out that the frequency of US category 3, 4 & 5 hurricanes has actually been steadily decreasing every decade since peaking in the 1940's and has been below the 150-year average (6/decade) since 1971. The current decade appears to be on track to be "average."


You are pointing out a link to US hurricane "Strikes". Even using the Strike statistics this decade is on track and forecast to be above average. The frequency and strength of Atlantic Hurricanes as a whole is currently in a cycle of hyperactivity. Since 1995 every year has been above average except for the two El Nino years-1997 and 2002. Current statistics and models suggest a multi decade cycle in respect to the amount of tropical storm/hurricane activity, however scientific and meteorological studies predict that global warming will cause average hurricane strength to raise by a 1/2 category increase on the Saffir-Simpson scale as well as a significant increase in hurricane precipitation.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
on Sep 09, 2005
Even if this decade ends up "above average" it won't add up to a cause-effect relationship between global warming and hurricane frequency or strength.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Sep 16, 2005

Interestingly you can have global warming and global cooling at the same time.  It's an interesting theoretical process and the models, though on a vastly accelerated level, were used in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".  CO2 is not a significant green house gas.  There ya go, a member of the leftist intelligentsia has said that.  No one who actually knows anything about climate effects will state otherwise.  HOWEVER, an increase in even 100 ppm can have a dramatic effect on life in the world.  You're talking about a 150% increase in CO2 in the air.  That's not even the central issue, though it does raise the possibility of people dying due to Carbon Dioxide poisoning.  The major issue is everything that gets belched out with the CO2.  If this were mainly a problem of a whole lot of people breathing more deeply and belching out a lot more CO2, the world could accomidate that, for awhile anyway.

The far nastier thing is everything else that comes with the CO2 generation.  Methane, Ozone, CFCs, etc.  These are more efficient greenhouse gases and can cause a much more dramatic shift in the climate over time.  Humans, and most other creatures on this planet live in a rather small ecosystem "niche".  Even though Humans occupy, arguably, the largest niche, if you variate the conditions in which humans live too much, they die.

Now, for those who claim I have no scientific evidence in this little tirade, you're more or less correct.  I long ago realized that even if I posted the article or a link thereto, people who didn't want to believe wouldn't, so I'm not going to waste my time doing it.  I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence for you.  Since the Industrial Revolution the number of cases of asthma, as a percentage, has increased dramatically.  For the last hundred years, the number of deaths due to asthma has increased, and then decreased due to treatment.  The number of people with asthma, again as a percentage of the population, is over double in industrialized nations than in non-industrialized nations.  You can find that information on the Journal of the American Medical Association's website with a little bit of searching.

Cheers

5 PagesFirst 3 4 5