![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phil on September 3, 2005, at 20:30:41
Friday, September 2nd, 2005
Dear Mr. Bush:
Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands
remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted.
Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help
finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them
right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national
disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane
Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty.
Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That
night the weatherman said this storm was
on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't
want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus,
you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You
sure showed her!I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana,
you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps.Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and
what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically
reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the
third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to
fix those levees, there weren't going to be
any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction
job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by
how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New
Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't
stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief.
Been there done that.There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against
you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those
pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of
Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore
them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about
a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched
from New York to Cleveland.No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New
Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get
out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport.
Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me
laugh! Race has
nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and
send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.Yours,
Michael Moore
Posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2005, at 21:23:57
In reply to Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by Phil on September 3, 2005, at 20:30:41
:-)
Well said.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 3, 2005, at 21:35:18
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger » Phil, posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2005, at 21:23:57
I've loved Michael Moore since his "T.V Nation" days. He's a brilliant man.
Posted by blueberry on September 4, 2005, at 8:15:49
In reply to Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by Phil on September 3, 2005, at 20:30:41
My, my, how filled with hate some people are. It's almost too funny to behold.
That aside, I see tons of troops and zillions of helicopters. They would have been there a lot sooner if the local liberals had done their jobs and called for help and planning in a more timely responsible manner.
I heard they spent all their money on casinos and jets and stuff, instead of upgrading the water dams. Geez.
Open mouth, insert foot.
Posted by Toph on September 4, 2005, at 9:46:12
In reply to Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by Phil on September 3, 2005, at 20:30:41
Mistrust in American values, judgement and competence is at an all-time low worldwide. The inept federal response to this domestic disaster will do nothing to bolster confidence no matter who is saddled with the blame.
Posted by Jakeman on September 4, 2005, at 14:54:28
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by blueberry on September 4, 2005, at 8:15:49
>
> I heard they spent all their money on casinos and jets and stuff, instead of upgrading the water dams. Geez.
>Blueberry you may want to check the facts.
Here is one article from New Orleans CityBusiness dated June 6, 2005, which describes the MOST RECENT federal budget cuts in flood control projects for the New Orleans area.
"One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president."
full article here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367#continueThere is plenty of blame to go around. Politicians have got to think beyond the short term and realize the long-term benefits of investing in infrastructure. Instead, this administration proposes another tax cut (the estate tax) costing around 60 billion a year in revenue.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 4, 2005, at 15:21:41
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by blueberry on September 4, 2005, at 8:15:49
> My, my, how filled with hate some people are. It's almost too funny to behold.
>How do you interpret outrage at people dying as hatred? Also, how you find it funny?
Posted by gromit on September 4, 2005, at 20:53:43
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by blueberry on September 4, 2005, at 8:15:49
> My, my, how filled with hate some people are. It's almost too funny to behold.
So the mass destruction and loss of life is amusing to you then? The way I see it you should look in the mirror to see the one spewing hatred.
> That aside, I see tons of troops and zillions of helicopters. They would have been there a lot sooner if the local liberals had done their jobs and called for help and planning in a more timely responsible manner.
They are FINALLY getting there but they seem more concerned with shooting looters than rescue operations or distributing supplies. It never changes, find a liberal and blame it all on them. Of course the liberals play that same game sometimes but in this case the facts are pretty clear.
This adminstration chose to delay repairing the levees and instead spent that money invading a foreign country that was absolutely no threat to us. They sat by and did nothing anyone could detect for days while US citizens were suffering. Why wouldn't every American be upset by this?
> I heard they spent all their money on casinos and jets and stuff, instead of upgrading the water dams. Geez.
Who is they? Must be those damn liberals, immoral gambling liberals at that.
I heard that the Army Corps of Engineers has been complaining publicly and loudly about funds that were diverted to Iraq. I heard that the Mayor of New Orleans and others predicted this would happen days before the storm hit.
You said Geez, oh my, a conservative using the Lord's name in vain.
> Open mouth, insert foot.
Possibly it's another part of your anatomy that has been inserted improperly into an orifice not designed to accommodate it.
Rick
Posted by Declan on September 4, 2005, at 23:15:49
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger ?blueberry, posted by Gabbix2 on September 4, 2005, at 15:21:41
Is this some sort of civil war type situation where we/whoever really can't stand each other, you know, the other side. It's really depressing, at least I assume it is for everone. As for hate, I'm full of it, I dunno about anyone else. What a terrible business it all is.
Declan
Posted by jay on September 4, 2005, at 23:17:52
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by blueberry on September 4, 2005, at 8:15:49
> My, my, how filled with hate some people are. It's almost too funny to behold.
>
> That aside, I see tons of troops and zillions of helicopters. They would have been there a lot sooner if the local liberals had done their jobs and called for help and planning in a more timely responsible manner.
>
> I heard they spent all their money on casinos and jets and stuff, instead of upgrading the water dams. Geez.
>
> Open mouth, insert foot.Don't keep the foot in too long, there...:-)
Well...you are darn right..people are and should be p*ssed off. Where you are wrong is that it was Bush, (the conservative in case you forgot..) who massively cut the funding to the Army Corp. of Engineers just last year to upgrade the levees. It was *also* Bush (yeah..the uhh..conservative again..) who refused funding for a massive emergency plan, which only the Feds could cover the cost of, that was urged by scientists. It was also Bush (yes..umm..the conservative again..aheemm..) who refused to admit that there might be this thing, again proven by scientists with a bit more knowledge in the area than Bush, known as Global Warming. (Did someone say Kyoto??..which of course Bush refused to sign..) The example being, why is the temperature of the Gulf Sea increasing exponentially every year? (along with the melting of the Polar Icecaps, the hole in the ozone layer the size of motherf*cking Antarctica!!, the warm winters we in the North are experiencing...etc??) Never mind the fact the warm Gulf waters created, and may likely create many more, f-4-5 hurricanes. This is only the begining..
Jay
p.s. I posted the concept of funding infrastructure above, which you should read, that is also a fundamental tenent among political scientists. (I just happen to be one of them. :-)
Jay
Posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 5:50:06
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger » blueberry, posted by jay on September 4, 2005, at 23:17:52
Monday, 13 June, 2005
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett has spoken of the UK government's frustration over America's failure to agree to take action on climate change.
UK prime minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush were unable to reach a deal on the issue during talks in Washington last week.Mr Blair is hoping to highlight climate change at next month's G8 summit.
Mrs Beckett told The Independent the UK was "disappointed" that there was a lack of "common ground" over the issue.
Kyoto stalemate
She was speaking as Mr Blair began a round of shuttle diplomacy to seek support for the UK's agenda for the G8 summit of leading industrialised nations.
His first stop was a meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Monday, in a whirlwind tour that will take in four European capitals in 48 hours.
He will head on to Germany later on Monday and hold talks with leaders in France and Luxembourg on Tuesday.He is aiming to secure agreement on plans for aid to Africa and climate change ahead of the summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July.
The US has consistently refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which restricts the emissions of gases said to be responsible for global warming.
In an interview with The Independent, Mrs Beckett said it was clear that signing up to Kyoto was "off the agenda" for President Bush.
Engagement needed
She said he was "coming from a different place in the dialogue" on the issue of global warming.
The British government had made no secret that it wants Washington to be "more engaged" on the subject, she said.
"Certainly there is a degree of disappointment that there isn't more common ground than there already is," she said.
President Bush was aware of the importance Mr Blair attached to addressing climate change during his presidency of the G8 summit, she said.
"He [Bush] has known for a long time. He has known since before it was in the public domain that Tony had every intention of making climate change as well as Africa a top priority for our G8 year," she said.
'Intrinsically linked'
Ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook said Mr Bush was "spectacularly out on a limb" over climate change - and he urged him to "accept the science".
He said climate change had to be treated as seriously as African poverty because the two were intrinsically linked.
"I am slightly puzzled at the extent to which there is not the same degree of public interest in what is going on with climate change within the G8," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"After all if Tony Blair is going to succeed... it is only going to be - as with debt and Africa - if he is able to show to the other leaders, particularly President Bush, that public opinion within the G8 demands action."
Mr Cook said: "If the global temperature goes up by another 2%, crop failure in Africa will increase by 50%. If we really want to help Africa... we have got to get our own pollution to that part of the world under control and stop climate change."
'Act now'
He said action was needed now as there was no time to find out if the Kyoto Protocol works.
"In another decade or so we could start to see irreversible change. For instance, the Amazon rainforest could collapse and become savannah, the oceans could become so acidic they can't absorb anymore carbon from the atmosphere. If that happens we are then on a runaway train."
He added: "Every nation, including the US, has to make cuts to greenhouse gases if we are going to save the planet."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4087100.stm
Posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 5:59:17
In reply to Good point US climate talks 'disappointing' » jay, posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 5:50:06
Friday, 8 July, 2005
In most sports, a numerical advantage of seven to one would guarantee victory.
But Scotland is home to some unusual events - tossing the caber, haggis hurling, and now the Gleneagles Go-around, where it appears that naming your team "the United States" is the real guarantee of victory.
It is difficult to interpret in any other way the final G8 communiqué on climate change, delayed for nearly 24 hours because of Thursday's bombings and loss of life in London.
Analysis of diplomatic language can be a tedious exercise, but in this case a little effort brings instant reward; the nuances paint a parentage picture as clearly as a genetic family tree.
Climate change is, says the communiqué, a "serious long-term challenge"; we should "slow and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse" the growth of greenhouse gases.
But go back a bit. On 4 September 2004, in a speech to the Prince of Wales' Business and the Environment Programme, Tony Blair called climate change a "threat".
He used the term again in an article in The Economist on 1 January this year; while a draft of the G8 communiqué, leaked in May, also used the "T" word .
President Bush's definitive statement on climate change, meanwhile, dates from 11 June 2001 - it's known as the Rose Garden Speech - and the word there is "challenge" - the word we find in Friday's communiqué.
'At a price'
Then there is the science. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Blair and the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia have indicated their belief that greenhouse gas emissions need to fall within the next five years.
Now, apparently, those same leaders are able to approve a document indicating that reductions in emissions may not be needed now, but at some future time "as science justifies".
In the run-up to this summit, environmental campaign groups maintained that the seven countries which had ratified Kyoto would be faced with a stark choice.
They would either have to agree to a document much weaker than they would have wanted, or to break with the United States, break with precedent, and make plain the oceanic gulf between the seven and the one.
The French leader, Jacques Chirac, appeared to acknowledge that the bridge built by the final communiqué has come at a price.
"The agreement... is an important agreement, even if it doesn't go as far as we would have wanted," he said. "It restores dialogue between the seven (G8) Kyoto members and the United States."
To the future
Has anything concrete, then, come out of the months of planning, the millions of air-kilometres spent on preparatory jaunts, the reams of newsprint, the hours of broadcasting time, the hours upon inconceivable hours of lobbying from all quarters?
There is an agreement to talks on technology in London in November, following on from the G20 meeting of energy and environment ministers that took place, also in London, in March.
But clauses which were present in earlier drafts of the communiqué to set up a number of special funds - for example, to help Africa adapt to the impacts of climate change - have been excised from the final version.
One seasoned observer with a background in Capitol Hill politics told me "You get to the end, and you turn the final page, and you ask yourself 'where is the rest?'"
That little change can be expected in the short term is evidenced by a sentence in the separate communiqué on the global economy and oil which was also agreed by the G8 leaders in Gleneagles: "Oil demand is currently projected to continue its strong growth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4665993.stm
Posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 6:02:18
In reply to G8 climate deal plays on language, posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 5:59:17
Thursday, 28 July 2005
The US and five Asia-Pacific states have announced a surprise pact to cut greenhouse gases which falls outside the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
China, India, South Korea, Japan and Australia and the US account for nearly half of world greenhouse gas emissions.The US-led initiative would tackle global warming with new technology supplied to countries most in need.
Critics say the new compact undermines Kyoto and is likely to be ineffective because it is non-binding.
'Superior' deal
The pact will allow signed-up countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, with no enforcement mechanism.
The signatories argue it complements, rather than weakens, the 1997 Kyoto agreement, which imposes targets on industrialised countries to cut their emissions.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said: "The fairness and effectiveness of this proposal will be superior to the Kyoto protocol.
"It demonstrates the very strong commitment of Australia to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to an understanding that it's fair in Australia and not something that will destroy Australian jobs and unfairly penalise Australian industries."
US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick agreed the six nations "view this as a complement, not an alternative" to Kyoto.
Both the US and Australia have refused to ratify Kyoto, which came into effect earlier this year, partly, they say, because big developing countries like India and China escape emissions limits.
'Win-win'
They have also made clear their concern that climate change should only be addressed without harming development or economic growth.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Our view is you really need to focus on technological change to solve the climate change problem... and you do have to involve the major developing countries, which are very substantial emitters."
A Chinese spokesman called the pact a "win-win solution" for developing countries.
Worldwide Fund for Nature
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, told the BBC's Today radio programme he doubted the new deal could work without setting caps on emissions.
But, he added, the surprise announcement should be seen as a sign of progress on climate change.
Environmental campaigners have criticised the new pact as ineffectual and serving the interests of industrialised nations.
The Geneva-based Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) said: "A deal on climate change that doesn't limit pollution is the same as a peace plan that allows guns to be fired."
Bob Brown, leader of Australia's opposition Green party, dismissed the agreement as a "coal pact" involving four of the world's largest coal producers - China, the US, India and Australia.
The new group's first summit will be held in Adelaide, Australia, in November.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4723305.stm
Posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 6:12:07
In reply to US agrees climate deal with Asia, posted by Nickengland on September 5, 2005, at 6:02:18
And finally....
The US pollutes more, absolutely and per head, than any other country (it also produces more wealth). Its greenhouse emissions have risen by more than 11% since 1990: its Kyoto commitment was to reduce them by 6%. It is the only country to have signed the protocol and then to have repudiated it. President Bush said in March the US would not ratify Kyoto, because he thought it could damage the US economy and because it does not yet require developing countries to cut their emissions. His domestic and foreign critics think the US will lose economically by staying aloof.
-------------------------------------------------
The EU wants a rigorous application of Kyoto, allowing only restricted use of its flexibility mechanisms: these allow countries to go some way to meeting their pollution reduction targets by paying for improvements beyond their frontiers. The EU says countries should meet at least half their targets by cutting emissions at home. It also opposes widespread use of forests and other carbon "sinks" to absorb pollution. While the green blocs in several northern European governments remain rigorous, the UK is trying to rebuild bridges with the US. But the EU will probably remain united in seeking Kyoto's early entry into force.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/climate_change/default.stm
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 5, 2005, at 15:34:07
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger » blueberry, posted by gromit on September 4, 2005, at 20:53:43
>
> Who is they?They.. those theys are funny people, and they have sure a lot to say about everything. They've never spoken to me , but my mom and grandmother sure quote them a lot.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 5, 2005, at 20:32:19
In reply to Re: Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger » blueberry, posted by gromit on September 4, 2005, at 20:53:43
> The way I see it you should look in the mirror to see the one spewing hatred.
I know emotions can run high as we try to understand tragedy, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilThanks,
gg acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by KaraS on September 10, 2005, at 0:00:35
In reply to Michael Moore's letter to Bush. anger trigger, posted by Phil on September 3, 2005, at 20:30:41
According to MSNBC.com, "Michael Moore is 'seriously considering' turning the devastating storm and its aftermath into a documentary, says a source."
Posted by gromit on September 10, 2005, at 7:38:18
In reply to Please be civil » gromit, posted by gardenergirl on September 5, 2005, at 20:32:19
I couldn't disagree with you more but my post was a little mean.
Rick
Posted by gardenergirl on September 10, 2005, at 15:26:26
In reply to I apologize blueberry » gardenergirl, posted by gromit on September 10, 2005, at 7:38:18
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.