Rambling diary that is unlikely to mention baseball ...
by devo on Sep 2, 2005 4:50 PM PDT
Email
PrintCheers ...
I say that not in celebration, but rather in reference to AN's bar stool mission statement. I definitely believe that Blez has achieved what he set out to and possibly more so. Rather than creating the random sports bar were you chat with some random fella or lady over a beer about whatever game is on, he's created our very own on-line version of Cheers ... "Where everybody knows your name . . . and they're always glad you came . . ."
He didn't just create a place where any and everyone could throw down the gauntlet to argue every point, raise a pint for every win or threaten to kill the manager with every out. He created a place where friends gather to be among friends and to chat about our common interests.
Naturally, our primary common interest is our boys in the Green and Gold as well as this great game of baseball. But when the events of the day demand that our attention is elsewhere, we can talk about that to, fairly, calmly and respectfully, because we're friends and that's what friends do.
Take Oaktoons diary, for instance. There are a lot of people on this site, myself included, who are very upset with certain members of our government and the way they have handled the catastrophe along the Gulf. These views certainly were not shared by all, however - neither were views of how evangelical we should be in our belief in the righteousness of helping out. Regardless, these discussions were carried on in an entirely friendly and respectful manner.
As I prepare to skip town for the weekend - I'll be totally incommunicado; I won't even know who won Saturday or Sunday's games until Monday evening - I'm just glad to know that good, honest, productive discourse is still possible in this day and age when we can sit down as a community and communicate together.
I'll leaving you with one parting thought. Over the years our country's idea of labor has largely shifted from the farm and the factory to a desk and a computer. Rather than making something, most of us simply spend our days communicating with our customers or the public. Despite these professional expertise, more and more of us these days are failing to communicate in any way with our neighbors and the outside world. So for those of us who don't build anything in our jobs, lets refocus ourselves on building relationships with our neighbors and our communities - and for the rest of us, lets do the same because, well, why not? It's just the right thing to do.
Go A's. Go AN!
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You are Awesome!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Sep 2, 2005 5:09 PM PDT reply actions
hint ... hint
thanks a lot, I appreciate it.
sorry, I'm shameless
A saying I came up with
If you don't think you can change the world, try adjusting your view of what "the world" is.
I try to live that, and devo, I think your diary is saying that to some extent. So, nicely put---it can never be said too many times or in too many ways.
Thanks
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 5:20 PM PDT reply actions
FUCK YOU
Well, assuming that's not snark...
And in the end, it wasn't the hurricane that hurt. It was the levee breakage.
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project has felt the pinch particularly hard. After receiving $36.5 million for fiscal 2005, the project was cut to $10.4 million in the fiscal 2006 White House budget. The House has endorsed that funding level, while the Senate voted to boost funding to $37 million.
So methinks that blaming the government, not just for the lack of response to the crisis, but also the lack of planning, when this has been, for years, considered to be a situation long overdue, is kind of appropriate.
After all, certain people had no problem blaming Clinton for 9/11, did they?
Where is canada
You people are amazing. Shit happens it is not all about blame. you have a city that was built below sealevel. It was a matter of time.
just to clarify
New Orleans (and the Federal Govt) have known for years that they needed to do this. It would have cost 14b. That is a drop in the bucket in terms of what it will cost now--not to mention the loss of life and property.
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
If it's not about blame,
which I note
Holland -- almost the whole country
New Orleans is older than most US cities. The city has never had such a disaster take place, though it has had worst storms.
The protecting wetlands were destroyed for "development." Maintenance on the levees fell way behind schedule. Money originally designated to do that was diverted to the Iraq war effort. These and other issues were known to threaten the city, and there has been tons of warning. Finally, it was well known and documented what needed to be done to evacuate the city if necessary -- and it wasn't done.
If you don't understand who is responsible you can't help prevent it happening again.
Most of what you said has been refuted by others..
Canada offered crews, food and equipment that day after the levees broke, but couldn't get permission for their people to enter the US until last night.
"Shit happens" is not a basis of good government. "Shit is gonna happen, so let's prepare for it" is.
There are cities all over the world built below sea level - even entire nations. There are also cities built near:
- flammable forests
- mountains that have avalanches
- snowfields that freeze over
- fault lines that crack and quake
- volcanoes that erupt
- deserts
NO was considered to be one of the top three biggest potential disasters in America before Katrina hit. It was supposedly being reinforced to prevent terrorists blowing up that same levee, with millions of dollars spent since 9/11.
It COULD have been prevented. It wasn't.
And the relief effort reminds many of us of the 'relief effort' taking place in Iraq right now. No food, no water, no electricity, no security, and seemingly nobody giving a damn.
If you don't think any of that is worth discussion, let alone a round of figuring out "why", then I hate to think how you're planning for your own future.
WHy didn't they evacuate them?
That's the question we're asking.
"Why didn't they have food and water at the ready?"
"Why did Bush wait two days before coming back from his vacation?"
"Why has Cheney STILL not come back from his vacation?"
"Why was Condi Rice taking in a Broadway show when Canada needed her permission to help the relief efforts?"
"Why did they take money away from levee construction projects?"
"Why are the National Guard and all their equipment in Iraq?"
The hurricane is indeed nobody's fault. But the aftermath is the fault of the government, utterly and completely, and continues to be.
Why are canadians such pussy
dude, you're kind of out of hand, novaoakland
I can answer that easily.
No connection to Al Queda.
No threat to North America.
2000 allies dead.
$400b wasted.
And we TOLD you it was going to be that way before you went in.
Now I get to ask a question.. You seem to think the war is peachy keen, so why aren't YOU there?
because they had the courage
Please, take a deep breath before you post.
by Athletics fan and runner on Sep 3, 2005 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
you call Canada pussies?
We stayed out of Iraq for reasons that have since been proven sound (umm, like, you're STILL there?)
Just cuz you're hurting, don't lash out at the rest of the world. Us Canucks are the best friends the USA has left (outside of the homo-erotic companionship of mother England).
Dude- don't ask where MY country is. Ask where your own PRESIDENT is.
That's right. You can't blame the gov't for
Well
Obviously this has been an infamous storm for the ages that has caused tremendous damage, and sure, there are things that many people could have done to help things SLIGHTLY. I don't think its appropriate to use this as a time to kick Bush when he's down, however.
We say Holland, but keep in mind the things Holland doesn't have to spend on-they aren't nearly as likely to be attacked by another country, and they have less land to fortify. For us? I could name you ten places a terrorist could attack easily...simply from places that I've gone with no credentials carrying stuffed backpacks (generally including just a blanket, sweatshirt, and clipboard, but still). I do think this money should stop going to Iraq and start going to us, but we can't defend everything at once.
A few things:
- Holland not likely to be attacked? You've heard of WWII, right? And WWI?
- Sure, terrorism is a threat and you've got to ensure you're as secured as possible, but why doesn't anyone ask why Holland isn't being threatened by terrorists? I mean, if they really hate freedom, surely Holland would be a target, right?
- I absolutely think that now is the time to kick Bush, and for these reasons: if not for our yelling, he'd still be on holiday, his Vice President IS still on holiday, and the situation in N.O. still isn't being properly handled a week after the fact.
so
They hate us because we play the role of leader of the world, protector of all.
Yet some countries hate us because we do not protect them, and other groups hate us because we stick our nose into other's business. If we avoid doing the things that make us hated, we will inevitably be hated by the countries like Rwanda that have genocide going on with no American assistance.
Got news for you...
Some countries the US helped, others the US abandoned, but the common ingredient in all cases was that when the US helped, it also helped itself to the spoils.
And when it didn't help...
But then, America, prior to a Bush being in office, had never experienced a single piece of foreign terrorism against it in over 200 years, yet the US was always a leader of the world.
So what's the difference now? Well, before, the Russians were around and looking to grow their influence, so the US had to play nice or countries would get Russian missiles installed.
Now, with nobody to play Superpower #2 in that game, the US has taken a position of "now we can exploit without worrying about what anyone else thinks."
That's why there's terrorism.
And to answer your question, yes, America should be Holland. They should end wars - not start them.
Ah..
The three model system:
-Two Powers,
They keep each other in check.
-One Power,
They keep everyone else in check.
-Multiple Powers,
Everyone keeps everyone else in check (if one country gets too powerful, the others gang up on it).
All of them are flawed. I find it funny that the citizens, (in the olden days, they were called the peasants) always think their government is different, that their government is not to blame, that it functions in good faith for the people and theres 0 bits of corruption....all the way until they revolt. Power breeds corruption. America is powerful.
The masses are stupid.
I think a good question to ask, is that before, when it got too intolerable, the people would revolt. However, American propaganda has such great influence over a rather stupid masses of Americans, that they willingly sacrifice their rights and capitol to support the very thing thats holding them down. Would Americans ever stand up against the corrupt now?
My answer is yes, maybe in 100 years, when we used up all our resources, and it gets so intolerable, that we revolt against George Bush the IV.
Interesting fact: Multiple studies by Time, Harvard, and other academic institutes show that the the more educated a person is, the more likely that they're liberal. Which is ironic, since Republicans are the ones that wants to take away from the poor (and uneducated).
by WhiteElephantGuy on Sep 4, 2005 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
your supposed "studies"
either way, which specific studies are you talking about?
also, isn't the stereotype that the "rich" tend to vote republican? are poor people better educated than the rich?
I don't feel like digging up the numbers
two reasons for that
- republicans are more likely to choose a career the private sector over academia and therefore tend to leave for the real world after getting a bachelors or masters.
- academia is biased against conservatives:
Evidence of the atypical uniformity of American universities grows by the week. The Centre for Responsive Politics notes that this year two universities--the University of California and Harvard--occupied first and second place in the list of donations to the Kerry campaign by employee groups, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft et al. Employees at both universities gave 19 times as much to John Kerry as to George Bush. Meanwhile, a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics by Daniel Klein, of Santa Clara University, shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. And things are likely to get less balanced, because younger professors are more liberal. For instance, at Berkeley and Stanford, where Democrats overall outnumber Republicans by a mere nine to one, the ratio rises above 30 to one among assistant and associate professors.
"So what", you might say, particularly if you happen to be an American liberal academic. Yet the current situation makes a mockery of the very legal opinion that underpins the diversity fad. In 1978, Justice Lewis Powell argued that diversity is vital to a university's educational mission, to promote the atmosphere of "speculation, experiment and creation" that is essential to their identities. The more diverse the body, the more robust the exchange of ideas. Why apply that argument so rigorously to, say, sexual orientation, where you have campus groups that proudly call themselves GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning), but ignore it when it comes to political beliefs?
This is profoundly unhealthy per se. Debating chambers are becoming echo chambers. Students hear only one side of the story on everything from abortion (good) to the rise of the West (bad). It is notable that the surveys show far more conservatives in the more rigorous disciplines such as economics than in the vaguer 1960s "ologies". Yet, as George Will pointed out in the Washington Post this week, this monotheism is also limiting universities' ability to influence the wider intellectual culture. In John Kennedy's day, there were so many profs in Washington that it was said the waters of the Charles flowed into the Potomac. These days, academia is marginalised in the capital--unless, of course, you count all the Straussian conservative intellectuals in think-tanks who left academia because they thought it was rigged against them.
Bias in universities is hard to correct because it is usually not overt: it has to do with prejudice about which topics are worth studying and what values are worth holding. Stephen Balch, the president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, argues that university faculties suffer from the same political problems as the "small republics" described in Federalist 10: a motivated majority within the faculty finds it easy to monopolise decision-making and squeeze out minorities.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446265
America's one-party state
Dec 2nd 2004
holland
In a full-page interview in the weekend edition of the national daily, de Volkskrant, the princess voiced support for the idea of a peace talk between Western and Al Qaeda leaders, to be mediated by an impartial party (is there anyone who qualifies as an "impartial party" in this debate?). Western leaders, she said, should take the initiative: "Talk to Al Qaeda and show that you can break through the `enemy' paradigm with real, open discussion."
Really?
Ironically, the last words Theo van Gogh was known to speak, he imparted to his killer, Mohammed Bouyeri. "Don't do it," he said. "We can still talk." But Bouyeri only looked at him and silently drove a Kukri knife across van Gogh's throat.
this would be perfect for oprah!
nova
Please calmly explain your position and please know that to attack the goverment is no more a personal attack on anyone here (because it is supposed to represent all of us) then it is to say that Kendall should be benched to somebody who is an A's fan.
Please understand that there are a lot of people everywhere that are very upset at this (and I know that this includes you). Please understand that there are people stating their views that they are disapointed with teh goverment reaction are not attacking you personally. They have a right to their views as do you. Responding with "fuck you" and "you are an Ass for attacking the government" is out of line. It is not that you disagree but how. Please stop the personal insults.
by Athletics fan and runner on Sep 3, 2005 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Some of your points
Much love
what a bunch of politized nonsense
i hadn't seen that oaktoon diary. nico wrote:
"There is something depressing about being forced to be utterly ashamed of your own country, but that's where the last 5 years have led me. How ironic to me to see this diary on the first day of the Yankees series, as the Yankees represent everything I hate about the U.S. when certain folks are in power."
the last five years? when certian folks are in power? interesting that you're not ashamed of earlier events such as this:
Bystanders to Genocide by Samantha Power
(The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001)
"So far people have explained the U.S. failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it knew there was nothing useful to be done. ... This material [declassified documents, interviews] provides a clearer picture than was previously possible of the interplay among people, motives, and events. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene."
"In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term 'genocide,' for fear of being obliged to act. ... Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective."
"In order not to appreciate that genocide or something close to it was under way, U.S. officials had to ignore public reports and internal intelligence and debate."
"In the three days during which some 4,000 foreigners were evacuated, about 20,000 Rwandans were killed. After the American evacuees were safely out and the U.S. embassy had been closed, Bill and Hillary Clinton visited the people who had manned the emergency-operations room at the State Department and offered congratulations on a 'job well done.'"
"Once the Americans had been evacuated, Rwanda largely dropped off the radar of most senior Clinton Administration officials. ...Cabinet-level officials focused on crises elsewhere [such as Haiti and Bosnia].... Throughout the U.S. government Africa specialists had the least clout of all regional specialists and the smallest chance of effecting policy outcomes. In contrast, those with the most pull in the bureaucracy had never visited Rwanda or met any Rwandans. ... During the entire three months of the genocide Clinton never assembled his top policy advisers to discuss the killings. Anthony Lake likewise never gathered the "principals" - the Cabinet-level members of the foreign-policy team. Rwanda was never thought to warrant its own top-level meeting. "
"Because this is a story of nondecisions and bureaucratic business as usual, few Americans are haunted by the memory of what they did in response to genocide in Rwanda. Most senior officials remember only fleeting encounters with the topic while the killings were taking place. The more reflective among them puzzle occasionally over how developments that cast the darkest shadow over the Clinton Administration's foreign-policy record could have barely registered at the time. But most say they have not talked in any detail among themselves about the events .... Requests for a congressional investigation have gone ignored."
taken from: http://www.africaaction.org/docs01/rwan0108.htm
hey, genocide of millions, no big deal...
oh wait, what does this have to do with baseball? nothing.
I agree with you
There would be blame, and for sure it would be America, society ills, or something but not the "esteemed President" because "what could he do?."
Afterall, 9/11 was really America's fault.
by china bob on Sep 2, 2005 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
and that's the point
but there's a difference between a fair assessment of blame and partisan crap, which is what most of this is. and for that you people should be ashamed.
life is not quite that simple
25 departments?. Did you spend 8 years in the Security Agency tracking missiles, troop movements, flight overs?. Were you responsible for a $3 billion company?
I don't think so or you wouldn't be so free with your need to blame someone.
It is so damn easy for people who know nothing to think that someone must be to blame without
any understanding of logistics, coordination.
I blame Macha all the time but I at least know I am just being foolish and sometimes things just don't work the way they are supposed to work, no matter your instructions, your meetings, and the talent of the people. SNAFU's are part of life.
by china bob on Sep 2, 2005 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions
there are different levels of blame
and that was only a partial list, i forgot to mention:
state disaster agencies
the groups providing aid in the initial stages
the police force at all levels
whoever organized the whole superdome thing
etc.
great post Bob
do me a favor though, X
by Cutthemullet on Sep 3, 2005 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
that said...
by Cutthemullet on Sep 3, 2005 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Oaktoon & Katrina
And never leave out FEMA. NOt bad if you include the National Guard. I was going to write something from the perpective of an old man who has seen and done almost everything but then I reminded myself I am an AN member so that I can read comments about the A's from other people who have the same love and passion that I have for them. And if from time to time I rant and rave about Macha, and get chastised for it, so much the better. Can I ignore what is going on in the world, or some problem that I have, well, yes, for those 30 or 40 minutes I am on AN. I have a Chinese friend I am hiding from the government right now because he is a whistle blower on copyrigtht issues here, and I am fearful for his life, but for those wonderful times I am reading about the A's on AN it is a welcome respite, there is time enough in this world to worry about the myriad number of things going wrong at any one time.
by china bob on Sep 2, 2005 6:53 PM PDT reply actions
ditto
by Cutthemullet on Sep 3, 2005 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Where is Blez?
Not to pick on nova--an angry reaction to the political tone of this thread and oaktoon's was inevitable. This is a site that's supposed to be unsafe for Angel fans and Yankee fans--but not for people of a certain political persuasion. As righteously horrified as the images from New Orleans may make us, there's a certain amount of and opportunistic glee experienced by those who are so quick to point out which political party was in charge at the time of the catastrophe.
Whether our lack of preparedness was inevitable or indefensible, it's probably too early to appropriately discuss it. The issue of whether anybody should be "accountable" is something to discuss AFTER some semblance of safety and stability can re-enter the lives of New Orleans refugees.
In the meantime, I have to admit that I do kind of enjoy all the political talk (or couldn't you tell from the length of this post), and all of the ruffled feathers that go along with it ... easy for me to say, since my feathers haven't been ruffled yet.
re
I surrender Rubin
AN has given me more enjoyment than anything else since arriving in China 6 years ago. To think that I can "TALK" daily with poeple who love the A's as much as I do, and to hear what they say, the arguments, the disagreements, it is great. Bashing Macha, and then having defenders jump in is energizing. Once in awhile someone feels the need to tell me their political beliefs as if I care, but I can usually scroll by that very fast. Anybody who writes anything has not seen nor done what I have done so I just ignore it. They know nothing except what they read or see, and that is through the media, i.e. journalists who know less than anybody in the world.
I believe Ohad lives in Israel so I would listen to anything he says but fortunately he confines himself to the A's which is what this is about I thought.
by china bob on Sep 2, 2005 7:27 PM PDT reply actions
you remind me of Gary Radnich
FYI: New Orleans map
the one thing i don't get is that it seems pretty okay in the lower right corner near the superdome, and the nearby bridge seems fine as well...
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00205/Satellittbilde_fra__205774a.jpg
more on race
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2005/9/2/112342/2222/120#120
Katrina's devastation was spread out over a huge area, not just the city of New Orleans with its majority-black population. The Associated Press quotes Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who lists four suburban parishes that, along with Orleans Parish (which is coterminous with New Orleans) were hit hard enough to need "long-term rebuilding."
Here are the 2000 census's racial breakdowns of the populations of those five Louisiana parishes, along with Mississippi's coastal counties, which suffered a direct hit:
Parish or county White Black
Jefferson, La. 69.8% 22.9%
Orleans, La. 28.1% 67.3%
Plaquemines, La. 69.8% 23.4%
St. Bernard, La. 88.3% 7.6%
St. Tammany, La. 87.0% 9.9%
Hancock, Miss. 90.2% 6.8%
Harrison, Miss. 73.1% 21.1%
Jackson, Miss. 75.4% 20.9%
I agree somewhat
I had a conversation earlier today with a friend who grew up in New Orleans. She grew up in an area adjacent to the Garden District--basically in an upper middle class neighborhood. Almost completely Caucasian--New Orleans, more than many cities--is sharply divided residentially by race. Here is one thing she said: The old parts of the city--the French Quarter, the Garden District, Esplanade Ave.--are on higher ground. These neighborhoods today are predominantly white and higher income. The newer parts of the city--including most of Orleans Parish (the FQ is also in ORleans) are lower income. These are the areas that are flooded. My friends aunt, in an upper income area, was able to ---on Wednesday---get in her car and drive to Shreveport. These neighborhoods were not buried by water.
I don't think the racism is intentional. I don't think people are sitting around and thinking "Well, they are just Black people"--but I do think that centuries of racism in this country has 1) created a situation wherein the poorest people are often those of color, and 2) people of color believe that the racism is intentional. You have to understand these people are being given zero information, zero food--instead guns are being pointed at them. I don't blame them for thinking the worst of our government.
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
well put, alien
obviously lower income people (and therefore blacks and other non-whites) often suffer disproportionately in situations such as this.
one question: i had heard the higher income areas were on higher ground. why is this? the city doesn't flood often, does it?
Not sure exactly
In case you're interested, I was given this explanation as to why the city is below sea level: If left unimpaired, land that borders a large body of water (in this case Lake Pontchartrain) stays at sea level because sediment is continuously deposited by the water. If you interrupt it (by building levees), this process is impeded, and no new land is formed--thus causing the existing land to sink.
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
very interesting
okay, so that explains some things. i was going to comment that it seems pretty silly to build a city that is 80% below sea level surrounded by the gulf, a river, and a large lake. but i guess maybe it wasn't below sea level back then...
If it helps you be less pissed off,
from the washington post
Emergency planners must focus much more on the fate of that part of the population that -- for reasons of poverty, infirmity, distrust of officialdom, lack of transportation or lack of information -- cannot be counted on to leave their homes after an evacuation order.
Tragically, authorities in New Orleans were aware of this problem. Certainly the numbers were known. Shirley Laska, an environmental and disaster sociologist at the University of New Orleans, had only recently calculated that some 57,000 New Orleans Parish households, or approximately 125,000 people, did not have access to cars or other private transportation. In the months before the storm, the city's emergency planners did debate the challenges posed by these numbers, which are much higher than in other hurricane-prone parts of the country, such as Florida. Because a rapid organization of so many buses would have been impractical, the city's emergency managers considered the use of trains and cruise ships. The New Orleans charity Operation Brother's Keeper had tried to get church congregations to match up car-owners with the carless, and it had produced a DVD on the subject of hurricane evacuations that was to be distributed later this month. Unfortunately, none of these plans was advanced enough to have had much impact this week.
Instead the city decided to use the Superdome as a "shelter of last resort." Following that decision, a major mistake was made: Not enough food, water or portable toilets were made available to accommodate the enormous number of people who turned up. No one in the federal, state or city governments appears to have been prepared for the possibility that thousands would be forced to stay there nearly a week. With some forethought, the National Guard troops who arrived yesterday could have been en route before, or even immediately after, the storm. Five days was too long to tell people to wait without supplies.
The question now is whether other major U.S. cities have focused on their immobile and impoverished residents to the degree that they should. Much of the emergency preparedness literature that has appeared on the Internet and elsewhere has focused on driving, on evacuation routes and on portable supplies. The events in New Orleans should force homeland security officials across the country to understand that this is not enough: Some thought must also be given to the fate of people who cannot or will not leave. The National Guard and FEMA should anticipate that some will remain behind, and food and water should be set aside for them. If fingers are to be pointed in the wake of this tragedy, this is one direction to point them.
and from the red cross
Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.
The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html
Re: Devo's & Oaktoon's posts
I respect that some come here for the sole purpose of A's baseball, but it would just seem -weird- if no on touched on the subject of one of the US's greatest natural (natural being debatable here) tragedies since many of us have been alive. I can only take so much of CNN, NPR, and The Chronicle, and frankly I appreciate hearing what others, who happen to share at least one of my passions, have to say about it. Maybe I would feel different if I had the criticism that some have, but selfishly...I don't mind hearing personal accounts sharing my same frustrations.
Anyway, I say Ramble on. No one's forcing anyone to read anything around here.
by NicoleG on Sep 2, 2005 11:32 PM PDT reply actions
yeah
I think that a tragedy of this magnitude HAS to be acknowledged, but the political dimension it's been given here is not similarly necessary--it's easy to touch on the tragedy without constructing a political argument based on it--just as it was easy to mourn 9/11 before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11.
Still, I think political discussion can prosper here as sports discussion has, if people take the same attitude that they are supposed to in sports discussion--constantly reminding themselves that none of this is really important. I mean, improving our lives is really important, but our own small ideas and opinions about how to go about it are not so important, since none of us is in a position of great power, and none of is is likely to have much of a clue. Here on AN, we're not Congress. We are just batting ideas around just as we do when we talk about VORP and firing Macha. (Ahh ... the one thing I am truly passionate about ... firing Macha ... NOW!!!)
by rubin sierra on Sep 2, 2005 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Partisan Politics
Well, I understand that you voted for him and all and that he's yours. So why don't you deal with it, wear it, accept that this pathetic fool, who plays at sounding like and acting like a leader instead of really being one, has failed.
And, yeah, that was partisan. Because let me tell you after five years of this, the anger of many people like me has built and built and watching this happen in New Orleans has pushed us over the edge to the point where, for once, we want there to be blame and accountability.
Or is that too much to ask?
Deep
I don't know about some of you here, but I go to political sites to discuss politics. I come to AN to read comments about my favorite subject - baseball. I understand there are more pressing issues in life than baseball, but that's what makes AN a diversion from reality rather than a stark reminder of the divisions in American society.
If you want to rant on how much you hate Bush, go to Kos's site. If you want to rant about how much you hate the ranters, go to RedState or something. If you want to talk baseball, VORP, Huston Street's butt, and anything that adds absolutely zero value to the world, please do it here.
<Vomits with rage>
So many other threads about baseball
I'm not really sure what happened
Can we please get back to baseball? And no more politically-charged comments please.
And really, my plea is for people to donate money to the relief efforts. You can hold whatever opinion you'd like, but if you have the means, you should be donating to help. We even put a link up. It's the first ad underneath the AN logo.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Sep 3, 2005 12:34 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
