Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Audubon NJ
    Posts
    1,024
    If you've been keeping up with the smorgasboard of Katrina news, you've no doubt heard the media and/or the government proclaim New Orleans in a state of anarchy, due to the looting and violence taking place. Anyone critical of the government in general should realize straight away that this is a simple ploy to legitimize its existence, even despite its horrible failures to the people it lords over. To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule. Following is an article from one of the sites I frequent going into further depth about the the incorrect useage of the media's latest catch-phrase to describe the situation in New Orleans.

    Defining Anarchy

    by Mark Davis

    Anarchy is a functioning society free of government controls. That is individual persons operating together in harmony based on freely reached agreements concluded between individual members and groups of a society. Anarchy is simply a free society. Anarchy is not the result of a statist-government failure; that would be chaos. The chaos in New Orleans is not due to anarchy, it is an example of the failure of statist-government.

    People have said and written to me that: “See, anarchy can’t work because look at what happened in New Orleans when there was no government.” To define anarchy as statist-government failure is such an obvious distortion of the concept of a free society that it is hard to decide where to begin to dismantle such thoughtlessness. I like to begin by simply pointing out that at least four layers of statist-government agencies still claim jurisdiction over the area known as New Orleans (city, parish, state and federal). The undeniable fact is that they all four failed to provide the services they had promised to provide when they were justifying the theft of individual resources called taxes.

    It boggles the mind how one can point to obvious failure to live up to political promises as a way to abdicate the responsibility of politicians to live up to those promises. Of course statist-governments never have and never will provide what they have promised. They simply return promising more and more if only they could have more power and more money. Next time, politicians promise, things will be different, better. Politics is just a show, and the curtain was pulled back in New Orleans .

    The main problem is that in spite of a long history of failure living up to its promises, so many people still see the statist-government system as the only available method of organizing society. When one government fails, statist drones can’t wait to revive it or start another one. The problem is perceived to be that it was the people who ran the system that failed and not the system itself. The blame game gets heated up as the bureaucrats immediately start pointing at each other. The sheep line up behind their “leaders” who “did all they could do” so that when the dust settles and the checks spending taxpayer monies get distributed, their loyalty will be rewarded. But these knaves are but a small band of thieves; it is the dupes who make it all possible.

    The lure for those educated in statist-government indoctrination centers and informed by media misinformation organs to equate the failure of statist-government to a state of anarchy is overwhelming to what little logic remains in their thought processes. When someone truly believes that society cannot exist without a central authority wielding a monopoly on the use of force to keep order, then it is easy to fall into this illogical mire. Getting out of this mire takes a level of desire for the truth that most sadly lack. So try undisputed facts that most people already know of to counteract this tendency.

    First, the catastrophe in New Orleans was not caused by the hurricane, but by the flooding that followed the failure of the dikes. Were these dikes built and maintained by private organizations, as they would be under anarchy (if built) or by statist-government agencies? The Army Corp of Engineers built and maintained the dikes after politicians decided it was a good idea to build a city below sea level. The failure of the Army Corp of Engineers to build dikes that would withstand a commonly known potential risk as well as their failure to maintain these dikes is not anarchy.

    Second, when the water started flooding into the city, who escaped: those who relied on self-initiative or those who relied on statist-government assistance? This is about as clear-cut an example of the contrast between vertical command structures based on central command authorities (statist-government) and horizontal command structures based on individual responsibility (anarchy) as you will find. People conditioned over a lifetime of waiting on the statist-government check to arrive are probably still waiting for someone from the government to show up and save them from their own inaction.

    People with a sense of self-government easily made the decision that it was time to go. Of course, most of these people had already left. So was the fact that many people were trapped in their homes during the flooding due to anarchy or statist-government policies? That statist-government officials asked people to rely on their own resources (anarchy) to do the obvious (leave) does not mitigate their failure, but only points to where people should have been focused to begin with.

    Third, after the statist-government security agents either abandoned whole areas or were completely ineffective in accomplishing their stated purpose (to protect persons and property), was the looting due to anarchy or the failure of the statist-government security system? Was the complete lack of respect for the property of others due to a culture that respects private property (anarchy) or a culture that believes in the redistribution of private property (statist-government)? Either coming or going, it looks like another failure of statist-government, not anarchy. Further consider what would have happened if a property owner had stayed to protect his property and shot a looter. Who do you think would have been arrested: the looter or the guy who challenged the monopoly on security?

    Fourth, after the floodwaters had done their damage and people needed help, was it the effort of statist-government agencies like FEMA that came through, or was it the friends, families, neighbors and charitable persons and organizations (anarchy)? The statist-government agencies not only stumbled, fumbled and bumbled about focusing on irrelevant issues like trying to figure out who was in charge, but they hindered the recovery efforts of free-society (anarchy). Here in Central Florida at least, one local airboat club was loaded up with water, chainsaws, blankets, food and fuel ready to hit the road the day after the flood, but made the mistake of calling FEMA to allow the pathetic bureaucrats to tell them where to go. They were told not to go.

    Instead of ignoring the official statist-government idiots, they obeyed like good citizens. When even big-hearted good ‘ol boys in the home of the brave and the land of the free ask bureaucratic weenies for permission to do the right thing and then obey those orders even when they know that the fools are wrong, America has slid too far down the slippery slope of statism.

    The response of private individuals and businesses including doctors was immediate and overwhelming to the central command authority that was inherently unable to deal with the scope of the problems involved. Over 50 countries around the world offered to respond immediately to help but were told no thanks or at best, wait. Wal-Mart sent some trucks loaded with water to the area and were told it wasn’t needed. So in the recovery phase, was it anarchy or statist-government that helped or hurt the most in New Orleans ? The answer should be clear by now.

    The more freedom a society has, the better the living conditions of that society will be during good times and bad. Only elite lever pullers behind the curtains benefit from statist-government, not the masses who religiously worship at the statist altar praying for help that will never come. To be brainwashed into equating anarchy with chaos to the point where obvious government failure defines anarchy is unacceptable to people who wish to be free.

    People ruled by a fear of not having Big Brother take care of them will never be free. The pertinent question then is how many people in America are ruled by their fears and wish to trade their liberty for the illusion of security based on empty promises? I fear too many are blinded by irrational fears but hope enough brave souls may still be able to rationally think about it when presented with the facts.

    Government failure is not anarchy. Anarchy is a society that functions without government control, a free society. Society can continue to function somewhat with limited government control, but that doesn’t mean government control is required to have a society. When government control obviously hinders the efforts of society to function efficiently, it is time to remove those controls. A society can function better with no government controls. New Orleans should be a case study educating Americans and the world of this simple fact.
    http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis/davis4.html

  2. #2
    Banned Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    18,876
    The US government brought it upon themselves in the first place, I guess.

  3. #3
    Super Duper Member Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    4,945
    Originally posted by Link04@Sep 8 2005, 02:47 PM
    To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule.
    I'm sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I'd say my speech about 'anarchists'.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don't think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech
    Neil's Vintage Sig Collection. Item 2 'Hahn Signature'


  4. #4
    LPAssociation.com Administrator Derek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Reading, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    39,450
    Alright...seriously? Anyone who thinks that the government didn't do much for this whole thing and are full of shit need to read the following statement from my friend's blog. This WHOLE issue has to deal with Mayor Nagin's stupidity and you shall see why (mind the censors as this was featured on another forum with the filter in place):

    Let me direct you to someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I quote:

    Alright, you wanna point fingers? Blame the wonderful mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin. He didn't declare a state of emergency. He postponed the evacuation until the last minute. He ditched the idea of getting people out and to safety with busses. In fact, those busses are right here !

    New Orleans doesn't even have a major evacuation plan! You'd think after last year's close call with Hurricane Ivan, they'd bog down and setup a secure system, especially taking into mind that a good number of people down south don't own vehicles and don't have a lot of money -- they literally are relying on the government to tell them how to be safe when a hurricane is coming.

    Mayor Nagin then has the audacity to blame the federal government and Bush for not helping out quick enough? You moron, you didn't even handle your part of the responsibility so shut your trap. You screwed up and you blame the higher up people? Why? They can't come and hold your hand every time -- you should have planned it out because now, the federal government is caught off-guard and rushing to help you at the last minute -- kinda what you did -- so if you think the feds are doing bad, it's because they didn't expect having to lend you that much of a hand because they thought you had your **** straight but you DIDN'T. Now they're doing everything for you, you dip****!

    Then, they send in 7,000 troops to help and they get shot at?! New Orleans, what the hell do you want? Help or NOT? This is one of those rare times I actually give a **** about what's going on in the world and instead of seeing people being hopeful, people are mad and pointing fingers -- so I investigated and found out who's really to blame and it sure as hell isn't Bush!

    August 28th:
    • During the day, Bush declares a state of emergency in Mississippi and orders federal assistance.

    August 29th:
    • 4 a.m.: Hurricane Katrina is downgraded to a strong Category 4 storm.

    • 7 a.m.: Katrina makes landfall on the Louisiana coast between Grand Isle and the mouth of the Mississippi River.

    • 11a.m. Katrina makes another landfall near the Louisiana-Mississippi state line with 125 mph winds. The storm's daylong rampage claims lives and ravages property in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, where coastal areas remained under several feet of water.

    • Two major flood-control levees are breached, and the National Weather Service reports "total structural failure" in parts of New Orleans. A section of the roof of the Louisiana Superdome, where 10,000 people are taking refuge, opens. Many are feared dead in flooded neighborhoods still under as much as 20 feet of water.

    • In Mississippi, dozens are dead and Gov. Haley Barbour describes "catastrophic damage" along the coast. More than 1.3 million homes and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were without electricity, according to utility companies.

    • 10 p.m.: More than 12 hours after making landfall, one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the northern Gulf Coast in half a century is downgraded to a tropical storm. Remnants head north toward Tennessee and the Ohio River Valley, spurring harsh storms and tornadoes.

    So you're saying the federal government should have came on August 29th when the hurricane was still tearing **** up? How pointless would that be?

    August 30th:
    • New Orleans is left with no power, no drinking water, dwindling food supplies, widespread looting, fires -- and steadily rising waters from major levee breaches. Efforts to limit the flooding are unsuccessful and force authorities to try evacuating the thousands of people at city shelters.

    • Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says Katrina inflicted more damage to the state's beach towns than did Hurricane Camille, and its death toll is likely to be higher. In Mobile, Alabama, the storm pushed water from Mobile Bay into downtown, submerging large sections of the city.

    • The U.S. military starts to move ships and helicopters to the region at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    • Katrina is downgraded to a tropical depression.

    See? The federal government waited until it was SAFE so they could step in and help.

    August 31st:
    • President Bush flies over the Gulf Coast in Air Force One to survey the damage. He later announces a major federal mobilization to help the victims.

    • The entire region is declared a public health emergency amid fears of diseases that could spread because of the contaminated, stagnant water.

    • Evacuations from the Louisiana Superdome to the Houston Astrodome begin. About 20,000 people are expected to be transferred from New Orleans to Houston.

    • When asked about the number of dead, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin replies, "Minimum, hundreds. Most likely, thousands."


    September 1st:
    • Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announces that 4,200 National Guard troops trained as military police will be deployed to New Orleans over the next three days.

    September 2nd:
    • Tired and angry people stranded at the convention center in New Orleans welcome a supply convoy carrying food, water and medicine.

    • President Bush visits Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, and later signs a $10.5 billion disaster relief bill.

    September 4th:
    • Water and air rescue efforts continue in New Orleans; the U.S. Coast Guard said it has rescued more than 17,000 people, almost twice as many as it had saved in the previous 50 years combined, but that thousands of people remain stranded. Helicopters drop emergency food and water to people awaiting rescue.

    • A Eurocopter AS 332 Super Puma helicopter flown by a civilian company crashes during rescue operations in New Orleans. No evacuees are aboard, and the pilot and crew are rescued.

    September 5th:
    • Body recovery teams conduct house-to-house searches for human remains in New Orleans, while helicopters continue search-and-rescue operations for survivors. The U.S. Coast Guard said that it has rescued more than 22,000 people.

    • President Bush makes his second visit to the stricken region since Katrina struck, meeting with Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and other officials at the state's relief headquarters in Baton Rouge.

    Thank you CNN.
    ===
    Now, here's more information from another site:

    Why Didn't Louisiana Follow its Required Emergency Plan?

    Self | September 4, 2005 | Joseph Ranos

    Posted on 09/04/2005 3:48:32 PM PDT by Sonar5

    1) Why Didn't Louisiana Follow it's Emergency Plan? Why isn't anyone talking about this?

    2) Why hasn't anyone mentioned that a Pre-Requisite for a Federal Response BY LAW is that State Law is Executed and the Emergency Plan is Executed FIRST?

    3) Why did the Governor abandon the City of New Orleans for the Safety of Baton Rouge, before the Plan was Executed?

    4) Why, when the federal Government was acting in accordance with the Stafford Act, did the State of Louisiana, by its Governors acts, delay making requests when being told this storm was going to hit?

    5) Why did Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco, delay while sleeping on it Saturday night, the Mandatory evacuation spelled out in the Louisiana Emergency Plan? Saturday the Mayor said he may order an evacuation tomorrow. (Sunday)

    6) Where were the Parish Presidents who were signatories to the Louisiana Emergency Plan, and why did they fail in its Execution to the plan?

    7) In the Parish failure to implement, why didn't the State take over as required by the plan?

    8) Why weren't the Hospitals nursing homes, etc. evacuated since the plan required them to do so?

    9) Why did the Mandatory evacuation only occur AFTER President Bush called, and why did Governor Blanco stress that it was only after President Bush Called to urging the Evacuation order? Was she concerned for the Citizens, or was she grandstanding so she could blame the President if the Storm didn't hit?

    10) Why were the Action Plan implementations required not done by the Local and State Government?

    Links required reading for this information:

    Louisiana State Emergency Operations Plan - 2005:
    Louisiana State Emergency Plan

    Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan:
    Southeast Louisiana Evac Plan

    Southwest Louisiana Hurricane Evac and Sheltering Plan
    Southwest Evac Plan

    Shelter Plan
    Shelter Plan

    White House Declarations:

    August 27, 2005 Emergency Declaration by President Bush:
    Emergency Plan Dec

    August 29, 2005 Major Disaster Declaration by President Bush:
    Major Disaster Dec

    Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Public Law 106-390, October 30, 2000
    Federal Law

    Federal Response Plan:
    Federal Response Plan

    Thanks To This Site!!!

    So cut the bull****. Mayor Ray Nagin is a clueless moron
    I'm just SICK of people slamming the government and dubya when they are certainly doing a lot more then that dickward Ray Nagin has done. Yeah Bush aint perfect, but shit...
    The LPA is self funded. We support our hosting costs out of pocket and through ads, and although we do not expect our users to donate...any monetary contribution helps.
    To donate towards hosting costs and help support the site, please click on the Donate button below.



    Check Out AltWire - My Latest Project

  5. #5
    [i cant spoll preply]: JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hartlepool, United Kingdom
    Posts
    9,658
    Originally posted by Dean@Sep 8 2005, 07:57 PM
    The US government brought it upon themselves in the first place, I guess.
    i think that too

    Castle of Glass

  6. #6
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,112
    Originally posted by Derek@Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM
    I'm just SICK of people slamming the government and dubya when they are certainly doing a lot more then that dickward Ray Nagin has done. Yeah Bush aint perfect, but shit...
    Where have you been all my life?

  7. #7
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Audubon NJ
    Posts
    1,024
    Originally posted by Neil+Sep 8 2005, 09:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil @ Sep 8 2005, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Sep 8 2005, 02:47 PM
    To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule.
    I&#39;m sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I&#39;d say my speech about &#39;anarchists&#39;.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don&#39;t think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m not quite sure what you imply by "Mad-Max." Could you be more clear? I&#39;d be happy to discuss what I know with you.

    Derek, this was a state failure on every level, I&#39;m not just talking about Federal. And, comparitively, they&#39;ve all done a ton less than private organizations have done.

  8. #8
    Super Duper Member Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    4,945
    Originally posted by Link04+Sep 8 2005, 09:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Neil@Sep 8 2005, 09:47 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--Link04
    @Sep 8 2005, 02:47 PM
    To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule.

    I&#39;m sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I&#39;d say my speech about &#39;anarchists&#39;.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don&#39;t think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech
    I&#39;m not quite sure what you imply by "Mad-Max." Could you be more clear? I&#39;d be happy to discuss what I know with you.

    Derek, this was a state failure on every level, I&#39;m not just talking about Federal. And, comparitively, they&#39;ve all done a ton less than private organizations have done. [/b][/quote]
    The movie, Mad Max with Mel Gibson

    Basically it&#39;s a world without rules.


    http://www.madmaxthemovie.com/

  9. #9
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    i am anarchist also, so i&#39;ll stick my head in here.

    the state brainwashes people into thinking anarchy is chaos= simply not true. because if we were human beings who think for themselves- not a herd of sheep, not a humanity of slaves who believe themselves to be free and plead for the wolves to take care of them.- if we truly wanted freedom for ourselves and wanted to end the misery our complacency, our blind believe in state run by politicians who are run by interests of corporations and elites etc - we&#39;d get rid of the state and corrupted system we live in.

    before you&#39;d like to define anarchy by what the establishment that only cares about you as a cog in its machine and pretends to care about you only by brainwash and constant hypnotizing by corporate media that lies to you so about the world you live in, well before you join the train of idea that has been fed to you by the machine about anarchy , i&#39;ll link a site and post few articles, make up your own mind on reality of what anarchy is and not on what gov would like you to synonymize it with

    http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html

    this is actually what one of the anarchistic emcees said, his name is Lynx and you can check his site that has a lot of info on what anarchy is too in library section
    http://www.circlealpha.com/

    there&#39;s a difference between "government" and the State. every society has a system of governance - including anarchist societies - but nation-states didn&#39;t exist until the treaty of westphalia in 1648. that&#39;s 357 years ago. humans have been on the planet for about 10,000 years. so yeah, "government" - or at least governance - is inevitable and not particularly problamatic as long as it&#39;s directly democratic and operates from the bottom up, but the state is not only not inevitable but actually a very recent development. as far as whose interests the state serves, james madison (one of the framers of the US constitution) argued in the federalist papers (a series of articles published to convince people to ratify the constitution) that the State has two primary roles: 1 - to slow down the proccess of social change and keep the "mob" from acting to implement reform, and 2 - "to protect property from the majority," that is to keep "we the people" from redistributing the wealth.

    that said, it&#39;s important to note that anarchism must accordingly be much more then just an effort to abolish nation-states since stateless systems like feudalism can be pretty nasty too. the issue has got to be the abolition of oppressive top-down systems and the creation of an egalitarian bottom-up system of governance. so it&#39;s at least as much creative as destructive.

    anarchism is what you get when you actually implement democracy in both the economic and political spheres - real, local, direct democracy, not the pseudo-representative puppetshow that passes for democracy in america and europe. capitalism, incidentally, is inherently anti-democratic, (and so is communism for that matter). both take control of the economic system out of the hands of the working majority and use it as tool for a ruling elite minority to control society. it is not rooted in society, it is a parasite that sucks the life out of poor and working class communities to feed the owning elite. go into any ghetto or working-class neighborhood in any country in the world and tell the people there that their poverty makes them free and see how they react...


    about the constant association of anarchy in New Orleans when it has nothing to do with actual anarchy, read on here

    Anarchy in New Orleans?

    “Anarchy Disrupts US Storm Relief”claims the BBC. “Scenes of Anarchy in Super dome” declares CNN. “Anarchy in the streets”. But what&#39;s really going on in New Orleans? Whether or not the hurricane itself is the result of human actions is questionable, but what is clear is that the chaos and death in the Big Easy are anything but the result of anarchy.

    by Shevek

    Despite the cowboy rhetoric, from the day we are born we are conditioned through schooling, through the family, and through observations of existing social structures to be dependent on hierarchical relations. We quickly excel at taking orders and then either processing them or relaying them to others without question or thought. Even when we do &#39;learn&#39;, we mainly act as a receptacle for information, focusing on absorbing facts and formulas, rather than learning through practice, free to trial and error, how to make decisions and how to think for ourselves. Our free thought processes and creativity (with the exceptions of specific kinds that serve limited roles) become highly underdeveloped, even further trapping us in the master/slave character. This social conditioning is by no means an accident, but rather a necessary component of our smooth functioning later in life when we begin to sell our labor.

    Due to the highly bureaucratic and centralized nature of our existing economic and political systems, and the extreme specialization of knowledge, we quickly become alienated from our surroundings, institutions that exist on an abstract, rather than human-social level. Like radio or television dramas, politics and current events are absorbed packaged as a commodity requiring little to no thought. Most of us lack even a basic working knowledge of the means through which we live, through which our society is organized. Not allowed to ask why, we no longer care how.

    “Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem invincible” - George Orwell

    The nature of government forms a praxis, both creating and playing off of our subordination and alienation. The existing abstract social relations are presented as invincible and eternal. The power of the policeman is benevolent, but complete. Existing legal mores and economic relations become internalized and spit back up as &#39;human nature&#39; or &#39;higher morality&#39;. The sharp authoritarian and anti-social nature is so omnipresent that it becomes invisible, beyond comment or question.

    Katrina brought that all crashing down.

    In times of crisis the seemingly peaceful social relations are violently exposed in their true light. While the rich quickly leave to their second homes, the poor were are left behind. Some reluctantly accepted help from the state and where ushered into the Superdome, not knowing what else to do. Others, unable to go, or unwilling to leave behind their only possessions remained, choosing to brave out the storm.

    The role of government is clear. News reports the evening of the storm were filled with stories of police chiefs lamenting that they &#39;had&#39; to focus their attention on battling looters rather than saving those in need. While thousands sat starving, stranded on their roofs, armed patrols marched and floated down the streets engaging in battles with people appropriating goods that could no longer be sold. Soon the media began reported that the National Guard was too thinly stretched fighting imperial wars overseas to provide relief here at home.

    As help poured in from around the world - donations of medical aid and boats to rescue survivors, offers of housing around the country, technical help so survivors could contact their loved ones - motivated by nothing other than a common humanity, those who had put their faith in the state and had gone to its shelters quickly learned that not only where they not supplied food, water, or dry clothes, but they were not even free to leave. All relationships with the state, even those seemingly based on support, quickly become dependent.

    Inside the Superdome, dead bodies began to pile up as the National Guard stood by helpless. Quickly the conditions inside became intolerable. A people, conditioned not to think for themselves and not to act for themselves, began realizing that the social abstraction they put their faith didn&#39;t care about them, and was unable to assist them. The gun battles that began to erupt around the stadium, however irrational, show the frustration and fear of a caged animal forced to walk, after being released for the first time.

    Likely, New Orleans will be closed off, and all traffic to it blockaded while specialists begin to rebuild the city. Because of their faith in bureaucratic abstractions, rather than in themselves and their community, thousands have likely lost their lives to a devastating storm. Unable and unwilling to act for themselves, left to die while offers of support from ordinary people are turned down by a government focused on “maintaining order”, the harsh outcome of our hierarchical relations is only too clear.

    Rather than &#39;anarchic&#39; chaos or disorder, the violence and ruin on the streets of the Big Easy are the only possible endgame of the debilitating and alienating social conditioning and economic relations of a bureaucratic capitalist state. Disasters like this can only be met when ordinary people begin to work together on a human level, to the best of their abilities helping each help each other get through, instead of relying on highly bureaucratic and irrational social abstractions to save them. Then there will actually be anarchy in New Orleans

    anarchy is not about living without rules, their rules of freedom and not rules of slavery that we are living under right now.

  10. #10
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    Originally posted by Derek@Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM
    Alright...seriously? Anyone who thinks that the government didn&#39;t do much for this whole thing and are full of shit need to read the following statement from my friend&#39;s blog. This WHOLE issue has to deal with Mayor Nagin&#39;s stupidity and you shall see why (mind the censors as this was featured on another forum with the filter in place):

    Let me direct you to someone who actually knows what he&#39;s talking about. I quote:

    snip...






    I&#39;m just SICK of people slamming the government and dubya when they are certainly doing a lot more then that dickward Ray Nagin has done. Yeah Bush aint perfect, but shit...
    to this i have this to post:

    firstly

    September 7, 2005 -- Bush does not understand why the people of Louisiana do not want to be scattered en masse as evacuees because he flunked history class. With FEMA scattering evacuees across the country, the dispersed unique population of Louisiana is now being told they may not be able to return to their homes in New Orleans and Acadiana in the foreseeable future. Obviously, history is not one of the strong suits of Bush and his cabal of liars and thieves. Three distinct groups in the affected areas of Louisiana have had a sorrowful experience with forced removals and harassment. First for the Acadians or "Cajuns." The ancestors of the Acadians/Cajuns were originally expelled from their native Nova Scotia by the British. The Acadians had settled in Nova Scotia in the 1600s. In the mid-1700s, the Acadians were expelled by the British from their homes and they re-settled in Louisiana. The Acadians of Louisiana are direct descendants from these people who were forced to abandon their homes by an elitist group of British and their colonial allies (the Bush and Blair love mates must all be too familiar to the Cajuns). The Cajuns have kept many of their French traditions and culture, which is what makes Louisiana so unique. The right-wing is attacking people like Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and New Orleans Ray Nagin. Their French last names are indicative of the strong French Acadian influence in Louisiana. That influence is also apparent in the political names Landrieu, Breaux, Broussard, Morial, and Barthelomew. The other two Louisiana groups displaced by Bush&#39;s incompetence are African Americans and Native Americans.



    Acadiana: Bush and his cabal have no sense of history in their blaming the state, parishes, and cities of Louisiana.

    Along with their fellow Cajun Louisianans, the African Americans and Native Americans also have had their share of experience with forced resettlements, the African Americans first being sold into slavery and then emancipated and forced to work as sharecroppers and migrant laborers and the Native Americans being forced from their tribal lands onto squalid reservations. Oh yes, but Barbara Bush&#39;s ancestor was one of the people who trounced on the rights of Cajuns, African Americans, and Native Americans -- President Franklin Pierce, a particularly nasty pro-slavery and jingoistic American president. There&#39;s a very nasty gene pool that has nested in Dubya Bush.

    The attacks by the vicious right-wing against the people of Louisiana is nothing more than their signature racism and xenophobia. Bashing the French is nothing new with them nor is their racist comments about African Americans. We must take our nation back from this filth who claim to be "Christian."


    secondly

    Locals believe Levees were Intentionally blown
    Evidence suggests there were "cracks" in levees that were intentionally ignored, questions over how they failed.

    Steve Watson | September 9 2005

    Could the levees in New Orleans have been INTENTIONALLY blown out in order to save sections of the city deemed to be more important?

    The locals certainly seem to think so, yet, as usual, the mainstream media is barely picking up on this wave of opinion, so it is left to us once again to bring the issue into the open.

    When Katrina hit, it drifted 15 miles to the east of where forecasters said it would strike. Therefore it wasn&#39;t quite the monster described. The storm passed through with relatively minor damage, it was the the storm surge from the Gulf that caused Lake Pontchartrain to rise three feet and the subsequent flooding.



    Katrina hit early on Monday 29th August, the levees broke in three places - along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London Street Canal. (Click here for a Map )

    The main storm surge from Hurricane Katrina washed into Lake Pontchartrain at around 7AM on August 29th when the counterclockwise motion of Katrina was pushing water from the Gulf of Mexico into the lake.

    Some are questioning the timeline of the levee failures, suggesting that there was a 21 hour discrepancy between the storm surge and the collapse of the levees . This is not the case. The first levee broke just a few hours after the hurricane hit on the same morning.

    This confusion may have arisen due to the fact that Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has said that the levees broke overnight between Monday-Tuesday, and that he was not informed of this til midday Tuesday.


    The breach of the 17th Street Canal levee resulted in the failure of a crucial pumping station nearby, according to a statement made by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

    However, it seems that this exact scenario was expected and ignored. In an interview with New Orleans radio station local radio station WWL-AM, Nagin revealed how irate he was that this had been allowed to happen:

    Nagin: You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don&#39;t care what you do. Figure it out."
    WWL: Who&#39;d you say that to?
    Nagin: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it. And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives. And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people. In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That&#39;s a power station over there. So there&#39;s no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.




    It has emerged though that some kind of work was carried out on the 17th Street Canal levee. Reports have suggested that the funding was not there to complete the job, but some work had been done:

    "The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it&#39;s too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday."

    Of course we know that it was the White House that slashed funding for such projects in order to pump more money into the war in Iraq.

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Shea Penland of the Pontchartrain Institute was surprised because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded. It did not have an earthen levee, it had a vertical concrete wall several feet thick."

    It also seems that the broken section of the Industrial Canal levee was having "construction" work done on it recently.

    New York Times science reporter Dr. Andrew Revkin has stated of the 17th Street Canal that "officials and [Army Corps] engineers said that after they had found the widening gap in the concrete wall on the eastern side of the canal, they had no quick-response plan to repair it."

    Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the corps, said "plugging the gap was a lower priority." The corps is directed by FEMA. "It is FEMA who is really calling the shots and setting priorities here,"

    Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager for the corps, was quoted in the same article as saying "there were still no clear hints why the main breach in the flood barriers occurred along the 17th Street Canal, normally a conduit for vast streams of water pumped out of the perpetually waterlogged city each day and which did not take the main force of the waves roiling the lake. He said that a low spot marked on survey charts of the levees near the spot that ruptured was unrelated and that the depression was where a new bridge crossed the narrow canal near the lakefront."





    This would refute the speculation that a dip in the retaining levee or walls might have allowed water to slop over and start the collapse. So we have an unexplained crack in several feet of concrete. FEMA decided not to plug it and let the water flow until a US city was flooded and thousands had drowned.

    Dynamite? History repeating itself?

    Many locals have come forward to suggest that the levees were breached on purpose by the authorities. Resident Andrea Garland, now re-located to Texas, wrote in her blog:

    "Also heard that part of the reason our house flooded is they dynamited part of the levee after the first section broke - they did this to prevent Uptown (the rich part of town) from being flooded. Apparently they used too much dynamite, thus flooding part of the Bywater. So now I know who is responsible for flooding my house - not Katrina, but our government."

    This scenario is not so crazy as it sounds, in fact this exact thing has happened before in the same city. In 1927, the Mississippi River broke its banks in 145 places, depositing water at depths of up to 30ft over 27,000 square miles of land.

    The disaster changed American society, shifting hundreds of thousands of delta-dwelling blacks into northern cities and cementing the divisions and suspicions that benign neglect has ensured remain today. New Orleans’ (mainly white) business class pressurized the state to dynamite a levee upstream, releasing water into (mainly black) areas of the delta. Black workers were forced to work on flood relief at gunpoint, like slaves.


    Two parishes, St. Bernard and Plaquemines, which had a combined population of 10,000, were destroyed. Just before Katrina, these parishes had about 10 times the 1927 population. Both parishes are now under many feet of water.



    This information is covered in depth in a book by John M. Barry entitled Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it Changed America, 1997 which has incidentally become heavily in demand after Katrina.

    Furthermore, levees were also intentionally broke after Hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans in 1965, admittedly with less of an impact. The tactic of breaking the dikes is not uncommon, as this CNN report on China&#39;s flood plains highlights.

    Engineers have now punched holes in several levees in parts of New Orleans where flood levels were higher than the water in drainage canals leading to Pontchartrain, in order to let water flow out.

    Did the authorities decide to sacrifice the poor folks and blow the levees in order to save the French Quarter of New Orleans which houses the richer residents, the lucrative historical buildings and thousands of businesses?

    Explosions?

    There were reports of many explosions heard in New Orleans, officials say they were transformers blowing up. Total Information Analysis has reported a claim by intelligence expert Tom Heneghen that 25 earwitnesses cited explosions immediately before the levee breach.

    Similar reports are now appearing in many web blogs:

    "He also mentioned that right before the mass flood there was a loud sound like an explosion." - News from St. Bernard

    "I&#39;ll tell you the worst thing I&#39;ve heard and I heard it from my mother. She said she heard several blasts - big booms - right before the levees broke. Several blasts and then all the water came pouring in." - aangirfan

    Although these are obviously not authoritative sources of information, it is interesting to note how many local people are reporting this. So interesting in fact that the mainstream has picked up on it in places.

    The Washington Post reported on the comments of a retired school teacher:

    "Mullen has a schoolteacher&#39;s kindly demeanor, so it was jarring to hear him say he suspected that the levee breaks had somehow been engineered to keep the wealthy French Quarter and Garden District dry at the expense of poor black neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward -- a suspicion I heard from many other black survivors."

    The Globe and Mail is also carrying a similar story.

    ABC World News Tonight carried a report which contained an interview with a local, who described how a floating barge had rammed the levee. The man seemed convinced that the levee was purposefully broken. A transcript of which has appeared on the net:

    David Muir: “Was it solely the water that broke the levee? Or was it the force of this barge that now sits where homes once did? Joe Edwards says neither. People are so bitter, so disenfranchised in this neighborhood, they actually think the city did it, blowing up the levee to save richer neighborhoods, like the French Quarter.”
    Muir to Edwards as they stand on a bridge: “So you&#39;re convinced-”
    Edwards: “I knows it happened.”
    Muir: “-that they broke the levee on purpose?”
    Edwards: “They blew it.”
    Muir: “New Orleans’ Mayor says there&#39;s no credence to this.”
    Mayor Ray Nagin: “That storm was so powerful and it pushed so much water -- there&#39;s no way anyone could have calculated -- would dynamite the levee to have the kind of impact to save the French Quarter.”
    Muir concluded: “An LSU expert who looked at the video today, says that while the barge may have caused it, it was most likely the sheer force of the water that brought the levee, along the lower 9th ward, down.”

    The mysterious barge story has also been reported by many other local residents. "The evacuees who witnessed the barge striking the levee also want to know why the major media is not covering this story."



    The London Observer carried an intriguing story of a man named Correll Williams, a 19-year-old meat cutter. The article states that:

    "Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates."

    So it&#39;s clear that barriers WERE being broken in an attempt to protect areas of the city.

    Some final intriguing footage reveals a journalist questioning former President Bill Clinton as to why many locals feel that the levees were purposefully broken.


    thirdly

    How the Free Market Killed New Orleans

    By Michael Parenti

    The free market played a crucial role in the destruction of New Orleans and the death of thousands of its residents. Armed with advanced warning that a momentous (force 5) hurricane was going to hit that city and surrounding areas, what did officials do? They played the free market.

    They announced that everyone should evacuate. Everyone was expected to devise their own way out of the disaster area by private means, just as the free market dictates, just like people do when disaster hits free-market Third World countries.

    It is a beautiful thing this free market in which every individual pursues his or her own personal interests and thereby effects an optimal outcome for the entire society. This is the way the invisible hand works its wonders.

    There would be none of the collectivistic regimented evacuation as occurred in Cuba. When an especially powerful hurricane hit that island last year, the Castro government, abetted by neighborhood citizen committees and local Communist party cadres, evacuated 1.3 million people, more than 10 percent of the country&#39;s population, with not a single life lost, a heartening feat that went largely unmentioned in the U.S. press.

    On Day One of the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, it was already clear that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American lives had been lost in New Orleans. Many people had "refused" to evacuate, media reporters explained, because they were just plain "stubborn."

    It was not until Day Three that the relatively affluent telecasters began to realize that tens of thousands of people had failed to flee because they had nowhere to go and no means of getting there. With hardly any cash at hand or no motor vehicle to call their own, they had to sit tight and hope for the best. In the end, the free market did not work so well for them.

    Many of these people were low-income African Americans, along with fewer numbers of poor whites. It should be remembered that most of them had jobs before Katrina&#39;s lethal visit. That&#39;s what most poor people do in this country: they work, usually quite hard at dismally paying jobs, sometimes more than one job at a time. They are poor not because they&#39;re lazy but because they have a hard time surviving on poverty wages while burdened by high prices, high rents, and regressive taxes.

    The free market played a role in other ways. Bush&#39;s agenda is to cut government services to the bone and make people rely on the private sector for the things they might need. So he sliced &#036;71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. Plans to fortify New Orleans levees and upgrade the system of pumping out water had to be shelved.

    Bush took to the airways and said that no one could have foreseen this disaster. Just another lie tumbling from his lips. All sorts of people had been predicting disaster for New Orleans, pointing to the need to strengthen the levees and the pumps, and fortify the coastlands.

    In their campaign to starve out the public sector, the Bushite reactionaries also allowed developers to drain vast areas of wetlands. Again, that old invisible hand of the free market would take care of things. The developers, pursuing their own private profit, would devise outcomes that would benefit us all.

    But wetlands served as a natural absorbent and barrier between New Orleans and the storms riding in from across the sea. And for some years now, the wetlands have been disappearing at a frightening pace on the Gulf? coast. All this was of no concern to the reactionaries in the White House.

    As for the rescue operation, the free-marketeers like to say that relief to the more unfortunate among us should be left to private charity. It was a favorite preachment of President Ronald Reagan that "private charity can do the job." And for the first few days that indeed seemed to be the policy with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina.

    The federal government was nowhere in sight but the Red Cross went into action. Its message: "Don&#39;t send food or blankets; send money." Meanwhile Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network---taking a moment off from God&#39;s work of pushing John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court---called for donations and announced "Operation Blessing" which consisted of a highly-publicized but totally inadequate shipment of canned goods and bibles.

    By Day Three even the myopic media began to realize the immense failure of the rescue operation. People were dying because relief had not arrived. The authorities seemed more concerned with the looting than with rescuing people. It was property before people, just like the free marketeers always want.

    But questions arose that the free market did not seem capable of answering: Who was in charge of the rescue operation? Why so few helicopters and just a scattering of Coast Guard rescuers? Why did it take helicopters five hours to get six people out of one hospital? When would the rescue operation gather some steam? Where were the feds? The state troopers? The National Guard? Where were the buses and trucks? the shelters and portable toilets? The medical supplies and water?

    Where was Homeland Security? What has Homeland Security done with the &#036;33.8 billions allocated to it in fiscal 2005? Even ABC-TV evening news (September 1, 2005) quoted local officials as saying that "the federal government&#39;s response has been a national disgrace."

    In a moment of delicious (and perhaps mischievous) irony, offers of foreign aid were tendered by France, Germany and several other nations. Russia offered to send two plane loads of food and other materials for the victims. Predictably, all these proposals were quickly refused by the White House. America the Beautiful and Powerful, America the Supreme Rescuer and World Leader, America the Purveyor of Global Prosperity could not accept foreign aid from others. That would be a most deflating and insulting role reversal. Were the French looking for another punch in the nose?

    Besides, to have accepted foreign aid would have been to admit the truth---that the Bushite reactionaries had neither the desire nor the decency to provide for ordinary citizens, not even those in the most extreme straits. Next thing you know, people would start thinking that George W. Bush was really nothing more than a fulltime agent of Corporate America.

    and shortly as the ending:

    -- the Bush Administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44%
    -- Bush administration supported policies of turning wetlands to developers. Four environmental groups conducted a study in 2004 which concluded that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an "ordinary" hurricane.
    -- At the G-8 meeting this year in Scotland, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes.

  11. #11
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,112
    -- the Bush Administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44%
    Exactly what is your point? Even if New Orleans had flood control funding not cut, what would that do right now? You think them having money in their budget would have actually made a difference? Even if it would have (which it wouldn&#39;t... you can&#39;t make that big of a difference in a year), then what&#39;s your point? You can look at it in retrospect and say they didn&#39;t do this and that, but I&#39;m sure if they knew what was going to happen as we do now that he wouldn&#39;t have cut their budget (although, again, I doubt it would&#39;ve made a single difference, except for years in the future).

  12. #12
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    my point was to refute derecs post, go bak 2 his post.

    in a year? what do you mean by that? bush is in the office for much longer, it was undercut by clinton already and to undercut it further is indeed nonsence. they were asking for repairs and money for the levees for ages, did the governemnt invest? no it&#39;d rather invest in Iraq=meaning war machine.

    bush&#39;s defenders want to have it both ways since 9/11 there has been unprecedented powers granted to the executive branch-white house, massive spending deficits and unprecedented intrusions into american&#39;s civil liberties and entire goverment umbrella agency created-all in the name of protecting americans from calamity. ragardless of whether it occured by nature or terrorist action the other devastation on the gulf coast/southern states has revealed the bush administration to be a sham. ragardless of how this happened our &#39;homeland&#39; has been shown to the entire world to be as secure as the bill of rights at the republican national convention. our emergency prepardness has been woefully mismanaged by the bush administration. 5 of 8 of the top leadership in fema have no emergency prepardness in their backround whatsover. the fema&#39;s director, was not only fired from his last job but it&#39;s also coming out that his &#39;resume&#39; is filled with fabrications/&#39;brownie, you&#39;re doing a heck of a job&#39; said Bush......how can a man that can&#39;t even recognize the problem, a man who&#39;s policies demolished once credible government agency (Fema), now be expected to be capable to fix the problem. he ran on a platform of security and has delivered us into unwinnable quagmire in Iraq and inexusable unprepardness here at home? (Bush). Bush loyalists can play ostrich all they wish but reality and the public record will have the final world.

    funny how republicans are now so fond of the term &#39;blame game&#39; now,as if accountibility and responsibility for the deaths of so many following Katrina is some trivial matter.

    in a wake of Katrina, the only well executed &#39;first response&#39; was their standard playbook of lies and distortions..........&#39;I don&#39;t think anybody would predict the levees could break (they did predict that many times)........The governor never asked us to declare martial law or for federal aid before the storm struck (she did), more of the same from administration who&#39;s entire house of cards is built on foundation of intentional deceit and unwillingness to take responsibility for anything.

  13. #13
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,112
    Tell me -- do you honestly believe that all of the money was going to repair the levee? The money they ended up getting (after the 40% cutback) was said to be for the levee... and they didn&#39;t use it on the levee&#33; The New Orleans government is known for being corrupt and mismanaging their money -- I don&#39;t think that they would have used a cent of any extra money they got for improving upon the levee. Even if they had got the money there wouldn&#39;t have been enough time to use it. You can blame something like that in hindsight all you want, but that&#39;s exactly what it is -- hindsight.

    I&#39;m a "Bush defend" sometimes... sometimes I&#39;m not. It seems to me like 99.9% of the people here, however, are "Bush haters" -- no matter what he does, it&#39;s always bad, no matter what.

    Here&#39;s a newsflash: our "emergency prepardnes" has never been amazing; our emergency plans have almost always been lacking. No, they haven&#39;t been horrible, but they&#39;ve never been good, either. You can&#39;t tell me that a democrat (or whatever political party it is that you&#39;re from) would have done a better job without making things up -- because we don&#39;t know, and we never will know. Personally, I think it would have been roughly the same even if we still had Clinton in office, or if any other president we&#39;ve had were president instead of Bush. Maybe a little worse, maybe a little better, but not by much either way.

    And, for the record, I am not a "Bush loyalist". He wasn&#39;t my first choice as President, but I will defend him if I see the accusations being made against him are asinine, just as I see your accusations. There will always be weak links in a President&#39;s office, and there will always be people getting jobs they shouldn&#39;t -- look at Warren G. Harding&#39;s administration. It was rocked by numerous scandals because of the people he put in office, yet most historians still consider him a great President.

    And, again, for the record, I am an independent, not a Republican (or Democrat). I&#39;ve thought there were better candidates than the Republican and Democrat nods the last two ellections -- Wesley Clark in the last election, and John McCain two elections ago. Please don&#39;t imply something about me if you don&#39;t know it.

    You can keep saying the Republicans are the ones playing the "blame game", but they&#39;re not the only ones -- just read your own posts&#33; BOTH major parties are playing the "blame game". And Bush has admitted the government&#39;s problems with the current Katrina situation numerous times -- look it up. It&#39;s not an "unwillingness to take responsibility for anything". Now it&#39;s time for the local government to admit their own problems with handling the situation. Never once did the govenor or mayor ask for assistance in public transportation -- never once&#33; How can you govern a poverty stricken city and not immediately think of such?

    There&#39;s always going to be people who find fault with the current government, no matter what. No one is ever going to make everyone else in the country (or world) satisfied -- it&#39;s a fact of life. The Republicans will always bitch about the Democrats, and the Democrats will always bitch about the Republicans. Try to be bi-partisian when you&#39;re thinking about things... seems like few people on this message board do (no offense to anyone, just something I&#39;ve noticed).

  14. #14
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    from what i see on this forum, more of you seem to be defending bush. i say the same, hitler built great road works - that are of good quality even today, but if you predominantly will do bad, then the critique will be bad, simple as that. you can feel good for defending a guy like him when people say what he does bad, but i wonder if you feel as good as those people who had become poorer due to his policies, for the victims of iraqi war etc and ad nauseum.

    i&#39;m from neither party, i&#39;m anti-establishment as i have already said in this thread i am an anarchist, for me whether its Clinton or Bush, names change, parties change, the agenda is always the same. blair represents labour party which is left, i don&#39;t find him dragging UK into illegal war and copying Bush&#39;s techniques any more then I like what Bush is doing.


    the other administrations then Bush&#39;s have many disgusting deeds to their name, but right now you have Bush in the office who does what he does. or better said does what he&#39;s told to do. i do not stand for police state, i do not stand for war criminal in the office and however you may try to defend him, you should know that the iraq war is provably illegal and as such bush and blair are war criminals, that they&#39;re still allowed to be heads of the two most powerful countries tells you something.

    to summarise, whatever administration and whatever president is in the key world nations doesn&#39;t matter, they serve the same agenda of new world order, with its countdown to police state and i disagree with that under whoever&#39;s name its is.

    i don&#39;t believe in hiearchy and i don&#39;t believe in governments so whom do you think i&#39;d vote for? anarchists don&#39;t vote or cast a protest vote or some to avoid bigger evil will vote for a candidate with less devastating outcomes, personally i don&#39;t vote. i posted links and articles as to that before my post concerning derek&#39;s post to what anarchy is and what it stands for.

  15. #15
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    i&#39;ll also post you some articles that may address your first question of your last post Ant, i am posting long posts i know, but i am not here terribly often.


    Locals believe Levees were Intentionally blown
    Evidence suggests there were "cracks" in levees that were intentionally ignored, questions over how they failed.

    Steve Watson | September 9 2005

    Could the levees in New Orleans have been INTENTIONALLY blown out in order to save sections of the city deemed to be more important?

    The locals certainly seem to think so, yet, as usual, the mainstream media is barely picking up on this wave of opinion, so it is left to us once again to bring the issue into the open.

    When Katrina hit, it drifted 15 miles to the east of where forecasters said it would strike. Therefore it wasn&#39;t quite the monster described. The storm passed through with relatively minor damage, it was the the storm surge from the Gulf that caused Lake Pontchartrain to rise three feet and the subsequent flooding.



    Katrina hit early on Monday 29th August, the levees broke in three places - along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London Street Canal. (Click here for a Map )

    The main storm surge from Hurricane Katrina washed into Lake Pontchartrain at around 7AM on August 29th when the counterclockwise motion of Katrina was pushing water from the Gulf of Mexico into the lake.

    Some are questioning the timeline of the levee failures, suggesting that there was a 21 hour discrepancy between the storm surge and the collapse of the levees . This is not the case. The first levee broke just a few hours after the hurricane hit on the same morning.

    This confusion may have arisen due to the fact that Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has said that the levees broke overnight between Monday-Tuesday, and that he was not informed of this til midday Tuesday.


    The breach of the 17th Street Canal levee resulted in the failure of a crucial pumping station nearby, according to a statement made by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

    However, it seems that this exact scenario was expected and ignored. In an interview with New Orleans radio station local radio station WWL-AM, Nagin revealed how irate he was that this had been allowed to happen:

    Nagin: You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don&#39;t care what you do. Figure it out."
    WWL: Who&#39;d you say that to?
    Nagin: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it. And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives. And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people. In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That&#39;s a power station over there. So there&#39;s no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.




    It has emerged though that some kind of work was carried out on the 17th Street Canal levee. Reports have suggested that the funding was not there to complete the job, but some work had been done:

    "The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it&#39;s too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday."

    Of course we know that it was the White House that slashed funding for such projects in order to pump more money into the war in Iraq.

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Shea Penland of the Pontchartrain Institute was surprised because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded. It did not have an earthen levee, it had a vertical concrete wall several feet thick."

    It also seems that the broken section of the Industrial Canal levee was having "construction" work done on it recently.

    New York Times science reporter Dr. Andrew Revkin has stated of the 17th Street Canal that "officials and [Army Corps] engineers said that after they had found the widening gap in the concrete wall on the eastern side of the canal, they had no quick-response plan to repair it."

    Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the corps, said "plugging the gap was a lower priority." The corps is directed by FEMA. "It is FEMA who is really calling the shots and setting priorities here,"

    Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager for the corps, was quoted in the same article as saying "there were still no clear hints why the main breach in the flood barriers occurred along the 17th Street Canal, normally a conduit for vast streams of water pumped out of the perpetually waterlogged city each day and which did not take the main force of the waves roiling the lake. He said that a low spot marked on survey charts of the levees near the spot that ruptured was unrelated and that the depression was where a new bridge crossed the narrow canal near the lakefront."





    This would refute the speculation that a dip in the retaining levee or walls might have allowed water to slop over and start the collapse. So we have an unexplained crack in several feet of concrete. FEMA decided not to plug it and let the water flow until a US city was flooded and thousands had drowned.

    Dynamite? History repeating itself?

    Many locals have come forward to suggest that the levees were breached on purpose by the authorities. Resident Andrea Garland, now re-located to Texas, wrote in her blog:

    "Also heard that part of the reason our house flooded is they dynamited part of the levee after the first section broke - they did this to prevent Uptown (the rich part of town) from being flooded. Apparently they used too much dynamite, thus flooding part of the Bywater. So now I know who is responsible for flooding my house - not Katrina, but our government."

    This scenario is not so crazy as it sounds, in fact this exact thing has happened before in the same city. In 1927, the Mississippi River broke its banks in 145 places, depositing water at depths of up to 30ft over 27,000 square miles of land.

    The disaster changed American society, shifting hundreds of thousands of delta-dwelling blacks into northern cities and cementing the divisions and suspicions that benign neglect has ensured remain today. New Orleans’ (mainly white) business class pressurized the state to dynamite a levee upstream, releasing water into (mainly black) areas of the delta. Black workers were forced to work on flood relief at gunpoint, like slaves.


    Two parishes, St. Bernard and Plaquemines, which had a combined population of 10,000, were destroyed. Just before Katrina, these parishes had about 10 times the 1927 population. Both parishes are now under many feet of water.



    This information is covered in depth in a book by John M. Barry entitled Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it Changed America, 1997 which has incidentally become heavily in demand after Katrina.

    Furthermore, levees were also intentionally broke after Hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans in 1965, admittedly with less of an impact. The tactic of breaking the dikes is not uncommon, as this CNN report on China&#39;s flood plains highlights.

    Engineers have now punched holes in several levees in parts of New Orleans where flood levels were higher than the water in drainage canals leading to Pontchartrain, in order to let water flow out.

    Did the authorities decide to sacrifice the poor folks and blow the levees in order to save the French Quarter of New Orleans which houses the richer residents, the lucrative historical buildings and thousands of businesses?

    Explosions?

    There were reports of many explosions heard in New Orleans, officials say they were transformers blowing up. Total Information Analysis has reported a claim by intelligence expert Tom Heneghen that 25 earwitnesses cited explosions immediately before the levee breach.

    Similar reports are now appearing in many web blogs:

    "He also mentioned that right before the mass flood there was a loud sound like an explosion." - News from St. Bernard

    "I&#39;ll tell you the worst thing I&#39;ve heard and I heard it from my mother. She said she heard several blasts - big booms - right before the levees broke. Several blasts and then all the water came pouring in." - aangirfan

    Although these are obviously not authoritative sources of information, it is interesting to note how many local people are reporting this. So interesting in fact that the mainstream has picked up on it in places.

    The Washington Post reported on the comments of a retired school teacher:

    "Mullen has a schoolteacher&#39;s kindly demeanor, so it was jarring to hear him say he suspected that the levee breaks had somehow been engineered to keep the wealthy French Quarter and Garden District dry at the expense of poor black neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward -- a suspicion I heard from many other black survivors."

    The Globe and Mail is also carrying a similar story.

    ABC World News Tonight carried a report which contained an interview with a local, who described how a floating barge had rammed the levee. The man seemed convinced that the levee was purposefully broken. A transcript of which has appeared on the net:

    David Muir: “Was it solely the water that broke the levee? Or was it the force of this barge that now sits where homes once did? Joe Edwards says neither. People are so bitter, so disenfranchised in this neighborhood, they actually think the city did it, blowing up the levee to save richer neighborhoods, like the French Quarter.”
    Muir to Edwards as they stand on a bridge: “So you&#39;re convinced-”
    Edwards: “I knows it happened.”
    Muir: “-that they broke the levee on purpose?”
    Edwards: “They blew it.”
    Muir: “New Orleans’ Mayor says there&#39;s no credence to this.”
    Mayor Ray Nagin: “That storm was so powerful and it pushed so much water -- there&#39;s no way anyone could have calculated -- would dynamite the levee to have the kind of impact to save the French Quarter.”
    Muir concluded: “An LSU expert who looked at the video today, says that while the barge may have caused it, it was most likely the sheer force of the water that brought the levee, along the lower 9th ward, down.”

    The mysterious barge story has also been reported by many other local residents. "The evacuees who witnessed the barge striking the levee also want to know why the major media is not covering this story."



    The London Observer carried an intriguing story of a man named Correll Williams, a 19-year-old meat cutter. The article states that:

    "Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates."

    So it&#39;s clear that barriers WERE being broken in an attempt to protect areas of the city




    Can Hurricanes Be
    Used As Weapons Of
    Mass Destruction?
    If Not, Why Did The UN Outlaw Such Practices?
    By Michael Shore (Israel)
    9-5-5

    What the masses of human beings all over the world have not been told is that it is possible to control and manipulate weather with a technology called &#39;scalar energy&#39;. These energy weapons have other major capabilities that are even more dangerous than atomic weapons. Scalar Weapons could literally destroy the world and it is of the utmost urgency that human beings all over the world must be told of the existence of this devastating technology.

    If none of this is true, where is there a law on the books of the United Nations, which prohibits one Nation from using environmental and weather manipulation weapons and technology against another Nation?

    Nikola Tesla, one of the most incredible inventors of all time, developed this &#39;scalar technology&#39; in the early 1900&#39;s. He created one device, about this size of a pack of cigarettes, which nearly brought down a New York highrise before he reportedly smashed it with a hammer to stop the vibrational
    energy which was beginning to shatter the building.

    In fact, many major technologies currently being used today were invented by Tesla including alternating current, light bulbs, robotics etc. etc. Tesla also invented an advanced technology to provide Free Energy to the entire planet, anywhere, and mainly for this reason the "powers that be" eliminated Tesla&#39;s name from history books.

    It&#39;s not difficult to understand how &#39;they&#39; wouldn&#39;t permit Free Energy to power the planet. Can you imagine a world, where OIL, HYDRO ELECTRIC ENERGY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY would be obsolete and no longer necessary as a major energy source?

    Tesla wanted to give his free energy technology to the world, and for this reason all his funding was cut off by JP Morgan, Westinghouse and others, and he was never permitted to be recognized for his monumental achievements. The New World Order prefers that no one know that Tesla ever existed, so they can withhold this incredible technology from the People.

    After Tesla died, the U.S.and Russia raced to confiscate all of Tesla&#39;s papers. Within his writings and drawings was the secret of energy technology...unlimited power which could clearly be used to dominate the world if it wound up in the wrong hands.

    This amazing technology can also be used to heal people from many diseases, simply and for pennies. (So can such energy theoretically be used to induce disease in masses of people.) The current ultra-billion dollar medical-pharmaceutical industry would not be thrilled about Tesla&#39;s technology being used to replace their primitive but fantastically-profitable industries. So, human beings are forced to continue to suffer from diseases that can be easily and successfully treated using Tesla&#39;s technology. Sounds too good to be true? It&#39;s not.

    Scalar technology can also be used in an EVIL WAY and has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage by using weather as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. This technology exists now. {see links below}. In fact, some government officials have tried in vain to get a law on the books that says that Scalar Weapons cannot be used by any Nation to manipulate weather to be used as a "weapon" Unfortunately, the US, Russia and Japan - and possibly other nations - have been pursuing the use of
    advanced energy technology to control the weather.

    Can this energy weapon be used to &#39;steer&#39; hurricanes? Someone should seriously check it out. The US Air Force official policy is to completely control the weather by 2025. And the evidence points
    to substantial progress already having been made.

    Read the following links about using weather as a weapon of war...

    http://cuttingedge.org/articles/weather.cfm

    http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

    http://www.freedomdomain.com/weather.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

    SCALAR WEAPONS CAN ALSO BE USED TO MAKE EARTHQUAKES

    http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s71.htm

    SEE THIS WEATHER VIDEO

    http://www.cheniere.org/video/sovietweathervideo.html

    The United Nations has a law on their books prohibiting this
    environmental warfare technology from being used against humanity,
    which is further proof this technology really exists. Read this link:
    http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1196a.html#guided

    The possibility of weather manipulation is so hard for most people to believe, so they may say "show me some proof of the possibility that there is a means to control the weather". Here is one potential U.S. site in Gakona, Alaska that could possibly do that. They would never admit this, but it is interesting that the following is one of the FAQ that they post on their web site. They say one could take a tour of the site, but who is even interested to go to some remote area of Alaska and take such a tour? Who even knows that such a place exists???

    The craziest thing is that it would only cost several millions of dollars to build such a site that could manipulate weather. The pictures are fields of electromagnetic antennas. They were expected to have 33 ACRES OF ANTENNAS when complete. That&#39;s a large amount of antennas. Wonder what they&#39;re REALLY doing there? There are probably other sites around the globe too.

    <http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam.fcgi>http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam.fcgi

    Here&#39;s the FAQ that appears on their web site in the link above.

    FAQ

    "Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?"

    {Just having such a question points to the possibility that this technology and what they&#39;re doing could affect the weather&#33;}

    Their answer:

    "The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is subject to negligible absorption in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth&#39;s weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere."

    "The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun&#39;s radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth&#39;s atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don&#39;t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either."

    Did they really answer the question and say NO, HAARP could NEVER be used to manipulate weather and that anyone saying this is completely wrong? Everyone knows we can trust the government to tell the truth, right? Yeah, sure we can.

    PEACE

    Michael Shore

  16. #16
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Audubon NJ
    Posts
    1,024
    Originally posted by Neil+Sep 9 2005, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil @ Sep 9 2005, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Link04@Sep 8 2005, 09:52 PM
    Originally posted by -Neil@Sep 8 2005, 09:47 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--Link04
    @Sep 8 2005, 02:47 PM
    To an anarchist such as me, the claim comes with the bitter taste of an attempt to demonize anything opposing state rule.

    I&#39;m sorry, but I was browsing and I thought I&#39;d say my speech about &#39;anarchists&#39;.

    Anarchy is a state of non govern and is ruleless. Now do you really think that people who call themselves anarachists would survive in a Mad-Max like society? I don&#39;t think so.

    Sorry Link, not trying to start anything there, just giving my anarchy speech

    I&#39;m not quite sure what you imply by "Mad-Max." Could you be more clear? I&#39;d be happy to discuss what I know with you.

    Derek, this was a state failure on every level, I&#39;m not just talking about Federal. And, comparitively, they&#39;ve all done a ton less than private organizations have done.
    The movie, Mad Max with Mel Gibson

    Basically it&#39;s a world without rules.


    http://www.madmaxthemovie.com/ [/b][/quote]
    ..alright, so why wouldn&#39;t people survive without rules? You never quite explained why.

  17. #17
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,112
    Originally posted by iamrighthereandnow@Sep 9 2005, 10:29 PM
    from what i see on this forum, more of you seem to be defending bush. i say the same, hitler built great road works - that are of good quality even today, but if you predominantly will do bad, then the critique will be bad, simple as that. you can feel good for defending a guy like him when people say what he does bad, but i wonder if you feel as good as those people who had become poorer due to his policies, for the victims of iraqi war etc and ad nauseum.

    i&#39;m from neither party, i&#39;m anti-establishment as i have already said in this thread i am an anarchist, for me whether its Clinton or Bush, names change, parties change, the agenda is always the same. blair represents labour party which is left, i don&#39;t find him dragging UK into illegal war and copying Bush&#39;s techniques any more then I like what Bush is doing.


    the other administrations then Bush&#39;s have many disgusting deeds to their name, but right now you have Bush in the office who does what he does. or better said does what he&#39;s told to do. i do not stand for police state, i do not stand for war criminal in the office and however you may try to defend him, you should know that the iraq war is provably illegal and as such bush and blair are war criminals, that they&#39;re still allowed to be heads of the two most powerful countries tells you something.

    to summarise, whatever administration and whatever president is in the key world nations doesn&#39;t matter, they serve the same agenda of new world order, with its countdown to police state and i disagree with that under whoever&#39;s name its is.

    i don&#39;t believe in hiearchy and i don&#39;t believe in governments so whom do you think i&#39;d vote for? anarchists don&#39;t vote or cast a protest vote or some to avoid bigger evil will vote for a candidate with less devastating outcomes, personally i don&#39;t vote. i posted links and articles as to that before my post concerning derek&#39;s post to what anarchy is and what it stands for.
    Of course I&#39;m defending Bush more often than not... sorry if I don&#39;t partake in the Bush-bashing to appease you, I guess?

    But, I should say, you&#39;re 100% right. I&#39;ve "defended" Bush more than I&#39;ve bashed him here. That&#39;s because everyone here who bashes him takes it too far. I&#39;ve already stated I don&#39;t agree with everything he&#39;s done, nor do I disagree with everything he&#39;s done. But the whole thing with this messageboard (I mean this as no disrespect to anyone here) is that everyone&#39;s filled with teen angst and this "Oh, let&#39;s rebel against authority" attitude. There&#39;s nothing wrong with that, but some people just take things too far when they say Bush is the only person at fault for New Orleans.

    I don&#39;t know how many times I&#39;ve had to say this: I have never said Bush isn&#39;t at fault. I have said that he&#39;s not the only one at fault, and to assume such a thing is asinine. And, comparing Bush with Hitler and Stalin is also asinine. You can keep up with the conspiracy theories and how history will look down upon Bush (actually, I should probably rephrase that by saying &#39;how history will compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin&#39;, as I think Bush may be looked at negatively in history, but only as a sub-standard President), but I won&#39;t assume such things.

    I&#39;m not going to get into the anarchy crap again, either... you can believe what you want, but I don&#39;t put any stock into that kind of stuff. I have nothing against people who believe that, but I just don&#39;t buy into it, and I&#39;ve already debated the issue with Link a few times and don&#39;t feel like pushing it any further.

    As for the nice, long article -- sorry, but I didn&#39;t read it. I&#39;m not going to simply read every novel someone says is relevant to a subject just so I can have a conversation.

  18. #18
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    firstly, i never said you have to appease me, i just said, that i have seen more of people here defending bush then the other way around, i am not here much so i base that on what i have read here in limited way, but if there are people defending bush here, then its not as full of bush bashers as you say.

    i know a lot of history and a lot of what is happening in usa had been happening in pre-war nazi germany, i don&#39;t think you can call my observations asinine, when i bother to research the subject matter and read as many &#39;novels&#39; -as it takes me to make informed observations.

    which conspiracy theory are you talking about i mentioned...? about the manipulation of weather....if you looked you&#39;d have seen that its in UN legistlation, UN are hardly going to legistlate conspiracy theory, are they?i&#39;d also like to remind you that with public disclosure of documents many &#39;conspiracy theories&#39; of the days passed are now in history as events that happened. if you talking abou me mentioning new world order, then that its not conspiracy theory either, a lot of that is provable if one bothers to look into legal documents and do relevant research, luckily most people are lazy and will think about it the way they had been thought - repeat words without one&#39;s own conviction.


    Bush is not the only person at fault, all the hiearchy capitalist structure had failed and the inherent racism of the system and its disregard for the poor and human life. this topic is also on subject of &#39;all that crap&#39; of anarchy. anarchy is not only belief held by teenagers and its not about rebelion against authority, the authority that we have is unnatural and parasitic and the structure of the society dysfunctional. that anarchist look for a society that works from bottom up, is built on humanistic principles has not as much to do with being a rebel without a clue, but common sense and humanistic values.

    you don&#39;t have to read anything to have conversations but if you ask questions then i provided some answers and some information, its indeed up to every person to get as much or as little information in as they like.

  19. #19
    Ambient
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,112
    I wasn&#39;t planning on responding anymore to this topic as you can probably have guessed from my last post, but I&#39;ll at least address this issue before I go:

    i just said, that i have seen more of people here defending bush then the other way around
    Are you being serious, or sarcastic? I hope you&#39;re not serious, because I&#39;d say at least every 9 out of 10 people here hate Bush. Just search for "Bush" on this board.

  20. #20
    It's Like I'm Paranoid...
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    i have explained already that i am not on this board very often, i have been here for last three days, but that&#39;s not my habit, neither it will become i don&#39;t think. even if there&#39;s one in ten defending Bush as you say, to me that&#39;s something, i live between UK and USA as my fiance is american and Europe had been more left then the liberals of usa even, and me being on the far left, i have to say even to encounter one in ten people who still would defend Bush, is a rare opportunity.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •