9.03.2005

Arabian Horses

Wheee! We're being carried away by Arabian Horses!

More specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is led by a man whose prior occupation was advocating for Arabian horses. Of course, horses can't fly, so the poor and sick and young and old in New Orleans were out of luck.

The Federal foot-dragging in evidence this past week was a national embarassment. Nay, an international one. After all that money and eroded civil rights, Econo-Girl thought the U.S. would have at least been prepared for a national emergency. Sort of. In a way. Kind of.

But there is no substitute for having the right friends. And "Brownie," the affectionate Presidential nickname for the head of FEMA, is a friend of Bush. As is the torturer-in-waiting, Gonzales. And as W. says, "Brownie" is doing a great job.

Perhaps there is room for rethinking the adage "Let's get the government out of people's lives." "I believe in state's rights." And perhaps, my dumplings, there is room to acknowlege a role, even a responsibility, on a Federal level. To admit that we 50 independent states are actually strung together by something other than continguous geography.

Econo-girl sees the code "state's rights" as a segregationist anthem. It was the Federal government that put an end to segregation. And all of a sudden, there is a state's rights movement. Because the Neanderthal retro fantasyland types want to revert to something that never existed.

And along the way, why not put in an old buddy as head of FEMA? Someone not interested in the mission of the organization, but someone all too willing to oversee its downsizing? Someone with no understanding of the implications of that reduction?

But he's loyal, and that what counts.

3 comments:

caliban1 said...

Good post. What is most upsetting to me is that the Bush crowd knew this would (eventually) happen. In fact, a general of the Army Corps of E. stated in an interview with Cynthia McFadden of ABC that the levees were designed only for a cat. 3 storm. This decision, he stated, was based on a cost-benfit analysis that indicated it would not be economically feasible to build a better levee.

In other words the lives of those who would surely be killed, injured, and what-not were worth less than the cost of making the levee as safe as possible. I was so amazed at that statement that I actually slumped back in my chair; like I was in a movie.

It was hard for me to imagine the same statement being made about, say, oh, Beverly Hills or Shaker Heights or Westchester County or Bergen County, NJ... So, the only conclusion to be drawn is that poor people aren't worth saving; especially an area with lots of poor black people.

I have always argued that the biggest divide in America is not race, but economics. The poor volunteer to fight the wars; they suffer the floods 'cause they cannot afford to escape; they have to choose medicine or food...

These rich Bushies and friends have never been poor and did not grow up exposed to kind of poverty almost 20% of our country faces everyday. That is why they always say they were 'surprised' that so many didn't heed the warning to leave. Well, duh, when you got nothing, you got nothing to use (to paraphrase Dylan). To them, they expected everybody to hop in their nice car, grab some bottled water, call the relatives or stay in a hotel; and just wait a bit.

I hope Jesus really meant it when he said what you do for the least of your borthers you do for me. I may be going to hell (to the right wing religious zealots) because I am not part of their faith; but I hope Jesus judges them and they are sitting right next to me; maybe in an even hotter area.

lewis_medlock said...

states rights........great concept , yet neither side of the political spectrum is truly for it.....
3rd trimester abortion after 35 weeks....would fly in NY state, not in Wyoming......
elimination of instant background checks on firearms....Idaho is Ok with that, California isnt.
So the problem really lies with our politicians, esp. those that really believe, the ones who are on the fringes of their party....they seem to think that their way is the right way for the nation as a whole.......so when they are in power , they shove their beliefs down the nations throat....the 'assault weapons ban'......which was no ban at all, was pushed upon the US by a democratic house, senate and president.
the recent attacks on our individual civil liberties (womens rights, personal privacy issues, etc) were foisted on us by the GOP, brought to you in 2004 by a largely white and rural electorate.

as practiced today, there are no state's rights......only the right of the states in power (by proxy) to force their moral code on the losers...just my 2 cents
LM

The Lazy Iguana said...

You are 100% correct. Before segregation was ended, the south was perfectly fine with a federal system. So long as that federal system had the whole "seperate but equal" thing going. Even if the seperate facilities were never equal.

And because that no good Lincoln was a republican, the south was very democratic.

But then the democrats started in on this "civil rights" crap. Who needs that? So the south turned republican and the confederate flag became popular again. Idiots who fly the stars and bars know it has nothing to do with states rights and EVERYTHING to do with "putting darkies in their place".

There needs to be hearings on WHY there was no plan on the federal level for the disaster. People need to hear our "decisive leader" explain why he put people into jobs that they do not seem to be qualified for.

But the bush people will try to sweep it all under the rug. There will not be hearings, and if there are they will be no more effective than the 9-11 hearings were. Bush will not testify, and anytime someone says anything it will be written off as "a lone democrat political hack still angry about the 2000 elections".