Daily Kos: Intentional negligence by Fed Gov?

Daily Kos: Intentional negligence by Fed Gov?: "Intentional negligence by Fed Gov?
by contrapunktus [Subscribe]
Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 14:27:12 CST

Just a thought:

* contrapunktus's diary :: ::
*

Is it possible that this administration is, in a perverted way, content with their response to Katrina? After all, it does prove the long held republican contention that government doesn't work. I won't be surprised to see an effort to further centralize the emergency response branches of the federal government, �la the Patriot Act.Perhaps even an effort to privatize the services that should be, and should have been rendered by FEMA and DHS with some good old no-bid contracts.

In a way, the republicans are apparently correct. The government really DOESN'T work, at least not when they are in charge of it."

How many have died?

ABC15.com: Phoenix and Arizona News, Live Weather, Web Cams and More: "Congressman reports more than 100 died in a warehouse, waiting for rescue

Posted: 09/07/2005 15:05:14

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Even as crews in New Orleans try to find and count the corpses that are decaying in the 90-degree heat, reports of the extent of the tragedy are starting to emerge.

A Louisiana congressman says more than 100 people died at a warehouse along a New Orleans dock. Congressman Charlie Melancon (muh-LAWN'-suhn) says they died as they waited for rescuers to take them to safety.

And a state lawmaker says 30 people died at a flooded-out nursing home just outside New Orleans. Nita Hutter says the staff had left the residents behind in their beds. A rescue that was supposed to take place never materialized."

This is just getting worse even after more than a week. The New York Times says fema has ordered 25,000 boby bags. The Tennessean interviewed a mortician named Dan Brukner working for the Disaster Mortuary Responce Team and he reported that he was told to expect up to 40,000 dead bodies in the three affected states.

Why the US Is Supporting Civil War

Tom Hayden hits the nail on the head about Bush in the neocons.

Why the US Is Supporting Civil War: "There's a small practical problem with this revised vision. It is likely to intensify the war on two levels: Iraqis against the Americans and Iraqis against each other. I don't have a particular philosophical preference for centralized government, but the alternative in Iraq is a devolution to warring ethnic and religious fiefdoms under the control of the international market. Yoo, Brooks and Galbraith are silent on this untidy aspect of their scenario, with Yoo even reminding Americans that we had to go through the 'fiery experience' of civil war before becoming a nation. Leaving aside the fact that Americans threw the British out by force, that's a macabre future for Iraqis who were promised 'liberation.' Since the civil war will not be won militarily, the Administration will argue that the occupation must be permanent.

If this sounds mad, manipulative or both, what does it reveal about US intentions in Iraq?

It suggests that the American purpose has been to destroy Iraqi nationalism, as in the previous Baathist state and the continued de-Baathification policies.

It suggests that our 'best and brightest' want to weaken any future possibility of a strong Iraqi state with control of its own enterprises and resources.

It suggests that the US has chosen to ally itself with Islamic fundamentalism rather than a secular state with a centralized government.

It suggests that civil war against the Sunnis and any other 'diehards' is the US preference rather than a political settlement that brings the nationalist resistance, including the Sunnis, into negotiations rather than war.

This is the same strategy the Israelis chose decades ago when they directly and indirectly supported the Islamic religious groupings as preferable to the secular and 'Marxist' Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] two decades ago. That strategy contributed directly to the creation of Hezbollah and suicide bombers.

It is the same strategy that led the US to support the mujahadeen, the embryonic Al Qaeda, against the secular, pro-Russian Afghan government. In 1998, two years before 9/11, Zbigiew Brzezinski flippantly dismissed critics of the policy this way:

Question: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Answer: What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

Question: 'Some agitated Muslims'? But it has been said that repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today...

Answer: Nonsense... [Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, Jan. 15-21, 1998]

The US opposes independent nationalism from Iraq to Venezuela. It prefers to weaken independent states to diminish their military potential in either the Middle East or Latin America, and to break down what are described as 'protectionist' barriers to the 'free trade' model of Halliburton or Wal-Mart.

In seeking to impose both Pentagon dominance and a neo-liberal economic model on the world, the US is prepared to accept alliances with religious forces that insist on strict censorship and punishment of freedom of association and belief. For Bush and the neo-conservatives, it seems, freedom for American investors can't wait, but women - their rights 'are not critical to the evolution of democracy.'"

Katrina warning

Ok people get out now. If you know a poor person that needs a ride. Take them with. The superdome is 9 feet below sea level.

CATASTROPHIC HURRICANE APPROACHING NEW ORLEANS REGION

NHC WARNINGS:

Hurricane Warnings :
NORTH CENTRAL GULF COAST FROM MORGAN CITY LOUISIANA EASTWARD TO THE ALABAMA/FLORIDA BORDER...INCLUDING THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND LAKE PONCHARTRAIN.

Tropical Storm Warning & Watches: A TROPICAL STORM WARNING AND A HURRICANE
WATCH HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM EAST OF THE ALABAMA/FLORIDA BORDER EASTWARD TO DESTIN FLORIDA...AND FROM WEST OF MORGAN CITY TO
INTRACOASTAL CITY LOUISIANA.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS ALSO IN EFFECT FROM DESTIN FLORIDA TO INDIAN PASS FLORIDA AND FROM THE INTRACOASTAL CITY LOUISIANA WEST TO CAMERON, LOUISIANA.

NOTE: My Advisory Service is for Informational Purposes only -- You are STRONGLY urged to follow the directions of all Emergency management, Police and Governmental Agencies in your area as it relates to the protection of lives and property - regardless of what my Storm Updates may imply.
*******************************

CURRENT POSITION / NOTEWORTHY REPORTS PAST HOUR

KATRINA LOCATED 26.1N / 88.1W or 290 miles SSE of Gulfport, MS. - 275 miles SSE of downtown New Orleans - and 240 miles SSE of Port Eads at the southern tip of the Mississippi Delta. Katrina is heading just north of DUE Northwest at 9Kts (10 MPH) over the past 2 hours

RECON Reports:

Pressure 907mb ( DOWN 42MB IN 24 HRS)
MAX Flight Level wind 166KTS - SUSTAINED SURFACE WINDS 175MPH - GUSTS TO 200MPH.

EYEWALL DIAMETER IS STEADY AT 22NM
CREW REPORTS 'PERFECT STADIUM EFFECT'

Hurricane Katrina is now as strong as Hurricane Camille in 1969 - but this storm is larger, and will cause more extensive damage, and if it strikes New Orleans at 'just the right angle' - will no doubt MAY lead to the greatest loss of life from a land falling hurricane in nearly 100 years.

The exact track - and even the exact intensity of Katrina at landfall is still simply too difficult to predict with the type of precision everyone would like. As discussed extensively over the past few days, the overall environment surrounding Katrina was expected to become as conducive to the development of a CAT 5 hurricane that scientists are able to determine. One o the biggest 'unknowns' - and lowest skill forecast - are for storm intensity. Ironically, this is especially true when trying to forecast intensities in the near-term -- 24 hours or less.

Unlike Track forecast accuracy, which improves as the time of landfall approaches, intensity forecasts exhibit only slightly better skill than pure chance, when in the 0-24 hour outlook period. MANY factors come into play that
cause this, including the fact that we still do not know 'everything' we need to know about how hurricane work.

As a result, one of the biggest changes that occur with a hurricane that affect intensity are the eye wall replacement cycles - also talked about extensively in the past 2 days. There is no real telling when an eye wall replacement cycle will start, or how long it will last. However, the first signs of it are normally when the eye diameter starts shrinking to near or below 10NM.

Last night, when Katrina bean intensifying rapidly, the eye was 40NM across. Even around 2AM, the eye had only shrunk to 38NM, yet the pressure had already fallen to 935mb. I have never seen (in 35 years of watching) a storm
of such intensity, with such a large eye. 5 hours later, we find an eye that is 22NM across, and the pressure has fallensome 28mb -- and the winds responded immediately by increasing to a strong CAT intensity.

The question is - will the eye continue to shrink over the coming hours (which by the way would cause the winds to increase even more all things being equal) -- and then cause the storm to enter an eye wall replacement cycle. What could be a 'fooler' is that the eye might get down to around 15NM-18NM and then start to re-cycle. We are in uncharted territory in this regard. The '10NM or less rule of thumb' may not apply to what is about the most intense hurricane in recorded history (in the Atlantic basin). In any event, once the eye wall goes through regeneration, the pressure will rise, and the maximum winds will decrease as the developing outer eyewall will be of much greater diameter. A replacement cycle can run from 6 to 18 hours. Another possibility, is that Katrina may start doing a different variation on the theme - that is - rapid eye wall cycling. VERY intense hurricanes have done this before.

IVAN went through this type of rapid cycling while in was in the Caribbean. This is where the eye shrinks to near 5-8NM while a new wall forms at around 15NM. This replacement cycle lasts for 2-4 hours -- and the period of slightly higher
pressure, and lower winds is relatively brief. This may have the highest probability of happening. No doubt this entire process is related to why historically, Atlantic basin Hurricanes rarely can maintain CAT 5 intensity for very long periods.

By the time a 12 or 18 cycle completes, the storm is many times in an area that is not as favorable for re-intensification.
Either the water temps are cooler, or the vertical shears are a bit higher, or the storm is closer to land. There is only a
VERY REMOTE possibility that Katrina will not have at least 1 eye wall replacement during the next 24 hours.

Below are some recent Buoy reports (about 1 hour ago). Note that the storm surge from Katrina is NOT the same thing as sea swell or wave heights. The storm surge is totally different, and relates to how much the entire ocean rises above normal
tidal height. Similar to a Tsunami. ON TOP of the storm surge, will be the wind driven waves. These wave heights are what are being shown below, and will be what I pass along as the storm approaches. IVAN produced a wave height of 70 feet that destroyed an oil platform. Katrina, IF IT MAINTAINS ITS CURRENT INTENSITY, will cause wave heights of 80-100 feet over the open ocean -depending on just how fast the storm is moving by any given area at the time. The full force winds of 175mph, and gusts to 200mph is likely only occurring across an arcing shaped rectangular area roughly 5 miles wide by 30 miles long, adjacent to the NE portion of the eyewall. That is the area where the 80-100ft waves would
be occurring. Assuming Katrina cuts across the Delta with the TRUE CENTER passing over Borne at it's current intensity, a 24-28 foot storm surge will hit the Delta and the Bay St. Louis area, where wind driven waves will be about 50 feet.

Because of the extraordinary nature of this event -- my updates will vary considerably from 'normal'. Only highly relevant images and analysis will be provided. I will attempt to issue 1 'Major Update' around 8PM CDT tonight.

To maximize peoples ability to see 'the whole story' - my blog postings will tend to be 'updates' only to each post - versus starting an entirely new post. An update to this Advisory with the latest computer model run data will be sent in about 1 hour.

Steve Gregory

BUOY REPORTS

42001 180NM South of Southwest Pass, LA Winds N 37Kts Gust 47Kts 20 foot sea swells
42007 - 22NM SSE of Biloxi, MS Winds E 25Kts Gust 29Kts / 12 foot sea swells
42039 (115NM ESE Pensacolal) Winds E 27Kts Gust 37Kts / 19 foot sea swells
42040 (64NM South of Dauphin Island) Winds ENE 25Kts Gust 33Kts / 17 ftoot sea swells

AlterNet: A Different Take on Disengagement

Disengagement was all a show folks. They just did it to make the likelyhood of leaving the West Bank look impossible to the Israeli majority.

AlterNet: A Different Take on Disengagement: "If Ariel Sharon had been willing to negotiate a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians in which Israel withdrew to the 1967 border (with slight border modifications along the lines suggested by Yossi Beilin in the Geneva Accord of 2003), one part of that agreement could have allowed all settlers to stay in their homes in Gaza and the West Bank as long as they agreed to be law-abiding citizens of the Palestinian state that would be governing that area. If they were not willing to give up their Israeli citizenship and live in peace with their neighbors, they could voluntarily leave their homes and return to Israel. That is the same choice that Arabs faced once Israel was established in a land that they once governed. It should have been the choice offered to Israeli settlers as well.

There never had to be the horrible scene of people being dragged from their homes.

So why did it happen? Because Ariel Sharon's entire plan -- as explained to the Israeli public by his assistant, Dov Weisglass -- was to sacrifice the settlers of Gaza precisely in order to have the painful images that dominated the media, so that Sharon could argue 'Of course no one can ask us to do this kind of thing to the 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, given the pain everyone has seen us go through in Gaza.'

As Sharon's aides tried to tell the settlers, the Disengagement was intended to preserve the Occupation, not undermine it. And so, Sharon is moving ahead to finish construction of the Separation Wall and cut off from the West Bank the 150,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem (not to mention many other Palestinians living in proximity to the Wall), expropriate more and more Palestinian land, and 'create facts' on the ground that will be hard to change.

There are some who celebrate this Gaza withdrawal as the first step in the process of dismantling settlements. Rabbi Lerner asks them the following: 'At what point, how many years from now, while the Occupation continues of much of the West Bank, will you acknowledge that this was simply another part of the scheme that Sharon has--to hold on to close to 50 percent of the West Bank while offering Palestinians a state that will be neither economically nor politically viable, a state that, when they refuse it, or when they accept it and then ask for more, will be used as 'proof' that nothing will ever satisfy them?' So, Rabbi Lerner argues, we should understand that all the pain was part of an elaborate ruse--and though the immediate victims are the Gaza settlers, the real victims are all the peoples of Israel and Palestine who will have to endure the ongoing suffering that the continuation of the Occupation guarantees."

The only problem for Sharon is that it isn't working. Most of the Israeli public supports more disengagement from the West Bank settlements. They were also offended by the behavior of the settlers, because of the way they exploited their kids and because of their harassment of the soldiers.

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Britain heads for clash with US

Britain rebels against our hired asshole at the UN John Bolton. As documented in yesterdays diary he also intends to derail the nuclear non proliferation treaty and work to stop global warming.

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Britain heads for clash with US: "A draft of that plan had included a review of progress on the UN's millennium development goals - poverty eradication targets set in 2000 for completion by 2015 - and the introduction of reforms aimed at repairing the damage done to the UN's reputation by Iraq, Rwanda and the Balkans.

Article continues
But it was revealed this week that Mr Bush's new ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was seeking 750 changes to the 36-page draft plan to be presented to a special summit in New York on September 14 to 16. Mr Bolton's amendments, if successful, would leave the plan in tatters......

The concern in British and other international circles is that the American objections, if adopted, would severely undermine the UN summit, the biggest-ever gathering of world leaders......

A source close to the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan said it was too early to declare the UN plan dead. "Bolton wants to knock down the plan and start from scratch," the source said. "He will find that his opinions are not shared by most of the rest of the world."

The president of the UN general assembly, Jean Ping from the Gambia, has been working on the draft, covering issues of poverty, climate change, genocide, small arms, the creation of a permanent UN peacekeeping capability and reform of the UN management structure, for the past year.........

U.S. Wants Changes In U.N. Agreement

News of our hired asshole at the UN John Bolton!

U.S. Wants Changes In U.N. Agreement: "The United States has only recently introduced more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations, scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms. At the same time, the administration is urging members of the United Nations to strengthen language in the 29-page document that would underscore the importance of taking tougher action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons..........

The proposed changes, submitted by U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton, touch on virtually every aspect of U.N. affairs and provide a detailed look at U.S. concerns about the world body's future. They underscore U.S. efforts to impose greater oversight of U.N. spending and to eliminate any reference to the International Criminal Court. The administration also opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to block action to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing.

These changes are so hypocritical. Where to start. For one thing you can't seriously want to halt the spread of WMD then halt provisions that call for greater progress to be made dismantling nukes. If you are serious about tackling genocide, why in the world would you want to kill the ICC? They were the one that tried Milosevic. This is all meant to support American Unilateralism and exceptionalism.

The Bush adminstration neoconservatives hate the ICC because it might take a look at Abu Ghraib for instance, and because it has taken issue with the wall and the settlements in Israel. They also want to halt the dismantlement nuclear weapons because they are trying to rebuild America's arsenal. In fact they are testing them again after Kennedy banned nuclear testing. In this spirit they have rejected the nuclear non proliferation treaty. This is one of the reasons we have no leverage over the Iranians, who have signed it. Putting the millenium goals, foreign aid to poor countries, and the global warming issue on hold is just a way to be venial and extra stupid, arrogant and assholish. Neocons consider meaness a virtue. That is what unilaterism is in essence, being an asshole and getting away with it.

Bolton would have been refused the position at the UN if this were a sane and responsible administration. He is one of the guys that lied us into the Iraq war.