Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus

9.13.2005

45 Bodies Are Found in a New Orleans Hospital

"The bodies of 45 people have been found in a flooded uptown hospital here, officials said Monday, sharply increasing the death toll from Hurricane Katrina and raising new questions about the breakdown of the evacuation system as the disaster unfolded."

I thought the death toll was less than 500. The revision down from 10,000+ is good, but it mainly raises new questions about reporting and sources.

But, I don't disagree that almost everything you find in the UK sized disaster zones raises questions about disaster preparedness. One big question: will people still rely on government? Not just for themselves: will people trust the government to do good for those who couldn't help themselves?

Given the history of the "war on poverty", I don't.

7 Comments:

At 2:23 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

Funny how small government Republicans are represented by political leadership which advocates not by making the government smaller, but rather by making government more intrusive and expensive, and then bungling every operation they're involved in. It's like they read Hayek and thought they'd rather fulfill his prophecies than take his advice.

 
At 2:29 PM, Blogger joško said...

sir/madam
I am a lady accountant with a bank here in London. There is a fixed
deposit of £150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Pounds
Starling) made to this bank since 1995 which ten years now and since
then no claim or withdrawal have been made on that deposit.
Fortunately, I have been the person working the interest from the day
of deposit to date.
The interesting part of it is that the fixed deposit belongs to the
late Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha, this means that the
account may have been abandoned by the surviving family members or
that they are not even aware of the existence of the deposit. However,
I just finished updating the interest of the deposit this January, and
it has come up to £105,000,000.00 at the 7% interest rate per annum.
It is this interest that I am interested in because I know very well
that the family will care less on what happens to the interest if they
want to redeem the deposit, they will be interested on the main money,
that is if they are able to claim it at all because all the money
lodged into different banks here in Europe and United States are now
been claimed by the Nigerian government.
Meanwhile, My plan is to withdraw just some amount from the accumulated interest,
which will not even affect the main fixed deposit. I will give you the
details of procedure and my full ID when I receive your reply and
indication of partner. Your reward and amount to withdraw will be our
mutual agreement to avoid any misunderstanding. We have nothing to
lose, we only need courage to do this. Sincerely yours,
Miss. NB: I decided to contact a stranger for this deal because of
the saying that your best friend could be your worst enemy.
regards

cynthia wood

 
At 1:21 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

Actually, I'm small government dude, but against most government enlarging domestic policies enstated by Bush.

It's been some time now that you've used my vote for bush as a stamp of approval of other policies you know I disagree with.

If I talk about ideals, pink ponies suddenly come up in the conversation. If I talk about cost benefit, on a choice made 10 months ago, the cost is all that is addressed [e.g “what would hayek say to your capitulations?!”].

I would be more willing to take the shit if people proposed a viable alternative. And I don't mean you, I mean opposing politicians. Fact is, more dems were for greater enlargements of NCLB and DHS and healthcare. You can talk about intrusive government all you want, but there are more people dead from Waco than American citizens in jail on terrorism charges. Add to that a whopping total of 0 dead in the gulag of gitmo, and anecdotal evidence in my own life of "intrusive policies" not affecting me one bit.

It's time to relax.

That is until this question is answered, I won't feel bad about any support I've given the current administration.

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

I said I thought it was funny, bro. I do.

I also think it's an issue that the current administration performs badly.

This is why I put it under your post:
The incompetence of DHS is Bush's only contribution to the concept of small government. The poor performance of Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and the cynical appointment of buddies to important roles are a great argument for not ever wanting the government to do anything, because they obviously have stronger incentives to be crony layabouts. Unfortunately, the political party which formerly wanted less government involvement in life is now grabbing power and abusing it .

I think your not about stamp of approval totally misreads my comment; I said your ideals are being betrayed by political leadership.

I think your points about things could be worse are generally valid, but I have to take issue with the idea that civil liberty losses which "don't affect me" are OK; they're not.

My answer to why: the point of the attacks was to start a war between the US and Muslims, in hopes that Muslims would then see the need for unity and violent political realignment in the mideast. Since the plan is working better than anyone expected (turns out President Bush agrees that violent political change is necessary in the mideast), further attacks have been unnecessary, except for to dissuade US allies.

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

Why would a group seeking war between the west and Islam seek to dissuade more countries in the west from joining?

I think the problem with the "why" question is that it is difficult to assign motivation to a heterogeneous, decentralized group.

___

I do lament the current administration, and celebrate the fact it could be worse. Perhaps they are in conflict; it's hard to express support for someone whose policies you often oppose.

What do you think is the most likely scenerio for limited government victory?

I personally approve of the 'starve the beast' strategy...

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

Why would a group seeking war between the west and Islam seek to dissuade more countries in the west from joining?

They're seeking to raise an army and drive westerners out of Muslim lands. The ideal situation for that is one where America alone is fighting Muslims and occupying their lands with little rhyme or reason.

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

The problems with starving the beast are

1. Taking on too much debt is a bad investment; if demand for our bonds falls, the cost to the US will increase dramatically.

2. Putting off the choices of where to cut spending probably means that those choices will be worse when they are made in a paniced fashion later.

3. It's hard to eliminate programs; by raising expenditures the probbility of a future where the tax burden is just a whole lot higher is much greater than the probability that spending cuts will even things out. (Particularly given the right's political performance lately - don't you think there's a good chance socialists like myself will benefit from Bush's poor job with Iraq and Katrina?)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home