Subj : Re: It seems not everyone shares the "Blame Bush All The Way" viewpoint... To : alt.tv.farscape From : John Iwaniszek Date : Tue Sep 06 2005 22:38:08 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Chaya wrote in news:Xns96C9A3B9D86A2chayaruth@204.153.244.170: > Nick wrote: > >> Chaya wrote: >> >>> Ken McElhaney wrote: >>> >>>> Over the weekend, ABC/Washington Post poll reveals that despite the >>>> massive criticism aired 24/7 on Bush, most Americans just don't see >>>> it that way; >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/8lbd5 >>>> >>>> And while the federal response was way too slow and disasters of >>>> this size should NOT be handled by FEMA, but rather the US military >>>> (which has no buerocracy to get in the way), I do have some >>>> questions for the local 'n state authorities, namely; >>>> >>>> Why did the Mayor of New Orleans wait until SUNDAY to order the >>>> manditory evacuation of his city? 24 hours after both the govenor >>>> AND Bush pleaded with him to do so? >>>> >>>> Why didn't the Superdome & Convention Center have ANY water 'n food >>>> supplies IF they were suppose to be shelters? >>>> >>>> And if they weren't capable of handling that number of people, then >>>> why didn't they use the school 'n tourist buses (there were over >>>> 500 that survived the hurricane) to start getting them out BEFORE >>>> the flood waters cut off the city? In fact, why didn't they start >>>> moving people out on Saturday? >>>> >>>> When word of the water barriers breaking reached the gov's office >>>> on Monday, why didn't she send in the National Guard (over 5,000 >>>> soldiers who had already been activated) into New Orleans right >>>> away before the flood waters cut off the city? >>>> >>>> I think that after all this is over and the investigations are >>>> concluded, we'll have a new FEMA director, a new federal system for >>>> handling disaters of this massive size (which is larger than ANY in >>>> US history), and hopefully New Orleans will have a new Mayor and >>>> perhaps an actual plan to deal with a situation everyone knew could >>>> happen over the past 40 years. >>> >>> >>> I would be very surprised if GWB fired anyone over this. He only >>> seems to can people who disagree with him, including the Director of >>> the Bureau of Justice Statistics (who refused to bury statistical >>> findings that racial profiling is alive and well). >>> >>> http://littlink.com/owv5y >>> >> >> If all were equally likely to be stopped it doesn't sound like racial >> profiling. Now, there were some problems with what happened >> afterwards, I'll agree. But I thought racial profiling had to do >> with who got stopped. Do I have the definition incorrect? > > > The term "racial profiling" kind of encompasses the whole spectrum, > including stopping, searching, citing, ticketing, etc. Officers may > stop people equally, but they be more likely to issue citations to > minority drivers, for example. > > What I haven't seen is any indication the study controlled for things > like prior criminal record, outstanding warrants, or suspect demeanor > toward the police (which would increase the likelihood of arrest). > > My main concern about this issue was that there was an attempt to bury > it. I mean, why not say, "Hey, guess what? Minority drivers aren't > any more likely to be stopped than white drivers according to this > study. However, they are more likely to be searched, ticketed, and > arrested. We need to find out why." > McVeigh was a white Republcan, wasn't he? .