Subj : Re: It seems not everyone To : Chaya From : Finnigann Date : Tue Sep 06 2005 23:54:00 -=> Chaya wrote to alt.tv.farscape <=- Ch> From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Ch> John Iwaniszek wrote: > 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? > Ch> Yes... he's the example I tend to use when people argue that we should Ch> use racial profiling to identify terrorists. Oh yeah... I'll bet when they are looking for a serial killer, you don't mind that they concentrate on males! Men, the last minority! .... http://maps.google.com ? big bang --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46 .