Subj : Re: It seems not everyone shares the "Blame Bush All The Way" viewpoint... To : alt.tv.farscape From : John Iwaniszek Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 03:38:22 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Chaya wrote in news:Xns96C9E4C16ACD3chayaruth@204.153.244.170: > Nick wrote: > >> Chaya wrote: >> >>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> Yes... he's the example I tend to use when people argue that we >>> should use racial profiling to identify terrorists. >>> >> >> He is one example. Do the numbers say that there is no correlation? > > > It depends on what you're trying to correlate. Plus, how much data do > we really have on terrorist attacks? Can't calculate correlations with > n=2. > > (I guess n=3 if you count the bombing of the WTC.) > (columbine, Eric Rudlolph, and all those cute militias. And don't forget the Klan, the Nazis, and Pat Robertson's 2 million followers. And the Minuteman.) .