Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just read the first of you evidentiary "blogs" that I have ever read. I will never read another. Do you even read this stuff before you post it?

That's not a blog, dumb-ass.

The reform Club's article speaks of is how to eliminate corruption in the programs where money flows. The "obstruction" you cite, is trying to change the programs to which money will flow.

If you want reform at the UN, you're going to have to get other countries on board. I know diplomacy is out of style right now, but that's what it will take. Doing what Bolton has done so soon before the summit is harmful to the cause.

The people who were previously negotiating for the U.S. were working for the Bush Administration, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You mean, as a matter of natural law?

Laws exist to compel people to do lots of things, such as get immunizations. Is it the absence of a carrot (such as being allowed to enroll in school) that troubles you?

Or are you saying just compensation is due for a temporary "taking"?

It's not going to be all that temporary in NO, and the decision about when to go back is something of a judgment call, no? People who are prudent could doubtless manage the risk of infection. The real reason to get people out of their houses is to make sure that emergency workers don't have to worry about them and their fires, right? But that's never been enough of a reason to force someone out of their house, has it?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not going to be all that temporary in NO, and the decision about when to go back is something of a judgment call, no? People who are prudent could doubtless manage the risk of infection. The real reason to get people out of their houses is to make sure that emergency workers don't have to worry about them and their fires, right? But that's never been enough of a reason to force someone out of their house, has it?

In a world of perfect information the Federal government would have a carrot, no? All these people will be eligible for FEMA funds at some point down the road and they are currently costing the government money by refusing to leave. Seems to me the government should have the right to offset any future funds against costs of patrolling/aiding the poeple who refuse to leave. They are tying up resources that should be used elsewhere (like, for example, counting and picking up the deceased).

Maybe not a big enough carrot, but it is a start. Unfortunately those who are left there seem to be unwilling to use common sense.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"The U.S. agency leading Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts said Tuesday that it does not want the news media to photograph the dead as they are recovered."
-- Reuters

"We are in Jefferson Parish, just outside of New Orleans. At the National Guard checkpoint, they are under orders to turn away all media. All of the reporters are turning they’re TV trucks around."
-- Bob Brigham

What's the difference between this and you prohibiting Penske from posting 9/11 and Iraq photos.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In a world of perfect information the Federal government would have a carrot, no? All these people will be eligible for FEMA funds at some point down the road and they are currently costing the government money by refusing to leave. Seems to me the government should have the right to offset any future funds against costs of patrolling/aiding the poeple who refuse to leave. They are tying up resources that should be used elsewhere (like, for example, counting and picking up the deceased).

Maybe not a big enough carrot, but it is a start. Unfortunately those who are left there seem to be unwilling to use common sense.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In a world of perfect information the Federal government would have a carrot, no? All these people will be eligible for FEMA funds at some point down the road and they are currently costing the government money by refusing to leave. Seems to me the government should have the right to offset any future funds against costs of patrolling/aiding the poeple who refuse to leave. They are tying up resources that should be used elsewhere (like, for example, counting and picking up the deceased).

Maybe not a big enough carrot, but it is a start. Unfortunately those who are left there seem to be unwilling to use common sense.

I think they don't get the $2000 debit card if they don't leave.

Ty, I'm not trying to argue the other side, because it's a fair question. Telling them it's in their best interest to leave, and then truly leaving them to fend for themselves seems like the best approach. (I suspect we'd still need patrols for looters and such regardless of whether anyone stays). Eventually they'll see it makes sense, what with no power, no water, and general anarchy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's the difference between this and you prohibiting Penske from posting 9/11 and Iraq photos.

Well, to start with, FEMA is the government, and this is a private forum. Also, FEMA is preventing anyone from getting the news at all, since (e.g.) the photos won't exist. I was forcing people to click on an extra link to see the photos, which is just not that much of a burden, even for someone as lazy as Shapey. Those seem like crucial distinctions to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think they don't get the $2000 debit card if they don't leave.

Ty, I'm not trying to argue the other side, because it's a fair question. Telling them it's in their best interest to leave, and then truly leaving them to fend for themselves seems like the best approach. (I suspect we'd still need patrols for looters and such regardless of whether anyone stays). Eventually they'll see it makes sense, what with no power, no water, and general anarchy.

I think the biggest problem these people cause is that they burn their own houses down by knocking over candles or charcoal grills. Obviously, this becomes a problem for the neighbors and the city as well.

I figured some of the libertarians around here would have a problem with this, but I guess not.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll be disappointed to know that John Bolton is doing his level best to prevent reform.

I don't know enough about this, but I found this part of the article interesting:

• Of course, there is a lot more at stake in this summit than paying verbal homage to a series of unobjectionable and nonbinding development goals. On many issues, like calling for a new Human Rights Council, the American position is right on its merits. The problem, though, is that for the United States to get what it wants on the Human Rights Council -- which, broadly speaking, is an agreement that countries with poor human-rights records be barred from the council -- it needs to give a little elsewhere, particularly on development. To that end, the G-77 and some of our European allies are not likely to be hoodwinked into thinking that lip service to development goals is a major concession. Bolton may have wanted to shift the goalposts by fomenting controversy where it did not exist, but he soon found himself isolated.

So the problem seems to be not that the US is wrong, but that it is not bending to the same old bullshit that has been endemic in the UN for decades.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just read the first of you evidentiary "blogs" that I have ever read. I will never read another. Do you even read this stuff before you post it?

The reform Club's article speaks of is how to eliminate corruption in the programs where money flows. The "obstruction" you cite, is trying to change the programs to which money will flow. Unless I'm whiffing here, I can chalk up another win.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know enough about this, but I found this part of the article interesting:

• Of course, there is a lot more at stake in this summit than paying verbal homage to a series of unobjectionable and nonbinding development goals. On many issues, like calling for a new Human Rights Council, the American position is right on its merits. The problem, though, is that for the United States to get what it wants on the Human Rights Council -- which, broadly speaking, is an agreement that countries with poor human-rights records be barred from the council -- it needs to give a little elsewhere, particularly on development. To that end, the G-77 and some of our European allies are not likely to be hoodwinked into thinking that lip service to development goals is a major concession. Bolton may have wanted to shift the goalposts by fomenting controversy where it did not exist, but he soon found himself isolated.

So the problem seems to be not that the US is wrong, but that it is not bending to the same old bullshit that has been endemic in the UN for decades.

Only if you assume that the previous Bush Administration negotiators were happy to go along with the same old bullshit. He's been in office for five years now, you know.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's the difference between this and you prohibiting Penske from posting 9/11 and Iraq photos.

2. I didn't open this wound but I am glad someone had the moral decency to point it out.

Also, that wasn't me who posted it, I think it was Dr. Whoopie, or Big Swinging Dick Cheney.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, to start with, FEMA is the government, and this is a private forum. Also, FEMA is preventing anyone from getting the news at all, since (e.g.) the photos won't exist. I was forcing people to click on an extra link to see the photos, which is just not that much of a burden, even for someone as lazy as Shapey. Those seem like crucial distinctions to me.

Your second point is a fair one.
I don't think the media should be banned by law, but out of respect for the families of the dead, they shouldn't publish faces.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if you assume that the previous Bush Administration negotiators were happy to go along with the same old bullshit. He's been in office for five years now, you know.

If this is truly a legitimate reform effort, shouldn't the goal be to get it right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If this is truly a legitimate reform effort, shouldn't the goal be to get it right?

Not at the expense of getting it done. This summit has been in the works for a while. A lot of foreign leaders are coming. It's an opportunity, and it would be a shame to blow it.

And this is not about the Bush Administration vs. the old way of doing things. This is about different factions within the Bush Administration. Bolton previously had a reputation for not being a team player -- this is more of the same.