Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yes that is exactly what they are doing. At least the Astrodome has air-conditioning.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at August 31, 2005 10:23 AM

I suppose it keeps everybody in one place, and that makes things logistically easier.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at August 31, 2005 10:52 AM

I'm happy that Houston is offerring to host these refugees from New Orleans. I think the Astrodome is a reasonable substitution for the Superdome. I actually laughed a bit when I read an article about the evacuation which stated that Harris County, "cleared the dome schedule through December." Like that was a major feat.

However, I am surprised that there is nothing closer. I suppose it is because Houston is capable of supplying the over 500 buses needed to move that many people. I am also curious what route the buses will take to get from New Orleans to Houston.

When they get here, with the exception of a few hotel owners (they'll already have a place to stay anyway), I think they'll appreciate the hospitality. The City is providing free admission to city attractions like the zoo and museum. Also they are just a short drive from the medical center. It would be good if someone got a make-shift school set up in the Reliant Park area.

Posted by Leland at August 31, 2005 11:01 AM

There's alot of good information on a blog (of sorts) being run by one of the local TV stations.

Here's the link:

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWLBLOG.ac3fcea.html

Keep in mind that Houston and Dallas are the two closest large cities, in the direction away from the disaster zone.

Posted by Dave G at August 31, 2005 11:48 AM

I think it's a very good idea, for many of the same reasons that camping out in the Superdome was a good idea. It's a ready-made centralized structure with lots of available space, existing facilities for food and sanitation, and good access to other facilities.

Posted by Big D at August 31, 2005 01:15 PM

Is somebody kidding? This is ridiculous. These are people, not cattle. Free bus rides are a great idea. Perhaps a bus pass honored for the next six months given out to anyone in the area that asks. Then people can get away to family and friends that will help them get back on their feet again.

Posted by ken anthony at August 31, 2005 08:34 PM

http://katrinahomes.billhennessy.com/

Posted by at August 31, 2005 09:50 PM

Hey Ken,
Most of these people have nowhere else to go and their family and friends are sitting next to them.

Posted by Bill Maron at September 1, 2005 05:37 AM

Apparently they are shipping about 1600 people to the Reunion Arena here in Dallas also. They are actually setting up cots all around the arena and on the playing surface so people can actually lay down to sleep. Reunion Arena is sorta the same situation as the Astrodome. Once they built the new American Airlines Arena the Reunion Arena became a standy arena to host the occasional low-key venue that doesn't require oogles of space.

I wonder if they are assigning people a time to visit the locker rooms and shower off. I'm certain as they come off the bus they already smell like a 3rd-world country.

The first order of business for these people after they get setup with a sleeping station is to assist them with filing their un-employment insurance to start the flow of money to those that need it. I've heard on the radio this morning for volunteers to come and help file paper work. The city is basically adopting these people, since they are going to be staying for so long that they are already talking about lining up jobs for for those that can work.

Posted by Josh Reiter at September 1, 2005 07:58 AM

I don't get it. Why is it a bad joke? Every hotel along the Gulf Coast in three states is probably uninhabitable, as well as many well inland. Where are they supposed to go? A stadium is better than a tent city. It has (as has already been pointed out) air conditioning and running water. I think it's a pretty good idea.

Posted by Andrea Harris at September 1, 2005 08:05 AM

It probably is a good idea, Andrea. But it sounds bizarre at first hearing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 09:22 AM

What a creep you are Rand. The people of Houston open their arms and their wallets and provide a large facility with power, cooling, bathrooms - in the midst of a fully functional - ergo supportive city - for tens of thousands of strangers - and make the committment open ended - and you find fault with that. Perhaps when a bad storm hits your home in Florida such that you are homeless you'll change your mind about similar offers of help.

What would your propose as an alternative - one that can be implemented NOW?

Posted by Keith Cowing at September 1, 2005 09:28 AM

What a creep you are Rand.

I love you, too, Keith.

The people of Houston open their arms and their wallets and provide a large facility with power, cooling, bathrooms - in the midst of a fully functional - ergo supportive city - for tens of thousands of strangers - and make the committment open ended - and you find fault with that.

I must have missed the part of my post in which I criticized the good and generous people of Houston.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 10:51 AM

Same end result. You certainly had the opportunity to praise the good people of Houston - but didn't. You simply chose to criticize the use of their stadium and questioned whether it was even an "upscale move." Given the deplorable condition of the stadium in New Orleans - with its dead bodies, human waste, gunfire, and small fires, I think this counts as an insult to Houston and those involved in trying to help these people.

Posted by Keith Cowing at September 1, 2005 11:48 AM

Keith, it's a free country. You, like everyone else, is entitled to think whatever strange things you want, including the fact that I'm a "creep," (though I occasionally wonder why your think that calling people names in their comments section is some kind of substitute for rational argument).

Most other people will simply read what I wrote. The fact that I didn't explicitly praise the people of Houston provides no evidence whatsoever about my opinion about the good and generous people of Houston, any more than it implies anything about my opinions on any other subjects that I didn't discuss in this particular post.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 11:55 AM

The people of Houston, Texas and elsewhere didn't invite or welcome the refugees. FEMA commanded that they be sent here. You can't say no to FEMA and stay out of jail. The "open arms" and the "welcome" are window dressing.

Posted by Jardinero1 at September 1, 2005 12:12 PM

(though I occasionally wonder why your think that calling people names in their comments section is some kind of substitute for rational argument).

Tee hee hee - read your own website some time, Rand.

Posted by Keith Cowing at September 1, 2005 12:21 PM

Gosh Keith. I managed to criticize Rand without calling him names. Maybe you need to switch to decaf.

Posted by Andrea Harris at September 1, 2005 12:29 PM

Apparently the WH just announced that shrub and Laura will make a "substantial donation" to the Red Cross

Hmm, I'm sorry; the Leader of the Free World (sound trumpets), in charge of supposedly the greatest country in the history of the universe, able to move mountains with a wave of his mighty pen, whose government thinks it can build democracies far and wide, is going to help out by making a contribution to The Red Cross???????????

Is this a way of signalling that private donations are what America does best, instead of providing leadership at a national level?

Well, if that is the case, one can only conclude that the priorities of your POTUS -- such as stationing National Guard Troops in Iraq -- has finally come full circle; becoming a disaster to your homeland.

Furthermore, many of your poor people couldn't evacuate due to the fact that they didn't own an automobile. Apparently, there were no plans to evacuate the poor. A friend of mine was there on Saturday on vacation and was able to rent a car to drive to Dallas. Last weekend if you were poor or a stranded tourist, you were on your own.

He didn't see any busses on Canal street transporting homeless and poor. He didn't see busses inbound from the State Capitol to evacuate the sick. Tourists were told to get a car or go to the Superdome.

Finally, Haley Barbour and shrub continues to shout that "Looting will not be tolerated". Hmm, is this typical for the Republican Party, that while people are dying in large numbers in NO -- who wouldn't loote just to stay alive --, Barbour and shrub seems to be more concerned about private properties?

Posted by Canute at September 1, 2005 12:35 PM

Canute, I have trouble taking seriously any comment, long or short, that starts out in the first sentence referring to the president as "the shrub." Despite my better judgment, further reading only confirmed that initial reaction. Do you think anyone who doesn't already share your leftist, Bush-hating mindset finds this crap persuasive?

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 12:43 PM

Rand: I agree with your comments. George W. Bush is the President of the United States and should be addressed accordingly - with repsect - even after he leaves office. Curiously you can post the phrase "John effing Kerry" about a standing U.S. Senator and democratic party presidential nominee, and say awful things about the Clintons, and that's OK? Pot Kettle Black.

Posted by Keith Cowing at September 1, 2005 01:10 PM

> Same end result. You certainly had the opportunity to praise
> the good people of Houston - but didn't.

Hm. I don't see anything on NASA Watch praising the good people of Houston. So, Keith also had an opportunity to praise the good people of Houston -- but didn't. I guess that's okay, as long as you're Keith.

I do see a number of NASA "internal memos" on NASA Watch. With the "to" and "from" lines removed, so there's no way to tell if they're genuine, who "leaked" it, or for what purpose.

Yet, Keith constantly rails against postings from "anonymous cowards" on other sites.

(Posted anonymously -- just like Keith's sources. :-)

Posted by at September 1, 2005 01:15 PM

Keith, it wasn't the lack of respect that bothers me so much as the lack of originality, and the mindset that it indicates to me, given the other nonsensical things that people who call the president "the shrub" tend to say and write. And I'm not sure what "awful" things I've said about Bill Clinton that aren't true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 01:17 PM

>>Canute, I have trouble taking seriously any
>>comment, long or short, that starts out in the
>>first sentence referring to the president as "the shrub."

Well....

First, "the president" is not my president.

Second, from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shrub

-------------------------------------------------
shrub 1 (shrb)
n.
A woody plant of relatively low height, having several stems arising from the base and lacking a single trunk; a bush.

[Middle English schrubbe, from Old English scrybb; see sker-1 in Indo-European roots.]
-------------------------------------------------

Third, by the way, from where I come from, to name a political leader the equivalent of "shrub", is really not a big deal.

Now -- me thinking -- why do you come across as a typical US libertarian/conservative sterotype; that are typically prolix without actually saying anything; that are are content to just spew politically correct, banal, contrived nonsense for hours on end; that when being told a joke, if said joke has even a hint of sarcasm or irony, have to be explained to in detail....

And we all know how jokes tend to lose a little bit of the funnyness in the explanation.

However, even though a certain percentage of the US population goes for very bland humour, America is also home to ironic humour. The Simpsons, Family Guy, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry Sanders prove just that.

Posted by Canute at September 1, 2005 01:19 PM

First, "the president" is not my president.

Does that have some relevance? I never said he was.

[snip unnecessary explanation of "the joke" and commentary about what I write, which I find extremely ironic, considering the source]

And we all know how jokes tend to lose a little bit of the funnyness in the explanation.

I get the joke, and always have. I just never thought it was particularly funny, even the first time. And my experience is that people who do find it funny, and continue to repeat it after all these years, are lacking in perspicuity and logic in other areas as well, as you demonstrate so well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 01:40 PM

>>And my experience is that people who do find it
>>funny, and continue to repeat it after all
>>these years, are lacking in perspicuity and
>>logic in other areas as well, as you demonstrate so well.

You've got to be joking, right? I've heard some half-assed ideas in my time, but yours ranks as one of the stupidest.

BTW, you never did watch Spitting Image, did you?

Read this: "When Politics Is a Laughing Matter" (By Alexander Rose)

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/rose.html

-------------------------------------------------
Excerpts

The point is, notwithstanding the vicissitudes of humor, the democratic tradition of ridiculing and teasing politicians enjoys a long and honorable heritage. London’s Tate Gallery is currently advertising an exhibition devoted to the eighteenth-century caricaturist James Gillray with the line, “Don’t Limit Yourself to Laughing at the Politicians of Today.”

Following in the British tradition, American political jokes are mostly partisan jabs and tend to reduce politicians to an irreducible essence, a cliché, a buzzword. Thus, Nixon is incorrigibly shifty and sinister, Ford is an amiable bumbler, Carter is nice but out of his depth, Reagan is just dumb, Bush Senior is a cold wasp, Clinton is a sex maniac, Quayle is stupid, Gingrich is callous, Gore is a bore, and Hillary is a modern Lucrezia de Borgia. A strange admixture of Reagan, Quayle, and Ford, Bush Junior was until September 11 depicted as a fool prone to malapropisms.
-------------------------------------------------

"Behind the storm of daily conflict and crisis, the dramatic confrontations, the tumult of political struggle, the poet, the artist, the musician continues the quiet work of centuries, building bridges of experiences between peoples, reminding man of the universality of his feelings and desires and despairs, and reminding him that the forces that unite are deeper than those that divide."

John F. Kennedy

Posted by Canute at September 1, 2005 02:09 PM

Canute,

I'm still trying to figure out how it was W's responsibility to make sure that the poor and homeless were evacuated from New Orleans... can you explain how that works again? The leader of a country is responsible for micro-managing a city that has a living and able mayor, in a state with a living and able governor?

Further, people aren't looting in N.O. just to stay alive. If they were, then they'd be stealing food and water. They're stealing Televisions, Playstation 2's, and guns. Which, since they have no way to actually use or SELL those items (except maybe the guns), are completely worthless given the fact that they have no electricity for the next 1-2 months or longer. It's looting for the sake of looting, not looting for survival.

And Rand, Bush isn't Canute's president. Canute is from Norway. His/her opinion of our president really doesn't make much difference, as he/she can't vote over here.

Posted by John Breen III at September 1, 2005 02:42 PM

I know Canute is from Norway. I continue to fail to see the relevance of that fact to whether or not calling the president "the shrub" is either clever, or funny. I find a tired old joke that was barely either the first time, regardless of whether it comes from Molly Ivins, or Norway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2005 03:02 PM

I actually find comments such as "The Shrub" useful as it save me from having to read poast that point. Ite tells me the poster is an idiot and the odds of anything they have posted being of any value whatsoever is so infinitesimally low that the investemnet in time in reading further is a poor one.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 1, 2005 04:31 PM

Well, at last count, about eight thousand of Louisiana's eleven thousand five hundred national guardsmen are still in Louisiana.

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 1, 2005 08:30 PM

(Continuing this as a second post thanks to Rand's filtering software):

(Actually, I can't continue it. I don't know what questionable content this stupid thing thinks it's latching onto when I say that the

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 1, 2005 08:33 PM

two-hundred and twenty-fourth engineer group (with about four battalions) is still here.

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 1, 2005 08:34 PM

Hey Bill,

I understood that many might not have family outside the effected area. My grandmother lived almost all of her 70+ yrs in one city block in Brooklyn. But when you're on the track and the train is coming, it's smart to get off the track.

A city the size of New Orleans I would guess has a lot of city buses. These could have been made available for free evacuation. My guess is the governor and the mayor didn't want to look foolish in case the storm was not going to be so bad, but a day before (when it was too late) they had to announce the evacuation (were city transport made available then?)

Now who's responsibility is it to make life better? People tell me it's my responsibility to make my life better. I believe I agree. So that should answer that first question. Can we help? You betcha.

Is it the peoples fault they got caught up in a storm? No, time and unforeseen occurance befalls us all. Again, as good neighbors we shall help.

Perhaps officials believe keeping people together in the Astrodome allows for better processing? I don't know what they're thinking. I expect an aircraft carrier and hospital ship may be in the area soon to help (my best guess.)

I feel for the people, but I'm getting too old for the circus.

Posted by ken anthony at September 1, 2005 09:44 PM

So much for taking the bus...

Posted by at September 1, 2005 11:45 PM

Quote from John Breen III: "It's looting for the sake of looting, not looting for survival"

Its looting for the sake of establishing a power base. What we are seeing is the seeds of feudal warlords being formed. As laws break down we revert to a "only the strongest survive" power base. Those that can establish dominance through superior strength and control do so because they can. The looting, regardless of the stuff they are gathering is of any use, represent a level of control that they are establishing. By going out and taking what they want they are setting up a tribal territory that, given enough time, a select few would become warlords over.

As far as those that are starting to fight against the rescuers and shooting at helicopters. They are showing their resentment at being ignored and treated as a indignant person for all these years. To them they've been in a crisis situation for a long time and it was only till a hurricane came along and flooded out the whole city has anyone began to care enough to try and help.

Anyways, in regards to my earlier post, like anyone really cares I know, I stated that Reunion Arena was housing 1600 people. That was a unreliable number of course, as misinformation is a by product in the fog of war. My girlfriend is in Nursing school right now and they are going to be pulling them out of their normal curriculum to assist with the efforts at Reunion Arena. The word is from their teacher that the number of people at Reunion was going to be 10,000. Then, when we watched the news later that night the number jumped to 25,000 people. So, just wanted to correct myself. I've got no problems bashing Reunion as a crappy building, we were way overdue in getting a replacement in American Airlines Center. In fact I heard this morning on the news that the plumbing at Reunion arena is shows signs of being inable to cope with the sudden spike in activity.

Posted by Josh Reiter at September 2, 2005 07:47 AM

For those of you, who are Americans, who do not really understand the legalities of this situation I offer two comments that will explain it to you. The federal government cannot just blaze in the minute a disaster has occured they need to be invited in by the governor of the state. There were assests in place to assist if there were needed before the storm hit.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at September 2, 2005 10:38 AM

There were assests in place to assist if there were needed before the storm hit

Of course there were assets. And that part of the country is lousy with airfields and army bases. And I have no doubt (based on past experience) that the troops were as ready to go as they could be - plans made, logistics arranged for and so on. As you noted - they are forbidden by law from assisting until asked for.

It should be clear that the people loudly bashing the Fed for not coming to the people's aid sooner are doing so not for genuine concern but out of base political motives. Which might be expected but is despicable.

Not everyone, granted, but the usual suspects.

Posted by Brian at September 2, 2005 12:18 PM

It should be clear that the people loudly bashing the Fed for not coming to the people's aid sooner are doing so not for genuine concern but out of base political motives.

Can you say 'ad hominem'? Very good! And remember, Mr. Rogers says, 'those who disagree with you are not only wrong, but also evil!'

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 2, 2005 12:29 PM

Can you say 'ad hominem'? Very good! And remember, Mr. Rogers says, 'those who disagree with you are not only wrong, but also evil!'

Not everyone, granted, but the usual suspects.

Posted by Brian at September 2, 2005 01:09 PM

I should have expanded on that, sorry. Are you saying, for example, that Michael Moore's recent letter to the President was not written for political reasons?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

I suggest that Moore (again to use an example) started the ad hominemism, not I.

Posted by Brian at September 2, 2005 01:14 PM

I'm saying that dismissing arguments because of motives is the ad hominem fallacy. This is true regardless of whether they actually have those motives. If their claims are wrong, they can be refuted directly. If their claims are right, then their motives don't matter.

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 2, 2005 01:20 PM

Paul,

That is a valid response to most (I'm tempted to say all) posts on Rand's site. The posting is polite, reasoned and name calling is kept to a polite roar.

This is not a valid response to Mr. Moore's letter. Moore, and other whom I had in mind) is not writing to persuade anyone, does not put forward any facts, and will not be reasoned with. They know they are correct, and are writing for their audiance.

I am not sure what the latin phrase would be for 'preaching to the choir' but it's what they are doing. My post was ill-thought, perhaps, but I was irked.

Posted by Brian at September 2, 2005 03:42 PM

>>I'm still trying to figure out how it was W's
>>responsibility to make sure that the poor and >>homeless were evacuated from New Orleans... can
>>you explain how that works again? The leader of
>>a country is responsible for micro-managing a
>>city that has a living and able mayor, in a
>>state with a living and able governor?

Well, I'm still trying to figure out where I state it was ONLY dumbya's responsibility. Hmm, maybe you should really learn how to read before you respond the next time.

As for shrub's lack of leadership, this comment in The INDEPENDENT should answer your enquiery:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article310128.ece

__________________________________________________
Excerpts

It is not just that he has handled the crisis badly. His first response was a bemused look, reminiscent of his mental paralysis at the news of 9/11. He then committed a terrible blunder, telling disaster victims to "take personal responsibility". The individualist message was miscalculated, offensive to the altruism that disasters always ignite. Next, the President seemed to think that it was more important to stop the looting than to save lives. His gaffes don't end. In storm-torn Biloxi on Friday, he referred two distraught women, who collapsed in his arms, to the Salvation Army shelter.

Not even Canute could stop the waves, and the ludicrous inadequacy of the coastal defences was a long-standing scandal that the region's state authorities, not just the federal government, had neglected. But the victims grew angry because of the slowness of the President's response, the inadequacy of federal funding, the shameful facts - so reminiscent of 9/11 - of federal agencies' indifference to warnings, and the helplessness of the government in the face of growing chaos and suffering. Mr Bush became a new Nero, fiddling while New Orleans flooded.
__________________________________________________

>>Further, people aren't looting in N.O. just to
>>stay alive. If they were, then they'd be
>>stealing food and water. They're stealing
>>Televisions, Playstation 2's, and guns. Which,
>>since they have no way to actually use or SELL
>>those items (except maybe the guns), are
>>completely worthless given the fact that they
>>have no electricity for the next 1-2 months or
>>longer. It's looting for the sake of looting, not looting for survival.

What a lot of crap. Last week, you had a a complete societal breakdown in NO. Whether a small minority stole televisions etc -- and by the way; where were they going to use their newly acquired tv sets --, is really not relevant. The majority stole food and water to stay a live.

Read this: "Nasty, brutish -- society's net snaps"
"Every-man-for-himself ethos serves Americans poorly in times of crisis when people must pull together" by (DOUG SAUNDERS)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050902.STORMPSYCHOLOGY02/BNPrint/theglobeandmail/Email

__________________________________________________
Excerpts

"Philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes tried to imagine what a 'state of nature' looked like -- we're now seeing it inside the United States and it's really brutal," says Alan Wolfe, a political scientist at Boston University who has written widely on the fragile foundations of U.S. society. "We're going to have to ask: 'How did we allow this to happen?

In much poorer societies, such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the Boxing Day tsunami, or in more polarized societies like Montreal during the 1998 ice storm, scenes of looting, violence and selfish desperation did not occur. But the large U.S. cities of the South have a very different sort of group psychology, in which faith in individual fortune replaces the fixed social roles that keep other places aloft during crises.

In U.S. cities like New Orleans, in the analysis of the American-British organizational psychologist Cary Cooper, social cohesion depends on a shared belief that individual hard work, good luck and God's grace will bring a person out of poverty and into prosperity. But those very qualities can destroy the safety net of mutual support that might otherwise help people in an emergency.

"Fear itself motivates people in the U.S. -- the fear that you could lose everything," Prof. Cooper said in an interview yesterday from his office at the University of Lancaster. "That creates the best in American society, the inventiveness, but the moment the net is pulled out, it becomes a terrible jungle."
_________________________________________________

My Goal Is To Cut Government
In Half In Twenty-Five Years,
To Get It Down To The Size Where
We Can Drown It In The Bathtub."

--Grover Norquist, Major Strategist Behind Bush's Tax Policy

Posted by Canute at September 5, 2005 06:26 AM

Post a comment