Friday, September 09, 2005

That Pesky Protocol

With all the fuss about the Fed's failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, those who wish to carp and whine tend to forget or neglect to tell that the state has control in these situations and the Fed doesn't come swooping in until requested.

Now, Fox News' Major Garrett reported an interesting tidbit that has been kept hush hush so far. It seems there was food, water and hygiene supplies loaded and ready to move in to NOLA immediately following Katrina BUT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA SAID NO! They were afraid it would impede their evacuation efforts if the victims were provided food, water, etc. They indicated that they didn't want to encourage people to go to the Superdome. Interesting. However, the reporting of the Red Cross trucks being held up by the state has been pretty much nil.

On a side note, if any of you want to do a little research - go check out Hurricane Floyd - 1999.
Seems to Ol' BC that the Donks failed miserably when they were in charge and Floyd wasn't near the catastrophy Katrina has turned out to be. Maybe it's just that Bush is still involved with the Feds and the left despises him so much.... Here's another thought. What would they do if a conservative got elected president?

Just a thought.

15 Comments:

At 1:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great blog, I hope you keep this one up, I've seen too many of my favorite
blogs die out. Check out mine about

trout fishing tips
when you get time. Neil

 
At 10:55 PM, Anonymous Baron said...

I am still waiting for someone to point out the (1) article and (2) section of the US Constitution that says the Federal Govt. has the right, not the responsibility, but the right, to mobilize an effort following a natural disaster.

Can anyone help me out on that one?

 
At 12:27 PM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

Welcome back Baron. It has been some time since I read the US Constitution, but I don't recollect that right being given to the Federal government. Maybe I need to look at it again. There may be a Socialist or two pass by and enlighten us.

 
At 10:13 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

The constitutionality of such actions seems inconsequential to me. If your neighbor is dying because a tornado just ripped through his house, you don't go to your book on bylaws of the neighborhood to see whether it is legal to aid him or not. I do not see a significant distinction here. It is Americans helping Americans. I don't care who it is or if it is legal or not. Our humanity, love, and concern for others should be the only forces that guide our actions, not some moldy piece of paper.

 
At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Baron said...

Beef,

Let me take your response line by line:

"The constitutionality of such actions seems inconsequential to me."

For some reason, that response does not surprise me coming from you. I don't think the constitutionality of anything has ever bothered you. But it bothers the hell out of me.


"If your neighbor is dying because a tornado just ripped through his house, you don't go to your book on bylaws of the neighborhood to see whether it is legal to aid him or not."

No, but you might go to the law. You see, Beef, neighborhood bylaws aren't really the law. By contrast, the constitution is. It is what protects us from the federal government. In theory, the feds aren't supposed to act unless it gives them the right to act. Too many times, they act without authority.


"I do not see a significant distinction here."

I do, and I hope, now, you do, too. There is a clear distinction between neighborhood bylaws and the United States Constitution.

"It is Americans helping Americans."

No. It is NOT Americans helping Americans. It is some Americans being helped by people who are forced to pay them or else the government will show up to their house with guns and put them in jail. That is not "help."

"I don't care who it is or if it is legal or not."

Of course not. Why would you? Perhaps I can come to your place and help myself to your food. Maybe I will take a couch or a TV while I am at it. Don't approve? I don't care if it is legal or not. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Our humanity, love, and concern for others should be the only forces that guide our actions, not some moldy piece of paper."

Deal. You can expect me at your house in the near future. Please don't bother with those pesky locks. It will only slow down "humanity, love, and concern" if I have to worry about how I am going to help myself to your stuff.

 
At 5:32 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Baron, if you showed up on my door step in need of aid, please understand that I would help you as best as I could. I would feed you. I would clothe you out of my own drawers. I would give you the love and respect that every human being on this planet deserves.

When we have love in our hearts, we are not afraid to give of ourselves. When we have hate, then we create rules and laws to protect ourselves from the harm of others, even if that harm, apparently, comes from those who are in need.

Laws are guidelines on how we are supposedly supposed to live our lives. Not going into the complete irrelevance of what others think of how I should live my life, let me continue...

Neighborhood bylaws are, in spirit, no different than the law you so desperately try to defend. I can see this of course, because you are aiming to be a lawyer. It is understandable that you are defensive about a thing that is completely abstract and has no bearing on reality. It is understandable that you are defensive about a thing that, by your inference, has no soul. Hey, that must feel good for you to have such a "concrete" thing to fall back on.

But, dear Baron, the world is not black and white. The world does not conform to your pitiable ideas of what is right and what is wrong under the law. Reality is set quite apart from what you apparently believe. God help me if I was ever forced to look you up for aid. I might find a writ of eviction on my door, or a servance to appear in court for soliciting.

I'm sorry, Baron, but your argument is devoid of humanity, and is therefore null and void in my book. When laws and guidelines and mandates take the place of reason and compassion, then I have no use for them.

Thanks for your reply, anyway, but I do not see your point, nor do I agree with you. You will be able to take comfort in the knowledge, however, that I will not show up on your doorstep in need, and you will be able to take some comfort in the fact that there are people in the world who are willing to help you despite the law. It is a shame that your pride prevents you from seeing it.

And for the record, Baron, I don't bother myself with locks. All such measures are the instruments of fools in need of the illusion of safety. And I would assume that if you were in need, you would just ask, not just come barging into my house and steal from me. I believe Jesus said, "Ask and you will receive." Well, you would at my house. Maybe not at Casa De Baron.

Regardless, my dear Baron, even if you did steal from me, I would not hold it against you. I have been robbed before. I take it as the Good Lord's way of reminding me that nothing is permanent and that some people are in greater need than me.

It is a pitiable shame that there are people in the world who are more concerned with rules than they are humanitarian conduct.

Perhaps humanity is just a word that has no meaning for you, but for me, I become more human the less I think of myself and the more I think of others. It is not an easy thing for me, but it is the truth. I strive for truth and for what is hard. Falsity and the easy road lead to places I have no interest in seeing.

Yours,

Mark

 
At 6:45 PM, Anonymous Baron said...

Mark,

Believe it or not, you and I agree! We both think people should voluntarily help those in need.

I would rather my funds go through a private charity or church to reach those in need.

My reply was aimed solely at whether or not the federal government should be in the business of redistributing money from Eerie, Pennsylvania and Fort Wayne, Indiana to the Gulf Coast. I don't think the guy punching a 40 hour a week clock in a widget factory and shoveling 30 inches of snow every winter should be forced to subsidize the guy who chooses to build a house in paradise. If the Gulf Coast resident's house blows down or floods, which is going to happen if he chooses to live on the coast, that is his own fault. Some guy in Brainerd, Minnesota shouldn't have to pay for it.

That said - you and I both agree that people should voluntarily give to those in need. However, private charity, preferably the church, should be the conduit. The federal government is not the church. It is not a private charity. It is not set up to deliver voluntary contributions. The only method it has to deal with disaster is to force people to work for other people.

I don't know about you, Mark, but I call that slavery. The Lord loves a cheerful giver; he wants to free the slave.

 
At 7:29 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

I suppose my point, Baron, is that in this world we all view ourselves either "in the same boat" or "every man for himself". I like to believe that the man in Louisiana is entitled to the same care as I am. I am glad that my tax dollars are going to him. It is the best and most wonderful place I can expect it to go. Am I forced to do this? Essentially, yes, but if the point is that we should all be free from being forced to do what we don't want to do, then you are arguing a completely different case.

After all, a great many of us would immediately throw off the shackles of labor slavery if we could, but guess what--- we can't without resorting to law breaking.

No man is free. Freedom is just as much an illusion as your law. At the very least, for once, I am getting to see my tax dollars go to the benefiting of someone who needs it. It almost makes up for the fact that I am forced to pay for wars I do not agree with.

If your battle is for freedom and autonomy, then good luck, my friend. Freedom and autonomy don't exist in civilized societies. You might do well to move to the tropics, gather mangoes and get out your fishing lines. I just hope you won't gripe about being a slave to the earth next. Ha!

The flip side of the coin is that every man is free, if he but allows himself to be so in his mind. Let's face it, it's about the only place left to us, and you better guard that space well, too, for there are battles taking place for it every day.

Anyway, I think your "agreement" is nothing short of either avoiding or side-tracking the real issues. The guy in snow-land is now funding the guy in paradise, as you put it? Please. New Orleans is no paradise. It wasn't before the hurricane and it sure as hell ain't now. Anyway, if you ask me, that is the only reason I do pay taxes. So that my fellow man in Louisiana can get himself a bite to eat and a blanket. It's about damned time my money was put to good use.

Yours in slavery,
Mark

 
At 8:28 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Boy, Beef.

You really know how to pile it, don't you.

All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.

Whether or not you agree, this IS the governing philosophy of America, and ALL free people. If you don't want to acknowledge it, I hope you are at least glad that this is the formula the Founders set up so that you would have maximum freedom to say the weird things you do.

The reason the Founders didn't set up a socialist Constitution (one that allows this sort of aid) is simple: They knew the people are better off taking care of these things themselves, either by self-sufficiency or by charity. You would have more to give the charities, who do a better job than any government ever will, if the government hadn't taken so excessively from you in the form of taxation. Imagine how much more you could contribute to alleviating the suffering in that part of the country if you only had more control over your money.

That is why the law was written as it was.

Some of the wisest men ever to live they were, and their vision is the one that needs to be re-implemented.

RWR

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

There are several problems with your argument. First, you assume that if people are not taxed they are going to have surplus money for aiding others instead of just spending it. Secondly, all men are not created equal. We may hope for this under the law, but it is still just an ideal that has no foundation in reality. Thirdly, you assume that people will give to charity when asked. This is debateable. Fourthly, you make the mistake of believing that rights come from some power outside of ourselves. They don't. They come from men's heads, and the men with the power are the ones who get to decide if their idea of right prevails or not.

This is all I will say on this. It does no good to argue about it with you, because you will disagree and we will just butt our heads ad infinitum. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response.

 
At 10:12 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

First, you assume that if people are not taxed they are going to have surplus money for aiding others instead of just spending it.

Judging by the overwhelming outpouring of donations coming from people from all walks of life in America, I'd say that people having more money in their pockets as a result of being taxed less would definitely result in more going to Louisiana.

Secondly, all men are not created equal. We may hope for this under the law, but it is still just an ideal that has no foundation in reality.

Lucky for you, the Founding Fathers thought differently. Because of their belief that people's inequality is largely self-imposed, you have the opportunities and freedoms you have here in America.

Thirdly, you assume that people will give to charity when asked. This is debateable.

See my answer to "firstly". Furthermore, if I wouldn't give my money to a particular charitable cause, what right has the government to give my money to a cause I wouldn't support? That is unethical at best.

Fourthly, you make the mistake of believing that rights come from some power outside of ourselves. They don't. They come from men's heads, and the men with the power are the ones who get to decide if their idea of right prevails or not.

Again, you and I are both lucky the Founding Fathers believed differently. The governing philosophy in America is that rights are derived from God, and the Constitution guarantees those rights by putting restrictions on the government. In America, the Federalist system is SUPPOSED to be in place, whereby the people are the most powerful, and each branch of government gets less powerful as you move closer to the feds.

This is what is wrong with America today. People are willing to accept this nonsense as if it were even legal.

RWR

 
At 10:12 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Baron is right, by the way.

RWR

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

First of all, the government gives my money away to causes I do not accept every day. What is the difference? If your complaint is that we should be free from all taxation, then you only support my premise that people with power make the rules. Just as you are made to pay taxes whether you like it or not. Where are your rights, now, RWR? Hell, even Roberts admits that without force to back it up (in the form of laws) your rights mean spit.

And if the laws and powers that supposedly back up your rights don't do their job, then they aren't worth spit either.

If the community raises a stop sign in the middle of a road and everyone ignores it, what good is it? And if the powers that be do not enforce it, what good is it? This stop sign is the Constitution, and you are arguing about this stop sign as if it were holy, when it is clearly not. If it was, it would be enforced and obeyed. But, guess what? It isn't on either score, and is therefore meaningless.

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Wow, Beef.

Seems to me you'd be happier crawling into a hole somewhere and just shriveling up.

And I thought the Sage was a cynic ...

RWR

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

And your rebuttal is... oh that's right, you don't give actual rebuttals. Either you go completely off topic or you give some catch-phrase comment that is supposed to make everyone laugh at me, yet makes me think I won the debate because you can't come up with a real response!!!! Do us all a favor and you go crawl down a hole yourself. The world might not be a better place, but at least the air pollution would drop.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home