Read the rest of this entry »

or, what not to do after massive natural disasters.

By Martin C. Boire

www.TruthForUs.com

November 18, 2007 

I tell my children that I have been most fortunate to live my first 50  years in one of the most blessed periods of world history.  Born an American in 1955 I have enjoyed food aplenty, great medicine, freedom from catastrophic war, absence of plague, nice vacations, and fairly easy money and survival.

I tell my children their lives and the second half of my life will be more tumultuous and adventurous.

The climate is changing.  Economics are changing.  Everything is changing.

In such a situation it makes no sense to defiantly and proudly announce that when areas of land are destroyed by the changing climate, we will rebuild.  Irrational machoism will lead us into national bankruptcy.  Our forefathers were smart.  When they found the town flooded because they built in the valley, they moved it up the hill.

Of course, that was before electoral lines, racial gamesmanship, and political manipulation replaced common sense.

The sea shell may rail against the surf, but will not prevail.  It will be destroyed trying.  But if it were to pull back, it would survive.   This great nation is some 3,000 miles wide by and 1,800 miles tall.  We have over 12,000 miles of coastline.  And we are going to insist on repeatedly rebuilding in lower-than-sea-level areas which are only a few miles wide?   Any 5^th middle schooler knows better.   And beyond the nonsensical reasons aforesaid, so would any functioning adult.

We must live in flex with nature.  This theory in not new.  The Incas built their temples to move with earthquakes.  After much struggle with their insistence on hard engineering, modern engineers finally came to learn that making buildings flexible made them survivable.

So why would anyone insist on bankrupting America in vain attempt to armor the coast on barrier islands and sub-sea level areas where we  built before we knew better and we thought nature was static?

If we are to make as much of our future as our forebears made for us in our past, we must be come  to led by men not morons.  Leaders who can tell us the truth in straight talk, not hide behind a hundred words in response to a simple questions or a simple situation.

All along the East coast of my home state Florida, people and developers built out on the ocean’s edge of barrier islands.   Hmm,  I wonder why they’re called barrier islands.   A barrier against what?    And barriers like bumpers are meant take the hits.   They move in, they move out.  Back and forth with the flow of nature.  

Yet idiotic politicians take our money and spend billions re-piling up sand on the minuscule 50 foot wide edge between their buildings and the many thousand-mile-wide ocean?   Stupid. Nuts.  Myopic.   Please don’t help yourselves to our wallets so easily.  After all, you didn’t let us stay there for free when things were good, did you.

There is not enough money on earth to repeatedly rebuild shifting coastlines in  America.  There is not enough money in America re repeatedly rebuilt sections of the coastline damaged in floods or eroded in hurricanes.   Those who built there assumed the risk, and enjoyed the beautiful view and the immense profit.   They never let you or I stay there for free at their expense.   It was for their enjoyment not ours.   Many even claimed the beach in front of their house was theirs and you and I  could not enjoy it until we went to court and proved them wrong.   Having absorbed the fantastic benefits, it is now their turn and economic duty to absorb their own loss from the risk they exchanged for their personal benefit.

Those who want America to adapt and thrive must cut out the idiotic politicians who spout stupid slogans and take from all our small pockets to cater to the minute few.  They do this to promote their careers and protect their turf.  It’s like listening to the fool who holds a badge who says “be calm, everything is fine,” while the ship sinks, instead of telling you what the situation is and allowing everyone to adapt their plans to survive and succeed.

It’s time for people to get a grip and not be let around in circles to their collective destruction by fools who know not the way.  Be adaptable.  Be flexible,  Be movable.

Hold fast to America’s core values.  Adapt to the changing terrain to make America thrive.   Assure Americas “surthrival.”

mail@TruthForUs.Com
© www.TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved.
Excerpts of this material may circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or full posting on other sites.

By Martin C Boire
www.TruthForUs.Com

February, 2007
The Early Presidential Start

Perhaps the reason the presidential election has to start so early is that most of the runners are people that have not done much, and need a lot of time to try and tell us who they think they are and what they think they can be.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved.
Excerpts of this material may circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

Or, A checklist for manipulating your readers.By Martin C Boire
www.TruthForUs.Com
Winter, 2005If you write news, or broadcast radio or TV news, here is a short guide book to manipulating your audience.

If you read news articles, or listen to radio or TV news, here is a list of things you might watch and listen for to avoid being manipulated.

First, the general rules:

• Portray yourself as an innocent middleman, carrying messages selected, written, and sent by outsiders. You are not a player. You are neutral. Conceal you personal views. Don’t brand yourself. Portray yourself as the neutral guy it the middle, the helper, just funneling news through the system, You are objective.
• In truth you are the gatekeeper. You are the filter. You decide what gets through and what does not. You are subject to no law or binding code that determines how you must select the news (like “all must get through” or “both sides must be equally reported” or “none gets through”). You are part of the entrenched apparatus that owns and controls the means by which news and events are communicated to everyone.
• AND — If someone challenges your neutrality or suggests that you are manipulating the news, cry foul and counter-attack that they are killing the messenger just because they don’t like the message. Attack them; do not examine their message. Reassert that you are objective, that you are a neutral transport company, that you do not edit, or selectively report.

Example: Michael Moran, Columnist, MSNBC “Media takes heat from administration over Iraq ; When the going gets tough, the messenger gets shot.”

Second, your tactics:

Appear the Hero. Report that you “obtained” or that you “discovered” a secret military report. Don’t say that it was given to you by someone, or that the government gave it to you. This creates the impression that you dug in or snuck in and got something that was being concealed from the public. It makes you sound like the savior, and the government the opponent at whom we all need to be digging to get at the truth it would otherwise conceal from you.

Example: 5-4-03 CNN radio news: “A secret military report “OBTAINED” by CNN reveals Iraqi prisoner abuse.

Paraphrase the Opposition. Paraphrase what the guy you don’t like says. Then play an actual sound clip of someone advocating the position you do like. That is, if you like one political candidate and not the other, show your guy, and simply quote or paraphrase the guy you don’t.

Cast Doubt. If you don’t generally support the US government or military and they say something, refer to it as a “claim”, or something that their spokesman “says”, and use the intonation of your voice to cast it as something that is questionable, not credible, or requires proof. If the enemy or other side says it, then simply state it matter of factly, with the tone of your voice giving the impression it is probably true and something that our US government or military needs to disprove.

Mince Your Words. If you support social programs use the following tactics when discussing them:

• Do not report that the programs can take forever to show they will not work.
• Allow the programs to have second and third funding without showing objective results.
• Report them as successful all the way along, and if statistics show they are not, attack the methodology of the statistics, or say that it is too early to tell.
• To resist a program designed to eliminate a social program, brand it a failure and ineffectual if it doesn’t succeed on the very first try, and report each little set back along the way. Report that some say it will be too costly. Report after the first year that program has brought no change. Do not report that the problems caused by the social program had been built up over years and make time to cure.
• Appeal to pity by finding a single advocate or welfare recipient face to put on the screen crying that they don’t know what they’ll do, etcetera.

Word Games. When a political figure you don’t like sticks to his principals don’t refer to him in positive terms like “principled” or “sticking to his principals” or “steadfast”, “iron willed” or “determined”. Rather, use pejoratives such as “stubborn” or “inflexible,” “narrow-mined”, or “closed-minded.” Pick words that convey negative or doubtful meanings when describing an activity you don’t like.

• Example: NPR 5-3-04, re the Iraqi Defense of Falluja “now being ‘cobbled together’ “(not assembled or built).
• Example: Hillary Clinton in 2004 blamed Bush for being stubborn on Iraq and not changing his mind. Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were stubborn and unyielding too.

Steal The Bright Spots.If you don’t support the larger picture, then discredit any good moral boosting story which would help it by reporting as a equal counter-truth unsupported rumors that discredit it.

• Example: The Jessica Lynch rescue was great. So report an Iraqi who says it was not really necessary. Don’t report the Iraqi lawyer who said he saw what was happening to her and risked his life to report it to us and lead us to her.
• Example: Local Florida newspaper front page one week: “Operation Matador completed. Marines admit many got away”. May 2005.
• Example: Local Florida newspaper front page another week: “Large airstrike kills 40 rebels. Militants, though, hit Baghdad hard.” May 2005.

Quagmire Storyline. When you don’t support a military action, undermine moral by reporting how bad the whole thing will be for America , and reporting all of the bad news and little of the good news. This will gradually cause the public to tire of being members of the losing team. When it undermines military action or foreign policy you don’t like, report the situation as a huge threatening intractable problem and a sure indicator of things certain to come. Cover it extensively. When the military solves the problem completely and successfully, report it as a footnote. Do not headline it as a huge success for the US in its efforts, as was done in WW2.

It Never Happened. When you don’t support a military action, and the commander in chief wants to address the nation about it, do not broadcast the speech. This will assure that he cannot use the bully pulpit to talk directly to the people who elected him, and that you control the message.

Example: 5-24-04 President Bush Iraq Speech at 8:00pm est. Then, so that it doesn’t look like you are doing what you are really doing use one of the following methods:

Method 1. Recap the President’s speech on your morning news with a very brief clip from it. Surround it with your own data so as to caste doubt in it. Use phrases like “the president tried to lay out an exit strategy. But….” See NBC morning news 5-25-04. Do not mention that as the official voice of America , with the constitutional power to actually DO something other than talk (he can kill people), his strategy IS in fact the exit strategy.

Method 2. Do not run clips from speech. Instead, restate it in your own words. Run clips from an interview with Secretary of State talking about the speech instead. Then run pre-speech poll numbers about war. See Good Morning America . 5-25-04 at 8:00 a.m.

Method 3. Do not air the speech. Do not run clips of speech. Do not run interviews or officials. Just air your own brief mention of it without any substantive details other than a speech occurred. Run bad more mews on bad stuff happening in Iraq .

Method 4. Do air the speech. The next night, run extensive 10 minute coverage of how President has “failed to stop the slide of public opinion.” Run fresh footage of an opposing Senator (Joseph Biden) railing about meeting with NATO allies in Europe (as though that would involve them more, when they had made their position perfectly clear). Run interviews talking about turning it over to the UN (as through they would want it or could even do it, and if so would still use our troops like they do everywhere (but don’t mention this fact)). Run interviews about how the President is talking about the future yet the present is on fire and failing. In short, do not run a speech where he explains his plan, and instead have your people tear his plan apart in case anyone managed to learn what his plan was through the grapevine. That will turn the speech into a non-event. See CBS and NBC evening News, 5-25-04 6:30 pm

Doubtful Dispersions. If you don’t support a government public safety announcement, or want to cause people to doubt the government’s ability in an area, place a unjustified counter-weight against the main point. When the CIA and FBI make a public warning about possible terrorist attacks based on their best available knowledge, you find anyone with a uniform such as a local police chief who quickly and without investigating or analyzing any of what led to the warning (or even being privy to the information) says that without any specifics that the announcement it is not helpful. Then place that as an equally weighted counter-point against the main announcement to cast it into conflict. The point is, whatever comes from the administration, cast doubt on it. Next, bring in political commentators to say that it is only announced for politics, not because these agencies want to protect us. Do not mention that your network earlier criticized the CIA and FBI for failing to connect up and share information that people might have been prevented the kind of attacks they are now warning us about.

Ex: CNN 5:00 pm 5-26-04 regarding the CIA and FBI making a public warning of possible attacks and the need to locate certain possible infiltrators in a time of war.

Loaded Lingo. Use loaded words or leading questions to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the efforts an administration you don’t like. In May 2002, the Homeland Security Department announced a possible security that threat and they were looking for seven individuals.

Example: ABC Evening News, 6:30pm 5-26-04: “despite all that has supposedly been done to tighten our borders….”

Freebie Counterbalance. When the candidate, camp, or cause you don’t favor organizes a large successful event which doesn’t even mention the opponent, contact the opponent, or opposing camp or cause for a statement. If you can’t reach them, report what their position is.

Example: On June 23, 2007 a large rally was held at the Veteran’s Memorial Park in Ocala for Rep. Charlie Dean who was running for the Florida Senate. Several hundred civilians and veterans attended, as Governor Charlie Crist. Central Florida 13, a CNN affiliate, covered the event. In their evening broadcast, they carefully labeled each civilians and as Republican activities, and concluded the news clip stating generally as follows: “Rep. Dean’s opponent is Ms. _____; we tried to reach her for comment [on what?] and could not; her position on the issues talked about at the rally are…” at which point they made a detailed statement of the opponents positions. A free, unearned, ride.

Assumptions and Evidence. Always question the facts and evidence of the camp or viewpoint you don’t like Do not question your assumptions or your camp. Proceed on assumptions when using information which denigrates the other camp or the viewpoint you don’t like. Require strict proof before proceeding with anything that could hurt your side or the viewpoint you like.

Example: Remember the debut of touch-screen voting machines in South Florida in 2004? Reporters obligatorily scrambled about to find one or two idiots in the crowd to whine about how they could not touch the screen correctly. They did not question their competency, and did not point out that most of the rest of the reasonable people could, and did not point out that under the law the test is whether a reasonable person could do so.

When it is something that will hurt your candidate or cause, you must to assure proper high quality journalism investigate it carefully, taking your time to have corroborating witnesses and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Such as relying on one witness to reject the whole story.

Example: the total lack of interest by any of the major media in investigating what virtually all of John Kerry’s fellow soldiers and the Swift Boat Vets were saying about his true record.

When it is something that will help your candidate or cause, rush it to air without investigations or supporting facts. Simply report that a newspaper has reported it (as if reporting what a report has reported is news or first source), or rely on one witness to support the entire story.

Example: CBS reported as real a fake letter about President Bush and the Guard during the final days before the 2004 election.

Slanted Investigation. To trash a something you don’t like (such as a proposed tax change, or a proposed military activity):

• Say you are going to conduct an investigate report on it.
• Interview people or use guests who reflect your views
• Use brief shots of suffering people, tied in some manner to the proposal.
• Have the guests, or quote your guest, as using words like “wacky” or “scheme” or “doubtful.”
• Avoid calling it a plan.
• Avoid mentioning that it offers a study period, or a possibility of working.

Branding. Use branding to skew perceptions in the direction you would like. Label people with the brand you want associated with them. Do not label those you want to appear neutral or who you want to appear more normal, disinterested, objective, and more wisely listened to. Make the guy you are rooting for seem intelligent, and give the impression the other guy is dumb.

Example: covering a political event as people walk into a room. Certain news commentators will introduce certain among those entering as “conservative” or controversial. They do not introduce certain others as liberals, instead referring to them as “the distinguished Senator from…” or simply “the Senator from.”

Example: President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 race. In truth, both had same grades. Biased press gave the impression that Kerry was the intellectual and Bush the coat-tailing dullard.

Kid Gloves and Boxing Gloves. When you interviewing a guest whose views you like, just ask polite broad questions and let them carry on. When you are interviewing a guest whose views you don’t like, politely make them constantly prove their views, explain what they have done, and justify themselves.

Example: Larry King with Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2004 just nodding and letting him carry on.

Example: Larry King with Pres. and Laura Bush during 2004 election repeatedly interrupting, remonstrating, and stating “Wasn’t it as mistake …?” , “yes but wouldn’t you agree it was a mistake?”

Shuffle Fact Deck. In an article put the facts that are against your view at the very end. An honorable mention. You can also let start by stating your side, then the side you don’t like, and then let some from your side rebut and then stop. This technique makes it look balanced, when it really isn’t.

Misdirection. To rally people behind what you want them to rally behind, put a face on the news article with which they can identity:

Example: SARS: 99% of affected person were in Asia ; but to get us to care about it Time or Newsweek magazine put a young white women on their cover.

Example: AIDS: Chiefly affects minorities and homosexuals. But it is reported as affecting whites and heterosexuals so that we feel threatened and willing to spend disproportionate amounts of money on it in comparison the others diseases that kill many times more people each year.

Example: Homeless people: use pictures that look like our neighbors, not truly unkempt homeless people

Statistical Smorgasbord. If a study comes out that shows statistics contrary to what you want advocated, label it “controversial” or find someone (you can always find “someone”) to claim it is “flawed”. Or interview another reporter. Like their an expert just because they’ve been regurgitating information from experts? Find a study that opposes it.

Juggle the Numbers. Increase the numbers to support the position you prefer. If the estimated size of a problem you care about ranges, take the highest figure. Suggest that it is increasing. Do the opposite to numbers the position you do not like.

Selective Targeting. Don’t focus on news stories about topics that can hurt your guy when he’s in office. Cover those stories when the other guy is in.

Example: Homelessness was supposedly rampant while Reagan was president, and everyone reported on it.

Example: Supposedly homelessness disappeared immediately while Clinton was President, at least no one reported on it.

The Burning Caboose. If you don’t like the President and his foreign trip is going well and there is little criticism to report, state that fact in your opening sentence and then insert a comma or pause, and follow up with speculative worries about what could happen down the road. After stating the issue of possible worries, interview someone about those worries. Do not interview someone regarding the good half of your opening sentence. That way the first half gets lost and the audience either forgets it or gets the impression that the second half is a careful analysis which outweigh the first half.

Example: CNN on or about 2-23-05: the president’s trip is going well; but could concerns about difference cause worries down the road?

Tilt the Scales. Find a quote from the other side to make it appear that the other side is of equal weight. Don’t let on that the other side’s view is 1%. By placing it against the 99% view, and not mentioning the qualifier, it makes it look co-equal. This increases the validity other view. Keep repeating it. It becomes accepted as a counter-view.

Trick Photography. When it suits your needs use a tight shot or select a close-up still photo that makes it look like a really big crowd was there, when actually it wasn’t. Don’t report the actual numbers for each side. Use the same number of quotations from each side, even if one side was outnumbered 100 to 1. This will make the side you don’t support look no more successful, middle of the road, normal, or normal, than the other side. It will appear as though they are equally normal and accepted.

Bury the Bone. If a news event happens that does not look good for your views, don’t report it, or bury in the back of the paper or newscast if you have to cover it at all.
Reverse Cost-Benefit. When you report on something you support, report about what will be gained through it, and do not report about the cost or the risks. When you report on something you oppose, do the opposite.

Example: John Kerry: “Oh my God 1,000 lives lost in Iraq”

Example: Pres. Roosevelt: “the great society, what a great idea!”

Repetition. The key to selling is repetition in advertising. So pick out a theme and pattern and repeat it.

Steal their Wind. When you have to report good news about the camp or the position you do not like, take the wind away by adding a bad news tagline.

Example: A local Florida newspaper front page one week: “Operation Matador completed. Marines admit many got away”. May 2005.

Example: A local Florida newspaper front page another week: “Large airstrike kills 40 rebels. Militants, though, hit Baghdad hard.” May 2005.

Example: A single local Florida newspaper on a single day contained all of the following articles and taglines two weeks after John Robert’s was nominated to the US Supreme Court:

• “Disquieting view on environment.”
• “If the court returns the regulatory state to the primitive place it was in [sic] during the earlier era, then everyday lives will be impacted. Deeply.”
• A cartoon showing Roberts as a stealth bomber approaching the Supreme Court building.
• “If Roe v. Wade reversed, what next?”
• “What Others Say”, a column in which they reprint others saying “process leading to Bush’s selection disappointing” and “the nomination is potentially troubling on a number of legal fronts.”

The Silent Treatment. If it’s a story or event that undermines your philosophy, attacks your news organization or its structure, just do not report it. Ignore it. Act as though it is not even news. Wait for it to blow over. Not reporting it will help make it a flash in the pan rather than a spreading fire.

Example: During the early stages of the Iraq war, all of the newspapers in France, (subsidized by the French government to the tune of 400 million in 2004 alone) daily reported that American and British forces were suffering tremendous defeats and losses and many other such things. After Baghdad quickly fell, veteran reporter Alain Hetoghe wrote a book about how the French press had lied to the French people about the war. After the book appeared, he experienced as he put it “collective and spontaneous silence.” He was fired by his paper La Croix just before Christmas for “an act of treason.” The French press never reported the revelations of the book about the press, or the false reporting of the war, or his firing. La Croix means The Cross, in case you appreciate the irony.

Example: Refuse to air paid commercials supportive of things you are against. In early December 2007 NBC refused to run a paid “thank you troops” feel-good television commercial. NBC reportedly also attempted to force the group sponsoring the commercial rewrite content on its website in exchange for NBC airing the ad.

Fund Your Friends, covertly. Charge full advertising rates to those you don’t support. Charge your allies only 1/3 the normal rate for huge display ads and other advertising spots advancing the cause you believe in. This allows you to control how often the people particular messages.

Example: In mid-September 2007 the New York Times supported its like-minded friend “moveon” by discounting its normal $182,000 ad rate by $117,000 down to only $65,000 to enable it to run a huge display ad personally attacking a U.S. General Petraeus, and calling him “betray us.”

Develop Filter Policies. These can provide you with cover for filtering and selecting whose messages you let out through your neutral newspaper or television. There are something you can point to and say “no, because” when you want to stop someone. Or not refer to at all when it does not suit your objective. This will help you appear objective and neutral while selectively filtering content. You can say “we have a policy which prohibits that” or “we have a policy against that.” And of course you don’t know who wrote the policy, or who to talk to about it.

Example: In September 2007 editor Clark Hoyt of the NYT stated the NYT has an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” But in mid-September 2007 the New York Times supported its like-minded friend “moveon” by discounting the NYT’s normal $182,000 ad rate by $117,000 down to only $65,000 to enable that ally to run a huge display ad personally attacking General Petraeus, calling him “betray us”. So the policy was ignored to run the ad.

Example: In December Alan Wurtzel, NBC’s head of standards and practices, stated that NBC has the following policy: “The NBC network does not accept controversial issue advertising. Viewers are better served by the treatment of such issues in news programs produced by NBC’s broadcast and cable networks.” NBC pointed to this policy as justification for refusing to air a paid “thank you troops” feel-good television commercial. So the policy was used to refuse the ad.

Appeal to Authority. While covertly engaging in all of the above, explain to the public that they should look only to properly educated journalists such as you for accurate information. Caution them about the accuracy of information from suspect sources such as bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and indicate that these sources are not trustworthy because they do not cross-check their facts and sources like you do. Instruct the public that only people educated with a degree in journalism, like you, should be trusted for accurate information. Mockingly portray non-journalists as hucksters, amateurs, and not privy to all the information which you are.

mail@TruthForUs.Com
© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved.
Excerpts of this material may circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required and most often granted for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

By Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com
September 11, 2005

Katrina Takeover

There is a cacophony of voices parroting, without deep thought as usual, that hurricane Katrina is a “national” disaster which reveals coordination and capability failures which demonstrate that the federal government must be given superior authority.

Yet in the first days the federal government’s leaders and agencies were as uncoordinated and inept as were the local and state leaders and agencies.

Expecting the national government to act like this would be one more step to creating top-down national control over cities and states, one more step toward a centralized command.

Objectively, Katrina this is a natural disaster. Subjectively there are advantages to billing it as a “national” disaster.

The federal government may be able to put more men and material on a scene than can a local or state government because it administers resources it has pooled from all 50 states, but is no better:

(a) At seeing the future
(b) Employing the right people for the necessary emergency jobs
(c) Moving men and material across the country any faster than the private sector
(d) Causing people to understand what they must do for their own safety when a possible danger is approaching
(e) Convincing people to behave in a safe manner or otherwise take care of themselves.

If it were a sunny day up and down the east coast and I picked up the phone in Florida and told the Adjutant General in New York that I needed his Guard mobilized and sent here for an emergency, it would take the rest of the day for him to contact them at work and home, get them down to their meeting point, meet and load the trucks, and a day or two to drive those big trucks and troops to Florida.

In this cacophony for federal control we will likely find those who typically ask to do away with the electoral college so that four states can rule the nation, and they figure they can control those four states, and thus control the nation by setting its policies and laws all from one central command location. Which in a land of laws and police and jails is how you dictate without needing guns.

It is smart word play to call it a “national disaster” because surely a disaster which happens at the national level must be handled by the national government, not the state or local. But factually, this is a local natural disaster. The whole nation may want to send help to these locals, and Congress’ scramble to appropriate billions may affect the national budget, but the storm itself did not take out half of the nation.

In point of fact, the FedCommand was inept as preventing or responding to it.

So why would anyone put them in command of such things instead of simply structuring better coordination and response and command chains between the various levels of governments?

Let’s pretend that the laws had already been changed and the distant FedCommand had already been put in top-down charge of all such things when a hurricane came into the Gulf and headed for the Coast. As warnings from meteorologists and planners mounted, FedCommand would have pushed into the area en masse and taken over command and control. A mandatory evacuation would have been ordered. FedCommand would have patrolled the streets enforcing the mandatory evacuation. FedCommand would have forcibly replaced people’s self-judgment and self-determination with FedCommand’s and forced people from their homes. FedCommand would have patrolled the streets for the criminals that always hide until the businesses close – their chance to cash in.

And now let’s pretend the storm did not come.

Everyone would bewail the inconvenience. Local leaders, servicing their re-election, would decry the ursurpment of their power, their influence, their authority. For weeks the media would be filled with stories of local business income losses mounting into the billions because of the forced shutdown. Critics of whoever was in federal power at the time FedCommand took over would bewail the misjudgment of wasting billions in moving men and material for nothing. Of disrupting entire cities and regions. The media would predictably interview any emotional citizen they could find to complain about business interruption, an injury in the chaos, damages to business or home, vandalism or theft because FedCommand did not patrol adequately, the lost wedding, or missing pets.

To service this outcry politically, meetings would be held, plans changed, new promises made of things being done better next time.

Then another storm would approach. And FedCommand would take over. And then the storm would not come, or would be only a Cat-1 when it hit.

And people would complain.

And so the rules will change, and delays be built in, less people evacuated, evacuations made voluntary, less FedCommand men and material moved in and out, more people not perceiving the threat simply staying home.

And people would not want to keep getting out of the way for the prognosticated natural earthquake or volcano or hurricane that did not come. People just don’t work that way.

And then finally one day Katrina would come around the tip of Florida as a Cat-1, and people would make their assumptions, and not react, it would land as a Cat-3, and the dike holding the lake would break.

And we would find that the people who are stranded are the same ones who were actually stranded in the real Katrina. Except that with FedCommand nearer by, but without a lot of boats and helicopters because they did not expect it to be a Cat-3 or the dikes to fail, it still takes says two days to take care of the people that don’t take care of themselves and get them off of their roofs.

And the complaints and blame game starts over again.

The states are sovereign. We do not all march to the cadence called for by far-off inept FedCommand bureaucrats. Particularly since this natural disaster shows us there can never be any guarantee that they are any better at (a) building dikes, and (b) cleaning up the mess when the dikes break, and (c) keeping qualified emergency commanders on staff for the rare events when a major local natural emergency happens.

It is useful word play to call it a “national disaster” because surely a disaster which happens at the national level must be handled by the national government, not the state or local. But factually, this is a local natural disaster. And factually, the existing federal government agencies were inept at preventing, accurately predicting, or responding to it. So why would anyone put them in command of such things instead of simply structuring better coordination and response and command chains between the various levels of governments?

We are in the end reliant upon the competency of the local and state officials we elect, and the bureaucrats they appoint to operate the agencies through which they take care of us. We can best police that competency at the local levels, and it is our civic responsibility to do so. If we elect people for fluff instead of pubic safety competence, we are the recipients of our own stupidity. Tossing the responsibly off to the federal government is to lessen our personal vigilance and self-dependence, make us sloppily trusting on someone else to watch out for us and take care of us. The word “docile” comes to mind. As it does with cows. And each time we toss away our duty of self-reliance we become less American, more dependent, and more socialistic.

© www.TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved.
Excerpts of this material may circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or full posting on other sites.