Katrina in retrospect

  • 20 Replies
  • 4295 Views
Katrina in retrospect
« on: November 21, 2006, 01:40:29 AM »
Man's status as an unwelcome guest on Planet Earth received further confirmation last year, when hurricane Katrina cut a swathe of death and destruction across the southern United States.

No matter how big the bombs we build and however mighty the missiles we manufacture, when it comes to dealing mega-death Mother Nature - also called God - has us all licked.

Rank amateurs we are, depending on big machines and endless quantities of high explosive to achieve our destructive aim; whereas it takes nature a mere minute's tremble to raze cities to the ground or a thirty foot wave travelling across an ocean to kill hundreds of thousands.

The idea that, in addition to all the built-in violence that Earth can throw at us - earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, tropical storms, disease - we feel impelled to add a bit of our own is amazing. With such an array of possibilities for horrible, premature death readily available, why add more?

Also amazing is that Katrina was allowed to do what she did in the first place. Hurricanes are a regular feature in that part of the world and you'd expect that the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world could have done a bit more than cry "holy shit" and leg it for the hills.

Recovering from the stunning sight of an astronaut repairing a shuttle in space, I'm confronted with the spectacle of obviously substandard housing lying there, ripped to pieces like shoeboxes, old cars floating down the streets, shops being looted and upwards of a thousand people lying dead, creating a serious risk of pestilence.

I'm reminded of an earthquake that hit Japan; a quake that caused minimal damage, in spite of its force. That's because the Japanese have learned to build for earthquakes. What has kept the Americans from constructing, in hurricane-prone areas, buildings that can withstand the likes of Katrina?

The Dutch, after their terrifying experience of the February 1953 storms, made sure that flooding and destruction on that scale would never happen again by creating the greatest storm surge barrier in the world.  They called it the Delta project.

You'd think that it wouldn't be beyond the wit of the US authorities to do something similar, but looking at the aerial photographs of southern Mississippi and Louisiana you'd think you were gazing down on Nicaragua or Honduras. A professor at Delft Polytechnic put it this way, "reducing the threat [of hurricanes] should be quite feasible technically. It's simply a matter of investing money."

Since when, in the world's largest economy, was money a problem?

There must be a reason for all this. The population of the stricken region is largely poor and mainly black. Not the kind of people on whose protection you'd spend a lot of money and effort, especially when that money and effort can be spent more profitably elsewhere, such as Iraq.

New Orleans may be one of the great attractions of the Deep South, especially on calm summer days as the black jazz bands can be heard in every club in Basin Street and the Mardi Gras parades move rhythmically down Bourbon Street, but its denizens are expendable.

As for money, cleaning up the mess, restoring the infrastructure, rebuilding what has been destroyed is going to cost America huge amounts of dollars over a very long time. Adequate protection would have been a lot cheaper.

Then, the great and good were falling over themselves to express their horror at the scope of a disaster they did nothing to prevent. "Possibly the greatest natural disaster in our nation's history," the always impeccably briefed George W. Bush called it.  George W. Bush, you will recall, spent the start of the New Orleans disaster, at a fund raising event for the US Republican Party.

Louisiana State Governor Kathleen Blanco called the situation 'untenable' and 'heartbreaking' and went on advising people to spend last Wednesday in prayer. "That would be the best thing to calm our spirits and thank our Lord that we are survivors," she said with that arcane logic that comes with deep religious faith, "slowly, gradually, we will recover; we will survive; we will rebuild."

No kidding. How loud a chord her words struck with those still trapped in their homes, or huddled together in the Superdome, or raiding the shelves of shops on Canal Street, or wading through the flooded streets looking for loved ones is hard to say.

I know it's probably unfair to criticize people for saying pointless things in times of crisis, but who wants to be fair? However much I sympathize with the dead, wounded, homeless and destitute of the southern US seaboard, worse has happened in the world. Mayor A Holloway of Biloxi, Mississippi, commented, "this is our tsunami."

No it wasn't. It may be bad, certainly by American standards, but a tsunami it wasn't.

But even that ill-considered claim seems innocuous when compared with the words of Mississippi State Governor Haley Barbour, after a quick fly-over of the inundated region, "it's not a case of homes being severely damaged," he said, "they're just not there. I can only imagine that this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago."

Hiroshima, eh? Isn't that the Japanese city that was incinerated by a nuclear bomb in the space of a few seconds, with 120,000 people being charred to a frazzle and many more dying of the effects of radiation in the following years? Strange to think that, from only a few thousand feet up, you can't tell the difference.

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2006, 05:33:42 AM »
I didn't read your post but I suspect it basically said something like this:

"It's all a conspiracy mannnnnnnn... Totally... the government controls the weather mannnnnnn..."

But maybe I'll read it later or something.
ooyakasha!

*

beast

  • 2997
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2006, 05:50:18 AM »
Not quite, but it's still a load of crap.  Does "tsunami" only refer to the boxing day tsunami now?  Was I not around when they decided to change the meaning of that word?  What about the 1999 (or maybe 2000) tsunami that hit Papua New Guinea and had a very similar effect of devastation as Katrina?  Ok, so some people said some silly things.  I don't understand why that's a bad thing or why it needs to be pointed out.  It's really just a meaningless post, almost certainly written by an American and not by Sara H B Ranson, although she makes no attempt to attribute the post to another author.

Actually the very same post was posted in 2005 here:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/63b3acab0a8aa7ba


Who is T Moore?  Actually it turns out that he's a convicted criminal who lives in the same place that Sara H B Ranson lives.  The plot thickens...  I see that Sara links his website in her signature.  Why did she not credit his post?  Are they the same person?  And why is Sara repeating words that were written a year ago?

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2006, 05:55:17 AM »
Survival is good.

I'll think I'll stick with Kant and Aquinas.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*

beast

  • 2997
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2006, 05:58:47 AM »
This was an amazing letter posted on Sara's website:


Quote
Dear Mr Moore

www.tom-moore.com

It has come to my attention that you have set up a website at www.tom-moore.com which contains offensive and defamatory information about myself and Mr Geraint Davies MP. It has also come to my attention that you have purchased the domain name www.sarahbranson.com and this links to the site containing the defamatory information.

I have recently been made aware of the fact that you are assuming my identity in various chat rooms and internet sites using the domain name www.sarahbranson.com to validate your claims to be me. You do not represent my views in these chat rooms and have caused offence to people in my name. You have signed these posts "Sarah Branson, Barrister, Coram Chambers, 4 Brick Court, Temple".

I consider this behaviour to be harassment and must demand that you remove all offensive material you are responsible for from the World Wide Web and desist from pretending to be me in any more chat rooms.

I wait to hear from you by return with your confirmation that the offensive material has been removed from the websites www.tom-moore.com, www.sarahbranson.com and www.geraintdavies.sarahbranson.com and any other domain names you have acquired and control. If I do not see that these websites have been cleared of offensive material by 10am on Friday 11th February I will have no choice but to seek redress in the courts.

Yours sincerely,




Sarah Branson



That's a letter from a lawyer named Sarah Branson writing to Tom Moore accusing him of, amongst other things, pretending to be her on internet chat sites...  Intriguing when you consider the fact that "Sara Branson" just posted on this site, a post that was originally written by T. Moore...  I smell a real conspiracy :D

*

beast

  • 2997
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2006, 06:06:36 AM »
http://www.sarahbranson.com/braninfo/default.htm

Quote
Sarah Branson has promoted domestic violence and false mental health allegations. Sarah Branson is frightening.

Until the electors removed him, Miss Sarah Branson worked for the New Labour Central Croydon MP Geraint Davies, and attended Parliament to help him. Geraint Davies still lost his place in the UK parliament.
     

Branson's Chambers claim they are Human Rights lawyers, but Sarah will not let Tom Moore instruct solicitors. By not allowing Mr Moore the legal help her court documents say he should obtain, and which she could could even give herself by letter or email, Sarah Branson makes clear that she is an anti-Human Rights lawyer.

Human rights of Tom Moore Branson is destroying include European Articles 2 (right to life) & 10 (right to receive and impart information) and United Nations Articles 3 (right to life) & 19 (right to receive and impart information).



 :lol:


So to sum up my theory.


"Sara H B Ranson" is actually meant to be a way of avoiding being charged with harassment by adding those together and getting the name "Sarah Branson".  The person "Sara H B Ranson" posting on this forum is actually Tom Moore.  Tom Moore, unlike the flat Earthers on this site, is actually is crazy.  He is paranoid and thinks the world is out to get him because of some legal problems.  He is posting on this site possibly in an attempt to discredit Sarah Branson, or possibly in a hope that people who believe that the Earth is flat will adopt his cause.  It is hard to tell which.  

Having given this much thought and finally seen the truth, I have one word  to say.  Awesome! :D

Tom Moore, you're hilarious.  Definitely crazy, but also the funniest person on this forum.  Props to you.   :lol:

?

GeoGuy

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2006, 06:13:25 AM »
That's a pretty handy bit of sleuthing work, Beast. I wonder what (s)he'll have to say for him/herself when (s)he logs back on.

*

beast

  • 2997
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2006, 06:16:24 AM »
Yeah it's pretty cool.  I love this bit:

Quote
Sarah Branson has promoted domestic violence and false mental health allegations


I wonder who she promoted "false" mental health allegations towards?  Surely it wasn't the person who when google search her name, you find more than 100 posts on completely different topics attempting to discredit her?  Surely not, because that's a completely sane thing to do...  :lol:

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2006, 07:24:34 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
That's a pretty handy bit of sleuthing work, Beast. I wonder what (s)he'll have to say for him/herself when (s)he logs back on.

There's a lot of assumptions that are just plain wrong.

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2006, 07:32:40 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
That's a pretty handy bit of sleuthing work, Beast.


I agree.  Good work.

Quote from: "Sara H B Ranson"
There's a lot of assumptions that are just plain wrong.


It's a conspiracy mannnnn.....
ooyakasha!

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2006, 07:53:44 AM »
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote from: "Sara H B Ranson"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
"Just derive Newton's laws in a rotating reference frame and a centrifugal force terms pops out as plain as day!"

Erasmus clearly thinks he is Sir Thomas More
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More
Some of us already are Thomas Moore.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6363&highlight=

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2006, 10:18:31 AM »
People act like Hurricane Katrina was the first hurricane to hit the United States.  I say that the whole fucking thing has, and still is being blown completely out of proportion.  I guess it's being called the "deadliest" hurricane to hit in decades, or something like that?  Well, that's all fine and good, but that could have been avoided if everyone evacuated like they should have.  There was a whole bus yard of transportation that wasn't used, to which I blame the Louisiana state government for not helping people get out.

Hurricanes destroy lots of shit every year.  Even if it in particular was a strong one, I'm sure that at the very least that the amount of hurricanes that hit the country year round cause more damage than it alone did.

So I really don't see what the big deal is.

When I lived in Georgia, I remember when Opal hit, whenever the last time they used that name was.  '96 or something.  It was a pretty big hurricane too; big enough that it made it's way all the way up almost to Tennessee before it finally dissipated.  Houses all over the place were trashed from trees falling over in my area, and I'm sure the damage was REALLY bad down in Florida.

But I can't seem to remember any big national crisis.  It was just business as usual...  I don't see what makes New Orleans so special that it still deserves this big media campaign.  A bunch of bullshit if you ask me.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2006, 10:26:29 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
That's a pretty handy bit of sleuthing work, Beast.

QFT
-David
E pur si muove!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2006, 10:51:01 AM »
Finally, the rantings can stop!  Good work, beast!


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2006, 04:56:34 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
I didn't read your post but I suspect it basically said something like this:

"It's all a conspiracy mannnnnnnn... Totally... the government controls the weather mannnnnnn..."

But maybe I'll read it later or something.

i read the first line, then i read this post, then i pressed the quote button.
quote="DiegoDraw"]"And Moses said unto his brethren: 'The Earth is flat!...biznatches,'" [/quote]
DOT INFO

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2006, 08:20:02 PM »
1. Beast, well done. Super-sleuthing on your behalf.

2. that was the most severe case for saying "PWNT LOLOL" i've ever seen.

3. PWNT LOLOL

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2006, 08:17:44 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
So I really don't see what the big deal is.

Hurricane defence is possible, but the people of NO were expendible, judging by the behaviour of government in the US.

Pretty much as you say.

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2006, 04:25:03 AM »
There's also simple impersonation. SHBR could have already been doing this so called "sleuthing" work.

by following the same line of "logic":

if I were to sign up as some sort of wanted criminal's name, but change around the name slightly, this would make me the criminal.



I'm not following.
RE*
Try not to be -too- much of an idiot. Or I'll rape you verbally.

1 out of 9 members on this forum that can spell properly.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2006, 04:27:29 AM »
Quote from: "mattz1010"
There's also simple impersonation. SHBR could have already been doing this so called "sleuthing" work.

by following the same line of "logic":

if I were to sign up as some sort of wanted criminal's name, but change around the name slightly, this would make me the criminal.

No. But if you were to do this, and then start acting very much like the criminal in question, we'd strongly suspect you were.
-David
E pur si muove!

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2006, 04:36:17 AM »
It just shows a better understanding of the criminal's thought processes.

Could I not "impersonate" a member of your parliament? (Assuming that I am related to him/her, in order to impersonate to the fullest efficiency)

You should all know by now, a name on the internet means absolutely nothing.
RE*
Try not to be -too- much of an idiot. Or I'll rape you verbally.

1 out of 9 members on this forum that can spell properly.

Katrina in retrospect
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2006, 04:47:52 AM »
Quote from: "mattz1010"
It just shows a better understanding of the criminal's thought processes.

As far as I know, not one convicted criminal has been mentioned in this thread.

Quote from: "mattz1010"
Could I not "impersonate" a member of your parliament?

Probably not.  The UK parliament has taken a lot of privileges to itself, but you can certainly use the same name as a Member of the UK Parliament.

Quote from: "mattz1010"
You should all know by now, a name on the internet means absolutely nothing.

You over value Internet names.