?

Log in

Big stupid thing of stuff [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
spoonpulp

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Check it homies! [Mar. 10th, 2006|09:24 am]
spoonpulp
Go here and do this for me or I will eat your soul.

http://kevan.org/johari?name=Spoonpulp
linkpost comment

Check out this article from a German newspaper about me:(note:this is not a joke) [Sep. 26th, 2005|02:56 pm]
spoonpulp
Erleichterung über gnädige "Rita"
Der zweite Hurrikan binnen drei Wochen geht für den Süden der USA verhältnismäßig glimpflich aus
von Uwe Schmitt


Nach Rita: Die Gegend um Lake Charles erwischte es am schlimmsten
Foto: dpa
Houston - Als Jonathan Watson die Fenster seines Elternhauses im Norden von Houston mit Kreuzen aus weißem Klebeband sicherte, lag die Stadt im Pfad eines der mächtigsten je gemessenen Hurrikane, und drei Millionen Menschen waren auf der Flucht. "Rita" würde Galveston versenken, hieß es, und Houston mit Wind und Wasser verheeren. Gott helfe denen, die zurückbleiben. Gebete oder Galgenhumor.


Watson (22), Student der Politik- und Medienwissenschaften an der University of Houston, hatte die Vision, auf Planken des zerstörten Hauses in der Sintflut zu treiben. Und weil er über einen ausgeprägt skurrilen Humor und filmische Phantasie verfügt, malte er zwei Pappschilder mit Endzeitparolen, die mit als letzte versinken sollten: "Hurrikan? Welcher Hurrikan? Sollen wir uns etwa fürchten?" ist an der roten Haustür befestigt. "Weiß Gott nicht, daß Texaner unbesiegbar sind? Schließlich war er es doch, der uns so gemacht hat ..." ziert das Fenster nebenan. Keine zwölf Stunden nach dem Aufprall der windigen "Rita", die Houston soweit links liegen ließ, daß es nicht einmal genug regnete, hängen Jonathan Watsons widerständige Poster in der heißen Nachmittagssonne. Wie alte Witze.


"Rita", die Betrügerin, "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid", die frivol mit Houston spielte, ist längst weg.


Eigentlich war sie nie da. Fast schämen sich die Leute für ausgestandene Angst und ihre verbarrikadierten Häuser. In den letzten Stunden vor dem Aufprall des Sturms bei Sabine Pass um 2.30 Uhr in der Früh stiegen in Houston auf Terrassen und in Vorgärten die ersten feuchtfröhlichen Grillpartys. Es war wie am 4. Juli, dem Unabhängigkeitstag, und "Rita" sollte nur noch etwas Feuerwerk liefern. Die Feiernden winkten Autofahrern zu, es gab großes Hallo und Gelächter, während im Fernsehen von Sturmböen zerzauste Reporter den Weltuntergang zu beschwören versuchten, statt ihn abzusagen. Jonathan Watson, der mit fünf Freunden, einer Flasche Scotch und einem Vorrat an Kartoffelchips in den fensterlosen, sicheren Hinterzimmern einer Borders-Buchhandlung den Sturm aussitzen wollte, vergnügte sich ein paar Stunden, das groteske Schauspiel der lokalen Fernsehsender auf der Suche nach ihrem verlorenem Hurrikan zu bezeugen. Dann gingen alle nach Hause.


Die Medienhysterie wird, neben der Massenevakuierung mit all den Schreckensgeschichten der Gestrandeten, zu den vornehmsten Erinnerungen an einen Sturm zählen, den man vergessen kann. Als längst klar war, daß Houston und Galveston verschont würden und selbst Beaumont und Port Arthur, fast 150 Kilometer östlich, glimpflich davonkommen würden, schrieen die Kabelsender noch immer um die Wette Mord und Flut. Einfach weil sie da (meist an den falschen Orten) waren und Adrenalin und Spesen verbrauchten. Es gab kein Maß mehr im Hype. Sie hatten keine Toten, keine Verzweifelten auf Dächern, keine Plünderungen. Ein zersplittertes Fenster in Galveston, eine brennende Lagerhalle, Dachschäden an einem Hotel, in dem CNN-Crews hausten, davongewehte Baseballkappen von Reportern waren die Sensationen. Nie waren Amerikas Medien so unverschämt, hilflos, lächerlich wie in der Sturmnacht an der Westseite von "Rita".


Nicht daß es kein Leid gab, keine vernichteten Existenzen, keine Evakuierungen von aufgeschreckten alten Menschen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern der Küstenregion. Der Flammentod von 24 evakuierten alten Menschen in einem Bus wird "Rita" zugeschrieben werden. Und der Ninth Ward in New Orleans wurde nach "Katrina" zum zweiten Mal versenkt. Nach dem tödlichen Zaudern in der ersten Katastrophe mußte wohl die Überreaktion bei der ausgefallenen Katastrophe folgen. Es gab in den bangen Stunden vor dem Aufprall einige Kommentare der Politiker, die ohne ihr Verschulden, einfach weil der Sturm sich als heiße Luft erwies, zu Krisenkitsch wurden: "Seid ruhig, seid stark und betet für Texas" (Gouverneur Rick Perry) gehört dazu wie der ernstgemeinte Rat seiner Amtskollegin in Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, sich mit wasserfester Tinte die Sozialversicherungsnummer auf die Arme zu schreiben, um wenigstens bei der Identifizierung ihrer Leiche zu helfen.

Houstons Bürgermeister Bill White trug seinen Teil bei, als er am Samstag morgen berichtete, es habe in der fast menschenleeren Stadt nicht einmal 30 Fälle von versuchten Einbrüchen und Plünderungen gegeben und 16 Festnahmen. So ruhige Nächte schätzt die Polizei, und die Chancen, geschnappt zu werden, sagte White zufrieden, seien so groß wie nie. White ist ein anämischer, seltsam lahm sprechender Mann mit Halbglatze, der anderes zu bieten haben muß als Charisma. Es gehört zu den müden Scherzen seiner Bürger, den weißen White als kuriose Steigerung seines Amtsvorgängers zu sehen, eines Schwarzen namens Brown. White war der erste Politiker, der die offenbar in den Krisenplänen nicht vorausgesehene Benzinknappheit bei der Evakuierung von fast drei Millionen "unannehmbar" nannte. Was immer das für jene bedeutete, die sein "inacceptable" irgendwo im 180-Kilometer-Stau hörten.


Man hat keine Keller in Houston, um sich vor den Luftangriffen aus dem Golf von Mexiko zu schützen. Zu tief, zu feucht, zu viele Kanäle und Bayous, die es bei Sturmfluten zum Venedig machen können. Einige Stadtteile sind als flutsicher ausgewiesen, andere, in Jahren und Prozenten der Wahrscheinlichkeit von Überschwemmungen, als Teil der "100-Year-Flood-Plain" oder "500-Year-Flood-Plain". Die viertgrößte Stadt der Vereinigten Staaten (sicher keine Mitbewerberin um den Titel der schönsten) verdankt ihre Bedeutung dem Öl und dem Hurrikan, der im Jahre 1900 die bedeutendere Inselstadt Galveston verwüstete und 12 000 Menschen das Leben kostete.


Houston lebt mit den Stürmen schlecht und recht. Jonathan Watson wird sich "Ritas" als Schimäre erinnern. Der junge Mann mit dem rötlichen Kinnbart, der coolen schwarzgeränderten Rechteckbrille, ordentlichen Chinesischkenntnissen, einem Faible für Filme von Rainer Werner Fassbinder und dem wohl einzigen Kettensägen-Klingelton unter Houstons Handybesitzern, mag nicht dem Durchschnittsstudenten entsprechen. Weiter verbreitet ist die störrische Ironie, mit der er dem aufgeblasenen Jahrhundertsturm "Rita" ins Gesicht lachte. Medien verhöhnte, die das Warnen, Drohen einen Tag nach dem Sturm nicht lassen wollten. Watson erinnert an den Zeitungsmagnaten William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951), der einen Reporter in ein Kriegsgebiet schickte, das sich wider Erwarten als friedlich erwies. So leicht aber ließ sich "Citizen Kane" Hearst nicht seine Pläne durchkreuzen: "Besorgen Sie die Bilder, ich besorge den Krieg." Houston hat großes Glück gehabt. Sein Sturm fand im Fernsehen statt.


Artikel erschienen am Mo, 26. September 2005
link1 comment|post comment

muhahahhahahahaaa [Sep. 21st, 2005|02:42 am]
spoonpulp
You are a

Social Conservative
(10% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(93% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Fascist




Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Sep. 21st, 2005|02:38 am]
spoonpulp
You are a

Social Liberal
(66% permissive)

and an...

Economic Moderate
(55% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Centrist




Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
linkpost comment

Still Another Good Article About Katrina: [Sep. 8th, 2005|01:41 am]
spoonpulp
Blame Amid the Tragedy
Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin failed their constituents.

BY BOB WILLIAMS
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

As the devastation of Hurricane Katrina continues to shock and sadden the nation, the question on many lips is, Who is to blame for the inadequate response?

As a former state legislator who represented the legislative district most impacted by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, I can fully understand and empathize with the people and public officials over the loss of life and property.

Many in the media are turning their eyes toward the federal government, rather than considering the culpability of city and state officials. I am fully aware of the challenges of having a quick and responsive emergency response to a major disaster. And there is definitely a time for accountability; but what isn't fair is to dump on the federal officials and avoid those most responsible--local and state officials who failed to do their job as the first responders. The plain fact is, lives were needlessly lost in New Orleans due to the failure of Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the city's mayor, Ray Nagin.

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.

A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan. Again, they did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.

The New Orleans contingency plan is still, as of this writing, on the city's Web site, and states: "The safe evacuation of threatened populations is one of the principle [sic] reasons for developing a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan." But the plan was apparently ignored.

Mayor Nagin was responsible for giving the order for mandatory evacuation and supervising the actual evacuation: His Office of Emergency Preparedness (not the federal government) must coordinate with the state on elements of evacuation and assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas. Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation.

The city's evacuation plan states: "The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas." But even though the city has enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, the mayor did not use them. To compound the problem, the buses were not moved to high ground and were flooded. The plan also states that "special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific lifesaving assistance. Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuation procedures as needed." This was not done.

The evacuation plan warned that "if an evacuation order is issued without the mechanisms needed to disseminate the information to the affected persons, then we face the possibility of having large numbers of people either stranded and left to the mercy of a storm, or left in an area impacted by toxic materials." That is precisely what happened because of the mayor's failure.

Instead of evacuating the people, the mayor ordered the refugees to the Superdome and Convention Center without adequate security and no provisions for food, water and sanitary conditions. As a result people died, and there was even rape committed, in these facilities. Mayor Nagin failed in his responsibility to provide public safety and to manage the orderly evacuation of the citizens of New Orleans. Now he wants to blame Gov. Blanco and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In an emergency the first requirement is for the city's emergency center to be linked to the state emergency operations center. This was not done.

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people. The plan clearly gives the governor the authority for declaring an emergency, sending in state resources to the disaster area and requesting necessary federal assistance.

State legislators and governors nationwide need to update their contingency plans and the operation procedures for state emergency centers. Hurricane Katrina had been forecast for days, but that will not always be the case with a disaster (think of terrorist attacks). It must be made clear that the governor and locally elected officials are in charge of the "first response."

I am not attempting to excuse some of the delays in FEMA's response. Congress and the president need to take corrective action there, also. However, if citizens expect FEMA to be a first responder to terrorist attacks or other local emergencies (earthquakes, forest fires, volcanoes), they will be disappointed. The federal government's role is to offer aid upon request.

The Louisiana Legislature should conduct an immediate investigation into the failures of state and local officials to implement the written emergency plans. The tragedy is not over, and real leadership in the state and local government are essential in the months to come. More importantly, the hurricane season is still upon us, and local and state officials must stay focused on the jobs for which they were elected--and not on the deadly game of passing the emergency buck.

 

 

(emphasis added by me. Me=Jonathan)

linkpost comment

Another Good Article: [Sep. 8th, 2005|01:34 am]
spoonpulp
A Two-City Tale
New Orleans and Houston offer a study in contrasts.
by Noemie Emery
09/06/2005 4:36:00 PM
Increase Font Size
Printer-Friendly



Email a Friend
Respond to this article








Late last week, as New Orleans was sliding into savage conditions, some talking heads were glowing with pleasure at the idea of a moral meltdown of such immense proportions that it would not only bury George Bush in its rubble, but erode forever the country's self confidence. Or, as Robert Scheer would happily write, "Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers to shame."

Not quite. The reason New Orleans slid so quickly from civilization into Third World conditions was that it was pretty much a Third World city already, and didn't have too far to go. In its violence, in its corruption, in its reliance on ambience and tourism as its critical industry, in its one-party rule, in its model of graftocracy built on a depressed and crime-ridden underclass that was largely kept out of the sight and the mind of vacationing revelers, it was much more like a Caribbean resort than a normal American city. Its crime and murder rates were way above national averages, its corruption level astounding. The latter was written off as being picturesque and perversely adorable, until it suddenly wasn't, as it paid off in hundreds of buses--that could have borne thousands of stranded people to safety--sitting submerged in water, and police either looting or AWOL.

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville defined a long set of traits that made Americans "different," and

that remain today just as valid: Americans are restless, inventive, pragmatic, entrepreneurial, socially mobile, and so future-oriented they are ready and eager sometimes to let go of the past. None of these things defined what once was New Orleans; in fact, that poor destroyed city played them in reverse: It was socially static, fairly caste-ridden, non-entrepreneurial (read hostile to business), and wholly immersed in its past, to the point where its main industry is marketing ambience and nostalgia. "New Orleans's dominant industry lies not in creating its future but selling its past," wrote Joel Kotkin in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com. "Tourism defines contemporary New Orleans's economy more than its still-large port, or its remaining industry, or its energy production. Although there is nothing wrong, per se, in being a tourist town, it is not an industry that attracts high-wage jobs; and tends to create a highly bifurcated social structure. This can be seen in New Orleans's perennially high rates of underemployment, crime and poverty." New Orleans, in short, was the place you went to take a vacation, not to prosper in life and start a family, much less start a business. This lack of opportunity, or the upward ladder of social mobility, is perhaps one reason so many evacuees felt they were breathing fresh air when they landed in Houston, and are deciding to make it their home.

Let us look now at Houston, for it is the second city in this cosmic drama, and one in which Tocqueville would feel right at home. Like so many cities in the Sunbelt, it is expanding, entrepreneurial, based on the future, and the place where the "much celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people" comes roaring to life. "In l920, New Orleans's population was nearly three times that of Houston," says Kotkin. "During the '90s, the Miami and Houston areas grew almost six times as fast as greater New Orleans, and flourished as major destinations for immigrants . . . These newcomers have helped transform Miami and Houston into primary centers for trade, investment and services, from finance and accounting to medical care for the entire Caribbean basin. They have started businesses, staffed factories, and become players in civic life."

It is now no surprise that Houston is the place where in days they built a new city in and around the Astrodome, that has taken in 25,000 refugees from New Orleans, and is planning to feed, house, employ, and relocate most of them. Houston is the place where the heads of all the religious groups in the city--Baptists and Catholics, Muslims and Jews--came together to raise $4.4 million to feed the evacuees for 30 days, and to supply 720 volunteers a day to prepare and serve meals. If New Orleans was where the Third World broke through, Houston was where the First World began beating it back, and asserting its primacy. Are we surprised that the star of this show has been Texas, home of Karl Rove and both Bushes, widely despised by the glitterati as sub-literate, biased, oppressive, and retrograde? No.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Aug. 26th, 2005|03:35 pm]
spoonpulp
Click here.
Take the quiz.
Post your results.
See Spoonpulp's results.Collapse )
linkpost comment

A column I liked [Aug. 21st, 2005|03:05 pm]
spoonpulp
CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF
August 17, 2005


To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.
linkpost comment

If I've learned one thing it's this.... [Jul. 30th, 2005|07:40 pm]
spoonpulp
I'm in Beijing right now. Yep. That's supposed to grab your attention and immediately give you the impretion that I'm an enlightened world traveler with a lot to say....Did it work? Because, a lot of people seem to think that way, and these same people forget that people (lot's of them) do actually live here and they probably have a similar view of their friends who have been able to travel to America. It's interesting to me how what is considered exotic or exciting is so utterly subjective and usually reliant on a lack of knowledge about said culture. China is interesting but it's also proabably the worlds oldest continuously existing civilization. If we're going to use any culture as a standard from which to compare others, it's seems like China is probably the best, most succesful culture to do so with. Anyway...The point is, that I'm in China and....here's the shocker...I want to go home. I like my home, and I like my bed and I'm an American and I live in America. For better or worse, that is my life. This is not to say that I dont ever want to live overseas, but at this stage in my life I am realizing here that I'm actually pretty happy with my situation in life right now. So damn it, I want to be in Houston watching American television and eating American food, etc... You know people think FoxNews is bad, they should watch CCTV. China is so great, bla bla bla....Constantly.....These are the things I've learned in China. And in a weird way I think I proposed to Michaela. At the very least, being here has made me realize that I think I want to.
link1 comment|post comment

why not? [Jul. 4th, 2005|11:10 pm]
spoonpulp
You Are 72% American
Most times you are proud to be an American.
Though sometimes the good ole US of A makes you cringe
Still, you know there's no place better suited to be your home.
You love your freedom and no one's going to take it away from you!

linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]