Get Off His Back (George Bush) by Ben Stein - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Glad-I-Ate-Her · 09-04-2005, 04:29 PM

This article makes some interesting points. Eventhough I think things should have gone quicker and smoother in the rescue of New Orleans, there are some valid points below.

This situation just hurts me to see all the misery happening and the lack of help in the first couple of days of Katrina. I always hoped that if I were ever in a situation like those in the Gulf coast, that the higher ups would be there to cover my ass.

This disaster is just a warm up for future diasters. Both natural and man made like a nuclear weapon going off in one of the large cities in the U.S.

Glad

http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=8693

Get Off His Back (Updated)
By Ben Stein
Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?

docbungle · 09-04-2005, 04:42 PM

Well, as with any opinion piece regarding this situation, I agree with a few of the things said here...and see a lot more things as being just as overly simplistic as the views of those the author criticizes.

Hardknock · 09-04-2005, 05:33 PM

Yes, hurricanes are natural phenomena. And yes, I agree, George Bush isn't responsible for the actions of a few knuckleheads.

BUT......

In times of national crisis, who is the person that people look to for leadership? The president. Like it or not, that's part of the job description. Where was Bush on Tuesday? Playing guitar at a rally trying to boost his numbers out of the toilet. Ben Stein thinks that Bush taking 4 days to even show up shows adequate leadership? And when he finally does it's just for a cheap photo op?

Bush needs to understand that leadership is a LOT more than showing your face on TV shaking black hands making yourself look good. It is taking charge, organization, helping your fellow man recover from tragedy. Bush will never realize this. I've come to live with that fact. I just hope that his power is stripped away next year at the mid-terms.

Looks like someone won all of Ben's money seeing that he has to resort to making idiotic statements such as this just to get some attention.

pan6467 · 09-04-2005, 05:52 PM

Doesn't surprise me, Ben Stein was a Nixon defender and is as partisan and as pushing any responsibility as possible onto others.

aberkok · 09-04-2005, 06:49 PM

Some constructive points, but as pan said, it's hugely partisan. I also think it's really bad form to make points by asking a bunch of questions, as Stein did in the update to the original letter. They tend to lead you right to the desired answer. Too bad, I used to like Ben Stein.

jonjon42 · 09-04-2005, 07:35 PM

I like Ben Stein, but I don't agree with him mostly. Yes too much blame is going Bush's way, I strongly dislike the man and I'll say that.

But, man screwing with the enviroment has made this flood worse. The reason New Orleans is sinking into the sea so quickly is probably that the Missisppi was rerouted so that most of the silt goes straight into the gulf instead of building up around that area. Also, global warming was probably not a factor in THIS natural disaster but it does not mean it does not exist.

Many people would have loved to have left, but the problem is, they had nowhere to go and no way to go there.

Finally the restructering of FEMA into the Homeland security department seems to have caused some issues with it, since this is possibly one of the worst responses they've have had in an otherwise good history.

of course maybe I'm wrong

Willravel · 09-04-2005, 08:43 PM

If I were president, I would not take ONE day of vacation in the 4 or 8 years I was in office. Of course, that's just me. My job isn't anywhere near as important as the president, and I don't take vacations (I worked 3 days after my daughter was born). But that's just me. I am only in charge of a few dozen people, but I make sure each and every responsibility I am given is treated with the attention that is necessary for success. But that's just me.

If you don't have the energy to be the president, don't run for president. As of August 2003, President Bush had taken 250 days off. That's about 27% of his presidency to that date. Imagine your job requires you to work four days a week. Imagine you only show up for 3 days a week. Would you be fired? Would you be able to do your job effectively?

An important truth is that President Bush was taking ANOTHER vacation when this hurricane struck. This vacation postponed any statement or reaction. That postponement showed weakness, the very weakness that his administration has been trying to avoid all along.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4785289

j8ear · 09-04-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Well, as with any opinion piece regarding this situation, I agree with a few of the things said here...and see a lot more things as being just as overly simplistic as the views of those the author criticizes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

....he has to resort to making idiotic statements such as this just to get some attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Doesn't surprise me, Ben Stein was a Nixon defender and is as partisan and as pushing any responsibility as possible onto others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

Some constructive points, but as pan said, it's hugely partisan. I also think it's really bad form to make points by asking a bunch of questions, as Stein did in the update to the original letter. They tend to lead you right to the desired answer. Too bad, I used to like Ben Stein.

Not a single attempt to refute anything that was presented in the Ben Stein piece, and honestly, nothing but fallacies from the lot of you.

Well done folks...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

...the restructering of FEMA into the Homeland security department seems to have caused some issues with it, since this is possibly one of the worst responses they've have had in an otherwise good history.

This I can get behind 100%.

Personally, I still think that Ray Naglin is a worthless piece of garbage, and the debacle following this natural disaster is largely his fault. I also think, that DHS and it's swallowing up of FEMA, plays a sizable roll in where things stand now. The largest beauracracy ever created was doomed to failure, and hey...that's what it has done, will do, and the only solution we'll ever see to this problem is to increase its size and scope. Governement in action. Large scale mediocracy and failure for everyone.

Amazing.

Wake up people...wake up.

-bear

PS I caught this online today and thought it worth sharing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by catallarchy.net

this post:

Rarely has it been so clear how much we, the ordinary people of this country, are better than our rulers. I hope that lesson is not lost on anyone, of any political persuasion. We are better than them and there is no good reason anymore -- if ever there was -- to keep on putting up with their lies.

raveneye · 09-05-2005, 05:05 AM

I think the appropriate question here is: why does the President of the United States, leader of the free world, most powerful person on the planet, need Ben Stein to defend him? Or anyone else, for that matter?

It is rather amusing that Mr. Stein, along with legions of other conservatives, seem to think that Mr. Bush is incapable of defending himself in the wake of Katrina and his flagging opinion polls, that he's such a weak fellow that he needs a legion of armchair pundits busy chasing away his every critic.

In all my adult life I have never found the need to defend any president from his political opponents, regardless of who he was or whether I supported him (and my support has never been more than lukewarm).

I don't know whether it's just the rise of the internet, but Bush seems to be the most in need of outside assistance of any president in recent history, at least judging from the behavior of his supporters.

AVoiceOfReason · 09-05-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

I also think it's really bad form to make points by asking a bunch of questions, as Stein did in the update to the original letter.

It's a highly effective method of teaching--let the student form the answers. Socrates and Jesus both used it effectively.

Let's try to answer the questions:

Q. Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

A. Because not much is known about the snipers--no photographs or video, no interviews. Because there is no "pro-sniper" pundits there, as there are some looking for any reason to criticize Bush for drawing breath, just as there are to defend him for breaking wind.

Q. What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

A. I don't know for certain that the congregation and/or denomination believes that; many people stray from the reservation when it comes to the official teachings of the church. However, since Sharpton is given a pulpit by the group, it is reasonable to conclude that the members of that group DO share his views, and it is a demonstrably unChristian position to take.

Q. What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

A. The same ability you have to criticize them for making the decision--life experience, common sense, and the ability to process all sorts of information into a conclusion.

Q. If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

A. Yes, they have. However, we are not in a position to have each of them fill out a questionaire to determine why they didn't leave before extending a helping hand to get them OUT now. We also have to remember that many of these people--especially in Biloxi/Gulfport heard that Katrina was like Camille in 1969, and having lived through Camille, they decided they could make it this time. False sense of security to be sure, but hardly a reason to pass them over for help.

Q. When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

A. No. We ae in a system where politicians like to try to take credit for things beyond their control, such as the sun coming up each day or the economy turning good. The flip side of that is that all blame tends to go up to the top, even when it is not deserved. As a nation, we need to get clearly in our mind just what a president is supposed to do, and then judge if it is being done well. Our system puts responsibility on the locals for a reason--they can best deal with local issues.

Q. Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

A. I haven't. As one that is a lukewarm Bush supporter, I know the storm wasn't his fault. As a Clinton detractor, I know it wasn't his.

Q. Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?

A. Some are incapbable of viewing the world through the filter of love and cooperation in any circumstances; the present situation only highlights their character flaws.

DJ Happy · 09-05-2005, 06:10 AM

I find it very hard to take anyone who presents us with arguments such as, "Bush can't be blamed because he didn't create the hurricane," seriously.

Really? Bush doesn't command the winds? Gosh, thanks for the clarification, and here I was under the impression that he was the US version of Thor. Silly me.

What Bush could've done, however, was make sure that everything possible was being done to help those that needed it. And by that I don't mean calling Nagin up and asking, "Is everything under control?" but actually hands on, exactly-what-are-you-doing-to-help type enquiries.

X% of the population are unable to leave despite the evacuation order? Okay, what are you doing about it? Nothing? Great, speak to you in 7 days.

Michael Brown, what provisions have you made for aiding the victims as soon as humanly possible? Fuck all? Thanks, catch you later.

In almost any workplace I can think of, there is a chain of command and responsibility. If the people working under the head honcho screw up, the head honcho will be laughed at, sneered at and finally shown the door if he dares offer the excuse of, "It wasn't my fault, I didn't know what they were doing." It's his job to know what they're doing and if they aren't doing it properly, it's his job to make sure they are.

Aladdin Sane · 09-05-2005, 06:51 AM

The idiocy demonstrated by blaming Bush for everything from terrorist attacks (9-11) to earthquakes (Afghanistan, 2002) to hurricanes (Katrina 2005) has undermined the credibility of even the most rational critics. Freedom of speech gives the right to accuse the U.S. President of just about anything imaginable. But by abusing that right, the professional Bush Bashers have underminded their own credibility--they are now like the boy who cried "Wolf!"

DJ Happy · 09-05-2005, 07:18 AM

Where has anyone said that Katrina was Bush's fault?

StanT · 09-05-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

The idiocy demonstrated by blaming Bush for everything from terrorist attacks (9-11) to earthquakes (Afghanistan, 2002) to hurricanes (Katrina 2005) has undermined the credibility of even the most rational critics. Freedom of speech gives the right to accuse the U.S. President of just about anything imaginable. But by abusing that right, the professional Bush Bashers have underminded their own credibility--they are now like the boy who cried "Wolf!"

The inverse is also true. There is plenty of blame to go around, absolving Bush from any responsibility is ridiculous. While underfunding the Corp of Engineers dates back to the Carter administration, the Bush administration did nothing to resolve it. Bush (and his administration) share responsibility for this. The reorganization of FEMA and the appointment of it's Director, Michael Brown are also Bush responsibilities.

Nearly all of the politicians involved with this disaster have failed the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast. Watching them scurry around with their political posturing, trying to avoid blame is disgusting.

Aladdin Sane · 09-05-2005, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Where has anyone said that Katrina was Bush's fault?

8-31-05 SPIEGEL ONLINE
After Hurricane Katrina bashed America's Gulf States and left New Orleans a sunken wasteland, [German Environmental Minister Jürgen] Trittin wrote an editorial lashing out at US President George W. Bush for "closing his eyes" to the dangers of global warming.

German Minister Stands Behind Criticism of Bush

German Environmental Minister Jürgen Trittin remains stolid in his assertion that Hurricane Katrina is linked to global warming and America's refusal to reduce emissions. He may be right, but the timing of his tirade is way off.

He also said that if something is not done soon -- in other words if Bush maintains his current stance on global warming and continues to reject the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions -- America and Europe can expect even more storms like Katrina in the future.

hannukah harry · 09-05-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

The idiocy demonstrated by blaming Bush for everything from terrorist attacks (9-11) to earthquakes (Afghanistan, 2002) to hurricanes (Katrina 2005) has undermined the credibility of even the most rational critics. Freedom of speech gives the right to accuse the U.S. President of just about anything imaginable. But by abusing that right, the professional Bush Bashers have underminded their own credibility--they are now like the boy who cried "Wolf!"

no one (except maybe the crazies) are blaming bush for 9/11, earthquakes or the hurricane. we're blaming him for not doing enough before those events, during those events, and after those events. we're blaming him for mishandling these situations.

DJ Happy · 09-05-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

8-31-05 SPIEGEL ONLINE
After Hurricane Katrina bashed America's Gulf States and left New Orleans a sunken wasteland, [German Environmental Minister Jürgen] Trittin wrote an editorial lashing out at US President George W. Bush for "closing his eyes" to the dangers of global warming.

German Minister Stands Behind Criticism of Bush

German Environmental Minister Jürgen Trittin remains stolid in his assertion that Hurricane Katrina is linked to global warming and America's refusal to reduce emissions. He may be right, but the timing of his tirade is way off.

He also said that if something is not done soon -- in other words if Bush maintains his current stance on global warming and continues to reject the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions -- America and Europe can expect even more storms like Katrina in the future.

That's not what the "Bush Bashers" here are saying, nor is it what they are "bashing" Bush for.

AVoiceOfReason · 09-05-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

In almost any workplace I can think of, there is a chain of command and responsibility. If the people working under the head honcho screw up, the head honcho will be laughed at, sneered at and finally shown the door if he dares offer the excuse of, "It wasn't my fault, I didn't know what they were doing." It's his job to know what they're doing and if they aren't doing it properly, it's his job to make sure they are.

True, but the head of Sears doesn't get laughed at if the guy at Macy's fouls up. There are different responsibilities for each separate government entity, and agencies within those entities. Bush is no more in charge of the Louisiana governor's office than I am.

This isn't to say that Bush's administration is fault free in this--I don't think they are--but not every error that floats to the top stops at his desk in this situation.

aberkok · 09-05-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

It's a highly effective method of teaching--let the student form the answers. Socrates and Jesus both used it effectively.

Let's try to answer the questions:.....

O.K., your point is basically a good one, but I have a couple of my own to make. Firstly, the way you answered Stein's questions was great. Open minded and thoughtful, but his way of questioning was not designed to get those kind of answers. They are questions that lead one to certain responses which back up the agenda of the person asking - "leading" questions.

Keep in mind that Socrates and Jesus were both characters in books/philosophical writings. So, if they were asking questions, there was definitely an agenda being pushed by the authors. In both cases, there was never a list of leading questions being asked. There was always a full context to the question. In the case of the dialogues, Socrates would ask many questions in the way a computer tech support person does: trying to arrive at the truth by the process of elimination. This is far from what Ben Stein is doing.

Questions maybe an effective method of teaching, but I've never been convinced that Ben Stein could be a person I could learn from. Maybe he should stick to trivia.

aberkok · 09-05-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

It's not possible to quantify the racism in a person's mind and soul. While I don't necessarily believe Bush is a racist, I think this is a clear example of Stein trying to elevate the man by painting his predecessors as "more racist."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

I can't take this one seriously. George Bush wasn't getting his hands dirty on this one, he was on vacation. Stein says Bush is not a magician, but apparently he has the magical ability to simultaneously play the guitar and help organize flood relief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

This is highly partisan. He shouldn't be using this as an oppurtunity to attack someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

I've seen no evidence of the endless vilification of Bush. What I see, watching CNN too much, are questions being asked about the federal government's funding of levee development being cut in favour of military spending. Stein hasn't addressed this, and instead proves himself to be an amazing hypocrite, when he describes Bush as "turning over heaven and earth to resuce the victims of the storm." Apparently Bush does not have the ability to create hurricanes, but can turn over heaven and earth.

Bush is a fool: I'd have totally picked flying or invisibilty.

Willravel · 09-05-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote: