![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Sep. 4th, 2005
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kimuracarter.livejournal.comJust thought I would post this and try to spread the word. I really hope this is legit, but if it's not, we really don't have anything to lose. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
slackerace is going to donate $1 to Katrina relief for every person that comments on the journal. So, leave a comment and spread the word! Thanks. *hugs to all*
slackerace is going to donate $1 to Katrina relief for every person that comments on the journal. So, leave a comment and spread the word! Thanks. *hugs to all*Right-Friendly BNFs
Sep. 4th, 2005 03:46 pmsopdetly.livejournal.comI've been seeing some frustration with fandom again. [/understatement] So let's pull our focus away from Hollywood Celebs for a bit, and focus on the Big Name Fans (BNFs) of our fandoms who are conservative friendly.
What makes a BNF friendly to us right-thinkers?
-- The BNF, miraculously, is a conservative themselves. This could be well-known in the fandom, or just to the BNF's closest friends.
-- The BNF does not express any particular political leanings (aside from being pro-gay for slash or whatever), and generally sticks to fandom dealies.
-- The BNF is openly liberal, doesn't like Bush, but keeps all rantings to friends-locked posts, or in a personal journal that is separate from their fandom journal.
-- The BNF is liberaly, will post about Imporant Issues in the midst of their fandom posts, but treats opposing viewpoints with respect.
What makes them not-so friendly?
-- The BNF is angrily anti-Bush, will often make references to horrible conservative ideals in their fic/art, and makes no attempt to keep fandom and politics separate. (Probably a lot of gay marriage preaching in their fic, if they write slash -- and yes, I know not all us conservative fangirls are anti-gay marriage, but no one else seems to realise that :P)
-- The BNF asks conservative or otherwise pro-Bushies to stay away from their journal, full-stop.
If you know of some friendly ones, start a thread for your fandom (i.e. put the name of the fandom in the subject line), and then post about these good ones. And don't worry about trying to figure out exactly constitutes a BNF -- if they've got a pretty decent following, and the fandom tends to slow to a halt when they post, they're a BNF *g*
What makes a BNF friendly to us right-thinkers?
-- The BNF, miraculously, is a conservative themselves. This could be well-known in the fandom, or just to the BNF's closest friends.
-- The BNF does not express any particular political leanings (aside from being pro-gay for slash or whatever), and generally sticks to fandom dealies.
-- The BNF is openly liberal, doesn't like Bush, but keeps all rantings to friends-locked posts, or in a personal journal that is separate from their fandom journal.
-- The BNF is liberaly, will post about Imporant Issues in the midst of their fandom posts, but treats opposing viewpoints with respect.
What makes them not-so friendly?
-- The BNF is angrily anti-Bush, will often make references to horrible conservative ideals in their fic/art, and makes no attempt to keep fandom and politics separate. (Probably a lot of gay marriage preaching in their fic, if they write slash -- and yes, I know not all us conservative fangirls are anti-gay marriage, but no one else seems to realise that :P)
-- The BNF asks conservative or otherwise pro-Bushies to stay away from their journal, full-stop.
If you know of some friendly ones, start a thread for your fandom (i.e. put the name of the fandom in the subject line), and then post about these good ones. And don't worry about trying to figure out exactly constitutes a BNF -- if they've got a pretty decent following, and the fandom tends to slow to a halt when they post, they're a BNF *g*
ladystrange2000.livejournal.comFriends are overrated, online and in real life. However, I also think the word 'friend' is overused. If a real friend disagrees with you, then there's not going to be any whining or name calling or finger pointing. In fact, if they are a real, true friend, they might not bring up any divisive issues at all! Imagine that. Maybe they'll just focus on the things you have in common instead.
It's your LJ. If someone doesn't like it, don't bother with them. They'll soon find someone or something else to to occupy their tiny minds. You shouldn't be in fear over people you don't even actually know. If that means you have to have only 5 friends instead of 50, then so be it. Those 5 friends will bring you more rewards than all the 50 combined. Or maybe I'm the crazy one.
It's your LJ. If someone doesn't like it, don't bother with them. They'll soon find someone or something else to to occupy their tiny minds. You shouldn't be in fear over people you don't even actually know. If that means you have to have only 5 friends instead of 50, then so be it. Those 5 friends will bring you more rewards than all the 50 combined. Or maybe I'm the crazy one.
dirae.livejournal.comFrom the Washington Post:
The survey also found that Americans were sharply divided over the performance of Bush and local, state and federal governments in the aftermath of Monday's storm. Slightly less than half -- 46 percent -- approve of the way Bush has handled relief efforts while 47 percent disapprove, a result that might offer some cheer to beleaguered White House staffers who feared a stronger negative reaction.
The early response got equally mixed reviews, with 48 percent rating the federal effort as excellent or good and 51 percent saying it was not so good or poor -- views deeply colored by party affiliation. According to the poll, 68 percent of Democrats rated the government's performance as "not so good" or "poor," while 66 percent of Republicans judged it to be "excellent" or "good." This finding shows this national emergency has not united Americans the way the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did.
Slightly more than four in 10 say the government response revealed serious problems in federal emergency preparedness overall, while a majority (54 percent) disagreed. [Emphasis mine]
Erm. Now for some clarity in regards to George W. Bush and federal response to Katrina. Somewhat unfairly, FEMA has *always* has an abominable reputation for poor planning and bureaucratic incompetence. In the 80s and early 90s. Danny Franklin, in his 1995 Washington Monthly piece, notes the travails of FEMA:
On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew leveled a 50-mile swath across southern Florida, leaving nearly 200,000 residents homeless and 1.3 million without electricity. Food, clean water, shelter, and medical assistance were scarce. Yet, for the first three days, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is responsible for coordinating federal disaster relief, was nowhere to be found. And when FEMA did finally arrive, its incompetence further delayed relief efforts. Food and water distribution centers couldn't meet the overwhelming need; lines literally stretched for miles. Mobile hospitals arrived late. In everything it did, FEMA appeared to live up to the description once given to it by South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings: "the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses I've ever known."
Keep in mind, however, that FEMA cannot just come into a state and take over. In regards to Andrew, Florida initially denied FEMA's entrance because because the state did not want to have to pay the required 10 percent of the recovery costs. Initially, the same issue happened with Louisiana when the state gov't implied that they could handle the disaster themselves despite pressure from the feds. Under the Emergency Operations Act, "the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials." Gov. Blanco did not submit her request for aid nor any plan for evacuation until the evening of Aug. 28; FEMA was ready on the 29th, but because Blanco refused to allow the federal government to take control of evacuation efforts both before and after the hurricane hit, FEMA's hands were virtually tied. It was not until Sept. 2 that Blanco requested a more realistic amount of aid and allowed for a lessening of state "control". The feds once again responded to her "formal" request for aid with a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans. Once again, she denied this- fearing that it would look as if her state was under martial law (and, more importantly, that she could not handle a crisis). She also diddle-dawdled on reaching out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday - more than 24 hours after New Orleans descended into chaos. Please note that federal agencies come in and support the local officials - without strong leadership from the state level, they are hampered from the get-go. When they are in a state, their commander-in-chief is not the president; rather it is the governor of that state. To blame Bush for being ineffectual shows a lack of understanding in regards to disaster relief. This is why, in many national disasters, a whole area may be declared as being under martial law. Then the responsibility becomes that of the President's. So far, this has not happened in Louisiana despite numerous reports that it has (fyi - from a locality standpoint, no one can declare martial law since no such term exists in Louisiana state law; rather, a state of emergency can be declared).
Welp, here in the south we have a term for this type of political shenanigans. My friends, what we just witnessed was an old fashioned pissing contest between the federal gov't and the state gov't. Bush can't realistically be blamed for any of this really (other than as a figurehead)... unlike Blanco, he is not *actively* involved in the jackassery we’re witnessing unfold.
*Shakes Head*
The survey also found that Americans were sharply divided over the performance of Bush and local, state and federal governments in the aftermath of Monday's storm. Slightly less than half -- 46 percent -- approve of the way Bush has handled relief efforts while 47 percent disapprove, a result that might offer some cheer to beleaguered White House staffers who feared a stronger negative reaction.
The early response got equally mixed reviews, with 48 percent rating the federal effort as excellent or good and 51 percent saying it was not so good or poor -- views deeply colored by party affiliation. According to the poll, 68 percent of Democrats rated the government's performance as "not so good" or "poor," while 66 percent of Republicans judged it to be "excellent" or "good." This finding shows this national emergency has not united Americans the way the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did.
Slightly more than four in 10 say the government response revealed serious problems in federal emergency preparedness overall, while a majority (54 percent) disagreed. [Emphasis mine]
Erm. Now for some clarity in regards to George W. Bush and federal response to Katrina. Somewhat unfairly, FEMA has *always* has an abominable reputation for poor planning and bureaucratic incompetence. In the 80s and early 90s. Danny Franklin, in his 1995 Washington Monthly piece, notes the travails of FEMA:
On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew leveled a 50-mile swath across southern Florida, leaving nearly 200,000 residents homeless and 1.3 million without electricity. Food, clean water, shelter, and medical assistance were scarce. Yet, for the first three days, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is responsible for coordinating federal disaster relief, was nowhere to be found. And when FEMA did finally arrive, its incompetence further delayed relief efforts. Food and water distribution centers couldn't meet the overwhelming need; lines literally stretched for miles. Mobile hospitals arrived late. In everything it did, FEMA appeared to live up to the description once given to it by South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings: "the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses I've ever known."
Keep in mind, however, that FEMA cannot just come into a state and take over. In regards to Andrew, Florida initially denied FEMA's entrance because because the state did not want to have to pay the required 10 percent of the recovery costs. Initially, the same issue happened with Louisiana when the state gov't implied that they could handle the disaster themselves despite pressure from the feds. Under the Emergency Operations Act, "the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials." Gov. Blanco did not submit her request for aid nor any plan for evacuation until the evening of Aug. 28; FEMA was ready on the 29th, but because Blanco refused to allow the federal government to take control of evacuation efforts both before and after the hurricane hit, FEMA's hands were virtually tied. It was not until Sept. 2 that Blanco requested a more realistic amount of aid and allowed for a lessening of state "control". The feds once again responded to her "formal" request for aid with a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans. Once again, she denied this- fearing that it would look as if her state was under martial law (and, more importantly, that she could not handle a crisis). She also diddle-dawdled on reaching out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday - more than 24 hours after New Orleans descended into chaos. Please note that federal agencies come in and support the local officials - without strong leadership from the state level, they are hampered from the get-go. When they are in a state, their commander-in-chief is not the president; rather it is the governor of that state. To blame Bush for being ineffectual shows a lack of understanding in regards to disaster relief. This is why, in many national disasters, a whole area may be declared as being under martial law. Then the responsibility becomes that of the President's. So far, this has not happened in Louisiana despite numerous reports that it has (fyi - from a locality standpoint, no one can declare martial law since no such term exists in Louisiana state law; rather, a state of emergency can be declared).
Welp, here in the south we have a term for this type of political shenanigans. My friends, what we just witnessed was an old fashioned pissing contest between the federal gov't and the state gov't. Bush can't realistically be blamed for any of this really (other than as a figurehead)... unlike Blanco, he is not *actively* involved in the jackassery we’re witnessing unfold.
*Shakes Head*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}