![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I thought this was interesting: www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/08/damage/index.html
and you might have to deal with an ad, but you don't need to be registered to read it. Once again, I find the dollar values affixed to things to be interesting, even fascinating in their momentus nature. I can't lay this at the feet of G.W., but I can lay a large amount of it at the feet of the Bush administration and, to a fair degree, to the mindset that allowed this to happen. It was and remains a national mindset that we can blow these things off without really worrying, but many of the issues raised in the article are nuts-and-bolts issues.
Part of it is, I believe, the terrifying religious faction that is the dominant strain in the White House - an apocalytic brand of Christianity that really oughtant call itself by the religion it splintered from, in that they can't even get preperation for the end of the world right.
The other is, I suspect, a totally out of proportion look at cost-to-result ratios. The writer mentions 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq. I'll wait while you try to wrap your mind around 1 billion, then realize that 12 of those a month are falling down the hole that is our Iraq policy. (Meanwhile, our soldiers make a little over 100 bucks a day, while contrators make over 600 so I guess you can be the judge of if you approve of that.) The Admin proposed that we go to war with the assumption of 60 billion total, which is still considered a pretty high* price.
Now, New Orleans is still in bad, bad shape. It costs 1 billion to rebuild levies, and they haven't been raised yet. Not a priority, I guess. Costs too much?
Our administration was either stupid or corrupt (or both) and the rest of our government was complicit. This is going to take a long, long time to fix. History is just going to bury its head in its hands and ask how any group of people could be so dense, but I think we can do better.
*lawl, 60 billion is 'pretty high'.
and you might have to deal with an ad, but you don't need to be registered to read it. Once again, I find the dollar values affixed to things to be interesting, even fascinating in their momentus nature. I can't lay this at the feet of G.W., but I can lay a large amount of it at the feet of the Bush administration and, to a fair degree, to the mindset that allowed this to happen. It was and remains a national mindset that we can blow these things off without really worrying, but many of the issues raised in the article are nuts-and-bolts issues.
Part of it is, I believe, the terrifying religious faction that is the dominant strain in the White House - an apocalytic brand of Christianity that really oughtant call itself by the religion it splintered from, in that they can't even get preperation for the end of the world right.
The other is, I suspect, a totally out of proportion look at cost-to-result ratios. The writer mentions 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq. I'll wait while you try to wrap your mind around 1 billion, then realize that 12 of those a month are falling down the hole that is our Iraq policy. (Meanwhile, our soldiers make a little over 100 bucks a day, while contrators make over 600 so I guess you can be the judge of if you approve of that.) The Admin proposed that we go to war with the assumption of 60 billion total, which is still considered a pretty high* price.
Now, New Orleans is still in bad, bad shape. It costs 1 billion to rebuild levies, and they haven't been raised yet. Not a priority, I guess. Costs too much?
Our administration was either stupid or corrupt (or both) and the rest of our government was complicit. This is going to take a long, long time to fix. History is just going to bury its head in its hands and ask how any group of people could be so dense, but I think we can do better.
*lawl, 60 billion is 'pretty high'.
