Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bris who wrote (22265)	12/31/2003 6:52:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794407

All search, no rescue International crisis teams saved no lives in Bam and should have stayed at home, writes Nick Cater The Guardian Wednesday December 31, 2003 The British search and rescue teams arriving back from Iran have successfully proved that flying in people and dogs to scour the rubble and mud of foreign disaster zones for survivors with hi-tech gear or their bare hands is in almost all cases a waste of time, effort and money. Information from the main charities involved suggests that the 68 search and rescue experts from five different UK groups and their four trained dogs failed to find a single person alive in Bam. The story was much the same in other recent disasters, such as the earthquakes in Algeria, Turkey and India, after which few people have been found alive by British teams. This is hardly surprising. While the experts talk of the "golden hours" - usually just the first 24 - in which those trapped can expect to be found alive, it is local people who recover the vast majority of survivors, often based on knowing exactly where their families and friends were when the disaster struck. If local people need help, it is from staff and trained volunteers who speak their language, know the area, require little or no external support and are integrated into the disaster preparedness and response systems of national and local government, specialised agencies and their country's Red Cross or Red Crescent society. International search and rescue teams today descend upon every sudden catastrophe from all over the world. Bam had around 34 groups from 28 countries. They even arrive without invitation or local partners, and their needs in terms of food, water, shelter, translators, transport and information put further strain on resources that are already scarce. No doubt the British teams from Rapid UK, the International Rescue Corps, Canis, Bird and the fire services of Kent, Hampshire and Essex were better prepared than most and so totally self-sufficient that they could start work immediately and not be a burden on those they came to help. But it was pointless for the Department for International Development under Hilary Benn to fly them to Iran when they could not arrive until well past those vital 24 hours, and more so when knowledge of the local construction techniques made it clear that few could have survived trapped. Earthquake-experienced Iran had it all under control. Of course, Iran is happy to receive aid in terms of equipment, supplies and money, but early in the crisis its health minister, Ahmed Pezeshkian, was quoted - and presumably ignored - as saying that foreign volunteers were not really needed since large numbers of Iranians were already coming from all over the country. It appears that in everything but ill-enforced building standards, the Iranians have done a superb job, mobilising many thousands of helpers, recovering tens of thousands of bodies and, within the limits of any crisis, efficiently organising evacuation of the injured and burial of the dead. Could any comparable British town have done as well? The international volunteers are interviewed on TV after every natural disaster. Are these dogged - and doggy - heroes of search and rescue perhaps taking over from nurses in white as that popular, patronising media cliché, the angel of mercy? Or is it just that improved communications and transport have put more disasters within reach of the over-enthusiastic? Either way, the best response to disaster is not to head for the airport, but to support local preparedness efforts with hard cash, and to consider how to help the recovery operation that will still be under way long after all those rescue dogs are released from quarantine. guardian.co.uk

To: Bris who wrote (22265)	12/31/2003 8:21:03 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794407

Election 2004: The race is Bush's to lose By CRAGG HINES Hines is a Houston Chronicle columnist based in Washington, D.C. (cragg.hines@chron.com) Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle President Bush should have a very pleasant New Year's. Terrorism, or even happenstance, at home or abroad could intrude. But from a strictly political standpoint, Bush moves into the campaign year as a favorite for re-election. Democrats who cannot acknowledge this should consider a little realism therapy to kick off 2004. If your health plan doesn't cover it, consider it a worthy out-of-pocket expense; it could save you some dental bills resulting from the gnashing of teeth come Nov. 2. Delusional Democrats should be joined on the couch by any Republicans who think the race cannot turn around -- perhaps several times. Republican control of the White House and narrow majorities in both houses of Congress mask the virtual partisan parity reflected in national surveys. This condition, along with uncertainties resulting from terrorism and an uneven economic recovery, could make for an interesting, not to mention dangerous, year. But as things stand now, Bush is seen (not that I buy it) as in enough control of the terrorist threat as well as of the nation's fiscal picture to merit, if only marginally, four more years. Yes, there are concerns about his assault on the Constitution and courts, but short of suspending habeas corpus this doesn't seem to count for much (at least not for enough with enough voters) to swing an election. At the moment, Republicans are rejoicing (as they have every right) in the knife fight passing as the Democratic presidential nominating campaign, with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the improbable leader of the pack. Dean's opponents are disputing not only his particular policy positions but also his ability to withstand the rigors of a general-election campaign against Bush. Dean can't stand that those nasty ol' fellow pols are saying rotten (which is not to say inaccurate) things about him. First, Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, waxed indignant when a Democratic group with some discernible ties to other candidates briefly ran a television ad (featuring a picture of Osama bin Laden) that strongly questioned Dean's foreign policy credentials. Then Dean complained Sunday that Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe should be protecting him against continued assaults from other contenders. Oh, grow up, Howard. To whom is Dean, if he's the nominee, going to complain when Karl Rove starts unloading? As one Democratic candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, observed this week, Dean seemingly would "melt in a minute" under Republican fire. Unless attacks are unsustainably vicious, voters don't like whiners. Dean was correct in his recent analysis that Bush repeatedly has placed "ideology over facts," but that, too, is unfortunately not enough to sustain a campaign. Some of Bush's advantage is institutional and historical. He is, first and foremost, the incumbent. He has won, no matter how raggedly, narrowly or unconvincingly, before. The White House is a bully hustings as well as pulpit. The phrase "Rose Garden campaign" is not a fictional device. Air Force One is a helluva campaign backdrop. Enjoy it. You'll be paying for much of the show. Additionally, Bush is not seriously challenged for renomination. That's how a number of recent incumbents have come to grief. Gerald Ford (challenged from the right by Ronald Reagan) in 1976; Jimmy Carter (beset from the sort-of left by Ted Kennedy) in 1980; Bush-41 (with Pat Buchanan nipping at his ankles) in 1992. His father's failed campaign 12 years ago is one that the incumbent not only experienced personally but has studied closely and is determined not to repeat. If nothing else, he does not plan to begin the new year by throwing up on the prime minister of Japan, the unlucky experience of his father in the midst of an early 1992 international tour designed to show personal concern for the sagging U.S. economy. Republicans have been buoyed by a new survey that finds the Democratic edge in party identification among registered voters has evaporated. In the 2000 election cycle, the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found that 33.7 percent of registered voters who were polled identified themselves as Democrats and 29.9 percent call themselves Republicans. The Annenberg surveys in this quickly passing year have found party self-identification at 32.7 percent for Democrats and 32.5 percent for Republicans. Democrats retain an edge, at least in the polling, among all respondents, meaning that, as almost always, Democrats need a concerted voter registration and turn-out effort. (That's what the party organization is for, as opposed to protecting Dean from other party contenders.) Democrats who don't believe that can also get on the couch. This article is: chron.com