I watch the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, and see the endless, painful lines of New Yorkers just trying to get to work. A task made exponentially more difficult thanks to Bloomberg's unreasonable dictates as to how many people can be in a car, and the resulting enforcement of which, causing hours-long lines on our bridges and tunnels. Driving around town (thankfully, I had filled up prior to the storm) and seeing all the mile-long lines in front of our gas stations, I wonder, if we had a mayor who understood the struggle it takes to commute into work day in and day out, even via automobile, would we be in the predicament we are in, four days after the storm? And if we had a president who actually viewed our fossil fuel infrastructure as the crucial component of day-to-day life that it actually is, might our country have been better prepared for the damage caused by Sandy?
Instead, we have a president who would rather sink billions on green energy vapor ware, and a mayor who views his job as dietician of the republic. So when a major storm hits, the best we can do is dispatch the government sanctioned militia, setup queues and let the common man wait for his bread and toilet paper.
Americans have a choice coming up this Tuesday: do we want an America led by people who want to regulate our salt intake and spend the national treasure on shaky investments that have little to no return for actual Americans in their actual day-to-day life? Do we want leaders who view government as the cure for our ills, who think those elected have a greater amount of wisdom than the people they lead? Or do we want leadership that understands that what makes America great is its people, and not its government? Important decisions await us next week. I implore you to make the right one.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Here goes OA on another "Obama's destroying America" rant.
And if we had a president who actually viewed our fossil fuel infrastructure as the crucial component of day-to-day life that it actually is, might our country have been better prepared for the damage caused by Sandy??
Really? Did you know that America is - as of earlier this very year - a net oil exporter? Yes, we're drilling more oil than we're importing thanks to government regulations from agencies like the EPA...AND we're on track to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of oil by 2020.
But I get it, Obama's SO bad for America's oil infrastructure. And Obama's SO bad that all the damage and loss of electricity and lack of access to gasoline because of Sandy is actually all his fault, never mind that Sandy was a once-in-a-lifetime storm!
2 - Glenn Contrarian
And OA -
None of these laws have helped even one citizen be healthier, because good health doesn't originate from government, it comes from a personal choice to become more healthy.
Really? Well, if we'd just listened to the marketplace, our cars wouldn't have seatbelts for all seats, much less airbags. If we'd just listened to the marketplace, our national smoking rate wouldn't be down to 19.3 percent now vice 45 percent back in 1954 - because cigarettes were GOOD for you, according to the marketplace!
OA, I've lost two members of my family - , my uncle a few years back, my mother this past July - to smoking. I was there for her hospice care and watched her die, watched her mouth fill with brown stuff that her liver could no longer process, and she essentially drowned in it and died. She had smoked since she was a teenager, and had tried SO hard, so many times to quit, but she just couldn't do it, just like so many millions of other Americans.
Why? Because cigarettes are designed to be addictive. If our government could have had the ability to tax the hell out of cigarettes like they're doing now - or ban them outright if I had my way - maybe my mother and uncle would be alive and healthy today.
If we'd only listen to the marketplace and not the government, we wouldn't be able to read how much transfat is in the food we eat, or know how whether this or that food has high-fructose corn syrup instead of regular sugar.
Bloomberg shouldn't have banned soft drinks above 16 ounces - he should have taxed the hell out of them. It works...and the extra money would go to pay for the effects that those soft drinks are having on the American people.
OA, there's several reasons why non-OPEC first-world nations are ALL socialized democracies...and if you want to live someplace that isn't a socialized democracy, then you're going to live in a third-world nation. Socialized democracy doesn't guarantee that a nation will be a first-world nation...but it sure as hell looks like the LACK of socialized democracy guarantees that one will live in a third-world nation.
Your choice, OA - first-world socialized democracy, or small=government, low-tax, deregulated third world nation. That's the choice you have, whether you like it or not.
3 - The Obnoxious American
A few points Glenn:
This notion that this storm is a "once in a lifetime" is nonsense. Mind you, I was directly in the path of the storm. I live here, so I've seen the damage. As hurricanes go, this was a relatively weak category 1. It's not a "superstorm", it's not evidence of AGW. The only remarkable aspect here is where it came ashore and in retrospect, how poorly we were prepared for it.
And that's my point. A more pro-energy president, perhaps we would have had more resources. Sure, some stations are closed because of power outages, but plenty have power and are just out of gasoline. Why?
And this canard that Obama has been good for oil development in the US is just that - a canard. It's been thoroughly debunked, so please stop parroting it. Obama has been antithetical to all fossil fuels. What was it he said about building coal plants? That's right - you can do it if you want to go bankrupt. All the drilling that's happened has been on private lands where he has no say, drilling on public lands has declined. Even the liberal fact checkers agree with that.
And like all liberals, when faced with facts turn to emotional anecdotes. I'm really sorry that you had family members who didn't have the discipline to quit smoking. But it was still their fault that they got addicted and ultimately they paid the price. Just about EVERYONE whose ever taken a drag on a cigg knows what the health effects are, and people 40 years ago were quite clear that smoking was bad well before they started putting warning labels on everything. That is why despite the disgusting anti-smoking ads out there today, showing cancers and tumors and surgery and whatnot, people STILL smoke. Because they are willing to trade future unhappiness for temporary comfort.
None of that is a good reason for the government to come in and tell me I can't make the decision to engage in behavior even if it's bad for me. It's a little something called freedom, because in real life, freedom means responsibility.
As far as your non-points on transfats and corn syrup, who is advocating for not providing ingredient labelling? Not me. I'd just like to be able to buy something with sugar, transfats, and in any quantity I desire. THAT is what we're talking about here.
Lastly, your false choice is laughable. Obama has already turned us into a third world nation - he's been steadily devalueing our money, bypassing our founding documents, and increasing his own personal power despite the wishes of those he's supposed to represent.
The choice is between a government out of control with no bounds under Obama or a return to the greatness of American freedom and the potential, not guarantee of a positive outcome.
4 - Dr Dreadful
A more pro-energy president, perhaps we would have had more resources. Sure, some stations are closed because of power outages, but plenty have power and are just out of gasoline. Why?
Might have a teeny tiny bit less to do with Bloomberg and with the administration's energy policy than with the fact that gasoline doesn't fall out of the sky but has to be delivered - via oceans and waterways that were unnavigable due to the storm and roads and bridges that are either super-congested or were damaged, submerged or washed away by the floods.
I mean, seriously: blaming the government for an infrastructure failure at this point is as boneheaded as Bloomberg's insistence that the New York Marathon was going to go ahead this weekend, a decision which I hear he's just reversed.
5 - Clavos
The only unusual aspect of Sandy was her size -- the area she covered (but only briefly) immediately after landfall. The flooding was a function of the low terrain (especially in New Jersey) and the fact that the area she hit is one of the world's most densely populated (and developed -- all that concrete and asphalt makes it very difficult for the water to drain efficiently) metro areas.
The only "storm of a lifetime" aspect of Sandy was the incredible hype the MSM and especially the talking heads on TV, lavished on it.
She hit shore as a Category ! storm; the lowest a storm can register and still be labeled a hurricane, and within an hour after landfall, her winds were down to 35-40 Kts, less than she gave us here in Florida when she came through this neighborhood a week earlier.
I saw a figure of 10K homes destroyed by Sandy; Andrew, a Cat. 5 at landfall, the highest ranking in the Saffir-Simpson scale, destroyed more than 80,000 homes here back in 92.
6 - Clavos
...gasoline doesn't fall out of the sky but has to be delivered - via oceans and waterways that were unnavigable due to the storm and roads and bridges that are either super-congested or were damaged, submerged or washed away by the floods.
Which conditions should have been foreseen by both the pols and the oil companies, as we do here in Florida. Further, Florida passed a law years ago mandating generators as part of a gas station's safety equipment. The result of those two preparations? No more gas shortages or panicked lines at the stations. Even our biggest Florida-based grocery chain, Publix, equips all its stores with generators now (on their own -- no laws), so we no longer have the runs on the groceries that cleaned them out years ago.
Surviving a hurricane with minimal loss of life and damage to property is all about preparation. Probably because we get so much practice at it, we in Florida: state and municipal governments, utility companies AND the population, are better at it than anybody else (especially FEMA, which invariably gets here late and a dollar short).
7 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
This notion that this storm is a "once in a lifetime" is nonsense. Mind you, I was directly in the path of the storm. I live here, so I've seen the damage. As hurricanes go, this was a relatively weak category 1. It's not a "superstorm", it's not evidence of AGW.
I never said it was proof of AGW. If you'll listen to the climatologists, they'll tell you that AGW doesn't cause such storms - it only makes them much more likely. And as far as it being a "relatively weak category 1", that's true as far as wind speed went...but you obviously weren't paying attention:
A typical category 1 hurricane would only have hurricane force extending several tens of miles from the center. Sandy’s wind field is not concentrated near the center and hurricane force winds extend over 200 miles from the eye. As a result, significantly more seawater that normal is being driven toward the coast. The central pressure of the storm would be more indicative of a Category 2 or Category 3 hurricane.
It wasn't the strength, Warren - it was the sheer SIZE of the storm - and that's not counting the damage done by the storm surge (during a high tide, no less) up and down that entire four hundred mile diameter of hurricane-force winds. That's why it caused $50B in damage...and that is why it was called a superstorm.
And that's my point. A more pro-energy president, perhaps we would have had more resources. Sure, some stations are closed because of power outages, but plenty have power and are just out of gasoline. Why?
Hm, let me see here - is Obama in charge of gasoline distribution of Exxon, Shell, et al? Um...no, he's not. Nor can he issue an executive order telling Big Oil to have gasoline supplies ready to go to gas stations over literally thousands of square miles of disaster area. Or are you not aware of this fact?
And this canard that Obama has been good for oil development in the US is just that - a canard. It's been thoroughly debunked, so please stop parroting it. Obama has been antithetical to all fossil fuels. What was it he said about building coal plants? That's right - you can do it if you want to go bankrupt. All the drilling that's happened has been on private lands where he has no say, drilling on public lands has declined. Even the liberal fact checkers agree with that.
Hey, I'm only telling you the END RESULTS, which are (1) America's now a net oil exporter, and (2) we're on track to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020. Do you dispute either of those? Because if you can't, then it sure looks to me that if we're a net oil exporter for the first time in 50-odd years AND soon to be the world's biggest producer of oil, it's pretty obvious that Obama's been pretty good for Big Oil.
So it seems to me that however good you think your arguments are - and I can dispute them if I want to take the time - the END RESULTS show the fallacy of your arguments.
AND Obama has absolutely NOTHING to do with coal plants closing down. Cheap natural gas - and the laws of the marketplace - has EVERYTHING to do with coal plants closing down as this article by the right-wing Wall Street Journal makes clear.
But it was still their fault that they got addicted and ultimately they paid the price
BLAME THE VICTIM - that's the Republican way! I hate to tell you this, OA, but it's all too often not at all a matter of self-discipline, but of BIOLOGY:
Scientists say they have pinpointed a genetic link that makes people more likely to get hooked on tobacco, causing them to smoke more cigarettes, making it harder to quit, and leading more often to deadly lung cancer.
Oh, but I forgot - you're strongly conservative, which means that any science that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions is automatically wrong no matter how much proof the scientists present. c.f. AGW
None of that is a good reason for the government to come in and tell me I can't make the decision to engage in behavior even if it's bad for me. It's a little something called freedom, because in real life, freedom means responsibility.
I've got no problem with YOU doing stuff that's bad for YOU - I just want YOU to pay up front for what you're doing to yourself before taxpayers like me have to pay for it. That's why I disagreed with what Bloomberg did and said he should just have slapped a big tax on big soft drinks.
As far as your non-points on transfats and corn syrup, who is advocating for not providing ingredient labelling? Not me. I'd just like to be able to buy something with sugar, transfats, and in any quantity I desire. THAT is what we're talking about here.
But wait! It was YOUR people who were against such labeling. It is that which you hate above all else - government regulation - that is forcing Big Food to put those labels on what they're selling us. Or would you agree that maybe, just maybe some government regulation of Big Business is a very good thing (esp. since it's a hallmark of ALL first-world nations)?
Lastly, your false choice is laughable. Obama has already turned us into a third world nation - he's been steadily devalueing our money, bypassing our founding documents, and increasing his own personal power despite the wishes of those he's supposed to represent.
OA, if you think America's a third-world country, then you've got very little experience in third-world countries. I've got a house in one and spent four months out of the past year there. Tell you what - next time I go to the Philippines, you fly over there and I'll be happy to show you around. I'll take you to the nicest neighborhood in Manila - the one with the Maserati and Lamborghini showrooms - and then I'll take you about a half kilometer away where the street urchins crowd your car begging for a few pisos.
Again, if you think America's a third-world nation, then you haven't a clue as to what third-world nations are really like.
The choice is between a government out of control with no bounds under Obama or a return to the greatness of American freedom and the potential, not guarantee of a positive outcome.
"Out of control with no bounds"? You mean like when Bush lied us into Iraq? Or how about Iran-Contra (which was a bigger scandal than ANYthing on the Democratic side since Vietnam)? And how about YOUR BOYS who took us from having a surplus under Clinton to the biggest economic crisis since the Depression?
OA, there are those who would call Obama a great president. I would, except for a few things that I think he's done wrong, like failing to send everyone involved in torture to appear before The Hague in war crimes trials, and his use of drones over nuclear-armed Pakistan (see my most recent article). BUT on the day he took office, he not only faced the worst economic crisis since the Depression (AND two wars), but after seventy-two in-session days of having a supermajority in Congress (NOT two years, but seventy-two in-session days), he also faced the most obstructive Congress since the Civil War (as the filibuster records make clear). In other words, only Abraham Lincoln and James Madison have ever faced a worse situation in office.
Think about that, OA - only Abraham Lincoln and James Madison have faced a worse situation in office, and Obama's situation - economy going off a cliff, two wars, the most obstructive Congress since the Civil War - was NOT of his own making. Personally, given what he's faced, I'd say he's not bad, not bad at all...
...and if he were a Republican president - given that we've got the lowest tax burden since the early 1950's, the lowest corporate taxes since 1972, the lowest rate of growth of government spending since Eisenhower, and lowered the deficit by eight percent (betcha didn't hear THAT on Fox News!), you would be hailing Obama as the second coming of Reagan.
But he's a Democrat, and Thou Shalt Not give him credit for doing anything right, no matter how right he is.
8 - Dr Dreadful
It wasn't the strength, Warren
Glenn, The Obnoxious American and Warren are not the same person. The major clue to this is that Obnox is intelligent.
Again, if you think America's a third-world nation, then you haven't a clue as to what third-world nations are really like.
But perhaps he does know what hyperbole is and how to use it.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
No more gas shortages or panicked lines at the stations. Even our biggest Florida-based grocery chain, Publix, equips all its stores with generators now (on their own -- no laws), so we no longer have the runs on the groceries that cleaned them out years ago.
So why didn't Exxon and Shell and Arco have generators set aside in New York and New Jersey or Virginia or the Carolinas? I mean, they're part of the all-knowing and all-wise marketplace, so they should have done it already, right?
I know you listed an example of regulation by state and local governments, but isn't it a core belief of conservatives that almost all regulation is a Very Bad Thing?
10 - Dr Dreadful
Probably because we get so much practice at it, we in Florida
Exactly, Clav: you're in Florida. Not only are you plumb centre of Hurricane Alley, which means that you lot have had more practice at preparing for and clearing up after the buggers, you're also a peninsula, which makes you a relatively small target.
By contrast, the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area not only does not receive as many hurricanes but is also the most densely populated part of North America. I don't know if anybody's done any serious number-crunching on the subject, but I do wonder how much economic sense it would make for a region that only experiences something on this scale every few decades to invest so heavily in preemptive countermeasures.
They actually were very well prepared, but there's a limit to what preparation can do for you when all of the shit hits the fan and clogs it up, as opposed to most of it missing, hitting the wall and sliding down out of harm's way.
Hindsight is a great thing, and with our changing climate and rising sea levels the frequency of this sort of storm surge in any coastal area is likely to get much more frequent. Lessons have been learned. Lessons that were also learned in Florida, but not before the place got clobbered by a few doozies first.
11 - The Obnoxious American
We may not be hurricane alley, but personally, I've lost power every year for at least a day or two, due to some storm or another. And we've had city-wide blackouts several times in the last decade.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh please...you canNOT be comparing what New York normally gets to the hurricanes that come to the Gulf Coast and Southeast every doggone year!
13 - Kenn Jacobine
It is very simple - there are gas shortages in the Northeast because the fascist governors there are interfering with the market. They are threatening business owners with anti-price gouging laws. Prices rising in reaction to a future event is a good thing. It prevents shortages that are anticipated by the price increasers. There would be gas in NYC right now for emergency use if prices were allowed to rise like the market required before Sandy preventing every Tom, Dick, and Harry from filling up unnecessarily.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Filling up unnecessarily? Kenn, you've lost it.
Your bizarre version of reality dissolves completely in the event that price rises, preventing NYC/NJ residents from filling their tanks, had resulted in hundreds to thousands more deaths because people weren't able to evacuate...
15 - Igor
@3-Obnox: It's a duck? Well, OK, what kind of duck? Teal? Mallard? Ruddy Duck (the kind whose beak turns bright blue in mating season)?
"And this canard that Obama has been good for oil development in the US is just that - a canard."
Just that! You mean, 'literally'?.
How curious. Now, if you were a clever Frenchman making an amusing point at table, where everyone understands that 'canard' means 'backwards' because a flying duck looks like he's flying backwards because his wings are at the aft of his body, one could possibly figure out what you mean.
But I believe that you are neither clever nor French (and Quebecois doesn't count)!
So I surmise that you mean 'untrue'. But then I am left to wonder why you chose the inappropriate 'canard' and have to conclude that such a reach was intended to add luster to your statement by making your language seem more eloquent than it really is.
Well, you failed. You just look foolish. Although some will be generous and let you go your way.
16 - Kenn Jacobine
Doc,
Simply not true. People were warned about the storm way in advance and had time to put enough gas in their tanks to get away. Instead at a below market price they overconsumed and filled up more than they needed thus causing shortages now. This is a law of economics - it is not a bizarre version of reality. As harsh as that sounds, economics has nothing to do with emotion. It is all logic and many times we don't like the consequence, but that is why our larger economy is so screwed up.
17 - Zingzing
So the reality is that people should have left their homes and jobs days in advance, and since they didn't they should have been paying exhorberant prices on gas so that the survivors wouldn't be facing a shortage but they are because fascism.
Fascism is a meaningless word.
18 - Clavos
So the reality is that people should have left their homes and jobs days in advance
That's not what he said. He said they had notice of the storm days in advance and should have used that time to prepare, including filling your gas tank, which we do here in Florida.
When Andrew threatened, I was working in San Antonio, but my wife was still in our house in Florida, as was the boat. I flew back a couple of days ahead of the storm to help her prepare. It's what you do if you want to survive and not lose everything you own.
Likewise,as Sandy approached here, I spent the better part of a day prepping the boat (which is now home).
19 - Kenn Jacobine
Of course there is a lot of moral hazard built into government actions as well. Zing won't let a major storm inconvenience him because he knows the nanny state will come to his rescue in an emergency. Why prepare for a storm when Uncle Sam will be there to bail you out? Meanwhile, folks who do not live in high risk areas are called on time and again to bail out the fat cats with beachfront property. Merchants in the line of the storm are harassed by shameless politicians over raising prices to market levels. Zing never considers the business owners who are affected by tragedies. I guess they are the rich his president continuously speaks ill of?
20 - Igor
Well, anyhow we came through the storm pretty good now that "Heckuva-good-job" Brownie is gone (I understand he's a rightwing radio talker now) and Obama kept FEMA together in spite of Romneys threats and promises to eliminate it.
I guess if Romney is elected he'll get rid of FEMA and erect sky-box viewing stands in storm-prone areas so that he an his rich friends can watch the peasants scurry around trying to save themselves when the next hurricane hits.
By getting rid of FEMA and ignoring Global Warming Romney should increase the drama and entertainment value of storms a lot.
21 - Zingzing
Kenn won't let a cliched moment pass. Why deal with reality when you can just make something up? Kenn never thinks about people living in different circumstances than himself, but he knows their minds deepest works because he has cliches and fascism, the two things which can be used to explain everything.
22 - Zingzing
So, clavos, they should have filled their gas tanks days in advance, then... Gone about their daily lives and... Not used any gas...
Storm prep in Florida is not the same as storm prep in new York. I'm not prepping my boat.
23 - Clavos
So, clavos, they should have filled their gas tanks days in advance, then...Gone about their daily lives and... Not used any gas...
Don't play the moron, zing. One obviously leaves the gas tank for near the end.
And you're wrong. Storm prep in Florida and NY are very similar, even, for many, including the boats, as there are tens of thousands of boats in the NY area and its suburbs. Over the years, I've sold several Florida boats that went to New York. But, in any case, the preparation is nearly identical; both for boats and dwellings.
Did NY (and NJ) authorities ever order an evacuation? If so, did people do so?
If people in the northeast didn't take the warnings seriously and carry out their own preparations, that would go a long way toward explaining why there were so many casualties and why so many things went wrong.
24 - Zingzing
"Don't play the moron, zing. One obviously leaves the gas tank for near the end."
Cool, so 15 million people leave the gas tank for near the end...
"Storm prep in Florida and NY are very similar..."
So how does Florida deal with the subways? New York city presents a load of challenges you simply don't see in Florida in such conditions. But you knew that was the point...
"Did NY (and NJ) authorities ever order an evacuation? If so, did people do so?"
Of course. And many did. So many, it took my friend 5 hours to get out of the Lincoln tunnel after leaving his place in the village on Sunday afternoon. He was still less than 60 miles from NYC at 5 am the next day, although I don't quite know why.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
As zing says in so many words, you're comparing apples and oranges - or in this case, the Big Apple to the Sunshine-with-lots-of-oranges state.
The northeast has a far higher population density, with much more comprehensive public transportation systems. What's more, if someone gets extra gas, where in their apartments and condos are they going to store it? And if they get generators, where are they going to put them, much less safely operate them?
But your aim isn't to understand the root of the problem, is it? Your aim is to try to find some other excuse to attack FEMA. And that leads to the next question - let's say FEMA goes away, and a disaster hits that devastates most of a state. When the disaster recovery efforts don't go well then, what's going to happen? Either you'll blame it on state government - "governments never do anything right" - or you'll say that disaster relief should somehow be privatized, or some other such nonsense...
...because you will never, ever be satisfied with the efforts of a government agency - ANY government agency. And worst of all, you don't see what's logically wrong with that kind of viewpoint.