Wirehead Studios

looks like katrina showed the world how poor the VS actually is.
they can sent for billions of dollars soldiers to iraq , but they can't do a simple evacuation of there own people ?

thats what people actually mean when they say  
"solve your own problems first before you try to solve those of another "

Congratulations Gameskeeper you once again have no idea what your talking about. First off the country is called the US not VS. Secondly the vast majority of the population of New Orleans was evacuated the people who remained simply failed to heed clear and frequent warnings and nothing save the declaration of martial law could have moved them. Third everything that can be done is being done its not as if thousands of troops can be mobilized and supplies for 100,000 people can be gathered in the blink of an eye. Last of all it the US could afford to rebuild your little country after the Germans brought it to its bony European knees so ignorant teenagers like you could hope on line and tell us how much we suck we can damn well deal with this.

even fidel castro has donated money to the US.
together with Iran.

and sorry to say , but those who stayed behind are actually those who need themost help , the poorest of new orleans.

if bush would have put his war money into those people instead of the war, he could have saved 10000 of lives.

I feel sorry for you if you cant see that .

 You don't know the  financial state of the people who stayed behind in New Orleans because not just one kind of person chose to stay behind. Even if they were all poor do you care to explain to me how that would make them more likely to not mind being killed in a massive flood and why exactly they weren't able to leave? Despite the war in Iraq the government has already passed 10 billion dollars in aid so i don't see how the cost of the war has effected new Orleans.  No amount of money could have saved those people because NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN STOP HURICANES!!! .

 I feel sorry for you because you cant see anything with your head so far up your ass. Read a newspaper before you run your mouth for christ sake.

I could be snide and point out that we CAN actually deal with a hurricane. What are you going to do if that kind of weather runs through your home country games? Go running to the UN for help?

Furthermore, last I checked, the hurricane occurred AFTER troops were deployed elsewhere.

1) are houses are build of stone and will be able to handle those kind of things .
2) the waterproblem , we already had that in the 1950 I think ( tab help me out pls)
and  we Builded the Deltaworks. ( wich STILL do a great job )

you should think into the future that such things CAN happen.

and not deploy those troops elsewhere.


again , first solve your own problems , then go fix sombody else his problems.

and saying you can handle the problem is not what I would call it , we are almost a week further now and still there are people trapped there.

My point is that you're criticizing the US Federal Government for sending troops to Iraq well before hurricane Katrina formed.

It is the STATE government that is responsible for ensuring the safety of it's citizens in light of potential natural disaster. New Orleans is below sea-level, and is something that the local government should have taken into account well before this happened. It has nothing to do with troop deployment. Hell, the US has been covering the military end of the UN for YEARS and noone's criticized us or bitched about it until recently.

Which brings us to the problem of being the US. If we do nothing, you bitch, if we do something, you bitch.

**** off, I'm tired of having to defend the actions of a country I don't always agree with to people who live, effectively, in a welfare-state.

edit:
oh yeah,
1 - Stone buildings break rather easily when entirely submerged.
2 - Hurricanes fly, and New Orleans is land-locked. The Deltaworks don't apply in this scenario.

euhm , yes they do , our dams are wel maintained , because there is money for it . and they will make shure that water wont get into the city laying 20 feet under sea level .

they werent able to leave because they didnt know about the huricane.


part of the definition of a welfare state is that the rich help come up for the poor.
so that the all the people have an average amount of money.

tis last part is not really happening in the US , the barrier between the richest and the poorest people only became bigger the last few years.

and how the hell would you know that? have you been anywhere near the states?

Granted, but it shouldn't have taken FIVE DAYS. Not to mention that a disaster such as this doesn't seem to be significant enough to warrant your President cancelling his holiday.

The more time that passes, the worse the situation will become. Law and order has completely broken down - looting, violence and other crime is widespread, and only today I read about the police opening fire on an armed gang. I for one have no doubt that the US could sort this mess out, but why was the government so slow off the mark?

I've heard many people claim racism on the part of the government, and while I'm not ready to be drawn on that myself, Condleeza Rice attending a press conference isn't about to swing me.

I quote a victim of the floods I heard on the news on Friday:

"Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. You know what? It's too doggone late!"

euhm actually your dept is A LOT bigger then that of europe.

and woods, i have an uncle in the USA who lives there for 15 years.
oher people who live in america say the same when they come back.

its glitter on the outside, but actually your a third world country

It is sporked up down there. Total anarchy down there. There are people shooting at helicopters and resue crews. Damn people act like a bunch of sporking monkeys, robbing each other, looting, "Because we're opressed by the 'white' man." Quote on quote. National guardmen killed 5 people for shooting at helicopers. sporking homies. The more and more shit like this happens, the tighter and tigher I sweeze my bible. To be honest, most of them people don't need a loaf of bread, they need the Word.

[edit] er... can someone say... extreme censorship? [/edit]

Sooner or later, I knew this would happen.  "It's Bush's fault."  That's all I hear anymore.  A freaking tsunami hits Indonesia, and "It's Bush's fault."  Think I'm wrong?  There are people who honestly believe the US was testing some underwater tectonic weapon and caused the tidal waves.  Oh yes, and then there's people who blame Bush for not signing Kyoto. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050829/cm_huffpost/006396)  The ignorance of man is only continuing to show itself in all of this.  Let's get a few facts straight.

1)  No piece of paper can stop a hurricane.
2)  CO2 levels were higher in the time of the dinosaurs, and life flourished then, but of course there was more vegitation.  Maybe if you'd plant more TREES instead of BULLDOZING them for dead concrete wastelands you'd see a reduction in CO2 levels and air pollution overall.
3)  The sun heats the earth.  The sun has been growing hotter and brighter for the last 100 years.  There's your  freaking global warming.
4)  Bush is not to blame for the fallout from the hurricane, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governer of Louisiana ARE.
5)  What !@#!@# good is the blame game?  People are suffering, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  Play the blame game AFTER the suffering is done!

Games, it's really simple.  The Federal Government's power is limited by the US Constitution.  The Feds don't step in unless it gets REALLY bad.  In this case the responsibility lied square on the Mayor and Governer, since they are the local officials directly charged with managing this territory.  The most blatant problem with New Orleans is the local government is corrupt, and has been for over 100 years or more.  The mayor, as most big city mayors tend to be, is completely incompetent and did not take the storm seriously.  It was coming in as a category 5 hurricane, with sustained winds of 175 MPH.  If it had not veered to the right and weakened before making landfall, there would be NO survivors at all.  Why?  The levies (water retaining walls) were built only to withstand a category 3 storm.  This sort of gamble was a direct result of the mayor and local officials not wanting to spend the money because they were too busy using it to grease their own palms when the levies were built.  I'm not going to go into a capitalism vs socialism debate regarding the allocation of funds, the plain fact is that corruption and stupidity is what resulted in the walls breaking, along with the arrogance of man that produces the attitude that "it won't happen to me."

So you look at New Orleans, which is below sea level, and a foolish place to have built in the first place.  This was bound to happen sooner or later.  A lake on one side, the sea on another, and as I expected would happen the city is now a concrete fishbowl because the sea ran up into the lake and overflowed it, courtesy of the hurricane.  As for the disaster recovery, consider the wisdom of the Mayor's instructions to send all these people into a confined area.  The Superdome, if it had power and plumbing, would have been fine to house that many people.  However, what the Mayor did not count on was the complete LOSS of power and water, which resulted in the building becoming a deathtrap.  Again, we see the complete ignorance of the power of such a storm, and the fact that he believed it would be "much ado about nothing" and "business as usual" after the storm passed.  That's why he did not order the use of busses to evacuate these people prior to the storm, he did not want to exert the effort nor the expense.  Just shove them into a box, let the storm pass, and put them back in their hovels once it's over.

The Federal effort, right now, is what IS working.  It's National Guard troops and helicopters that are putting things in order.  Why?  200 New Orleans cops quit.  2 committed suicide.  Most are unable to get to the affected areas because they have no transport over the water.  Others were completely unprepared to deal with this sort of thing.  This is not some minor incident, this is akin to a war zone, and civilian police forces are NOT equipped to handle this sort of scenario, physically or mentally.  Imagine Rwanda, or Bosnia for a second.  I know professional soldiers, the best of the best, who still are psychologically scarred from being there.  I think you have no idea what this kind of disaster does to a person's mind, and until you've been in one you have absolutely NO right to armchair the situation like this.  Some people have gone completely insane over what they've seen.  Others, the evil kind, have used this as an excuse to be "king warlord" for a day because they can.  Since the whole city is underwater, and the local police can't GET anywhere into the city to stop these people, they've been running amok.  Combine that with the panic atmosphere of the people in the Superdome, after being stuck in a filth-ridden cage after a week, and you have chaos.

The plain truth is man underestimates nature all the time, and pays for it every so often.  People were gambling at casinos while the storm was hitting.  One even told a Fox news anchor it was "none of your sporking business" what he was doing when asked about it.  I'll tell you what I see, it's bullshit politics and the desire to see it "stuck to the US for a change" that's spawning attitudes like yours, Games Keeper.  You can criticize and gloat all you want, but it makes me sick when I, who despise mankind as a whole, have more sympathy for the suffering of the people than you do.  All you're wanting to do is sit on your soapbox and tear down Bush and the US Government over Iraq.  You use disaster as an opportunity - just like the looters and murderers.  That's sickening and shameful.  Instead of railing, show some of that supposed European gentileness and do something constructive.  You think the US can't handle it?  Then make a freaking donation to the Red Cross and actually do something that HELPS.  Otherwise STFU.  I'm tired of politics overshadowing suffering.  The US sent it's troops to help the people hurting through the tsunami, if you forgot.  The US sends BILLIONS of dollars of foreign aid money overseas every year and gets no thanks for it whatsoever, so stop acting as if the US does nothing but wage war.  These are people, just like you, most of them just trying to live their lives who got blindsided by this.  Most of those who didn't leave were given bad advice and are now left with the aftermath.  They have nothing.  Most of them have lost family members.  They are in utter despair, and need help.  Period.  Either show some bloody compassion and do something to help, or go the hell away.  I'm fed up with your attitude.

Oh, and one last thing.  Don't ever, ever think it can't happen to you.  I guarantee you disaster can and will find those who think they are immune to it.

Not much to say, other than this: Phoenix is absolutely right on this note. Just one example, most people think the state of New York is largely safe from most natural disasters, aside from the occasional tornado. Guess what? Hurricanes have come right up the New York City area's backside in the past, and eventually, it will happen again.

When nature wants to do something, it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what you do. Run all of the simulations you want. Take all of the precautions you think are necessary. She will find a way.

That's b/c we've been the world's penny bank for YEARS. W/o the USes money, a lot of these countries would be worse off than what they already are. Say what you want, but a lot of that debt is b/c we give it to other countries to help them. I'm sorry that our country feels the need to help its fellow men.

Angst is right. Ppl bitch at the US no matter what it does. I'm w/ him as well on not agreeing w/ it all the time, but that's life. Nothing is going to be perfect. W/ regards to that in retrospect, they're doing what they can. It's not a matter of not helping our own ppl. It's a matter of helping ALL ppl.

I agree w/ pho on everything he said as well.

There is ofcourse the question of whether something is correct because it is by law or by defined construct so, or withing a bigger picture. Maybe the way in which the dealings with the situation were inadequate should throw up some questions if that law and/or construct is correct. That would seem to me to be both more interesting and harder to answer than the simple question whether it is 'by law' incorrect to make accusations.

Probably this will be dismissed as 'lefty whining', just like Chomsky's comments have been in the past, or maybe dropped as off-topic, but hey, it's interesting and worth giving the post a shot.
I'm not going to touch GK's post with a 10' pole obviously, and I can only laugh in the face of the ridiculousness of saying "they had it comin', God punished justly" and other delicious inanities.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it at all.  I'm not saying the law is right or wrong here, just explaining how it works for those who do not know.  There are definitely hard questions that need answering on exactly how and why the rescue and relief effort was slow and inadequate to start, there's an obvious degree of incompetence going around and I hope anyone who screwed up gets punished accordingly.  I just think it's much less important at this point to nail a few individuals to the wall than it is to help these people rebuild what's left of their lives.

Anyone who would have freedom of speech obstructed that way should be forced to be re-educated for the rest of their lives.

Pho: I agree that help must come first, but also that help must come first in the future too, and preferrably as early as possible :]

The US breaches its own First Amendment all thie time. For example, just look at rapper Kanye West's anti-Bush comments on that TV fundraiser for the relief effort the other day. Ah, yes, you can't cos they were cut out ...

While I personally have serious issues with Bush over the Kyoto treaty, I really don't think it's relevant here. What I will say is that global warming will create more extreme weather conditions and we will see more incidents like this in the future. Granted, global warming is a natural phenomenon, and deforestation is a major issue, but to say that CO2 emmissions aren't a big part of the problem too is surprising to say the least.

As for the bit about billions of dollars in aid, I could also go into the ludicrous preconditions slapped on things like debt relief, not just by the US government but by others, including the British govenrment, but that's opening up a can of worms I don't want to get into, not to mention being off-topic.

Other than that, Pho, I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are people dying right now as I type this. It is not a time for judgement, that doesn't help anyone..

It's funny you mention that because I heard all about it today, just what he said.  Look, nobody's putting Kayne West in jail for his words.  If a privately owned network decides to censor him, that's their business, somebody owns that company and nobody has a right to force them to air certain content unless it's governed by an FCC ruling or public broadcast law.  Other than that, they can do whatever the hell they want to.  People have a very distorted view of what the First Amendment means.  The First Amendment controls the behavior of government, not privately owned companies.  If Kayne West wants to shoot his mouth off nobody's stopping him, he's not being arrested or deprived of any civil rights here.

Fair do's, Pho. I stand corrected. However, it still begs the question, did the network have something to lose by airing what he said?

The network itself might in theory not, but the corporations sponsoring (and controlling) it probably do...

you have the marshall plan.

and in what other countries did you pump money in afterwarts pls ?

I said it before and ill say it again. READ A GODDAMN NEWSPAPER!!! The US has given billions in foriegn aid over the years. How much has belgium given exactly?.

This is only a distant cousin of the censorship (or other strategies) used to block the news from getting to the people. It's one thing to be (overly) puritanical about lyrics or texts (I can at least see some merit in preventing obscene language from becoming the norm through the youngest generations), it's entirely something else to call a meeting and decide and devise what an alledgedly critical and objective news channel is going to tell the people.

I think it's definitely wrong to modify the message of an artist. I cannot call all sources (of music, for instance) true artistry though. If someone censors the entirely manager-created message that the 'backstreet boys' or 'britney spears' & alikes, no beauty or sincere message is destroyed. You may argue that this is certainly not the case for SoaD (and I probably would agree), but there's a big difference between information as a creative outlet and information that informs you what's really going on in the world.

For instance, I wouldn't be quick to call censorship of 'fuck' propaganda, whereas that word would spring readily to mind whenever a news corporation would withhold sincere opinions or other real world reflections from the viewers.

P.S. I have no idea what post you consider a joke? I've seen a few that are eligible..

P.P.S. Woods: you've probably never heard of the so-called "Economic Hitmen" or EHMs :]

Games, climb out of your hole and do your own research for a change.

Regarding censorship, I see a huge difference in censoring factual data, and censoring the incessant ramblings of an obvious political hack who just wants to shoot his mouth off at the expense of a network.  I can see a great deal of benefit for judicious censorship in regards to the latter.  Just imagine if every whacko out there were given equal air time for a moment.  Wouldn't that suck.  ;)

Then there's the subjective side to the "artist's" message, in that what is defined as art by the (presumed) artist is not necessarily received as art by society as a whole.  I can think of numerous examples, but I will refrain from listing them because I find them too offensive to discuss.  As for censorship and message... System of a Down, for example, are political hacks who use music (if you can call it that) to push their message across.  I'd hardly consider that to be art myself, but rather politics disguised as art.  I know sometimes it can be difficult to separate the two, since art is often critical of society (historically it has been anyway), but the difference to me at least is the primary motive.  A real artist sees his art as his primary motivating factor and may choose to use it for a political motive, whereas a hack is motivated primarily by the politics and will never deviate from the political agenda.  Now why they would have separate versions of songs is the same reason you have separate versions of rap - one for the radio, one for the CD.  The more "tasteful" version is "safe" for broadcast, and is used as a hook to sell the REAL version.  This is commonplace, and it is a form of self-censorship imposed by the music industry on itself for just this reason.  It's blatantly hypocritical, yes, but that's how the whole entertainment industry is.  Why SoaD may not be censoring for swear words, but rather message is obvious to anyone who actually reads their lyrics.  Just consider what they probably think of Clearchannel or other broadcast companies who they rely upon to attract an audience.  They're afraid they'll tick off the "evil repressive people" they rely upon for their bread and butter if they did not release an alternate, toned down version.  It's just simple paranoia.

As for altering the message of an artist, it happens constantly.  Every book written is passed through an editor, every movie filmed goes to a cutting floor, every painting made is scrutinized and judged upon before being displayed in a gallery.  Artists are routinely run out, ridiculed, and dismissed by those who appoint themselves as critics.  Society censors art of every kind, and quite often there is a good deal of art that exists specifically to criticize society for this very reason.  I see it as part of the creative process, for with nothing to comment on, all art becomes vague abstraction, void and without form, and without constraints and censors anything can get passed off as art.  Pure expression, I think, is what humans rarely have the opportunity to engage in, owing to how society works.  If you're looking for that, listen to a bird's song or watch the play of very young children.  Pure expression in art is extremely hard to find because artists always impose constraints upon themselves, and society imposes further constraints.

It is my opinion that it is not for the network to decide when someone 'just wants to shoot his or her mouth off', that is a decision to be made by the people, or at least by groups of people that are independent of economical and/or political bonds with corporations or the state. Ofcourse it is not a good idea to greatly increase nonsensical babbling, ego-tripped rantings, etc, but that's besides the point. I just don't trust the ability of media corporations to make acceptable choices.


Restrictions of the artist do no harm to their expression and its message, as far as I'm concerned, that becomes part of the art when they decide to restrict it so. Something that goes in directly against what the artist can agree on, on the other hand, is harmful to the artist's work and its meaning. Thus, if it is the bands on decision to filter out 'bad' words, they change the meaning and form of their work. In my opinion, that does not harm the album, for instance, since the creators of the album are the source of the error, if there are any to be found - if you really don't like it, dislike the authors (as authors, not as persons, obviously).
BTW, we'll probably never agree on many aspects, and it is a rather complicated issue. For example, I cannot call the song of a bird 'art', no more than that I label a volcanic eruption in those terms, and I don't use the same definition of 'purity' in these cases. Even though purity (as it is used before) can seldomly be encountered, I see no reason to avoid striving for it. I know plenty of bands that get their expressions out there in the way they must have intended it, just like I know many independant movie directors who have no trouble achieving their desired level of 'purity' and getting at least the proper message out. I just don't expect that to happen with blockbuster material.

I never equated it with art, I said it was an example of pure expression.  :)