|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th September 2005, 04:25 PM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees
Quote:
Many of us that were regular Republican voters winced a bit when it was clear that the party elites had picked him as the guy. We winced again as we realized that he was a marginal public speaker with a penchant for strange statements. We weren't real happy when we realized that he was a religiously oriented social conservative that at best payed lip service to fiscal conservatism. The lack of ethics that he displayed when it came to fulfilling his national guard duty was worrysome. But we overlooked all of this and voted for him anyway, because we thought he must be better than some big spending Democrat controlled by the unions and the lawyers. We even trusted him to make the right decision when it came time to make the decisions about the war with Iraq. But at what point do we admit to ourselves that country would have been better off with that Democrat that we voted against. Certainly his "bring it on" taunt to the potential Iraqi insurgents must have convinced a few people that this guy was way not smart enough to be the president of the US, even if he belonged to the party that we usually vote for. For me the non-existant WMD was more than reason enough to vote for anybody but Bush. But this obviously wasn't enough for a lot of people. So now we have the above statement coupled with bizarre early on inaction in the face of this storm. Is this enough to end doubt in the minds of the Bush supporters that the US would have been far better off with somebody else as president? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04rich.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/op...rticle_popular http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...dleveeprojects |
4th September 2005, 04:31 PM | #2 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
I'm sorry? It WAS unexpected that the levees would breach. There was anticipation that the floods would top the levees, but the ACoE were surprised that they failed - particularly one that had just been improved.
|
4th September 2005, 05:18 PM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
I am not sure CM, but are you making some sort of semantic point?
After each hurricane that has narrowly passed by New Orleans over the years there have been news articles about the vunerability of New Orleans to storm surges. This is an article from Scientific American from more than three years ago discussing the vulnerability of New Orleans to Storm Surges which could cause the levies to be topped. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...5883414B7F0000 Is your point that people understood that the levies were not high enough but that they expected them to not fail when they were topped? Perhaps this is true. I was under the impression that it was very bad for levies to be topped and complete failure is likely when the levy is topped substantially. If your point is that people didn't expect the levy to be topped then I wonder what people you are talking about. Certainly not the Army Corps of Engineers that have argued that the levy height should be increased for years. It just occurred to me that you have made a sarcastic post and I have fallen for it. OK, I can see some humor in that. |
4th September 2005, 05:22 PM | #4 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Quote:
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
4th September 2005, 05:37 PM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
As I said earlier - no one - including the Army Engineers - expected the levees to be breached. Breached - as in bust open. Pretty much everyone expected the floodwaters to surge over the top, but that's a far cry from having them actually collapse. There's an enorous and important difference between the two... having some storm surge top the levees would cause some flooding, but would be relatively minor and temporary. Having the levees collapse would be (and was) catastrophic. Ther was no sarcasm here - no one anticipated that the levees would fail.
|
4th September 2005, 05:53 PM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
I am sorry CM, I was slow to understand your point.
Frankly this is news to me. All the dire predictions over the years involved the topping of the levies but people thought the levies would actually hold and the only damage would be from water that exceeded the height of the levies? I am from a part of the country where we don't have levies and my ideas on this were based on years of looking at pictures of broken levies during miscellaneous floods. I was under the impression that when substantial water flowed over the levies that they generally failed. Is this not the case? Maybe the Lake Ponchatrain levies were considered particularly safe because they were holding back water that wasn't flowing? |
4th September 2005, 06:10 PM | #7 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
This disaster was high on the list. Whether it was levee's being breeched or topped doesn't really mater.
The following was written in Oct 2004:
Quote:
I don't see Bush quite the same way Dave does but I do respect him (Dave). But what is important is that we DID fail. 9/11 was supposed to be a wake-up call and we were supposed to get ready for large disasters. We aren't ready and no one is talking about when we will be ready. I hope the dialog turns to emergency preparedness and how we have been caught with our pants down after having been warned. There shouldn't be another time. The money we will spend on New Orleans will dwarf any money spent to prepare for this event. |
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
4th September 2005, 06:35 PM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
Randfan wrote:
Quote:
Is it possible what we have here is a child of privilege who showed little discipline during his college years to learn any fundamental facts about the nature of the world who then went on to successfully exploit his privileged position to achieve political success without ever needing to demonstrate the kind of discipline necessary to do well at the positions he obtained? Incidentally, I just realized your avatar is Janeane Garofalo. She is my favorite liberal babe also. Matchmaker is one of my favorite movies. Have you heard her talk show? Two or three hours a day of non stop Republicans eat babies type stuff. I haven't actually eaten a baby in a few days but perhaps I should get cracking to fulfill Ms. Garafalo's expectations. |
4th September 2005, 06:37 PM | #9 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 381
|
Re: I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees
Quote:
Amen. I never thought that I would say it, but I wish Clinton was still the president. Plus Bush has been able to do something that I never thought was possible and that is to make Clinton look good (at least to this now former conservative Republican). |
__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson |
|
4th September 2005, 06:56 PM | #10 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would say I have seen most of what she has been in. I loved her on the Ben Stiller show, Mystery Men, Matchmaker, Truth about Cats and Dogs, Clay Pigeons as well as others. Sorry for the derail but here is a more flattering picture of her. |
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
4th September 2005, 07:03 PM | #11 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
Quote:
|
4th September 2005, 07:11 PM | #12 |
Mormon Atheist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch? |
|
4th September 2005, 07:23 PM | #13 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
Do you even know what FEMA does? It liasons with local and state agencies to coordinate relief. WHat do they do if the state doesn't liaise with them?? The feds aren't in the lead here - the locals and state lead the way. Maybe you think that shouldn't be the case - you'd have a good argument. Tell that to the states' right folks.
|
4th September 2005, 07:54 PM | #14 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,821
|
For those posters that said the breach of levees was not anticipated were you aware that last year a FEMA conference made computer models and scenarios of a breach of the levees in a hurricane?
the story Unlike with September 11, it's quickly becoming known that the government could have acted to limit the scope of the disaster. NBC's Bob Windrem reports that in July 2004, FEMA and the Louisiana homeland security agency ran an exercise predicated on a Category Three hurricane striking New Orleans head on. The exercise, named for a mythical "Hurricane Pam," was very similar to the reality of earlier this week, involving breached levees and flooding in most of the city. The exercise also included recommendations of steps to help Louisiana prepare for such a storm, none of which appear to have been followed, or followed adequately. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/ Here is the internal FEMA document about the hurricane scenario in New Orleans. It is dated July of 2004: Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes Release Date: July 23, 2004 Release number: R6-04-093 BATON ROUGE, La. -- Hurricane Pam brought sustained winds of 120 mph, up to 20 inches of rain in parts of southeast Louisiana and storm surge that topped levees in the New Orleans area. More than one million residents evacuated and Hurricane Pam destroyed 500,000-600,000 buildings. Emergency officials from 50 parish, state, federal and volunteer organizations faced this scenario during a five-day exercise held this week at the State Emergency Operations Center in Baton Rouge. The exercise used realistic weather and damage information developed by the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU Hurricane Center and other state and federal agencies to help officials develop joint response plans for a catastrophic hurricane in Louisiana. "We made great progress this week in our preparedness efforts," said Ron Castleman, FEMA Regional Director. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051 |
4th September 2005, 07:59 PM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
I see nothing about a levee breach in the FEMA document. It looks to me as if the news report mistakes the term 'tops' for 'braches' in regard to the levees. As I've mentioned, they're quite dictinct. A breach is a magnitude more serious than storm surge topping a levee.
|
4th September 2005, 08:08 PM | #16 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
Is it possible to simplify the issue regarding the federal response? I don't think even the most ardent right wing Bush supporter can deny that a Cat 4 Hurricane hitting New Orleans falls into the dire (and very possible) threat category. Maybe I'm assuming too much from the Feds, but shouldn't a fairly detailed plan have already been prepared - in advance - documenting (in excruciating detail) the required response (both Federal and State) to prevent or at least mitigate the disaster that unfolded? If no plan existed, then the characters in charge are just imcompetent But what if there actually was a plan describing exactly what to do - and it (the plan) was either ignored due to incompetance or even worse - the pre-existing disaster response plan was unable to be implemented because the men and material required were shipped to Iraq? I'm thinking that a plan exists and it's been hidden under the biggest rock in D.C. - otherwise why was the administration claiming that the flooding of New Orleans was unforseen? Because if it was (i.e, planned for), then the Administration is in even bigger trouble. So am I being skeptical enough? |
__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson |
|
4th September 2005, 08:37 PM | #17 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
Quote:
As your man (I assume) Reagan said, "It happened on my watch." |
4th September 2005, 09:04 PM | #18 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
Actually, there was a plan. It appears that the fed response was slated to come a few days after the initial response by the locals and state.. but the local and state authorities appeared not to have done anything according to the plan they'd laid out.
As this is dissected, it may be that the feds are in for some deserved criticism; so far, though, it appears that the city and state response was utter chaos. Negligence at best. http://www.cityofno.com/SystemModule...al=46&tabid=26 As to the 'ship' question... first of all, I think that analogies are a pisspoor substitute for facts and reasoned discourse abou tthe topic. To respond to your scenario, though, I'd say that the person responsible for running a ship aground would be the person tasked with making sure that the emergency plan for aground-running is followed. To translate into the real world, that would mean the people who didn;t follow the plan laid out for emergencies like this should bear the brunt of the blame. That would be the mayor and, to a greater degree, the governor. |
4th September 2005, 09:58 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The old Same place
Posts: 11,138
|
Quote:
Regarding the remainder of your post, it is largely what many have been saying since the campaign leading up to Election 2000. The man really, really is out of his depth. Thankfully, no one person can inflict catastrophic damage on a country as large and complex as any modern state, much less ours. But I wish we weren't being so provocatively ill-led.
Quote:
|
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. |
|
4th September 2005, 11:06 PM | #20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
What an excellent display of discipline. After all that quoting and commentary, not once did you contribute to the thread topic.
I salute you, sir. |
4th September 2005, 11:12 PM | #21 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
|
Quote:
You might also note that not only has he exploited his priviledged position, he has been bouyed, protected from harm and excused from learning by those in the same rarified and unaccountable clique to which his family business belongs. He seems to have no idea what the real world looks like... From an external viewpoint, he is considered as worthy to hold that office as Charles is to be crowned: His only by birth, hardly by worth. |
4th September 2005, 11:17 PM | #22 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
|
Regarding the breeching of the levees, have you never played with water, sand and dirt as a child? In the process of making mud-pies and puddles, surely you too learned at some point that excess water flow over a friable barrier will almost inevitably cause it to collapse completely? Really, you don't need engineers and hydraulogists to tell you that!
And that's what happened - heavy overtopping from storm surge caused the levees to collapse. Simple. Predictable. And it WAS predicted by many. |
4th September 2005, 11:17 PM | #23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
Adding insult to injury - that state of Louisiana refused a federal mobile hospital's assistance. Hospital is stranded a few miles away, attempting to help... bureaucratic red tape gone wild.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/09/04....ap/index.html Absolutely pathetic. I'm sure some will find a way to blame Bush for this, too... |
4th September 2005, 11:20 PM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
|
Quote:
And no, to the last. |
4th September 2005, 11:44 PM | #25 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,319
|
Quote:
|
5th September 2005, 12:19 AM | #26 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 700
|
Granted, some things on the federal level could have worked better, but most of the criticism here is not only misplaced, it is simply ignorant. Local and state officals are charged with the responsibility to evacuate their own citizens, and if they had followed their own rules, we wouldn't have half the problems we're seeing now.
Personally, I think Mayor Ray Nagin should be in jail for negligent homicide: further reading It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you need to get the hell out of dodge when you have a category four or five hurricane bearing down on you...especially when you live in a city where you have to look up to see the river, lake, or ocean. And it takes nothing other than common sense and decency to knock on your neighbors door and check their status as you're leaving. Like it or not, in the coming weeks, you're going to find that the real problem here is cultural. The bullsh*t in this country has got to end, and it needs to end right now. |
__________________
Reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction |
|
5th September 2005, 06:32 AM | #27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,064
|
Quote:
________ "Despite Warnings, Washington Failed to Fund Levee Projects Â_Â_Â_Â_By Richard A. Serrano and Nicole Gaouette Â_Â_Â_Â_The Los Angeles Times Sunday 04 September 2005 To cut spending, officials gambled that the worst-case scenario would not come to be. Â_Â_Â_Â_Washington - For years, Washington had been warned that doom lurked just beyond the levees. And for years, the White House and Congress had dickered over how much money to put into shoring up century-old dikes and carrying out newer flood control projects to protect the city of New Orleans. Â_Â_Â_Â_As recently as three months ago, the alarms were sounding - and being brushed aside. Â_Â_Â_Â_In late May, the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of Engineers formally notified Washington that hurricane storm surges could knock out two of the big pumping stations that must operate night and day even under normal conditions to keep the city dry. Â_Â_Â_Â_Also, the Corps said, several levees had settled and would soon need to be raised. And it reminded Washington that an ambitious flood-control study proposed four years before remained just that - a written proposal never put into action for lack of funding. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090405B.shtml ________ So, you see, flooding was always expected as a possibility and even the Army Corps of Engineers had issued their own warnings. Who do we blame? Perhaps those who chose to ignore the warnings and funnel funds elsewhere. |
__________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi |
|
5th September 2005, 06:37 AM | #28 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Quote:
I think what's stunning the foreign observers here is the intensity of the blame-shifting. From 3000 miles away, it's the fact that the richest and most powerful country in the world was woefully unprepared for a forseeable disaster, and failed its own citizens in their time of need, that's important. Exactly how to apportion blame seems irrelevant for the moment. The system failed. The country failed. People who could have been helped, died. Whether the failures were at state or federal level, whether it was a failure in planning or execution, whether it was a shortage of resources or a lack of will to get the resources to where they were needed, is secondary. It's shameful, and no matter how much bickering goes on within the US, the rest of the world sees it as a failure of the country and its administration as a whole. And if we're talking about Bush gaffes, is there anything to top the remark about never mind, look on the bright side, Trent Lott is going to build an even bigger and grander house and I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch? This while mothers can't get water for their dehydrated babies, old people are dying of heatstroke in their wheelchairs, and bloated bodies are drifting past on the tide. Maybe the essential problem is that the system favours putting people in power who are entirely unsuited to be there. What needs to be examined is the failure as a whole, not whether it was the chief cook or the bottle-washer who screwed up. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
5th September 2005, 06:54 AM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,064
|
Foreseeable?
I just ran into this article that suggests the inevitably of catastrophic flooding in New Orleans was always considered a problem. Apparently someone realized that a coastal city below sea level might suffer greatly in the event of a hurrican or a tidal wave. Duh!
______ They Saw It Coming Â_Â_Â_Â_By Mark Fischetti Â_Â_Â_Â_The New York Times Â_Â_Â_Â_Friday 02 September 2005 Â_Â_Â_Â_The deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina are heart-rending. The suffering of survivors is wrenching. Property destruction is shocking. But perhaps the most agonizing part is that much of what happened in New Orleans this week might have been avoided. Â_Â_Â_Â_Watching the TV images of the storm approaching the Mississippi Delta on Sunday, I was sick to my stomach. Not only because I knew the hell it could unleash (I wrote an article for Scientific American in 2001 that described the very situation that was unfolding) but because I knew that a large-scale engineering plan called Coast 2050 - developed in 1998 by scientists, Army engineers, metropolitan planners and Louisiana officials - might have helped save the city, but had gone unrealized. _______ I also happen to agree with Rolfe. The time for finger-pointing is AFTER we've taken care of the problem. The time to spin the excuses is AFTER the thousands of people left behind are fed, clothed and their medical needs are taken care of. |
__________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi |
|
5th September 2005, 07:16 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 13,231
|
The disaster awaiting New Orleans has been on the table for a very long time. One of our local radio personalities lived there in 1961, and he was relating about how it was a major topic of discussion, as well as the subject of an ongoing newspaper series at the time.
It was earlier this year that Ira Flatow's Science Friday had a segment on the situation, where the problems attendent with a major hurricane impact were discussed at length. NPR ( I think it was Talk of the Nation) also did a segment with a fellow who traced the history of the situation, starting with the French settlers and their original levees. He said that it is the levee system itself that has, over the 200 years, caused the problem. With decreased siltification, destruction of wetlands and barrier islands, and gradual subsidance of the land level. I think it is the nature of politicians to put off big, expensive projects as long as possible, hoping for the disaster to hit on the next guy's watch. Someone always gets caught short. Being in law enforcement, I was witness to the jumping-through-hoops after 9/11. The original federal largess (you want equipment? Just mention Homeland Defense in your grant application...) The spate of training in WMD response, the Incident Command Center training, the WMD exercises... Since then, little or nothing. I was, along with the rest of the department, given training in the use of the "level 2" WMD suit, and the gas mask we were supposed to be issued. I pointed out that I'd need prescription lenses, or I would be in the position of being able to breathe, but not see. The lenses were shipped a few months ago, but it was then discovered that my "emergency kit" did not include an actual mask... Now I can see but not breathe... I fear this is typical of such things. No doubt there will be mucho finger-pointing, senate hearings, images of FEMA heads being grilled in front of congress, and so forth. I wonder how many flood/hurricane prone areas will stock up on generators, emergency fuel supplies, small boats, water purification systems, and so forth? |
5th September 2005, 07:25 AM | #31 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,064
|
Re: Re: I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees
Quote:
George W. Bush, changing American politics one person at a time. He does make a clandestine hummer in the Oval Office look innocuous by comparison, doesn't he? (edited to add) _______ Â_Â_Â_"Â_The man in the Oval Office is fond of condemning "killers." But his administration continues to kill with impunity. Â_Â_Â_Â_"They can go into Iraq and do this and do that," Martha Madden, former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said Thursday, "but they can't drop some food on Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, right now? It's just mind-boggling." Â_Â_Â_Â_The policies are matters of priorities. And the priorities of the Bush White House are clear. For killing in Iraq, they spare no expense. For protecting and sustaining life, the cupboards go bare. Â_Â_Â_Â_The problem is not incompetence. It's inhumanity, cruelty and greed. Â_Â_Â_Â_Media outlets have popularized some tactical critiques of US military operations in Iraq. But the administration is competent enough to keep the military-industrial complex humming. It's good at generating huge profits for "defense" contractors, oil companies and the like. First things first, and first things last. Â_Â_Â_Â_Why shore up levees when the precious money it would take can be better used for war in Iraq? Why allow National Guard units to remain home when they can be useful, killing and being killed, in a faraway war based on lies? Â_Â_Â_Â_And when catastrophe hits people close to home, why should the president respond with urgency or adequacy if their lives don't figure as truly important in his political calculus? Â_Â_Â_Â_It's time to end the impunity of President George W. Bush." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090205G.shtml |
__________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi |
|
5th September 2005, 07:48 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
|
I will grant that there is plenty of blame to go around. However we are dealing with a disaster that affected 3 states, millions of people, oil availability, imports of food and other commodities and would, regardless of the local response, require massive federal involvement. Couple that with the fact that they knew it was coming and I suggest that the ultimate blame does indeed fall on the Bush administration.
The suggestion that the locals failed exonerates him is wrong, IMO. After all, given the implications of a disaster down there don't you think that part of the planning ought to take into account the realities of incompetant local authorities? I don't get the argument that somehow disasters should follow a beurocracy's plans. And aside from even that, what exactly are the FEMA and HS folks being paid for? This is too big to lay on local crooks, you gotta look higher. |
5th September 2005, 07:50 AM | #33 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
|
Re: Re: Re: I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees
[quote]Originally posted by Mephisto
[b] George W. Bush, changing American politics one person at a time. He does make a clandestine hummer in the Oval Office look innocuous by comparison, doesn't he? Even desirable. |
5th September 2005, 08:00 AM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,248
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously. |
|
5th September 2005, 08:03 AM | #35 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 381
|
Since the Bush Administrations spin seems to be that the initial disaster response is the responsibility of the "locals" and the Feds come in later. So if the locals have all of this Power/Authority - I guess that means that the "locals" have the authority to have "THEIR" National Guardsmen (and material) IMMEDIATELY returned from IRAQ?
|
__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson |
|
5th September 2005, 10:25 AM | #36 |
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,202
|
Quote:
2) It was the job of the local, city and state, government to see that the levees were properly maintained. They failed, for decades, to do this. Both governments are notoriously corrupt, and what monies and assistance they received from the Feds were often diverted into pork-barrel projects for their cronies. A large part of the bickering at the Federal level about monies for improvements were due to this diversion and corruption. The disaster has been mismanaged at all levels; but far less so on the Federal level than most knee-jerk anti-Bush people would like to believe. The biggest and most egregious negligence was on the part of the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and the Governor of Louisiana; both of which are Democrats. |
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. |
|
5th September 2005, 10:54 AM | #37 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,333
|
Whether or not anyone predicted that the leveys would fail, it was widely know the day after the hurricane that the leveys had failed. I saw pictures on the News that day. Certainly everyone should have know what the consequences of that failure would be for the city.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9175204/
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th September 2005, 10:58 AM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
|
Quote:
|
5th September 2005, 12:31 PM | #39 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,057
|
Not much, in their effects. Which is a legitimate gripe - but the hysterical finger-pointing at Bush as the culprit here is both misinformed and ill-timed. It's been known for 40 years that this could happen, and the federal government hasn't taken much of an interest in improving the levees. Part of that is for good reason - the levee upkeep has been a source of patronage in NO... the money allotted has been squandered with impunity. CLinton cut back on funding for levee improvement for this reason.
Bush deserves some blame - his leadership was nonexistent, the FEMA system seems to have been glacially slow since it was incorporated into the DHS system (although I've read it took 9 days for FEMA to act after hurricane Andrew). No way around it, though - the state of LA was negligent, and compounded the chaos and misery by engaging in petty turf-battles with the feds. As soon as the feds took control, things got done. Thankfully. |
5th September 2005, 12:43 PM | #40 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,333
|
Opps. Double Post.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|