Quote :

"http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112596602138332256-IVjf4NilaJ4nZupaoGGa6uBm4,00.html"

JonHGuth, if you had bothered to read the exchange between me and 1337 b4k4, you would have found the correct answer, and you would not have posted that editorial.

Grasping at straws eh?

9/8/2005 10:52:14 AM

Quote :

"We don't expect the states to raise minutemen militias to defend against foreign invading powers, do we? "

Actually, in a sense we do. Federal troops can not be assigned to operations stateside without the request of the states, and up until the end of the world wars, there was no standing federal military.

Quote :

"So why do we (YOU) expect them to provide the bulk of emergency response when their major cities are destroyed? The only difference is the immediate nature of the threat, but the impact on the nation is basically the same."

Because every other god damn state in the union has been doing it for years? Hell if it wasn't for the deadliness, hurricanes would be a tourist attraction in Florida. The midwest has seen tonados rip cities to shreads and how many times has california been rocked by earthquakes? Hell even in the north when ice storms bury entire cities in 8 or 9 feet of snow and knock out power and freeze water lines they manage with mostly state units. And maybe, just maybe because the damned emergency plan from NO says that they will evacuate their city.

Quote :

"So if terrorists hit every city in North Carolina simultaneously (I figure that's enough to make someone notice us), would you like to sit around and wait for Mike Easley (of all people) to decide when we should get federal assistance? "

Somehow I think if terrorists hit every city in NC simultaneously, there would be very little waiting.

Quote :

"Again, it has been Bush's whole responsibility since 9/11 to decide how this system is set up. Now we know: we have to let putz state officials decide how much damage is done to the national economy before the federal government can step in. "

Damage to the national economy isn't quite a reason to violate the constituion and the laws of the nation. Besides, in all, Katrina's impact to the economy has been rather mild don't you think?

Quote :

"Why do we pay federal taxes, again?"

Why do we pay state taxes if the state isn't going to help it's own people? Remember the feds have to help all the other affected states too.

Quote :

"You did happen to notice that the NATIONAL GUARD is currently serving in IRAQ, right?"

Those units have been called into service of the federal government, with the permission of the states they are assigned to.

9/8/2005 11:24:34 AM

Sorry - pryderi. I forgot the quotes/source. That being said - what do you think about the statements made?

When you stub your toe - do you blame the President?

9/8/2005 11:27:08 AM

yes because clearly stubbing your toe and an entire city being destroyed are the same thing

9/8/2005 11:29:57 AM

Quote :

" JonHGuth, if you had bothered to read the exchange between me and 1337 b4k4, you would have found the correct answer, and you would not have posted that editorial. Grasping at straws eh? "

i did
thats why i thougt you didnt read it

actually to be honest i dont know what exchange you are talking about. you posting links?

[Edited on September 8, 2005 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2005 12:36:28 PM

^^^ This is a different transcript, but similar content.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168799,00.html

Quote :

"SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: The press could get in and out of there, could bring in their TV trucks and everything else, why the hell couldn’t a truckload of water, a truckload of medicine, a busload of physicians, why couldn’t they get through? (END VIDEO CLIP) BRIT HUME, HOST: An indignant Senator Leahy asking a question no doubt asked by many others. FOX News correspondent Major Garrett has been looking for answers to some of those questions. He joins me now. Major, first of all, obviously, the focus of all of the attention has been FEMA (search), the Federal Emergency Management Agency. What is FEMA? MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2,500 full-time employees, 4,000 standby employees. A mission statement very simple: Prepare, respond, help recover, reduce risk. How does it do it? By coordinating with state and local entities and other groups, the Salvation Army (search), Red Cross (search), dedicated to helping the needy when disaster strikes. HUME: So FEMA is relatively — it isn’t very labor intensive. It mostly works through other agencies? GARRETT: It works through other agencies. But it has been moved into the Department of Homeland Security. In this crisis, it is a bit a victim of its own bureaucratic boastfulness. Earlier this year, the new national response plan, released by the Department of Homeland Security, promised this: Seamless integration of the federal government when an incident exceeds local and state capabilities. In the minds of many Americans, this one did, and FEMA, at least initially, in the minds of some, didn’t not respond enough. HUME: Yes, and the word "seamless" doesn’t exactly spring to mind. GARRETT: No, it does not. HUME: But look, I mean, they’re down there. The Red Cross, for example, is there. GARRETT: Standing by, ready. HUME: Standing by, ready. Why didn’t FEMA send the Red Cross into New Orleans when we had all of those people there on that bridge overpass and elsewhere? GARRETT: At the Superdome (search), at the convention center... HUME: Lack of water, right. Why not? GARRETT: First of all, no jurisdiction. FEMA works with the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other organizations, but it has no direct control to order them to go one place or the other. Secondarily, the Red Cross was ready. I just got off the phone with one of their officials. They had a vanguard, Brit, of trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go, where? To the Superdome and the convention center. Why weren’t they there? The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security told them they could not go. HUME: Now, this is the Louisiana — this isn’t the Louisiana branch of the federal Homeland Security? This is... GARRETT: The state’s own agency devoted to the state’s homeland security. They told them, "You cannot go there." Why? The Red Cross tells me that state agency in Louisiana said, "Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more to come to the Superdome or the convention center. We want to get them out." So at the same time local officials were screaming, "Where is the food? Where is the water?" The Red Cross was standing by ready. The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said, "You can’t go." HUME: All right. FEMA does presumably, at some point, have some jurisdiction over some military forces. Of course, the first-responders there are the National Guard (search). Why didn’t FEMA send the National Guard in? You heard that cry from many people. GARRETT: FEMA does not have jurisdictional control over any state’s National Guard. Only the governor does. The governor, in this case, Kathleen Blanco (search), a Democrat, did use the Louisiana National Guard for some purposes, did not deploy them in massive numbers initially. And they were not used to move any of these relief organizations in. And they could have been, for the very same reason I talked about earlier. The state decided they didn’t want the relief organizations where the people needed it most, because they wanted those people to get out. But even today, we know that Governor Blanco has now decided that a mandatory evacuation may not be necessarily after all. But we can go into that later. GARRETT: So she says. HUME: What about the use of, by her, of the National Guard to impose law and order during the early looting and all of that? GARRETT: She had a choice, as I am told. She could have taken up the offer from FEMA to federalize all of the activities in Louisiana, meaning that FEMA would be in control of everything, not only law enforcement, but everything else. She declined to give them that authority. So, essentially, FEMA was trapped between two bureaucracies. One, the Department of Homeland Security, where many of its decisions have to be at least reviewed and, in some cases, approved, and a recalcitrant state bureaucracy, who wasn’t going to give them the authority they needed to make things happen, among them the National Guard. HUME: What about this evacuation problem? That clearly was something that New Orleans knew it faced to some extent. GARRETT: And the city of Louisiana. They have a whole plan that contemplates dealing with an evacuation in the effect of a hurricane three, four or five. Their own plan says, "One hundred thousand residents minimum from the New Orleans area will have to be evacuated." This plan makes it clear... HUME: You mean, that can’t get out on their own? GARRETT: That these people will not have their own vehicles. Not only that, it stipulates that these people are disproportionately poor, sick, and in need of special transportation assistance. And, Brit, I think in these circumstances, bureaucratic language is important. Let’s go to this. This is what the state says. "The Department of Health and Hospitals has the primary responsibility for providing medical coordination for all of the special-needs populations, i.e. hospital and nursing home patients, persons on home health care, elderly persons and other persons with physical or mental disabilities." Brit, I don’t think you come up with a better description of the people we saw day in and day out at the Superdome and the convention center than this very population that the state’s own plan said needed to be transported to a safe place and provided services. HUME: No plan for — and, apparently, no facility for doing that. GARRETT: No facility for doing that. Not only that, those who reviewed the plans that the state put together before were critical of it. In 2002, the New Orleans Times-Picayune (search) had a whole story about this, saying, "No one believes the evacuation plans are possible, feasible, or will be carried out." They proved to be accurate. HUME: It sounds as if the state will have much to answer for in the investigation coming before Congress, as well as the federal government. GARRETT: It appears to be that. HUME: All right. Major, thank you."

9/8/2005 1:53:28 PM

I am drawing up a law suite against mother nature for the deaths as a result of Katrina...anything w/ Michael Moore in the title should be ignored. These people knew 2 days before the hurricane hit that it was coming...they should have gotten out then. The good thing about all these deaths is that there will be less stupid people. The only people who should have had help to get out are the kids, elderly, and anyone in the hospital...

9/8/2005 2:08:39 PM

so assuming what this guy said in the interview was true. . . why did FEMA turn the walmart truck with water around? why did they cut his communication lines? why did they keep the diesel tanker from delivering their fuel? why did they say they were coming when they weren't?

perhaps this isn't bush's fault, but someone at FEMA fucked up. and that is certainly bush's responsibility.

9/8/2005 2:21:40 PM

Quote :

""The bottom line is that despite the fact the president was strapped with two governors who bungled this crisis badly, in the end it is the president who sends in the National Guard and FEMA relief. The president's suggestion that the size of this storm caught all by surprise just doesn't get it. His administration was 48 hours late sending in the National Guard and poor Americans got raped and killed because of those mistakes." -- Joe Scarborough, MSNBC"

9/8/2005 2:30:16 PM

^^ exactly. and after the necessities are taken care of, ie getting the rest of the people out, and dealing with the situation, all that will come out in the wash. and if people don't lose jobs and possibly face legal repercussions, i'd be surprised.

blanco and nagin should shoulder some this blame as well.

[Edited on September 8, 2005 at 2:31 PM. Reason : *]

9/8/2005 2:31:28 PM

^^ And yet, the president has NO AUTHORITY over the National Guard unless called into Federal service.

9/8/2005 3:27:18 PM

Which he cannot do without the permission of the state governor, which was refused.

9/8/2005 4:44:10 PM

Some buses in New Orleans less than 1 mile from the superdome that could have been used to transport people but weren't. Estimated at 9,000 "seats" that could have been filled for the evacuation that.



More buses in New Orleans that would allow for another 16,000 to evacuate.

While some might want to think this is an example of local and state authorities fucking things up, I blame Bush. Its a shame Bush didn't get off his ass and drive those buses.

[Edited on September 8, 2005 at 5:15 PM. Reason : 2nd pic]

9/8/2005 5:10:25 PM

are all the busses also going to have police officers that can force people to evacuate?

9/8/2005 5:23:33 PM

I thought there were plenty of people who wanted to evacuate but were unable.

9/8/2005 6:11:10 PM

NOPE YOU'RE WRONG

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET UP AND WALK THEIR ASSES OUT OF THERE

OH WELL, ONLY STUPID PEOPLE DIED. ITS A GOOD THING

9/8/2005 6:17:38 PM

Quote :

"I thought there were plenty of people who wanted to evacuate but were unable."

some
but certainly not the majority

they predicted how many people would not evacuate

9/8/2005 6:34:56 PM

people say that they were unable but willing on the television box.

9/8/2005 8:41:47 PM

Quote :

"Because every other god damn state in the union has been doing it for years? Hell if it wasn't for the deadliness, hurricanes would be a tourist attraction in Florida. The midwest has seen tonados rip cities to shreads and how many times has california been rocked by earthquakes? Hell even in the north when ice storms bury entire cities in 8 or 9 feet of snow and knock out power and freeze water lines they manage with mostly state units. And maybe, just maybe because the damned emergency plan from NO says that they will evacuate their city"

That's fucking bullshit, and you know it. New Orleans isn't Florida or the Midwest. IT'S FUCKING NEW ORLEANS. And it wasn't like it was merely "damaged"--the Hurricane wiped out 60% of the city. It's submerged in TWENTY FEET OF WATER. What are you smoking?

Quote :

"Damage to the national economy isn't quite a reason to violate the constituion and the laws of the nation."

I'll be goddamned it isn't. Even if you don't count national defense, you have to look at interstate commerce. You just don't understand the constitution--you are a reflexive Republican (NOT a conservative) who will defend the politicians to the death, even if it costs you any principles you may hold.

Quote :

"Besides, in all, Katrina's impact to the economy has been rather mild don't you think?"

No, I don't. Unless you count outrageously high gas prices, the destruction of some substantial percentage of GDP, not to mention the $51 billion immediate aid package (not to count the billions more forthcoming) ...

Quote :

"Why do we pay state taxes if the state isn't going to help it's own people?"

I don't pay Louisiana's state taxes. But I definitely pay for gas.

Quote :

"Those units have been called into service of the federal government, with the permission of the states they are assigned to."

Bullshit. The President is the commander-in-chief of the Army, and the National Guard is a unit of the Army. Read their own web site if you don't believe me:

Quote :

"In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal missions. Examples of federal activations include Guard units deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo for stabilization operations and units deployed to the Middle East and other locations in the war on terrorism. When federalized, Guard units are commanded by the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating."

9/9/2005 12:45:19 AM

Quote :

"That's fucking bullshit, and you know it. New Orleans isn't Florida or the Midwest. IT'S FUCKING NEW ORLEANS. And it wasn't like it was merely "damaged"--the Hurricane wiped out 60% of the city. It's submerged in TWENTY FEET OF WATER. What are you smoking? "

60% or just plain gone, it doesn't matter. The point is, natural disasters wipe out our cities almost regularly, and yet in all of our years, this is the first time where the state has failed to provide adequate first response for it's people and adequate support and cooperation for the federal units.

Quote :

"I'll be goddamned it isn't. Even if you don't count national defense, you have to look at interstate commerce. You just don't understand the constitution--you are a reflexive Republican (NOT a conservative) who will defend the politicians to the death, even if it costs you any principles you may hold."

Hardly, I've always held that the states are the ones who take primary responsibility for themselves in any situation. Always have, always will. Furthermore, there is no reason to completely ignore the laws we have in place just because a few people are spending a bit more on gas. We're a pretty damn big and damn resilliant country, we can recover without usurping the laws of the nation.

Quote :

"No, I don't. Unless you count outrageously high gas prices, the destruction of some substantial percentage of GDP, not to mention the $51 billion immediate aid package (not to count the billions more forthcoming) ..."

No, I really don't count high gas prices as a major impact to the economy, especially since it would be the same regardless of whether NO was under water or just plain destroyed. As far as our GDP, have anything to back up that some "substantial" percentage is gone? And 51 billion in aid across 3 states is nothing.

Quote :

"I don't pay Louisiana's state taxes. But I definitely pay for gas. "

And you really think that if more people had been saved by the federal government that your gas prices would be lower?

Quote :

"Bullshit. The President is the commander-in-chief of the Army, and the National Guard is a unit of the Army. Read their own web site if you don't believe me: "

What part of that disputes the statement that those units have been called into service of the federal government with the permission of the states they're assigned to?

9/9/2005 5:00:38 AM

Quote :

"The point is, natural disasters wipe out our cities almost regularly"

really? wow - that's news to me. I've been a US citizen coming up on 26 years now, and I can't recall a single other time a major city has been "wiped out". Yes, towns get hit by tonadoes, snow storms, earthquakes, and hurricanes, but the amount of damage and long-term social and economic effect from Katrina is unprecedented in the modern US.

Quote :

"As far as our GDP, have anything to back up that some "substantial" percentage is gone?"

I've seen estimates from 0.5 to 1%, on the scale of 9/11. That is a lot for a single event to damage the entire US economy, the largest economy in the history of the world, by a full percentage point. Assuming a GDP of $11-12trillion, 1% is ~$120Billion. And regardless what you say, $50 billion, $100billion, whatever - that's a hell of a lot of money. Maybe our $300billion bill for Iraq has skewed your perception of "a lot of money".

9/9/2005 5:21:17 AM

Quote :

"people say that they were unable but willing on the television box."

theyve also said that busses were in fact going through many neighborhoods for 2 days

9/9/2005 6:42:11 AM

Quote :

"this needs to echo in our minds forever as a testiment to how half the american people made the wrong decision."

please, I beg you, please keep saying things like this. Please keep alienating yourself from half of the voting population. I mean, i suppose its not at all possible that there was no viable alternative to Bush presented by the other main party, so people went with the devil they knew...

9/9/2005 8:11:20 AM

Quote :

"I am drawing up a law suite against mother nature for the deaths as a result of Katrina...anything w/ Michael Moore in the title should be ignored. These people knew 2 days before the hurricane hit that it was coming...they should have gotten out then. The good thing about all these deaths is that there will be less stupid people. The only people who should have had help to get out are the kids, elderly, and anyone in the hospital..."

Conservative Compassion...I laughed when I heard this term!! What a joke...

9/9/2005 8:59:16 AM

^ then I guess you enjoy the naive ignorance of liberalism.

9/9/2005 9:01:47 AM

^

Quote :

"please, I beg you, please keep saying things like this. Please keep alienating yourself from half of the voting population. I mean, i suppose its not at all possible that there was no viable alternative to Bush Kerry presented by the other main party, so people went with the devil they knew... anyone but bush."

what was it bush tried to say that one time?

fool me once shame on you.
fool me twice shame on me.
bush got re-elected.
i guess we can tell who the fools are.

[Edited on September 9, 2005 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ^]

9/9/2005 9:13:10 AM

agentlion, think back to the LAST major hurricane. The last category five hit in the 80s, not to mention the dozen category threes since then, I guess you just missed them.

But we understand your problem. You have no knowledge of how the American System of Government works, so you just assume it was all the fault of the guy on top.
What you need to realize is that In NO, the guy on top was Governor Kathleen Blanco.

Or do you think the reigning President of the European Union is to blame for heat-wave deaths in Paris?

[Edited on September 9, 2005 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2005 9:36:24 AM

^^ are you suggesting that the republican party should not have done what is more or less tradition for the incumbent party after the first term and to have nominated someone else? In general, it could be assumed that dubya adequately reflected the republican party's goals, as there was little republican opposition to him. Granted, the reason for this probably has more to do with politics and presenting a strong front and all, but even still, I don't see too terribly much from the perspective of 2002-2003 (since that is when people decide to run, midn you) that would suggest that the republican party should have nominated anyone else. Given our fucked up generally-a-two-party system, it would have been suicidal to nominate anyone other than Bush at the time when the first real hints of shittiness occurred, namely early 2004.

Unless, instead, of course you are trying to suggest that the DNC should have nominated someone other than Kerry, in which case I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm fairly certain that is what my original post suggested, is it not? I think it basically said "Hey, don't blame the people who voted, blame the people who gave you a shitty choice of who to vote for other than Bush"

Quote :

"i guess we can tell who the fools are."

Like I said, PLEASE keep calling half of the american voting public fools. PLEASE keep doing it. And PLEASE slap an endorsement for your political party of choice when you do so. That way we can all look at said party and say "damn, we don't want to vote for those fuckers..."

9/9/2005 11:54:07 AM

Quote :

"§ 5191. PROCEDURE FOR DECLARATION {Sec. 501} a. Request and declaration All requests for a declaration by the President that an emergency exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary. As a part of such request, and as a prerequisite to emergency assistance under this Act, the Governor shall take appropriate action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information describing the State and local efforts and resources which have been or will be used to alleviate the emergency, and will define the type and extent of Federal aid required. Based upon such Governor's request, the President may declare that an emergency exists. b. Certain emergencies involving Federal primary responsibility The President may exercise any authority vested in him by section 502 or section 503 [42 U.S.C. § 5192 or § 5193] with respect to an emergency when he determines that an emergency exists for which the primary responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority. In determining whether or not such an emergency exists, the President shall consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable. The President's determination may be made without regard to subsection (a). (Pub. L. 93-288, title V, § 501, as added Pub. L. 100-707, title I, § 107(a), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4706.) § 5192. Federal emergency assistance {Sec. 502} 1. Specified In any emergency, the President may-- 1. direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical and advisory services) in support of State and local emergency assistance efforts to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe; 2. coordinate all disaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, private organizations, and State and local governments; 3. provide technical and advisory assistance to affected State and local governments for-- 1. the performance of essential community services; 2. issuance of warnings of risks or hazards; 3. public health and safety information, including dissemination of such information; 4. provision of health and safety measures; and 5. management, control, and reduction of immediate threats to public health and safety; 4. provide emergency assistance through Federal agencies; 5. remove debris in accordance with the terms and conditions of section 407 [42 U.S.C. § 5173]; 6. provide assistance in accordance with section 408 [42 U.S.C. § 5174]; and [(Pub.L. 106-390, § 206(b), October 30, 2000)] 7. assist State and local governments in the distribution of medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, and emergency assistance. 2. General Whenever the Federal assistance provided under subsection (a) with respect to an emergency is inadequate, the President may also provide assistance with respect to efforts to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe."

sorry... noticed that Kdawg(c) had posted this statute trying to say that Bush couldn't act without the governor's request for help... that's not true, the President has complete power to supercede a governor in this type of a situation...

he chose not to use that power

9/9/2005 12:11:33 PM

^ i know, right? maybe he chose to follow that great liberal principle of "States' Rights" and try and let Louisiana do its own thing and ask for help if they wanted to.

just because you can do something doesn't mean that you always should...

9/9/2005 12:15:52 PM

so, your'e saying that just because something could have been done to prevent a large chunk of these people from dying, he shouldn't have because he was concerned about "state's rights"?

somehow, i strongly doubt that the very idea of "state's rights" has ever independently entered his mind...

9/9/2005 12:22:43 PM

9/9/2005 12:34:25 PM

ahaha thats hillarious

9/9/2005 1:30:38 PM

Quote :

" Some buses in New Orleans less than 1 mile from the superdome that could have been used to transport people but weren't. Estimated at 9,000 "seats" that could have been filled for the evacuation that. More buses in New Orleans that would allow for another 16,000 to evacuate. While some might want to think this is an example of local and state authorities fucking things up, I blame Bush. Its a shame Bush didn't get off his ass and drive those buses. [Edited on September 8, 2005 at 5:15 PM. Reason : 2nd pic]"

Spreading the big lie eh? Nagin did use buses to evacuate.

Quote :

"Nagin orders mandatory evacuation in face of Katrina 10:11 AM CDT on Sunday, August 28, 2005 WWLTV.com Mayor Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city of New Orleans in the face of Category-5 Katrina which was expected to make a direct strike on the city early Monday. Nagin said that the predicted tidal surges and heavy rains could mean widespread flooding and power outages that could last for some time. The order extends to everyone in the city of New Orleans with the following exceptions: Essential military and law enforcement personnel from the city and state, regulated utilities employees, essential members of the media, hospital employees and their patients, medical personnel, Criminal Sheriff's personnel and inmates and hotels and their patrons. Nagin said the city could and would commandeer any property or vehicle it deemed necessary to provide safe shelter or transport for those in need. He also opened the Louisiana Superdome as a shelter of last resort that would begin accepting people around Noon. He said the Dome would have few supplies and that people were expected to bring food and other necessary items. RTA buses were going to be sent to pick up those going to shelters at designated pickup points. Nagin discouraged staying in the Superdome, saying that people would not have access to power and possibly plumbing. His pickup spots were: Martin Luther King Elementary. William Franz Elementary. Warren Easton High School. Israel Augustine School. McMain Magnet School. Sylvanie Williams Elementary School. Rabouin School. Arthur Mondy in Algiers. O. Perry Walker High School. Abramson High School. Sara T. Reed School New Orleans Mission "

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html

9/9/2005 8:29:35 PM

Quote :

"The point is, natural disasters wipe out our cities almost regularly"

...

This is honestly the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

(and probably one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on here in a long time--that's no hyperbole)

Quote :

"Hardly, I've always held that the states are the ones who take primary responsibility for themselves in any situation. Always have, always will. Furthermore, there is no reason to completely ignore the laws we have in place just because a few people are spending a bit more on gas. We're a pretty damn big and damn resilliant country, we can recover without usurping the laws of the nation."

Well, that would be the second dumbest.

Quote :

"No, I really don't count high gas prices as a major impact to the economy"

...and the third...

Quote :

"As far as our GDP, have anything to back up that some "substantial" percentage is gone? And 51 billion in aid across 3 states is nothing."

You could try reading the news. I know it's hard.

Quote :

"And you really think that if more people had been saved by the federal government that your gas prices would be lower?"

Well, therein lies at least one of your problems (although an acute inability to percieve reality is another): you don't understand the issues at hand here. At all.

It's not just that President Bush had the power to "save more people" in this particular situation.

He was SINGULARLY CHARGED after the worst domestic disaster we've experienced in our collective lifetimes, to reform the entire government's disaster-response system in anticipation of the next one.

And he had the overwhelming political mandate to do it. Not to mention almost four years.

So now, we have the worst disaster ever, even worse than the last one. And eerily similar to a very viable terrorist attack scenario, except for the presence of IDEAL INTELLIGENCE.

And the best response we get is that the STATE fucked up?

I'm sorry, the President has no place to pass the buck to the states on the issue of national security. None whatsoever. As someone who believes in the Constitution as it was actually written, national security is one of the few issues over which the federal government has unilateral power. Therefore, the buck cannot be passed down.

From a practical perspective, New Orleans's levees should've been secured as a matter of a holistic "security" campaign. I recall the plight post-9/11 over whether people could take photos of our Shearon-Harris Nuclear Plant. But securing major cities from utter destruction, either by nature or by a viable terrorist threat, never happened?

I personally don't see how we could ever curtail and adequately respond to a terrorist threat without a "standing intervention team," at least around vulnerable areas. At the very least, we should have a competent reactionary team (which FEMA is not; even Robert Novak attests as much--in his recent column, he notes one Florida Republican congressman who has constantly feuded with FEMA over appropriate disaster relief measures).

Basically it's obvious to me -- and a lot of people -- that what the Bush administration has engaged in, in recent years, is what's called "security theatre." They have made moves to make people feel more secure, without actually making us more secure.

The Department of Homeland Security has now been rightfully outed as such.

What will be next?

9/10/2005 12:40:10 AM

Quote :

"so, your'e saying that just because something could have been done to prevent a large chunk of these people from dying, he shouldn't have because he was concerned about "state's rights"?"

actually, no, not really. I didn't totally develop that thought, cause I was working on something at the time. However, it pretty much goes like this:

Dubya goes in the next day w/ the national guard.
Liberals yell "OMFG! HE REALLY IS A FASCIST!!! LET THE GOVERNOR AND MAYOR HAVE A CRACK AT IT FIRST YOU FASCIST!!!"

ok, dubya instead waits a few days, in the interest of "states' rights" to allow the governor and mayor a crack at it.
Liberals then yell "OMFG!!! HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT NEW ORLEANS!!! HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING!!! OMFG HE REALLY HATES POOR PEOPLE!!!"

so, its a no-win situation...

Quote :

"From a practical perspective, New Orleans's levees should've been secured as a matter of a holistic "security" campaign."

You're right. The mayor of NO and the governor of Louisiana should have taken steps themselves to fix a problem of their own state's making, rather than smoozing off of the dime of everyone else in America.

9/10/2005 12:46:23 AM

Quote :

"You're right. The mayor of NO and the governor of Louisiana should have taken steps themselves to fix a problem of their own state's making, rather than smoozing off of the dime of everyone else in America."

Ok, let me reiterate here:

New Orleans was a MAJOR AMERICAN CITY that was destroyed. It did not just affect Louisiana.

Guess what? My taxes will pay for its reconstruction. The whole national economy will (and has) suffered for it. And it highlights the fact that the federal government does absolutely nothing to secure weak-link infrastructure against terrorist attacks.

I, personally, do not pay Louisiana state taxes. But when New Orleans is threatened, I expect it to be protected, and fixed quickly, because it affects me. I don't give a flying fuck about the governor or the mayor, because I can't elect them. The same goes for LA, NYC, SF, Seattle, and any number of major metropolitan areas, not to mention our major nuclear plants and other infrastructure around the nation.

And frankly, I think if you don't quite get the point that New Orleans is not in the same league as some little bumfuck town that gets wiped out, you're missing something upstairs.

9/10/2005 12:54:45 AM

Quote :

"New Orleans was a MAJOR AMERICAN CITY that was destroyed."

if its so major, then why the fuck can it not pay for its own freaking leevees? I mean, its not the major and governor don't know the damned thing is 20 feet below sea-level...

all of your whining about our taxes going to pay for its reconstruction is m00t if NO and louisiana had taken responsibility for themselves and fixed their own fucking leevees, instead of trying to mooch off of everyone else

9/10/2005 1:08:57 AM

9/10/2005 1:09:14 AM

^^

Ok, and so what's my recourse, huh? Do I get to vote against Nagin or Blanco in the next election for failing to fix the levees?

Huh? No? Really? Maybe because I'm neither a NO resident nor a Louisiana resident?

Maybe it's the job of the President and the federal system to protect us when incidents of NATIONAL CONCERN happen, because they are accountable for the national welfare?

Maybe?

Or is your point of view that we should let state governors and mayors decide how much of a hit the national economy and national security take, at everyone else's expense, including people who had no say in electing them?

9/10/2005 1:49:10 AM

Quote :

"Spreading the big lie eh? Nagin did use buses to evacuate."

I never said he didn't use any buses. I merely pointed to buses capable of transporting an extra 25,000 people that were within a mile of the Superdome. In other words, state and local authorities did not fully utilize/manage available resources.

9/10/2005 1:57:53 AM

Quote :

"Maybe it's the job of the President and the federal system to protect us when incidents of NATIONAL CONCERN happen, because they are accountable for the national welfare?"

and, had the governor and mayor actually done something about those leevees, then it wouldn't NOW be a national concern.

yes, its a balancing act between state and federal responsibility. I'm not that naive as to say it should all be a states issue. However, at the same time, NO should KNOW its importance to the nation and should KNOW its vulnerability. Thus, solely relying on the gov't here is foolhardy and shirks NO's responsibility as well.

simply being important to the nation doesn't allow you to shirk your own responsibility for your own welfare. if NO had the funds available or could reasonably raise such funds necessary to build better leevees, then why should the rest of the nation be expected to foot the bill for such a thing? Did NO or louisiana even try to raise such money, or even part of such money?

9/10/2005 9:49:10 AM

Smoker4, you are an idiot. Do you think it is right that the Federal Government is going to be tasked to rebuild NO? I don't, I think the people of NO are creative and industrious, while we should do all we can to save lives, livlihoods and homes are their problem. It is between them and their insurance company, if you ask me.

It is wrong to make North Carolinians pay to rebuild NO, it is wrong to make North Carolinians pay for NO's levies. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If it costs so much money to live in NO then it should be paid for by the fools that live there, not sensible people smart enough NOT to live under water. If companies refused to insure buildings in NO, and rebuilding is too costly, then maybe they shouldn't rebuild.

This dual soverignty shit sucks. A dam burst in Hope Mills back in hurricane Fran, and the town, which owned the damn thing, is insisting that the state government rebuild it. The state government is insisting the Fed should pay for it (it was declared a federal disaster area, after all). Net result, The Damn Thing Is Still Broken. No legislature wants to be suckered into paying for it when there is a chance that by waiting long enough, somebody else will play the sucker.

Doing Everything at the National level is stupid, does the average US Senator really understand the importance of NO's levies? The City Council, whose meeting place is below water right now sure does. But what the fuck does a Senator from South Dakota know or care about NO? So, we should do away with the conceit that is the Federal Government, all we would have to do is Enforce the Constitution to make all this wrangling go away. Cut Federal Taxes, raise Local Taxes, and take care of your own damn self.

[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 10:13 AM. Reason : sp]

9/10/2005 10:11:11 AM

^ how much federal money was spent in the aftermath of floyd?

would you like to take your arguement to the people that were flooded over after that hurricane?

9/10/2005 10:32:55 AM

Of course not! That is like suggesting I argue welfare reform in front of recipients, medicare reform in front of sick people, etc.

When the government takes from Paul to give to Jack, Jack never wants to hear someone telling Paul his situation is unjust.

This is an argument for the residents of states that are regularly milked by other states in this fashion. I'm sure the residents of NO would be outraged to hear someone arguing they are not entitled to government provided charity, so please don't tell them.

9/10/2005 11:16:14 AM

ha, somehow this became an argument about ivory tower ideology (omf, states rights, federal gov. baaad) versus the real world

9/10/2005 11:16:39 AM

^ True.

I suspect the argument could go the other way. "Do away with the states, just let the Fed handle it." Either one would work for me, but this duality crap just doesn't work for the long term.

9/10/2005 2:18:36 PM

this is how crowded the superdome's showers were.

a travesty.

9/10/2005 5:57:43 PM

Those girls need a dose of ass

9/10/2005 7:28:27 PM

^ Yes.

^^^^ Hmmmm...actually LoneSnark brings up an excellent point that deserves a bit more than simply dimissing it as "ivory tower ideology".

Following Katrina, one of the things that really concerns me is all the talk of increasing the power of the federal government, e.g. "the President should be able to override the Governor" or "the federal government should have special powers to enter a state and take action during emergencies". Sounds good on the surface, but it could also be an easy step on the way to doing away with the states and investing that power with the federal government. The last thing this country needs is a stronger central government--they're slow, inefficient and don't work. Local governments (cities, townships, etc) are in the best position to determine local needs and deal with local issues. Even when going from the local to state level, small locales become lost in the larger scale--look at LoneSnarks' example of the state having little concern over the damn Hope Mills dam.

They put states into the Constitution and explicitly limited the powers of the federal government for a reason. We shouldn't going messing with it because of this.

9/10/2005 7:46:22 PM