Discussion:
Editorial pleads for New Orleans
(too old to reply)
Frog Prince
2005-09-08 19:45:42 UTC
Permalink
a sample of what's on the net from the press

clari.local.louisiana
clari.web.local.louisiana

"United Press International" <C-***@clari.net> wrote in message
news:Uus-katrina-***@clari.net...
|
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- A New Orleans Times-Picayune
editorial urges the end of turf wars in Hurricane Katrina's wake so
the task of rebuilding Louisiana can take priority.
The newspaper said the Federal Emergency Management Agency
has earned scorching criticism for its slow response to the crisis
in New Orleans.
"And maybe it was only a matter of time before officials at
FEMA and its parent organization, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, began looking for others to blame," it said.
But the report said accusing other agencies of protecting
turf is a "way of running from the stink of death" in New Orleans.
"And if (Gov. Kathleen) Blanco is gun-shy about giving more
power over New Orleans' recovery to the likes of FEMA Director
Michael Brown, whose previous employer was the International Arabian
Horse Association, can anyone fault her?"
The editorial said the immediate priority is getting the
reconstruction under way.
"New Orleans needs the unified, able, dynamic leadership
that FEMA officials so far have been unable to offer ... Now,
though, everyone has to come together to work for the good of the
entire community."
HeyBub
2005-09-09 13:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Frog Prince wrote:
> a sample of what's on the net from the press
>
> clari.local.louisiana
> clari.web.local.louisiana
>
> "United Press International" <C-***@clari.net> wrote in message
> news:Uus-katrina-***@clari.net...
>>
> NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- A New Orleans Times-Picayune
> editorial urges the end of turf wars in Hurricane Katrina's wake so
> the task of rebuilding Louisiana can take priority.
> The newspaper said the Federal Emergency Management Agency
> has earned scorching criticism for its slow response to the crisis
> in New Orleans.
> "And maybe it was only a matter of time before officials at
> FEMA and its parent organization, the U.S. Department of Homeland
> Security, began looking for others to blame," it said.
> But the report said accusing other agencies of protecting
> turf is a "way of running from the stink of death" in New Orleans.
> "And if (Gov. Kathleen) Blanco is gun-shy about giving more
> power over New Orleans' recovery to the likes of FEMA Director
> Michael Brown, whose previous employer was the International Arabian
> Horse Association, can anyone fault her?"
> The editorial said the immediate priority is getting the
> reconstruction under way.
> "New Orleans needs the unified, able, dynamic leadership
> that FEMA officials so far have been unable to offer ... Now,
> though, everyone has to come together to work for the good of the
> entire community."

Odd, I've not heard anyone in the administration laying "blame" on the state
or local officials. There may have been statements of fact ("We received a
call three days after...") and conclusions by the reader/listener may have
been drawn, but I've not seen any quote similar to those expressed every day
by the governor or mayor.
Bcs1
2005-09-10 14:40:05 UTC
Permalink
"HeyBub" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfs3s4$pk0$***@news.spamcop.net...
<snip>
>
> Odd, I've not heard anyone in the administration laying "blame" on the
> state or local officials. There may have been statements of fact ("We
> received a call three days after...") and conclusions by the
> reader/listener may have been drawn, but I've not seen any quote similar
> to those expressed every day by the governor or mayor.
>
well in some respects they did think that it could have been worse days
before it even hit, additionally there's been folks saying that the time
frame for response was anywhere from 5 hours to 1 week. and I did hear that
the local folks weren't as "up on it" as they should have been either.
additionally some of the stories portray the local folks as having been
waiting on the federal folks, while others say that the local folks didn't
want the feds in there.(see one of my previous post about the gov and the
mayor)

So it would seem to me to be a situation where there may/may not have been
some miscommunication, and may/may not have been some slower than prudent
response times, but more than that there's too many people who don't have a
fscking clue "speculating" about stuff, using this to forward their own
agendas and in the end doing nothing more than muddying the waters even
more.

but hey... I could be wrong......

Bill
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-11 05:12:21 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dfuqs3$dl2$***@news.spamcop.net:

> So it would seem to me to be a situation where there may/may not have
> been
> some miscommunication, and may/may not have been some slower than
> prudent response times, but more than that there's too many people who
> don't have a fscking clue "speculating" about stuff, using this to
> forward their own agendas and in the end doing nothing more than
> muddying the waters even more.

no doubt there are people speculating on it who have no clue... but there
are also experts out there who do have a clue who think it's been very
badly handled and i have yet to hear anyone say that it's been handled well

as far as i can make out, the only people coming to the defence of Bush and
co are his cohorts in government and his staunch supporters because they,
like him, cannot admit when they've (the Administration) failed
Bcs1
2005-09-11 17:55:54 UTC
Permalink
"Sylvesterthekat" <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dfuqs3$dl2$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> So it would seem to me to be a situation where there may/may not have
>> been
>> some miscommunication, and may/may not have been some slower than
>> prudent response times, but more than that there's too many people who
>> don't have a fscking clue "speculating" about stuff, using this to
>> forward their own agendas and in the end doing nothing more than
>> muddying the waters even more.
>
> no doubt there are people speculating on it who have no clue... but there
> are also experts out there who do have a clue who think it's been very
> badly handled and i have yet to hear anyone say that it's been handled
> well
>
> as far as i can make out, the only people coming to the defence of Bush
> and
> co are his cohorts in government and his staunch supporters because they,
> like him, cannot admit when they've (the Administration) failed

you know, the funniest thing in the world happened today...
I just sat here for an hour writing a reply, read it, then re read it again,
edited the typos, changed the wording here and there so it wouldn't come
across as though I was talking down to you, or anyone else who might read
it....

then I deleted it, simply because I feel like every valid point I made in it
would have been overlooked/ignored and every personal thought I had put into
it would have been picked at rebutted/ect without one single consideration
of the factual evidence I had written in the "overlooked" parts.
even the stuff I said that was down on the government's handling of this....

I guess I'll just stick to the funnies, and the personal stuff again, and
OFC I'm still gonna ask some of the folks here to help out with the new site
if they'd like, and ALL are invited to join when it's done. I'm not gonna
leave the group, I'm not gonna spew vile insults at people just because I
don't always agree with their views, i'ma just sit back, and watch things
unfold as I did in the past......... and OFC you AL know there will be times
when I "just can't resist" LOL

Bill
*hugs* all
HeyBub
2005-09-13 01:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dfuqs3$dl2$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> So it would seem to me to be a situation where there may/may not
>> have been
>> some miscommunication, and may/may not have been some slower than
>> prudent response times, but more than that there's too many people
>> who don't have a fscking clue "speculating" about stuff, using this
>> to forward their own agendas and in the end doing nothing more than
>> muddying the waters even more.
>
> no doubt there are people speculating on it who have no clue... but
> there are also experts out there who do have a clue who think it's
> been very badly handled and i have yet to hear anyone say that it's
> been handled well
>
> as far as i can make out, the only people coming to the defence of
> Bush and co are his cohorts in government and his staunch supporters
> because they, like him, cannot admit when they've (the
> Administration) failed

It's not that the feds failed, it's that people want to believe what they
want to believe. For example:

--- begin quote
"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the
volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The
federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than
Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in
strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992.
But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the
afflicted region in three.
----end quote More at: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

People simply won't let the preconceptions get confused with the facts.

Here's one you might get a kick out of:

--- begin quote
In a stark reminder of how drastically Hurricane Katrina has affected the
lives of New Orleanians, Mayor Ray Nagin has purchased a home in Dallas and
enrolled his young daughter in school there.

Nagin, who spoke with The Times-Picayune by telephone from Dallas, where he
has been since Wednesday [article was written on Monday, Sep 12th] , said he
plans to return to New Orleans on Saturday. He said he will remain in the
Crescent City while his family lives for the next six months in Dallas,
making occasional visits to his family when possible.

It's not clear where Nagin will be living: His home on Bayou St. John
suffered massive flooding, the mayor said, although he has not inspected it.

end quote. More at
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html
(scroll down)

Hey, after dealing with the stress of government, one needs a vacation.
Frog Prince
2005-09-13 02:35:33 UTC
Permalink
"HeyBub" <

|
| People simply won't let the preconceptions get confused with the facts.

Pot / Kettle

|
| Here's one you might get a kick out of:
|
| --- begin quote
| In a stark reminder of how drastically Hurricane Katrina has affected the
| lives of New Orleanians, Mayor Ray Nagin has purchased a home in Dallas
and
| enrolled his young daughter in school there.
|
| Nagin, who spoke with The Times-Picayune by telephone from Dallas, where
he
| has been since Wednesday [article was written on Monday, Sep 12th] , said
he
| plans to return to New Orleans on Saturday. He said he will remain in the
| Crescent City while his family lives for the next six months in Dallas,
| making occasional visits to his family when possible.
|
| It's not clear where Nagin will be living: His home on Bayou St. John
| suffered massive flooding, the mayor said, although he has not inspected
it.
|
| end quote. More at
|
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html
| (scroll down)
|
| Hey, after dealing with the stress of government, one needs a vacation.

Might interest you to know that there is a bidding war for housing in Baton
Rouge, as of Friday bids were up 30% over listing prices some full cash
offers.
Bcs1
2005-09-14 05:03:06 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dg5efj$3u2$***@news.spamcop.net...
>
> "HeyBub" <
>
> |
> | People simply won't let the preconceptions get confused with the facts.
>
> Pot / Kettle
>
> |
> | Here's one you might get a kick out of:
> |
> | --- begin quote
> | In a stark reminder of how drastically Hurricane Katrina has affected
> the
> | lives of New Orleanians, Mayor Ray Nagin has purchased a home in Dallas
> and
> | enrolled his young daughter in school there.
> |
> | Nagin, who spoke with The Times-Picayune by telephone from Dallas, where
> he
> | has been since Wednesday [article was written on Monday, Sep 12th] ,
> said
> he
> | plans to return to New Orleans on Saturday. He said he will remain in
> the
> | Crescent City while his family lives for the next six months in Dallas,
> | making occasional visits to his family when possible.
> |
> | It's not clear where Nagin will be living: His home on Bayou St. John
> | suffered massive flooding, the mayor said, although he has not inspected
> it.
> |
> | end quote. More at
> |
> http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html
> | (scroll down)
> |
> | Hey, after dealing with the stress of government, one needs a vacation.
>
> Might interest you to know that there is a bidding war for housing in
> Baton
> Rouge, as of Friday bids were up 30% over listing prices some full cash
> offers.
>
>
not surprising, there's the haves, and the have nots...... of course
there's also the entitlement mentality in that area, so I'd bet $ that there
are no "have nots" in that bidding war.....

and in this case Bub is dead on the mark, the response times to NO and the
south were better than average..... even accounting for the declaration
prior to Katrina of the area being a "disaster area" the response times were
average.
Even with that, getting back on their feet for the "have nots" is going to
be way more difficult than for the "haves".

also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the thing....I
mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the absolute STUPIDEST
thing he's ever done...
but that's just my opinion

Bill
JohnL
2005-09-14 05:13:22 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dg8ai5$krt$***@news.spamcop.net:

> also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the
> thing....I mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the
> absolute STUPIDEST thing he's ever done...
> but that's just my opinion

How did Forrest put it?

"Stupid is as Stupid does"
Bcs1
2005-09-14 06:03:45 UTC
Permalink
"JohnL" <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dg8ai5$krt$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the
>> thing....I mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the
>> absolute STUPIDEST thing he's ever done...
>> but that's just my opinion
>
> How did Forrest put it?
>
> "Stupid is as Stupid does"

wasn't that his mama who said that? LOL

you know I don't particularly think Bush IS stupid, I mean I deal with
people everyday who are supposed to be ejumacated, and they mispronounce
words, use them incorrectly and stuff all the time...then IF I bother to
correct them, they look at me like I'm some kind of an idiot..., but back to
what I was saying... IF Bush starts bending to criticism and playing the
placating game (sure he can't be elected again), he's gonna kill the
people's trust in the republican party more-so than anything that's happened
so far. at least that's how I feel about it.

Bill
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-14 06:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
>
> you know I don't particularly think Bush IS stupid, I mean I deal with
> people everyday who are supposed to be ejumacated, and they mispronounce
> words, use them incorrectly and stuff all the time...then IF I bother to
> correct them, they look at me like I'm some kind of an idiot..., but back to
> what I was saying... IF Bush starts bending to criticism and playing the
> placating game (sure he can't be elected again), he's gonna kill the
> people's trust in the republican party more-so than anything that's happened
> so far. at least that's how I feel about it.

I've never said that he is stupid. I think he is crafty and knows how
to get what he wants. But I do think he is ignorant and is quite happy
being so. Anything that doesn't fit into his very narrow view of the
world is discarded.

Does bending to criticism, does that mean acknowledging mistakes and
working to resolve them? I'm amazed that he finally acknowledged the
hurricane response was a mess. That's the very first time I remember
anybody acknowledging a mistake in 4 1/2 years. Interesting that the
first response (the normal response) was to try and pass off blame to
others though.

As somebody who was elected almost specifically to make us all safer
from threats, well, kind of unsettling to see just how completely
unprepared we are. Why didn't AQ just blow up the levies 4 years ago,
it would have been way easier and would have killed more people.
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-14 19:11:51 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:dg8h8q$p0c$***@news.spamcop.net:

> As somebody who was elected almost specifically to make us all safer
> from threats, well, kind of unsettling to see just how completely
> unprepared we are. Why didn't AQ just blow up the levies 4 years ago,
> it would have been way easier and would have killed more people.
>

Yes it probably would, because there'd have been no evacuation. I guess
they'll wait till it's all repaired and go blow them up.
Bcs1
2005-09-15 02:55:23 UTC
Permalink
"Sylvesterthekat" <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> news:dg8h8q$p0c$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> As somebody who was elected almost specifically to make us all safer
>> from threats, well, kind of unsettling to see just how completely
>> unprepared we are. Why didn't AQ just blow up the levies 4 years ago,
>> it would have been way easier and would have killed more people.
>>
>
> Yes it probably would, because there'd have been no evacuation. I guess
> they'll wait till it's all repaired and go blow them up.
>
ahh didn't think about that in my reply earlier.

but let's look at that. 11' below sea level so water rises to 11', there's
no storm surge of 20+' wall of water, no damage from wind rain ect.
no chaos (at least not at the level it was during/after the storm) all the
personnel who would still be in the city IE drivers, mechanics ect.
POLICE....
there would be a higher death toll than there is now I'd imagine, but not
nearly the level "assumed" in the premise that blowing up the levee's would
do more damage. and the recovery would take a much shorter period of time.

Bill
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-15 16:50:59 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dganel$epb$***@news.spamcop.net:

> but let's look at that. 11' below sea level so water rises to 11',
> there's
> no storm surge of 20+' wall of water, no damage from wind rain ect.
> no chaos (at least not at the level it was during/after the storm) all
> the personnel who would still be in the city IE drivers, mechanics
> ect. POLICE....
> there would be a higher death toll than there is now I'd imagine, but
> not nearly the level "assumed" in the premise that blowing up the
> levee's would do more damage. and the recovery would take a much
> shorter period of time.

I don't suppose there'd be 10,000 deaths, but I'd be surprised if it didn't
run into a few thousand. It would really depend on getting lucky or not as
far as time of day, proximity of lots of people to the breach itself.
People would be less likely to drown in their houses I guess because
someone would hopefully be able to rescue them sooner than was the case
here.
indigo
2005-09-15 20:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
People would be less likely to drown in their
> houses I guess because someone would hopefully be able to rescue them
> sooner than was the case here.

You're kidding, right? Blow up a bunch of levees all at once and there'd be
a mass panic akin to the scene in that dumb disaster movie that came out
last year. People would get trapped in town as the roads quickly flooded,
they'd all drown.
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-15 21:43:44 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:dgckb9$jtc$***@news.spamcop.net:

> You're kidding, right? Blow up a bunch of levees all at once and
> there'd be a mass panic akin to the scene in that dumb disaster movie
> that came out last year. People would get trapped in town as the roads
> quickly flooded, they'd all drown.
>

I don't think they'd all drown but I'm sure there'd be a few thousand.

What dumb disaster movie are you referring to?
indigo
2005-09-15 21:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
> "indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:dgckb9$jtc$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
> > You're kidding, right? Blow up a bunch of levees all at once and
> > there'd be a mass panic akin to the scene in that dumb disaster
> > movie that came out last year. People would get trapped in town as
> > the roads quickly flooded, they'd all drown.
> >
>
> I don't think they'd all drown but I'm sure there'd be a few thousand.

I'd put it up over 100,000, easy.

>
> What dumb disaster movie are you referring to?

that end of the world movie where global warming/global freezing all happens
in the span of what, 3 days?
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-15 22:26:21 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:dgcqmm$o1e$***@news.spamcop.net:

>> What dumb disaster movie are you referring to?
>
> that end of the world movie where global warming/global freezing all
> happens in the span of what, 3 days?

Ohhh that one.. the one with the bad CG wolves? Day After Tomorrow?
indigo
2005-09-16 12:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
> "indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:dgcqmm$o1e$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
> >> What dumb disaster movie are you referring to?
> >
> > that end of the world movie where global warming/global freezing all
> > happens in the span of what, 3 days?
>
> Ohhh that one.. the one with the bad CG wolves? Day After Tomorrow?

Right movie, but I don't remember seeing any wolves?
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-16 19:43:51 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgef20$qra$***@news.spamcop.net:

>> Ohhh that one.. the one with the bad CG wolves? Day After Tomorrow?
>
> Right movie, but I don't remember seeing any wolves?
>

Yeah, when they went to some ship maybe for medical supplies(?) there were
wolves running around on it and they were pretty badly done.
indigo
2005-09-16 19:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
> "indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:dgef20$qra$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
> >> Ohhh that one.. the one with the bad CG wolves? Day After Tomorrow?
> >
> > Right movie, but I don't remember seeing any wolves?
> >
>
> Yeah, when they went to some ship maybe for medical supplies(?) there
> were wolves running around on it and they were pretty badly done.

Went to a ship? Now I'm really lost! Was this before or after the big
freeze?
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 16:15:47 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgf7ht$9hq$***@news.spamcop.net:

>> Yeah, when they went to some ship maybe for medical supplies(?) there
>> were wolves running around on it and they were pretty badly done.
>
> Went to a ship? Now I'm really lost! Was this before or after the big
> freeze?
>
>
>

After, the ship was frozen into the ice. There's mention of it here, scroll
down to the Rebuttal Witnesses 'bad points' bit. It's in the first
paragraph.

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/dayaftertomorrow.php

And search on the term wolves on this page - almost everyone says the same
thing as me. That the effects in the movie were great apart from those
awful wolves!

http://www.screenselect.co.uk/visitor/product/30593-The%20Day%20After%
20Tomorrow.html

Maybe you were too busy making out to notice them? LOL
indigo
2005-09-19 18:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat wrote:
>
> Maybe you were too busy making out to notice them? LOL

Possibly, but more than likely in the kitchen mixing a cocktail or in the
bathroom relieving myself of the previous one ;-)
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 21:29:38 UTC
Permalink
JohnL <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in
news:***@216.154.195.61:

>> phew.. I was getting the wrong idea about the 'relieving yourself' part
>> until i realised you were referring to the cocktail heheheheh
>
> Are you _sure_ he was referring to the previous cocktail???
>

Reasonably LOL
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 21:10:14 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgn0cv$n7n$***@news.spamcop.net:

> Possibly, but more than likely in the kitchen mixing a cocktail or in the
> bathroom relieving myself of the previous one ;-)
>
>
>

phew.. I was getting the wrong idea about the 'relieving yourself' part
until i realised you were referring to the cocktail heheheheh
JohnL
2005-09-19 21:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in
news:***@216.154.195.61:

> JohnL <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in
> news:***@216.154.195.61:
>> Are you _sure_ he was referring to the previous cocktail???
>>
>
> Reasonably LOL
>

Remember, we're talking about Indi here. ;-)
JohnL
2005-09-19 21:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Sylvesterthekat <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in
news:***@216.154.195.61:

> phew.. I was getting the wrong idea about the 'relieving yourself' part
> until i realised you were referring to the cocktail heheheheh

Are you _sure_ he was referring to the previous cocktail???
indigo
2005-09-21 13:35:48 UTC
Permalink
JohnL wrote:
> Sylvesterthekat <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in
> news:***@216.154.195.61:
>
> > JohnL <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in
> > news:***@216.154.195.61:
> >> Are you _sure_ he was referring to the previous cocktail???
> >>
> >
> > Reasonably LOL
> >
>
> Remember, we're talking about Indi here. ;-)

Hey!
Frog Prince
2005-09-16 01:27:04 UTC
Permalink
"Sylvesterthekat"

| > You're kidding, right? Blow up a bunch of levees all at once and
| > there'd be a mass panic akin to the scene in that dumb disaster movie
| > that came out last year. People would get trapped in town as the roads
| > quickly flooded, they'd all drown.
| >
|
| I don't think they'd all drown but I'm sure there'd be a few thousand.
|
| What dumb disaster movie are you referring to?

Discovery/History Channel documentary on Bush's handling of the Katrina
affair?
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-16 07:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
>
> but let's look at that. 11' below sea level so water rises to 11', there's
> no storm surge of 20+' wall of water, no damage from wind rain ect.
> no chaos (at least not at the level it was during/after the storm) all the
> personnel who would still be in the city IE drivers, mechanics ect.
> POLICE....
> there would be a higher death toll than there is now I'd imagine, but not
> nearly the level "assumed" in the premise that blowing up the levee's would
> do more damage. and the recovery would take a much shorter period of time.

But I'm just saying that for the relative effort level, blowing up one
levee, could cause disproportionate damage.
Bcs1
2005-09-17 17:53:37 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dgdrge$fm4$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>>
>> but let's look at that. 11' below sea level so water rises to 11',
>> there's no storm surge of 20+' wall of water, no damage from wind rain
>> ect.
>> no chaos (at least not at the level it was during/after the storm) all
>> the personnel who would still be in the city IE drivers, mechanics ect.
>> POLICE....
>> there would be a higher death toll than there is now I'd imagine, but not
>> nearly the level "assumed" in the premise that blowing up the levee's
>> would do more damage. and the recovery would take a much shorter period
>> of time.
>
> But I'm just saying that for the relative effort level, blowing up one
> levee, could cause disproportionate damage.

agreed as stated in other's replies/post it would certainly cause
"havoc/death/destruction" to say the very least..
Bcs1
2005-09-15 02:49:27 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dg8h8q$p0c$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
<snip>
>
> I've never said that he is stupid. I think he is crafty and knows how to
> get what he wants. But I do think he is ignorant and is quite happy being
> so. Anything that doesn't fit into his very narrow view of the world is
> discarded.

i don't mean the use of the word stupid, i mean the percetion that he is,
and there are TONS of examples of that in this group alone, not to mention
other places i read (when i have time)


hmmm multi-part answer LOL
>
> Does bending to criticism, does that mean acknowledging mistakes and
> working to resolve them?

no, i mean the appology comes across as tho it's "his" fault...the same
thing the leftwing media, and those who are "speculating" (we discussed them
in here b4 {we as in the group}) are trying to say is the case, when in fact
it's not, the response time was awesome as far as response times go, and
i've not only seen that in print from HeyBub's post, but also heard it on
(OMG do i dare say it?) the radio here in Cincinnati and seen a few other
articles that uphold those stats.

sorry couldn't resist a lil funnin with ya'll there.

> I'm amazed that he finally acknowledged the hurricane response was a mess.

he said from the git-go that there were things taht needed to be addressed
concering that situation.

>That's the very first time I remember anybody acknowledging a mistake in 4
>1/2 years. Interesting that the first response (the normal response) was
>to try and pass off blame to others though.

not true, in fact when asked by a reporter about the deal and who's fault
it was he flat out reffused to lay blame on anyone, and told the reporter
that too, he also stated that there were more important things to be done
that point fingers (i would try to quote it, but i don't remember verbatim
his words)


>
> As somebody who was elected almost specifically to make us all safer from
> threats, well, kind of unsettling to see just how completely unprepared we
> are.

there again, you're trying to place the storm's destruction in the same
basket as the war on terror, and it's not a valid comparison, not by a long
shot. additionally there has been work going on nationwide to improve things
in the saftey/readiness ares, but there's NONE of it that can occur
overnight, in fact knowing the beaurocricy as well as we do (rep or dem) it
takes litterally years to acomplish even some of the little things, unless
someone steps outside pf the norm and speeds it up.

>Why didn't AQ just blow up the levies 4 years ago, it would have been way
>easier and would have killed more people.

400 to 500?... not near as much as the WTC

Bill
David Dean
2005-09-15 13:02:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <dgan3h$egd$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net>
wrote:

> 400 to 500?... not near as much as the WTC

ISTM, the government was a lot more generous to the victims of 9/11
than the victims of Katrina. Congress might prove me wrong, but I'll bet
they're more interested in getting some extra pork barrels diverted to
their districts than actually helping the victims.

--
-David

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Bcs1
2005-09-16 00:22:11 UTC
Permalink
"David Dean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:ozchzhq02-***@frylock.local...
> In article <dgan3h$egd$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 400 to 500?... not near as much as the WTC
>
> ISTM, the government was a lot more generous to the victims of 9/11
> than the victims of Katrina. Congress might prove me wrong, but I'll bet
> they're more interested in getting some extra pork barrels diverted to
> their districts than actually helping the victims.
>
oooooooooo DAMMIT, I heard/read a story recently about all the pork in the
freaking HS bill, I was like WTF?
I wish I could remember it right now....
seems as though it's business as usual once again.

Bill
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-15 16:48:13 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgan3h$egd$***@news.spamcop.net:


>>That's the very first time I remember anybody acknowledging a mistake
>>in 4 1/2 years. Interesting that the first response (the normal
>>response) was to try and pass off blame to others though.
>
> not true, in fact when asked by a reporter about the deal and who's
> fault
> it was he flat out reffused to lay blame on anyone, and told the
> reporter that too, he also stated that there were more important
> things to be done that point fingers (i would try to quote it, but i
> don't remember verbatim his words)

He may not have said it, but his minions (Rove et al) did.

>>Why didn't AQ just blow up the levies 4 years ago, it would have been
>>way easier and would have killed more people.
>
> 400 to 500?... not near as much as the WTC

That's 500 when everyone was expecting a hurricane to hit and therefore
most everyone had evacuated. If the levees breached on a normal busy
workday, the death toll would probably be higher as buses loaded with
passengers and people in cars would be swept away and underwater. For
instance.
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-16 07:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> there again, you're trying to place the storm's destruction in the same
> basket as the war on terror, and it's not a valid comparison, not by a long
> shot. additionally there has been work going on nationwide to improve things
> in the saftey/readiness ares, but there's NONE of it that can occur
> overnight, in fact knowing the beaurocricy as well as we do (rep or dem) it
> takes litterally years to acomplish even some of the little things, unless
> someone steps outside pf the norm and speeds it up.

I don't see why it isn't a valid comparison. I'm talking about the
response to a disaster, whether that is a major storm system or it is
somebody blowing up Boulder Dam. It is apparent that in either case,
there is no meaningful response in place. How is four years not way
longer than overnight? In the current climate it isn't going to happen
in even 400 years because the actual safety of citizens isn't a priority.

If it was, then why has port security been underfunded. Why has no
meaningful increased security been put in place around nuclear power
plants. Why have trains carrying dangerous and toxic materials within a
stones throw of major population centers not been rerouted. It is
because it is expensive and it isn't a priority. It would cut into
profit margins and isn't that what it is all about. Especially after
the last few weeks, if I was a terrorist, I would totally be planning an
attack on some sort of power plant or large dam or something like that.

I'm not going to say that it is Bush's fault. That would be stupid.
But his policies along with policies started with Reagan, have made
government much more unresponsive to the needs of the people (unless of
course you happen to be in the top 1%).

Most of this has been pushed down to the local levels because as much as
we hate it, governments are there for a reason, to serve their people,
only the local governments do not have the resources to handle many of
the problems that have been passed onto to them. No, I don't think it
is all Bush's fault, I think Congress is just as at fault.
indigo
2005-09-16 12:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Mr K. Mean wrote:
Why have trains carrying dangerous and toxic materials
> within a stones throw of major population centers not been rerouted.
> It is because it is expensive and it isn't a priority. It would cut
> into profit margins and isn't that what it is all about.

Yup. DC sued to stop CSX from moving toxic material trains thru the city and
lost. Baltimore has a CSX tunnel that runs over a mile directly thru the
heart of the city, same problem. There was a derailment in that tunnel a
couple years back, the resulting fire and toxic fumes (from a normal train
load, not toxic chemicals) created a true disaster. I can't imagine how
horrible it would be if a real toxic train had derailed (and CSX still
refuses to reroute those trains because of cost). Sheer Idiocy.
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-16 17:21:38 UTC
Permalink
indigo wrote:
>
> Yup. DC sued to stop CSX from moving toxic material trains thru the city and
> lost. Baltimore has a CSX tunnel that runs over a mile directly thru the
> heart of the city, same problem. There was a derailment in that tunnel a
> couple years back, the resulting fire and toxic fumes (from a normal train
> load, not toxic chemicals) created a true disaster. I can't imagine how
> horrible it would be if a real toxic train had derailed (and CSX still
> refuses to reroute those trains because of cost). Sheer Idiocy.

I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
indigo
2005-09-16 19:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Mr K. Mean wrote:
>
> I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
> Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?

I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
routing of freight trains.....
D.F. Manno
2005-09-17 00:29:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <dgf6kn$8ti$***@news.spamcop.net>, "indigo" <***@spamcop.net>
wrote:

> Mr K. Mean wrote:
>
> > I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
> > Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
>
> I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
> routing of freight trains.....

What, you don't think the transportation secretary would take Snow's calls?

In my political science classes in college, I learned there were two ways to get
things down in government: authority and power. "Authority" is the legal right
to do something. "Power" is the ability to get something down through means
other than use of authority, e.g., influence, friendship, money, etc. Just
because Snow has no formal _authority_ over the Transportation Department
doesn't mean he lacks the _power_ to get it to do something (or _not_ do
something as the case may be).
--
D.F. Manno | ***@spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)
Frog Prince
2005-09-17 02:23:30 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno"
| >
| > > I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
| > > Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
| >
| > I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
| > routing of freight trains.....
|
| What, you don't think the transportation secretary would take Snow's
calls?
|
| In my political science classes in college, I learned there were two ways
to get
| things down in government: authority and power. "Authority" is the legal
right
| to do something. "Power" is the ability to get something down through
means
| other than use of authority, e.g., influence, friendship, money, etc. Just
| because Snow has no formal _authority_ over the Transportation Department
| doesn't mean he lacks the _power_ to get it to do something (or _not_ do
| something as the case may be).

Welcome to the world according to Huey Long
Bcs1
2005-09-17 17:49:01 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dgf6kn$8ti$***@news.spamcop.net...
>
>
> Mr K. Mean wrote:
>>
>> I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
>> Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
>
> I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
> routing of freight trains.....
>
>
yeah I would have to agree that just because someone used to work somewhere
else doesn't automatically mean there's a conflict of interest there..., or
that they "could" do anything about it if there were.
hell what if they fired him, and he hated them?

LOL
Bill
BTW I can see your post again indi <G>
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-17 19:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> "indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:dgf6kn$8ti$***@news.spamcop.net...
>>Mr K. Mean wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
>>>Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
>>
>>I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
>>routing of freight trains.....
>
> yeah I would have to agree that just because someone used to work somewhere
> else doesn't automatically mean there's a conflict of interest there..., or
> that they "could" do anything about it if there were.
> hell what if they fired him, and he hated them?

It doesn't have to and doesn't always mean that, but the revolving door
between the regulated and the regulators has been particually bad in the
past 4 years. Nobody even seems ashamed of their conflicts of interest
anymore.

Who got fired? Are you talking about somebody in specific? Snow didn't
get fired.
Bcs1
2005-09-18 02:49:34 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dghr2b$opn$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>
>> "indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:dgf6kn$8ti$***@news.spamcop.net...
>>>Mr K. Mean wrote:
>>>
>>>>I suppose it wouldn't surprise you then to know that John Snow, the
>>>>Treasury Secretary, used to be CEO of CSX then?
>>>
>>>I'd be surprised to know what the Treasury Secretary has to do with the
>>>routing of freight trains.....
>>
>> yeah I would have to agree that just because someone used to work
>> somewhere else doesn't automatically mean there's a conflict of interest
>> there..., or that they "could" do anything about it if there were.
>> hell what if they fired him, and he hated them?
>
> It doesn't have to and doesn't always mean that, but the revolving door
> between the regulated and the regulators has been particually bad in the
> past 4 years. Nobody even seems ashamed of their conflicts of interest
> anymore.
>
> Who got fired? Are you talking about somebody in specific? Snow didn't
> get fired.

no it was a rhetorical question, IE what if the guy had been fired and hated
them? other side of the coin from he used to be "on the board" or whatever
which (depending on the context used) could mean he still loved them, and
was trying to make things better for them...LOL, or if fired might be trying
to make things harder for them. either way....

B
D.F. Manno
2005-09-17 23:45:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <dghki6$jbd$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote:

> yeah I would have to agree that just because someone used to work somewhere
> else doesn't automatically mean there's a conflict of interest there

C'mon Bill, you're smarter than that. At the time of his nomination, Snow held a
lot of CSX stock. The company _gave_ him more than $7.1 million in stock in 2001
alone. His 1997 and 1998 bonuses were taken in stock. He received stock options
in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. He realized more than $10 million on his options
from 1997 through 2000.

In 1996 CSX lent him $25.4 million so he could buy CSX stock. In 2000, after the
stock price plunged, it cancelled the note.

It's not known if he still holds CSX stock or if so, how much. Upon his
confirmation he was required to put his holdings in a blind trust (wink wink,
nudge nudge).

According to his financial disclosure forms, Snow received CSX-related income of
$72.2 million in 2003, with $33.2 million of that a special retirement pension.

So he's still got one hell of a financial interest in CSX.
--
D.F. Manno | ***@spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)
Bcs1
2005-09-18 02:53:36 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote in message
news:dfm2a3l0t2-***@news.cesmail.net...
> In article <dghki6$jbd$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>> yeah I would have to agree that just because someone used to work
>> somewhere
>> else doesn't automatically mean there's a conflict of interest there
>
> C'mon Bill, you're smarter than that. At the time of his nomination, Snow
> held a
> lot of CSX stock. The company _gave_ him more than $7.1 million in stock
> in 2001
> alone. His 1997 and 1998 bonuses were taken in stock. He received stock
> options
> in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. He realized more than $10 million on his
> options
> from 1997 through 2000.
>
> In 1996 CSX lent him $25.4 million so he could buy CSX stock. In 2000,
> after the
> stock price plunged, it cancelled the note.
>
> It's not known if he still holds CSX stock or if so, how much. Upon his
> confirmation he was required to put his holdings in a blind trust (wink
> wink,
> nudge nudge).
>
> According to his financial disclosure forms, Snow received CSX-related
> income of
> $72.2 million in 2003, with $33.2 million of that a special retirement
> pension.
>
> So he's still got one hell of a financial interest in CSX.


Dom, my statement wasn't about "snow" in particular, in fact I have no idea
who he is...unless it's Tony Snow the radio guy... what I meant is that just
because someone "used" to have a relationship with a company, shouldn't
automatically mean that there's a conflict of interest.
Bill

and I'm NOT saying there isn't one, because as we all know people often do
things that someone else might not do.
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-18 06:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
>
> Dom, my statement wasn't about "snow" in particular, in fact I have no idea
> who he is...unless it's Tony Snow the radio guy... what I meant is that just
> because someone "used" to have a relationship with a company, shouldn't
> automatically mean that there's a conflict of interest.
> Bill
>
> and I'm NOT saying there isn't one, because as we all know people often do
> things that someone else might not do.

I don't know who Tony Snow is. I was talking about John Snow, the
Secretary of the Treasury. You know, sits across the table in cabinet
meetings from the Transportation Secretary, has his number in his speed
dial. He knows that he still has a hell of a lot of CSX stock and if
somebody down the hall is going to be making decisions that cost the
company money you don't think he is going to be influencing those
decisions with little chats at the water cooler? Or more likely,
everybody knows his interests and will sort of look out for them, much
like they would hope everybody else would look after theirs.

This whole administration has been particularly lax in the way they have
divested themselves or at least put into a blind trust all their
conflicts of interest. Of course you are always going to have them,
people who run companies will tend to be the ones picked to run
government departments, but in the past the picks used to at least give
more of the illusion that they were not still working for those old
interests. Heck, Cheney still gets checks from Halliburton.
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-16 17:09:32 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:dgdr76$fjc$***@news.spamcop.net:


> Most of this has been pushed down to the local levels because as much
> as we hate it, governments are there for a reason, to serve their
> people, only the local governments do not have the resources to handle
> many of the problems that have been passed onto to them. No, I don't
> think it is all Bush's fault, I think Congress is just as at fault.
>

But this government IS serving its people. Literally... the people it
favours, the friends, the contributors, the cronies. It's a sickness in the
political system of this country and it seems unlikely to end any time
soon.
Bcs1
2005-09-17 17:51:56 UTC
Permalink
"Sylvesterthekat" <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> news:dgdr76$fjc$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>
>> Most of this has been pushed down to the local levels because as much
>> as we hate it, governments are there for a reason, to serve their
>> people, only the local governments do not have the resources to handle
>> many of the problems that have been passed onto to them. No, I don't
>> think it is all Bush's fault, I think Congress is just as at fault.
>>
>
> But this government IS serving its people. Literally... the people it
> favours, the friends, the contributors, the cronies. It's a sickness in
> the
> political system of this country and it seems unlikely to end any time
> soon.
>

every administration does that....... take for example...well LOL n/m
not gonna get into a whole nuther round of things that I might not have time
to mess with/reply to/bother with. LOL

Bill
I hafta remind myself of my previous post.........
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dghknl$jlc$***@news.spamcop.net:

> every administration does that....... take for example...well LOL
> n/m not gonna get into a whole nuther round of things that I might not
> have time to mess with/reply to/bother with. LOL
>
> Bill
> I hafta remind myself of my previous post.........

definitely, i'm not arguing that they all do it... it just seems to be
getting worse and worse. it needs to be stopped, whoever the perps are
Bcs1
2005-09-20 03:09:00 UTC
Permalink
"Sylvesterthekat" <***@isaluzer.net> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dghknl$jlc$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> every administration does that....... take for example...well LOL
>> n/m not gonna get into a whole nuther round of things that I might not
>> have time to mess with/reply to/bother with. LOL
>>
>> Bill
>> I hafta remind myself of my previous post.........
>
> definitely, i'm not arguing that they all do it... it just seems to be
> getting worse and worse. it needs to be stopped, whoever the perps are

agreed
Bcs1
2005-09-17 17:46:19 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dgdr76$fjc$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>
<snip a good reply>

Stated that way I'll give ya that view of it, and I'd like to add to it,
that 4 years "SHOULD" have been enough to get farther along than we have.
the underlying problem is that there are too many ppl (bush's folks too) who
are too interested in getting their buddies/friends/mothers/cats/dog/(insert
whatever ya want here) taken care of during the whole deal, or trying to
make sure their a$$'$ are covered, or trying to point fingers at the
"causes" of the problems to start with, to actually just sit down, shut up
and address the problem.

hell if the folks in congress/senate/exec branches (again, I'm not leaving
Bush's folks out of this) would quit the damn
squabbling..................well I'm sure you get the point.

<G>
Bill
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-17 18:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> Stated that way I'll give ya that view of it, and I'd like to add to it,
> that 4 years "SHOULD" have been enough to get farther along than we have.
> the underlying problem is that there are too many ppl (bush's folks too) who
> are too interested in getting their buddies/friends/mothers/cats/dog/(insert
> whatever ya want here) taken care of during the whole deal, or trying to
> make sure their a$$'$ are covered, or trying to point fingers at the
> "causes" of the problems to start with, to actually just sit down, shut up
> and address the problem.
>
> hell if the folks in congress/senate/exec branches (again, I'm not leaving
> Bush's folks out of this) would quit the damn
> squabbling..................well I'm sure you get the point.

Hmm, the majority of the folks from the Congressional and Executive
branches are all from the same party and have been for that entire four
year period.
Bcs1
2005-09-18 03:10:42 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dgho8a$n81$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>
>> Stated that way I'll give ya that view of it, and I'd like to add to it,
>> that 4 years "SHOULD" have been enough to get farther along than we have.
>> the underlying problem is that there are too many ppl (bush's folks too)
>> who are too interested in getting their
>> buddies/friends/mothers/cats/dog/(insert whatever ya want here) taken
>> care of during the whole deal, or trying to make sure their a$$'$ are
>> covered, or trying to point fingers at the "causes" of the problems to
>> start with, to actually just sit down, shut up and address the problem.
>>
>> hell if the folks in congress/senate/exec branches (again, I'm not
>> leaving Bush's folks out of this) would quit the damn
>> squabbling..................well I'm sure you get the point.
>
> Hmm, the majority of the folks from the Congressional and Executive
> branches are all from the same party and have been for that entire four
> year period.
yeah and the shoe was on the other foot when the roles were reversed..it's
age old, and never ending...the majority wants this, and the minority
screams "hey what about US", then when the roles are reversed, it's the same
again...until the palm greasing, and sidestepping, and bickering over the
stupid shit stops, and BOTH sides sit down, and address a single issue
without trying to inject whatever PORK they can into it at the same time,,,,
things will remain the same I fear, and the big bureaucratic machine will
continue it's painfully slow movement,
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-18 06:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
>>Hmm, the majority of the folks from the Congressional and Executive
>>branches are all from the same party and have been for that entire four
>>year period.
>
> yeah and the shoe was on the other foot when the roles were reversed..it's
> age old, and never ending...the majority wants this, and the minority
> screams "hey what about US", then when the roles are reversed, it's the same
> again...until the palm greasing, and sidestepping, and bickering over the
> stupid shit stops, and BOTH sides sit down, and address a single issue
> without trying to inject whatever PORK they can into it at the same time,,,,
> things will remain the same I fear, and the big bureaucratic machine will
> continue it's painfully slow movement,

I guess you missed my point. You said that over four years, nothing had
been done because the different branches of government have been
squabbling. I just pointed out that over those same four years that
those branches of government were dominated by a single party. So, are
you saying that that single party was so concerned about creating pork
for itself that it didn't have the time or will to do actual work?

And the way the rules of the House (and to a lesser degree in the
Senate, yes there is the filibuster but that has been used rarely and
usually only during judge confirmations) are written, the minority party
can basically be written out of the equation since they will always be
outvoted and can be locked out of committee meetings. I think you saw
in the Terry Shivo case that when there is an issue that they want
addressed, that it only takes a few hours for something to happen. And
the Patriot Act was passed in how many hours?
Bcs1
2005-09-19 02:45:17 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dgj12r$e65$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>
>> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>>Hmm, the majority of the folks from the Congressional and Executive
>>>branches are all from the same party and have been for that entire four
>>>year period.
>>
>> yeah and the shoe was on the other foot when the roles were
>> reversed..it's age old, and never ending...the majority wants this, and
>> the minority screams "hey what about US", then when the roles are
>> reversed, it's the same again...until the palm greasing, and
>> sidestepping, and bickering over the stupid shit stops, and BOTH sides
>> sit down, and address a single issue without trying to inject whatever
>> PORK they can into it at the same time,,,, things will remain the same I
>> fear, and the big bureaucratic machine will continue it's painfully slow
>> movement,
>
> I guess you missed my point. You said that over four years, nothing had
> been done because the different branches of government have been
> squabbling. I just pointed out that over those same four years that those
> branches of government were dominated by a single party. So, are you
> saying that that single party was so concerned about creating pork for
> itself that it didn't have the time or will to do actual work?

actually what i said was four years should have been enough, ( meaning "to
have gotten more done")
the rest of it can stand as you've written it though...it's pretty well
along the lines of what i meant with the exception of the single party
statement you've made...i meant BOTH parties, majority or not, which also
applies to the statement below

>
> And the way the rules of the House (and to a lesser degree in the Senate,
> yes there is the filibuster but that has been used rarely and usually only
> during judge confirmations) are written, the minority party can basically
> be written out of the equation since they will always be outvoted and can
> be locked out of committee meetings. I think you saw in the Terry Shivo
> case that when there is an issue that they want addressed, that it only
> takes a few hours for something to happen. And the Patriot Act was passed
> in how many hours?

yeah see what can be done when either A. they all agree on something (one
thing) or B. the dispute is over a single item....not one item and 50 other
buried projects/pork/fundings/ect.

it's kinda like our discussions in here.
one person brings something up, and we work towards the conclusion of the
conversation...however as soon as someone else starts making connections to
other things tying them in to a few outside issues/causes/beliefs then the
conversations get skewed and the original topic gets lost in the
debates/accusations/discussions of the sub items with the final result being
a 440 error "line too long".
simplistic as that may sound (imo) that's exactly what happens in MOST
political crap....

LOL
Bill
Frog Prince
2005-09-14 12:41:55 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1"
| >
| >> also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the
| >> thing....I mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the
| >> absolute STUPIDEST thing he's ever done...
| >> but that's just my opinion
| >
| > How did Forrest put it?
| >
| > "Stupid is as Stupid does"
|
| wasn't that his mama who said that? LOL
|
| you know I don't particularly think Bush IS stupid, I mean I deal with
| people everyday who are supposed to be ejumacated, and they mispronounce
| words, use them incorrectly and stuff all the time...then IF I bother to
| correct them, they look at me like I'm some kind of an idiot..., but back
to
| what I was saying... IF Bush starts bending to criticism and playing the
| placating game (sure he can't be elected again), he's gonna kill the
| people's trust in the republican party more-so than anything that's
happened
| so far. at least that's how I feel about it.
|

Not stupid? Remind me of the business/management acclaim this man has
garnered in his entire life. Me and mine made money by short selling
anything he promoted.
D.F. Manno
2005-09-17 00:19:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <dg95sk$4g0$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net>
wrote:

> Not stupid? Remind me of the business/management acclaim this man has
> garnered in his entire life.

How stupid do you have to be to trade Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines?
--
D.F. Manno | ***@spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)
Frog Prince
2005-09-17 02:22:19 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno"

| > Not stupid? Remind me of the business/management acclaim this man has
| > garnered in his entire life.
|
| How stupid do you have to be to trade Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines?

With a 5% good old boy interest just how much say do you think he had in the
process?
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 16:58:31 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote in
news:dfm2a3l0t2-***@news.cesmail.net:

>> Not stupid? Remind me of the business/management acclaim this man
>> has garnered in his entire life.
>
> How stupid do you have to be to trade Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines?

LOL, did W do that? No doubt it was all about the money. He has no long
term vision.
indigo
2005-09-14 13:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
IF Bush
> starts bending to criticism and playing the placating game (sure he
> can't be elected again), he's gonna kill the people's trust in the
> republican party more-so than anything that's happened so far.

Trust? What trust is left after this?
Heidi
2005-09-14 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dg8ai5$krt$***@news.spamcop.net...
>
> also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the thing....I
> mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the absolute STUPIDEST
> thing he's ever done...
> but that's just my opinion

1) It's about damn time he made some effort to at least accept
responsibility what what his agencies did wrong.

2) It doesn't matter anyway, because he's insincere, he's mouthing the words
to make it look like he's taking responsibility, meanwhile behind the scenes
Rove is working overtime creating the spin and placing the blame on everyone
BUT the Federal government. He's as much of a sham as he's always been, its
nothing but lip service.
Frog Prince
2005-09-14 12:38:19 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1"

| > | People simply won't let the preconceptions get confused with the
facts.
| >
| > Pot / Kettle

| > | Here's one you might get a kick out of:
| > |
| > | --- begin quote
| > | In a stark reminder of how drastically Hurricane Katrina has affected
| > the lives of New Orleanians, Mayor Ray Nagin has purchased a home in
Dallas
| > and enrolled his young daughter in school there.
| > |
| > | Nagin, who spoke with The Times-Picayune by telephone from Dallas,
where
| > he has been since Wednesday [article was written on Monday, Sep 12th] ,
| > said he plans to return to New Orleans on Saturday. He said he will
remain in
| > the Crescent City while his family lives for the next six months in
Dallas,
| > | making occasional visits to his family when possible.
| > |
| > | It's not clear where Nagin will be living: His home on Bayou St. John
| > | suffered massive flooding, the mayor said, although he has not
inspected
| > it.
| > |
| > | end quote. More at
| > |
| >
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html
| > | (scroll down)
| > |
| > | Hey, after dealing with the stress of government, one needs a
vacation.
| >
| > Might interest you to know that there is a bidding war for housing in
| > Baton Rouge, as of Friday bids were up 30% over listing prices some full
cash
| > offers.
| >
| not surprising, there's the haves, and the have nots...... of course
| there's also the entitlement mentality in that area, so I'd bet $ that
there
| are no "have nots" in that bidding war.....

No question about that, the point was that there may not be any place
available to Nagin to purchase closer to NOLA.

| and in this case Bub is dead on the mark, the response times to NO and the
| south were better than average..... even accounting for the declaration
| prior to Katrina of the area being a "disaster area" the response times
were
| average.
| Even with that, getting back on their feet for the "have nots" is going to
| be way more difficult than for the "haves".

if we assume that the response is better than average, is this something to
brag about? BTW I've been though any number of hurcains and what me and
mine have observed is dismal, perhaps criminally poor responses. We may
have a better judgment on the lies as my family members were passing in/out
using pickup trucks over routes the US government repeatedly claimed were
impassable to large trucks and military vehicles. I should not have to
explain to this group the technical resources available to this
adminstration to make a determination of what roads are passable.

I've seen justification of the lack of government response based on the
presumption that people without cars should have walked out (these are the
same people who claimed the water was too high on the roads for relief
trucks to enter the city). Those who ascribe to that do not address the
problem that the next place up the road is 80 miles with no supplies on the
route. As to the water: either the water is too high for trucks to pass or
it's low enough that folk and walk out. Pick one.

| also, I have NO CLUE what possessed Bush to apologize about the thing....I
| mean trying to placate people? that has got to be the absolute STUPIDEST
| thing he's ever done...

In my estimation his apology is a pure political . One that might have done
him some good much earlier but then if his administration had acted earlier
he would not have a reason to apologize.

As to the political damage, I've watched as some of Bush's stanches supports
in this area are expressing serious regrets for their previous support of
this administration. Local politicians that rode in to office by supporting
Bush are either very silent, down playing their previous support or flat out
back peddling. This is in part the result of members of their own churches
who are in south Louisiana and Mississippi reporting on the FEMA screw-up
from personal experience.

Could it be that cluster-f*cks in your back yard are harder to cover up than
similar efforts half way around the world? Blocking photos of the dead
passing through Andrews are a bit easier than enforcing a ban on the media
showing bodies floating in the streets of NOLA.
indigo
2005-09-14 13:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
> Even with that, getting back on their feet for the "have nots" is
> going to be way more difficult than for the "haves".

Ayup. I read yesterday that some of the NOLA "haves" are using an Israeli
private security firm (armed with M-15's) to guard their mansions while the
recovery takes place.
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-14 18:01:04 UTC
Permalink
indigo wrote:

> Bcs1 wrote:
>
>>Even with that, getting back on their feet for the "have nots" is
>>going to be way more difficult than for the "haves".
>
> Ayup. I read yesterday that some of the NOLA "haves" are using an Israeli
> private security firm (armed with M-15's) to guard their mansions while the
> recovery takes place.

Do a Google search on Blackwater USA, you know the ones we have
outsourced a lot of the fighting in Iraq to, and wonder a bit why they
are carrying weapons in New Orleans despite the fact that only law
enforcement is allowed them right now. They are pretty well armed.
indigo
2005-09-14 19:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Mr K. Mean wrote:
>
> Do a Google search on Blackwater USA, you know the ones we have
> outsourced a lot of the fighting in Iraq to, and wonder a bit why they
> are carrying weapons in New Orleans despite the fact that only law
> enforcement is allowed them right now. They are pretty well armed.

NOLA suspended the second amendment? News to me......all kinds of stories in
the papers about "normal" men who are still standing guard over their
households with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. None are getting arrested
AFAIK (and can't be, see first sentence).
Bcs1
2005-09-15 03:04:32 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dg9oh1$r0o$***@news.spamcop.net...
> indigo wrote:
>
>> Bcs1 wrote:
>>
>>>Even with that, getting back on their feet for the "have nots" is
>>>going to be way more difficult than for the "haves".
>>
>> Ayup. I read yesterday that some of the NOLA "haves" are using an Israeli
>> private security firm (armed with M-15's) to guard their mansions while
>> the
>> recovery takes place.
>
> Do a Google search on Blackwater USA, you know the ones we have outsourced
> a lot of the fighting in Iraq to, and wonder a bit why they are carrying
> weapons in New Orleans despite the fact that only law enforcement is
> allowed them right now. They are pretty well armed.

can't speak to all of that, but I can address part of it.
I'm glad that those folks have enough money to hire someone to protect
their stuff, that's going to be less of a burden on the govnmnt resources,
less of a burden on the nation's insurance industry and less $ we're gonna
hafta give someone for (insert reason here). I don't doubt a bit either
that a few of the "haves" will figure out a way to get their grubby little
hands into the govnmnts pockets and get a "slice of the pie", but for the
most part, the good honest folk who happen to be a "have" will do what they
need to to get back on their feet, rebuild what they have to, and go one
about their lives with minimal impact on the overall cost of the storm's
damage.
David Dean
2005-09-14 14:24:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <dg8ai5$krt$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net>
wrote:

> and in this case Bub is dead on the mark, the response times to NO and the
> south were better than average..... even accounting for the declaration
> prior to Katrina of the area being a "disaster area" the response times were
> average.

IIRC, the disaster declaration was for the previous hurricane. I also
suspect that the response times to the 2004 hurricanes in Florida were
much faster than the average. Call me cynical, but it was an election
year and an important state to keep happy.

--
-David

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Bcs1
2005-09-15 03:39:23 UTC
Permalink
"David Dean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:ozchzhq02-***@frylock.local...
> In article <dg8ai5$krt$***@news.spamcop.net>, "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
>
> IIRC, the disaster declaration was for the previous hurricane. I also
> suspect that the response times to the 2004 hurricanes in Florida were
> much faster than the average. Call me cynical, but it was an election
> year and an important state to keep happy.
>

really?, I would have sworn I read something here in the group that said
Bush
declared NOLA a disaster area two days before Katrina hit?
also the Florida response times being faster than the norm, I would have
thought
was because of the lack of floodwaters/ect that would hamper travel.
I can see the whole election thing though.(LMAO)
.but I really don't think one person has
THAT much control over the entire fema organization

Bill
JohnL
2005-09-15 03:40:32 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgaq15$glm$***@news.spamcop.net:

> I would have sworn I read something here in the group that said
> Bush
> declared NOLA a disaster area two days before Katrina hit?

Oh, that's where I have a problem
HOW can anyone declare a disaster two days BEFORE it could happen?
A "warning" maybe, but not "Declare".
Bcs1
2005-09-15 10:08:42 UTC
Permalink
"JohnL" <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgaq15$glm$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> I would have sworn I read something here in the group that said
>> Bush
>> declared NOLA a disaster area two days before Katrina hit?
>
> Oh, that's where I have a problem
> HOW can anyone declare a disaster two days BEFORE it could happen?
> A "warning" maybe, but not "Declare".

I dunno, I'm just saying what I thought I read here in someone's criticism
of the administration....

I can't say that I recall hearing/reading it anywhere else though to be
honest....

unless OFC GW has mother nature doing his bidding now.......(see conspiracy
theory post)

/me runs
Bill
JohnL
2005-09-15 14:06:02 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgbgr4$ttq$***@news.spamcop.net:

> I dunno, I'm just saying what I thought I read here in someone's
> criticism of the administration....

Uh, the shhrub himself said he declared the disaster BEFORE it happened.
Thought he was pretty slick too.
JohnL
2005-09-15 14:29:10 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgc0a9$7e8$***@news.spamcop.net:

>> Uh, the shhrub himself said he declared the disaster BEFORE it
>> happened. Thought he was pretty slick too.
>
> Funny, seeing as he didn't even seem to know the levees had broken until
> days later........

I remember him making the statement on one of his trips down there.
Wish I could remember his exact words, will have to google and see if I can
find them. His whole tone really pissed me off and I'm suprised no one in
here has said anything about it.
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-15 18:25:12 UTC
Permalink
JohnL <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in
news:***@216.154.195.61:


> I remember him making the statement on one of his trips down there.
> Wish I could remember his exact words, will have to google and see if
> I can find them. His whole tone really pissed me off and I'm suprised
> no one in here has said anything about it.

We were waiting for you to speak up!
indigo
2005-09-15 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
JohnL wrote:
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgbgr4$ttq$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
> > I dunno, I'm just saying what I thought I read here in someone's
> > criticism of the administration....
>
> Uh, the shhrub himself said he declared the disaster BEFORE it
> happened. Thought he was pretty slick too.

Funny, seeing as he didn't even seem to know the levees had broken until
days later........
Bcs1
2005-09-16 00:24:10 UTC
Permalink
"JohnL" <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in message
news:***@216.154.195.61...
> "Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgbgr4$ttq$***@news.spamcop.net:
>
>> I dunno, I'm just saying what I thought I read here in someone's
>> criticism of the administration....
>
> Uh, the shhrub himself said he declared the disaster BEFORE it happened.
> Thought he was pretty slick too.

didn't hear that myself, but figured if you guys had posted it here (no
matter what else was included in the post) that it had prolly been said/done


Bill
JohnL
2005-09-16 00:31:37 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgd2v4$127$***@news.spamcop.net:

> didn't hear that myself, but figured if you guys had posted it here
> (no
> matter what else was included in the post) that it had prolly been
> said/don

I can see him saying it, but I can't remember exactly what he said, but he
was really feeling proud of himself that he declared the emergency before
it happened. Tried googling for it, but haven't found the words yet.
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-16 07:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> "JohnL" <***@in.newsgroup.only> wrote in message
> news:***@216.154.195.61...
>
>>"Bcs1" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in news:dgaq15$glm$***@news.spamcop.net:
>>
>>> I would have sworn I read something here in the group that said
>>>Bush
>>>declared NOLA a disaster area two days before Katrina hit?
>>
>>Oh, that's where I have a problem
>>HOW can anyone declare a disaster two days BEFORE it could happen?
>>A "warning" maybe, but not "Declare".
>
> I dunno, I'm just saying what I thought I read here in someone's criticism
> of the administration....
>
> I can't say that I recall hearing/reading it anywhere else though to be
> honest....
>
> unless OFC GW has mother nature doing his bidding now.......(see conspiracy
> theory post)

You mean global warning, which doesn't exist?

But yes, three days before the storm hit, the LA governor declared a
state of emergency, two days before the same thing happened in Miss.
That same day, the federal government declared an emergency and FEMA was
given full authority to respond.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

Should I repeat that last bit? The storm response was federalized two
days before it hit which means that federal authority trumps local
authority from now on in the response. When the FBI takes over a crime
scene, they use the local resources but they are calling the shots at
that point. The same should have been the case here too.

As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case,
it gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all efforts
whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I think it would
be implied that that obligates them to do this too. If they take the
step to take over, then they should actually follow through on that.
indigo
2005-09-16 12:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Mr K. Mean wrote:
> As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case,
> it gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all
> efforts whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I
> think it would be implied that that obligates them to do this too.
> If they take the step to take over, then they should actually follow
> through on that.

But I recall reading multiple times that the mayor and/or governor kept
refusing to allow the feds to take over? Something about the law requiring
the locals to formally hand over the reins to the feds?
Miss Betsy
2005-09-16 14:26:24 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dgeff0$r56$***@news.spamcop.net...
<snip>
>
> But I recall reading multiple times that the mayor and/or
governor kept
> refusing to allow the feds to take over? Something about the law
requiring
> the locals to formally hand over the reins to the feds?
>

That may have been in reference to federalizing the National Guard,
which doesn't happen automatically when the area is declared a
National Disaster apparently.

Miss Betsy
Bcs1
2005-09-17 18:00:03 UTC
Permalink
"indigo" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dgeff0$r56$***@news.spamcop.net...
>
>
> Mr K. Mean wrote:
>> As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case,
>> it gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all
>> efforts whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I
>> think it would be implied that that obligates them to do this too.
>> If they take the step to take over, then they should actually follow
>> through on that.
>
> But I recall reading multiple times that the mayor and/or governor kept
> refusing to allow the feds to take over? Something about the law requiring
> the locals to formally hand over the reins to the feds?
>
>
and that's one of the things I had referred to in one of my previous
postings where I made the comments about what people would have been saying
if the feds had just walking in and "taken over"
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-17 18:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
>
> and that's one of the things I had referred to in one of my previous
> postings where I made the comments about what people would have been saying
> if the feds had just walking in and "taken over"

Yeah, "damn those feds, they came in here and rescued people from the
floods and brought in massive amounts of food and water and medical
supplies." And "arrest that soldier, he saved my baby."
Bcs1
2005-09-17 18:50:23 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dghn4j$mka$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>>
>> and that's one of the things I had referred to in one of my previous
>> postings where I made the comments about what people would have been
>> saying if the feds had just walking in and "taken over"
>
> Yeah, "damn those feds, they came in here and rescued people from the
> floods and brought in massive amounts of food and water and medical
> supplies." And "arrest that soldier, he saved my baby."
>
>
>
eheh that's not what I meant, and you know it....LOL
nice reply tho LOL
};O)~

Bill
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-17 18:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:

> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:dghn4j$mka$***@news.spamcop.net...
>
>>Bcs1 wrote:
>>
>>> and that's one of the things I had referred to in one of my previous
>>>postings where I made the comments about what people would have been
>>>saying if the feds had just walking in and "taken over"
>>
>>Yeah, "damn those feds, they came in here and rescued people from the
>>floods and brought in massive amounts of food and water and medical
>>supplies." And "arrest that soldier, he saved my baby."
>>
> eheh that's not what I meant, and you know it....LOL
> nice reply tho LOL

And look at what a brilliant opportunity was missed here too. With his
approval ratings hovering around 40%, they totally would have
skyrocketed if everybody had seen him leading in the charge to bring
order and relief to the area. Unfortunately, Bush didn't even seem to
know that the levies had failed until like the next day. Heck, even I
knew before then, probably because I know how to get to www.cnn.com (or
lord forbid news.bbc.co.uk).

To move the subject on, how about this one, don't say we weren't warned.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19604
Which covers a lot of ground, like how the recent bankruptcy "reform" is
going to hit hard in LA and of course "next time I tell you someone from
Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention."

Or how about
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0915/p02s01-sten.html
how the dismantling of the Superfund program is going to come back to
haunt us with the growing environmental catastrophe taking place in LA
now, "concern rises that storm may have compromised cleanup of toxic
sites around New Orleans - and created new ones."
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-16 17:12:04 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:dgdseu$g8i$***@news.spamcop.net:

> As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case,
> it gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all
> efforts whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I think
> it would be implied that that obligates them to do this too. If they
> take the step to take over, then they should actually follow through
> on that.
>

Yeah, I mean how about the co-pilot of a plane says he's going to take over
the controls then just goes off to the toilet instead. Big surprise when
the autopilot goes wrong and it crashes huh?
Bcs1
2005-09-17 17:58:09 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dgdseu$g8i$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>
<snip>
> Should I repeat that last bit? The storm response was federalized two
> days before it hit which means that federal authority trumps local
> authority from now on in the response. When the FBI takes over a crime
> scene, they use the local resources but they are calling the shots at that
> point. The same should have been the case here too.
>
> As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case, it
> gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all efforts
> whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I think it would be
> implied that that obligates them to do this too. If they take the step to
> take over, then they should actually follow through on that.

again, they were still hindered by the locals, the roads, the water, the
gunfire ect.
I agree that they SHOULD have been able to do more faster, but I also see
some of the things that hampered them,,, the sate and local govnmnt being
part of those things, and Mother Nature being part of it, and mr>Brown
seemingly COMPLETELY tripping over his own D..........ummm...."two left
feet?"

Bill
Frog Prince
2005-09-17 18:19:34 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1"

| <snip>
| > Should I repeat that last bit? The storm response was federalized two
| > days before it hit which means that federal authority trumps local
| > authority from now on in the response. When the FBI takes over a crime
| > scene, they use the local resources but they are calling the shots at
that
| > point. The same should have been the case here too.
| >
| > As I read Title V of the Stafford Act, which was invoked in this case,
it
| > gives the federal government the authority to coordinate all efforts
| > whether they are federal, private, or state or local. I think it would
be
| > implied that that obligates them to do this too. If they take the step
to
| > take over, then they should actually follow through on that.
|
| again, they were still hindered by the locals, the roads, the water, the
| gunfire ect.
| I agree that they SHOULD have been able to do more faster, but I also see
| some of the things that hampered them,,, the sate and local government
being
| part of those things, and Mother Nature being part of it, and mr>Brown
| seemingly COMPLETELY tripping over his own D..........ummm...."two left
| feet?"

As previous pointed out

a) the US government has access to the best sat intel there is so they
knew or SHOULD have known which roads were passable by what equipment.

b) locals were getting in and out (as was the media) as soon as the wind
died down with similar capabilities the entire time FEMA was sitting on
their hands.

CNN just ran a section on the ordering and miss shipment of ICE intended for
NOLA. Some has been just OUTSIDE the Katrena zone but has been redirected
to OHIO?

Recall the private hospital that had multiple deaths? Seems the owners of
that facility hired trucks, sent LOADs of supplies, fuel and rented choppers
to evacuate the patients. FEMA commandeered and sent the lot to Lafayette
LA.

I've an unconfirmed reports (third hand from some old military buddies who
left elements of these groups laying on their front porches -- who said
swamp fighting OJT would never come in handy) that some of the residental
looting in NOLA was done by organized criminal elements from way outside the
area.
Bcs1
2005-09-17 18:48:55 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dghncp$mnb$***@news.spamcop.net...
> "Bcs1"
>
> | <snip>
>
> As previous pointed out
>
<more snippage>
we can go round and round on those points all day, and neither one of us is
going to change our mind
so again i'll say "yes the govnment didn't do as well as they could have"
(timeframes not withstanding), but NO it was not all the govnmnt's fault



> I've an unconfirmed reports (third hand from some old military buddies who
> left elements of these groups laying on their front porches -- who said
> swamp fighting OJT would never come in handy) that some of the residental
> looting in NOLA was done by organized criminal elements from way outside
> the
> area.
>
>
I can buy that, it's almost everyday we here about ppl taking advantage of
others...so it would be no surprise that some "criminal elements" would
figure out a way to do the same there.

Bill


welp off to work at the gas station...be back after 10 pm....
Mr K. Mean
2005-09-17 19:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Bcs1 wrote:
> "Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
>>I've an unconfirmed reports (third hand from some old military buddies who
>>left elements of these groups laying on their front porches -- who said
>>swamp fighting OJT would never come in handy) that some of the residental
>>looting in NOLA was done by organized criminal elements from way outside
>>the
>>area.
>
> I can buy that, it's almost everyday we here about ppl taking advantage of
> others...so it would be no surprise that some "criminal elements" would
> figure out a way to do the same there.

If you listened to the entire interview with the mayor, he did point out
that there was a big drug problem (drug trafficking) in NO. I can't
figure out why nobody else has mentioned it before or since then.
D.F. Manno
2005-09-17 23:51:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <dghpe3$nvn$***@news.spamcop.net>,
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> If you listened to the entire interview with the mayor, he did point out
> that there was a big drug problem (drug trafficking) in NO. I can't
> figure out why nobody else has mentioned it before or since then.

Fox's Bill O'Lielly has. On his radio show Tuesday he said the people who stayed
behind in NO were drug addicts and thugs:

> O'REILLY: Many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are in that
> condition. They weren't going to leave no matter what you did. They
> were drug-addicted. They weren't going to get turned off from their
> source. They were thugs, whatever.
--
D.F. Manno | ***@spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)
indigo
2005-09-19 18:28:30 UTC
Permalink
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <dghpe3$nvn$***@news.spamcop.net>,
> "Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you listened to the entire interview with the mayor, he did
> > point out that there was a big drug problem (drug trafficking) in
> > NO. I can't figure out why nobody else has mentioned it before or
> > since then.
>
> Fox's Bill O'Lielly has. On his radio show Tuesday he said the people
> who stayed behind in NO were drug addicts and thugs:

And don't forget about all the criminals they released from the jails......
Sylvesterthekat
2005-09-19 20:30:25 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote in
news:dfm2a3l0t2-***@news.cesmail.net:

> Fox's Bill O'Lielly has. On his radio show Tuesday he said the people
> who stayed behind in NO were drug addicts and thugs:
>
>> O'REILLY: Many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are in that
>> condition. They weren't going to leave no matter what you did. They
>> were drug-addicted. They weren't going to get turned off from their
>> source. They were thugs, whatever.


It's no surprise that O'Reilly and similar people characterise those in NO
as thugs and drug addicts. It makes it easier for them (and their audience)
to discount those people as being worthy of any trouble (so it didn't
matter that the president failed to act), easier to leave them to die,
easier to accept shooting them on sight if they've got looted goods on
their person
Bcs1
2005-09-18 02:56:19 UTC
Permalink
"Mr K. Mean" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dghpe3$nvn$***@news.spamcop.net...
> Bcs1 wrote:
>> "Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>I've an unconfirmed reports (third hand from some old military buddies
>>>who
>>>left elements of these groups laying on their front porches -- who said
>>>swamp fighting OJT would never come in handy) that some of the residental
>>>looting in NOLA was done by organized criminal elements from way outside
>>>the
>>>area.
>>
>> I can buy that, it's almost everyday we here about ppl taking advantage
>> of others...so it would be no surprise that some "criminal elements"
>> would figure out a way to do the same there.
>
> If you listened to the entire interview with the mayor, he did point out
> that there was a big drug problem (drug trafficking) in NO. I can't
> figure out why nobody else has mentioned it before or since then.

wouldn't get the networks as big of ratings as using the political slant now
would it?

not meaning to be sarcastic or anything.....

B
Frog Prince
2005-09-17 19:06:14 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1"
| >
| > As previous pointed out
| >
| <more snippage>
| we can go round and round on those points all day, and neither one of us
is
| going to change our mind
| so again i'll say "yes the government didn't do as well as they could
have"
| (timeframes not withstanding), but NO it was not all the govnmnt's fault

OK if we accept that NOLA was totally not the government's fault how much
responsibility did the mayor of NOLA have for Mississippi and Alabama? FEMA
had no presence in that area for much of the week and little right now. The
military did get there but again days late.

'It's not my fault mantra' might fly in one area but not three especially
when the water went down almost immediately, even before the storm passed in
the second two.

Now from previous experience in the same area (back to the late 40's) which
included responses to the most recent big storms to hit these exact same
area the government was in within 24 hours.

Anyone who really believes the party line on this must have found deep deep
discounts on damp yellow socks.
Bcs1
2005-09-18 03:07:08 UTC
Permalink
"Frog Prince" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dghqnj$oh5$***@news.spamcop.net...
> "Bcs1"
> | >
> | > As previous pointed out
> | >
> | <more snippage>
> | we can go round and round on those points all day, and neither one of
> us
> is
> | going to change our mind
> | so again i'll say "yes the government didn't do as well as they could
> have"
> | (timeframes not withstanding), but NO it was not all the govnmnt's fault
>
> OK if we accept that NOLA was totally not the government's fault how much
> responsibility did the mayor of NOLA have for Mississippi and Alabama?
> FEMA
> had no presence in that area for much of the week and little right now.
> The
> military did get there but again days late.
>
> 'It's not my fault mantra' might fly in one area but not three especially
> when the water went down almost immediately, even before the storm passed
> in
> the second two.
>
> Now from previous experience in the same area (back to the late 40's)
> which
> included responses to the most recent big storms to hit these exact same
> area the government was in within 24 hours.
>
> Anyone who really believes the party line on this must have found deep
> deep
> discounts on damp yellow socks.
>
>
my thoughts on it have nothing to do with the party line...just my thoughts
about the situation as a whole, and as far as the allocation of help and
such, I would think that the majority of that burden would have at first
been on Mr. Brown... that's no excuse, but to sit here and totally absolve
the local/state govnment, is a bit more than I'm willing to buy.

the other states have been getting some relief tho, not near as fast or in
as much quantity as in NOLA, and I'll give ya that too, but the biggest
point being discussed here was NOLA, and I hate to think that once a point
has been made that stands on it's own, that we are going to now ruralize the
thing in order to keep bashing the govnment.
it's already been stated that the response wasn't what it should have been,
so let's stop trying to make out like the slow response was intentional
shall we, and let both sides agree that "there were some failings" "ON BOTH
SIDES", end of story....
and now that that's settled, let's see what we can do to FIX the problem.

I mean is that SO HARD to do?
Frog Prince
2005-09-18 13:01:33 UTC
Permalink
"Bcs1"

| >
| > OK if we accept that NOLA was totally not the government's fault how
much
| > responsibility did the mayor of NOLA have for Mississippi and Alabama?
| > FEMA had no presence in that area for much of the week and little right
now.
| > The military did get there but again days late.
| >
| > 'It's not my fault mantra' might fly in one area but not three
especially
| > when the water went down almost immediately, even before the storm
passed
| > in the second two.
| >
| > Now from previous experience in the same area (back to the late 40's)
| > which included responses to the most recent big storms to hit these
exact same
| > area the government was in within 24 hours.
| >
| > Anyone who really believes the party line on this must have found deep
| > deep discounts on damp yellow socks.
| >
| >
| my thoughts on it have nothing to do with the party line...just my
thoughts
| about the situation as a whole, and as far as the allocation of help and
| such, I would think that the majority of that burden would have at first
| been on Mr. Brown... that's no excuse, but to sit here and totally absolve
| the local/state govnment, is a bit more than I'm willing to buy.
|
| the other states have been getting some relief tho, not near as fast or
in
| as much quantity as in NOLA, and I'll give ya that too, but the biggest
| point being discussed here was NOLA, and I hate to think that once a point
| has been made that stands on it's own, that we are going to now ruralize
the
| thing in order to keep bashing the govnment.
| it's already been stated that the response wasn't what it should have
been,
| so let's stop trying to make out like the slow response was intentional
| shall we, and let both sides agree that "there were some failings" "ON
BOTH
| SIDES", end of story....
| and now that that's settled, let's see what we can do to FIX the problem.
|
| I mean is that SO HARD to do?

It's hard to do because people died and many more suffered as a result of
the failure. I see post in this group and others that hammer on the point
that FEMA and this administration did not have the power or the authority
but still managed to block others from providing aid. there was one that
made much of the pending indictment of Louisiana politicians (happen to be
dems) by the feds for abuse of FEMA funds as though it had a direct impact
on the NOLA levies. What the posters don;t realize and failed to check the
indictments are in areas of Louisiana that a) are far north of NOLA and b)
have no significant rivers and b) significant hills (so no real flood
potential)

There are two many reports of FEMA and the FEDS exercising power (to block)
that the bush apologist insist they do not have as justification for the
inaction.

Were I a different person my van would have a bumper sticker "4QU (vEEP)
4QU" as it is I'm seriously considering one that says simply:

.. told you so ...

as it reflects the private admissions I'm hearing from my friends and
associates that are (were?) hard bush supporters.

The media is (was?) making much of the NOLA levee board spending money on
roads etc to support the casinos. The funds are in fact controlled by the
levee Board but from other sources that were folded into the levee boards as
the most convenient vehicle to administer the program. Much as the Medicaid
program is processed by the SSA Medicare worker bees. Unrelated to their
primary responsibility but the best way to accomplish the task at hand.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...