Politicizing New Orleans
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Most large disasters are measured in 100's of deaths even when evacuation is not ordered, or people not given transportation. This is considered an acceptable loss by the government. Also 100's of people are in dire straights to be rescued, the coast guard can (and did) rescue 200 a day as per the plans. The national guard normally responds within a couple of days with every state owning their own emergency forces, now we have to use a national force which was deemed capable of responding within 5-6 days (and did). So the plan "worked" per se. The problem is there were not 200 dead, not 200+ in dire straights, almost every estimage of disaster, based on prior disasters not on doom sayers (those who said the fall of new orleans would be on this scale were considered like global warming activists and to be ignored, made fun of, or stomped on). Plans to transport people were deemed too expensive. Plans to upgrade the levees were too expensive. Plans to fix the levees were underfunded. It comes down to money, no one will put up that kind of money to save 100's of people -- and until now no one with money would listen that we are not talking 100's of people. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Plans to transport people were deemed too expensive. Plans to upgrade the levees were too expensive. Plans to fix the levees were underfunded. It seams like every one is forgetting the trend nation wide to build in flood plains is factor. When the levees were planed most of these regions were not solid housing. So it has not flooded in 60 years, lets build and then not believe the warnings when they are given because they come to often and we expect 100% accurate forcasts. This morning one show reported on how little the uptown district, convention and historic areas were flooded. So the items that give the city it's character can be rebuilt with a resonable effort. Serious consideration needs to be given when to allow building permits to be granted. In 1992 (I think) a number of towns north of St. Louis were refused any building permits following the rivers having all time high flood levels. So the towns moved to safter gound, rather than rebuilding them and expecting more flood control projects to be built to protect them. Land near me that was open 20 years ago, along the Clear Fork of the Trinity River, is now filled with home after home. In 1957 that land was under 25-30 feet of water. Some day it will be again. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
John Carson wrote: National Guard Actually, this is a misnomer. The National Gaurd is actually a collection of State Militias, which are, by law, under the direct command of each State's Governor. They receive Federal funds, and are integrated into the Federal defense planning, but are the property of the individual States themselves. Hence Louisiana National Gaurd, Missisippi National gaurd, Indiana national Gaurd, etc.... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote: Actually, this is a misnomer. The National Gaurd is actually a collection of State Militias, which are, by law, under the direct command of each State's Governor. They receive Federal funds, and are integrated into the Federal defense planning, but are the property of the individual States themselves. Hence Louisiana National Gaurd, Missisippi National gaurd, Indiana national Gaurd, etc.... This is sort of true and sort of not true. Yes, the National Guard is in part, but not entirely organized by states. Yes the governor of a state can activate and mobilize the National Guard of his state under certain conditions. However, unlike a "true" State Militia, a governor does not have truly autonomous control over the National Guard in his state, unlike the president who is in fact the supreme commanding officer of the US military. A governor cannot choose to disband the National Guard, nor does he have full organoizational authority, unlike a "true" State Militia which in theory would be disbanded, organized and otherwise administrated as an individual governor saw fit. The National Guard is a branch of the US Army, is organized as the US Army dictates, and the authority of the US Army and the President widely, though not entirely, supercedes the authority of the governor. The distinction is not particularly important during peacetime because the National Guard does in most respects behave is if it were a State Militia. However, the distinction is important now, because one of the powers the federal government has (with certain restrictions) is to activate National Guard units and resources for federal duty - something a state does not have the authority to do or to refuse to allow. So an important question is to what extent if any has the response of the Gulf states National Guard units to the disaster been affected by activation of their units for service in Iraq???
-
Rob Graham wrote: Actually, this is a misnomer. The National Gaurd is actually a collection of State Militias, which are, by law, under the direct command of each State's Governor. They receive Federal funds, and are integrated into the Federal defense planning, but are the property of the individual States themselves. Hence Louisiana National Gaurd, Missisippi National gaurd, Indiana national Gaurd, etc.... This is sort of true and sort of not true. Yes, the National Guard is in part, but not entirely organized by states. Yes the governor of a state can activate and mobilize the National Guard of his state under certain conditions. However, unlike a "true" State Militia, a governor does not have truly autonomous control over the National Guard in his state, unlike the president who is in fact the supreme commanding officer of the US military. A governor cannot choose to disband the National Guard, nor does he have full organoizational authority, unlike a "true" State Militia which in theory would be disbanded, organized and otherwise administrated as an individual governor saw fit. The National Guard is a branch of the US Army, is organized as the US Army dictates, and the authority of the US Army and the President widely, though not entirely, supercedes the authority of the governor. The distinction is not particularly important during peacetime because the National Guard does in most respects behave is if it were a State Militia. However, the distinction is important now, because one of the powers the federal government has (with certain restrictions) is to activate National Guard units and resources for federal duty - something a state does not have the authority to do or to refuse to allow. So an important question is to what extent if any has the response of the Gulf states National Guard units to the disaster been affected by activation of their units for service in Iraq???
We are splitting hairs here but. From the guards web site ARNG[^] State: The Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership are the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need. Federal: During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President. So yes the Governors are the Commander in Chief of the states gaurd units. But the president can activate and federalize them from guard units. I guess making them no longer guard units, would be one way to say it. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
John Carson wrote: I must say that the whole thing reminds me a little of the way the US runs its elections, with rather too much authority given to local amateurs rather than to full-time Federal professionals who do nothing but handle crises of this sort. First, there are no Federal Full time officials, because the Constitution delegates the election process to the States, most of whom manage their elections quite well. A few make the elections ad ministration a political post (Florida...) and those seem to have the most trouble, because different districts are run by people with different political allegiance (Florida...). Observers (both here and abroad) tend to blame the Federal government for things that are explicitly not a federal responsibility, but rather a State one. The State governments would complain bitterly if the Fed tried to usurp any of these areas, but are quick to blame the Feds whenever things go wrong. The press is foremost among these, since it is quick to focus on and exaggerate problems... John Carson wrote: Well, Congress passes bills and then Bush has to sign or veto them. From my understanding, Congress allocated a greater level of funding than the White House wanted. Congress writes the Bills, The president can suggest, cajole and pressure, but in the end has to either accept or reject. Rejections are rare (Bush has threatend, but has yet to veto any bill in the five years he has held the presidency - a modern record). Louisiana has one Democrat and on Republican in the Senate, and 5 Republicans, 2 Democrats in the House. One would think they should be able to protect their interests quite well in a Republican administration...The Democrate who represents the district of New Olreans sits on the Budget Committee. The Democrat Senator sits on the Committee on Appropriations, as well as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Republican sits on the Committe on Environment and Public Works. They must all either be poor negotiators, or lacking in intereset in the Levee issue. They certainly were in possition to influence that Legislation. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote: First, there are no Federal Full time officials, because the Constitution delegates the election process to the States, most of whom manage their elections quite well. My point was that these things should be run by Federal full time officials, as they are in other countries --- both elections and disaster prevention/management. The alternative has failed often enough to be abandoned. Rob Graham wrote: Louisiana has one Democrat and on Republican in the Senate, and 5 Republicans, 2 Democrats in the House. One would think they should be able to protect their interests quite well in a Republican administration...The Democrate who represents the district of New Olreans sits on the Budget Committee. The Democrat Senator sits on the Committee on Appropriations, as well as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Republican sits on the Committe on Environment and Public Works. They must all either be poor negotiators, or lacking in intereset in the Levee issue. They certainly were in possition to influence that Legislation. Let's not kid ourselves. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. Funding for this was cut because of the budgetary pressure coming from both the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts. http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050902214313554/print[^] http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01279059.htm[^] How much difference it would have made in the face of a hurricane as powerful as Katrina is unclear, but it is clear that the Bush Administration pushed for and got funding cuts. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
John Carson wrote: And, judging by the television coverage, neither does anyone actually in New Orleans. They are hopping mad and wanting to sheet home responsibility for what they see as an inadequate management of the crisis. Politicians must be held accountable. First, the press feasts on finger-pointing, and contributes less to solutions than to the problems. Second, yes, politicians must be held accountable, starting with those closest to the problem and with the most immediate responsibility: The Mayor, the Police Chief, (who together hold first responsibility for emergency planning and first response) the Governor of Louisiana (who, by law, commands the Louisiana National Guard) the Congressional Representative from the district of New Orleans and the Senators from La.(who are responsible for insuring that their constituents get their fair share of Federal Project and Planning Money). Delays in mobilizing Federal resources, should be identified and those responsible held to account. Bush declared a State of Emergency for Louisiana (required to authorize FEMA to begin co-ordinating disaster relief) on the Saturday before the storm hit. It is hard for me to see how this is "slow to respond" on his part. The Louisiana National Guard was not called to active duty until Moday, after the storm.[^] Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote: Second, yes, politicians must be held accountable, starting with those closest to the problem and with the most immediate responsibility: The Mayor, the Police Chief, (who together hold first responsibility for emergency planning and first response) the Governor of Louisiana (who, by law, commands the Louisiana National Guard) the Congressional Representative from the district of New Orleans and the Senators from La.(who are responsible for insuring that their constituents get their fair share of Federal Project and Planning Money). It seems to me that for problems on this scale, it is not reasonable to put most responsibility on local officials without the resources or expertise to cope with a crisis of this magnitude. Still, if they have screwed up, they should be held to account. However, as I have expressed elsewhere, I doubt that you are ever going to get satisfactory performance from local authorities. The whole thing needs to be in the hands of full-time disaster management professionals. As for blaming Louisiana members of Congress for a lack of political success in getting more funds for their constituents, this strikes me as creative buck-passing. For sure, Louisiana members of Congress have an obligation to present their case effectively, but those on the winning side of any vote over funding have to accept primary responsibility for the consequences of that funding decision. Rob Graham wrote: Bush declared a State of Emergency for Louisiana (required to authorize FEMA to begin co-ordinating disaster relief) on the Saturday before the storm hit. It is hard for me to see how this is "slow to respond" on his part. OK, let's agree that he wasn't slow to declare a State of Emergency. What about calling out National Guard troops from other states? What about sending in the army (as he has now done)? Quick off the mark there? John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
Since the bashing and tasteless politicizing of the disaster is coming predominately from left I would like our US friends here explain to us, who actually holds New Orleans and Louisiana? Is it democrats or republicans? By the amount of fire from leftists I assume it is republicans? Tomaž
This is a new low even for you, Tomaz. Isn't it clear to you that the response has been utterly incompetent? No coordination, no advance planning, no ability to see what might happen; and all sorts of blame casting and finger pointing on the part of the administartion. The head of FEMA, appointed by a Bush crony, is a lawyer who was fired from his last private sector job - which was managing horse shows! How could such a person be expected to manage a disaster of this magnitude? Read some news and take your head out of your ass.
-
We are splitting hairs here but. From the guards web site ARNG[^] State: The Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership are the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need. Federal: During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President. So yes the Governors are the Commander in Chief of the states gaurd units. But the president can activate and federalize them from guard units. I guess making them no longer guard units, would be one way to say it. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
There really is not a hair to split. :-) The National Guard is defined by, mandated by, and regulated by Title 32 of the Federal Code, not by the legislations of the individual states. :-)
-
This is a new low even for you, Tomaz. Isn't it clear to you that the response has been utterly incompetent? No coordination, no advance planning, no ability to see what might happen; and all sorts of blame casting and finger pointing on the part of the administartion. The head of FEMA, appointed by a Bush crony, is a lawyer who was fired from his last private sector job - which was managing horse shows! How could such a person be expected to manage a disaster of this magnitude? Read some news and take your head out of your ass.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Isn't it clear to you that the response has been utterly incompetent? No coordination, no advance planning, no ability to see what might happen It is obvious, that the response has been incompetent. What is not obvious are a lot of things that some people are trying to derive from the situation. The debate omits facts about responsibility for certain tasks and the whole thing is turning into Michael Al Moor sort of "blame Bush first" game. Some ideologists[^] use the negative sentiment by adding fictional ideas (such as that the goverment is not responsible for evacuations under free market) to promote their agenda. I am pretty sure that goverment on every level in America was involved from the "day minus four" to activities, related to hurricane. And I am pretty sure that there were tremendous mistakes done on all levels - like in every large organization where at the end it is not about resources but about the people. I would just like to see this come out without one sided politicizing the issue and building its stories regardless of the facts. We're commonly doing this in Europe and the result is that we have a lot of facts on our side but the socialists have past lies, ideology and established negative image to hide behind. Today some incompetent marxist fool will write a lie such as that evacuations are not reponsibility of the minimal goverment and tomorrow the same marxist will demand subventions for culture because "Katrina proved the necessity of goverment intervention". Tomaž
-
Since the bashing and tasteless politicizing of the disaster is coming predominately from left I would like our US friends here explain to us, who actually holds New Orleans and Louisiana? Is it democrats or republicans? By the amount of fire from leftists I assume it is republicans? Tomaž
Just spotted this photo showing unused resources[^] for evacution. Tomaž
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Isn't it clear to you that the response has been utterly incompetent? No coordination, no advance planning, no ability to see what might happen It is obvious, that the response has been incompetent. What is not obvious are a lot of things that some people are trying to derive from the situation. The debate omits facts about responsibility for certain tasks and the whole thing is turning into Michael Al Moor sort of "blame Bush first" game. Some ideologists[^] use the negative sentiment by adding fictional ideas (such as that the goverment is not responsible for evacuations under free market) to promote their agenda. I am pretty sure that goverment on every level in America was involved from the "day minus four" to activities, related to hurricane. And I am pretty sure that there were tremendous mistakes done on all levels - like in every large organization where at the end it is not about resources but about the people. I would just like to see this come out without one sided politicizing the issue and building its stories regardless of the facts. We're commonly doing this in Europe and the result is that we have a lot of facts on our side but the socialists have past lies, ideology and established negative image to hide behind. Today some incompetent marxist fool will write a lie such as that evacuations are not reponsibility of the minimal goverment and tomorrow the same marxist will demand subventions for culture because "Katrina proved the necessity of goverment intervention". Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: Today some incompetent marxist fool will write a lie such as that evacuations are not reponsibility of the minimal goverment and tomorrow the same marxist will demand subventions for culture because "Katrina proved the necessity of goverment intervention". The "minimal government" is surely not a well-defined concept. In the context of some particular individual's writing it may be, but there is no authoritative source that defines the concept. That being the case, the issue of "lying" about it really doesn't arise --- unless the person alleging some property of the "minimal government" does so in the context of a named body of thought. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea