Politicizing New Orleans
-
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
-
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
Funny, a comment yesterday from Stan made me think it's the pinko commies.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
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
Tomaž Štih wrote: 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? You can't get Google from where you are? The two organisations most involved in relief efforts are called the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Guard for a reason. Good attempt at obfuscation though. 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
the gov is a dem. Halfway down the page[^] (I am not sure if you read german...)
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Funny, a comment yesterday from Stan made me think it's the pinko commies.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenMy mistake, I was talking (predominately) about European reaction. In the past four days I've heard that: - It is obvious that neocons in America are wrong because you need state intervention to prevent Katrina, - Katrina is a result of Bush not caring about the environment and not signing Kyoto (that's official German reaction, see appendix), - It's the anti black conspiracy, - Bush doesn't care about black people in New Orleans because they traditionally don't vote for republicans, - It's the Iraq war fault, - Bush is obviously not a competent leader as "always known", etc. Sadly I did not hear much about our efforts to help so I donated to the red cross - hope it gets where it is needed. Sincerely, Tomaž Appendix: German Minister of Environment Mr. Jürgen Trittin "By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflict on his country and the world’s economy. ...many Americans have long been unwilling to follow the president’s errant environmental policy. Indications are multiplying that Bush has more than Katrina’s headwind blowing in his face... . When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked out proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German Government stands ready." Source: http://www.frankfurter-rundschau.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=718533[^]
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: 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? You can't get Google from where you are? The two organisations most involved in relief efforts are called the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Guard for a reason. Good attempt at obfuscation though. 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
I googled. All dems. Now the difficult questions: - who was responsible for the evacuation and evacuation plans; locals or federal government? - who was responsible for 1/3 of police force deserting, locals or federal government? - who was responsible for maintenance of the protective wall, locals or federal government? Tomaž
-
My mistake, I was talking (predominately) about European reaction. In the past four days I've heard that: - It is obvious that neocons in America are wrong because you need state intervention to prevent Katrina, - Katrina is a result of Bush not caring about the environment and not signing Kyoto (that's official German reaction, see appendix), - It's the anti black conspiracy, - Bush doesn't care about black people in New Orleans because they traditionally don't vote for republicans, - It's the Iraq war fault, - Bush is obviously not a competent leader as "always known", etc. Sadly I did not hear much about our efforts to help so I donated to the red cross - hope it gets where it is needed. Sincerely, Tomaž Appendix: German Minister of Environment Mr. Jürgen Trittin "By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflict on his country and the world’s economy. ...many Americans have long been unwilling to follow the president’s errant environmental policy. Indications are multiplying that Bush has more than Katrina’s headwind blowing in his face... . When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked out proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German Government stands ready." Source: http://www.frankfurter-rundschau.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=718533[^]
Tomaž Štih wrote: German Minister of Environment Mr. Jürgen Trittin Forget him. It was an out-of-time, tasteless "elect me!" comment. On the neocon flak: The news that were picked up here quickly: - Bush drastically cut flood protection to pay for you know what - Bush was on vacation again - I didn't read or hear anything about a "Anti-Black conspiracy", and that most of the locked-ins are black has rarely been noted - but in the few cases, in the same conneciton as you say. - I have the feeling Bush became more competent in the recent years: he learnt to speak, and to behave almost like a statesman. If this isn't progress. Tomaž Štih wrote: Sadly I did not hear much about our efforts to help so I donated to the red cross - hope it gets where it is needed you are not alone. Why people don't want to donate - rare: "Bad luck America, you want to do everything on your own, now do!" common: they have enough money / I won't give money to someone who can pay for a war of agression
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Tomaž Štih wrote: German Minister of Environment Mr. Jürgen Trittin Forget him. It was an out-of-time, tasteless "elect me!" comment. On the neocon flak: The news that were picked up here quickly: - Bush drastically cut flood protection to pay for you know what - Bush was on vacation again - I didn't read or hear anything about a "Anti-Black conspiracy", and that most of the locked-ins are black has rarely been noted - but in the few cases, in the same conneciton as you say. - I have the feeling Bush became more competent in the recent years: he learnt to speak, and to behave almost like a statesman. If this isn't progress. Tomaž Štih wrote: Sadly I did not hear much about our efforts to help so I donated to the red cross - hope it gets where it is needed you are not alone. Why people don't want to donate - rare: "Bad luck America, you want to do everything on your own, now do!" common: they have enough money / I won't give money to someone who can pay for a war of agression
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Tomaž Štih wrote: Sadly I did not hear much about our efforts to help so I donated to the red cross - hope it gets where it is needed you are not alone. It's the fifth day of disaster and we, the European Union, 400 million people, second most productive economy on the planet, have send one big nothing and a lot of noise overseas. Shame on us. Tomaž
-
I googled. All dems. Now the difficult questions: - who was responsible for the evacuation and evacuation plans; locals or federal government? - who was responsible for 1/3 of police force deserting, locals or federal government? - who was responsible for maintenance of the protective wall, locals or federal government? Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: I googled. All dems. Now the difficult questions: - who was responsible for the evacuation and evacuation plans; locals or federal government? You could Google again. My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. It coordinates all agencies, including local ones. Naturally, local authorities don't have the resources to cope with large scale disasters such as this, so most of the resources must come from the Federal Government. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for 1/3 of police force deserting, locals or federal government? That figure is unconfirmed, but I would say that any failure of police to perform their duties is a local responsibility. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for maintenance of the protective wall, locals or federal government? Federal. It is maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, whose funding for the purpose had been cut by the Bush Administration. Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. 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
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: I googled. All dems. Now the difficult questions: - who was responsible for the evacuation and evacuation plans; locals or federal government? You could Google again. My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. It coordinates all agencies, including local ones. Naturally, local authorities don't have the resources to cope with large scale disasters such as this, so most of the resources must come from the Federal Government. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for 1/3 of police force deserting, locals or federal government? That figure is unconfirmed, but I would say that any failure of police to perform their duties is a local responsibility. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for maintenance of the protective wall, locals or federal government? Federal. It is maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, whose funding for the purpose had been cut by the Bush Administration. Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. 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: My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. Surely they delegate the responsibility for executing evacuation to local authorities. I can imagine federal resources (i.e. buses, organizing destination locations) being used to evacuate people, but the guys on the ground who need to coordinate it so that all citizens leave the city failed. People were in the city days after evacuation was ordered. John Carson wrote: Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. Now I googled and it seems it was really not economically viable compared to the potential loss of property (and possibility of such a hurricane hitting, which is once in hundred years). It seems to me it was a case of bad coordination of local and federal authorities. The loss of life seems due to failed evacuation, which was ordered. I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Tomaž -- modified at 5:18 Saturday 3rd September, 2005 Simplifiacation of economic study: o direct cost of three months of total inactivity of New Orleans 20 billion o damage to property 8 billion o indirect damage 2 billion Estimate of total damage: 30 billion o Cost of defense against flooding for 10 years: 3 billion o Possibility of hurricane type of Katrina in the area: 1 per 100 years From these numbers you come to the conclusion that economically (looking at economy as a whole) such investition would be questionable.
-
John Carson wrote: My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. Surely they delegate the responsibility for executing evacuation to local authorities. I can imagine federal resources (i.e. buses, organizing destination locations) being used to evacuate people, but the guys on the ground who need to coordinate it so that all citizens leave the city failed. People were in the city days after evacuation was ordered. John Carson wrote: Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. Now I googled and it seems it was really not economically viable compared to the potential loss of property (and possibility of such a hurricane hitting, which is once in hundred years). It seems to me it was a case of bad coordination of local and federal authorities. The loss of life seems due to failed evacuation, which was ordered. I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Tomaž -- modified at 5:18 Saturday 3rd September, 2005 Simplifiacation of economic study: o direct cost of three months of total inactivity of New Orleans 20 billion o damage to property 8 billion o indirect damage 2 billion Estimate of total damage: 30 billion o Cost of defense against flooding for 10 years: 3 billion o Possibility of hurricane type of Katrina in the area: 1 per 100 years From these numbers you come to the conclusion that economically (looking at economy as a whole) such investition would be questionable.
I have a gut feeling that your damage estimates are light. (no proof) Never the less, the cost of protection is too expensive to be justififed. And who knows an even bigger Hurricane than Katrina could turn up. IMHO: Best bet is rebuild in a new location. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
-
John Carson wrote: My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. Surely they delegate the responsibility for executing evacuation to local authorities. I can imagine federal resources (i.e. buses, organizing destination locations) being used to evacuate people, but the guys on the ground who need to coordinate it so that all citizens leave the city failed. People were in the city days after evacuation was ordered. John Carson wrote: Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. Now I googled and it seems it was really not economically viable compared to the potential loss of property (and possibility of such a hurricane hitting, which is once in hundred years). It seems to me it was a case of bad coordination of local and federal authorities. The loss of life seems due to failed evacuation, which was ordered. I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Tomaž -- modified at 5:18 Saturday 3rd September, 2005 Simplifiacation of economic study: o direct cost of three months of total inactivity of New Orleans 20 billion o damage to property 8 billion o indirect damage 2 billion Estimate of total damage: 30 billion o Cost of defense against flooding for 10 years: 3 billion o Possibility of hurricane type of Katrina in the area: 1 per 100 years From these numbers you come to the conclusion that economically (looking at economy as a whole) such investition would be questionable.
Tomaž Štih wrote: Surely they delegate the responsibility for executing evacuation to local authorities. I can imagine federal resources (i.e. buses, organizing destination locations) being used to evacuate people, but the guys on the ground who need to coordinate it so that all citizens leave the city failed. People were in the city days after evacuation was ordered. There seem to be three main possibilities: 1. the plan sucked. 2. the resources needed for the plan were not provided by the Federal gov't. 3. the local authorities screwed up and didn't follow the plan. You seem to be going for 3. I can't comment authoritatively, but I doubt that 3. is correct. For example, my impression is that housing people in the Superdome (and 9 other centres) was part of the plan. There was never (as far as I know) a plan to bus out everyone who couldn't afford to get out themselves. And of course once the flooding had occurred, the scale of the problem meant it was quite beyond the ability of local authorities to handle. Tomaž Štih wrote: The loss of life seems due to failed evacuation, which was ordered. I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Careful Tomaž, you don't want people to see you expressing such socialist ideas. 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
-
I have a gut feeling that your damage estimates are light. (no proof) Never the less, the cost of protection is too expensive to be justififed. And who knows an even bigger Hurricane than Katrina could turn up. IMHO: Best bet is rebuild in a new location. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
ColinDavies wrote: Never the less, the cost of protection is too expensive to be justififed. And who knows an even bigger Hurricane than Katrina could turn up. IMHO: Best bet is rebuild in a new location. And what is your estimate of what that will cost? 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
For once I agree with Stan[^]. That statement alone probably shocks some people :) The tigress is here :-D
-
ColinDavies wrote: Never the less, the cost of protection is too expensive to be justififed. And who knows an even bigger Hurricane than Katrina could turn up. IMHO: Best bet is rebuild in a new location. And what is your estimate of what that will cost? 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 what is your estimate of what that will cost? I don't know, But I believe there is a chance that it would actually cost less than repairing the existing city. Also it would mean that the massive cost for levees aren't needed. Murphey's law would suggest that once rebuiling New Orleans is completed another Hurricane would strike. It is amazing how often these 1 in a hundred year events can occur. - Which ever way it is going to cost a lot of money. But when Bush talked of putting a man on Mars in 20 yrs nobody laughed at the US, so I assume this also would be within the US's capacity. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
-
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
you're a fool Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
John Carson wrote: And what is your estimate of what that will cost? I don't know, But I believe there is a chance that it would actually cost less than repairing the existing city. Also it would mean that the massive cost for levees aren't needed. Murphey's law would suggest that once rebuiling New Orleans is completed another Hurricane would strike. It is amazing how often these 1 in a hundred year events can occur. - Which ever way it is going to cost a lot of money. But when Bush talked of putting a man on Mars in 20 yrs nobody laughed at the US, so I assume this also would be within the US's capacity. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
ColinDavies wrote: But I believe there is a chance that it would actually cost less than repairing the existing city. Also it would mean that the massive cost for levees aren't needed. Murphey's law would suggest that once rebuiling New Orleans is completed another Hurricane would strike. It is amazing how often these 1 in a hundred year events can occur. Moving the port of new orleans away from the sea would also make day to day operations of monitoring and securing foreign transport, gulf oil production, and various other operations related to the gulf waters more expensive on a day to day operation. This is generally why "ports" are built near the seas that they operate from. So economically, although you "may" save money on not rebuilding as often (other "natural disasters occur"), you will spend more money in general port operations and thus pay the price of less effective economic operations and feel the affect permanently in lowered economy or higher prices. So lets say we move the port of new orleans up the mississippi by 100 miles, it's out of range of the storm surge of the ocean, but can still be hit by storm winds (that knocked out, and still holds hostage most of southern mississippi's electricity). It may not flood from a storm, but still victim of 1 in 100 years river flooding.... And now we have no control over the mouth of the mississippi for traffic flow -- we have to secure that 100 miles from afar. There is not really a "safe" place for a port, they are usually at the mouth of a river, which can suffer from river based disasters, and near the ocean which suffers from ocean based disasters. But if we relocate a "port" away from both, how do we get tankers fully laden into the new port to check them before sending them up the river for use by the rest of the USA? _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
John Carson wrote: And what is your estimate of what that will cost? I don't know, But I believe there is a chance that it would actually cost less than repairing the existing city. Also it would mean that the massive cost for levees aren't needed. Murphey's law would suggest that once rebuiling New Orleans is completed another Hurricane would strike. It is amazing how often these 1 in a hundred year events can occur. - Which ever way it is going to cost a lot of money. But when Bush talked of putting a man on Mars in 20 yrs nobody laughed at the US, so I assume this also would be within the US's capacity. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
ColinDavies wrote: It is amazing how often these 1 in a hundred year events can occur. Or as Terry Pratchett put it: everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance happens nine-times-out-of-ten.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
John Carson wrote: My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. Surely they delegate the responsibility for executing evacuation to local authorities. I can imagine federal resources (i.e. buses, organizing destination locations) being used to evacuate people, but the guys on the ground who need to coordinate it so that all citizens leave the city failed. People were in the city days after evacuation was ordered. John Carson wrote: Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. Now I googled and it seems it was really not economically viable compared to the potential loss of property (and possibility of such a hurricane hitting, which is once in hundred years). It seems to me it was a case of bad coordination of local and federal authorities. The loss of life seems due to failed evacuation, which was ordered. I understand people deciding to stay but I don't understand being no transport avail for those who could not afford it. Tomaž -- modified at 5:18 Saturday 3rd September, 2005 Simplifiacation of economic study: o direct cost of three months of total inactivity of New Orleans 20 billion o damage to property 8 billion o indirect damage 2 billion Estimate of total damage: 30 billion o Cost of defense against flooding for 10 years: 3 billion o Possibility of hurricane type of Katrina in the area: 1 per 100 years From these numbers you come to the conclusion that economically (looking at economy as a whole) such investition would be questionable.
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)
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: I googled. All dems. Now the difficult questions: - who was responsible for the evacuation and evacuation plans; locals or federal government? You could Google again. My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. It coordinates all agencies, including local ones. Naturally, local authorities don't have the resources to cope with large scale disasters such as this, so most of the resources must come from the Federal Government. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for 1/3 of police force deserting, locals or federal government? That figure is unconfirmed, but I would say that any failure of police to perform their duties is a local responsibility. Tomaž Štih wrote: - who was responsible for maintenance of the protective wall, locals or federal government? Federal. It is maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, whose funding for the purpose had been cut by the Bush Administration. Building levies that would offer guaranteed protection to New Orleans against a hurricane of this strength may have been prohibitively expensive. Be that as it may, the levies were meant for a category 3 hurricane and hence the risk of flooding from Katrina was obvious long before it hit land. Thus effective plans should have been in place for coping with the potential flooding. 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: My understanding is overall responsibility for planning evacuations is with the Federal body FEMA. True, on a national or federal scale, but each state and municipaity is responsible for creating and co-ordinating its own emergency plans, including evacuatiuon, emergency communications, standing orders for police (so they know what do do when communications break down). Law enforcement, even now, is a state and local responsibility. National Gaurd Troops are not Law enforcement, the are disaster releif and emergency security. New Orleans emergency palns seem to have been 'Hope it doesn't happen'. I would note the the Federal Government was urging them to evacuate a full day before the storm hit. They requested no assistance... John Carson wrote: Federal. It is maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, whose funding for the purpose had been cut by the Bush Administration. Not entirely accurate, since the funding is determimed by Congress, not the Administration. The allocation of the funds is up to the Corp of Engineers (their funds are for maintenance of the entire Missisippi river drainage basin).. Also, the Lake Ponchartrain levees are at least in part a state responsibility. The levee issues have been known for 20 years, so failure to maintain them is one that spans many administrations. The resources are and were coming in from the federal government. It was not a simple task with almost all approach roads floded and most major bridges impassable. There was also an extreem need in Mississippi and Alabama at the same time, after all, New Orleans wasn't the only victim of Katrina; the Cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are nearly leveled, and 90,000 square miles are deystroyed. The entire area is without power and without reliable communications. (The media hping the worst of the situation, is not 'reliable communications' I think they may be more part of the problem than of the solution). 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