So how did the destruction of New Orleans happen?

[notyoueither]

Most of the time, Jack. Unfortunately, this one is looking like a cluster****.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ninot


It always amazes me that big media corporations can get cameras in front of these people, and not help them in the process.

I guess that would ruin the story or something.

I think the reason for that is, if they help one person, a mob of people will rush them asking for help. There is no way they can help everyone they see.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Most of the time, Jack. Unfortunately, this one is looking like a cluster****.

In New Orleans that is true, but in other parts of the country thankfully this is not the case.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


That's an absurd argument. USACE indiated that the levees needed shoring up, adn indicated what it would cost. The Administration gave them 20% of that. How does that prove that the original amount of money wouldn't have solved the problem?

Currently I need $5000 to repoint my chimney. If I only have $1000, and thus can't repoint it properly, and the chimney subsequently collapses, does that prove that the $5000 repointing job wouldn't have accomplished anything?

Back to the topic at hand.

While no amount of money can make a city disaster proof, many steps can be taken to limit the amount of damage. Especially in this situation, where there were known measures that could have been taken.

[Kull]

There's a lot of fingerpointing at the US Federal Govt about this whole disaster, but hopefully I can shed some light on the pre-storm accusations:

First of all, the US Constitution is quite specific about Federal versus State powers. In the case of preparing a city for a storm - to include emergency plans, evacuation orders, and postioning of the National Guard - almost everything is in the hands of state and local officials (the only exception being some limited coordination tasks and prepping of federally controlled institutions). The Federal Government may not - by law - intervene or countermand any of this. The Feds can only get involved after-the-fact, and even then only in the event of a disaster.

With respect to Army Corps of Engineer funding, again some perspective is in order. Do you have any idea how many different projects and tasks they support in the US? Well, neither do I! But it's pretty darn large, and they can't possibly take on all the project requests that come across their desks. To fully fund a New Orleans Levee project that would save the city from a Cat 5 Hurricane would necessitate the cancelltion of scores of efforts in other states. And here's the dirty little secret - that would be political suicide. Supporting the 2 senators from Louisiana at the cost of infuriating 20 others is simply not how things get done in this country. If you think I exaggerate, just look at the frenzy over BRAC - it turns out that every military base in the US is absolutely CRITICAL to the safety of our nation....well, at least according to the local Senator. And the same would be true of an attempt to spend ACoE funds in a truly need-based fashion.

For those who insist on playing the Iraq card (i.e "we could have spent the war money to save New Orleans"), all I can say is that the same need was there during 8 years of the Clinton Administration - with as booming an economy as we've seen and no wars to speak of anywhere.....and did we spend that surplus on a massive NO levvee system? Hell no. So stop pointing political fingers unless you want to aim 'em at both parties (in which case I might join you).

Just keep in mind that human nature is such that we don't make huge changes in our lives or our policies unless some kind of disaster strikes. Would the TSA have ever passed Congress if not for 9-11? Would the US have raced for the moon without Sputnik? Would the Dutch have built the Ostershelte (sp?) Project without the 1953 flood? Would the French have built the Maginot line without 1914? You know the answers.

As to how well the Feds are doing in the post disaster phase.....well, that's a different subject. But again, be aware that their tasks are complicated tremendously by the constitutional constraints imposed upon the State-Federal relationship.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kull
First of all, the US Constitution is quite specific about Federal versus State powers. In the case of preparing a city for a storm - to include emergency plans, evacuation orders, and postioning of the National Guard - almost everything is in the hands of state and local officials (the only exception being some limited coordination tasks and prepping of federally controlled institutions). The Federal Government may not - by law - intervene or countermand any of this. The Feds can only get involved after-the-fact, and even then only in the event of a disaster.

I defy you to show me anything in the Constitution that is "quite specific" about this. While you're at it, I defy you to explain all the considerable funding the Feds do provide for disaster preparedness.

Take as much time as you like -- it's not a very long document. In the meantime, would you mind sharing some of the drugs you're on?

[KrazyHorse]

What, you haven't read Amendment #108 yet?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What, you haven't read Amendment #108 yet?

Boy, you leave the country for a few years...

[Kull]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly I defy you to show me anything in the Constitution that is "quite specific" about this.

You are correct, the Constitution is a very short document, and what is "quite specific" is the following fact. The Federal Government only has power in those areas SPECIFICALLY granted to it by that document. Search though you might, you'll find nothing in the area of "preparedness for natural disasters". By default, all other powers - including that - fall to the states. Look at any other hurricanes in the past and you'll see that all governmental actions that specifically address the movement of citizens, equipment, and emergency personnel are ALWAYS the province of Governors, Mayors, and local law enforcement. (With the exception, as noted earlier, of things like military installations in the affected area.) I ask you very nicely to find even one example of the President of the United States or any other Federal Official taking anything other than an advisory role at this stage of the action.

While you're at it, I defy you to explain all the considerable funding the Feds do provide for disaster preparedness.

Nothing unusual there. The Constitution allows the Congress to spend taxes in almost any way they see fit. A good example would be the massive amounts of money spent on things like education and back-to work programs. They can even impose restrictions on how the money is spent, and require reports, etc. They cannot however fund an army of teachers and put them to work in a federally controlled public school system. The same is true of disaster prep funds. The watchword of the day is "guidance", not operational control.

Take as much time as you like -- it's not a very long document. In the meantime, would you mind sharing some of the drugs you're on?

Why the hostility? Wouldn''t you rather have a civilized discussion?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ninot
It always amazes me that big media corporations can get cameras in front of these people, and not help them in the process.

I guess that would ruin the story or something.

You must have inside information that I, as a journalist, don't have, huh?

Fact is, the media is helping out. Hell, my company — the second-largest media empire in America — is in the process of trying to raise millions of dollars to aid the folks affected by this disaster. I plan on giving between $25 to $50 toward the effort, depending on what I can scrounge up after paying a $750 car repair bill.

Other media types are helping out, too. They're just not necessarily bragging about it on air or via print because, frankly, that'd bring folks like you, Ninot, out of the woodwork to complain about that, too (and rightly so). I have my problems with big corporations, but to automatically assume they never have the "little guy's" interest at heart is a bit preposterous. After all, you can only piss on the "little guy" for so long before a million of them band together and decide not to do business with you anymore.

Gatekeeper

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


You must have inside information that I, as a journalist, don't have, huh?

Fact is, the media is helping out. Hell, my company — the second-largest media empire in America — is in the process of trying to raise millions of dollars to aid the folks affected by this disaster. I plan on giving between $25 to $50 toward the effort, depending on what I can scrounge up after paying a $750 car repair bill.

Other media types are helping out, too. They're just not necessarily bragging about it on air or via print because, frankly, that'd bring folks like you, Ninot, out of the woodwork to complain about that, too (and rightly so). I have my problems with big corporations, but to automatically assume they never have the "little guy's" interest at heart is a bit preposterous. After all, you can only piss on the "little guy" for so long before a million of them band together and decide not to do business with you anymore.

Gatekeeper

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kull


You are correct, the Constitution is a very short document, and what is "quite specific" is the following fact. The Federal Government only has power in those areas SPECIFICALLY granted to it by that document. Search though you might, you'll find nothing in the area of "preparedness for natural disasters". By default, all other powers - including that - fall to the states. Look at any other hurricanes in the past and you'll see that all governmental actions that specifically address the movement of citizens, equipment, and emergency personnel are ALWAYS the province of Governors, Mayors, and local law enforcement. (With the exception, as noted earlier, of things like military installations in the affected area.) I ask you very nicely to find even one example of the President of the United States or any other Federal Official taking anything other than an advisory role at this stage of the action.

The notion that "by default" all powers not vested in the federal government fall to the states is highly, highly specious, and highly contested. Because the constitution is a deliberately vague document, the scope of federal and state powers is also vague, and subject to the ongoing adjudication of the courts. If anything, given New Orleans' status as one of the country's largest ports, the Interstate Commerce Clause could be used to cover this.

As for your "give me one example": okay. Hurricane Camille: Nixon sent upwards of 1,000 federal troops to Mississippi to impose martial law and maintain the dusk-to-dawn curfew. And that's just off the top of my head.

Sorry to seem rude, but you're weighing in here as if you're some kind of constitutional scholar, and it's not at all apparent that you know what you're talking about.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Kull

Why the hostility? Wouldn''t you rather have a civilized discussion?

Paul, Paul, Paul. Welcome to the jungle.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ninot
It always amazes me that big media corporations can get cameras in front of these people, and not help them in the process.

Journalists help these people by showing the problems that they face.

Media companies do not have the money, equipment or skills to feed, house and evacuate these people.

And to follow up on Gatekeeper's comments, the newspaper corporation I work for has set up a matching fund for relief aid. For every $1 an employee donates, the company will donate $1.50.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by techumseh


Paul, Paul, Paul. Welcome to the jungle.

Really, dude, I'm one of the more civil people around this place. You've been warned...