Bour-...blub-blub...-bon Street

[Doug@GT]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

'nuff said.

[TMurphy]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

'nuff said.

I've gone on record to state that I don't care for the presidency of George W. Bush. That being said, this article is speaking the truth.

I don't understand why Bush is catching blame for this. He didn't make the hurricane hit New Orleans. He didn't really do anything. The only fault I can find in Bush's actions are that he did not personally respond to the disaster as fast as I feel he probably should have. But I will concede that it would have been foolish of him to fly down there before proper arrangements for his safety had been made, so I guess even that is pretty forgivable. Bush has a great deal many flaws as a person and as a president. This situation ain't his fault, and he's doing the most he can to help out. It's unfair to villify him (especially when there are plenty of other things to villify him on, hehe.)

However....

As much as George Bush is NOT to blame, neither is welfare. That's absurd. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with welfare; in fact, I won't even state my own opinion on the subject. It's irrelevant. People looting and raping and killing has NOTHING to do with welfare. Let me say that again. People looting and raping and killing has NOTHING to do with welfare. People did those sorts of things before welfare existed. People are doing them now. Any time people wind up in a situation where law enforcement breaks down, people start doing things like that. True, the situation seems to be worse in New Orleans than it has in other places in the past. But, let's not automatically blame poverty and welfare for that. Maybe, just maybe, we need to look at the city of New Orleans itself, a city which has a reputation for being a bit wild. Certainly this has attracted a fair number of people with the potential to be looters, perhaps more than you might find in another city of similar size. But naw, that can't be the reason. Let's blame welfare for making those people poor and lazy, and for making them disrespect other people's property. I think the statement that made me laugh the most was when someone said that the looters are used to recieving other people's things via welfare, so they think it's ok to keep taking other people's things. Please. They know what they're doing is wrong. They don't care, because they're shitty people, taking advantage of a situation in which it's easy to be shitty. People like that have always existed, welfare or no welfare.

This was a natural disaster that caught a whole lot of people who weren't prepared to deal with it. People need to stop pointing fingers, but politics and opinions aside, and do what we can to fix the problems we now face.

I now step off my soapbox, and return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[windshieldbug]

Or am I just being an insenstive @@@@@?

Why are these mutually exclusive?

[tubeast]

On the debate whether it´s a good idea to use tax money to help in situations like these:

In the Katrina-destroyed areas, hundreds of thousands of people were affected to the extent of their basic needs of survival (That is, water, food, health, and shelter), The majority of these got away in the mean time, so their basic needs have switched to, say, clothing, housing, money, and jobs .
On a smaller scale, individuals have to face similar fates all over the place (fire, thunderstorms, local floods…) and need the care of the public and individuals in the same way.

I just read that the current actions taken to improve the situation in the Katrina-area (that is, providing the basic needs of survival to those still there, taking care of dead people, animals and further biohazards, as well as preparing to "repair" the flooded areas by making them accessible to construction equipment) use up as much as 1 billion $ a day. The following is based on guesses only, so feel free to set up the equation for yourselves, using the figures I estimated as variables to be replaced by exact numbers.

I´d guess it´ll take at least the rest of the year to get the area in a condition where private investment money may come in and start to rebuild whatever could keep a self reliant population going.
That amounts to about 120 billion $$$$$. Okay, let´s just assume it´s only 80.000.000.000 US-dollars.
That kind of money is needed, and it´s needed NOW. Let´s assume a population of 280 million US citizens, from newborn to aged. At an average number of 3.5 persons per household, that´s 80 million bank accounts to issue a cheque from.
At least 30% of these can´t or won´t contribute at all, either because of poverty or selfishness.
(You don´t believe it ? How many people had to stay in NO or were unwilling to leave before last weekend ? It´s the same kind of population.)
That leaves roughly 55 million households to carry that burden, which amounts to 1450$ per household on average, to be collected within the next couple of weeks based on voluntary donations. How much did you say YOU were able to donate ?

Don´t get me wrong here, I´m aware that a lot of those 1 billion bucks a day are spent on stuff that would be the government´s business, like public roads or law enforcement.
BUT these need to be fixed BEFORE any charity-based aid could get to the area. But still, the money needs to be raised somehow, be it taxes or donations.
The burden to be carried remains the same, either way. And remember, apart from that money all kinds of donations already DO reach charity organisations and are desperately needed there.

Using tax payer´s money, at least there is a chance you take money from those UNWILLING to support their fellow citizens. Is that a bad idea ?

[Doug@GT]

these need to be fixed BEFORE any charity-based aid could get to the area.

You assume that the government could do it quicker. That's a big assumption.

[Joe Baker]

The burden to be carried remains the same, either way.

I don't know about that. If the private sector -- AKA "people" -- don't want to rebuild NO enough to pony up the money, then what's the justification for doing so? Of course, promises already made, e.g. flood insurance, should be honored; but these could be paid in cash rather than rebuilding in a foolish location. So I argue that what is paid for isn't even fixed, necessarily.

Furthermore, it's not so clear that the cost is the same for any particular level of relief/restoration. Some charities are more efficient than others, and virtually all are more efficient than the government. The government will inevitably be motivated by trying to win votes, rather than just getting people through the crisis -- thus the $2000 debit card decision . When it comes to disaster relief, the Salvation Army and Red Cross can do for a quarter what would cost the feds a dollar.

This whole arena of disaster response is one area where technology has made a certain kind of response POSSIBLE that was not possible when our constitution was written, but only possible for a very large organization like the national government. Thus, I think the government SHOULD step in to save lives in the initial crisis. If we still followed our constitution, people like me would have long ago insisted on (and easily won) an amendment to permit such action. Since we don't particularly pay much attention to the constitution anymore, that hasn't been necessary; but in any case, I support the action of the government stepping in to save lives. I do NOT support the notion that the government can come in and make everyone whole again. That's why we "save for a rainy day", buy insurance, or just locate somewhere that's not prone to hurricanes. This is the real beef that I, and I think many of my more conservative friends, have with the government's approach to disaster mediation.
__________________________________
Joe Baker, who is tired of paying to rebuild the same foolishly placed buildings again, and again, and again,...

[ThomasDodd]

For home defense I figure it'd be a rare burglar who was willing to wait while I trundled down to the basement to unlock the gun, unlock the ammo, and load the gun

Which exactly shows the fallicy of the proscribed, PC methods of storing a defensive weapon.

A defensive weapon would be stord loaded, with out a trigger lock, in an accessable loation.
My father kept 2: a shoutgun behind his bedroom door, and a revolver in the dresser on his side of the bed. Both were always loaded. My brother and myself were not allowed into that room, and knew the punishment world be severe if we were there. We also learned to handle a gun ealy. I was in the woods hunting by 5th grade.

Currently my shotgun is loaded and stored in the bathroom, whose only entrence is through my bedroom. The pellet rifle behind the door is for stray dogs.

[Dean]

"The pellet rifle behind the door is for stray dogs."



Ever try calling animal control??

[ThomasDodd]

"The pellet rifle behind the door is for stray dogs."
Ever try calling animal control??

Two issues there.
1, the strays like to attack my house dogs when they are outside. I tie them up to keep them from away from the road, and away from the neighbors. animal control would take too long to get there. If my 15 lbs Sheltie is attacked by a 50+ lbs mixed mutt while tied to a 20 ft rope, he cannot use his speed to get away. Buy the time some "official" showed up he'd be severly wounded, if not dead.

2, I did call the county sherrif. There is no animal control to speak of here. Hell the animal shelter if only open 2 days a week for drop off or pickup( adoption as the call it). The sherrif OK'd me using the shotgun, but I've declined to use it thus far for other reasons.

At least one isn't a stray, but belongs to an uncooperative neighbor, who refuses to keep said animal out of my yard. Again, sherrif was not helpfull, since no human has been injured.

[Dean]

Do the pellets penetrate, or merely sting em a bit?


I've been shot by a low power air gun before... But, there are some powerful ones out there!

[Dean]

Wow some of you people are high-strung!!


Keep in mind that I have NEVER told anyone here:

1. What to do...
2. How to do it...
3. What NOT to do...

I asked questions. Thats it!! As far as I knew, the guy likes shooting domestic animals for fun... I learned that is not the case by actually INQUIRING and not ASSUMING I KNOW SOMEONE....

I like animals. I would rather not kill them. I do eat animals, and I do understand the need to reduce certain populations through hunting. I do hate it, though, when others kill animals FOR FUN. I also hate, when one NEEDS to kill animals, they do it in an insensitive or ineffective manner.

It would be real nice if a pellet penetrated the dog, resulting only in a minor flesh wound that gets infected and slowly kills the animal over a few weeks... If you think thats a great way to die, well, then I hope you get to experience it one day. A low-power air gun, however, will not penetrate, resulting only in a stinging pain--no damage. Any animal will soon learn to stay clear of the area when pain is involved.

Ah well, (pre)judge away... Ya, you already know me.. you know every decision I could possibly make based on the 113 posts I made on this board... (and that, in case you didnt get it, is sarcasm)

[Dean]

...until the above post, where (indeed) you (as we sometimes say down here) "showed your @ss" (and the questions you chose to ask set off bells for several readers, obviously).

You are being overly sensitive.

Note that the person to whom my questions were actually directed answered me directly and with civility, not with rants...

Again, you are "reading into" my posts. I have no idea why. Read the words for the exact meaning that they give, nothing more. Dodd did it, so can you.

My concern was simple, and only judgemental on ONE level. If he's going to kill those strays for causing or intending harm on his dogs... KILL THEM. Do it with something that will get the job done--high powered rifle or a 12 gauge will do just fine. If his intent was to scare em off, a low powered air gun works great. Anything in the middle just causes needless suffering.

I've got the same issues with hunters who are BAD shots. I've seen quite a few deer in PA with limbs shot off, their entrails hanging out, and they are still going, running, and suffering. All because these hunters dont have the skill to make a good killshot, or they lack the patience to wait for one.

I hope you enjoy your "bells." I dont think anyone else is hearing them....

Oh, and above you said I was, indeed, telling others:

1. What to do...
2. How to do it...
3. What NOT to do...

Please--quote my post where I told some person to do one of the above... I dont recall it. Quote please.

[ThomasDodd]

...until the above post, where (indeed) you (as we sometimes say down here) "showed your @ss" (and the questions you chose to ask set off bells for several readers, obviously).

You are being overly sensitive.

Note that the person to whom my questions were actually directed answered me directly and with civility, not with rants...

Again, you are "reading into" my posts. I have no idea why. Read the words for the exact meaning that they give, nothing more. Dodd did it, so can you.

We'll, not to burst your bubble, but I agree with bloke's comment. I just chose a different tact. Not really sure why, as I tend to be hot-headed. But your comments were typical of a certain group, and we will expect that you fit the mold more so than not.

Do it with something that will get the job done--high powered rifle or a 12 gauge will do just fine. If his intent was to scare em off, a low powered air gun works great. Anything in the middle just causes needless suffering.

I prefer 20 ga shotguns for such work. Verry little requires a 12ga. Not sure the power of the pellet rifle. Kind of depends on how much I pump it

The only reasons for it's current use over the shotgun are 1) technically I'm not supposed to have a firearm where I live. But I will not leave my family unprotected.
And 2) the worst ofender is a neighbors dog, who would surely hear the shot. I don't wish to escillate the situation any farther than need be. Would do to have them destroy my property, or go after my dogs. (While they are tied when outside, I don't wish to watch them constantly while out).

[Dean]

"But your comments were typical of a certain group..."


They werent comments. They were questions. Once the questions were answered--THEN I made comments.

Whether or not you had your doubts about my "intents" or politics, you did what is civil and replied to me directly and without evident prejudice.


Whatever the above people may think of me, they can think. Where they overstep is stating these thoughts (publicly, no less...) with no idea of what they are saying. I prefer to treat people in all forms of communication (yes even the internet) as if I were talking to them in person. In person, when I meet someone for the first time--I have my first impression of them, yes--within a few minutes. All humans have these thoughts--sometimes its positve, sometimes negative. What I dont do is spout off all the negative things I may think about a person within minutes of meeting them. Its pointless and rude.

No that I know THE FACTS, from inquiring from THE SOURCE--I would say you are definitely in the right (in my opinion-which means little). But your neighbor is definitely in the wrong, and I would hope that there has to be some law where you live that prohibits him from allowing his animals to run free on your property (without your permission). Is this the case?

[ThomasDodd]

prefer to treat people in all forms of communication (yes even the internet) as if I were talking to them in person. [/quoet]
As do I. Though as said, I tend to be hot-headed and verry stuborn.

I would hope that there has to be some law where you live that prohibits him from allowing his animals to run free on your property (without your permission). Is this the case?

Not sure where you're from Dean, but it obvious you no from a small rual town.

There might be a law. What good is it?
If I call the sherrif, I would have to convince them to come. That's not easy since the county is a large and they usually have more pressing issue than a stray dog. This isn't a city with leash lawas and suce, but a small mobile home park, with large lots, out in the county. I grew up in a similar place, except it was frame built houses instead of mobile homes.

Assuming I convince the sherrif's office to snd a deputy, it wil take 15 -30 minutes for them to get there, depending on where the nearest deputy is. By then said animal is gone. The neighbor will probably deny that the animal was in my yard, or even out of their yard.

So now what? The neighbor is mad too. Now I have to worry about retaliation. At best they'll keep an I on the mutt for a few days/week and then back to the same. That have promised more than once to tie it up. I've complained to the landlord, since roaming pets violates the lease, but to no avail.

My best bet would be poision. No proof that I was involved, though proof isn't needed for inappropriate reactions.

What bother me its that this is a childs pet. I lost a few pet when younger, which is why mine are tied up. I don't trust the drivers to not hit them if the wander into the road, or others not to take or injure them.

Bringing it back to the topic, these people are not taking responsibility for their pets, or doing the proper thing for the animals well being. The don't seam to have any idea of their responsibility. Worse, if one of my dogs is injured, they don't have the resources to cover the vet bills if i took the to court over the incident (and court would be required).

The lack of responsibility is my problem with them. Just like the people who stayed in N.O. against all reasonable request to leave.

[ThomasDodd]

Just like the people who stayed in N.O. against all reasonable request to leave.

Many of the people who stayed in N.O. were too poor to get out. Not enough money for gas, no where to go, etc.

I don't buy that at all. Soem maybe, buy not most.
That what friends, neighbors, and relatives are for. So those with cars take somone without one. You should know which of your neighbors would need help. Oh, wait, the people with cars aren't concerned about helping their neighbor, the governement will do it instead.

Same with relitives. I'd have been driving 12 hours to my mother's house if it it got bad here. I'll bet most could have found a way out it that had not expected the government to take care of them.

My wife's parents live south of us in Mississippi.But like so many in N.O., they stayed. They were offered room, and gas money or a ride. Even after the storm cleard, and I could drive south again, they wouldn't go. They still don't have power or water. My father-in-law had medicine go bad due to heat (Insulin must be refridgerated). Yet they refused to go anywhere.

[Joe Baker]

Many of the people who stayed in N.O. were too poor to get out. Not enough money for gas [feet?], no where to go [away?], etc.

One must admit, this would apply to at least some of those who stayed - including even some who died.

One of the rare times I'll have to disagree with you, Bloke. Imagine the BEST CASE scenario, as of Saturday evening: a group of young adults, all in good health, all with the best rain gear available. At best, they might make it 50 miles out of town. In what direction would a 50-mile walk make a group, with no shelter, safe from a category 4 hurricane? The elderly or those with children would fare even worse -- and most hadn't even proper clothing for such a trek.

On the other hand, if they had used those buses, even with no place to go, they could have gotten as far as a tank of gas would take them -- at least a couple hundred miles -- at which distance the bus itself, out of gas on the side of the road, would be sufficient shelter.

The citizens of New Orleans had a promise from the city to evacuate them. That promise was broken. No doubt many other failings, at all levels of government, will be uncovered in the weeks and months ahead, but this one is immediately obvious.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who hopes every government official and every citizen is paying very close attention to what happened in New Orleans -- the government officials so they understand the consequences of making promises they can't keep, and the citizens so they understand the consequences of trusting government to save them.

[ThomasDodd]

and the citizens so they understand the consequences of trusting government to save them.

There in was the primary source of the troubles. Expecting the government(at any level. local, state, or federal) to save one's self and family is now way to plan for emergecies. That dependence on the governemnt cost many their life, and caused others great anguish.

[Shockwave]

The president declared the region a disaster area before the storm hit. Why? The mayor and governor were dragging their feet. As a result of what the president did, federal aid was available to the city and state BEFORE the storm hit, but the mayor and governor chose not to use it. They are the ****-ups here, not Bush.

Doc

According to the white house website, federal aid was not available to the city of new orleans or the surrounding area before the storm hit.

It's true that the president declared an emergency in certain parts of Louisiana before the storm hit, and here's the press release from the white house:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 827-1.html

If you look at that list you'll notice that the federal aid was made available only to the relatively safe parishes in the northern 2/3 of the state, while the parishes that were nearest the coast and hardest hit by the storm were excluded. If this press release were in error I would expect it to have been corrected by now.

After the storm hit and disaster unfolded, a completely opposite list of parishes were made eligible for federal aid.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 829-2.html

-Eric

[Rick Denney]

According to the white house website, federal aid was not available to the city of new orleans or the surrounding area before the storm hit.

Maybe that's because the City of New Orleans had a disaster plan in place and the resources to effect it, while the rural towns and parishes to the north did not. Only after the storm did people realize that New Orleans officials didn't have a good plan and didn't have the leadership skills to even attempt what they had.

The federal government is not a first responder--it is a backup to help the first responders when they need it. First, they have to ask for it. It took Governor Blanco at least two extra days to request federal control of the disaster response, which is legally required before the federal government can step in and assume control. Why did it take so long? Maybe because she did not want to give up the power? Mississippi requested and received aid much more quickly, but then Barbour was a little quicker to ask for it.

The emergency plan in place in New Orleans did not have an answer for the problem of what to do with those who could not evacuate. It did identify the problem. They had years to think about what they might do. There were 2000 school buses, all gassed up for the start of school, available before the storm hit, and the local officials had the authority to use them in an emergency. The federal government does not have that authority. Remember, we are a federal system with a limited central government.

If the storm surge had been 25 feet instead of 15 feet, as predicted the day before it hit, we would not be having this discussion. Most of those 100,000 people who stayed (and didn't go to shelters) would be dead--their roofs would not have been high enough and they would not have had time to get onto them. Ask the folks in southern Mississippi who have faced MUCH more damage than those in New Orleans--a sudden storm surge generally just flattens houses. We'd be having a different discussion now, and I'm sure there would be people still blaming the federal government (and specifically the president).

Now, we see all sorts of claims that we need to carefully plan where people should be moved to to consider the power of nature in the future and to be environmentally sensitive. Am I the only one who finds this distasteful? In a free country, we each decide for ourselves where we will live, and live with those choices if they turn out badly. Why don't those who want to plan our lives for us (or those of the residents of New Orleans) just get out of the way? If it makes sense to rebuild in certain areas, people will rebuild there. If not, they will move elsewhere and create new lives, and they should be allowed to do so. That's the problem with welfare and how it comes into this discussion--it makes people the charges of the state rather than free agents responsible for their own choices. It's mighty dangerous for an entity as callous as government (and I don't care at what level or who is running it--even official generosity will be callously implemented) to ever promise to anyone that it will make them happy.

I also find it ironic that those complaining that government responded too slowly are now bleating about how the rebuilding has to be done according to their vision of what is right, even if they live 1500 miles away and don't even know how to say "Nwawlins". That is guaranteed to confuse and slow down the process of recovery.

What if a category 4 or 5 hurricane hit Long Island and New York? (It has happened before.) What if it hit Houston? (It has happened before.) We are entering a more active hurricane period like what we had in the 40's and 50's, and that was like what we had in the first part of the last century. The only difference is that lots more people have decided to live in these areas. Oh, well. Lots more people live in California, Oregon, and Washington, too, and they are also subject to wholesale natural disaster. There is no way we can prevent people from living in dangerous places, because every place is potentially dangerous for one reason or another.

It annoys me when Katrina is declared to be the worst hurricane strike in American history, when the Great Storm of 1900 killed 6000-8000 people in Galveston. If Katrina had brought a 25-foot surge to Lake Pontchartrain like they predicted, it might have. Let's be thankful it didn't.

If this hurricane had hit a city of a million in most places on this earth, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands instead of in the hundreds. The strength of our system is that even in one of our poorest cities, we still responded remarkably effectively compared to most places, at the government level and especially at the private level.

Rick "fresh from meeting with state officials in Montgomery and hearing all sorts of interesting stuff" Denney