Katrina devastated the south, gas 6 $ a gallon

[ZIM]

FuX-

Were you responding to me?

[FuXnDajenariht]

yea i responded to part of what you said but not directed to you specifically.

[ZIM]

yea i responded to part of what you said but not directed to you specifically.

Allright.

First, taking it from the POV of someone in need, I agree: They don't care about niceties of law. I do have sympathy for their plight, so remember that.

Second: Leaders, I hope, will be dispassionate & competent rather than emotional & reactive. Part of incompetence lies with guarding your own little fiefdom when it isn't appropriate [as it seems the Gov. did] and part of it lies with not stepping up immediately when crisis comes [as it seems W did].

So I think we're in agreement with those two.

But look at the second. If someone is guarding their fiefdom, and they're backed by the law, how is the other to step up? I'm not trying to 'have it both ways'. I'm trying to say [maybe not clearly] that Bush didn't have that authority because the Gov. would not relinquish it. Didn't have to, either, but she could've coordinated with Bush a whole lot better, don't you think? The methods for dealing with disaster are in place and they'll work *if they're followed*. Why weren't they?

Bush did consider, apparently, using the Insurrection Act to take over LA governing, which would have immediately *deposed* Blanco. He didn't.

Why do you think that is?

Bush offered "two options" to Blanco in a face-to-face private meeting on Wednesday which she asked '24 hours' to consider.

What do you think they might have been?

======
unrelated:

A photo timeline. Very good.
http://tinyurl.com/dutl9

[Shorin Ryuu]

you say the local government is corrupt but then you say the president shouldn't have control because hes incompetent. you can't have it both ways.

That is the problem with merging two people's arguments together and trying to present them as a contradiction. All I said was that the local governments bear the brunt of the blame. I never asked for it "both ways". And if you read Zim's post a little closer, you would have realized he was proposing a hypothetical question, essentially beginning with "So we'll pretend your Bush Derangement Syndrome fantasies prove true, what if..."

the city is overrun by national guardsmen now. their just there to keep order and make sure everyone gets food and gets out safe. they aren't fulfilling some paranoid vision about taking over state rights or having everyone under martial law.

What does that have to do with my argument? Nothing at all. The fact of the matter is, we all wanted those national guardsmen in sooner, but local and state authorities waited too long. The guardsmen themselves did a great job of getting to the area as soon as they could (people think for some reason they can suddenly appear as soon as the order is given). That was never the issue, so I don't see where you are going with this.

all anyone is saying is that this could of been done alot sooner. even the president realizes this. some of his supporters dont seem to get it tho.

Yes I agree. It should have been sooner, but it is the responsibility of the state and local governments to be the first-line of defense against these disasters. That is why we have state and local governments in the first place. It isn't a failure of the system, it is the failure of those in the state and local governments at the time.

[PangQuan]

THAT's TaiChiBob? Holy moly! Ixnay on the resident-pay...

lmao......

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The politicization I am referring to is the blind blame assigned to Bush by those who cite rumor mills rather than fact and use emotive words rather than reference to what actually happens.

There is a simple observable "fact".. this nation watched in dis-belief as victims of a natural disaster begged for help and none arrived.. anyone can put their "facts" into a spreadsheet matrix and derive whatever statistics supports their beliefs.. what you can't do is offer your facts to the victims as help .. help is a motivated leadership willing to overlook obstacles of red-tape in order to execute the prime-directive.. protect its citizens.. "emotive words"?.. let's see, cold structured political systems failed on the principle that there is a hierarchy of command and response.. we needed an "emotive" response, a "git 'er done" directive, what we got was a system that failed its task due to following specific unemotional codes of heirarchy..

the "red tape" you are referring to is a little thing we call federalism. The federal government called for action and offered all the help you are talking about, but the state level did not allow them to act. This is all basic U.S. government material...there are certain things the federal government is not allowed to do unless given acquiescence by the state. That lack of acquiescence means the state and local governments are responsible for nearly all the bungling that has occurred.

"the state and local governments are responsible", really? The executive office will embrace that notion with tender arms.. because surely, the President was powerless to act on behalf of the people that elected him to protect them, "the state level did not allow them to act".. So, when the president asks to help and is refused, he just says "okay"? He just goes back to his TV and looks at the hopelessness and says "gosh, i wish i could help"? I am not a "Bush hater", i wish he were worthy of the office.. but, "desperate times call for desperate measures", a "leader" knows when to take charge.. this one did not. DO NOT LET FACTS AND FIGURES DISGUISE A DEFICIENCY OF COMMON SENSE!!! Arguements of states rights and federalism are secondary to simple good common sense, the missing variable..

Scenario: It is day 2, the levees are failing, N.O. is flooding.. towns and villages along the gulf are wiped out, no services and no ground access.. people are pleading for help.. there are still smaller communities from which NO communication has been made.. Does the sanctity of the political system yield in favor of rendering humanitarian aid, or continue to negotiate with ravaged local governments as people perish.. this is a "no-brainer", but somehow, those that have elevated GWB to the status of a saint will find solace in the mantra "the states wouldn't let him help".. Katrina didn't play by the rules, the local gov'ts corrupted the rules decades earlier, media news teams got around rules to be on-site in the worst of it.. but, the US federal gov't was happy to sit and let the "rules" dictate the fates of its citizens.. in this country's worst natural disaster it was the rules that were the detriment.. and no one was there to take charge and abandon the failing system in favor of a common-sense solution..

Do you think that such a president should have the authority to take over a state simply because he believes the local authorities are being ineffective? I do not. Remember, the distinction here is between sending in federal resources in response to a request versus taking control of the situation by what is essentially armed force, which has been forbidden under these circumstances since after the Civil War.

Now, ask any of the people that were stranded at the convention center amid rotting corpses and human waste and lack of basic needs the same question.. if whover was President could have helped them, should they have waited for proper protocol? "simply because he believes the local authorities are being ineffective"? it wasn't a belief, it was an observable reality.. "take over a state"? what a distorted perspective, easily attributed to a defensive posturing trying to shield the venerable GWB.. try this perspective, rendering humanitarian aid.. sounds a bit more realistic doesn't it?

If you do believe that the Executive should have the power to invade states and supercede local authority on the basis that they were not doing a good enough job, where would you draw the line?

We have drawn way too many "lines", lines between local, state and federal gov't are the same lines that common-sense stumbled over.. how about we simply respond to the demands of the situation.. elect intelligent representatives rather than wealthy and influential politicians, complete with their politically appointed cronies..

How cold and uncompassionate does one have to be to assert that this nation's leadership acted appropriately.. to assert that the rules of order (the dysfunctional ones at that) are desirable over the preservation of life and health.. Have we become so politically correct as to devalue the sanctity of life..

I'm trying to say [maybe not clearly] that Bush didn't have that authority because the Gov. would not relinquish it.

Cripe!! so while these guys quibble over laws and rights.. people are being denied their basic rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".. Bush had the ways and means to mitigate this catastrophe in great measure, but neither the common sense or balls to do so.. If i'm a police officer from another state and i see a man with a gun about to kill someone do i ignore the obvious simply because i'm out of my jurisdiction?.. or, do i take responsibility for my time on this planet and act accordingly.. Katrina posed a unique situation that called for thinking outside the box, for creative solutions, rule breaking and common-sense.. we cannot excuse the lack of these attributes with rules that did not serve the situation..

My question is this.. Are the rules of law and order superior to the people which they were concieved to protect? i suggest that there is only one prime "rule".. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you now, apply this to the various scenarios posed on this thread, put yourself on a roof top for three days without food and water.. and tell me, with a straight face, that you would have preferred that the president negotiate your fate according to protocol as opposed to asserting his leadership responsibilities in the face of failing local response..

Be well..

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

THAT's TaiChiBob? Holy moly! Ixnay on the resident-pay...

Okay, Okay.. so i had a bad hair day.. gimme a break..

The guardsmen themselves did a great job of getting to the area as soon as they could (people think for some reason they can suddenly appear as soon as the order is given).

Uh, i seem to recall that the media was there days before the guard.. asking the questions "where's the guard, where's the aid".. the same media that supplied the gov't with live feeds from the Iraq invasion.. while the Gov't said it got its info from CNN.. It seems that the media is more capable than than those whose job it is to BE capable..

It isn't a failure of the system, it is the failure of those in the state and local governments at the time.

Redundancy!! when the local gov't fails the state steps up, when the state fails the Feds step up (or go on vacation).. where was Cheney, again? Listen, these were tough times, systems failed and there was no leadership response. Why is that so hard to admit? the real lesson will be to insure this doesn't happen again.. (like, don't rebuild a city below sea-level in Hurricane Alley).. The President himself admitted the response was unacceptable, but then modified it to shore-up the party line.. and tell us again how "Brownie" did such a good job.. only to relieve him of the duties he was doing so good at.. (indecision, as i've pointed out earlier).. This administration has cultivated a legacy of missing the mark, don't challenge that notion, it's just too easy to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt..

If someone is guarding their fiefdom, and they're backed by the law, how is the other to step up?

Let's see.. he figured it out in Iraq!

The methods for dealing with disaster are in place and they'll work *if they're followed*. Why weren't they?

That's a matter to be dealt with AFTER we save lives and restore some kind of services.. the facts are that they didn't work.. chaos was the order of the day.. and no one took control.. We have a crisis of leadership, the nation sees it, the world sees it.. only die-hard Bush supporters don't see it.. they need to stop worshiping their leader and demand that he actually LEAD the most powerful and advanced nation on the planet..

Be well..

[ZIM]

Cripe!! so while these guys quibble over laws and rights.. people are being denied their basic rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".. Bush had the ways and means to mitigate this catastrophe in great measure, but neither the common sense or balls to do so..

Hey, guess what? I'm not disagreeing with you. I, too, believe they shouldn't have 'quibbled'. Difference is, I say it wasn't Bush doing the quibbling.

Why didn't he take over the state? Why wouldn't he?

That's a matter to be dealt with AFTER we save lives and restore some kind of services..

But you're proposing solutions now. Now's the time since you picked it.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I say it wasn't Bush doing the quibbling

The evidence suggests otherwise.. he was either quibbling or sitting in a trance.. he wasn't taking charge.. Quibbling requires two players.. otherwise one is just talking with themself.. too many people protecting their policical treasures at the expense of the victims.. It is in Bush's favor to be considered as quibbling, otherwise he was just asleep at the wheel..

Be well..

[Royal Dragon]

God, the paraniod, military survivalist wacko's were all right after all!

It does not matter WHO is in the government. Government involvement ****s up everything! This whole situation is proof of that on a monumental scale!

The mayor ****ed up, the governor ****ed up, and Bush ****ed up.

The question here is "who do we vote for that would have been better"?


I say no one. Being active in politics requires a certian " Dumbing of the mind ". There isn't anyone avaliable who would have done this right, because polititions are just not cut out to be leaders. No matter WHO was Mayor, Governor or president, this tragedy would not have been avoided.

It was beyond the scope of a polititions capabilities to coupe here. They are dumb animals, and we cannot rely on thier help in a crisis. We must be prepared to deal with crisis's as they come ourselves.

What kills me is the paraniod, paramilitary surviveilist wacko's WERE RIGHT!! about everything they ever said, and they are the only ones smart enough to survive things like this because they are the only ones strong enough to take their own fate into thier own hands no matter how insane they may "Appear" to everyone else.

I only wish i hadn't written them off as lunatics...I may need to seek refuge in thier Y-2K bunker someday, and i don't remember where it is anymore.

[SPJ]

40,000 volunteers needed.

red cross

This is the largest recruitment in 125 years of red cross history.

Red cross was everywhere such as in WWI, WWII and even Tian An Men square 1989.

[SPJ]

Katrina costs

[ZIM]

God, the paraniod, military survivalist wacko's were all right after all!

It does not matter WHO is in the government. Government involvement ****s up everything! This whole situation is proof of that on a monumental scale!

The mayor ****ed up, the governor ****ed up, and Bush ****ed up.

The question here is "who do we vote for that would have been better"?


I say no one. Being active in politics requires a certian " Dumbing of the mind ". There isn't anyone avaliable who would have done this right, because polititions are just not cut out to be leaders. No matter WHO was Mayor, Governor or president, this tragedy would not have been avoided.

It was beyond the scope of a polititions capabilities to coupe here. They are dumb animals, and we cannot rely on thier help in a crisis. We must be prepared to deal with crisis's as they come ourselves.

What kills me is the paraniod, paramilitary surviveilist wacko's WERE RIGHT!! about everything they ever said, and they are the only ones smart enough to survive things like this because they are the only ones strong enough to take their own fate into thier own hands no matter how insane they may "Appear" to everyone else.

I only wish i hadn't written them off as lunatics...I may need to seek refuge in thier Y-2K bunker someday, and i don't remember where it is anymore.

Royal Dragon has a "come to Jesus" moment...

[BlueTravesty]

Greetings..
Redundancy!! when the local gov't fails the state steps up, when the state fails the Feds step up (or go on vacation).. where was Cheney, again? Listen, these were tough times, systems failed and there was no leadership response. Why is that so hard to admit? the real lesson will be to insure this doesn't happen again.. (like, don't rebuild a city below sea-level in Hurricane Alley).. The President himself admitted the response was unacceptable, but then modified it to shore-up the party line.. and tell us again how "Brownie" did such a good job.. only to relieve him of the duties he was doing so good at.. (indecision, as i've pointed out earlier).. This administration has cultivated a legacy of missing the mark, don't challenge that notion, it's just too easy to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt..

I don't think anyone has failed to admit that the government should have acted sooner. Even the Bush supporters I know don't think the response was acceptable. However, things happened just as you suggested- the local government didn't step up, the state made a tentative effort, and backed down, and then the federal government stepped in. Did they do so too late? Yes.

Can we get some febreeze in here? This dead horse is letting off some serious fumes.

And how about this- is there anyone on either side of this debate who hasn't donated to the relief effort yet? Because quibbling on a message board as a private citizen is much worse than any government quibbling (of course, that's what governments do, they quibble; it's about 50% of their job even in the worst of times)- as private citizens we have much more freedom to act upon our convictions then even individuals at the highest levels of government.

[octagonal raven]

wow, I strongly dislike you after reading this thread tai chi bob. You seem to be a liberal tool and I mean that in the nicest possible way.