How to evacuate a city....NOT

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:12 pm

"Vander I hope you are taking a more pre-ponderant view of LA's governor"

Absolutley. N.O.'s mayor as well.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:58 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the levee's burst, doesn't it go from a state responsibility to a federal one (IE FEMA's jurisdiction)?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:18 pm

Iceman wrote:Let me clarify my point ... If you were truly concerned about the welfare of the people involved then you would be proactive and doing everything you could to help them. I believe that this is simply a partisian bickering match. Otherwise you guys would be trying to help.

First of all, let me say that my job every day is in a field that provides emergency response. As some of you may know, I take the reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation for Child and Adult Protective Services for the State of Texas. I assess the reports and determine if an emergency response, eventual response, or no response is required. I work closely with law enforcement, other HHSC staff, medical professionals, community agencies, school personnel and private persons in order to fulfill our mission, which is to Protect The Unprotected.

We are considered an essential public service. If I had a regular day job, I could take a leave of absence. The hotline cannot permit their workers to take a leave of absence because our clients are in critical need every day. they are victims of domestic violence, rape/incest, physical/medical neglect, emotional/verbal abuse, mental health neglect, and financial exploitation. On a daily basis we make life and death assessments. On a daily basis our field workers render life and death assistance based on those assessments. I don't wait for a disaster to happen to value giving back to my community and helping those in need. It's the job I do every day.

Before you say, "yeah, that's not the same as volunteering because you get paid" ...yeah i do. but i get paid significantly less than i would be paid to work in the private sector. And promotions and raise come more slowly than in the private sector. I do what I do because I value the reward of helping the vulnerable OVER lining my own pockets or those of some giant corporation.

but i'm not telling you this to toot my own horn. I'm telling you this to bring home how inappropriate it is for you to make any assumptions about my ulterior motives, or about whether I am "doing all i can." i'm telling you this so that you and others will know what i mean when tell you...

Iceman, you have NO idea what you're talking about. none.

Second of all, The Austin area, where I live, is not accepting volunteers at shelters or any other direct service capacity, i.e. there is no current need for direct aid to displaced persons. Therefore, I am on a waitlist for such volunteer work. I have a pending request to the United Way to assist with volunteering at their call center. This weekend, I will be going to a city clearinghouse for donated goods to assist in any way needed. Otherwise, at this time, need is already filled. http://www.volunteersolutions.org/austi ... id=8367174

Third of all, even if the above points were not FULLY in effect - Your thoughtless three sentence post contains no less than two logical fallacies.

It is an ad hominem argument to assert that someone cannot have a valid criticism of the government if they are not doing all they can. Someone can fail to do all they can and still be correct in criticism of the federal response.

It also contains a strawman fallacy because denigrating someone for not doing all they can fails to address the criticism that you refer to as partisan bickering. You commit the strawman fallacy when you attack what you presumed (wrongly) as a failure to do all one can, while failing to address the critism itself.

Some of you are so blinded by your party loyalty that you can't see the forest for the trees. Your ignorance and loose talk will get your own families killed in the next disaster and I find it tragic.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:51 pm

Palzon wrote:it's funny how around here a thread about taunt profanity must be locked down at five pages but this thread is languishing.

considering this is probably the largest domestic crisis in any of our lifetimes it's a bit disappointing that you all don't have more to say.

Taunt profanity isn't stomach churning. This time last year I spent a few weeks in New Orleans, its surreal. Preservation Hall: underwater. French quarters: underwater. Burban Street: underwater. The above ground graves: underwater. And this is just the superficial historic-end of the tragedy.

On the tragedy end, there is a lot to feel, but, for me, not a lot to say. On the finger-pointing end, everyone is stepping into rank and file. Itâ??s like watching a really bad movie, where you can tell the person next to you exactly what is going to happen before it happens, all the way until it ends.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:00 am

The tragity is about to double. Diseases contracted from wading around in that water have a gestation period of about 2 to 3 weeks. Things are about to get much worse.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 5:44 am

Ferno wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the levee's burst, doesn't it go from a state responsibility to a federal one (IE FEMA's jurisdiction)?

I would have thought the levee's are the Army Corps of Engineers responsibility...?

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:34 am

Palzon wrote: Before you say, "yeah, that's not the same as volunteering because you get paid" ...yeah i do. but i get paid significantly less than i would be paid to work in the private sector. And promotions and raise come more slowly than in the private sector. I do what I do because I value the reward of helping the vulnerable OVER lining my own pockets or those of some giant corporation.

On the contrary, I respect you for your willingness to devote your career time to such a worthwhile cause.

Palzon wrote: but i'm not telling you this to toot my own horn. I'm telling you this to bring home how inappropriate it is for you to make any assumptions about my ulterior motives, or about whether I am "doing all i can." i'm telling you this so that you and others will know what i mean when tell you...
Iceman, you have NO idea what you're talking about. none.

Sorry if I rubbed you wrong but I have this habit of calling BS when I see it. What I see is an intense hatred of the republican party and an effort to discredit them at any cost. I would love to see GW's head roll over this but I believe his biggest contributions (appointment of Brown and failure to kick his @$$ to get him moving) is not sufficient to expel him from office. If he is to go or even be barbequed heavily I want it to be for the right reasons ... not some partisan attempt to kick him around.

Palzon wrote:Therefore, I am on a waitlist for such volunteer work. I have a pending request to the United Way to assist with volunteering at their call center. This weekend, I will be going to a city clearinghouse for donated goods to assist in any way needed.

Good for you, if everyone would do that the resources needed would be available.

Palzon wrote: It is an ad hominem argument to assert that someone cannot have a valid criticism of the government if they are not doing all they can. Someone can fail to do all they can and still be correct in criticism of the federal response.

I never asserted that and in fact I believe that it can be done. I have my own criticisms of the federal response and they don't interfere with my own efforts to assist.

Palzon wrote: It also contains a strawman fallacy because denigrating someone for not doing all they can fails to address the criticism that you refer to as partisan bickering. You commit the strawman fallacy when you attack what you presumed (wrongly) as a failure to do all one can, while failing to address the critism itself.

Denigrate - To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.

If calling BS when I see it is an attack on someone's character then I am guilty as charged.

Palzon wrote: Some of you are so blinded by your party loyalty that you can't see the forest for the trees. Your ignorance and loose talk will get your own families killed in the next disaster and I find it tragic.

Really? How is that? I am a democrat ... albeit a disgruntled democrat but still a democrat.
phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4556&highlight=democrat

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:52 am

Iceman wrote:Sorry if I rubbed you wrong but I have this habit of calling BS when I see it. What I see is an intense hatred of the republican party and an effort to discredit them at any cost. I would love to see GW's head roll over this but I believe his biggest contributions (appointment of Brown and failure to kick his @$$ to get him moving) is not sufficient to expel him from office. If he is to go or even be barbequed heavily I want it to be for the right reasons ... not some partisan attempt to kick him around.

Not even Vander has said that Bush's head should roll. I specifically stated that Brown's head should roll. I don't understand why you would question criticism of the federal response as partisan when it has been presented here in such a reasonable way.

And here is the real point: this is an undeniable screw-up. It is absolutely indefensible to suggest that this was carried out in the best way possible. It is totally unacceptable that emergency response remain unchanged after the dismal failure this has been. The federal government must share some reponsibility for the failed rescue/recovery. I think they share a large part.

I have never said Bush's head should roll. I have never presented this issue as a Rep vs Dem issue. I have made the modest argument that this OBVIOUS disaster was avoidable. It is a rule of government that the squeeky wheel gets the grease. It is not partisan to expect the federal government to prepare for the next disaster.

Do you realize that the federal plan to aid N.O. after this storm was the same plan that would be used in event of a major terrorist attack? Does anyone else here find that unsettling? We are not prepared! Let's figure out where we failed so it cannot happen again.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:22 am

Note Palz ... I wasn't targeting you. I went back and read all of your posts and while I saw a few things that could be construed as partisanship, you made some comments that I totally agree with :

Palzon wrote: I think our current emphasis should be on rescue and recovery since many persons remain at risk at this time.

Palzon wrote: I think we should limit speculation on what caused the need for a massive response. But I think it's concerning that it did take so long.

There is no doubt that we are unprepared and sure, there were some mistakes made that were no-brainers. I feel that it is pertinent that we drop back, take a chill pill, and examine the facts in a non-partisan manner and get to the bottom of this all. For now though, yes we need to focus on helping these poor people.

My frustration stems from seeing so much partisan bickering and attempts of people to use the victims to advance their own political agendas. That boils my blood ... A lot of this I saw on the news casts but it is undeniable that some of that was ocurring here. I am too busy at this point to go back and quote them all.

Yes we need to discuss the facts and figure out what went wrong. But, can we do this objectively?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:40 am

I'm in total agreement with you. Thanks for being open and understanding.

And one last point of clarification. The reason I would afix any blame whatsoever is that the government will not change without external pressure.

An example. Texas CPS tried for years to get the legislature to alot more funds, hire more workers, etc. The legislature was told that the situation was dire, but they did nothing. Then the media got ahold of some stories where the agency had failed to save some children in time and they died. The media ran stories about children who died in foster care. The media ran stories about elderly persons who were not receiving the agencies help.

Then the politicians, including the governor, started grandstanding and calling it a huge problem. Even though they knew this all along, they didn't care until the media told the general public. I'm glad to say that our agency was awarded emergency funding, including a modest pay raise for the whole agency to try to retain tenured staff.

The point of the story is to illustrate my earlier statement that some blame is often needed to grease the wheels of government.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:07 am

Taken in that context I agree with you in full. So let's figure out what really happened so that we can make the wheel squeak.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:44 am

Iceman wrote:Taken in that context I agree with you in full. So let's figure out what really happened so that we can make the wheel squeak.

To which I agree in full. And this is where I think the news media could be providing and invaluable service to the American people, by helping to explain to them exactly how these kinds of disaster recovery systems are supposed to work (stepping up from local to state to federal, jusistictional issues, etc.), so that folks can have a clearer understanding as to where mistakes occurred. But instead they are tripping over themselves in a headlong rush to participate in the blame feeding frenzy - why; so they can say they reported it first; they broke the story.

Oh, how stupid of me, the media are businesses, and like all businesses are interested in profits. There is no ethical interests in the media to search for and transmit true and correct information. What the hell was I thinking!

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:26 am

ok, but your logic is leading towards precisely the kind of partisan thinking we must avoid. Because jurisidictional issues should not kill people. Even if the responsibility under the current policy is largely state and local, this is a mistake on the part of the federal government.

CLEARLY, a total cascading failure of infrastructure paralyzes local government. Let me be clear. I am not talking about evacuation procedures here. I'm talking about rescue. If the current policy puts the local/state governement in charge of rescue, I'm still saying the federal government is largely to blame because ONLY they could orchestrate and pull off such a rescue when all infrastructure has gone critical.

How is the Louisiana governor supposed to coordinate RESCUE on the ground when there is no communication, no roads, no toilets, no resources, etc? CLEARLY the federal government, ya know, the people with the army, navy, air force, and marines, is BETTER equipped to handle command and control of RESCUE.

Ok, so the local government had to do a better a job of pre-storm evacuation. But they had to evacuate these people SOMEWHERE! And guess what? that somewhere turns out to be NOT in the jurisdiction of the mayor or the governor. Is there anyone better equipped to handle this than the federal government?

Furthermore, even if current policy placed responsibility for all of it on the local/state government - it was wrong to do so! This instance clearly demonstrates why centralized, fedarlized command and control is needed.

And if you are trying to suggest that this is somehow not a failure of the federal government because lines on a map or words on a paper didn't make the feds responsible...then i find that totally unacceptable.

A hurrican does not care about jurisidiction. People dying don't care about jurisdiction. They want help ASAP! The feds should've provided that help AND in a timely manner whether it was there reponsiblity on paper or not! whether the little map lines put it in their jurisdiction or not!

And if you want to pursue that "blame feeding frenzy" logic, then start by telling me how that logic addresses some of these questions:

Palzon wrote:Do you realize that the federal plan to aid N.O. after this storm was the same plan that would be used in event of a major terrorist attack? Does anyone else here find that unsettling? We are not prepared! Let's figure out where we failed so it cannot happen again.

Taken to its most logical conclusion, the argument that the feds did what they were supposed to in New Orleans (while local/state did not) leads to a situation where every major city is on its own in cataclysmic disaster. If you're city/state leaders are "as bad as those in Louisiana" you are S.O.L.? And it aint the feds responsibility? This was their plan in action? This is what all the reorganization of government has accomplished in four years? Give me a break.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:26 pm

I recently saw a news report that had a witness state the head of FEMA was shocked to learn the estimated numbers of people left stranded in the aftermath.

He asked, "Why didn't they just get in their cars and drive away?"

A reporter promptly answered back, "Because they are too poor to afford a car!" That's when the head of FEMA's eyes looked like a deer's in headlights, he then clammed up, turned to his side and starting whispering to his handler.

Good point, not too many street/poor people own cars.

And I think it unconscionable that politics are brought up by either side in this issue at a time when all should be working together.

Nuck out.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:43 pm

And if you want to read the plans for the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, they are link at the bottm of this article -
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/r ... 061439.asp

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:50 pm

btw Palzon, at least half of your rant is irrelevent if the evacuation IS done well, as there are then very few people that need to be rescued.

And please spare me from the hue and cry that would ensue from states and locals if the feds took every opportunity to horn in on the activities of said states and locals and try to do everything themselves. I'm not absolving anyone from responsibilty at some level here, but yours seems to be a prescription for chaos.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:07 pm

nice job failing to answer a single question i directed to you, Dissent. Reply to my questions, please.

wtf does poor job by the governor, mayor, et al have do with the federal government failing to have a backup plan?

i find it sad that you would break your vagina bending over backwards so that no criticism could possibly be leveled at the feds (Bush in your mind, apparently).

Let me say this again...ONLY the federal government had the logistical capability to RESCUE people on such a scale in sufficient time. The governor and mayor can take the heat for failed evacuation planning. They should. They will.

I'll remind you to blame your governor when your city gets nuked and the flesh is melting off of you and your family and NO ONE comes to help you for five days. It will be your governors fault, remember that.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:03 pm

My ire is now more bi-partisan then it was yesterday. I found out today the Brown's appointment as head of FEMA was subject to congressional confirmation, since at the time it was still a cabinet-level position. So now I hold not only Bush responsible for placing an unqualified person in charge, but also the members of Congress that confirmed him to his position. Gladhanding whores.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:28 pm

Palzon wrote: wtf does poor job by the governor, mayor, et al have do with the federal government failing to have a backup plan?

I believe the Gov. has to request federal troops. Call it red tape and all but afaik the U.S. army cannot just walk in all by its lonesome and take over. Lets also not forget that flooding has occured in more than N.O..
Mississippi got hit pretty hard too yet we do not hear about lack of planning or response by various agencies there.
Until the levee broke it looked as though N.O. was going to squeek by once again.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:04 pm

It's not red tape, it is constitutional law. The feds are legally prevented from intervening until the governor calls them in. Furthermore, FEMA clearly mandates that it is not a first response organization and that they require 72 to 96 hours notice before they can arrive and assist. The governor of LA knew this.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:09 pm

I think the big screw up here was the flood. The locals knew about, talked about it..but they really didn't think it was going to happen.
The feds knew about it...etc too.
The FEMA thing is true, they aren't to be counted on in the first few days...but they usually do get going the day after in spite of the way it set up on paper. AGAIN the flood. They were there the day after and probably would have done there usual decent job dealing with the aftermath of a big windstorm which is what they always see after a hurricane but what they saw was a city filling up with water the day after....

At that point the weak planning, the non-planning, the inability for government to think on it's feet etc. began to wreak havoc on the response...meanwhile people waited.
The extra factor of thugs shooting people didn't help, the politicians scrambling for high ground to avoid blame didn't help, etc.

I really didn't start this post about the storm at all, it wasn't about the aftermath of the storm on the ground either. It was about the aftermath of the storm in the political arena because I saw it coming, the leading questions by some reporters, the posturing by different anti-Bush groups trying to frame this disaster to best support their reason for hating Bush. In the wake of that I anticipated a lot of the real culprits escaping justice so I went off on them.
I'm happy to see that the people get it, they aren't buying the It's all Bush's fault thing. Now I'll be happy to see his choice for FEMA scrutinized because I think he'll at least get a fair investigation instead of a good old fashioned Dan Rather kind of lynching.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:31 pm

woodchip wrote:
Palzon wrote: wtf does poor job by the governor, mayor, et al have do with the federal government failing to have a backup plan?
I believe the Gov. has to request federal troops. Call it red tape and all but afaik the U.S. army cannot just walk in all by its lonesome and take over.

Happened. the governor requested federal troops on Tuesday...

chicago tribune wrote:In many natural disasters, National Guard units are called upon by governors to respond. The Louisiana National Guard was activated before the storm and mobilized in force on Tuesday when several levees in New Orleans broke, allowing in floodwaters. That same day Blanco also asked for federal troops. By Thursday, she registered a specific request for 40,000 National Guard troops.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... i-news-hed

I heard a radio report that the governor asked for federalized National Guard troops prior to landfall. Sorry no link, but feel welcome to post one that proves that incorrect, as i am not certain.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:33 pm

one more thing. you can still be fucked in the ass while your head is buried in the sand. you can quote me on that.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:00 am

Louisiana did request Federal aid on August 28th:
http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20R ... equest.pdf

That would be the day before Katrina made its second landfall, and about midway through the time span between when NOAA weather forecasters knew about the severity of the storm and when it actually hit.

I'm personally bothered the most by FEMA's refusal of help from the Red Cross. The Red Cross, despite being a first responder in the Asian tsunami crisis, has no jurisdiction in New Orleans proper and has been regulated to the sidelines by order of FEMA (which is still valuable, but there are plenty of people still in New Orleans proper who need rescuing). For all I know, it's FEMA's protocol and tendency to "take charge" of the disaster scene. But in this case, it just seems problematic. FEMA clearly can't be everywhere at once and the Red Cross could only complement their efforts and tend to the exhausted survivors until they could be properly evacuated by FEMA or the National Guard. This is not to say the fault lies solely in FEMA - I think the system failed on many levels. However, I find FEMA's actions in this particular issue disheartening.

And yeah, woodchip, I think the levees are an Army Corps of Engineers project. Dams and locks are their "jurisdiction," so I'd imagine large levees fall in that same category. They are the ones trying to plug the leaks right now, aren't they? I have faith our nation's heavy construction crew will pull through.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:47 am

Iceman wrote:It's not red tape, it is constitutional law. The feds are legally prevented from intervening until the governor calls them in. Furthermore, FEMA clearly mandates that it is not a first response organization and that they require 72 to 96 hours notice before they can arrive and assist. The governor of LA knew this.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't cut it. While it is technically true, it is also true that a disaster across three states cannot be commanded by a single coordinating force if the governors and mayors are in charge.

I'll also buy Palzon's argument that the Federal Government needs to account for local ineptitude and have a backup plan to intervene.

We just don't have the legal mechanisms for this, but we need them for next time. We need something more than the Insurrection Act, which is currently the only legal mechanism for the President to override the authority of states in these matters. Well, there was and is no insurrection, so that is not enough. Yes, it would have been ILLEGAL for Bush or any Federal authority to step on the governor or mayor and send in the federal troops, and Bush is damned either way. But since he IS damned either way, then he should be damned while getting the response moving faster.

The Constitution did not envision Doppler RADAR, Telephones, Satellites, and the ability for governments at any level to see a disaster like this coming and get out in front of it. We need new laws, and if bloody well necessary an Amendment to the constitution, to establish absolute clarity on what the plan is, who's in charge, etc.

I nominate General Honore to be in charge. Get past all these people "Stuck on Stupid(TM)" and get the frickin response going in there, pronto. Sort out the political BS later.

- Sirian

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:22 am

Regardless of wether you think it can "cut it" or not, the feds are legally bound from doing anything until the governors authorize them to do so. I agree that it isn't good enough and that something in the legal system needs to be changed to aide this problem next time. I was under the impression that the governor of LA waited until wednesday to call in the feds. I will try to find a source for that later.

Let me clarify ... I think your ideas are good ones but they are not going to happen until laws are changed.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:51 am

Olathe, my town, sent a relief van to NO/the surrounding area. It was send back by FEMA without so much as dropping off a few cans of beans.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:06 am

Kyouryuu wrote:....I'm personally bothered the most by FEMA's refusal of help from the Red Cross....

Check out this report by Major Garrett on Fox: Under Video click on "*Memo: FEMA Chief Delayed"... from there click on "Special Report" in the menu to the left....don't bother watching the video that starts just click on: "Looking for Answers" one of the nine videos in the thumbnails area.

Sorry for the convoluted method to be able to view it but I think you'll find it very interesting.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:10 am

Since my last post was about the lack of information from the news media, this is what I was talking about -
http://slate.msn.com/id/2125683/

And Palzon, well y'know I just haven't had much time in the last day or two to read subsequent posts to mine in detail. I'll get to it when I can. But just briefly, where the hell did I say don't criticize Bush??? My note related to media coverage was concentrating on the lack of criticism being leveled at state and local authorities, while the feds were being criticized for everything. Can you make the distinction?

And btw, if they nuke us here in Chicago, I'll be plasma, so I won't give a sh.......

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:30 am

Palzon wrote:nice job failing to answer a single question i directed to you, Dissent. Reply to my questions, please.

wtf does poor job by the governor, mayor, et al have do with the federal government failing to have a backup plan?

As I understand it, the feds ARE the backup plan for the states. Should the feds be the inital responders, and have the states back THEM up? There's an idea! Certainly you need to have inputs from locals, because only they should be expected to have the intimate knowledge of local conditions and resources affecting a given situation. So how do you meld the two into an efficient response unit - I dunno; maybe this incident will be the catalyst for such a discussion.

i find it sad that you would break your vagina bending over backwards so that no criticism could possibly be leveled at the feds (Bush in your mind, apparently).

since I have no vagina, I wonder if you are just being mysogisistic here.

Please show me where I said "do not criticize Bush (or the feds)"...

Let me say this again...ONLY the federal government had the logistical capability to RESCUE people on such a scale in sufficient time.

I can agree with you that the feds can have the ability to mobilize large resources.

The governor and mayor can take the heat for failed evacuation planning. They should. They will.

Since this was THE point of the post I made to which you responded, we certainly agree that they should. Whether they will or not is up in the air.

ok, but your logic is leading towards precisely the kind of partisan thinking we must avoid. Because jurisidictional issues should not kill people. Even if the responsibility under the current policy is largely state and local, this is a mistake on the part of the federal government.

umm, I'm confused... what logic of mine are you talking about? How are jurisdictional issues "partisan"? The jurisdictional issues are about the laws and regulations relating to this situation. All parties have made the laws. In theory, I expect that having some jurisdictional accountability might be able to make communications and delivery of aid more focused and efficient. If the bureaucracy itself is inefficient, then the jurisdictional issues can just get in the way and make things less efficient.
I agree that jurisdictional issues should not kill people. But going in to catastrophe situation without any plan or organization can also fail to help people in need. If the plans suck, then fix the plans.

How is the Louisiana governor supposed to coordinate RESCUE on the ground when there is no communication, no roads, no toilets, no resources, etc? CLEARLY the federal government, ya know, the people with the army, navy, air force, and marines, is BETTER equipped to handle command and control of RESCUE.

Good question; ask the governor. wasn't this part of local and state disaster preparedness? if not, why not?

Ok, so the local government had to do a better a job of pre-storm evacuation. But they had to evacuate these people SOMEWHERE! And guess what? that somewhere turns out to be NOT in the jurisdiction of the mayor or the governor. Is there anyone better equipped to handle this than the federal government?

What, so governors in neighboring states don't talk to one another? Have there never been discussions about regional issues during large scale evacuation scenarios? Besides, ANYWHERE in the western or northern part of Louisiana would have been better than in the city of New Orleans.

Taken to its most logical conclusion, the argument that the feds did what they were supposed to in New Orleans...

I didn't say they did, just that they were the only ones getting blamed for failure.

... (while local/state did not) leads to a situation where every major city is on its own in cataclysmic disaster. If you're city/state leaders are "as bad as those in Louisiana" you are S.O.L.? And it aint the feds responsibility? ...

Who said THAT? Take a Valium, Man! I was looking for the news media to give me information, and I wasn't getting it. That was the point of my post. In the best of all worlds, evryone involved here will look at what happened, decide where the failures were, and fix them.

Let's hope so.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:14 pm

i really appreciate you taking the time to respond. With your clarifications it's easy to see that we have very few points of disagreement. I'll make a full response later. Thanks again.

For now...am I the only one here who briefly fantasized that Air Force One went down during the Thursday flyover and Bush was taken hostage by the Duke of New Orleans?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:35 pm

Palzon wrote:i really appreciate you taking the time to respond. With your clarifications it's easy to see that we have very few points of disagreement. I'll make a full response later. Thanks again.

For now...am I the only one here who briefly fantasized that Air Force One went down during the Thursday flyover and Bush was taken hostage by the Duke of New Orleans?

I heard Hillary Clinton used to have that same dream but she woke up screaming in a cold sweat when, in her dream, Bush died and Dick Cheney became President, appointed Ken Starr to the Supreme Court, Newt Gingrich as vice president and had just enough time to run as the incumbant in 2008!
So now she has hastily authored a bill that increases the presidents security detail and wants to upgrade all the presidents planes with giant parachutes...
Go figure...girls can never make up their minds!!

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:44 pm

Here, this says some things that need to be said -
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/h ... 080821.asp

Now would all the talking heads please get of of the devastated region so the real heroes can get back to work.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:06 pm

good read, thanks.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:25 pm

x2 Palzon...now, who the hell is this Dennis Hastert retard?any1?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:48 pm

"now, who the hell is this Dennis Hastert retard?any1?"

He's, uhh, third in line to be President?

He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:08 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Check out this report by Major Garrett on Fox: Under Video click on "*Memo: FEMA Chief Delayed"... from there click on "Special Report" in the menu to the left....don't bother watching the video that starts just click on: "Looking for Answers" one of the nine videos in the thumbnails area.

Sorry, Will. I couldn't find it.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:24 pm

Vander wrote:"now, who the hell is this Dennis Hastert retard?any1?"
He's, uhh, third in line to be President?
He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:42 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Check out this report by Major Garrett on Fox: Under Video click on "*Memo: FEMA Chief Delayed"... from there click on "Special Report" in the menu to the left....don't bother watching the video that starts just click on: "Looking for Answers" one of the nine videos in the thumbnails area.
Sorry, Will. I couldn't find it.

It's changed slightly. Hit my link, then select any link under the "Video" heading, then find "Looking for Answers"...it's got Patrick Leahey's face on it...it's about 5 minutes long and worth the look.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:49 pm

http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/mgarrett2.wmv