Arrest King Daley!

In article , Peter Duniho wrote:
"Tom S." wrote in message
...
[...]
read the rest at:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=19418

Of course, what that article fails to point out is that the
environmentalists were actually right. In spite of their efforts, other
projects (diversion of the Mississipi River mainly) have nearly obliterated
the wetlands around New Orleans that provide a buffer from storms.

Sounds like the best plan is to allow Mother Nature (hurricanes,
erosion, etc.) to return the New Orleans area to wetlands.

I can believe that YOU don't understand the comparison. But that's only
because it contradicts what you think. You have never changed your mind
on anything, nor have you ever admitted error, and I don't expect to see
you do it now. But the fact remains, you putting 100% of the blame on the
local governments in New Orleans and Louisiana just because they "didn't
lobby hard enough or effectively" just makes no sense.

Unbelievable.

The E&P article says the Federal Government has been "working with New
Orleans since the 1960s to shore up the levee system around New Orlean" --
yet you (and the Times Picayune editor) place the blame for Katrina on the
Bush Administration because of things that have happened since 2003?

If you can't smell a politically motivated story better than *that*, Pete, I
wonder how you get through the day?

The scale of the "disaster" is irrelevant to the comparison. The
principle you're espousing should apply equally regardless.

That's nonsense. Methods can -- and do -- change with scope. For example,
a broken drinking fountain at your local school does not merit the same
political tactics as, say, a levee system.

Which, of course, is all beside the point of this thread. Arrest King
Daley!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It was 1927 and Hoover wasn't even anyone's dark horse candidate for
nomination, by his party, in the next summer's presidential convention.

When the devastating 1927 Mississippi River flood hit, he was the man put
in
charge of the relief effort. His successful handling of the Mississippi
River flood relief program helped launch him into the White House the
following fall.

This is but one example of what Herbert Hoover did for this country -- and
the world. He was, indeed, an amazing man who did many great things. His
legacy has been sadly (and, largely, unavoidably) been burdened with the
dark pall of the Great Depression occurring on his watch.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

yesterday on a German TV channel: about 15 tons of ready prepared meals
may
not be delivered, they are already in a cargo plane. A small mobile ER
with
its own power generator was delayed for 3 days, ready to be sent to help
out a little bit. At least, the German THW is now on site with their pumps
http://www.thw.bund.de/

Don't feel badly -- this is happening all over the country, as well as the
world.

Basically, the problem is twofold:

1. Too much stuff trying to be delivered all at once. There, quite simply,
is no way to distribute everyone's generosity.
2. The need for this kind of stuff is fading fast.

Shoot, we (Iowa) still have thousands of beds ready for refugees who have
not materialized.

Between this, and the dwindling death toll estimates (from "tens of
thousands" to less than 500?), methinks we might be becoming victims of yet
another "Media Event"? Not to downplay the material destruction of
Katrina -- that's obvious, and easily verified -- but I'm starting to think
that the media played up the human toll of the hurricane well beyond what
was really happening on the ground.

Which isn't surprising, I suppose -- disaster sells. I'm sure CNN's ratings
went through the roof for a week or two.

But this is all beside the point of this thread -- arrest King Daley!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Montblack wrote:

And yet, Herbert Hoover did an 'outstanding' job. How he did it and what he
was up against are covered in the book. Hope it's a good read ($10 at
Amazon). It was a GREAT Q&A TV segment with the author.


They mentioned Hoover on the radio this morning, pointing out how
Chertoff and Brown (Homeland Security and FEMA, respectively) are
lawyers, while Hoover was an engineer. They also commented that
Hoover had previous experience in handling emergency situations (the
one I remember was feeding Belgium after WWI), something Chertoff and
Brown are lacking.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:46:56 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Don't feel badly -- this is happening all over the country, as well as the
world.

Basically, the problem is twofold:

1. Too much stuff trying to be delivered all at once. There, quite simply,
is no way to distribute everyone's generosity.
2. The need for this kind of stuff is fading fast.

well, the same report said that for the flood in Asia last Xmas they hven't
had those hassles with bureaucracy etc. - btw: the organisations here
responded within a day and not 4 days.

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

well, the same report said that for the flood in Asia last Xmas they hven't
had those hassles with bureaucracy etc. - btw: the organisations here
responded within a day and not 4 days.

I guess that only confirms my long-held suspicion that we have the
worst, least efficient government bureacracy in the world.

All you have to do is walk into the Department of Motor Vehicles, of
any state in the Union, and you would know *that* in about five
minutes.

Anyone who believes that these same government morons will instantly
become icons of efficiency when put under intense pressure (As in
Katrina) doesn't understand human nature very well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsoWUe.323741$_o.177425@attbi_s71...
The E&P article says the Federal Government has been "working with New
Orleans since the 1960s to shore up the levee system around New Orlean" --
yet you (and the Times Picayune editor) place the blame for Katrina on the
Bush Administration because of things that have happened since 2003?

No, I (and the Times-Picayune editor) place *part* of the blame for Katrina
on the Bush Administration because of things that have happened since 2003.
It's called "fair and balanced reporting", something the folks who actually
use that phrase know nothing about.

I agree that the Iraq war did not have the sole detrimental effect on the
current situation, as work required to shore up the levees would have had to
start before the Iraq war did. Keep in mind, however, that the Iraq war and
the DHS generally are also responsible for screwing up the federal
capability for disaster response, both monetarily and organizationally. The
levees were just one example of federal willfullness in neglect; they are
far from the sole supporting evidence.

A significant problem certainly was the delay in the local governments to
recognize that there IS a problem. That does not mean that the federal is
blameless, or that they themselves did everything they should have.

As usual, your black and white view of the world is failing you. Always
has, always will.

If you can't smell a politically motivated story better than *that*, Pete,
I wonder how you get through the day?

I get through the day just fine, thank you very much.

The scale of the "disaster" is irrelevant to the comparison. The
principle you're espousing should apply equally regardless.

That's nonsense. Methods can -- and do -- change with scope. For
example, a broken drinking fountain at your local school does not merit
the same political tactics as, say, a levee system.

Really? Suppose the broken fountain remains broken. Suppose it causes
massive water damage to the building structure, through rot, mildew, fungus,
etc. Perhaps a few children slip on the wet floor and injure themselves.
One even manages to land their head on an exposed pipe and winds up dead.

It's your assertion that even though you comfortably blame the local
governments for failing to "lobby hard enough" in New Orleans, that it's
still reasonable to not blame the school staff or parents for failing to
"lobby hard enough" to get the higher-level officials to do something about
the problem?

No, you are simply wrong. When the higher-level officials refuse to help,
and even take promised help away, even as the local governments DO lobby
plenty hard enough asking for help, it is the higher-level officials that
are at fault, at least partly.

I'll say it again, since you seemed to have missed it the first time:

Lack of federal action does not prove that someone did not lobby hard
enough. All it proves is that the federal government took no action.

Pete

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
Upgrading the levees has been put off by both Democrat and Republican
congresses since at least the Carter administration

My statement was simply one example of federal neglect. It seems lots of
Bushies are getting their panties in a wad, taking it as a personal attack
against their beloved President. As much as I dislike Bush, I am under no
illusion that the federal neglect began with Bush (Sr or Jr).

The point here is that the federal government is not blameless. Your post
simply reinforces that point. Thank you.

with more than a
little help from environmentalists who along with other barking moon bats
like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who claim that the hurricane was Bushes fault.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=19418

Ahh yes, more "supporting evidence" from that fine upstanding, bias-free
publication, frontpagemag.com.

Pete

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
Sounds like the best plan is to allow Mother Nature (hurricanes,
erosion, etc.) to return the New Orleans area to wetlands.

That's certainly one plan. Another (highlighted in the Scientific American
article) would be to artificially restore the wetlands and barrier islands
through constructive (rather than the current destructive) diversion of the
Mississipi.

Something like that could be done without having to remove the city of New
Orleans.

Of course, *some* risk would always be present, but it would be
significantly reduced, and it would greatly reduce the maximum damage
possible.

Pete