Katrina fall-out

Gary Drescher wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter R. wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

Why the hell were they there? Everyone in America knew that New
Orleans --
and everything for 100 miles on each side -- was about to be blasted by
Katrina.

Jay, many didn't have the economic means to escape the storm, nor a place
to which to escape. That area is about the poorest part of the US.

This argument is starting to wear a little thin as more information
becomes available. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had a plan
for evacuating more than a million people from the city, including
providing transportation for up to 300,000 people who had no means of
getting out themselves. Neither the governor nor the mayor (who has
been very quick to blame everyone but himself) chose to implement this
plan, despite the fact they had plenty of warning and all of the needed
resources.

If that turns out to be the case, then the mayor and governor are certainly
among those at fault. But the above point still stands: whichever officials
may have screwed up, it's still the case that thousands of people were stuck
with no means of evacuation.


Of course, you will get no argument from me there. But you must have
seen the TV pictures of hundreds, maybe even thousands of buses stacked
like cordwood in the flooded areas. Why weren't they used?


The argument that people are unable to leave also weakens as we get
more and more incidents of people refusing to leave when they are
offered transportation, despite the fact that they are being told that
they will get no more food or water or medical services if they stay.

There have certainly been reports of such refusals now that the National
Guard is on the scene. I can't tell yet how widespread it is. Anecdotally,
though, the people staying put seem largely to be home owners who don't want
to abandon their (well-stocked) homes, and thus are largely distinct from
the stranded population that urgently needed prompt rescue. (Whether the
holdouts will need rescue in a few weeks remains to be seen.)

May be moot. The mayor has said that anyone who will not leave
voluntarily will be arrested. It will be interesting to see how he
accomplishes that.

You see what you want to see. It looked to me that it was all kinds of
people who would not leave, not just rich folks with property to
protect. Those who don't want to leave have been giving some
interesting, if not very relevant, reasons:

1) They don't want to leave pets.
2) They are poor and don't know how they would support themselves if
they leave.
3) Fear of the unknown/flying/boats/spiders etc.

Hmm. I wager our Scottie, Badger, could take pretty good care of
herself for a few weeks. Although I am quite attached to the dog, I
really am not willing to give up my life for her. In fact, I would
almost rather she remain on duty in the house while I am not there. She
would probably hold the rats at bay for some time.

As for the poor, they have it so good where they are? What are they
doing to support themselves there? It seems completely irrational to
me.

For the rest, two words: tranquilizer darts. :-)

Philip S. wrote:
in article , Philip S. at
wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:

in article , cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:



People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.

Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
Every president has the power to do so.

To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise
to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both."

The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy and Marines are included by
DoD regulation.

The cases and circumstances authorized by the Constitution or Congress
are quite limited: National Guard troops acting under the control of
states (not federal authority), military units acting to quell domestic
violence (in L.A., for example), certain support activities in the war
on drugs, use of the Judge Advocate as a prosecuter, and the Coast
Guard, which has full authorization to enforce the law.

Thus, the President may not order the National Guard to protect
property until it has been determined that a state of civil unrest is
in progress. Small scale looting, rape, murder or burglary are not
civil unrest. But the governor could have ordered the National Guard to
start enforcing the law at any time. Why didn't she?


Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop.

Oh, and I did not get this from some liberal website, either.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
money had to come from.

What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
reinforce their levees themselves?

*Gasp!* Imagine!

I imagine the citizens of the Midwest would then be getting a free ride.
Most of the grain exported from the central U. S. goes out through the
port of New Orleans, and much of the crude oil and other commodities
necessary to grow that grain come in the same way.


I suppose transport fees, paid by the shipper to the port authority and
passed to their customers, would be out of the question.

Are we all so inured to subsidies that we can't see past tomorrow?

To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.

The state's National Guard, on the other hand, are not.

john smith wrote:
I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
are not organized before then.

Except that FEMA is proving itself to be lead by incompetent and inept
individuals. The military is proving to be the primary source of
organized relief.

Well, it is easy to say that. But as President Bush said, what have
they done wrong? If the President is going to fire people or ask for
resignations, he is going to need some specifics other than general
allegations of incompetence. Following federal and state regulations is
not generally considered to be incompetence, so it will take some
deeper investigation to see what, if anything, can be done about FEMA.
Personally, I think a lot of the trouble will be found to have started
at Homeland Security. This agency was a bad idea in the first place,
and it has yet to demonstrate an ability to deal with any emergency
competently. I am not sure how anyone could expect FEMA to operate
efficiently with Homeland Security breathing down their necks. "Before
we send in the National Guard, we have to confiscate all the tweezers."
:-)

Okay, here is a new point of view.
Let's say that new building standards and codes are adopted before any
reconstruction can occur.
Due to hazardous waste contamination, nothing can be rebuilt until the
site is completely decontaminated.
How long is it going to take to decontaminate the affected area?
Next, insurance is going to be insufficient to rebuild new structures to
the new code. Is the federal government going to issue loans for the
difference? Or, are the owners going to have to come up with the extra
cash?
This is going to take a LONG time!

Jay Honeck wrote:
When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
money had to come from.

What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
reinforce their levees themselves?

*Gasp!* Imagine!

Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action for
themselves?

You mean to tell me that you are not affected by the levees breaking? I
know I am stuck way out here in the Philippines, but even I have heard
some things about the price of gas, coffee, the overall economy, etc.

Suppose everyone in New Orleans had that attitude. "Hey, that levee is
on the west side of town, let them pay for it." "Nah, I don't live
right next to the levee, let those guys pay for it." "I don't want to
pay for any part of the levee that does not actually touch my
property." And so forth.

I heard that Davy Crockett lost some of his key supporters because
while he was in Congress he voted to appropriate $10,000 to help flood
relief victims on the Mississippi. He went on to lose the election. So
much for Crockett's image as a rugged individualist.

Some of us, you know, are sick and tired of spending federal disaster
relief funds to bail out people in the Midwest who are so stupid as to
live in an area that is regularly devastated by tornadoes. They all
ought to just move out of there.

I guess provincialism is alive and well.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote:

in the 1960's after they we're "freed"?

To which event are you referring? And why the quotes?

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Is Politics The Way?
by Walter Williams (November 3, 2004)

"Numerous studies show that children raised in stable two-parent households
do far better than those raised in single-parent households. They are less
likely to have out-of-wedlock births, less likely to engage in criminal
behavior and more likely to complete high school. Historically, black
families have been relatively stable. From 1880 to 1960, the proportion of
black children raised in two-parent families held steady at around 70
percent; in 1925 Harlem, it was 85 percent. Today, only 38 percent of black
children are raised in two-parent families. In 1940, black illegitimacy was
16 percent; today, it's 70 percent. Stable two-parent families are vital for
a child's development. The solution to the problem of unstable families
won't be found in the political arena. There's nothing a president,
congressman or mayor can do. "

These are just the major highlights. If you REALLY want to know the facts,
rather than Jessie Jackson's spin and the left/MSM slurping it up, read "The
Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell. He goes into depth about
the pathological behavior that the welfare state created. Such factors as
intergenerational dependency, gross irresponsibility, criminality,
intransigence ...all the traits we're seeing in _certain_ segments down in
NO.


Or, just like parents that never seem to kick their kids out of the roost,
continue to make excuses and make book on what happens when the **** hits
the fan nationally.

in article , Doof at
wrote on 9/7/05 8:37 AM:


"Philip S." wrote in message
...
in article ,
cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:



People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.

Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the
riots.
Every president has the power to do so.

Only upon request by the local officials.

From the Louisiana governor, August 27:

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Rel...ail.asp?id=976

"Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of
such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that
supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
disaster."

in article , cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/7/05 7:02 PM:


Philip S. wrote:
in article , Philip S. at
wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:

in article , cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:



People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.

Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
Every president has the power to do so.

To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise
to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both."

The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy and Marines are included by
DoD regulation.

The cases and circumstances authorized by the Constitution or Congress
are quite limited: National Guard troops acting under the control of
states (not federal authority), military units acting to quell domestic
violence (in L.A., for example), certain support activities in the war
on drugs, use of the Judge Advocate as a prosecuter, and the Coast
Guard, which has full authorization to enforce the law.

Thus, the President may not order the National Guard to protect
property until it has been determined that a state of civil unrest is
in progress. Small scale looting, rape, murder or burglary are not
civil unrest. But the governor could have ordered the National Guard to
start enforcing the law at any time. Why didn't she?

See my earlier post. She requested federal help, in unambiguous terms, two
days before the storm struck.


Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop.

Oh, and I did not get this from some liberal website, either.

Good for you. And it seems that I reneged on my earlier statement that I'd
let the matter drop.