[art_director]

Originally Posted by mojo2

So, you SERIOUSLY believe the FEMA employee or Red Cross volunteer working on the 'front lines' of this relief effort should know at any given moment where his/her boss is?

WTF are you talking about?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by mojo2

As a matter of fact, art_director, I think we should take a closer look at your contention that the federal government is incompetent.

I looked at some of your DOZENS of posts going back five days, to 9/2/05 and found only three or four of your posts weren't directly concerning Bush or Katrina. Not trying to be too personal or too petty, but if you examine the variety and scope and the amount of detailed complexities and the sheer number of decisions the President has made and has HAD to make in the same period of time I think you would give the President the benefit of the doubt.

How have you done re: your MacNN posts assessing Bush's performance compared to Bush's handling of HIS Katrina related tasks in the same amount of time?

He has had to get repeated assessments of the situation and has worked around the clock, visiting the area twice (kissing NUMEROUS negroes, I might add! ) to assign tasks to the right people and hold their feet to the fire. He has had to play politics by NOT running over the locals, who clearly wanted to keep from losing face as the president was trying to take responsibility for righting a situation they let get out of hand. He has battled charges that he didn't do the right thing(s) or in the right way, or he didn't do enough.

And THAT is in addition to all the OTHER affairs of state he's had to stay on top of and continue handling.

By the way, you DO remember we have a war going on?

And the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court just died. And there were threats to our economy from the already rising gas prices before Katrina exacerbated the situation.

And you've just kept focusing (for five days) your posts on how incompetent Bush is. I would hope to find EVERY ONE of your posts to be perfect in spelling, facts, and presentation.



Let's not lose perspective, eh?

Again I reminded why I glide past your posts.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Man, it just keeps getting worse and worse for the Bush-bashers.

Here and here.......

Those links aren't slanted at all.

(( HEAVY dose of sarcasm ))

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

You still think this is about Bush - it's not. This is way beyond Bush, the "liberals" here have said over and over that this is a failure at all levels of government, and you keep trying to defend Bush, and ONLY Bush. So, you think the local and state governments screwed up? Wow, tell us something we don't know!

We already know the problems with evacuation, what's curious to us is why "the left" is spending time looking at all the evidence of incompetence, from federal to state to local, and trying to figure out how to prevent this from killing even more people right now, while "the right" is spending all their time trying to shift everything away from federal officials.

Actually, when it comes to FEMA and the DHS, it is about Bush. He appointed the directors of those agencies and he is responsible for the victories and defeats.

Other than that I would agree, this is failure at all levels of government – city, state, federal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

If I knew that, I'd be in politics. Ultimately, I think we screwed up when we adopted totalitarian agriculture. But we did. If we had a clean slate, we could probably make societies function a whole lot better but that's not the nature of life. I think that the concept of competition for resources doesn't work. It creates inequities, tension and unsustainable lifestyles.

You'll not find a human system of government capable of eliminating inequities, tension, and unsustainable lifestyles. Though I've managed to sustain my lifestyle effectively for 7 years having started off @ 17 with not a dollar to my name. What you're referring to is called Utopia and cannot exist among humankind. In the most ancient of cultures, tribes were enslaved by other tribes and battles fought for territory. This, from the beginning of time to the end of time. I'm sorry to break this bit of bad news regarding human nature. When you went to your Mom or Dad and told them "IT'S UNFAIR", they'd have done well to answer you; "kid, life is unfair. Live yours to the best of your ability and don't forget the little people that helped get you there."

But what you replace that with, I don't know. Communism seems to be the opposite end of the scale but that suffers many of the same problems. The answer must therefore lie somewhere between the two extremes but where.

Nowhere. Democracy is the most equitable system in existence. It's not perfect, but it's the best we humans have been able to come up with.

Between European countries and the US, it seems we've tried almost every combination and nothing seems to work well.

It certainly hasn't failed me, has it failed you somehow??? If you're using your affluence to help those less fortunate than you, it is in fact working well for them as well. To the US, poor is a house with two cars, a television, plenty to eat (evidenced by the weight problem in this country) and Nintendo Gaming system. What is "poor" in these other societies?

I don't know, maybe the Scandanavians have the balance right? In many ways, I think the African culture, the most ancient one we have, holds the key but getting from here to there. How now brown cow?

African culture? Would that be the one raiding Sudan in North Africa or was it the white S. African culture rich in heritage of apartheid and humanitarian atrocities you're referring to? I say again, you've got a working system right in front of your face. It is facilitated and maintained by the ones doing the lions-share of work. You will be as affluent as you wish to be and are willing to work toward. I know this for a fact. You get out what you put in. It's beautifully simple. The less you expect from your leaders, the less you'll get. A system by and for the people fails when the very people involved divorce themselves from the process and fail to contribute.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I'm not too sure about that. I keep seeing on the news of people who are refusing to leave right now. I think there is more choice out there than some would care to believe.

I'll have to dig the statistic up, but I'm sure even the poorest have vehicles. I have worked with some very impoverished people and nearly every one had at least a car that ran (in addition to others that didn't).

It seems like the left believes there is no free will and/or choice. Just my humble opinion, though.

Yeah, why didn't these people heal themselves, hotwire cars and drive themselves out of the city?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/kat...act/index.html

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by art_director

There's been much discussion about people who stayed behind in NO. Some seem to believe they took their lives into their own hands. So, what does that camp think about the 30 people found in the nursing home?

I'm not sure which "camp" I would fall under, but I'd have to say those folks and many more could've fit quite nicely in one of the over 200 school buses now sitting idle in 6 feet of water. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear though. You're not still trying to suggest that there are no people who want to stay are you? You know that's been fully debunked no less than 5 times now don't you?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Nowhere. Democracy is the most equitable system in existence. It's not perfect, but it's the best we humans have been able to come up with.

I take it as a given that we know that democracy is the best form of political structure. But democracy is not the antithesis of communism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It certainly hasn't failed me, has it failed you somehow???

I do quite well out of the current system. I hunt and gather with the best of them, screwing over as many people as I can to get to the top of the pile. I forage for me and my clan and I try to extend my wealth and power and influence to the maximum. The only time the system fails me is when I pause and ask existential questions. And then, most of the time, I find that the way society is structured doesn't bring me happiness. This happens when I see poor people on the streets, when I see wars being fought on the TV, when I read about people dying of starvation and disease and it happens when I question my action. Why am I always hunting and gathering? Does it fulfill me? Then I go and buy something or donate some money to people and go back to wondering where the money for my home loan is going to come from.

But I'm one of the lucky ones. For every one of me there is, there are 100 others that are falling off the wagon or never made it onto the wagon in the first place. Katrina shows you, as an American, that those people are right there in New Orleans. But I know from having spent time in the US that there are a ton of them in LA too living at intersections, in trailer parks. They're in the Bronx and Brooklyn and Beloxi and all over the place. And the system is failing them. What I think we need to realise is that the more it fails them, ultimatey the worse off we will be. Because society is only held together by faith in the system that many people are losing.

Your argument seems to be that poor Americans are only poor because they choose to be. Because they're lazy. What's the argument for poor Africans? Lazy too? Poor Asians? How many poor people do you know? I know a few and I know more lazy rich people than lazy poor people. I think there is more to who rises to the top and who stays at the bottom in the West, than hard work. And the fact is, you're assuming having a top and a bottom is desirable in the first place.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

African culture? Would that be the one raiding Sudan in North Africa or was it the white S. African culture rich in heritage of apartheid and humanitarian atrocities you're referring to?

Read up on ubuntu (not the Linux flavour). Apartheid didn't come from the cradle of mankind. It came from the society that ignored the original way of life.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Troll

I take it as a given that we know that democracy is the best form of political structure. But democracy is not the antithesis of communism.

True. But may I add that democracy is not necessarily the ideal system either, but rather, one good way to structure a society? There were times where feodalism also meant survival, just like some forms of tribalisms were more efficient than a process of global consultation. Actually, democracy maybe more like a general way to process human relations, but at a micro level, any other forms are possible, and maybe preferable (i.e. the Army, the family, the classroom, etc).

I do quite well out of the current system. I hunt and gather with the best of them, screwing over as many people as I can to get to the top of the pile. I forage for me and my clan and I try to extend my wealth and power and influence to the maximum. The only time the system fails me is when I pause and ask existential questions. And then, most of the time, I find that the way society is structured doesn't bring me happiness. This happens when I see poor people on the streets, when I see wars being fought on the TV, when I read about people dying of starvation and disease and it happens when I question my action. Why am I always hunting and gathering? Does it fulfill me? Then I go and buy something or donate some money to people and go back to wondering where the money for my home loan is going to come from.

But I'm one of the lucky ones. For every one of me there is, there are 100 others that are falling off the wagon or never made it onto the wagon in the first place. Katrina shows you, as an American, that those people are right there in New Orleans. But I know from having spent time in the US that there are a ton of them in LA too living at intersections, in trailer parks. They're in the Bronx and Brooklyn and Beloxi and all over the place. And the system is failing them. What I think we need to realise is that the more it fails them, ultimatey the worse off we will be. Because society is only held together by faith in the system that many people are losing.

Your argument seems to be that poor Americans are only poor because they choose to be. Because they're lazy. What's the argument for poor Africans? Lazy too? Poor Asians? How many poor people do you know? I know a few and I know more lazy rich people than lazy poor people. I think there is more to who rises to the top and who stays at the bottom in the West, than hard work. And the fact is, you're assuming having a top and a bottom is desirable in the first place.

This is so insightful. I am very appreciative of your sensibility over social differences and and its humanistic perspective.

Katrina is probably a lesson for us all, not so much in terms of disaster management, but also in terms of victimology; who is most likely to suffer from "uncontrolable events"?

Read up on ubuntu (not the Linux flavour). Apartheid didn't come from the cradle of mankind. It came from the society that ignored the original way of life.

Some readings regarding First Nations reserves of North America is equally enlightening.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

I take it as a given that we know that democracy is the best form of political structure. But democracy is not the antithesis of communism.

I can't disagree with this, but there are important differences.

I do quite well out of the current system. I hunt and gather with the best of them, screwing over as many people as I can to get to the top of the pile. I forage for me and my clan and I try to extend my wealth and power and influence to the maximum.

This is unfortunate. In context it seems as if you're guilty of working hard and earning a good living. If the money was handed to you and in poor stewardship, you've squandered only on material goods, then perhaps you're guilt is well-founded. It is important in helping others that you not feel guilty of your blessings. You can teach others how to attain the same blessings using their own strengths.

The only time the system fails me is when I pause and ask existential questions. And then, most of the time, I find that the way society is structured doesn't bring me happiness. This happens when I see poor people on the streets, when I see wars being fought on the TV, when I read about people dying of starvation and disease and it happens when I question my action.

No one (other than in devastating natural disasters) is starving in America. Absolutely no one. You will find starvation in other societies, but unfortunately nothing will be done to improve their conditions because it requires leadership change from the top down. This sometimes requires insurrection and war. If there is nothing worth fighting for, then there is nothing worth fighting for. Either poor people in streets bother you enough to beget action or they don't. Bleeding hearts sometimes require bleeding muscles.

Why am I always hunting and gathering? Does it fulfill me? Then I go and buy something or donate some money to people and go back to wondering where the money for my home loan is going to come from.

Welcome to the rest of society. Most of us wonder how we'll make ends meet and yet we always do. You don't need to step on people in your hunting and gathering. Again, if you're stepping on people, then perhaps your guilt is well-founded.

But I'm one of the lucky ones. For every one of me there is, there are 100 others that are falling off the wagon or never made it onto the wagon in the first place.

Not under our system of government. a system you no doubt would be quick to express distaste for it's desire to spread. Truth be told, our poverty level is at 12.7%. So, the true statement is you are one of the lucky majority Under this system of government. For every one of you is not 100 poor people living under over-passes. This is simply nowhere near factual. Furthermore; The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
patio.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to
those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Katrina shows you, as an American, that those people are right there in New Orleans.

I know this statement continues to shock people, but... many of them chose to be there as evidenced by yet additional calls of forced evacuation still today.

But I know from having spent time in the US that there are a ton of them in LA too living at intersections, in trailer parks. They're in the Bronx and Brooklyn and Beloxi and all over the place. And the system is failing them.

No, unfortunately and statistically they're failing themselves.

What I think we need to realise is that the more it fails them, ultimatey the worse off we will be. Because society is only held together by faith in the system that many people are losing.

I don't believe it's failing them in the US.

Your argument seems to be that poor Americans are only poor because they choose to be. Because they're lazy.

Not "only", but certainly a majority of them have made decisions in life they are paying for in various ways. To deny this is to deny human nature. There is no government capable of eliminating human nature.

What's the argument for poor Africans?

Oppressive regimes. We're working on it much to the shagrin of those who believe there is nothing worth fighting for.

Poor Asians?

Oppressive regimes. We're working on it much to the shagrin of those who believe there is absolutely nothing worth fighting for.

How many poor people do you know?

I not only know poor people my friend, I was a poor person. I remember finding out at 18 years old that I had impregnated my then girlfriend, now wife. We were faced with immense potential hospital expenses, but $650.00/month was too much money under our system. What did I do? Cut my hours in half to decrease my monthly income. I worked LESS in order to participate in our country's social programs. I've even known a great many to have sold food stamps 50 cents on the dollar.

I know a few and I know more lazy rich people than lazy poor people.

You must really be blessed. I urge you and the birds of your feather in flocking together to stop and think about others not as fortunate. The rich people I know worked their a$$es off. They are generally very conservative, attend church regularly, and make service to the poor an integral part of their lives and the lives of their children. This is responsible.

I think there is more to who rises to the top and who stays at the bottom in the West, than hard work.

This is the mentality of failure and part of the problem we're talking about. If there is one "bootstraps" story of rags to riches, there are a million. A significant portion of millionaires in this country are not college educated. That tells me it was dogged determination and perseverence that wins the race, not sitting around wondering what the government is going to do for you and how the man's got'cha down.

And the fact is, you're assuming having a top and a bottom is desirable in the first place.

No. I'm telling you that we live in a world of over-achievers and under-achievers. This is a fact of human nature. There is no government that can care more about you than you care about yourself. There are those that expect someone else to do something for them, and those that do for themselves, turn around and try to help others do for themselves. Then, there are others who are handed money and believe this is the key and begin to hand it over to others who would squander it. I've been both on the squandering side (as a young liberal believing in the BS that told me I was a victim of societal injustice) and on the earning side (as a maturing conservative) and have seen all angles of both. What can I say, I'm a late bloomer. I much prefer the latter.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by art_director

Actually, when it comes to FEMA and the DHS, it is about Bush. He appointed the directors of those agencies and he is responsible for the victories and defeats.

Other than that I would agree, this is failure at all levels of government – city, state, federal.

It must be very hard for you to admit it wasn't all Bush and FEMA's fault.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Troll

As always happens, the Bush Administration smear machine is in full force taking up miniscule points about who said what when to divert attention from the larger issues. As I see them, here are the larger points:

1) The massive gulf between rich and poor that exists on a macro level planet wide, exists on a micro level in the United States. In places like New Orleans, the high levels of poverty and the lack of an effective safety net is leading to growing crime which can turn ugly for all elements of society at the drop of a hat. Racial and class tensions exist and are exacerbated by failures such as the failure to respond properly to Katrina. Unless something is done to bridge the gap, future disasters like this could turn very ugly. With 400 thousand jobs having been lost and homes and families destroyed, the future is looking even bleaker for New Orleans.

Louisiana and it's 60+ years of Democratic rule in the heart of oil country couldn't fix this?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director

Those links aren't slanted at all.

(( HEAVY dose of sarcasm ))

Is that the best you can do?

The Red Cross, working hand -and-hand with FEMA to provide relief, is all ready to go to the SUperdome and convention center with truckload after truckload of water and food. The Louisiana State Homeland Security Dept., under orders from the Governor, refuses to allow the Red Cross/FEMA to deliver the food and water, and all you can bitch about is the fact that it was a Fox News journalist who got the scoop?

I wonder how you'll spin KYW Radio's report...

The local head of the American Red Cross has responded to complaints that the agency has not provided help within the hurricane-ravaged city of New Orleans. He says they weren't allowed.

"The state Department of Homeland Security in Louisiana asked the Red Cross not to go into the city because they want that message to be, 'You need to leave the city. This isn't going to be a sheltering spot.' "

[Mark Larr]

I guess nobody here has read this yet have they?

http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

They had a plan and the ones who were supposed to implement it abandoned their positions and fled to leave everyone to die. Yep that's right New Orleans had a plan and FAILED to implement it.

Look to the Mayor, he's the one screaming the loudest. He is the one accountable in the end.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

If there is a monolithic entity called "the left", then we certainly do believe in free will and/or choice. We just don't believe in blaming the victims. As far as statistics on car ownership, they're easy to find:

Here's the 2000 Census data on car ownership in New Orleans.
This chart from the NY Times is a simpler graphic of the same data.

The fact is, almost 1/3 of New Orleans residents did not have a car, close to 25,000 people. Nationwide, this compares to about 10% who do not own a car.

So much for the idea that "most" of the people left behind chose to stay. I'm sure there are people who did choose to stay, but these numbers are far too big to say that "most" or even "many" made that choice on their own.

Thanks for the stats. I will look at them closer later. However, I still contend that people chose to stay. Plus if a 1/3 didn't have cars, wouldn't more than one person per car make up any lack of total cars?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Thanks for the stats. I will look at them closer later. However, I still contend that people chose to stay. Plus if a 1/3 didn't have cars, wouldn't more than one person per car make up any lack of total cars?

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition... I think there's a combination of both. There were many who had no transportation (and none was provided), and there were some who chose to stay. And you're right in pointing out that some could have shared cars, and I'm sure some did.

The key point is that the city made no effort to transport people out before the storm.

[Mark Larr]

Since everyone refused to read New Orleans evac plans.

A. Mayor
* Initiate the evacuation.
* Retain overall control of all evacuation procedures via EOC operations.
* Authorize return to evacuated areas.
B. Office of Emergency Preparedness
* Activate EOC and notify all support agencies to this plan.
* Coordinate with State OEP on elements of evacuation.
* Assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas.
* Assist ESF-8, Health and Medical, in the evacuation of persons with special needs, nursing home, and hospital patients in accordance with established procedures.
* Coordinate the release of all public information through ESF-14, Public Information.
* Use EAS, television, cable and other public broadcast means as needed and in accordance with established procedure.
* Request additional law enforcement/traffic control (State Police, La. National Guard) from State OEP.
C. New Orleans Police Department
* Ensure orderly traffic flow.
* Assist in removing disabled vehicles from roadways as needed.
* Direct the management of transportation of seriously injured persons to hospitals as needed.
* Direct evacuees to proper shelters and/or staging areas once they have departed the threatened area.
* Release all public information through the ESF-14, Public Information.
D. Regional Transit Authority
* Supply transportation as needed in accordance with the current Standard Operating Procedures.
* Place special vehicles on alert to be utilized if needed.
* Position supervisors and dispatch evacuation buses.
* If warranted by scope of evacuation, implement additional service.
E. Louisiana National Guard
* Provide assistance as needed in accordance with current State guidelines.
F. Animal Care and Control
* Coordinate animal rescue operations with the New Orleans SPCA.
G. Public Works
* Make emergency road repairs as needed.
H. Office of Communications
* Release all public information relating to the evacuation.

[Mark Larr]

Even better.....
http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

I guess nobody here has read this yet have they?

http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

They had a plan and the ones who were supposed to implement it abandoned their positions and fled to leave everyone to die. Yep that's right New Orleans had a plan and FAILED to implement it.

Well that's certainly an interesting read. If this is real, it would seem to indicate a failure of process within a failure of process. But if it's real, then why has the Mayor not said anything about it? Even if others in positions of responsibility had fled, he seems to have made an attempt to fulfill his end of the plan. He certainly wouldn't lack for help in hunting down those who should have been doing their jobs.

Is he trying to wait until the rescue efforts are finished before going after the ones who effectively sabotaged the plan? That would certainly be an admirable goal, but I'm not sure if it's the wisest course of action to just say nothing at all about it.

[Mark Larr]

Even BETTER!!!!!!

C. New Orleans Police Department
* Ensure orderly traffic flow.
* Assist in removing disabled vehicles from roadways as needed.
* Direct the management of transportation of seriously injured persons to hospitals as needed.
* Direct evacuees to proper shelters and/or staging areas once they have departed the threatened area.
* Release all public information through the ESF-14, Public Information.
D. Regional Transit Authority
* Supply transportation as needed in accordance with the current Standard Operating Procedures.
* Place special vehicles on alert to be utilized if needed.
* Position supervisors and dispatch evacuation buses.

[art_director]

I doubt this is the only such piece of film that exists.

http://streaming-west.americanprogress.org/cheney.mov

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It must be very hard for you to admit it wasn't all Bush and FEMA's fault.

Apparently you missed this line from the same post:

"Other than that I would agree, this is failure at all levels of government – city, state, federal."

Slow down and read.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Troll

I take it as a given that we know that democracy is the best form of political structure. But democracy is not the antithesis of communism.
I do quite well out of the current system. I hunt and gather with the best of them, screwing over as many people as I can to get to the top of the pile. I forage for me and my clan and I try to extend my wealth and power and influence to the maximum.

Although that is one way to get ahead in democratic capitalism, it is certainly not the only way. If you don't like it, then perhaps it is not a proper way for you to make your way in the world. That's fine; there are others. Why not avail yourself of them? I'm not constantly on the lookout for ways to "not screw others over", but when the opportunity arises that I can do something, I do so.

The only time the system fails me is when I pause and ask existential questions. And then, most of the time, I find that the way society is structured doesn't bring me happiness.

Why are you looking to society's structure to bring you happiness?

This happens when I see poor people on the streets, when I see wars being fought on the TV, when I read about people dying of starvation and disease and it happens when I question my action.

Indeed, these are sad things, and no they make you sad as well, in sympathy for the unfortunate. But do they truly make you unhappy?

Why am I always hunting and gathering? Does it fulfill me?

I don't know; does it? How do you "hunt and gather"? If this method does not fulfill you, why do you not choose another?

But I'm one of the lucky ones. For every one of me there is, there are 100 others that are falling off the wagon or never made it onto the wagon in the first place.

"The wagon"? What is this 'wagon'? I don't understand the metaphor you're using here.

Katrina shows you, as an American, that those people are right there in New Orleans. But I know from having spent time in the US that there are a ton of them in LA too living at intersections, in trailer parks. They're in the Bronx and Brooklyn and Beloxi and all over the place. And the system is failing them.

How is it failing them? What duty does it have to them that it is not doing?

Your argument seems to be that poor Americans are only poor because they choose to be.

Not necessarily because they choose to be poor; few sane people would ever make such a choice directly. But I would wager that many of the poor become such as a consequence of their choices, and many more stay poor as a consequence of their choices. Truly unfortunate people become poor through forces beyond their control every day, but barring biological issues there are many ways out of this trap, and not all of them require four years of education or a trust fund. But these means do no good if people do not take them, and they certainly cannot be forced into taking them.

Because they're lazy. What's the argument for poor Africans? Lazy too? Poor Asians?

I spoke of the truly unfortunate; you name some of them. These are unfortunate enough to live in regions where poverty is not as easily escaped as it is in the US. Usually this happens because the local governments restrict opportunities for the people, often in the name of some moral code or another but sometimes for other reasons.

How many poor people do you know? I know a few and I know more lazy rich people than lazy poor people.

Likewise, actually; I know far more lazy rich than lazy poor. However, the poor people I know generally fall into two categories: those who are making progress towards escaping their plight and those who have fallen into the trap of behaving in patterns which don't allow them to escape. Those who are making progress are indeed making progress.

But as for those who have fallen into the trap, what exactly is it that I am to do? The trap that keeps people in poverty is nothing more or less than themselves, or to be more specific, behavior patterns which keep them from doing what's needed to escape. I'm not talking about traditional moral failings, either; for many, it's just a matter of compulsive overspending in some area or another (I know one who spends every spare cent on certain things, most of which he never even uses, but he just "can't resist the deals"). For others, it's failing to pursue opportunities as they present themselves, often out of fear of failure. Sometimes moral failings do come into play, but I've found that to be rare; we all have our problems but it takes some pretty extreme stuff to trap yourself this badly.

I have on many occasions tried -usually gently, sometimes not so gently- to present them with these issues, and how they could break themselves out of poverty if they could gain some mastery over these habits, let go of the patterns that are causing them so much harm. The hell of it is most of them know that these patterns are causing problems in their lives, but they don't want to do anything about them; they're too attached to their desires or their fears.

How do you break people out of chains they build and maintain themselves? Poverty is a disease, but in most cases it is not a disease of the body: it's a disease of destructive patterns in the ways people behave. I'm convinced that it can be cured, but that's not something that can be done in a monolithic one-size-fits-all manner. It has to be done on an individual basis, one person at a time, because the disease is diverse as the people who are afflicted with it. Most if not all modern welfare symptoms go after the symptoms, but they do nothing to cure the disease, creating a culture of dependency as people, and later generations, stay trapped, unable to escape because no one really cares; they throw a little money at the problem and consider it done.

Truly curing the problem is not something a government can do or should try. Curing the problem takes people. Do not think that by opposing most modern ideas of "welfare" that I don't care about the poor. I do. But the way we're doing it now isn't going to fix anything, and the socialist model certainly isn't going to fix anything. The parent-state can only create a nation of children. If we are to be a world of adults, we must learn to take care of ourselves.

I think there is more to who rises to the top and who stays at the bottom in the West, than hard work.

Hard work is the keystone, but you're right that it can sometimes take more. Opportunities arise constantly, but it takes no small amount of courage to seek them out and to take them. Destructive patterns are a constant threat and they cannot be avoided completely -we're only human, after all- but it takes courage to find them and break them when they do arise.

And the fact is, you're assuming having a top and a bottom is desirable in the first place.

As long as you allow people to better themselves, there will always be a top, and I think we can agree that this is desirable. But as long as there is a top, then its very existence will define a bottom; this is regrettable but inevitable. Without one, the other is meaningless. You assume that having no top or bottom is desirable, but is eliminating the bottom truly worth sacrificing the top?

Read up on ubuntu (not the Linux flavour).

Actually, the site for the Linux flavor includes a writeup on the basics of ubuntu, and links to other resources on the concept.

Apartheid didn't come from the cradle of mankind. It came from the society that ignored the original way of life.

And what would that "original way of life" be? The furthest back that our anthropologists have been able to see points to, of all things, hunting and gathering. Anything else is a matter of faith.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by art_director

I doubt this is the only such piece of film that exists.

http://streaming-west.americanprogress.org/cheney.mov

I doubt it is either, but I don't understand the context. When was this filmed?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Troll

I take it as a given that we know that democracy is the best form of political structure. But democracy is not the antithesis of communism.

Not directly, no, but the two are not compatible. Democracy requires dissent, or it violates its own definition. Communism cannot tolerate dissent, or it will collapse under the weight of abuse.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by art_director

Apparently you missed this line from the same post:

"Other than that I would agree, this is failure at all levels of government – city, state, federal."

Slow down and read.

Yes, yes, I was just saying that it must've been hard for you. I guess I should've used the word "must've".

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yes, yes, I was just saying that it must've been hard for you. I guess I should've used the word "must've".

Given the little you know of my political leanings I find it comical that you jump to such conclusions.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by art_director

Given the little you know of my political leanings I find it comical that you jump to such conclusions.

I "know" the anti-Bush tripe you have been posting concerning Katrina since the whole thing started…I was going by that.

Glad I have amused you. Don't you have a left-wing talking point memo to study or something?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I "know" the anti-Bush tripe you have been posting concerning Katrina since the whole thing started…I was going by that.

Glad I have amused you. Don't you have a left-wing talking point memo to study or something?

Perhaps if I were a Democrat, which by the way, I am not.

This political forum is strange. Never before have I seen so many people intent on trashing one another rather than discussing topics of interest. It's a pitty given that there are some truly intelligent people here.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I doubt it is either, but I don't understand the context. When was this filmed?

from yahoo news.

Cheney, who was sent to the region by President George W. Bush amid intense criticism of the federal response to the disaster, was briefing reporters in Gulfport, Mississippi on his impressions of the relief work when he was interrupted by a bystander.

"Go f---(expletive) yourself Mr. Cheney!" the unidentified man shouted. Then he repeated: "Go f---(expletive) yourself!"

Asked by a reporter if had encountered similar protests during his tour, Cheney replied: "That's the first time I've heard it."

Cheney famously used the same expression in a Senate confrontation with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy over Cheney's links to defense contract giant Halliburton.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

from yahoo news.

Cheney, who was sent to the region by President George W. Bush amid intense criticism of the federal response to the disaster, was briefing reporters in Gulfport, Mississippi on his impressions of the relief work when he was interrupted by a bystander.

"Go f---(expletive) yourself Mr. Cheney!" the unidentified man shouted. Then he repeated: "Go f---(expletive) yourself!"

Asked by a reporter if had encountered similar protests during his tour, Cheney replied: "That's the first time I've heard it."

Cheney famously used the same expression in a Senate confrontation with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy over Cheney's links to defense contract giant Halliburton.

ON MY FEET AND CLAPPING!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by art_director

Perhaps if I were a Democrat, which by the way, I am not.

This political forum is strange. Never before have I seen so many people intent on trashing one another rather than discussing topics of interest. It's a pitty given that there are some truly intelligent people here.

I never said you were a Democrat or anything, but when it comes to the NO disaster you sure are toeing their line…

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "trashing" you. I was just expressing my concern for you glaringly one-sided and closed minded view point up until this point.

It's good that you are coming around though.

Pity is spelled with ONE "t".

'ave a noyce day.

[smacintush]

Blanco blocked aid to superdome.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Sorry, I did in fact get you mixed up with art_director. Not sure this was a mistake though as you said there was nothing wrong with the thread title, but couldn't defend it.

That's because there's nothing to defend. Incompetence isn't a zero-sum game - just because local and state officials screwed up doesn't mean that the federal government didn't or couldn't have. I also didn't parse the title as semantically as you did, I didn't interpret it to mean "everything about the federal government is incompetent", I knew the title was referring to Katrina, and on that note, the evidence so far strongly backs up that assertion. When you have American citizens starving in a major city for 4 to 5 days, a city that is so accessible the media can go in and out at will, then I believe it's understandable if one uses slightly harsh language to express displeasure at the federal government's response.

As for the rest of his statements, ask him, not me. I have my own opinions, I'm sure art_director can defend his on his own.

Then, I get to read that FEMA lied to us about when food and water were being distributed. I asked you a question that you conveniently ignored. When were the first provisions of food and water delivered. At what hour, on what day? You lodged an accusation, provide some data to back the claim.

On Friday, September 2nd, Michael Brown, the director of FEMA, said this:

We’ve provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they’ve gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day.

This was a straight-up lie, one so obvious that even the local New Orleans paper took him to task for this one. I can't explain why he said this when news crews from every major network and every newspaper in the country were reporting from the Convention Center (and showing us, no less) that the evacuees were not getting food and water at that point, certainly not from the federal government.

[Gee-Man]

And on another note, it's been repeated here as fact many times that Bush supposedly called Roy Nagin and pleaded with him to evacuate the city. This is false. Bush called the LA governor on Sunday, not the mayor, and it was about a half hour before the mayor and governor held a joint press conference to announce the evacuation. The details of the call are here. Watch the video and skip ahead to about the 17-18 minute mark.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by art_director

Again I reminded why I glide past your posts.

And again 'I reminded' how much promise you showed when you first arrived here. Then, you became a fixture, like a plumbing fixture that, instead of processing what goes into it, instead, spews things out.

And, because you so reliably and predictably spew crap at the president and the Federal government at EVERY opportunity, no matter the situation, you have become, to me, a cartoon. A caricature of a real debater. I see your name on a thread and know what I'm going to get before I even read your posts.

When I see your use of the word, 'glide,' I think of some other words that convey the same kind of meaning. Like the word, float.

And so, in a blast from the past, here's a little old school music to glide and float past mojo2's posts by...

THE FLOATERS lyrics - "Float On"

www.OldieLyrics.com

Aquarius, Libra, Leo, Cancer
Ralph, Charles, Paul, Larry

Float, float on
Float on, float on
Float, float, float on
Float on, float on

Float, float on
Float on, float on
Float, float, float on
Float on, float on

Float, float on
Float on, float on
Float, float, float on
Float on, float on

Aquarius, Libra, Leo, Cancer
Ralph, Charles, Paul, Larry

Aquarius and my name is Ralph
Now I like a woman who loves her freedom
And I like a woman who can hold her own
And if you fit that description, baby, come with me

Take my hand, come with me, baby, to Love Land
Let me show you how sweet it could be
Sharing love with me, I want you to

Float, float on (Come on, come on,
(Come on, baby, yeah, yeah)
Float on, float on (Ooh, ooh, baby)
Float, float, float on
Float on (Float with me), float on

Libra and my name is Charles
Now I like a woman that's quiet
A woman who carries herself
Like Miss Universe
A woman who would take me in her arms
And she would say, Charles, yeah
And if you fit that description
This is for you especially

Mmm, take my hand
Come with me, baby, to Love Land
Let me show you how sweet it could be
Sharing loving with me, I want you to

Float, float on (Girl, yes)
Float on, float on (With Charles)
Float, float, float on (Ooh, yeah)
Float on, float on

Leo and my name is Paul
You see I like all women of the world
You see to me all women are wild flowers
And if you understand what I'm sayin'
I want you to

Mmm, take my hand
Come with me, baby, to Love Land
Let me show you how sweet it could be
Sharing love with me, I want you to

Float, float on (So float with me, baby)
Float on, float on (Yeah)
Float, float, float on (Float with Paul, y'all)
Float on, float on

Cancer and my name is Larry, huh
And I like a woman
That loves everything and everybody
Because I love everybody and everything
And you know what, ladies,
If you feel that this is you
Then this is what I want you to do

Ooh, yeah, take my hand
Let me take you to Love Land
Let me show you how sweet it could be
Sharing your love with Larry, listen

Float, float on (You better float with me now)
Float on, float on (Float on)
Float, float, float on (Yeah, yeah)
(You better float on)
(Float on)
(Ah)

Too bad they include only an instrumental section of the song. Maybe you can try ITMS for a better snippet.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=music

Til then...

Aquarius and my name is Ralph
Now I like a woman who loves her freedom
And I like a woman who can hold her own
And if you fit that description, baby, come with me

Take my hand, come with me, baby, to Love Land
Let me show you how sweet it could be
Sharing love with me, I want you to

Float, float on (Come on, come on,
(Come on, baby, yeah, yeah)
Float on, float on (Ooh, ooh, baby)
Float, float, float on
Float on (Float with me), float on...

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Blanco blocked aid to superdome.

"Louisiana State Homeland Security Department refused the relief organization "

Exactly how many cooks you got spoiling that broth?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

And on another note, it's been repeated here as fact many times that Bush supposedly called Roy Nagin and pleaded with him to evacuate the city. This is false. Bush called the LA governor on Sunday, not the mayor, and it was about a half hour before the mayor and governor held a joint press conference to announce the evacuation. The details of the call are here. Watch the video and skip ahead to about the 17-18 minute mark.

And that is supposed to prove what?

That Bush cared enough and was on the ball enough to make sure that his concern and best advice was given to the people to do what every conservative already knew should be done...?

To get the F...k out?

And why didn't Bush call the Mayor?

Well, hell! Why didn't the President call every single New Orlean, for THAT matter!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It must be very hard for you to admit it wasn't all Bush and FEMA's fault.

As hard as Wile E. Coyote giving up his quest to catch the Road Runner.

Canadians beat U.S. Army to New Orleans suburb
08 Sep 2005 05:08:07 GMT
Source: Reuters

BATON ROUGE, La., Sept 7 (Reuters) - A Canadian search-and-rescue team reached a flooded New Orleans suburb to help save trapped residents five days before the U.S. military, a Louisiana state senator said on Wednesday.

The Canadians beat both the Army and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. disaster response department, to St. Bernard Parish east of New Orleans, where flood waters are still 8 feet (2.4 metres) deep in places, Sen. Walter Boasso said.

"Fabulous, fabulous guys," Boasso said. "They started rolling with us and got in boats to save people."

"We've got Canadian flags flying everywhere."

The stricken parish of 68,000 people was largely ignored by U.S. authorities who scrambled to get aid to New Orleans, a few miles (km) away. Boasso said residents of the outlying parishes had to mount their own rescue and relief efforts when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore on Aug. 29.

The U.S. government response to the disaster has been widely criticized. Politicians and editorial writers have called for the resignation of top Bush administration officials.
Boasso said U.S. authorities began airdropping relief supplies to St. Bernard last Wednesday, the same day the Canadian rescue team of about 50 members arrived from Vancouver, nearly 2,200 miles (3,540 km) away.

"They chartered a plane and flew down," he said.

Two FEMA officials reached the parish on Sunday and the U.S. Army arrived on Monday, he said.

"Why does it take them seven days to get the Army in?" Boasso asked.

He speculated that the smaller parishes suffered because the focus was on New Orleans, the famous home of jazz and Mardi Gras.

As for the Canadians, Boasso gave thanks for their quick work.

"They were so glad to be here," he said. "They're still here. They are actually going door-to-door looking in the attics" for people to rescue, he said.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

And on another note, it's been repeated here as fact many times that Bush supposedly called Roy Nagin and pleaded with him to evacuate the city. This is false.

Couldn't you find a site with generally respected journalists pointing this out instead of a rabid left-wing site that specializes in dubious, selective quoting?

I definitely mentioned that, for that's what I read in more than a few published reports, like here and here.

Katrina's threat was so acute that President Bush joined the chorus of officials who urged Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation, issued late Sunday morning after lower-lying areas outside the city were cleared Saturday.

Regardless, the National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield did call the Mayor and plead for him to issue the mandatory evacuation the day before the order was given. Bush or Mayfield... either way the federal government was on the phone that Saturday with the Mayor in some sort of pleading-for-evacuation capacity. Here and here and here.

It (the evacuation) was announced at a news conference by the Mayor Ray Nagin on Sunday 28 August, less than 24 hours before the hurricane struck early the next morning. The Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said at the same news conference that President Bush had called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation. The night before, National Hurricane Director Max Mayfield had called Mayor Nagin to tell him that an evacuation was needed.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield called Nagin at home last night and told him: get people out of New Orleans. Later, in an interview with television station WDSL, Mayfield said he wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing he didn't do all he could to warn people that this storm was the one everyone in New Orleans had feared for a generation.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield in Miami called Nagin at home Saturday night and told him: Get people out of New Orleans.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And that is supposed to prove what?

That Bush cared enough and was on the ball enough to make sure that his concern and best advice was given to the people to do what every conservative already knew should be done...?

To get the F...k out?

And why didn't Bush call the Mayor?

Well, hell! Why didn't the President call every single New Orlean, for THAT matter!

I think you've completely missed the point of my post. I'm simply pointing out that many have used this non-existent phone call as "proof" that the mayor was so out of it that the president had to call HIM to tell him to evacuate his own city. Maybe the idea was to kill two birds with one stone - it makes the mayor look bad, and it makes Bush look proactive.

This turned out to be a rumor that was completely false, and also completely unnecessary if the point was to highlight the mayor's failings. It's already fairly obvious that the mayor took too long to make the call to evacuate - Sunday was TOO LATE to get everyone out, and an evacuation plan that relied on everyone having a car is a terrible plan. Why anyone needed to spread rumors to embellish the story is beyond me.

So the mayor screwed up big time there and deserves criticism for that. On the other hand, I do believe he saved lives by directing people who couldn't get out to the Superdome and Convention Center, despite the horrific conditions there, many more would have drowed in the waters if he hadn't done so.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

So the mayor screwed up big time there and deserves criticism for that. On the other hand, I do believe he saved lives by directing people who couldn't get out to the Superdome and Convention Center, despite the horrific conditions there, many more would have drowed in the waters if he hadn't done so.

HE IGNORED THE CITIES OWN DISASTER PLAN TO EVACUATE THE CITY!

Criticism?

He should be charged with criminal negligence.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Couldn't you find a site with generally respected journalists pointing this out instead of a rabid left-wing site that specializes in dubious, selective quoting?

You may not like the source, but they did their homework. They have the timeline of events, and it matches with the White House's press conference. Bush called the governor, not the mayor, and it was only right before the press conference, not "at home the night before". If you have something that specifically refutes what the White House says, feel free to post it.

Regardless, the National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield did call the Mayor and plead for him to issue the mandatory evacuation the day before the order was given.

It seems pretty obvious that the Mayor was in constant contact with the National Hurricane Center prior to a hurricane hitting his city. Who else was he going to use to determine whether an evacuation was needed?

Bush or Mayfield... either way the federal government was on the phone that Saturday with the Mayor in some sort of pleading-for-evacuation capacity.

It's important to have the facts straight though. There's a huge difference between a mayor talking to the head of the National Hurricane Center right before a hurricane is about to hit his city, and talking to the president about the same hurricane. Bush wasn't going to update the mayor on the status of the hurricane. You can't pretend that both statements are essentially the same, they aren't. The false one makes you wonder about the competence of the mayor (which was the point of the rumor), the other, accurate one, makes perfect sense given the circumstances.

The "pleading for evacuation" thing sound more like spin. It implies that the mayor was refusing to consider evacuation until people convinced him otherwise, and nobody here knows this without direct knowledge of the conversations between the mayor and the National Hurricane Center. But I seriously doubt this was the case, he probably was waiting to make sure the hurricane was going to hit before giving the order.

These are the facts - but this doesn't let the mayor off the hook. While he was waiting for the feds to recommend evacuation, it was too late - Sunday didn't given enough time to get everybody out of there. He failed there, he should have given the order earlier, AND he should have had a better plan in place once the order was given.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by smacintush

HE IGNORED THE CITIES OWN DISASTER PLAN TO EVACUATE THE CITY!

Criticism?

He should be charged with criminal negligence.

You may be right. I hope he's right up there with Michael Brown of FEMA and Governor Blanco answering seriously hard questions about their role in the response to this disaster.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by art_director

Actually, when it comes to FEMA and the DHS, it is about Bush. He appointed the directors of those agencies and he is responsible for the victories and defeats.

Other than that I would agree, this is failure at all levels of government – city, state, federal.

My opinion has changed a bit, I think its mostly the cities fualt for before the storm, and mostly the states fualt for the first 4 days after the storm for this mess. And FEMA is a ****ing joke.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It certainly hasn't failed me, has it failed you somehow??? If you're using your affluence to help those less fortunate than you, it is in fact working well for them as well. To the US, poor is a house with two cars, a television, plenty to eat (evidenced by the weight problem in this country) and Nintendo Gaming system. What is "poor" in these other societies?

Thats not true at all. Poor in the US can range from living pay check to pay check with a shitty apartment, shitty car and shitty cloth to living in a total dump and only being able to eat with food stamps. What you discribed was Middle Class which is really shrinking bad in the US.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No one (other than in devastating natural disasters) is starving in America. Absolutely no one. You will find starvation in other societies, but unfortunately nothing will be done to improve their conditions because it requires leadership change from the top down. This sometimes requires insurrection and war. If there is nothing worth fighting for, then there is nothing worth fighting for. Either poor people in streets bother you enough to beget action or they don't. Bleeding hearts sometimes require bleeding muscles.

Yes there is! Just like there are some starving in Canada, and England, and other countries. All countries have starving people for different reasons.

Not under our system of government. a system you no doubt would be quick to express distaste for it's desire to spread. Truth be told, our poverty level is at 12.7%. So, the true statement is you are one of the lucky majority Under this system of government. For every one of you is not 100 poor people living under over-passes. This is simply nowhere near factual. Furthermore; The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
patio.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to
those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Stats can be misleading, 46% of poor households, well does that include poor people living in Apartments or no homes at all? Also the definition of poor is probably misleading too. I know whats considered poor in Canada by Canadians is considered very well off in other countries.

I know this statement continues to shock people, but... many of them chose to be there as evidenced by yet additional calls of forced evacuation still today.

Yup, some are worried about there homes being broken into, others wont leave without there pets, some wont leave cuz they are very old, some are afraid, some didn't even know the entire city has left. Lots of reasons for some not to leave. People are still being found who want to leave too.

You must really be blessed. I urge you and the birds of your feather in flocking together to stop and think about others not as fortunate. The rich people I know worked their a$$es off. They are generally very conservative, attend church regularly, and make service to the poor an integral part of their lives and the lives of their children. This is responsible.

All the well off people I know had stable families with generations of wealth. Most poor people I know are from broken famlies with no built up wealth. Generally a kid in a stable, well off home will do better in school, have more resources to become well off as a young adult and continue the family trend. A poor kid usally has to work much harder for less and from the bottom up. I know some poor people that work there a$$es off harder and longer then people who have the money.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Athens

My opinion has changed a bit, I think its mostly the cities fualt for before the storm, and mostly the states fualt for the first 4 days after the storm for this mess. And FEMA is a ****ing joke.

Redagrding NO that's mostly where I've landed as the news has come out. That said, the federal government has, with FEMA and DHS, more resources than the state and local officials. Those agencies have budgets running in the billions of dollars and they have proven to be less than adept at disaster relief.

Help us all if another major event – manmade or natural – should hit while the present leadership of these groups is still in charge.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I never said you were a Democrat or anything, but when it comes to the NO disaster you sure are toeing their line…

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "trashing" you. I was just expressing my concern for you glaringly one-sided and closed minded view point up until this point.

It's good that you are coming around though.

Pity is spelled with ONE "t".

'ave a noyce day.

My views, as expressed on this forum, have not been one-sided. In many cases I've specifically stated 'Dems and Reps' are to be held accountable. I've also said local, state and federal officials fooked up. Yes, I've ripped on Bush. Given his appointments to FEMA and DHS, the slow response to the hurricane and the lack of disaster preparation by DHS, I'd say he deserves the heat.