A Rant about Katrina

And from a biblical perspective, next to Las Vegas, I'd say that God probably has New Orleans and bourbon street (which I love) down for a good 40 day/40 night cleansing...trust me on that one...so don't read too much into him letting nature cleanse the city, aka Batman Begins style.

God needs to cleanse New Orleans with a hurricane? That's a bit cruel of you, even if it was meant in jest. Also, don't forget that New Orleans wasn't the only place affected. Indeed, it appears that Mississippi got hit far worse than NO. Was God cleansing Slidell and Gulfport too? I know you were just making a joke, but please, give it another day or two before you start breaking out the Noah comparisons

Can I make cuban jokes? No? Damn, I was going to say our friends in NOLA should've taken a page out of the Cuban's book.
IMAGE(http://raw360.com/media/1/20030727-cubaboat.jpg)

You are right on the jokes...think it was in response to several comments off handedly slighting God that he would do/allow such devastation. That I consider as invalid, but you are right on my comments Kat about the storm and NO.

and yes...can't you always make Cuban jokes Edwin!

Sorry, I am still kind of in awe that my entire Japanese I class is Cuban, except for me. Even the Professor married a Cuban.

#1. Lobsta, I love you for grabbing that photo.

#2. The Mayor is deflecting blame. It is not the Army Engineer's fault. Heck its not even the Mayor's fault. This was a huge storm dumping large amounts of rain in a wide area, and you have a city that is sub sea level located in the main drainage's river delta. What did they expect that this would never happen? It was only a matter of time. I think it is the fault of human arrogance that allowed people to think they could control forces of nature like that were involved.

#3. They should raise the entire city, put down enough dirt to build it up above sea level, and then start to rebuild. Anything else is a waste of money. How useful will most of these buildings be with all the water damage? It is a complete destruction here and they should start from scratch.. But they won't

Ah, the concept of "New New Orleans"......I think that's the best idea.....a "model" city, maybe? Let some blocks of the original historic city be recovered, but just build anew and better one.....

I'd much rather see my tax dollars go into that project.......

White people find things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/p...

Black people loot things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/4...

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

White people find things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/p...

Black people loot things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/4...

Oh, Burn...

KaterinLHC wrote:

Not to mention that the Corps' federal funding has been cut, again, for the 2006 fiscal year. Indeed, that budget cut made it so that a study specifically dealing with how to prepare for a Cat. 5 hurricane would be scrapped. Good job, government.

I'm coming a little late to this one but what does a cut in next years budget have to do with a hurricane this week?

On why even an armed man at the door wouldn't have gotten everyone out of N.O. before the water came.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wicked_wish/582898.html

Thank you, hoochie. That was a good read.

It also provided me with a link that I've been sorely missing: evidence that Bush has spent money supposed to have been used on disaster relief and funneled it into Iraq. Now, granted, this is a link to a blog, but the Times-Picayune, I have discovered, does not keep its archives online that I can find. Therefore, barring further information, this is the best I have to offer.

As for your question, Bobby, next year's budget cut doesn't affect today's hurricane relief. However, as the budget cut was approved back in June before the hurricane, I offer this as evidence that people don't take something like this seriously until its too late.

Katerin, I bet you that the story you linked to ends up being false and turns into an other conspiracy that the fringes use. One flaw in the link is that the President does not control the budget, congress does.

When the president and congress are from the same party and do it hand-in-hand Ulairi, isn't that like saying, "no corporation X didn't do it, their subsidiary did!".

Ulairi wrote:

Katerin, I bet you that the story you linked to ends up being false and turns into an other conspiracy that the fringes use. One flaw in the link is that the President does not control the budget, congress does.

Huh, kind of strange. I remember reading in the Times-Picayune last year about these budget cuts. Must be a hell of a conspiracy if it can alter my memory or travel through time.

so in 2004 the army corp of engineers was going to make it so NO could handle a Cat 5 storm for the low price of $50 million? and evil GWB spent the money on bombs or NO would be dry as a bone? yeah right. some people will believe anything if it means hating Bush a little bit more.

KaterinLHC wrote:

As for your question, Bobby, next year's budget cut doesn't affect today's hurricane relief. However, as the budget cut was approved back in June before the hurricane, I offer this as evidence that people don't take something like this seriously until its too late.

true and human nature. the real crime is that NO waited until 2005 to start a "study" to prepare for a Cat 5 storm when the problem has been known for decades. I'm sure that's Bush's fault too though

LeapingGnome wrote:

When the president and congress are from the same party and do it hand-in-hand Ulairi, isn't that like saying, "no corporation X didn't do it, their subsidiary did!".

It takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

Huh, kind of strange. I remember reading in the Times-Picayune last year about these budget cuts. Must be a hell of a conspiracy if it can alter my memory or travel through time.

You're big on fallacies, how about the causation fallacy?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

White people find things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/p...

Black people loot things:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/4...

This has been endlessly debated on sites from Metafilter to Boing to LJ...Mountain...meet Molehill.

Here's comments by the photographer who wrote the "find" caption:

"I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items. I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. it had no doors. the water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow. I wouldn't have taken in, because I wouldn't eat anything that's been in that water. But I'm not homeless. (well, technically I am right now.)"

More info at this thread on Sportsshooter.com.

Ulairi wrote:

You're big on fallacies, how about the causation fallacy?

Eh? You mean it was only a correlation that I read an article in the paper about Federal funding being removed at the same time Federal funding was removed? I suppose that is true; the article in no way caused the budget cuts. Look at that vice-versa, of course, and you'll have a much harder time convincing me.

Speaking of Fallacies (strawmen, in particular)

BobbyLaw wrote:

so in 2004 the army corp of engineers was going to make it so NO could handle a Cat 5 storm for the low price of $50 million? and evil GWB spent the money on bombs or NO would be dry as a bone? yeah right. some people will believe anything if it means hating Bush a little bit more.

KaterinLHC wrote:

As for your question, Bobby, next year's budget cut doesn't affect today's hurricane relief. However, as the budget cut was approved back in June before the hurricane, I offer this as evidence that people don't take something like this seriously until its too late.

true and human nature. the real crime is that NO waited until 2005 to start a "study" to prepare for a Cat 5 storm when the problem has been known for decades. I'm sure that's Bush's fault too though :-)

The Corps has been working on this problem since the 60's. Louisiana has been trying to get appropriate funding for decades. The Feds decided there were more important things to spend money on, and took it away. Dress it up however you want, money is being filtered from local programs into international affairs every day.

*edit, cause it's not really worth it*

It's not the fault of the administration alone, but they share the blame for lacking the forsight to spend money on domestic affairs.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

The Corps has been working on this problem since the 60's. Louisiana has been trying to get appropriate funding for decades. The Feds decided there were more important things to spend money on, and took it away. Dress it up however you want, money is being filtered from local programs into international affairs every day.

none of which would have changed the situation in NO today one bit.

Eh? You mean it was only a correlation that I read an article in the paper about Federal funding being removed at the same time Federal funding was removed? I suppose that is true; the article in no way caused the budget cuts. Look at that vice-versa, of course, and you'll have a much harder time convincing me.

It isn't with the article but the logic behind saying that Bush is responsible for what happened, because of the budget cuts. For one, any cut in the budgets falls on congress and the president, nothing can happen unless they both sign up. Even though the Republicans control congress it still requires a super majority to pass a budget and congressmen and senators are very good at porking up for their states. Also, I haven't seen any evidence that the extra money would have stopped what happened, the city is very old. There is plenty of blame to pass around on multiple federal and state agencies and governments.

Pigpen: what others already mentioned, basically, specifically to LA.
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.

Bobbylaw beat me to it, but this article has literally nothing to do with the current situation.

The Corps has been working on this problem since the 60's. Louisiana has been trying to get appropriate funding for decades. The Feds decided there were more important things to spend money on, and took it away. Dress it up however you want, money is being filtered from local programs into international affairs every day.

*edit, cause it's not really worth it*

It's not the fault of the administration alone, but they share the blame for lacking the forsight to spend money on domestic affairs.

Why exactly is it my responsibility in Atlanta to pay for building dams in New Orleans? This is not a Federal problem. This is a state and local problem. And the money wasn't 'diverted' into 'international affairs'. That is patently ridiculous. Not spending money that they shouldn't spend is not 'diverting'. And given that Federal spending has topped $20,000 per household, I would argue that the administration is spending entirely too much money on domestic programs.

On a positive note, I heard from Grumpy, and he and his family are safe and in Alabama.

BobbyLaw wrote:
DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

The Corps has been working on this problem since the 60's. Louisiana has been trying to get appropriate funding for decades. The Feds decided there were more important things to spend money on, and took it away. Dress it up however you want, money is being filtered from local programs into international affairs every day.

none of which would have changed the situation in NO today one bit.

A few thousand dollars and few feet of mud and concrete and maybe a thousand more people would be alive right now, and a million people wouldn't be homeless and out of work. This was a known problem, and appropriate steps weren't taken on both the State and Federal levels, for a variety of reasons.

Bobby, I see you doing nothing but being contrary for the sake of being contrary. If you have an argument, or counter-argument to make, then make it. Maybe nothing would have been changed had the administration taken this known threat more seriously. Maybe everything would have changed. Maybe the storm would have happened several years from now, after the funding would have gone to good use, and the city would be saved. The Federal government, among many others, made a mistake, and we got a very clear demonstration of why protecting our largest port needs to be taken seriously.

Regardless, this is a stupid, stupid conversation right now. People are still floating on broken bits of their houses, and the areas surround Louisiana is about to get a million refuges. If people want to point fingers and jump on the same old tired partisan lines, fine. It's going to get political, real soon, obviously. And just like with every other event of significance in the last few years, the facts will drown like so many houses as people pick sides and fight and whine and forget why they're fighting in the first place, and forget the lessons which should have been learned instead. At some point, it's really got to stop. I have nothing left to contribute to this thread except lots and lots of anger and frustration, and the site has been too good to me to deserve that.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Why exactly is it my responsibility in Atlanta to pay for building dams in New Orleans?

Because you live in the United States, and if concern for your fellow man isn't enough reason, then concern for one of the most important economic centers in the world should be enough. If New Orleans goes, so does the economy. But we've already talked about that, I guess. And lets not forget about Mississippi, either.

Where does your concern for your fellow Americans begin? Do you start caring after the hurricane hits and people have died, or do you start caring before the deaths begin? I get really frustrated reading things like "Why should I pay for New Orleans mistakes?" because, like it or not, we are all part of the same country, and so what affects people in one region affects us all. That insular attitude really stings me right now, especially when there are still people I know and care about yet unaccounted for. Our federal funding is helping the emergency relief in these states (even though that funding has been cut in recent years). And honestly, I can think of no better use for our federal dollars than helping to fix dams in our own country, rather than financing more bloodshed thousands of miles away.

*edit: And as usual, Drunkensleipnir puts me to shame. Ditto the above post.

fix dams in our own country, rather than financing more bloodshed thousands of miles away.

Or in other words:
Teenage boys eat lots of chocolate.
Teenage boys have acne.
Therefore, chocolate causes acne

Not fixing dams and fighting a war are not mutually exclusive. It is responsibility of the state first to fix their dams, that whole federalism concept. Billions are spent on pork every year and I think that waste would be a better target if you want more support.

A few thousand dollars and few feet of mud and concrete and maybe a thousand more people would be alive right now, and a million people wouldn't be homeless and out of work. This was a known problem, and appropriate steps weren't taken on both the State and Federal levels, for a variety of reasons.

Again, that is how the process works. It takes years to start and complete the projects that would be required to have made this situation better. There hasn't been any proof that the budget cuts (if the report turns out to be true) would have made any difference. All the conjecture in the world will not make it so.

Because you live in the United States, and if concern for your fellow man isn't enough reason...

None of that has anything to do with my tax dollars. Not one bit of it. Concern for my fellow man is and should be addressed through charitable donations. I donated and gave blood to the Red Cross after 9/11. I donated again after the Tsunami. And I donated yesterday. I give money to several charities. That is my choice on how I spend my money. It is not the job of the Federal Government to take money from me and give it away. Period. I understand your concern for your friends/relatives/whoever, but that doesn't change the fact that charity is best done privately. When you rely on the government to help those who need it, you don't practice benevolence yourself.

In politics, throwing the taxpayers' money at disasters is supposed to show your compassion. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is not compassion.

...then concern for one of the most important economic centers in the world should be enough. If New Orleans goes, so does the economy. But we've already talked about that, I guess.

Ships will be diverted to other ports. Pipelines will be restored. The impact on the entire economy will be a hiccup, while the long term impact on New Orleans will be huge. I am not trying to minimize the damage to New Orleans, but the economy will be just fine.

Where does your concern for your fellow Americans begin? Do you start caring after the hurricane hits and people have died, or do you start caring before the deaths begin?

I don't even know how to respond to this question. I have a neighbor whose wife was killed by a drunk driver recently. Did you care about her before she died, or did you wait to care until after? See? Does that make any sense?

I get really frustrated reading things like "Why should I pay for New Orleans mistakes?" because, like it or not, we are all part of the same country, and so what affects people in one region affects us all.

New Orleans could have imposed tariffs on goods that went through its port to pay for the needed improvements. It didn't do that because it knew that adding additional costs to cargo going through its port would eventually lead to those shippers using a different, cheaper port. Which doesn't make it a problem that my tax dollars needed to be spent on.

That insular attitude really stings me right now, especially when there are still people I know and care about yet unaccounted for.

I hope they are all safe.

Our federal funding is helping the emergency relief in these states (even though that funding has been cut in recent years). And honestly, I can think of no better use for our federal dollars than helping to fix dams in our own country, rather than financing more bloodshed thousands of miles away.

Yeah, I disagree with that as well. I have no problem with spending my tax dollars in an effort to create a stable democracy in the Middle East. That is a national security issue, and the 'national' part of that label justifies the use of Federal monies.

Disaster relief should be handled by insurnace, not taxes. It is criminal that people build in the known, regular path of natural disasters and then expect people in other parts of the country to foot the bill. If you choose to build/live in an at-risk location, you should have to pay for the insurance to cover the costs of the risks you are taking.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

If people want to point fingers and jump on the same old tired partisan lines, fine.

you mean by posting links to nonsense articles blaming the devastation in NO on the Iraq war and Bush/ I agree no one should be doing that right now.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

A few thousand dollars and few feet of mud and concrete and maybe a thousand more people would be alive right now, and a million people wouldn't be homeless and out of work. This was a known problem, and appropriate steps weren't taken on both the State and Federal levels, for a variety of reasons.

now that is being contrary for no sake but its own. are you an engineer? do you build levees? then you saying that a few feet would make any difference is a whole lot of "maybe" with no knowledge to back it up. I can tell your frustrated but the cat 5 infrastructure changes would have taken tens and maybe hundreds of millions of dollars and years, and it wasn't until this year that they even had a study on the table to plan for this kind of project.

NO hasn't had the infrastructure to handle a cat 5. this has been known for decades.the idea that starting in 2004 budget cuts by bush stopped this from magically being fixed is ignorant and offensive. you would think when people are dead and homeless and suffering people would be able to set aside purely partisan finger pointing (especially when the most basic common sense would refute it) but apparently some reflexes are hard to stop.

I don't like some of the personal insinuations made in this thread on both "sides" of the issue, especially considering the topic at hand. Cut the BS or stay out of the discussion please.

Disaster relief should be handled by insurnace, not taxes.

Don't worry JMJ, the Fed's will be bailing out the insurance companies once they cry poverty after this. So it does not matter as long as the Fed's have zero fiscal discipline.

It is criminal that people build in the known, regular path of natural disasters and then expect people in other parts of the country to foot the bill. If you choose to build/live in an at-risk location, you should have to pay for the insurance to cover the costs of the risks you are taking.

Amen sir! But then we have to open the door to Health Insurance rates and people living dangerous/unhealthy lifestyles, Car insurance and people buying death traps for vehicles (SUV's as en example as people are not trained to drive those things). And I do not mean the modest adjustments that happen now I mean make it drastic to curb this behaviour. I would love to see it all happen.

Well, since BobbyLaw mentioned it - I am an engineer

But, back to the topic at hand. We need to divest our concern for the victims of this tragedy from the discussion. I'm here to say that I doubt anyone here wishes anything but good prayers and thoughts for the victims and those families affected. I'd say most of us know someone or have relatives affected - I know I do. So please all, don't take posts as infering a callous attitude to the victims. The gist of this post is separate, wrt local, state and fed gov't responsibility to the disaster. Fair enough?

First, The Corps of Engineers - how many of you have worked closely with the Corps on large projects? Well, I have - and I'm here to tell you they waste money like there is no tomorrow. And they are slow. Their 'pay me full, upfront for your project' makes it tough, and their solutions aren't always the right ones. Me, I prefer to define the issue, hire private firms, and get the project done quicker and cheaper...a lot cheaper. Now, you toss in the inference to money - well, I'm here to tell you that diverting money from FEMA or not has ZERO impact on what happened, and has NO impact wrt cutting the Corps budget in that locale. If I'm paying someone 1,000 a month to keep my garden, and my garden looks like crap with weeds and such after a year - guess what, I'm cutting their pay and looking at other options.

Which brings me to second - Fed gov't - I make this point again - the Fed gov't responsibility is to regulate interstate commerce and provide national defense. Thats is. Welfare - nope, Social Security - nope, COE emergency planning - limited, etc... JMJ mentioned it spot on. Charities and private means are the way to go. NO could have been proactive for what they new was imminent decades ago - but they didn't - they pointed to the Feds and played the poor begger. Doesn't cut it. Everyone does that - we have a huge coastline if you didn't notice. Add in California and their disasters, etc. Do you hear Key West asking the Feds to build a 35 foot seawall? Nope - they plan and build accordingly, and move on. NO local and the state share all the burden here - not Fed tax dollars.

I too am not a fan of the bailouts. I agree - you live in a high risk area - pay the insurance premiums - otherwise, time to move. I just can't see putting tax dollars time and again to people who willingly live in the high risk areas. It would be akin to someone smoking 3 packs a day being a heavy drinker, and then I have to foot the tax bill for his full care when he gets sick...just doesn't make sense to me. (Doesn't mean I wouldn't take care of him...but that is my option through charity, not taxes.)

New Orleans could have imposed tariffs on goods that went through its port to pay for the needed improvements.

NO is a critical cog in the US economy - but the pipelines will be back up soon, and offshore oil really doesn't apply that much to the city of NO. And if NO had wanted, they could have solved this problem long ago. Make the pumps waterproof, protect the generators in massive concrete bunkers, build a longer pipeline to an alternate pumping location, fortify the levees, raise the levee's with concrete barriers, etc... Again, please don't infer I don't care about NO or its people, just that this was a lack of caring at the local and state level, a lack of vision and foresight for the inevitable. This is in no way a fault at the fed level, for Bush, or Clinton, or any pres in the past 40 years.

*EDIT*

Don't worry JMJ, the Fed's will be bailing out the insurance companies once they cry poverty after this. So it does not matter as long as the Fed's have zero fiscal discipline.

On the first Mayfield...very true. Just not sure how that relates to the second point?

**EDIT**
And very glad to hear Grumps is ok

OK - another point I left out - but too long for a double edit - LOOTING.

Someone mentioned how my 'shooting looters' policy was heartless. Here's why. The headline from CNN right now is Mayhem disrupts evacuation.

What happens with looters is you let them start small, the local grocery, the walmart, etc. Next, you now have armed gangs trying to break into the children's hospital, and roving the streets taking everything they can, imposing their own law. Thats the point. You let them take some, and next you hit the road to anarchy.

I'm sorry, and yes, you have to temper it - you don't shoot the lady carrying baby formula - but in martial law, you lock down the city. You see looters, its time to shoot and deal with the ramifications later. Because without that imposed hard order, you cause more death and destruction in the long run.