Thank you Reason.
You said what I was trying to say!!!!!!
While this was a natural disaster, I THINK, the president's response was a little too slow. But that is just my opinion!
So...here's a hypothetical:
You're in charge. What does a rebuilt New Orleans look like? Does it get rebuilt? Like before of different?
If it were me....New Orleans gets rebuilt as a large wetlands area.
Thank you Reason.
You said what I was trying to say!!!!!!
While this was a natural disaster, I THINK, the president's response was a little too slow. But that is just my opinion!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It makes NO sense to rebuild anything unless they completely revamp the leveee system, restore wetlands, and build homes that can withstand strong storms.Originally posted by Jumper69:
So...here's a hypothetical:
You're in charge. What does a rebuilt New Orleans look like? Does it get rebuilt? Like before of different?
If it were me....New Orleans gets rebuilt as a large wetlands area.
Many people are not going to return to New Orleans. The city should adjust and downsize accordingly.
As people ponder the future of New Orleans, keep in mind that the city is sinking. When the French Quarter was built in the early 1700's it was 9 feet above sea level. It is now 5 feet above sea level.
Not sure of the source...
Bush's Hurricane Response a Disaster
Nearly five years ago, the Bush administration rode into office bearing its cynicism about government high, like a banner.
It promoted a massive tax cut as a way of "starving the beast" of federal government. President Bush traveled the country telling us that we were overdependent on the government for help with healthcare and retirement. To those wondering what resources might see them into old age, he advised: "a conservative mix of stocks and bonds."
New Orleans is, or should be, the graveyard of the conservative ideology that government is useless. An American city is reduced to Third World desperation as people who own nothing scrounge for necessities in a sea of waste and federal officials offer lame excuses about how their disaster plans would have worked fine had there not been, you know, a disaster. The president, at the head of a global power that can't get its own troops or supplies off their bases to reach the needful, whines, "The private sector needs to do its part."
This deplorable performance has deep roots. Joe M. Allbaugh, a Bush campaign hack without any crisis management experience who was named director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, disparaged federal disaster assistance as "an oversized entitlement program" before Congress in 2001. The public's expectations of government in a disaster situation, he said, "may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." He advised stricken communities to rely for help on "faith-based organizations ? like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service."
If Allbaugh were not an amateur, he would have known that communities, "faith-based organizations" and the private sector become overwhelmed by disasters more modest than this one. In a crisis the federal government should be the first responder, not the last, to take charge, not wait to be asked.
Cynicism on such a scale is self-perpetuating. Determined to portray government as little but an intrusion into people's lives, this gang made it irrelevant to hundreds of thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina ? thus giving them, and us, good reason to be cynical after all.
The federal officials assigned to New Orleans have displayed an appalling combination of arrogance and ignorance. Thursday evening on NPR, I heard Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees FEMA, dismiss reports of thousands of refugees trapped at the New Orleans convention center for days without sustenance. He called the reports, in so many words, "rumors and anecdotes."
Informed that an NPR reporter had been on the scene, he sniffed, "I can't argue with you about what your reporter tells you." Later, his staff called back to say that he had "received a report confirming the situation" and that he was now "working tirelessly" to get food to the location.
At a news conference that day, FEMA Director Michael Brown, Allbaugh's successor and college chum, attributed the death toll in New Orleans "to people who did not heed evacuation warnings." Insensitive to the truth that many of the stranded had no way of responding to the warnings ? no money, no transport out of the city and nowhere to go ? he blamed them for having failed to prepare any better than, well, the federal government.
He also described security in the city, where snipers were firing on rescue boats and a mob beat back police trying to impose order at the convention center, as "pretty darn good." The image of lawlessness, he said, was fomented by those willing to "stick a camera" in front of "bad people."
The Bush administration is not alone in having ignored pleas to improve the hurricane and flood defenses of New Orleans. But it bears sole responsibility for a crisis response that has been fairly labeled a national disgrace. FEMA drafted an action plan for a New Orleans flood: pre-position food, supplies and hospital ships for immediate deployment in the aftermath. Brown and Chertoff failed to implement it adequately, pleading that no one could have anticipated a disaster that had in fact been anticipated by engineers, geographers and political leaders for decades. As I write, the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort remains moored in Baltimore, not to arrive off New Orleans until the end of this week.
President Bush will surely feel the consequences of his dereliction. Every policy of his administration will be viewed through the prism of the debacle of New Orleans. The pursuit of a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, supported by manipulated intelligence, has sucked billions out of the treasury and removed more than 30% of Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard members from their homes, so they must watch the disaster unfold from half a world away instead of assisting their own communities. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been financed by budget cuts
for disaster preparedness and other crucial programs. Four years of anti-terrorism planning have failed to produce a competent system for mitigating a metropolitan cataclysm ? one that, on the ground, is indistinguishable from the effects of the terrorist attack we've supposedly been girding for since 9/11.
Then there's Bush's sustained assault on social insurance programs such as Social Security, safety nets that are to be replaced by the slogan "You're on your own."
New Orleans is not a local calamity; it belongs to us all, not least because it signals what to expect from this administration. If a major earthquake strikes Los Angeles or San Francisco, will President Bush wait to respond until he can conclude his vacation, as he did last week? Will his appointees express surprise at an eventuality that "no one could have predicted"?
Probably. George W. Bush is known for never admitting his mistakes. Consequently, he never learns from his mistakes. The chances are dismal that he will learn from this one. We're on our own
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Dutch are also below sea level yet when's the last time you heard of Amsterdam being flooded. Have you checked out The Netherlands system of levee's?It makes NO sense to rebuild anything unless they completely revamp the leveee system, restore wetlands, and build homes that can withstand strong storms.
They're top notch.
For all of you who think this is Bush?s fault please explain the following:
Florida did not have these issues last year, why? If you say because of George?s little brother then explain why these problems didn?t exist during Hurricane Andrew.
Why is Mississippi, which got the worst part of the storm not having these problems?
Why did we not have these problems in Alabama and Mississippi during Hurricane Ivan last year?
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind and it is spelt Governors.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ September 06, 2005 09:57 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
Oh...I have no doubt that the main fault lies with the state and local government. I just thought it was an interesting article.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't blame the governors for the slow response of the federal government. That's the federal government's fault.Originally posted by travelinman:
For all of you who think this is Bush?s fault please explain the following:
Florida did not have these issues last year, why? If you say because of George?s little brother then explain why these problems didn?t exist during Hurricane Andrew.
Why is Mississippi, which got the worst part of the storm not having these problems?
Why did we not have these problems in Alabama and Mississippi during Hurricane Ivan last year?
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind and it is spelt Governors.
<font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ September 06, 2005 09:57 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font></font>
I do think, however, that we can look at local government and see a lot of fault. For example, one report says the City of New Orleans has 2,000 school buses under water. Let's say they put 30 people on each of those buses before the storm...that's 60,000 people!
I've heard excuses from the mayor that there was no way for the city to evacuate all those people who did not have their own transportation. According to a story posted on today's Drudge Report, just 7 weeks ago, the mayor declared that those without transportation need to find it because they will be on their own.
That's a load of crap.
Regardless, after hurricane George in 1998, it was expected that a number nearing 6 figures would ride out the storm, and the federal government knew it.
IF FEMA is in the business of disaster recovery, and is fully expecting a cat 5 hurricane to bury a city, I shouldn't hear the excuse that they had no way to plan for it, or that there were no communications.
God help us all.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ September 06, 2005 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Live From Florida ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you're talking about the water problem, it's because the Gulf Coast is above sea level.Why is Mississippi, which got the worst part of the storm not having these problems?
If you're talking about the the lack of federal assistance, it WAS a problem.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks