An outrageous thought on the New Orleans evacuation...

[Shibby]

There are always "secret" adgendas by the government. I have been hearing about the Govener and the President were discussing what to do before the hurricane hit and things kept being put off. With NO having such a high crime and drug problem. Do you think (in a way out there kind of way) that even though there was a mandatory evac, that they didn't enforce it in a way to have an opportunity to rebuild the city and get rid of some of there social problems?

[Stonecold54]

no one will ever know but the moment people stop believing govt is the evilist form of corruption is the moment when they will win. just how would that get rid of social problems? are we talking about the dead? do they think crime is created and commited in a vaccuumm that has "limits". social problems are a symptom of govt and the interference they use so for them to think a natural disaster is going to clean up their problems actually made me smirk a bit.

[Shibby]

Now I am new at all the politics, but it was just a thought that crossed my mind. When there are this many holes in what's going on, it makes me think about the craziest stuff. Maybe since they weren't expecting it to be this bad, they saw some sort of opportuinity. But as things always do, what ever there intentions, it's kicking them in the ass.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to start another NO disaster politcal thread, more just express something that crossed my mind.

[Curls4dGirls]

social problems are a symptom of govt

How so?

[Puddles]

Shibby, yesterday I briefly had the same thought while watching some interviews on FOX. A year ago they had a dry run evacuation and they knew at that time that many couldn't or would just refuse to leave. I do believe that most of the gov't blame should be placed on a local level, not a nat'l level. The mayor and governor did not perform as well as they could have IMO.

I still think that the majority of human error in reaction to this natural disaster lays on the residents who could have left but did not and the fact that the ones who could not leave did not prepare for this emergency by having some water and food on hand (local gov't did request this of the people who could not get out and would need to use the dome as refuge however they went empty handed and expected to be taken care of).

Natural disasters are going to happen. The federal gov't is only human and can only react so fast. They began preparing for the fallout before the hurricane hit the area but as the hurricane turned it also wiped out many of their preparations delaying their reactions. Fed. assistance was not requested early enough by local gov't either and the way things work in our country, there is a chain of command where the local gov't is supposed to say they need help before the military gets involved.

[decadecadeca]

The President declared a state of emergency three days before the hurricane ever struck. The reason for that was to give the local officials the time and access to resources that declaration makes available. The President did his part, the Governor/Mayor etc...did NOT do their's.

I know the left is so filled with hatred for our President that they'll use any excuse to rail against him, but this one is really pushing the limits of sanity.

Your theory is the President conspired to deny resources necessary to aid victims of a natural disaster so that he could watch drug addicts, prostitutes and welfare recipients die?

Break out the tinfoil hat, you need help.

[Shibby]

The President declared a state of emergency three days before the hurricane ever struck. The reason for that was to give the local officials the time and access to resources that declaration makes available. The President did his part, the Governor/Mayor etc...did NOT do their's.

I know the left is so filled with hatred for our President that they'll use any excuse to rail against him, but this one is really pushing the limits of sanity.

Your theory is the President conspired to deny resources necessary to aid victims of a natural disaster so that he could watch drug addicts, prostitutes and welfare recipients die?

Break out the tinfoil hat, you need help.

I don't know the difference of what it means to be left or right.

[Puddles]

Here ya go, Shibby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_right_politics


"Today, these terms are widely used, but without any firm consensus about their meaning.

The contemporary left is usually defined as a category including social democrats, socialists and communists - and some anarchists. In the United States, liberals are also commonly thought to be on the "left", see Liberalism in the United States for more on this issue. Due to extensive pejorative use of liberal, the American center-left in the 1980s and 1990s preferred the term "progressive". The terms left and right have been coming into wider use again in the U.S. during the George W. Bush administration.

In general, left implies a commitment to social equality, support for the class interests of the less privileged, and support for a 'liberal' social policy and multiculturalism. In contrast to the original meaning of "left", the contemporary Left is usually characterized as promoting government regulation of business, commerce, and industry, and government intervention on behalf of the poor, and racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. In recent years, even some representatives of the anarchist tradition have argued that government regulation may be a lesser evil than what anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky characterizes as the "private tyranny" of the corporations.

The contemporary right in the United States is usually defined by its opposition to violations of constitutional law, removal of fundamental rights, excessive governmental regulation and income redistribution, open border immigration policies, social liberalism, and reverse discrimination. This opposition is usually either in the name of tradition (conservatism), of freedom and the rights of private individuals, and of pessimism about the benefits of governmental regulation."

[Shibby]

Here ya go, Shibby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_right_politics


"Today, these terms are widely used, but without any firm consensus about their meaning.

The contemporary left is usually defined as a category including social democrats, socialists and communists - and some anarchists. In the United States, liberals are also commonly thought to be on the "left", see Liberalism in the United States for more on this issue. Due to extensive pejorative use of liberal, the American center-left in the 1980s and 1990s preferred the term "progressive". The terms left and right have been coming into wider use again in the U.S. during the George W. Bush administration.

In general, left implies a commitment to social equality, support for the class interests of the less privileged, and support for a 'liberal' social policy and multiculturalism. In contrast to the original meaning of "left", the contemporary Left is usually characterized as promoting government regulation of business, commerce, and industry, and government intervention on behalf of the poor, and racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. In recent years, even some representatives of the anarchist tradition have argued that government regulation may be a lesser evil than what anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky characterizes as the "private tyranny" of the corporations.

The contemporary right in the United States is usually defined by its opposition to violations of constitutional law, removal of fundamental rights, excessive governmental regulation and income redistribution, open border immigration policies, social liberalism, and reverse discrimination. This opposition is usually either in the name of tradition (conservatism), of freedom and the rights of private individuals, and of pessimism about the benefits of governmental regulation."

Thanks, I still wouldn't know where I stand, I like half of both. If I had to lean in a direction I guess it would be left though.

[spidey]

OK, I am feeling lazy so I am cutting and pasting my response to a post someone made at another board about how this was Bush's fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is flat out: It was the job of the local governments of the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana to provide protection and first relief and they failed their people miserably. The Mayor of NO issued a MANDITORY evacuation order 14 hours before the storm hit and yet decided to let people stay if they so chose. Why was a MANDITORY evacuation not, well, MANDITORY? It was the Mayor's job to use city buses to evacuate the poorer people yet most of the buses sat idle until they were swamped in flood waters and useless. WHY?? Why did the governor of LA wait 3 fucking days before declaring an emergency and asking for federal help? Why did the governor of LA not activate the national guard before the storm hit in preparation to help the NO police with security. They KNEW it was going to be bad and they KNEW the police force was inadequate for the task. Why didn't the mayor make sure there was plenty of food and water stocked at the superdome in perparation for the flood of refugees they KNEW would be coming there? They had written emergency procedures that named the superdome specifically as a refuge of last resort. They knew that's where they would tell people to go; it was part of their emergency planning. So, why wasn't there food and water? Why didn't they arrange for crowd control at the superdome? Common sense tells you that with thousands of people crammed in the superdome with limited food and water and the stress that goes with losing everything they had and many of them losing loved ones that stringent croud control would be necessary to avoid whole scale chaos and violence yet that wasn't done. NONE OF THIS WAS BUSH'S FAULT OR EVEN THE FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was incompetent leadership at the state and local level.

I will say that the federal government was about 24 hours too slow to respond once they got the call though. The department of homeland security needs to be shaken up and streamlined to be a less beaurocratic, faster responding unit. That is Bush's resposibility and it remains to be seen if he will step up and do what needs to be done there. There was entirely too much red tape to wade through. Such a large, unwieldy department simply can't turn on a dime and respond the way it needs to in times of crisis. That goes for FEMA too. Some people at the tops of those departments should be fired.

[Puddles]

:bravonew:

A lot of things need to change, primarilly in their local gov't. but also on a national level.

I hope other local governments are learning from this.

Here in FL at every post office and nearly every supermarket there is litterature printed by the state telling people how to prepare for hurricanes (ie. what supplies they should have and how to find out where the evacuation routs are). Do other states do this?