Options
-----" Hole In The Ground " -------
Bathgate66
Posts: 15,813
Did anyone catch the New Orleans mayors choice of words concerning critics who questioned him on how long its taking to repair New Orleans ?
When questioned by a NY reporter- he said something to the effect of " You guys from NY have a huge hole in the ground for 5 years now and cant fix that... "
Being a NYer- ( we all even call it " the pit " ) and some of his ideas have a grain of merrit , it was definitely a bad choice of words and shows his lack of diplomatic skills .
When questioned by a NY reporter- he said something to the effect of " You guys from NY have a huge hole in the ground for 5 years now and cant fix that... "
Being a NYer- ( we all even call it " the pit " ) and some of his ideas have a grain of merrit , it was definitely a bad choice of words and shows his lack of diplomatic skills .
For the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES
http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES
http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Ray Nagin is the last person you want to ask about fixing New Orleans, and the first person you want to ask about destroying it.
The Army Corp of Engineers made no guarantees that the levees would withstand the forces of a hurricane. In fact, they released numerous reports over the years that largely predicted the events that followed Katrina. The levees were not adequately designed nor funded to withstand the worst that nature could throw at them.
The ignorance of the general public to those facts and the willful denial of public official to accept those facts are what caused the suffering New Orleans. Since it appears that New Orleans is going to begin anew at that same location, I can only hope the lesson has been learned. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.
"The ignorance" also seems to involve people believing that Nagin himself designed them, or even has final say over how they're maintained. Or, that they all fall under his jurisdiction in the first place. They don't. The words "New Orleans" are often used as a substitute for the entire area - suburbs and other municipalities included. If you like, I'll openly complain about where I think Nagin is failing in the post-storm city. But to put the levee failure square on his shoulders is as valid as the conspiracy theorys about the levees being blown up to save the rich folks.
Certainly! But they weren't designed or built to withstand such a storm, so I don't really see why I should blame them for it. If I leave my convertible out in the rain and it fills up with water, should I blame Porsche?
Agreed. I'm not suggesting that Ray Nagin should be out there rebuilding levees, nor am I saying that he should have even fixed the old ones. I am suggesting that Ray Nagin should have known that those levees were going to fail in a serious storm and should have understood his responsibility to have a plan for such an event.
Agreed. But you're the one who brought up the levees, not me.
How about if your Porsche outright leaks with a metal body? You have got to be kidding me about this. It would make sense to build things that will withstand the weather. Not blame a mayor after the fact. But the twin towers were built to withstand airplanes hitting them. Queue up the excuse just not that type of plane. Not the fact that the president had fair warning. Actually now I see what you are saying. Makes perfect sense.
Then I'll blame Porsche, because what they're selling me carries a promise to not fail in such a way.
I'm not blaming the mayor for the levees breaking. I'm blaming the mayor for ignoring the warnings that the levees would break given to him by the people who built them and for failing to plan accordingly.
No. They were built to withstand small aircraft hitting them, not passenger jets.
Yes, except it's not an "excuse", it's a fact.
Fair warning of what? Katrina? Yes, the president had access to the same information that Ray Nagin did. And he failed in the same way Ray Nagin did. But I don't consider local disaster relief a primary responsibility of the Federal Government, I consider it a primary responsibility for the State government and in the case of a metropolitan area that generates billions in tax revenue every year a primary responsibility of the city. Hence Ray Nagin as the largest among many culprits.
I want to be here the day California gets rocked with a doozy of an earthquake to read the "they shouldn't be living there" line. Not wishing an earthquake on anybody, but just to read the line.
I can't understand why updating the levees was NOT the #1 priority in NO. I realize that Nagin did not design the levees, but at the very least the NO & Louisiana govt should have had a disaster plan in place. Hell, there wasn't even transportation available for the poor to evacuate the city to escape the impending storm. Also, some people have to learn the hard way that sometimes you have to spend money on the front end (updating the levees) to prevent spending a helluva lot more money on the back end, and more importantly to protect the well-being of the people.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You're right, in hindsight some things should have been done differently. The Superdome, for example, was meant to house people for two or three days, tops. Same with the Convention Center. Nagin should never have assumed the "calvalry would arrive," as he put it. While it's absolutely deplorable and, in my opinion, criminal that they didn't - Nagin still shouldn't have assumed it. And the flooded busses? Well, for that, they were moved to an area that never flooded before. This time it did. C'est Levee.
It was the levee failure that wrecked the city - not the storm itself (and insurance companies are having a field day with this little difference - but that's another story). If the levees had held, then all those people hold up in "shelters" could have walked home the next day.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? I'm not suggesting that the people of New Orleans are at fault for living there, I'm suggesting that fault lies wherever a person ignores the consequences of living there and fails to plan accordingly.
If governors and mayors in California have absolutely no plan and are completely unready to deal with an earthquake-related disaster, of course I'll partly blame them for the fallout from that. Secondarily, I'll blame the fools who elected such representatives if the primary purpose of those representatives is to protect people.
Come on, ffg. You can't believe that after a disaster the magnitude of Katrina that the Federal govt shouldn't step in and help?!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't disagree with any of this except for the part about the "calvarly", but I do hear where you're coming from.
There is a difference between someone with money chosing to live in a region and generations of poor that happen to live in particular region. Without 'paper muscles', money, one can only plan up to a point. Those that could, did evacuate, then there were others that refused to leave and yes, that is on them. Then there were those that had no means of leaving or had sick or elderly family members they could move or leave behind. The situation is much more complicated than your statement.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I do believe that, in the case of Katrina. When we say "Federal Government", we're talking about someone living in Duluth Minnesota or Portland Maine shouldering that obligation. And I see no way to justify such an obligation.
I understand this is harsh. It's really easy to say that everyone should shoulder such a load. Justifying that responsibility, however, is not possible IMO.
Then there's the simple fact that there were human beings in dire need of assistance, but I know that doesn't carry much weight with you.
To suggest that poor people should be treated any differently than rich people in such events is to actually deny the complications that preceded such labels: something makes one man rich while something else makes a man poor. And that something else is primarily the choices made by those individuals. Therefore, treating them as equals is to ignore such choices and the inherent complexity therein.
It's fair to say that many in this country benefit from having a port there. Not sure how you justify the other 2 million people as a benefit to the rest of the nation. Furthermore, the American people have already paid for that port by paying the price for the products and services that come through that port.
It carried enough weight for me to give money willingly to support efforts there. But that's a moral choice and I will not sanction the enforcement of my or your morality on my friends, neighbors or fellow citizens.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean that justifies any blanket obligation you wish to push on part of that nation. Would it be right for Bush supporters to suggest that war dissent somehow violates the "United" in "United States"? Would it be right for someone who wishes to get an abortion to suggest that someone else should pay for her abortion because she lives in the "United States"? I think not.
The "United" in "United States" means united in purpose. And the purpose of this nation, last time I checked, was individual rights and freedoms. Blanket obligations that ignore individual will run contrary to that purpose.
Thanks. Well, tax dollars have to be spent somewhere. Might as well be within our own borders.
Certainly! But you haven't made any connection that applies to every person who is paying the price for such efforts nor is the price in any way considering the actual value.
Cool.
For what? Doing what I wanted to do, what I willfully chose to do? I didn't do it for you. I didn't do it for others in New Orleans. I did it for me. You don't owe me any thanks.
Agreed. I'm not about to suggest that the money being spent in New Orleans would be better spent in Iraq or Somalia or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that the standards of "better spent" should be left to those who earned and own that money in the first place.
Nothing that comes out of his mouth, should be given much attention.
Yes. Yes we do.
That's why I tend to vote Libertarian, if at all.
Then neither are failures like the one we saw in NO.
Yes, considering the fact that the money had no such demands or expectations attached to it.
Yeah it is. Hopefully it will be spent properly.
I give my thanks to whomever I chose. It's mine to give away, after all. If you don't want it, you can always donate it to someone else.
Once it's gone, you don't own it anymore. But this is probably one of those blockades where I theorize that one way is a better way for a society to function, and you theorize that it's another.