Re: before katrina
- From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:21:21 GMT
"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.61.0608310654420.12929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Jean Smith" <gotermite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gotermite-23BCEA.14454030082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <wr4Jg.19612$YC3.10974@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.61.0608291009040.15918@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Fred Ghadry wrote:
The rather ridiculous answer is provided in another thread discussing
the centralization of government responsibility and power at the
federal level and the abdication of their responsibilities by state
and local governments.
I would say that it is an "abdication" of the federal government, when
there is no meaning to the word "mandatory evacuation". What the words
means is the "government" really really want you to evacuate, but if you
do not evacuate, that is your choice. And then of course, we expect the
"Government" to go in and bail out those who did not obey the mandatory
evacuation order.... But to be fair, "if" the government really meant
what they said, i.e. you MUST evacuate, then it is also their
responsibility to provide the means for everyone to evacuate.
No. They can enforce the order at a local level. The police should have
come in afterwards and picked up the deadheads.
Well, yes, they "can" enforce the order, but the fact is they do not enforce
the order. So, what significance is it to say that they "can" enforce the
order at the local level? Besides, I thought you just said in another part
of this thread that was a federal responsibility....care to explain what I
see as an inconsistency in the two statements?
Once the mind-set is established that the Feds are going to solve
every problem, the locals can convincingly shrug and say "Hey, it's
not my job!".
No. The plan is there for the feds to do their part.
And the "feds" would have a much easier job if there was some meaning to the
words "mandatory evacuation". If there was no one in the city, you do not
have to worry about spending the time and effort to rescue the ones who stay
in the city.
If the "evacuation plan" removes everyone from the city, what is the
federal responsibility?
No government was prepared to remove everyone from the city. These folks
discuss that:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/5/S2/S396 The
scene at the Superdome was planned as I read the above.
And that is the basic problem, i.e. no one is prepared to even have plans to
remove everyone from the city. The Superdome is not my idea of evacuating a
city.
Which is the key reason we had the problem. No one HAD TO evaculate if
they did not want to, and SOME could not evacuate even if they wanted to.
The real problem is that when the Mayor gives the mandatory order that
late, then it is difficult for other agencies to act. But if they are
prepared, then the evacuation can still happen. Many left prior to the
order. The stragglers could still have been moved if the feds were
prepared.
Come on, you cannot be serious. We have all seen where state government has
issue so-called "mandatory evacuation orders" where some choose to ignore
those orders. But I would agre with the statement that "if" they give a
mandatory order to late, then obviously not everyone is going to be able to
get out of Dodge. You keep blaming the feds, what about all those school
buses we all saw on TV, up to the hub caps in water, still sitting in the
parking areas? Are you saying that was a federal responsibility?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: before katrina
- From: Alvin E. Toda
- Re: before katrina
- Prev by Date: Re: before katrina
- Next by Date: Re: Lived in Texas - You will get it!
- Previous by thread: Re: before katrina
- Next by thread: Re: before katrina
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
