Re: before katrina

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Rita wrote:

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 04:56:27 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

No. They can enforce the order [to evacuate] at a local level.
The police should have come in afterwards and picked up the

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 to explain what I see as an
inconsistency in the two statements?

The Feds need to pick up the stragglers. The police needs to take
out the refuseniks. Isn't that clear?

If the "police" takes out the refuseniks, are there going to be any
"stragglers"? And "if" there are any stragglers, which federal
agency should pick up the "stragglers"?

Jerry, it's up to the police to tell the difference. Obviously, you

No government was prepared to remove everyone from the city.
These folks discuss that:
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.

The feds took too long to respond to evacuate the dome.

The "fed"? Who put them there in the first place.

Bad planning, but the best under the circumstances. The feds didn't
respond here. That's the problem.

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.

Okay, then "if" the Mayor gave the mandatory evacuation order too
late, then it was his fault and not the fault of the federal
government that people had "difficulty" getting out of Dodge and
"other" agencies to act, which includes the federal goverment
agencies? Again, which federal agency do you propose "should have"
forced these people out of New Orleans?

Not necessarily. People still did evacuate without the order. Again
the feds move the stragglers, the cops remove the refuseniks.

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?

No the mayor gave the mandatory order. Those who could walk to the
dome did so. Those that could not, soon found themselves in the
next couple days dead or isolated on their roofs. The feds were the
only ones who could bring in busses to move the people in the
dome-- and Brownie took his own sweet time in doing so.

Staying the the city is not evacuating....why do you have such a
difficult time understanding that basic concept.

No. Walking to the Dome is in the plan for those who can walk but
can't drive. What's so difficult about that concept?

And there were those who couldn't walk to the Dome, elderly,
infirm, people with very young children who later were rescued
(or not) from their homes where they had taken to the top
floor or to the roof. Do you remember the searches of homes
where those with dead bodies were marked with the number
of dead and those with none were marked "clear"?

The fact is that most middle class people with the transportation
and the financial means got out. Some had neither of these.

It was a disaster of major scale and local resources failed. I don't
see that as being unusual given the circumstances. Outside help
took too long to arrive -- that is a fact and disputing it is just
plain silly. I think many of us put ourselves in the place of those
who were stranded, and we thought "there but for the grace of
God go I."

Even Bush says the government reponse failed the people. What
more does Jerry want?

Shields and Brooks on the Lerher Report last night had an interesting
discussion about what might have been the major failure of Katrina.
David Brooks, normally an apologist for the Bush administration, noted
that Katrina presented an opportunity to launch a major new initiative
to reduce poverty, a major reason for the scope of the disaster, IMV.
Now, a year later, there is no evidence of any new ideas on this.

Here is the text of what he said:

DAVID BROOKS: He had to do it. [referring to the reason for Bush's
visit to the region] He spent $120 billion, or at least committed $120
billion. They want to talk about it. I think to me the biggest
disappointment, not primarily to blame the president -- I blame the
Congress -- was that this was a moment for an experiment, a whole
series of social experiments, because the slate was wiped clean, so
let's see what we can do to try to create anti-poverty programs. And
that has been totally undone, not done.

There's been some aid that will be specific to New Orleans and to the
region, but as far as trying to re-imagine what you can do about
poverty, that never happened.

Don't you think if there was a solution to the perceived problem, that
there would not be a problem at all? It is a problem, it seems to me,
because we have not been abot to figure out how to solve the problem.

I think that it is more an issue of being open to ideas to solve the
problem rather than blaming the victim. I watched "The Poverty Trap" on
CNN last evening and the programs that were described are good examples
of how poverty can be addressed, not by large socialistic programs, but
by paying close attention to the people who are affected, what their
motivations are, what they are capable of, and how relatively small
amounts of money can achieve impressive results. It looks like the show
will be repeated on CNN this week. I suggest that you watch it with an
open mind.

Will try to catch the program, but I have argued for a long time the
"solution" is quite simple. Somehow convince people to at least get a
high school education, and I am willing to bet that alone will go a long
way to improving the income earning potential of a whole lot of people.
I think the statistics are pretty clear on that point. The lowest wage
earners in this country are those who have not completed high school.
How do you propose to "convince" them?

First and foremost by telling parents/caregivers that their role is
critically important and repeating that message over and over again. Then
to "help" them to know what they should be doing. Finally, to promote
policies that "help" them achieve that goal. One more thought, it would
"help" if the parents knew better what the consequences are of not getting a
good education.