Will New Orleans be abandoned/politics of Huricane Katrina [mega merged thread]

TomF

For an interesting and informative article on the media spin on the New Orleans disaster, take a look at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4797

I think it exposes the tendency of the media to go for the controversy, and to grab for headlines and outrage rather than to work to understand. Reporting what was done right doesn't increase viewership or readership and so is ignored.

Here's a thumbnail summary of the article's points:

"Reality #1: A very high percentage of the population of New Orleans and surrounding low lying areas were successfully evacuated before the hurricane hit.

Reality #2: The basic major media premise all week has been that the 20% who were left behind were all black, and poor and the rich got out of town. This is simply put, nonsense – and racist.

Reality #3: The destruction from the storm affected far more whites than blacks. This is the ultimate answer to the racism charge that Bush did not do enough because the victims were black.

Reality #4: There were many victims of the storm this week that the media largely ignored.

Reality #5: The lawlessness in New Orleans was more of the same for a city that has always had a very high crime rate.

Reality #6: There were enough National Guard forces in the region and nation when the hurricane and flood hit, and [the U.S.] commitment in Iraq did not prevent an adequate response by the Guard.

Reality #7: While the news media have focused on a few modest appropriation cuts for New Orleans levees and water control, they have largely ignored the fact that the major reconstruction project that would provide more than a temporary fix to the city’s sinking condition, has been stalled for years.

The mythology on Katrina is now out there: only blacks were victims, Bush ignored the city because of this, the levees broke because of Bush budget cuts, the response was inadequate because the National Guard was in Iraq. In all case, these are new urban legends.

For some, what happened this week is a big plus. It has weakened the President politically, and that is all that matters."

seedot

Site also has this healing little ditty:

THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS
(after lyrics by Jimmy Driftwood, sung by Lonnie Donegan)

In August ’05 we took a little trip
Volunteers and Guardsmen down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans And we caught the bloody looters in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the looters kept a’comin.
There wasn’t nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin’ on down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We coudn’t see no cops and we couldn’t see no mayor But we saw their badges lying where they threw ’em in the sewer We passed by Governor Blanco and the victims on the roofs We saw all the results of the politicians’ goofs

We fired our guns and the looters kept a’comin.
There wasn’t nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin’ on down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.



.......


so thats the sort of bipartisan, objective, calming analysis that the US needs at this moment.

mike65

Bob Geldof speaking on RTE this morning made an observation which I had'nt considered about how the timing of Katrina and the reaction to it at home has proberly made it harder to keep the USA onside for Africas problems. There's a UN meeting shortly to push the Live 8/debt drop buisness along.

He suspects too many Americans will start to ask why they should spend money "over there" when its needed in the Gulf coast now. He noted they have more than enough to do both.

Mike.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

"Reality #1: A very high percentage of the population of New Orleans and surrounding low lying areas were successfully evacuated before the hurricane hit.

I wasn't aware that anyone was denying that. What seems to be questioned is the handling of those who were unable to get away.

Reality #2: The basic major media premise all week has been that the 20% who were left behind were all black, and poor and the rich got out of town. This is simply put, nonsense – and racist.

I haven't seen a single media article make such a claim. I've seen a lot claim that a large majority were black and poor, which appears to be true.

Reality #5: The lawlessness in New Orleans was more of the same for a city that has always had a very high crime rate.

But thats exactly the point. If you have a city with a high crime rate which you're evacuating, you know that lawlessness is a highly probable outcome. The question is why nothing was done in advance about this issue, but merely in reaction to it.

Reality #6: There were enough National Guard forces in the region and nation when the hurricane and flood hit, and [the U.S.] commitment in Iraq did not prevent an adequate response by the Guard.

Which the article then goes on to "explain" by numbering those who've been brought into the region from the rest of the nation several days after events broke. While I don't subscribe to blaming the presence in Iraq, there is a question as to why there was nothing but reaction to what for days looked like a force 5 storm heading directly for NO. Why wasn't there proaction - assembling of troops, etc. so that they'd be ready to roll the moment the storm passed if not sooner?

Reality #7: While the news media have focused on a few modest appropriation cuts for New Orleans levees and water control, they have largely ignored the fact that the major reconstruction project that would provide more than a temporary fix to the city’s sinking condition, has been stalled for years.

I've seen plenty of media discussing the major reconstruction projects. However, Bush is no less to blame for not instituting this than any other President, so simply saying "well Clinton didn't do it either" doesn't really get him off the hook.

If Clinton was in power, or daddy Bush or whoever, there'd be equal criticism. The guy in power when the disaster hit has spent over one full term in office not addressing the problem, and as the only President currently in office, he is the only one who can be held accountable.

There's a load of other stuff in the article I'd question - such as the assertion that the hundreds of school buses not being used for evacuation was something that couldn't be blamed on FEMA. I thought FEMA's entire purpose was the centralised management of such large-scale emergencies. Surely they are exactly who should have been making such decisions and taking such actions?

For some, what happened this week is a big plus. It has weakened the President politically, and that is all that matters.

One could just as easily claim that for some, successfully defending the President from any blame is all that matters. It would be just as misleading and just as true.

jc

amacachi

i cant really see why bush would give a **** about taking the blame for this, as long as it doesnt put him out of office (and i really cant see that it would) he's finished in just over 3 years anyway.

all i can say about the news reports implying that most people left behind were black, 84% of those below the poverty line in New Orleans are black, and i think its fairly safe to presume it was mostly the poor who didnt get out, and therefore that it was mostly black people who didnt get out.

Zynks

amacachi wrote:

...as long as it doesn't put him out of office (and i really cant see that it would).

Imagine you are an American and you see your government not only failing its people again, but also showing an arrogant level of disregard (such as the secretary of Homeland Security saying it is the fault of the refugees/evacuees/american citizens themselves if they didn't leave), and now they are being humiliated by enemies states and some of the poorest countries in the world offering aid, I find it hard for Americans to accept it quietly. I am not sure if America has a mechanism such as parliamentary votes of no-confidence, but if they do, it is a clear possibility I suspect...

amacachi

Zynks wrote:

Imagine you are an American and you see your government not only failing its people again, but also showing an arrogant level of disregard (such as the secretary of Homeland Security saying it is the fault of the refugees/evacuees/american citizens themselves if they didn't leave), and now they are being humiliated by enemies states and some of the poorest countries in the world offering aid, I find it hard for Americans to accept it quietly. I am not sure if America has a mechanism such as parliamentary votes of no-confidence, but if they do, it is a clear possibility I suspect...

if there was a vote on it in either house bush would win as he has the majority, the republican party would not put him out of office.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

For an interesting and informative article on the media spin on the New Orleans disaster, take a look at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4797

Spin is right. Where did he pull his figures from? Out of his ass? For example his numbers escaped don't add up and there were only a few national guard when the trouble started.

TomF

The words in this article,

"But it is the lot of cities to host the poorest and most hardened of citizens, those most accustomed and most disposed to violence, those with the least stake in the sustenance of public order and the safety of their fellow man."

make you think, "What if a natural disaster of some kind happened in a city like Dublin?" What in the world would we do in this country? You think of neighbourhoods in Limerick, Derry and Belfast, too.

No Orleans
By James G. Poulos
Published 9/7/2005 12:08:49 AM


Then ladder of failure towering over the inundated deprivation of New Orleans is jammed with bodies. An indictment against humanity hangs from every rung. The social dregs too stupid, too wasted, or too vicious to flee the city with nearly a week's worth of advance warning; the local authorities, too paralyzed to stop a cascade of barbarity before it spiraled out of control; the mayor, cracked and broken and raving over midnight radio; the feds, struggling to establish command and control while the true victims, those too sick or too old or too young to escape, watch as predators and mobs eclipse their future.

The ladder of failure blots out the sun, and our illusions -- about American urban togetherness, about disaster management, about the thickness of that line between adversity and apocalypse -- wink out with it. New Orleans ranks number eight on the list of most dangerous American cities, behind metropolises like Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Among populations of a half million, one can add Baltimore, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, and Phoenix to the list. The center that does not hold in New Orleans has been rotting away for years, along with the other pillars of order propping up our other, more violent cities. And any mass disaster that hits even one of them in the way New Orleans has been hit will unleash identical forces in near-identical ways.

A lot of social phenomena can be decried, and a raft of hopeful and expensive solutions sailed down the Mississippi or the Potomac or one of any number of rivers. But it is the lot of cities to host the poorest and most hardened of citizens, those most accustomed and most disposed to violence, those with the least stake in the sustenance of public order and the safety of their fellow man. What is true of ghettoes in Europe and favelas in Brazil and the corrugated megashanties lining the Gulf of Guinea in West Africa is true of the cracked-out ruins of Baltimore and the wretched remains of once-thriving downtowns of the postindustrial Rust Belt: the breakdown of civilization which happens day in and day out in dribs and drabs of murder and thuggery can no longer be swept under the rug or held back with sandbags or retreated from to the higher ground of higher rents and higher fences.

Wd must unaccustom ourselves to the idea of major cities as sinkholes to be skirted. Like everything else, the barbarification of urban America is a national security issue -- because, like everything else, at is core national security is an issue of law and order. Americans -- the privileged and the disaffected alike -- can endure great pressures, and retain a noble spirit. But the suddenness of a breakdown in infrastructure that strips a city's people of drinking water, electricity, and security is sufficient to break the levee that keeps police in place instead of soldiers.

It is too late to prevent that damage from being done in, done to, New Orleans. But it is not too late -- yet -- to galvanize Homeland Security. It's not too late to remind some that a vast influx of illegal immigrants will only exacerbate an already dangerous propertyless, unenfranchised underclass, nor is it too late to remind others that we can no longer afford to leave Americans already here to sink or swim, en masse, on their own. The implications of New Orleans reach to every corner of American domestic policy. Unfortunate as it is, the challenge of our time is to confront and repulse the fear and consequence of random catastrophe. Never before has it been easier to touch one off by man-made means, and, now, as New Orleans has shown us, we appear singularly unprepared to deal with the human effects of disorder. Evacuation plans may work just as well in the case of a sudden attack as those that removed most people from harm's way long before Katrina made landfall -- but in every case, some will remain behind. Some will stay out of the kind of weakness that merits sympathy, others not -- but the loss, the very real and momentous loss of a major city, will remain.

Lost with it will be a tentpole of social sanity. The sound of the Mayor of New Orleans descending into sobs and profanity hurts in a way that casualties and destruction do not. The possibility that the Governor of Louisiana no longer knows what day it is sends a ribbon of fear up the spine. Things coming out of people's mouths give off the flat shock of scenes out of zombie movies, out of Stephen King's monumental end-times novel The Stand -- cops telling tourists to 'go to hell,' state representatives insisting "this is not a game," congressional representatives announcing their shame for America. The local violence -- the rapes, the beatings, the sniping at rescue trucks and helicopters -- has already been catalogued in haunting detail; what lingers is the otherworldly closeness one feels to the unhinged and worsening doom that has been the subject of American pop fantasy and fetish in novels and movies since Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Night of the Living Dead. Stepping into that psychic world will transfix and traumatize the national conscience at a time when its focus and discipline is needed most.

And that, more so than ten billions of emergency relief dollars, than four months of emptiness in New Orleans or tens of thousands of National Guards' deployment in the streets of their own country, is something we cannot afford."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8702

Hobbes

Your not supposed to quote a whole article, and your not supposed to post an article unless you comment on it. Read the charter.

And that, more so than ten billions of emergency relief dollars, than four months of emptiness in New Orleans or tens of thousands of National Guards' deployment in the streets of their own country, is something we cannot afford."

BS. The amount being sent to Katrina effort by the US administration is a drop in the ocean of the money they have funnelled away to Iraq.

vibe666

the thing that gets me is that you hear almost as much about the oil crisis as you do about the people suffering. FFS get the people out and safe and fed and then worry about the damn oil!

okay, so I'm inconvenienced by higher fuel prices, but it's a small price to pay for saving lives. (that said, I just saw 119.9c per litre this morning!). i know oil is important economically, but if john & jane american have to budget a little more to put fuel in their 6 litre SUV to take a kids to school then so be it, as long as people don't have to die to protect it (ignoring the thousands dead in iraq for the minute).

as for the blame game, I'd love to see Dubbya's head on a stick for this, no question. he is the president of the US, and as such the running of all aspects of his country fall to him above all others.

billions of dollars have been spent over the last few years protecting the US oil interests in the middle east, and regardless of opinion on whether better maintained levees (so that's what Don Maclean was talking about taking his Chevy to!) would have prevented the disaster or at least lessened it, having the resources and all that cash to hand in this time of crisis might have made a big difference to the amount of drowned, starved and diseased americans who's deaths may have been prevented.

he's (by he, I mean his government policies) responsible for the lost jobs leaving such a high unemployment rate and hence such a high level of poverty in the whole of the US, not just NO.

he's responsible for having a large amount of US military power outside the US who could have helped in the rescue/cleanup operations.

he's responsible for not having resources ready to move at short notice close to the devasation.

and he's responsible for the lack of action in the days afterwards when people needed the most help because they were left with nothing for almost a week in worse than 3rd world conditions.

as he's so find of saying 'the buck stops here'. well george, 'you're the man', so take it like a man and take some responsibility for this mess rather than heading investigations to see who's responsible (heard him on the radio last night). maybe he's doing that because he might actually be able to find the person responsible without getting out of his chair.
[align=right]13.16.137.11[/align]

TomF

Sorry about posting the whole article. I felt a vibration in the ether that maybe it was too long to be putting on here. Won't do it again.

Another excellent article on New Orleans and the "blame-game" is at
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16515201%255E25717,00.html

This most recent article I am referring to pretty well nails the unholy haste to blame Bush for everything from the very existence of Hurricane Katrina to whatever else you feeling like blaming him for.

The author's summary is brilliant:

"But, then again, do facts really count here?

Ask only which story sells best for a Leftist media largely hostile to Bush. A story of some who-cares local official -- and a black, which is tricky -- asleep at the wheel? A story of how hard it is for even the world's greatest power to instantly cope with a colossal disaster? Of how a black underclass seems unable to look after itself?

Or would it prefer this fable of a thick and racist president who stuffed up again, like he did in Iraq? In fact, because of Iraq?

No contest. So you'll hear a lot more poisonous nonsense yet about Bush, but what's new about that?"

Calina

TomF,

the prevailing administration spin is that all fault lies with the Governor of La who didn't declare a state of emergency on time. As she declared it before the hurricane hit source: http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=973 and it took days after that before the federal apparatus managed to get its act even remotely together, can you explain to me why the buck shouldn't stop with the federal authorities who a) failed to act on the declaration of state of emergency and b) who then implied that reason they had not responded to events in Louisiana in a timely manner was because the State of Louisiana had not declared a state of emergency?

The situation as I see is that the entire US apparatus for dealing with an urban disaster - which should have been water tightened after September 11th 2001 - has been shown to be wholly inadequate in this case. Currently there seems to be a whole lot of buck passing going on and a some point, someone is going to have to sit down and nail down who was responsible for what and who failed where. And you'll have to forgive me if I say I'm not prepared to take the words of 1) newspaper journalists or 2) George Bush's own inquiry. I've read too many people point out that the White House also stated that they couldn't get in there because of the flooding at a time when just about every television station in the world could get a correspondant in there. You might well be able to forgive George Bush some transgressions but the way this was handled, I'd be expecting him to resign regardless of personal responsibility. It is his administration and it was he put the current boss of FEMA in place who has not shown himself to be remotely capable.

But that would be far too much to hope for.

TomF

I really think most left-wingers see the New Orleans disaster as a God-sent opportunity for Bush-bashing and no mistake about it. The latest I read is that the State of Louisiana department in charge of response to disasters told the Red Cross not to deliver essential supplies to the thousands of people stranded (stranded at the urging of the brilliant Mayor of New Orleans who also managed to leave hundreds of school buses to be submerged) in the big stadium. Left-wingers won't like the Internet site where the story can be read, nor the news organisation that teased-out the facts, but you can read more about it, including this "...the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come." at:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000967

President4Life

It's probably not worth rebuilding the city at its present site. Rebuild it elsewhere maybe. It's just far too risky to build an entire city below sea-level. With global-warming and rising sea levels due to the melting of the glaciers and polar ice-caps it's just fighting a losing battle to rebuild the city, and seems to me to be a reckless risk with human life to send people back there to live again.

BlitzKrieg

I am not sure if America has a mechanism such as parliamentary votes of no-confidence, but if they do, it is a clear possibility I suspect...

there are a number of mechanisms in place that can remove someone from a federal office (The governer election in california that put arnie in was a result of one such mechanism).

But they all involve (i think) the people themselves mobilizing...and knowing how polarized american life is (even after a disaster like this) i doubt it can happen.

Ladypawpaw

President4Life wrote:

It's probably not worth rebuilding the city at its present site. Rebuild it elsewhere maybe. It's just far too risky to build an entire city below sea-level. .

The reason New Orleans thrived is because it is the best location for a port connecting the Mississipi to the ocean. It has to be rebuilt because of this port.

President4Life wrote:

With global-warming and rising sea levels due to the melting of the glaciers and polar ice-caps it's just fighting a losing battle to rebuild the city, and seems to me to be a reckless risk with human life to send people back there to live again.

With that logic about half the worlds population will need to move. There is a rather nasty volcano in the Canaries. I suggest if you truly believe what you posted above you should evacuate Ireland now.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

I really think most left-wingers see the New Orleans disaster as a God-sent opportunity for Bush-bashing and no mistake about it.

Thats odd.. According to the right wings, this disaster was god-sent to kill the heathens and abortionists.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp
The pastor explains that for years he has warned people that unless Christians in New Orleans took a strong stand against such things as local abortion clinics, the yearly Mardi Gras celebrations, and the annual event known as "Southern Decadence" -- an annual six-day "gay pride" event scheduled to be hosted by the city this week -- God's judgment would be felt.

“New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again."

Oh and TomF I posted it in another thread but you can see what places *missed* FEMA funding prior to the hurricane hitting. Authorised by Bush himself.

TomF

Well, there are plenty of people out there who think it was God's Wrath that struck New Orleans, and I'd have to agree they might be ready to check into the rubber rooms just down the hall from those who think the disaster was Bush's fault.

Sponge Bob

Hobbes wrote:

According to the right wings, this disaster was god-sent to kill the heathens and abortionists.

The pastor explains that for years he has warned people that unless Christians in New Orleans took a strong stand against such things as local abortion clinics, the yearly Mardi Gras celebrations, and the annual event known as "Southern Decadence" -- an annual six-day "gay pride" event scheduled to be hosted by the city this week -- God's judgment would be felt.

Funny that I thought it was Allah and not God who 0w3Nd the Hurricane Franchise and for more mysterious reasons too.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/1/205639.shtml

It is almost certain that this is a wind of torment and evil that Allah has sent to this American empire.

Soooooo God sent a wind to cure evil and Allah sent a wind OF evil .

Hobbes

I'm sure if it was the 1970s the IRA would be taking responisbility too.

vibe666

TomF wrote:

Well, there are plenty of people out there who think it was God's Wrath that struck New Orleans, and I'd have to agree they might be ready to check into the rubber rooms just down the hall from those who think the disaster was Bush's fault.

the weather system itself was down to nature, possibly made worse by global warming (but who could ever prove that?) but the scale of the humanitarian disaster in new orleans rests firmly on the shoulders of the bush administration who did far too little to prevent it in the years before it happened, too little to prepare for the aftermath while it was happening, and way too little to save lives after it happened.

it was a federal emergency, and nobody but the federal government has more responsibility for those poor people's suffering than they do, and consequentially GWB himself as their elected leader.
[align=right]13.16.137.11[/align]

Sponge Bob

The IRA maintains a wind generating capability of simply awesome proportions as any Irish Politics Discussion Board can demonstrate day in and day out.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Left-wingers won't like ....

And once again, TomF proves the strength of his argument right at the onset.

If you disagree with Bush, its because you're a Lefty and an irrational one at that who will do anything to discredit the President.

Well done. Labelling and Name-calling is always a good way to show how logical and resilient the rest your argument is. At least you did it at the start, so we would know what to expect in the remainder....and its nice to know you don't disappoint.

but you can read more about it, including this "...the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come."

And at this point, it should be pointed uot that the DHS is a federal organisation. So this wasn't a State-managed question, but a federal one. Its also worth noting that the DHS subsumed FEMA (guess who initiated that restructuring) and it is therefore most probable that this was a FEMA directive.

In either case, its a federal department....and guess who's responsible for them? The mayor of New Orleans? The state governer? No. I didn't think so either.

FEMA, incidentally, is currently headed by a mate of Bush's campaign manager. A man who's main experience "qualifying" him for this job was....wait for it...being a lawyer for the International Arabian Horse Association. What outstanding qualifications for disaster management. Well chosen Mr. Bush, sir.

See, TomF...your article is nothing but spin. The directive was issued, yes. But it was issued by one of the federal bodies which is being lambasted left right and centre for having mis-managed the entire operation.

When one looks at why, a lot of the problems with FEMA occurred under the current administration.

- Witt as former leader of FEMA, had cabinet-level access to his President. Bush changed that by putting FEMA under the wing of his fledgling DHS, and the lack of clear lines of communication has clearly caused problems.
- FEMA, as a further consequence of being a "subordinate" of DHS has also lost some of its clearly-needed ability to act quickly, decisively, and without recourse to multiple levels of beaurocracy.
- Brown, as the new leader of FEMA had no relevaqnt experience, and has shown in spades how bad a choice Bush made in appointing this particular crony.

So your Bush defence is basically that Georgy-boy screwed FEMA up left right and centre, and they then made a haimes of the job.....so therefore its clearly none of el Presidente's fault in any way, shape or form and anyone suggesting otherwise is a bit daft.

I dunno about anyone else, but that argument and the thing we call logic seem utterly incompatible to me.

I dunno. Bush could be caught in the kitchen, with the lead pipe, splattered in blood and still swinging at the corpse, and someone would try and tell us that it was all a leftist plot to discredit him and he was only taking some exercise while thinking of what to do to alert the proper authorities to the existence of the body that clearly someone else had done in.

TomF

Colour me hugely ignorant, but Louisiana also has a Department of State, and last time I checked, it had nothing to do with Condoleeza Rice or the U.S. Department of State.

On the Internet, not terribly difficult to find, is this:
"The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens."

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/agencyrelated/aboutagency.htm

lili

TomF wrote:

Colour me hugely ignorant, but Louisiana also has a Department of State, and last time I checked, it had nothing to do with Condoleeza Rice or the U.S. Department of State.

On the Internet, not terribly difficult to find, is this:
"The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens."

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/agencyrelated/aboutagency.htm

can a state support a high depense?
i mean, haven't the buget of the civil security been reduced for 80% because money have been droped elsewhere?

lili

why didn't i get an answer? is there some americans here for answering to my question?
what is the highest budget of america?
is it normal that so much money are spent for preventive wars and pretended protection of home land when the real danger which threat americans is : desasters, poverty, lack of education...
should finally the leader of this country listen what the specialists of what i just mentionned have to say? or should he still listen the cheney's, rumsfeld's and co advices?

Hobbes

I see they have started confiscating guns from people now. Some minor spattage about the 2nd amendment.

vibe666

"the right to bear arms" apparently was a mis-spelling in the original constitution.

apparently it turns out it was supposed to be "bare arms", giving people the constitutional right to roll up their sleeves whenever they wanted.

or so I've heard on the interweb, so it must be true.

supersheep

Just a few minutes ago, Michael Brown was removed from his position overseeing the Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts. From NBC:
FEMA Chief Michael Brown Removed From Katrina Relief
Apparently, there were discrepancies between his CV and reality...
Glad they removed this fool, alhough it's probably a bit late... This is the guy who left the USS Bataan, an amphibious warfare ship with a 600 bed hospital and space for 2000 marines and their equipment, offshore for a week while people were dying in the Superdome.