Posted on 08/29/2005 12:39:10 PM PDT by Smogger
Mayor Ray Nagin said that 200 people were stranded on rooftops in the Lower Ninth Ward and several “bodies are floating in the water” in the Bywater neighborhood and in Eastover.
Nagin made the announcement in his first press briefing after Hurricane Katrina slammed just east of the city, but did plenty of devastation to New Orleans.
Nagin said that the 200 stranded people included 20 police officers who were riding out the storm at their homes in preparation to take over shifts from other officers. He said that boats would be dispatched on rescue missions later in the afternoon.
Mayor Nagin issued a "boil water" recommendation for water in the city - except for Algiers and the CBD due to a water main line break that may have compromised the water.
Nagin said at least 20 buildings in the city had collapsed and that it might be 48 hours before residents would be allowed back to their homes to assess the damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at wwltv.com ...
This past year has been quite a revelation. Kind of disheartening but then I think of all the wonderful, generous freepers.
You're absolutely right. I remember that well. People need to check on those who are housebound, ill, infirm, crippled, mentally unstable, etc. and know where to take them in emergencies like this. We used to be so much more self-reliant then, too.
Oh, you think that couldn't happen here? Times are coming when we may do just that.
And they're all on this thread! Should make it easy to pick the winner!
They've already started rising.
You think you know it all, dontcha Texas? Cheez.
"And what foreign country will offer their help? Don't hold your breath waiting though."
I was just going to post something similar. After all the aid and assistance the American troops and people have given to disasters worldwide, I wonder how many countries are going to step up to offer assistance w this disaster, how many rock stars are going to hold a 'Live Aid" concert - - think Bono will be 1st to step up to the plate, will the Saudis and others give us assistance with oil?? Unfortunately, I suspect the answers are None, Nada, No
Blair, Howard and the Japanese PM will probably offer condolences, but my guess is that's going to be the extent of any support.
Whatever. Call me a marxist, liberal looney-tunes, or whatever else you care to.
I think you're clinging to principle to obscure the fact that you're a cold-hearted, pennypincher that begrudges a dime given to the federal government. Your fallback position of private charities in this case is ludicrous. The federal government has immediate access to monies and equipment private charities do not. They also possess the power of the state, and that's no small thing when you have to contend with looters and price gougers.
Yes, I am aware that the police TECHNICALLY may not have a duty to prevent crimes from happening...but apparently these officers disagreed with that. I, for one, am glad that they did, though it sadly cost them their lives. They are far braver people than most, when most could and (honestly) should run for safety.
There is a vast difference between helping someone recover from a natural disaster, and "helping" someone pay for things they otherwise could not afford. If you can't understand that, then we're through here.
Have a nice day.
Amendments 9 and 10.
The fedgov ONLY has powers specifically listed somewhere in the Constitution.
The list of powers the framers intended the fedgov NOT to have would have been infinite.
In other words, the federal government is forbidden from doing EVERYTHING except those things specifically listed in the Constitution itself, and not hidden within the "general welfare" clause.
I believe that "conservatives" need to be careful when extending the "general welfare" clause to mean more than Mr. Madison meant it to mean, because there are many who would argue that gay marriage falls under that category. In fact, perhaps abortion is in our nation's "general welfare" interests. Such arguments are moral relativism and cannot be settled because there is no "right or wrong", just whatever you wish the term "general welfare" to mean.
Once you start down that road, you get into a democracy where a majority vote determines what falls under "general welfare". To me, that clause is invisible and meaningless.
Storm surge combined with some leaks in the levies boundaring Lake Ponchetrein (sp?).
Storm surge combined with some leaks in the levies boundaring Lake Ponchetrein (sp?).
This reminds me of the photo from the Tsunami..the one with almost 500 bodies in one shot...
Terrible....
"There is a vast difference between helping someone recover from a natural disaster, and "helping" someone pay for things they otherwise could not afford."
I don't disagree, but the problem in my mind comes in when you try to define "disaster".
If a tree falls on my house and my property is ruined, but my neighbors are not affected, is that a disaster?
If not, why? Aren't I just as bad off regardless if the rest of the town is underwater or not?
Where do we draw a line between a personal misfortune and a natural disaster necessitating federal taxes be allocated for "relief" efforts?
Are you familiar with stories from Florida last year (where I live) in which people were getting supplies from FEMA and then selling them on Ebay or in the paper after hurricane season was over? Is this okay with you? How would you make sure this doesn't happen? Is some amount of waste and fraud okay as long as you feel good about helping some people who are "in need"?
"I can't believe they couldn't get busses in to pick folks up. What a sad commentary on their readiness in emergencies. I sure would have thought of SOMETHING."
I read that busses picked people up and took them to the Superdome.
"And they're all on this thread! Should make it easy to pick the winner!"
That was your comment in reference to "Jerk of the Year."
Just whom are you referring to if not yourself?
Forgot about this part, sorry. Yes, I am familiar with those stories, and they tick me off, royally. However, it is an undisputed fact that wherever or whenever there is a disaster, some people start acting like vultures. Looting, or selling disaster supplies on Ebay, as you say. Yes, I think it's acceptable to still dispense aid under those circumstances. What I think should be done is to prosecute those responsible (that can be caught) and levy stiff penalties against them...up to and including jail time. It's theft and/or burglary in the case of looters, and defrauding the government in the case of those selling disaster supplies.
It's ridiculous to think it can't be stopped,or prevented altogether, but you CAN minimize the impact by punishing those who do things like that...swiftly and severely. Just because someone might decide to help themselves to other people's property during a disaster, or decide to make themselves a buck off the taxpayer's back doesn't mean we should hesitate to help those who need it.
Believe me, I'm open on this issue, however I have a single major hangup with federal government provided disaster relief.
What is the criteria for a particular event qualifying as a "NATURAL DISASTER", in your opinion?
As I stated, a natural...usually weather-related disaster. Mudslides, wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, extensive and/or flash flooding.
Ya know, things that us peons can do little about. We do what we can with improving structural integrity, buying home and flood insurance, and helping our neighbors to safe places, etc. You already see people helping out with money, food, and shelter, independent of government assistance. But it isn't nearly enough, because far too many people are only out for themselves, and don't give a rip about others. "Sink or swim, there's no room in my boat for you!" they cry.
Some of these things are so severe, and local governments are knocked out by them, at least temporarily. Are we supposed to allow all to fall into chaos because the powers that be were morons and failed to implement (or develop) good disaster plans? Besides, the best laid plans...as they say. Also, some people simply cannot afford the extra cost in premiums for flood insurance. Should they, therefore, not be allowed to own a home because they may have to go to FEMA in the event of a natural disaster or be homeless? Geesh.
People need our help, and I don't give a crap if Uncle Sam has to ride to the rescue. We aren't talking about welfare slackers, etc. We're talking about people who have their lives devastated by natural disaster. You know, those folks that are hiding in attics right now, praying that they aren't washed away to their deaths.
Can you really, truly sit there and say because the Consititution doesn't specify a duty for the federal government to provide disaster relief that they shouldn't be providing it? My God, if they can waste money on pork barrel projects, the least they can do is put SOME of my hard-earned money towards doing some good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.