Mayor Orders Mandatory Evacuation of New Orleans 712
Pickens writes "City officials ordered everyone to leave New Orleans beginning Sunday morning — the first mandatory evacuation since Hurricane Katrina flooded the city three years ago — as Hurricane Gustav grew into what the city's mayor called 'the storm of the century' and moved toward the Louisiana coast. 'This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life,' said New Orleans mayor, C. Ray Nagin. Already, hundreds of thousands of residents had begun streaming north from New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas stretching from the Florida Panhandle to Houston. Bush administration officials took pains not to be caught as flatfooted as they were in Hurricane Katrina, announcing that President Bush had called governors in the region to assure them of assistance and that top federal emergency officials were in the region to guide the response. 'We could see flooding that is worse than what we saw with Katrina,' said Louisiana Governor Jindal."
The US Geological Survey will be running a real-time "Map of Hydrologic Impacts" to monitor flood levels, and the National Weather Service has charted direction and wind-speed probabilities. Reader technix4beos points out the need for IRC transcription of FEMA and NOAA feeds.
what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?
Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.
Oh for goodness sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what the hell? (Score:2, Insightful)
because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.
Re:Oh for goodness sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
About 100,000 people got the hint last time(unless it's taking them 3+ years to walk back from Texas), so 2 or 3 more large hurricanes in close repetition should have the place cleaned out.
Re:what the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Economics - New Orleans is a major port that services nearly 2/3 of the land area of the US. Not to mention the petroleum industry, fishing, cruise ships, etc... etc...
This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good. Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them. Which means in turn, the whole infrastructure enchilada - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. etc.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there? Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.
Although New Orleans had its share of tough hurricanes, Katrina was the first big one that turned it into the costliest hurricane in US history. It was also ranked the sixth strongest hurricane to hit the US.
Your comment is insightful, but I'd only argue like this if this troubled area was hit by hurricanes more frequently than it currently is. Forcing people to leave their homes is more than just a material loss. There's history, lost ones and more.
At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.
Re:Is this allowed in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Typically emergency powers like evacuation orders falls within the branch of the executive powers like the mayorial types or the governor types. I'm not sure of the exact specifics of this in New Orleans, but I am pretty sure that the Mayor can tell the city staff (firefighters, cops, city workers) to stop working (at the very least..he may be able to issue evacuation orders). Regardless, if he can tell the city staff to shrink itself down to a skeleton crew, that should be reason enough for anybody to gtfo of a city like NOLA.
Re:Is this allowed in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't defeat nature (Score:5, Insightful)
So New Orleans is likely to be flooded yet again, but this is not a unique occurance. Florida is often trashed by hurricanes, and here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains, and some of our villages are crumbling into the sea due to coastal erosion.
You can't beat nature, but we've all got to live somewhere, and there is normally a very good reason for a settlement to be where it is.
It's a balancing act. Sometimes you need to put resources into sustaining a town/city, and elsewhere this may be inappropriate. The big question is 'Who decides?'
I guess you completely missed Hurricate Katrina (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there where looting of the abandoned properties.
Nice way to completely gloss over the fact that there were houses turned at 90 degree angles off their foundations, that people starved to death, drowned in >9 feet of storm surge, and weren't able to return to the city for weeks and lost everything they owned.
The threat to human life from one of these storms is beyond measure. Last time the citizens of the city decided "hey, let's ride out the storm", we couldn't even send in the national guard to save them for 5 days.
So sure, if it's not legal, all the mayor then needs to do is get it declared a state of emergency, declare martial law, and then send out the troops to enforce a mandatory evacuation. It's easier if people comply and get the hell out of there so they don't die.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again.
Re:Remember, everyone. This is the work of the Lor (Score:1, Insightful)
Or Michael Moore.
(And I think he's got a case. The toots he makes after All-You-Can-Keep-Down-For-A-Dollar night at the local tacqueria probably DOES kill the ozone layer and contribute to global warming).
Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless a FEMA limo drives me out this city. I'm Black, I demand it! If not, I'll stay and loot!
Why mod Funny? I am sure this is happening. I am sure there will be chopper rescues on CNN. And I am sure we will pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves. (Not just those unable to) We saw it in Houston the first time, and most people I know used up all the compassion they had then...
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
The government isn't moving anyone, nature is. If they want to stay, that's fine, but not on my dime.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
This time they are going to make the opposite mistake. And McCain-Palin (sounds like a comedian) will be going off to campaign in the disaster zone during the disaster.
This is the reason they have a VP, or rather one of the few uses that has been found for a VP. You send the VP off to the disaster zone because they have the same clout and get it fixed capacity as the President in those situations but only require one tenth the amount of secret service etc. entourage. When Bush visited New Orleans to make a PR stop after it was realized he had blundered, they shut down relief for a day.
It is all deeply unserious, its about managing the next news cycle, not getting stuff done. Bush did not need to go to NOLA, he could have demonstrated he was in the loop by holding daily press conferences in the White House.
James T. Kirk made the exact same mistake in Star Trek TOS. When it came to TNG they realized that it somewhat strained credibility to have the captain of the ship lead the away teams each week. That was clearly Riker's job.
And talking about unserious choices, manipulation of the news cycle etc, I wonder which VP would be more competent in a situation like this.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.
The town closest to me (on the Ohio River) was was nearly wiped out during the '97 flood. The government helped them once to move out of the area. The response for those that decided to rebuild in the flood plain? No flood insurance, no disaster insurance and no help if happens again. Private insurance won't touch it. Good luck.
Don't forcefully stop people from making dumb decisions, but don't subsidize it either.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes they can. They federal money to rebuild after Hurricane Flossy, Hurricane Betsy, and Hurricane Katrina and they'll get more money this time.
Any politician with the common sense to say "Hey, rebuilding here again is a bad idea" would be demonized as wanting to move people from their homes and probably called a racist.
Re:The Shock Doctrine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what the hell? (Score:1, Insightful)
because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.
As someone who has some "American Indian" ancestry, I am here to tell you - yes, the government can.
Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what the hell? (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here is that most of New Orleans was destroyed AFTER A FLOOD. Not 'a few buildings'. What you're talking about is pre-emptive action against an earthquake. I honestly have no problem letting them live there right now; if an earthquake were to come and destroy the whole thing, and they wanted my tax dollars to rebuild their lost city, I'd tell them to shut the fuck up and move.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as New Orleans is the largest port in the world by gross tonnage, I don't think it'd be too easy to just shut down.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer. In fact the entire Seattle/Tacoma area is at risk from such an eruption including Microsoft, the PacNorth software industry, and Boeing. Where do you suggest we move Seattle?
And while every local area should have good emergency planning in place, and Louisiana's prior to Katrina was not and did not, it was always my belief that in a true disaster situation the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability. Turned out, not so much.
sPh
Re:The Shock Doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
The Cato Institute is a neo-liberal/neo-conservative "think tank" and lobby group. Of course they're trying to attack Naomi Klein
And your point is? By the same token: Naomi Klein is a leftist, so of course she is trying to attack free economies. But that isn't what undermines her argument, what undermines her argument is that it is false.
Read Norberg's full report here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384 [cato.org]
Where is "safe"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where is "safe"? (Score:1, Insightful)
That is why the federal government shouldn't be in the disaster insurance business.
Let private insurers charge market rates based on their own risk analysis.
Unless the disaster was caused be the federal government, or by an invading army people should buy their own insurance. If the people of a particular state decide to subsidize insurance then they can work that out themselves.
Re:Fuck it (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the 1960s, yes, this is true.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.
I get real tired of hearing the earthquake or {Insert misc. disaster here} argument. It's generally rather large areas that are vulnerable to earthquakes, the same can be said for tornadoes and hurricanes. The difference is that while there is a wide coastal area that is vulnerable to destruction from hurricanes, New Orleans is the one that's frigging underwater.
Re:Fuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with people devoting their time, energy and money preserving New Orleans. It's your life after all. The problem is when you discover that you don't have enough and need to take some of my money too.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the last time a hurricane hit the Netherladns was... uhh... never? The fact that it's deep below sea level is not what makes new orleans problematic, but its proximity to one of the few places in the world that have big big storms.
Ok, katrina was the first big one, but now is coming the second one, and maybe in five years we'll see the third and so on. I call it basic survival instinct to leave and put your family in other place.
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where is "safe"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what the hell? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, it's not like there's other places in the world where people live quite safely below sea level. Of course that does involve these big lumps of sand and rocks to keep the water out, and those take taxes(hiss, spit!) to build.
Re:Fuck it (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever since, the South has been voting Republican.
So yes, they are still racist.
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act?
Check the vote breakdown by party and region [wikipedia.org]. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.
However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.
Re:Real-time Transcriptions... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
You will be known by the company you keep...
If you want to judge each group only by the extremists, we are all screwed.
Re:Fuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
Byrd's a Republican now? Shit, when did he switch parties?
When his party changed around him, Byrd saw the error of his ways, apologized, and set to work trying to undo the damage he had done. Most of his "Dixiecrat" contemporaries, like Thurmond and Helms, never did ... so they went over to the Republicans, who welcomed them with open arms.
It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'big thing' about Katrina is that literally billions of dollars from the federal government were wildly mismanaged both before and after the hurricane. It was a poster child moment for how not to use government assets.
Nope, sorry. Billions of dollars of federal funds get wildly mismanaged all the time. Major cities get flooded due to a failure of engineering pretty much never. When you're deciding what the "big thing" is, pick the one that's extremely rare and killed a whole lot of people.
Re:Fuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?
You do realize that's bullshit, right? I can call myself a democrat and in the same breath say that I'm for drilling domestically, love the war, and support bush--but that doesn't make me a democrat. Same thing goes for people who say they are republican. What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will bail them out, right?
Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
there can be a port without a bunch of impoverished people living there below sea level
Re:what the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
> And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think
> that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without
> repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will
> bail them out, right?
>
> Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for
> their actions.
And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain. Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".
> If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone,
> fine.
Of the major population and economic centers of the United States the only one that I can think of offhand that is not immediately vulnerable to a devastating natural disaster is Chicago. But that is only because it is so large even a 500-year tornado outbreak wouldn't do excessive damage on a percentage basis. Hmmm - forgot about devastating ice storm - that is possible in Chicago. Scratch that. So pray tell where this disaster-potential-free zone is located.
sPh
Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Check the vote breakdown by party and region [wikipedia.org]. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.
However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.
So you own link to wikipedia shows that more democrats were against the bill than republicans. (Although there are significant numbers from both parties.)
Next you are trying to say that a few SOUTHERN democrats voted for the act, but no SOUTHERN republicans did. Well, let's look at the skewed statistics:
Democrats For: 4
Democrats Against: 87
Democrats Total: 91
Republicans For: 0
Republicans Against: 10
Republicans Total: 10
Wow. 10 Republicans (out of 10) voted against, while 87 Democrats (out of 91) voted against. That's more Democrats voting against the bill than Republicans.
Now don't get me wrong, those Republicans who voted against the bill are shameful, dishonest people. They are voting for (probably) their own business/wealth than what is right, and what the party stands for.
A lack of foresight and planning (Score:2, Insightful)
Have any of you ever been to New Orleans? Met the people there? Know the history and the tradition of the place? Experienced the pride of people who have lived in a city with so much history?
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. I've also been to places like China where they REALLY have a lot of history so a little perspective please?
What's next, are you going to tell the people in San Francisco they have to move because an earthquake is coming in a few years?
Building a major city on an active fault-line does not strike me as the brightest idea ever. Living there without proper planning is even dumber. Equally stupid is building a significant portion of an important port city below sea level when there is no actual need to build in that exact spot. They don't have to move but we (the taxpayers) shouldn't necessarily have to bail them out from their lack of foresight either when the inevitable comes. I do not support rebuilding the parts of New Orleans that are under sea level - it's just stupid and unnecessary. Other areas I'm fine with supporting, just not the egregiously stupid ones.
Tragedies happen but maybe we should try to avoid some of the more predictable major ones? Or failing that, at least do a competent job of planning for them. Sometimes people have to live in a dangerous place but there is no excuse for stupid zoning (below sea level!) and a lack of planning for predictable natural disasters. Live in a tornado zone? Have a underground shelters nearby everywhere. Earthquake prone? Enforce appropriate building codes and tear down dangerous structures even if they are old and historic. Sentiment has a time and place but not when lives are at risk.
I'm just waiting for when Miami inevitably gets leveled by a hurricane. It will happen sooner or later.
Wrong on all counts (Score:5, Insightful)
Funnily enough, I happened to be in Louisiana during Katrina and happened to be working for the government at the time. A small portion (like 25%) of our state's national guard was in the process of standing down from Iraq when Katrina hit, and they were actually rotated into the city during the aftermath because our governor wanted to try and save face and look tough by deploying "combat hardened troops" that will "shoot to kill." One of the main Reserve bases in Louisiana, funnily enough, is IN New Orleans and the other 75% of our National Guard was sitting on their asses waiting for orders, as they were under control of the state government, not the federal government. Bush moving in and federalizing those troops would have been seen as a huge violation of states rights and an assurpation of power, as essentially the only legal basis he could have used for it would have been to declare the state of Louisiana to be rebelling and essentially removed the state government from power. In hindsight, that probably would have been a better option.
FEMA, funnily enough, responded more quickly to Katrina in New Orleans than they did to Andrew in Homestead, FL. The cynic in me would say that's because of the demographic differences between the two locations, but such baseless theorycrafting serves no one. FEMA (and pretty much any federal disaster relief agency) is in fact paralyzed without local and state government support and cooperation, as their primary role is organization and logistics; ie: figuring out who needs what and seeing that they get it. They need state and local governments (like the national guard, state police, etc.) to provide the actual manpower to accomplish anything, and in the case of Katrina our lovely (and unsurprisingly deposed) governor just sat around and dithered while people died. She even admitted herself (not realizing that the cameras were on) that she should have sent the guard in earlier and when the president offered to take over for her (since she was obviously in over her head) she told him she'd think about it and get back to him in 24 hours.
But of course, it's obviously Bush's fault, he's such a big meanie that Blanco was too scared to call and ask for help...
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
California is at least somewhat prepared for earthquakes. Buildings are built to withstand them, and things like that. That's a bit different from building a coastal city below sea level on the Gulf ceast and trying to protect it with a completely inadequate levy system.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that is exactly what we need to do....do it right like the Netherlands did for Amsterdam, which is much farther below sea level than NOLA is.
One major thing that would protect NOLA, is to rebuild the wetlands, nature's barrier to the storm surrge. That alone would help...and much of it was destroyed by the laying of all the oil pipelines from the gulf into shore, which helps bring in much of the energy needs of the country as a whole. Also,fill in the MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet), which should have been closed off before Katrina...it acts as a direct pipeline for storm surge, and as it narrows increased its speed and force...that is what largely wiped out the 9th ward and the lower parishes.
The city of New Orleans IS important not just to the people there, but, to the nation. It is there for a VERY special reason, as the port city at the end of the MS river. A great deal of imported goods comes in through there, and a large majority of the goods exported from the middle of the US goes through there. It does not make sense to go further up the river. Also, a great deal, I think 30% or more of the oil/energy comes through there and is refined not far away...you have to have a city close to house the people that work those oil rigs and refineries...not to mention the fishing industry that works out of near there and below NOLA...supplying a large amount of seafood to the country.
Those are just the practical economical reasons that NOLA is important to the nation...and is worth the investment...don't even have to mention the contributions to US culture from there, nor the fact that the city is historical, and pre-dates the United States itself.
But for those that bitch about the rest of the country footing the bill for idiots that live there...do consider that most EVERY city in the US is in some danger zone from nature. How many times (annually at least) do we hear about the wildfires and mudslides that plague CA? You do know that New York city has the same nightmare hurricane scenario that NOLA does don't you? It is way overdo....SF has its earthquakes, the midwest has floods and tornadoes (Didn't we just see Iowa flooded out for the 2nd time in like 5 years?)...
The thing is...we all are in this country together, and need to help each other out...but, it should be done right, and unfortunately in this day in age, it seems impossibe somehwo to get things fixed right. The Army Corps of Engineers blew it on the levees that failed during Katrina. There has been a great deal of evidence of substandard repair on the levees this time around, and they haven't even attempted to build them to greater standards to resist a Cat 5 storm, which should be the plan. Do it right once, and be done with it....
But really...it isn't like NOLA is the only city that is in almost constant jeopardy of natural disaster...yet we don't hear people bitching about all the other cities that keep getting damaged or blown away. And at the very least, do consider the base economical importance that NOLA and the surrounding regions have to the US as a whole before you start spouting off nonsense like moving an entire fucking city and its people. If that is the argument, then lets be fair and suggest to most everyone else in CA that in in wildfire zones to relocate, and lets move NYC, since it is a hotspot for terrorist attacks, and the coming hurricane there...just to be proactive. Does that sound ridiculous? Yep...on all counts.
Re:what the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is a comparison of severity. Sure, everywhere is going to have its share of disasters, but it just seems like there are going to be places that are so disaster-prone that one has to wonder if it's worth paying all that money to maintain when there are other places to live.
"Shared Pain/Gain" (Score:4, Insightful)
"And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain."
That only goes so far here. This is America, and you're still expected to do what you can for yourself first. This isn't a socialist country where we care for each other's every need. If you've got a disaster, we'll pitch in and help, but when you're told to do things like, oh, get the fuck out of town, and you don't do it, then you can't blame the "Nation" for that. And it's not the "Nation's" responsibility to put you up in a FEMA trailer 3 years after Katrina. And yet there are still people that live in them, people perfectly capable of going out and getting their own place, and a new job. I'd say we go above and beyond in "Shared Pain/Gain". If you want any more, move to Sweden.
What I'm sick of (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of people calling out Bush for a slow response to Katrina. There's plenty to dislike about Bush we don't need to make crap up.
For anyone who for some reason doesn't know this: The federal government cannot go in and provide aid in a place like post-Katrina New Orleans unless the governor asks for it. It's against the law and the very basic nature of our country for the federal government to just go and do that kind of stuff. The governor in Louisiana was slow to ask for aid and was therefore slow to get it.
Bush actually tried to pass a law that would allow the federal government to quickly respond to such disasters and he was accused of trying to take over with an oppressive hand.
Seriously, I dislike Bush as much as the next guy but I'm not so stupid that I can't see the reality of a situation.
Re:Is this allowed in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, it'll still be Bush's fault when people don't leave, and drown.
Re:what the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly...no one knows exactly where that money went..if it came at all.
From what I understand, the majority of it did not to to NOLA...but, to MS, and some to AL. MS did have a lot of totally wiped out areas, but, nothing like the overall damage to NOLA, yet we did not get the majority of the money.
And there is also a big difference between $35 billion being approved....and $35 billion actually making it somewhere.
I know LA has a bad reputation for corruption, but, I don't think that was the case...they were being watched like hawks, and people that did get caught trying to defraud the system are now in prison. No, the money didn't make it....and much of the money had rules preventing its use. For instance, communities wanting to repair and rebuild a firestation or park...well, the rules said they had to build it, and then apply to be reimbursed from the fed monies. Trouble is, with no tax funds coming in from largely missing population, there was no money to come up with to start the projects...and when at first contractors would work to bill for the repairs...when they finished, the govt. took so long to pay them back, well....that scared future contractors from working for the local govt. on credit.
So..please don't kid yourself that NOLA and the surrounding community got a nice big bulk of $35billion and then squandered it. That is not the case...
Re:Fuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I wasn't alive in 1965, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on which party is more racist NOW.
I can speak from experience about which party is the 'racist' party NOW - in 2008. I know several racist people, and they are all huge GOP supporters. In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.
Unfortunately you aren't providing any facts. I could just as easily use your 'argument' in my favor without you being able to refute it.
I can speak from experience about which party is racist now. I know 10 democrats, and they are all racist. As a matter of fact, I know 50 Republicans, and none of them qualify as racist.
Ooh--refute that jumble of vague non-verifiable facts and selective statistics.