Property Rights vs. Human Rights in the USA

The Republicans have a long history of concern for property rights.
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding Eminent Domain might be
related.

The tax and program cuts, and policies of the Reagan and Bush
administrations have caused me to wonder whether they have any regard
for human rights.

The evidence is in:
1. Helicopters that could be used to rescue stranded victims, or drop
food and water to them while they wait, are dropping bags of sand to
close the broken levee in New Orleans, i.e., protecting property in
preference to lives.

2. Communications are out. They have not equipped aircraft with loud
speakers that could inform those on the ground on what's goin' down.

3. Uniformed personnel have been ordered to "stop the looting" when
they could/should be helping the victims, i.e., protecting property
in preference to lives.

The victims are our fellow citizens of the United States of America.
Most of the stranded are poor and Black because, for the most part,
they ARE Black and poor. Were they neither poor nor Black, would the
rescue efforts differ?

The breaking levee happened, in part, because of your tax cuts. Are
you enjoying watching the tragedy on the new television set made
possible by your lower tax bill.

I am appalled and disgusted by the obvious lack of concern for our
fellow citizens being demonstrated by the Bush Administration.


[Ed Jay posted the following:]
A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New
Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the
Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F23F158BB


Budget cuts delayed New Orleans flood control work

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration funding cuts forced
federal engineers to delay improvements on the levees, floodgates and
pumping stations that failed to protect New Orleans from Hurricane
Katrina's floodwaters, agency documents showed on Thursday.

The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that
handles the infrastructure of the nation's waterways, said the damage
in New Orleans probably would have been much less extensive had
flood-control efforts been fully funded over the years.
http://tinyurl.com/bynbc


Zhu De wrote:
God help these people

It already did! Now it's our turn: http://redcross.org.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Thank God I'm an Atheist.
http://geocities.com/dancefest / - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098 103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

The Republicans

Well that didn't take long.

For the record, New Orleans has a:

1) Democratic mayor
2) Democratic city council
3) Democratic governor
4) Democratic representatives
5) until recently, 2 Democratic senators.

The Louisiana governor goes on television literally crying and telling
us how all of this is her worst nightmare, as if she's the story. Being
a good Democrat, she can't muster the judgmentalism to condemn looters
when asked about them. Looters! There are still hundreds of policemen
in New Orleans. One helicopter ride and you can identify the high
ground and routes out of the city. The current situation is simply a
result of poor management.
Compare the situation in Mississippi and nothing else need be said. (By
the way, I presume you must believe that Bush is likewise responsible
for the good and competent crisis management there?)

Nile wrote:
The Republicans


Well that didn't take long.

For the record, New Orleans has a:

1) Democratic mayor
2) Democratic city council
3) Democratic governor
4) Democratic representatives
5) until recently, 2 Democratic senators.

The Louisiana governor goes on television literally crying and telling
us how all of this is her worst nightmare, as if she's the story. Being
a good Democrat, she can't muster the judgmentalism to condemn looters
when asked about them. Looters! There are still hundreds of policemen
in New Orleans. One helicopter ride and you can identify the high
ground and routes out of the city. The current situation is simply a
result of poor management.
Compare the situation in Mississippi and nothing else need be said. (By
the way, I presume you must believe that Bush is likewise responsible
for the good and competent crisis management there?)

The Democratic mayor, city council, governor, representatives and
senators didn't have responsibility for maintaining the levees, and
didn't cut budgets until they couldn't be maintained adequately. That
was the Feds, 100%.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:56:18 -0500,
(Nile) wrote:


The Republicans

Well that didn't take long.

For the record, New Orleans has a:

1) Democratic mayor
2) Democratic city council
3) Democratic governor
4) Democratic representatives
5) until recently, 2 Democratic senators.

The Louisiana governor goes on television literally crying and telling
us how all of this is her worst nightmare, as if she's the story. Being
a good Democrat, she can't muster the judgmentalism to condemn looters
when asked about them. Looters! There are still hundreds of policemen
in New Orleans.

The news reports that many of the police officers are turning in
their badges.

Do you really claim the governor doesn't condemn looting? At
least looting for non-necessities (we don't want anothr les
Miserables, after all).

One helicopter ride and you can identify the high
ground and routes out of the city.

Not all the high ground is contiguous though.

The current situation is simply a
result of poor management.

Agreed. The question is, whose management?

Compare the situation in Mississippi and nothing else need be said.

Mississippi's not flooded.

(By
the way, I presume you must believe that Bush is likewise responsible
for the good and competent crisis management there?)

he is responsible for the lack of expedition on the part of FEMA.
One can't help wondering if the trtansfer of authority for FEMA
to Homeland Security isn't part of the problem.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:02:15 -0700, Icono Clast
wrote:

The Republicans have a long history of concern for property rights.
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding Eminent Domain might be
related.

The tax and program cuts, and policies of the Reagan and Bush
administrations have caused me to wonder whether they have any regard
for human rights.

The evidence is in:
1. Helicopters that could be used to rescue stranded victims, or drop
food and water to them while they wait, are dropping bags of sand to
close the broken levee in New Orleans, i.e., protecting property in
preference to lives.

Shutting off the water is one way to begin saving lives. And I've
seen lots of footage of helicopters rescuing people from rooftops
and helicopeter personnel chopping holes in rooftps to rescue
people trapped in attics.

2. Communications are out. They have not equipped aircraft with loud
speakers that could inform those on the ground on what's goin' down.

What, exactly, do you expect them to tell the people on the
ground?

3. Uniformed personnel have been ordered to "stop the looting" when
they could/should be helping the victims, i.e., protecting property
in preference to lives.

No they wern't. One of the complaints was that law enforcement
personnel were passing looters by.

The victims are our fellow citizens of the United States of America.
Most of the stranded are poor and Black because, for the most part,
they ARE Black and poor. Were they neither poor nor Black, would the
rescue efforts differ?

i don't know. How are you suggesting they might have differed?
Those helicopters I mentioned above were rescuing black people.
Are you thinking they shuld have left people on rooftops and
trapped in attics? And done what instead?

The breaking levee happened, in part, because of your tax cuts. Are
you enjoying watching the tragedy on the new television set made
possible by your lower tax bill.

It's a lot more complicated than the simplistic scenario you're
suggesting. The levees were constructed for Category 3
hurricanes. They could have been constructed for Category f, but
as one politician pointed out, it's a lost cause to suggest
spending tens of billions of dollars to protect against an event
that has never happened before.

Not to mention that everyone likes to call flood control projects
"pork barrel".

When it comes down to it, your beloved home town has many similar
problems when it comes to spending for worst possible case
events.

I am appalled and disgusted by the obvious lack of concern for our
fellow citizens being demonstrated by the Bush Administration.

Hey. Those are voters you're talking about.

[Ed Jay posted the following:]
A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New
Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the
Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F23F158BB


Budget cuts delayed New Orleans flood control work

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration funding cuts forced
federal engineers to delay improvements on the levees, floodgates and
pumping stations that failed to protect New Orleans from Hurricane
Katrina's floodwaters, agency documents showed on Thursday.

The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that
handles the infrastructure of the nation's waterways, said the damage
in New Orleans probably would have been much less extensive had
flood-control efforts been fully funded over the years.
http://tinyurl.com/bynbc

Yep. But how many California congresscritters will vote on
protecting New Orleans? And, of course, you come head to head the
the old problem of poltical philosophy: why weren't the New
orelaners taxing themselves heavily so they could improve the
flood control themselves? And should they have been?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

oconnell wrote:

Please, do remind which town has 10,000's of homes under water?

Certainly. Waveland, Bay St Louis, Gulfport, Biloxi, Ocean Springs,
Pascagoula, among others, all flooded. The flooding was not as
pervasive or persistent as in New Orleans, but the wind damage is far
greater. The crises differ in character, but first-responder (i.e.,
local) crisis management makes a difference.


Remind me which ones have folks still trapped in houses and
buildings?

Exactly. Competent crisis management has largely avoided those
problems. Compare, for example, this in New Orleans:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...lpc21109012015

Can you think of ANY explanation for that? Two or three days' notice
and an order from the mayor to evacuate, remember.

The point is that partisan finger-pointing, like blaming the Iraq war or
the 2003 tax cut (!) for the levee breaking, is claptrap. If you've
driven to New Orleans, you've driven the interstates elevated over the
swamps for miles before you get to the city. There is, or was, a bridge
built across Lake Pontchartrain for no discernible reason (although it's
fun to drive across). In other words, there has been big federal money
available to senators like Russell Long and others for whatever they
deemed necessary or desirable (pork barrel, again). Increasing the
levee to Category 5 strength apparently just wasn't on the agenda.

We instead have competence and we have incompetence. Which brings us to
the mayor of New Orleans, in a radio interview:

"I don't know whose problem it is. I don't know whether it's the
governor's problem. I don't know whether it's the president's problem,
but somebody needs to get their ass on a plane and sit down, the two of
them, and figure this out right now."

How's that for leadership? The mayor of the city takes the measure of
its greatest catastrophe and allows how somebody really ought to do
something about it. I hear he's now headquartered in Baton Rouge.
Imagine Rudy Giuliani saying that ... on September 14 ... in
Poughkeepsie.


And Hatunen wrote:

Do you really claim the governor doesn't condemn looting?

Governor Blanco finally got around to condemning the looters. Her
initial response however was:

"We don't like looters one bit...."

That put the fear of God in 'em.

the lack of expedition on the part of FEMA. One can't help wondering
if the trtansfer of authority for FEMA to Homeland Security isn't part
of the problem.

Agreed.

(Quotes from: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover.shtml )

"The Democratic mayor, city council, governor, representatives and
senators didn't have responsibility for maintaining the levees, and
didn't cut budgets until they couldn't be maintained adequately. That
was the Feds, 100%."

Lets set things straight for over a century City and State Officials have
requested that New Orleans have better access to the Gulf to help its port.
They have also wanted the river controlled to prevent the flooding that
maintained the wet lands. And lo and behold their Representatives and
Senators while in Congress got others to vote the funds to do what the local
City and State Officials asked for. Result is a sinking city that was below
sea level surrounded by a lake and river both of which have water levels
higher than the city.
If I remember correctly on Monday the Hurricane moved across the Gulf Coast
"sparring New Orleans. Only later did the levies start to fail which caused
the problems we are shown on TV. By the way this should have been expected
by the local officials as they have been warned of this for decades.
As to evacuating the "poor" where were the city busses? On one TV show the
reporter was making the comment that the people in that neighborhood had no
way out. While saying that, her boat was passing at least a dozen cars, SUVs
and a pickup truck that looked as though they could have taken people out of
the neighborhood, when the people had been told to leave.
As to how quickly the National Guard can respond. That is up to the governor
in who's state the guard is to be called up. When the guard is to go into
another state, it requires a request from the first state to the second
state. Then the second state needs to decide which if any units are to be
mobilized, place the call to the commander and then to the individual
troops. It then takes time for the unit to form, get their equipment out,
and then to hit the "road". Considering the size of the hurricane and the
devastation done to the area surrounding New Orleans I would say the ability
to get done what they have in basically 2 days (Tuesday Night to Thursday
morning),is pretty good.

By the way these political slams and RACIAL Innuendoes only demean those
making them. In particular those politicians that have been in office for
multiple terms which have contributed to the underlying cause of the
problems in New Orleans, and are now saying it is the "other" party's fault.

Sorry for the long rant, but I am SO FED UP WITH ALL THESE MONDAY MORNING
QUARTERBACKS. It is time people wake up realize THEY have to take
responsibility for their actions and safety. If you know a Cat 5 Hurricane
is headed your way get out of its path, and if you can't store as much water
and food as you can in as safe a place as you can, and get yourself in as
safe a place as can. This doesn't cost any money just common sense to fill
empty soda bottles, mike jugs, bath tubs, coolers. Food can be peanut butter
crackers, and the like.

Frank

Nile wrote:
The Republicans

Well that didn't take long.

For the record, New Orleans has a:

1) Democratic mayor
2) Democratic city council
3) Democratic governor
4) Democratic representatives
5) until recently, 2 Democratic senators.

So, what?

The hurricane's strike was predicted days in advance. Much could have
been done, and was, prior to the storm's arrival, to prevent the
tragedy we're seeing but everyone (meaning official agencies as well
as we, the people) knew that thousands were left behind because they
hadn't the means to leave (and a few who were too stupid to go).

What I don't understand is why, the instant the levee broke, the
****in' Idiot in the White House didn't order every emergency agency
within, say, 200 miles of New Orleans to get their asses down there
with whatever they had to do whatever they could. We don't yet know
how many people have died as a direct result of the post-break
negligence. Certainly hundreds. Possibly thousands. I blame the
current occupant of the White House.

My disgust has turned to anger and, in a not quite abstract way, fear
as, at any instant, San Francisco or Seattle or Anchorage or Los
Angeles or New Madrid could be hit with a Great 'Quake. It's also
possible that, when El Niño returns to the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley, levees there could break. If they do, crops will be lost and
water supplies to populated places will get contaminated.

One helicopter ride and you can identify the high ground and
routes out of the city.

If you're in a helicopter, you don't need to know where "the high
ground and routes out of the city" are.
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

Hatunen wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
1. Helicopters that could be used to rescue stranded victims, or
drop food and water to them while they wait, are dropping bags
of sand to close the broken levee in New Orleans, i.e.,
protecting property in preference to lives.

Shutting off the water is one way to begin saving lives.

This is your area of expertise. If you say so, I believe you. But I
saw helicopters carrying those huge sand bags that appeared to be
carrying nothing else. After dropping the bag, they could have
dropped food and water to the hungry and thirsty. Of course carrying
capacity of the craft is relevant. Pilots and assistants could be the
lightest-weight people available to do the job thus allowing the
weight saved to be used with supplies. I've heard of nothing of the
sort being done. (We can live a while without food, but not water.)

And I've seen lots of footage of helicopters rescuing people from
rooftops and helicopeter personnel chopping holes in rooftps to
rescue people trapped in attics.

So have we all.

2. Communications are out. They have not equipped aircraft with
loud speakers that could inform those on the ground on what's
goin' down.

What, exactly, do you expect them to tell the people on the
ground?

Oh, things like "Help is on the way" even if it isn't true. Or "If
you can go toward (a landmark) you can get some water (food,
transportation, etc.)".

3. Uniformed personnel have been ordered to "stop the looting"
when they could/should be helping the victims, i.e., protecting
property in preference to lives.

No they wern't. One of the complaints was that law enforcement
personnel were passing looters by.

After that, the order to stop the looting was given. Who cares? The
people are desperate.

The victims are our fellow citizens of the United States of
America. Most of the stranded are poor and Black because, for
the most part, they ARE Black and poor. Were they neither poor
nor Black, would the rescue efforts differ?

i don't know. How are you suggesting they might have differed?
Those helicopters I mentioned above were rescuing black people.
Are you thinking they shuld have left people on rooftops and
trapped in attics? And done what instead?

I'm saying, and today it's being said by commentators, too, that had
the stranded victims not been poor and Black, things might be different.

The breaking levee happened, in part, because of your tax cuts.
Are you enjoying watching the tragedy on the new television set
made possible by your lower tax bill.

It's a lot more complicated than the simplistic scenario you're
suggesting.

Of course it is. But that doesn't negate what I said.

The levees were constructed for Category 3 hurricanes. They could
have been constructed for Category f, but as one politician
pointed out, it's a lost cause to suggest spending tens of
billions of dollars to protect against an event that has never
happened before.

Well, looks like we'll be spending tens of billions because they
weren't spent. And in a month or so we'll learn how many people died
because they weren't when they shoulda been.

Not to mention that everyone likes to call flood control projects
"pork barrel".

Many are, I don't deny. Some aren't.

When it comes down to it, your beloved home town has many similar
problems when it comes to spending for worst possible case events.

Yes, it does. My disgust has turned to anger and, in a not quite
abstract way, fear as, at any instant, San Francisco or Seattle or
Anchorage or Los Angeles or New Madrid could be hit with a Great
'Quake. It's also possible that, when El Niño returns to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, levees there could break. If they do,
crops will be lost and water supplies to populated places will get
contaminated.

Ed Jay said:
The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
agency that handles the infrastructure of the nation's
waterways, said the damage in New Orleans probably would have
been much less extensive had flood-control efforts been fully
funded over the years. http://tinyurl.com/bynbc

Yep. But how many California congresscritters will vote on
protecting New Orleans? And, of course, you come head to head the
the old problem of poltical philosophy: why weren't the New
orelaners taxing themselves heavily so they could improve the
flood control themselves? And should they have been?

Valid points, of course. Will the lesson have been learned?
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:34:28 -0700, Icono Clast
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
1. Helicopters that could be used to rescue stranded victims, or
drop food and water to them while they wait, are dropping bags
of sand to close the broken levee in New Orleans, i.e.,
protecting property in preference to lives.

Shutting off the water is one way to begin saving lives.

This is your area of expertise. If you say so, I believe you.

One of the reasons for repairing the levees is the very real
possibility of another storm; with teh levees already gone even a
Category 1 might be a problem.

But I
saw helicopters carrying those huge sand bags that appeared to be
carrying nothing else. After dropping the bag, they could have
dropped food and water to the hungry and thirsty. Of course carrying
capacity of the craft is relevant. Pilots and assistants could be the
lightest-weight people available to do the job thus allowing the
weight saved to be used with supplies.

When you need a chopper pilot you pretty much have to take what's
on hand.

I've heard of nothing of the
sort being done. (We can live a while without food, but not water.)

It's an interesting dilema: do we send the choppers out as
quickly as possible to rescue people clsoe to death in attics or
stranded on top of roofs, or do we spend a lot of time loading
them up with food and water and taking it to elevated freeways?
No matter what you decide, someone will bitch.

[...]

2. Communications are out. They have not equipped aircraft with
loud speakers that could inform those on the ground on what's
goin' down.

What, exactly, do you expect them to tell the people on the
ground?

Oh, things like "Help is on the way" even if it isn't true.

Ah. Lie to them. They already were assuming help was on the way,
though.

Or "If
you can go toward (a landmark) you can get some water (food,
transportation, etc.)".

Another lie?

If they could have gone anywhere they wouldn't have been crowded
onto those elevated freeway sections.


3. Uniformed personnel have been ordered to "stop the looting"
when they could/should be helping the victims, i.e., protecting
property in preference to lives.

No they wern't. One of the complaints was that law enforcement
personnel were passing looters by.

After that, the order to stop the looting was given. Who cares? The
people are desperate.

We certainly don't want a lot of Jean Valjeans being hunted down
by Javerts, but in any case the authorities had already said that
people taking food and other necessities weren't to be stopped.
But I reckon we can safely assume that after two days all the
neessities were gone and the looters were reduced to stealing
boom boxes and computers.

The victims are our fellow citizens of the United States of
America. Most of the stranded are poor and Black because, for
the most part, they ARE Black and poor. Were they neither poor
nor Black, would the rescue efforts differ?

i don't know. How are you suggesting they might have differed?
Those helicopters I mentioned above were rescuing black people.
Are you thinking they shuld have left people on rooftops and
trapped in attics? And done what instead?

I'm saying, and today it's being said by commentators, too, that had
the stranded victims not been poor and Black, things might be different.

I'd be far more surprised if it weren't being said by black
commentators. And it's rather a leap to claim that the rich would
have been treated differently, since it appeared all locally
available resources were in use trying to help the black people.
The problem was there weren't enough local resources.

It's all rather moot since the rich weren't living in low areas
(including black rich people); not having to live in low areas is
one of the perks of having some money.

On NPR yesterday a historian pointed out that 170 years ago it
wasn't blacks getting flooded: the lowly poor of the time were
the Irish. (Lucky for the black during floods they were slaves
and living up where their masters did.)

The breaking levee happened, in part, because of your tax cuts.
Are you enjoying watching the tragedy on the new television set
made possible by your lower tax bill.

It's a lot more complicated than the simplistic scenario you're
suggesting.

Of course it is. But that doesn't negate what I said.

The levees were constructed for Category 3 hurricanes. They could
have been constructed for Category f, but as one politician
pointed out, it's a lost cause to suggest spending tens of
billions of dollars to protect against an event that has never
happened before.

Well, looks like we'll be spending tens of billions because they
weren't spent.

maybe. or maybe not. We'll see.

And in a month or so we'll learn how many people died
because they weren't when they shoulda been.

Already beign done. The test, though, is the question how much
resource should be spent to protect what level of risk, knowing
that Murphy's law will surely apply.

Not to mention that everyone likes to call flood control projects
"pork barrel".

Many are, I don't deny. Some aren't.

Egen the ones that aren't are considered that by anyone not in
the pork area. Can YOU make a clear distinction between which are
pork and which are necessary?

When it comes down to it, your beloved home town has many similar
problems when it comes to spending for worst possible case events.

Yes, it does. My disgust has turned to anger and, in a not quite
abstract way, fear as, at any instant, San Francisco or Seattle or
Anchorage or Los Angeles or New Madrid could be hit with a Great
'Quake. It's also possible that, when El Niño returns to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, levees there could break. If they do,
crops will be lost and water supplies to populated places will get
contaminated.

Yep. So how much should you spend on protection? What is a
reasonable level of protection and what isn't? Seismic retrofit
of all the structures subject to another New Madrid quake is
probably out of the question (the last New Madrid quakes knocked
down scaffolding at the Capito building in washington, then
a-building).

I have serious doubts about San Francisco's (and the Bay Area's)
survivability after another 1906, despite the constantly upgraded
building codes, especially after 1957. Loma Prieta was nothing, a
mere blip in comparison to another 1906


Ed Jay said:
The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
agency that handles the infrastructure of the nation's
waterways, said the damage in New Orleans probably would have
been much less extensive had flood-control efforts been fully
funded over the years. http://tinyurl.com/bynbc

Yep. But how many California congresscritters will vote on
protecting New Orleans? And, of course, you come head to head the
the old problem of poltical philosophy: why weren't the New
orelaners taxing themselves heavily so they could improve the
flood control themselves? And should they have been?

Valid points, of course. Will the lesson have been learned?

Which lesson? to depend on yourself and not the feds? And there
is the law of unintended consequences. I've seen it said that one
protection New Orleans once had was the long expanse of delta
leading to the Gulf, but all the flood control works along the
Miississippi and Missouri, along with the flood control dams has
altered the silt deposition in the delta such that the delta is
disappearing.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *