Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>They have clearly
>>done the former
>>
>
>
> How is that clear? Some experts think quite the opposite is the case.
>

Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall a single terrorist attack on
US soil since 9/11.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
>> How is that clear? Some experts think quite the opposite is the case.

This from this mornings paper...

Case shows threat of homegrown terrorism
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Jeremiah Marquez
ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES — An alleged plot targeting military facilities, synagogues
and other sites in the Los Angeles area has highlighted what experts say
is a novel terrorist threat: homegrown American militants operating with
little or no help from Islamic extremists abroad.

Four suspects were charged Wednesday with conspiring to wage war against
the U.S. government through terrorism. Named in the federal indictment
were Levar Haley Washington, 25; Gregory Vernon Patterson, 21; Hammad
Riaz Samana, 21; and Kevin James, 29.

All but Samana, a Pakistani national, are American-born Muslim converts.
Counterterrorism officials have found no evidence directly connecting
the group — described as the cell of a California prison gang of radical
Muslims — to al-Qaida or other foreign terror networks.

Law-enforcement officials and terrorism experts said it could represent
one of the first Islamic terrorism cases involving U.S. natives without
such connections.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack, an international dragnet has
broken up training camps, disrupted finances and sent terrorist leaders
underground, making it more difficult for al-Qaida to mount attacks.

Yet despite tougher border control, a radical ideology shared by the
terrorist network seeps into the United States through propaganda
distributed via the Internet, books, pamphlets, DVDs and the media — a
"passive recruiting strategy," terrorism experts say.

That’s helped transform al-Qaida into a movement with disciples acting
without funding, expertise or guidance from foreign advisers.

"Al-Qaida can’t get their militants to the places they want to hit, so
they rely on an ideology to gain converts who do it for them," said
Professor Brian Levin, a terrorism researcher at California State
University, San Bernardino.

In the California case, prosecutors say cell members largely supported
themselves.

Washington, Patterson and Samana allegedly robbed gas stations to
finance their plans to target military sites, synagogues, the Israeli
Consulate and the El Al airport counter in the Los Angeles area.
Patterson bought a .223 caliber rifle. Samana underwent "firearms
training and physical training" at a local park, the indictment says.

They even conducted Internet research on potential targets and Jewish
holidays — dates they allegedly planned the assaults to "maximize the
number of casualties," prosecutors said.

Samana’s lawyer, Timothy Lannen, described his client in a statement as
a "peace-loving, law-abiding member of our community" and said "he did
not intend at any time to commit violence against anyone."

An attorney in Washington’s robbery case had not reviewed the federal
indictment and had no immediate comment. Patterson’s lawyer has said his
client asked him not to comment.

The plot’s suspected mastermind was James, a state prison inmate who
founded the radical group Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh, authorities said.
Washington converted to Islam while imprisoned there for a previous
robbery conviction.

Self-made groups are smaller and have fewer financial resources, and
that, said former counterterrorism chief Buck Revell, means "they may be
successful because they’re extremely hard to detect."

john smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> How is that clear? Some experts think quite the opposite is the case.
>
>
> This from this mornings paper...
>
> Case shows threat of homegrown terrorism
> Saturday, September 03, 2005
> Jeremiah Marquez
> ASSOCIATED PRESS

Well, John, you should learn how to use your newsreader. I wrote no
part of the sentence above that you have erroneously attributed to me.

Matt

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:56:43 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>NASA had tentatively planned its next shuttle mission
>> for March,
>
>I thought NASA had grounded the fleet indefinitely.
>(yet, there is an STS-121 scheduled for March on
>the NASA website).



This page says 'no earlier than March':
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition12/exp12_overview.html

Expedition 12: Veteran Crewmen for ISS Science, Assembly Prep

08.24.05


Two veteran crewmembers will make up the 12th crew of the
International Space Station since continuous human presence began on
the orbiting laboratory in November 2000.

Image to left: From left are, Expedition 12 crewmembers Commander
William McArthur and Flight Engineer Valery Tokarev, as they train
inside a mockup of the Station's Destiny laboratory at Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX. Credit: NASA

In addition to marking the fifth anniversary of this uninterrupted
presence of men and women in space, the crewmembers also will bring
the Station into the new year and welcome the resumption of Space
Shuttle flights to their home in orbit.

The six-month-plus stay of Expedition 12 will focus on Station
assembly preparations, maintenance and science in microgravity. The
commander is William McArthur, 54, a retired Army colonel. Cosmonaut
Valery Tokarev, 52, a Russian Air Force colonel, will serve as flight
engineer and Soyuz commander.

McArthur is making his fourth flight into space. Tokarev visited the
Station in his previous spaceflight, on a Shuttle mission in 1999.
McArthur and Tokarev will launch on a Soyuz spacecraft in early
October from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

With them will be Gregory Olsen, 60, who will spend eight days on the
Station under a contract with Roscosmos, the Russian Federal Space
Agency. He will be the third private citizen to reach the Station.

Image to right: From left are, Expedition 12 crewmembers Commander
William McArthur and Flight Engineer Valery Tokarev, along with Space
Flight Participant Greg Olsen. Credit: NASA

McArthur and Tokarev will spend more than a week with their
predecessors, Expedition 11 Commander Sergei Krikalev and NASA Science
Officer John Phillips. Handover includes briefings on Station safety,
systems, procedures, equipment and science.

Olsen will return to Earth on Expedition 11's Soyuz with Krikalev and
Phillips.

McArthur and Tokarev were to have been joined during Expedition 12 by
European Space Agency Astronaut Thomas Reiter of Germany, 47. He was
to fly into space on the STS-121 mission.

With that Shuttle mission delayed until no earlier than March 2006,
Reiter would arrive at the ISS in the final days of the Expedition 12
increment. Reiter, who flew for six months on the Russian space
station Mir, would be the first non-American or non-Russian
long-duration crewmember on the Station. He will fly under a
commercial agreement between ESA and Roscosmos.

Image to left: European Space Agency Astronaut Thomas Reiter. Credit:
NASA ...

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Well, John, you should learn how to use your newsreader. I wrote no
> part of the sentence above that you have erroneously attributed to me.

Sorry Matt, I inadvertantly pasted over your line about no attacks since
9/11.

One persons historical perspective...


Katrina’s worst damage will take the form of recriminations
Friday, September 02, 2005
DAVID BROOKS


Hurricanes come in two waves. First comes the rainstorm, and then comes
what the historian John Barry calls the "human storm": the
recriminations, the political conflict and the battle over compensation.
Floods wash away the surface of society — the settled way things have
been done. They expose the underlying power structures, the injustices,
the patterns of corruption and the unacknowledged inequalities. When you
look back over the meteorological turbulence in America’s it’s striking
how often political turbulence has followed.

In 1889 in Pennsylvania, a great flood washed away much of Johnstown.
The water’s crushing destruction sounded to one person like the sound of
a "lot of horses grinding oats." Witnesses watched hundreds of people
trapped on a burning bridge, forced to choose between burning to death
or throwing themselves into the churning waters to drown.

The flood was so abnormal that the country seemed to have trouble
grasping what had happened. The national media were filled with wild
exaggerations and fabrications: stories of rivers dammed with corpses,
of children who died while playing ring-around-therosy and who were
found with their hands still clasped and with smiles still on their faces.

Prejudices were let loose. Hungarians then were akin to today’s illegal
immigrants; they were hard-working people who took jobs no one else
wanted. Newspapers carried accounts of gangs of Hungarian men cutting
off dead women’s fingers to steal their rings. "Drunken Hungarians,
Dancing, Singing, Cursing and Fighting Amid the Ruins" a New York Herald
headline blared.

Then, as David McCullough notes in The Johnstown Flood, public fury
turned on the Pittsburgh millionaires whose club’s fishing pond had
emptied on the town. The Chicago Herald depicted the millionaires as
Roman aristocrats, seeking pleasure while the poor died like beasts in
the Colosseum.

Even before the flood, public resentment was building against the newly
rich industrialists. Protests were growing against the trusts, against
industrialization and against the new concentrations of wealth. The
Johnstown flood crystallized the public’s anger, for the fishing club
was, indeed, partly to blame. Public reaction to the disaster helped set
the stage for the progressive movement and the trust-busting that was to
come.

In 1900, another great storm hit the United States, killing more than
6,000 people in Galveston, Texas. The storm exposed racial animosities,
for this time equally false stories swept through the press, accusing
blacks of cutting off the fingers of corpses to steal wedding rings. The
devastation ended Galveston’s chance to beat out Houston as Texas’
leading port.

Then in 1927, the great Mississippi flood rumbled down upon New Orleans.
As Barry writes in his account, Rising Tide, the disaster ripped the
veil off the genteel, feudal relations between whites and blacks, and
revealed the festering iniquities. Blacks were rounded up into work
camps and held by armed guards. They were prevented from leaving as the
waters rose. A half-empty steamer, the Capitol, played Bye Bye Blackbird
as it sailed away. The racist violence that followed the floods helped
persuade many blacks to move north.

Civic leaders intentionally flooded poor and middle-class areas to ease
the floodwater’s pressure on the city, and then reneged on promises to
compensate those whose homes were destroyed. That helped fuel the
populist anger that led to Huey Long’s success. Across the country,
people demanded that the federal government get involved in disaster
relief, helping to set the stage for the New Deal. The local civic elite
turned insular and reactionary, and New Orleans never really recovered
its preflood vibrancy.

We’d like to think that the stories of hurricanes and floods are always
stories of people rallying together to give aid and comfort. And,
indeed, each of America’s great floods has prompted a popular response
both generous and inspiring. But floods also are civic examinations.
Amid all the stories that recur with every disaster — tales of sudden
death and miraculous survival, the displacement and the disease — there
is also the testing.

Civic arrangements work or they fail. Leaders are found worthy or
wanting. What’s happening in New Orleans and Mississippi today is a
human tragedy. But look closely toward the people you see wandering,
devastated, around New Orleans: They are predominantly black and poor.
The political disturbances are still to come.

David Brooks writes for The New York Times.

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:30:38 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>One persons historical perspective...
>
>
>Katrina’s worst damage will take the form of recriminations
>Friday, September 02, 2005
>DAVID BROOKS
>
>
>Hurricanes come in ...

Interesting.

David Brooks was full of recrimination for baby Bush on the News Hour
with Jim Lehrer:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/bop_9-2.htmlDAVID

BROOKS: This is -- first of all it is a national humiliation to see
bodies floating in a river for five days in a major American city. But
second, you have to remember, this was really a de-legitimization of
institutions.

Our institutions completely failed us and it is not as if it is the
first in the past three years -- this follows Abu Ghraib, the failure
of planning in Iraq, the intelligence failures, the corporate
scandals, the media scandals.

We have had over the past four or five years a whole series of
scandals that soured the public mood. You've seen a rise in feeling
the country is headed in the wrong direction.

And I think this is the biggest one and the bursting one, and I must
say personally it is the one that really says hey, it feels like the
70s now where you really have a loss of faith in institutions. Let's
get out of this mess. And I really think this is so important as a
cultural moment, like the blackouts of 1977, just people are sick of
it.

....

DAVID BROOKS: But to reiterate the point I made earlier, which is this
is the anti-9/11, just in terms of public confidence, when 9/11
happened Giuliani was right there and just as a public presence,
forceful -- no public presence like that now. So you have had a surge
of strength, people felt good about the country even though we had
been hit on 9/11.

Now we've been hit again in a different way; people feel lousy; people
feel ashamed and part of that is because of the public presentation.
In part that is because of the failure of Bush to understand
immediately the shame people felt.

Sitting up there on the airplane and looking out the window was
terrible. And the three days of doing nothing, really, on Bush was
terrible. And even today, I found myself, as you know, I support his
politics quite often.

DAVID BROOKS: Look at him today earlier in the program, this is how
Mark Shields must feel looking at him, I'm angry at the guy and maybe
it will pass for me. But a lot of people and a lot of Republicans are
furious right now.

Larry Dighera wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:30:38 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::
[snip]

>Sitting up there on the airplane and looking out the window was
>terrible. And the three days of doing nothing, really, on Bush was
>terrible. And even today, I found myself, as you know, I support his
>politics quite often.
>
>DAVID BROOKS: Look at him today earlier in the program, this is how
>Mark Shields must feel looking at him, I'm angry at the guy and maybe
>it will pass for me. But a lot of people and a lot of Republicans are
>furious right now.

There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly condemned.
There has been harsh condemnation for him showing up at the site, when his
choppers could be used for rescue efforts. The same would be true for any
President. It's just too bad the NOLA Mayor didn't call for evacuation
sooner, and didn't carry out the plans that were in place.

http://tinyurl.com/crkal
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-18/112523994020
1382.xml&story
list=louisiana
"Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said
President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for
the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."

NOLA Emergency plans:
http://tinyurl.com/94wrz
http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

These buses could have been used, along with city buses:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

- Rick

When the mandatory evacuation was ordered on Sunday, the school bus
drivers left town.

The fault really lies with the state as evacuation is a regional
problem. Orleans Parish (New Orleans) has a population of 485K .
Jefferson Parish across the Mississippi and actually south of the city
is 455K. The Interstates which should be the main road out are on the
New Orleans side of the river.

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote in message ...
>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:30:38 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::
> [snip]
>
>>Sitting up there on the airplane and looking out the window was
>>terrible. And the three days of doing nothing, really, on Bush was
>>terrible. And even today, I found myself, as you know, I support his
>>politics quite often.
>>
>>DAVID BROOKS: Look at him today earlier in the program, this is how
>>Mark Shields must feel looking at him, I'm angry at the guy and maybe
>>it will pass for me. But a lot of people and a lot of Republicans are
>>furious right now.
>
> There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly
> condemned.
> There has been harsh condemnation for him showing up at the site, when
> his
> choppers could be used for rescue efforts. The same would be true for
> any
> President. It's just too bad the NOLA Mayor didn't call for evacuation
> sooner, and didn't carry out the plans that were in place.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/crkal
> http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-18/112523994020
> 1382.xml&story
> list=louisiana
> "Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference,
> said
> President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory
> evacuation for
> the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."
>
> NOLA Emergency plans:
> http://tinyurl.com/94wrz
> http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26
>
> These buses could have been used, along with city buses:
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015
>
> - Rick
>
>

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:16:17 -0500, "Rick"
> wrote in
>::

>There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly condemned.

I doubt he would have been condemned for taking an interest in the
disaster area a few days earlier.

He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal disaster
aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. How much earlier do you
want him to take an interest?

Whether the orders were effective soon enough is obviously open to
debate, but the Federal government did start the ball rolling before the
disaster.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:16:17 -0500, "Rick"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly
>>condemned.
>
> I doubt he would have been condemned for taking an interest in the
> disaster area a few days earlier.
>

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:02:02 GMT, "sfb" > wrote in
<_PqSe.917$9q4.789@trnddc08>::

>He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal disaster
>aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

When did he personally inspect the area?

Are you suggesting the Federal government is totally incapable of action
without the President looking over everybody's shoulders? The single
most important thing a President can do is issue the go order which was
done long before the actual disaster.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:02:02 GMT, "sfb" > wrote in
> <_PqSe.917$9q4.789@trnddc08>::
>
>>He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal
>>disaster
>>aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.
>
> When did he personally inspect the area?
>

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:02:02 GMT, "sfb" > wrote in
> <_PqSe.917$9q4.789@trnddc08>::
>
>
>>He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal disaster
>>aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.
>
>
> When did he personally inspect the area?

That's pathetic.

Larry Dighera wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:02:02 GMT, "sfb" > wrote in
><_PqSe.917$9q4.789@trnddc08>::
>
>>He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal disaster
>>aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.
>
>When did he personally inspect the area?

Do you mean when did he stage photo-ops and interrupt rescue operations with
his presence?

- Rick

Go ahead Tom, go through life with blinders on. Look straight ahead
only, don't worry about peripheral vision. There's nothing important
to see along the sides of the road anyway. If things don't agree with
you, you can just magically tune them out.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Tom Fleischman wrote:
> It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
> anymore.
>
> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.


Sweet.

In article
<2005090410211516807%bodhioneeightyeightjunkatmacdo tcom@junkjunk>,
Tom Fleischman > wrote:
> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.


Wow... I'm honored to be in such great company.



JKG

Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning.
Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored.
The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return
control to a more federal central system?

Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and
Lousiana debacles.

How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation
order when the local and state didn't even bother?

I'd say it beats the option of goosestepping in Red Square with Komrade
Fleischman anyday! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wow... I'm honored to be in such great company.
>
>
>
> JKG

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:16:17 -0500, "Rick"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly condemned.
>
> I doubt he would have been condemned for taking an interest in the
> disaster area a few days earlier.

He signed the Fed side of the papers declaring the area a disaster BEFORe
the hurricane hit. The Stte side of the papers had to be executed, though,
before the Feds could move.

He took an interest.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:02:02 GMT, "sfb" > wrote in
> <_PqSe.917$9q4.789@trnddc08>::
>
>>He signed the orders declaring the states eligible for Federal disaster
>>aid the week before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.
>
> When did he personally inspect the area?

Just exactly what do you think the presidential inspection accomplishes in
REAL terms with regard to helping out and solving problems?

The President (no matter who it is) gets all the reports he/she needs to
determine the severity of the problems.

The presidential fly by is nothing more than an attempt to quiet the morons
who think that UNLESS the presidents fly over the area and sees it for
themselves, they don't care. It's the aerial equivalent of biting one's lip
and announcing that they feel your pain.

It contributes NOTHING to solving the problems. In fact it's a hideous waste
of valuable time.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Oh, God. I didn't make the "A" list once again.

DAMN.


Jim


> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my kill
> file with the other trolls.

Aren't the civilian and military rules different? Can't the President
can crank up FEMA, but the National Guard is a state thing with Federal
concurrence.

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:16:17 -0500, "Rick"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>There's not one thing Bush could do that could not be harshly
>>>condemned.
>>
>> I doubt he would have been condemned for taking an interest in the
>> disaster area a few days earlier.
>
> He signed the Fed side of the papers declaring the area a disaster
> BEFORe
> the hurricane hit. The Stte side of the papers had to be executed,
> though,
> before the Feds could move.
>
> He took an interest.
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:21:15 -0400, Tom Fleischman
> wrote in
<2005090410211516807%bodhioneeightyeightjunkatmacdo tcom@junkjunk>::

>I personally cannot abide these assholes anymore.
>
>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>kill file


At least those airmen have the decency and good sense not to profane
their brothers publicly. :-(

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>When did he personally inspect the area?

gregg wrote:
> Just exactly what do you think the presidential inspection accomplishes in
> REAL terms with regard to helping out and solving problems?
> The President (no matter who it is) gets all the reports he/she needs to
> determine the severity of the problems.
> The presidential fly by is nothing more than an attempt to quiet the morons
> who think that UNLESS the presidents fly over the area and sees it for
> themselves, they don't care. It's the aerial equivalent of biting one's lip
> and announcing that they feel your pain.
> It contributes NOTHING to solving the problems. In fact it's a hideous waste
> of valuable time.

This morning on ABC, they played a video made earlier this week of
George Stephanopolas riding in an S-76 flying around the New Orleans
ares with Louisiana Senator Andrews (?).
She was blaming all of New Orleans and Louisiana's ills on the Bush
administration.
She complained about his visit earlier this week and how it was just a
photo op.
She said Bush should come ride with her so she can show him the real
disaster area. (Sounds like someone wants a photo op with the President?
"That's right Mr and Ms Louisiana voter, that was me with the President
during our hour of need!")
Part of the tour included her property an area on a point of land where
she had been staying prior to the hurricane. She kept calling a "camp".
All the "camps" on this point of land were high priced year round homes.
She said some of them were worth over a million dollars. Each had their
own 300 foot sea wall/dock.
Her home was destroyed, as were most of the others that had been built
on slabs. Those homes built on stilts were intact with minimum damage,
as were the boathouses.

In article >,
john smith > wrote:
> Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning.
> Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored.
> The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return
> control to a more federal central system?
>
> Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and
> Lousiana debacles.
>
> How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation
> order when the local and state didn't even bother?


Regardless of any opinions of the role of federal and state governments,
the fact is that the Constitution specifically prohibits federal
meddling in ANYTHING that isn't specifically stated in the Constitution.
It doesn't take much studying to determine that most of what the federal
government does is not constitutional. There is a mechanism to amend
the Constitution to permit additional federal authority, and that is the
mechanism that should be used--and not the courts--if the population
wants to grant the federal government greater authority.

The scary part about disasters like Katrina are the large populations
looking to the government, especially the federal government, to bail
them out. Decades ago, folks turned to their communities and local
governments for help, they toughed it out, and survived. In today's
world, responsible behavior is punished and irresponsible behavior is
rewarded with "free" hand-outs by the federal government.

I don't know much about the politicians in Louisiana, but I am having a
difficult time understanding why tens of thousands of folks would be
offered "refuge" at a location inside a city that is mostly below sea
level and surrounded by major bodies of water. Why weren't folks put on
buses and evacuated outside of the city to higher ground BEFORE the
storm? It seems to me that the governor, mayor, and other state and
local politicians bear the brunt of the blame for the resulting human
debacle in New Orleans.



JKG

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, God. I didn't make the "A" list once again.
>
> DAMN.
>
>> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my kill
>> file with the other trolls.

I didn't make the list either. I'm probably already in most peoples lists
anyways.

-Greg B.

sfb wrote:

> Aren't the civilian and military rules different? Can't the President
> can crank up FEMA, but the National Guard is a state thing with Federal
> concurrence.


I don't believe so. The Feds can't move into a State and start doing anyting
unless the State asks for it. No matter if it's military or civilian.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Matt,

> Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall a single terrorist attack on
> US soil since 9/11.
>

And that's got exactly WHAT to do with the TSA or the Dept. for Homeland
Security? Prove correlation, please - if you can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I believe the Gov. of a State may call up it's National Guard troops and
even ask for assistance with other states National Guard troops. Federal
troops can not enter a State in an operation capacity unless requested by a
State..and I bet those forms would be in triplicate. ;)
I'm sure there are all kinds of exemptions for training manuvers and such.
But the rules exist so the US does not become a military state. It's alittle
funny when you think about it, most of the same folks complaining now
because troops were not there, would be the same ones complaining loudest if
the Feds did not follow that rule. ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> sfb wrote:
>
>> Aren't the civilian and military rules different? Can't the President
>> can crank up FEMA, but the National Guard is a state thing with Federal
>> concurrence.
>
>
> I don't believe so. The Feds can't move into a State and start doing
> anyting
> unless the State asks for it. No matter if it's military or civilian.
>
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

Tom Fleischman wrote:

> It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
> anymore.
>
> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.

What a coward.

Matt

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
>> It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
>> anymore.
>>
>> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
>> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
>> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
>
>
>
> Sweet.

I was thinking the same ... we're in pretty good company! :-)

Matt

RST Engineering wrote:

> Oh, God. I didn't make the "A" list once again.
>
> DAMN.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my kill
>>file with the other trolls.

Jim, on behalf of the above esteemed group, I hereby offer you honorary
membership! :-)

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:21:15 -0400, Tom Fleischman
> > wrote in
> <2005090410211516807%bodhioneeightyeightjunkatmacdo tcom@junkjunk>::
>
>
>>I personally cannot abide these assholes anymore.
>>
>>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>>kill file
>
>
>
> At least those airmen have the decency and good sense not to profane
> their brothers publicly. :-(

I think we may have to offer Larry honorary membership as well! :-)

Matt

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 13:30:11 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote:

>I believe the Gov. of a State may call up it's National Guard troops and
>even ask for assistance with other states National Guard troops. Federal
>troops can not enter a State in an operation capacity unless requested by a
>State..and I bet those forms would be in triplicate. ;)
>I'm sure there are all kinds of exemptions for training manuvers and such.
>But the rules exist so the US does not become a military state. It's alittle
>funny when you think about it, most of the same folks complaining now
>because troops were not there, would be the same ones complaining loudest if
>the Feds did not follow that rule. ;)

Somebody forgot to tell Ike.

Don

And Lincoln ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>
> Somebody forgot to tell Ike.
>
> Don

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> As Michael Moore asks in his open letter to Bush: Can you imagine
>> leaving white people on their roofs for five days?

> I can imagine leaving Mikey Moore on a roof top for five days, or even
> 50. :-)


Parking ramp, maybe. Roof top ....not strong enough.


Montblack

> You know what, Jay? You disgust me me. I've had it with your racist,
> christo-fascist ravings.

> I'm gone...

You wanted the truth? You couldn't handle the truth.

Have a nice life...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Oh, God. I didn't make the "A" list once again.
>
> DAMN.

Don't feel bad, Jim. Tom can't killfile someone twice!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("N93332" wrote)
> I didn't make the list either. I'm probably already in most peoples lists
> anyways.


"I want the sweet love of Jesus! I danced for the Devil; I saw him, I wrote
in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the
Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the
Devil! ....I saw Greg B with the Devil!"

You are now :-)


Montblack
"Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I
lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of
them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul;
leave me my name!" --- What the heck. Hang 'em all - I'll just make up a
new screen name.

> He who lives in glass houses...
>
> http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/NewMadrid/Charleston1895.gif
>
> Shows the New Madrid fault seismic extends into Iowa.

And you can bet for damned sure I'm gonna expect ALL of my tax money back,
in spades, when my business comes tumbling down...

Every last nickel. Times two.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> If premiums cover costs, why can't one get _private_ flood insurance?

You can, but the private companies don't give discounts for meeting Federal
construction standards.

> That's nice, but it would be better not to build in flood prone areas in the
> first place.

Well, people have been doing that for millenia for excellent reasons. They
aren't going to stop.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

>> And when (not if) it is destroyed, there will be people begging the
>> Federal
>> Government to come rebuild it.
>
> Yeah, let's only settle in places that are completely safe from natural
> disaster. Why don't we make a list of such places? I'll let you start.

Let's start here:

Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in areas that are
absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to flood? How about we start by
not allowing people to build businesses and dwellings BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT
TO AN OCEAN?

Crikey, man, what does it take (in your world) to prove this point?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> And the King of Prussia still owes my ancestors, dammit.

Well, unless the King is pumping oil from under your hotel, that has zilch to do
with the preceding post.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

>> If premiums cover costs, why can't one get _private_ flood insurance?
>
> You can, but the private companies don't give discounts for meeting
> Federal construction standards.

There are no private insurance companies that issued flood insurance in N.O.

At least, that's what my biz insurance guy told me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> kill file with the other trolls.

Well, I may be last, but I made the grade. Hooray!

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in areas that are
> absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to flood?

There goes most of New Jersey. I live on a 500 year flood plain myself.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

>>>>> "TF" == Tom Fleischman > writes:

TF> You know what, Jay? You disgust me me. I've had it with your
TF> racist, christo-fascist ravings.

TF> I'm gone...

JH> I don't buy it. I've worked with and around more poor people
JH> than probably anyone else on this newsgroup. Almost without
JH> exception, the very first thing a poor, inner city family buys,
JH> after arriving in town -- before a bed, before clothing, before
JH> toiletries (but after booze, cigarettes, and a big, loud
JH> stereo) -- is an old, POS car.

<remainder of bigoted statement deleted>

Tom, you're quite right about Jay's racist ravings, but thankfully
there aren't too many others like him. Jay will never get it, but
more do than don't. Hang around. Fortunately Jay's bigoted postings
and the responses tend to stick to subject header so it's easy to
delete the entire thread if you want.

Tom Fleischman > wrote:

>It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes anymore.
>
>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
>bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
>and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.

Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason will be missed but I
understand your departure. It is indeed difficult to listen to the
inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:

JH> Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in
JH> areas that are absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to
JH> flood? How about we start by not allowing people to build
JH> businesses and dwellings BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT TO AN OCEAN?

About 25% of the Netherlands is below sea level, yet they have decided
that's an acceptable risk.

The reason might be because their decision-makers understand the
scientific/statistical principle that the statement "100% guaranteed
to flood" is meaningless. Even a statement using a number less than
100% is meaningless without a corresponding time period.

Apparently the Dutch have decided to build their levees so that their
flood return period, whatever it is (I'll guess it's over 1000 years),
is acceptable to them.

There are valid historic reasons for building near the ocean, and I'll
bet when New Orleans was started the land was not below sea level.

I saw a news clip of an interview with a US Army Corps of Engineer
general who seemed to know his stuff. According to him the levees
around NO have held in past storms up to their design. Katrina was
beyond their design strength and sure enough they failed.

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> There are valid historic reasons for building near the ocean, and I'll
> bet when New Orleans was started the land was not below sea level.

In fact, I just saw an AP article that stated that the old city (like the French
quarter) is in better shape than the rest of the city.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_re_us/katrina_surviving_in_the_quarter_hk1

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
> > Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning.
> > Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored.
> > The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return
> > control to a more federal central system?
> >
> > Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and
> > Lousiana debacles.
> >
> > How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation
> > order when the local and state didn't even bother?
>
>
> Regardless of any opinions of the role of federal and state governments,
> the fact is that the Constitution specifically prohibits federal
> meddling in ANYTHING that isn't specifically stated in the Constitution.
> It doesn't take much studying to determine that most of what the federal
> government does is not constitutional. There is a mechanism to amend
> the Constitution to permit additional federal authority, and that is the
> mechanism that should be used--and not the courts--if the population
> wants to grant the federal government greater authority.
>
> The scary part about disasters like Katrina are the large populations
> looking to the government, especially the federal government, to bail
> them out. Decades ago, folks turned to their communities and local
> governments for help, they toughed it out, and survived. In today's
> world, responsible behavior is punished and irresponsible behavior is
> rewarded with "free" hand-outs by the federal government.
>
> I don't know much about the politicians in Louisiana, but I am having a
> difficult time understanding why tens of thousands of folks would be
> offered "refuge" at a location inside a city that is mostly below sea
> level and surrounded by major bodies of water. Why weren't folks put on
> buses and evacuated outside of the city to higher ground BEFORE the
> storm?

Because the mayor did not act except to park the busses on low ground where
they soon became submarines.

It seems to me that the governor, mayor, and other state and
> local politicians bear the brunt of the blame for the resulting human
> debacle in New Orleans.
>
>
>
> JKG

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Fleischman wrote:
> >
> >> It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
> >> anymore.
> >>
> >> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> >> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> >> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> >> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> >> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
> >> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
> >> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sweet.
>
> I was thinking the same ... we're in pretty good company! :-)
>
> Matt

I think T-shirts are in order.

> Tom, you're quite right about Jay's racist ravings, but thankfully
> there aren't too many others like him. Jay will never get it, but
> more do than don't. Hang around. Fortunately Jay's bigoted postings
> and the responses tend to stick to subject header so it's easy to
> delete the entire thread if you want.

You arrogant fool. You have NO idea what the inner cities are like, and you
have NO right to call me "racist."

This isn't a black issue AT ALL -- which you would know if you were only
smart enough to actually follow a thread from start to finish.

You and Fleishman can sit there with your high and mighty, holier than thou
attitudes, having never had a gun pointed at you, having never stepped
across a body (alive? dead? who knows?) to get into a ghetto house, and
having never had to see, daily, the human refuse that your stupid welfare
state has created. Year after year, generation after generation of ruined,
hopeless people -- because of people like YOU who believe that throwing
money at them will make them go away.

True, you can continue to bury your head in the sand with regard to the
inner city war zones Americans like you have created, and refuse to face,
but you will now do it with CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox News -- and people like me,
who worked in the inner city for seven years, collecting money --
continually pushing your face into the litter box.

This may be the only good thing that comes out of Katrina. Try not to choke
on it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> In fact, I just saw an AP article that stated that the old city (like the
> French quarter) is in better shape than the rest of the city.

Yep. The French Quarter was largely unscathed -- except by looting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt,

> Go back and read the thread.
>

I did. I fail to see what relevant context I left out. You claimed the
Dept of Homeland Security has been succesful in preventing terrorist
attacks. I asked for proof.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay,

> Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in areas that are
> absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to flood? How about we start by
> not allowing people to build businesses and dwellings BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT
> TO AN OCEAN?
>

You cannot seriously be that naive. Well, it seems you can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay Honeck opined

>>> And when (not if) it is destroyed, there will be people begging the
>>> Federal
>>> Government to come rebuild it.
>>
>> Yeah, let's only settle in places that are completely safe from natural
>> disaster. Why don't we make a list of such places? I'll let you start.

>Let's start here:

>Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in areas that are
>absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to flood? How about we start by
>not allowing people to build businesses and dwellings BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT
>TO AN OCEAN?

It's (was) a free country... All we have to do is not to subsidise them or
(with warning) not to rescue them in case of disaster. If they still want to
build there is still the Darwin Awards.

>Crikey, man, what does it take (in your world) to prove this point?




-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

George Patterson opined

>Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>> If premiums cover costs, why can't one get _private_ flood insurance?

>You can, but the private companies don't give discounts for meeting Federal
>construction standards.

>> That's nice, but it would be better not to build in flood prone areas in
>> the first place.

>Well, people have been doing that for millenia for excellent reasons. They
>aren't going to stop.

Fine, but not on my dime.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

George Patterson wrote:

> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
>>
>> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>> kill file with the other trolls.
>
>
> Well, I may be last, but I made the grade. Hooray!

Last, George, but definitely not least! :-)

Matt

TL wrote:

> Tom Fleischman > wrote:
>
>
>>It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes anymore.
>>
>>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>>kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
>>bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
>>and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
>
>
> Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
> narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
> just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
> by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
> few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
> bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason will be missed but I
> understand your departure. It is indeed difficult to listen to the
> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
that mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>Go back and read the thread.
>>
>
>
> I did. I fail to see what relevant context I left out. You claimed the
> Dept of Homeland Security has been succesful in preventing terrorist
> attacks. I asked for proof.

Well, we haven't had an attack since 9/11 on American soil and there is
a fair bit of evidence that the terrorists haven't stopped trying. That
is effective enough for me.

How about you show some proof that they have been ineffective as you claim?

Matt

>> Well, I may be last, but I made the grade. Hooray!
>
> Last, George, but definitely not least! :-)

Yep -- we will definitely need T-shirts for OSH '06 that say:

"I was Kill-Filed by Tom Fleischman"

A true status symbol, if there ever was one!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt,

> That
> is effective enough for me.
>

Again, correlation is the key. Where do you see any proof for a
correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the work of the
authorities? There were no terrorist attacks for a long time before
9/11 - and no DHS either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

How long is long?

1993 World Trade Center in the US. 1997 Khobar Towers and 2000 USS Cole
outside the US.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
>> That
>> is effective enough for me.
>>
>
> Again, correlation is the key. Where do you see any proof for a
> correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the work of the
> authorities? There were no terrorist attacks for a long time before
> 9/11 - and no DHS either.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>>
>>>Go back and read the thread.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I did. I fail to see what relevant context I left out. You claimed the
>> Dept of Homeland Security has been succesful in preventing terrorist
>> attacks. I asked for proof.
>
> Well, we haven't had an attack since 9/11 on American soil and there is a
> fair bit of evidence that the terrorists haven't stopped trying. That is
> effective enough for me.

Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body cavity
searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just curious.

moo

We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks
have been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was
gathered only helps the bad guys.

Ask anyone with a knee or hip prosthesis about what it takes to get
through airport security.

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message news:SLYSe.4342>
> Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that,
> your observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as
> useless as claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to.
> If body cavity searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that?
> Just curious.
>
> moo
>

TL wrote:
> It is indeed difficult to listen to the inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

bigot - a term of insult used of Normans, apparently a Norman oath

How dare you! You French are so arrogant!

"TL" > wrote in message

> Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
> narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
> just how disconnected from reality some people can be.

Godlike. I am always touched at the lack of presumption dislayed by those
who sit in judgement of others on Usenet.

> I am impressed
> by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
> few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
> bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason will be missed but I
> understand your departure. It is indeed difficult to listen to the
> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

Then cover your ears. And show these misguided souls the same mercy and
support you deem due to other misfortunistas. I can't wait to see the logic
employed to reconcile this.

moo

"sfb" > wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...
> We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks have
> been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was gathered only
> helps the bad guys.

I hope this is a joke.
>
> Ask anyone with a knee or hip prosthesis about what it takes to get
> through airport security.

They deserve it. Ditto for old ladies in wheel chairs. I feel safer. I
kind of knew that something that musn't be disclosed to the public is
happening at security checkpoints. It makes sense now.

Listen, git, nobody's taking over an airplane again. It didn't even work on
the fourth (maybe more) plane. It took less than an hour for *citizens* to
figure out what was happening, devise a plan and act. Frisking your granny
isn't going to accomplish what they claim.

moo


>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message news:SLYSe.4342>
>> Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
>> observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
>> claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body
>> cavity searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just curious.
>>
>> moo
>>
>
>

"TL" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Fleischman > wrote:
>
>>It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
>>anymore.
>>
>>You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>>that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>>"Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>>Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>>kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
>>bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
>>and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
>
> Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
> narrow-minded, and misguided.

And you (and Fleishman) haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> TL wrote:

>> Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
>> narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
>> just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
>> by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
>> few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
>> bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason will be missed but I
>> understand your departure. It is indeed difficult to listen to the
>> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.
>
> What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does that
> mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?
>
They turn off the key clickers.

"TL" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Fleischman > wrote:

>
> Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
> narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
> just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
> by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
> few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
> bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason

Voice of reason? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you even have hint of a clue what the word means?

Talk about full of it: World Record there.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Fleischman wrote:
>> >
>> >> It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
>> >> anymore.
>> >>
>> >> You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
>> >> that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
>> >> "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
>> >> Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
>> >> kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
>> >> bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
>> >> and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sweet.
>>
>> I was thinking the same ... we're in pretty good company! :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> I think T-shirts are in order.
>
And ballcaps. The proceeds go to the disaster relief fund.

Happy Dog wrote:
> Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
> observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
> claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body cavity
> searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just curious.

I did that a couple days ago, just before you joined the thread.
Four "home grown" terrorist wannabes in LA were arrested according to
the wire service report.

"sfb" > wrote in message news:3BYSe.13916$QN4.7242@trnddc02...
> How long is long?
>
> 1993 World Trade Center in the US. 1997 Khobar Towers and 2000 USS Cole
> outside the US.

Then there's Lodi, Detroit, (where was that one in the east? Manhattan?)


>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt,
>>
>>> That
>>> is effective enough for me.
>>>
>>
>> Again, correlation is the key. Where do you see any proof for a
>> correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the work of the
>> authorities? There were no terrorist attacks for a long time before
>> 9/11 - and no DHS either.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
>

Doof wrote:
> Then there's Lodi, Detroit, (where was that one in the east? Manhattan?)

Rochester, New York

"Doof" > wrote in message to the
> >> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.
> >
> > What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
that
> > mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?
> >
> They turn off the key clickers.
>

The what?

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>That
>>is effective enough for me.
>>
>
>
> Again, correlation is the key. Where do you see any proof for a
> correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the work of the
> authorities? There were no terrorist attacks for a long time before
> 9/11 - and no DHS either.
>

Almost impossible to prove cause and effect in this case, but for me
correlation is plenty good enough! The goal is to not have terrorist
attacks and as long as we don't have any, then I say the system is
working reasonably well.

Where is your proof that the DHS isn't helping prevent terrorist
attacks? And the WTC bombing wasn't all that long before the airplane
attacks.


Matt

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Go back and read the thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I did. I fail to see what relevant context I left out. You claimed the
>>>Dept of Homeland Security has been succesful in preventing terrorist
>>>attacks. I asked for proof.
>>
>>Well, we haven't had an attack since 9/11 on American soil and there is a
>>fair bit of evidence that the terrorists haven't stopped trying. That is
>>effective enough for me.
>
>
> Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
> observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
> claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body cavity
> searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just curious.

Post evidence that DHS has been ineffective.

Matt

Happy Dog wrote:

> "sfb" > wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...
>
>>We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks have
>>been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was gathered only
>>helps the bad guys.
>
>
> I hope this is a joke.
>
>>Ask anyone with a knee or hip prosthesis about what it takes to get
>>through airport security.
>
>
> They deserve it. Ditto for old ladies in wheel chairs. I feel safer. I
> kind of knew that something that musn't be disclosed to the public is
> happening at security checkpoints. It makes sense now.
>
> Listen, git, nobody's taking over an airplane again. It didn't even work on
> the fourth (maybe more) plane. It took less than an hour for *citizens* to
> figure out what was happening, devise a plan and act. Frisking your granny
> isn't going to accomplish what they claim.

I agree, unfortunately, our misguided civil rights activists think that
profiling is illegal, even though it would be much more effective and
would spare the grannies of the world ... until a granny attempts to
bring a bomb onto an airplane.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
> I agree, unfortunately, our misguided civil rights activists think that
> profiling is illegal, even though it would be much more effective and
> would spare the grannies of the world ... until a granny attempts to
> bring a bomb onto an airplane.
>
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3828

The Security Pretext: An Examination of the Growth of Federal Police
Agencies
by Melanie Scarborough

Melanie Scarborough writes a monthly column for the Washington Post.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, bureaucrats and special
interest groups have been busy repackaging everything from peanut subsidies
to steel protectionism under the rubric of "national security." Federal law
enforcement agencies have also been expanding their power in the name of
combating terrorism, whether or not such expansion has anything to do with
enhancing security. One safeguard that exists to prevent such abuse is
congressional oversight, but too many members of Congress are too often
reluctant to challenge law enforcement officials.

For freedom to prevail in the age of terrorism, three things are essential.
First, government officials must take a sober look at the potential risk and
recognize that there is no reason to panic and act rashly.

Second, Congress must stop federal police agencies from acting arbitrarily.
Before imposing costly and restrictive security measures that inconvenience
thousands of people, police agencies ought to be required to produce
cost-benefit analyses.

Third, government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to
their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America
has faced. British troops burned the White House in 1814, the Japanese navy
launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Soviet Union deployed
hundreds of nuclear missiles that targeted American cities. If policymakers
are serious about defending our freedom and our way of life, they must wage
this war without discarding our traditional constitutional framework of
limited government.


Full Text of Briefing Papers no. 94 (PDF, 163 KB)

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doof" > wrote in message to the
> > >> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.
> > >
> > > What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
> that
> > > mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?
> > >
> > They turn off the key clickers.
> >
>
> The what?
>

He calls himself "Doof". What do you expect.

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tom Fleischman > wrote:
>
> >
> > Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
> > narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
> > just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
> > by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
> > few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
> > bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason
>
> Voice of reason? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Do you even have hint of a clue what the word means?
>
> Talk about full of it: World Record there.
>

So speaks the "Doof".

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing
from his own

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:

JH> You arrogant fool. You have NO idea what the inner cities are
JH> like, and you have NO right to call me "racist."

Touched a nerve, eh? We're getting near the truth.

I lived in Oakland for a year. That was enough for me; I didn't need
7 years to figure out that West Oakland wasn't good for white boys.

I doubt you're an overt racist, but your grotesque stereotyping of
just about every group that comes across these newsgroups (French,
Europeans, poor, liberals, conservatives, you-name-it), combined with
your evident lack of knowledge of cultural groups, science, economics,
almost everything you write about, explains but does not excuse your
bigotry. You embody some of the worst this country has to offer: the
ignorant-and-proud-of-it, our-way-is-best attitude which our highest
leadership is full of.

That, and no demonstration of any empathy for anyone, not in the
current disaster, not in the past. You are a sad creature.

Happy,

> > We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks have
> > been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was gathered only
> > helps the bad guys.
>
> I hope this is a joke.
>

You can be sure it's not. The trust that some people have in their government
is boundless.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Earl Grieda" >
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Doof" > wrote in message to the
>> > >> inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.
>> > >
>> > > What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
>> that
>> > > mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?
>> > >
>> > They turn off the key clickers.
>> >
>>
>> The what?
>>
>
> He calls himself "Doof". What do you expect.

Old IBM mainframe keyboards often had a solenoid that acted as a key clicker
and warning buzzer.

moo

"Matt Whiting" >
>> Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
>> observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
>> claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body
>> cavity searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just
>> curious.
>
> Post evidence that DHS has been ineffective.

I can't and shouldn't have to. Just like I can't prove that the DEA is
ineffective at limiting illegal substance abuse. They spend *billions* and
require ever more restrictions on freedom by claiming that they are
performing a sorely needed service. They use fear and hype to convince the
idiot majority that they should be able to act almost at whim. At what
point do *you* say that the ****ing you're taking isn't worth the one you're
getting?

moo

"sfb" > wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...
> We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks
> have been thwarted.

We should never be willing to accept anything the government says.

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "sfb" > wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...
> > We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks
> > have been thwarted.
>
> We should never be willing to accept anything the government says.

How about: We should never be willing to blindly accepting anything
the government says and always should be looking for supporting evidence.

And you can also substitute "a news reporter" for "government"... :-(

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> Fine, but not on my dime.

It's not on your dime.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> I think T-shirts are in order.

"Member of Fleischman's Filters" ?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Boy! Seams like he's the one getting all the free publicity.

in article hFNSe.327488$xm3.129114@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 9/4/05 7:00 PM:

>>> And when (not if) it is destroyed, there will be people begging the
>>> Federal
>>> Government to come rebuild it.
>>
>> Yeah, let's only settle in places that are completely safe from natural
>> disaster. Why don't we make a list of such places? I'll let you start.
>
> Let's start here:
>
> Perhaps we shouldn't allow citizens of the U.S. to build in areas that are
> absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed to flood? How about we start by
> not allowing people to build businesses and dwellings BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT
> TO AN OCEAN?
>
> Crikey, man, what does it take (in your world) to prove this point?

You know, the irony of all this is what set me off about your attitude to
begin with--mostly memories of the '93 Mississippi floods (including Iowa
City) and all the nonsense that was said at that time--"What do these people
expect? They live in a flood plain, for heaven's sake!"

Remember those people, Jay? All those smug jackasses who wondered how anyone
could live next to a river that was absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed
to flood? I wonder how many of them were from New Orleans?

> I lived in Oakland for a year. That was enough for me; I didn't need
> 7 years to figure out that West Oakland wasn't good for white boys.

It's not good for ANYONE. And that is the point you (and so many like you)
seem to miss.

This isn't a black thing. This isn't a white thing. This is a cultural
thing, and the perpetual under-classes have developed their own sets of
values, traditions and goals that are diametrically opposed to everything
America (and Western civilization, for that matter) stands for. Work in
the inner city for 2 weeks, and you will walk away with a completely
different understanding of the issue.

But, of course, no liberal white guy like you would do *that*. After all,
you might learn something. Or get hurt.

Until people like you dig your heads out of your sanctimonious arses, and
see what is really happening in the inner cities, we will continue to throw
trillions of dollars at a problem that cannot be solved with money.

> That, and no demonstration of any empathy for anyone, not in the
> current disaster, not in the past. You are a sad creature.

Please. Try to keep up with the topic. We're not talking about the true
victims of the hurricane or the flooding here -- those people deserve and
have received our empathy and support. However, the cretins that have been
looting, raping, and shooting at rescuers represent the end product of a
failed culture that has been propped up by an endless stream of tax dollars,
in hopes that the inner city problems won't spread to the "nice"
neighborhoods.

Talk to the cops in these areas. Talk to the social workers. There is no
real hope of changing anything -- their only attainable goal is to cordon
off the area, so (as one officer told me) "they only kill each other."

This approach is so wrong that it should be illegal -- but people like you
continue to promote this bitterly hypocritical and unfair fallacy under the
guise of "empathy." By doing so, your supposed "empathy" has doomed
millions of people to a hopeless existence.

Great job, "Bob"! You're a real hero.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> You know, the irony of all this is what set me off about your attitude to
> begin with--mostly memories of the '93 Mississippi floods (including Iowa
> City) and all the nonsense that was said at that time--"What do these
> people
> expect? They live in a flood plain, for heaven's sake!"
>
> Remember those people, Jay? All those smug jackasses who wondered how
> anyone
> could live next to a river that was absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed
> to flood? I wonder how many of them were from New Orleans?

I didn't live in Iowa in '93, but the floods since then have convinced the
Feds to FINALLY make it illegal (or, at least, financially impossible) for
people to rebuild homes along the Mississippi. And they will NOT be
rebuilt with tax money when the inevitable floods hit again.

Anyone who now builds their home next to one of the world's great rivers had
better be WAY up on a bluff overlooking the river, or independently wealthy.

Which is as it should be.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"sfb" > wrote in message news:LM7Se.976$IT4.697@trnddc04...
> The President signed declarations enabling Federal disaster relief before
> Katrina hit the Gulf coast. Unless you expect him to be driving a Humvee
> full of water into town, it really doesn't matter where he is located as
> he always retains full Presidential authority.

And, the was not on "vacation" but was working from Crawford because the
White House was undergoing some construction...

Maybe even a better question,
Martin what have YOU done in US inner cities? How many have you lived in,
worked in..or does your opinion just come from what you see in pictures?
Other than thinking tax dollars fix these problems what have you done in
your country to fix these problems? Do you volunteer to feed the homeless?
Do you just throw some money at a bum or do you take him and buy him a meal?
Have you ever done without just to help someone else? Do you spend money on
gifts for children you do not know at Christmas? Exactly where does your
opinions of this country come from? Yep I see your post here, and I know you
hate this nation . SO before you get started in your usual rants from so
many miles away......tell us all what you do.
See some of us believe the best way to help others is by doing things
just like I have mentioned above. And I think more help would be gotten if
people did not have money taken in taxes for worthless programs. Nope , not
all people do want to help. But just look at all the donations of money and
time that other Americans and even alot of folks from other parts of the
world are sending for Katrina. It is uplifting,.....and no person had to
have it taxed out of their income either, they gave because they cared. How
much did you send? Are you making arrangements to fly over and feed some of
these folks? Probably not since every post I have ever seen of yours shows
you loathe this nation.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> However, the cretins that have been
>> looting, raping, and shooting at rescuers represent the end product of a
>> failed culture that has been propped up by an endless stream of tax
>> dollars,
>> in hopes that the inner city problems won't spread to the "nice"
>> neighborhoods.
>
> What is your solution (not right now during rescue, but in general)?
>
> "Ah, buddy, let's see ... you have no job, no home ... 2x in prison, 6
> brothers, father ran away ... hmmm ... please show up at the next
> assassination on Tuesday, 9am sharp. There is no chance that you'll ever
> make it, and govt money should not be spent on you."
>
>> Talk to the cops in these areas. Talk to the social workers. There is
>> no
>> real hope of changing anything -- their only attainable goal is to cordon
>> off the area, so (as one officer told me) "they only kill each other."
>
>
> And: what have you done in your former job except stepping _over_ the
> bodies not knowing if dead or high on drugs or whatnot?
>
> #m
> --
> Three witches watch three Swatch watches.
> Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

Sfb,

> We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks
> have been thwarted.
>

Oh sure. Trust them like last time when they said there are WMDs in Iraq
and started a war over that? Tell 2000 dead US soldiers and countless
more dead Iraqis.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter R. wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Why the hell were they there? Everyone in America knew that New Orleans --
> > and everything for 100 miles on each side -- was about to be blasted by
> > Katrina.
>
> Jay, many didn't have the economic means to escape the storm, nor a place
> to which to escape. That area is about the poorest part of the US.
>

This argument is starting to wear a little thin as more information
becomes available. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had a plan
for evacuating more than a million people from the city, including
providing transportation for up to 300,000 people who had no means of
getting out themselves. Neither the governor nor the mayor (who has
been very quick to blame everyone but himself) chose to implement this
plan, despite the fact they had plenty of warning and all of the needed
resources.

The argument that people are unable to leave also weakens as we get
more and more incidents of people refusing to leave when they are
offered transportation, despite the fact that they are being told that
they will get no more food or water or medical services if they stay.
They won't even leave with armed men telling them in no uncertain terms
that they have to leave.

We also see that a lot of the people who are refusing to leave are
anything but destitute. They are just ignorant and stubborn.

Now, really, it is easy for local officials to blame the federal
government for a weak response, but what were these local officials
doing? It appears that they were doing nothing. City and state
governments are supposed to be the first resort in an emergency. Where
were they? Police were standing by watching looters. Emergency call
centers just let phones ring off the hook.

People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties. The federal
government had to get pretty creative with the law in order to get
anything moving in New Orleans and Louisiana. Yet we have a governor in
Louisiana who took days to make up her mind whether she needed federal
help or not.

I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
are not organized before then.

Keep in mind Martin lives in a socialize European state. So his
experience with social programs is vastly different than those found in
the United States.

> I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
> of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
> a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
> are not organized before then.

Except that FEMA is proving itself to be lead by incompetent and inept
individuals. The military is proving to be the primary source of
organized relief.

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Peter R. wrote:
>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>> > Why the hell were they there? Everyone in America knew that New
>> > Orleans --
>> > and everything for 100 miles on each side -- was about to be blasted by
>> > Katrina.
>>
>> Jay, many didn't have the economic means to escape the storm, nor a place
>> to which to escape. That area is about the poorest part of the US.
>
> This argument is starting to wear a little thin as more information
> becomes available. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had a plan
> for evacuating more than a million people from the city, including
> providing transportation for up to 300,000 people who had no means of
> getting out themselves. Neither the governor nor the mayor (who has
> been very quick to blame everyone but himself) chose to implement this
> plan, despite the fact they had plenty of warning and all of the needed
> resources.

If that turns out to be the case, then the mayor and governor are certainly
among those at fault. But the above point still stands: whichever officials
may have screwed up, it's still the case that thousands of people were stuck
with no means of evacuation.

> The argument that people are unable to leave also weakens as we get
> more and more incidents of people refusing to leave when they are
> offered transportation, despite the fact that they are being told that
> they will get no more food or water or medical services if they stay.

There have certainly been reports of such refusals now that the National
Guard is on the scene. I can't tell yet how widespread it is. Anecdotally,
though, the people staying put seem largely to be home owners who don't want
to abandon their (well-stocked) homes, and thus are largely distinct from
the stranded population that urgently needed prompt rescue. (Whether the
holdouts will need rescue in a few weeks remains to be seen.)

--Gary

>> However, the cretins that have been
>> looting, raping, and shooting at rescuers represent the end product of a
>> failed culture that has been propped up by an endless stream of tax
>> dollars,
>> in hopes that the inner city problems won't spread to the "nice"
>> neighborhoods.
>
> What is your solution (not right now during rescue, but in general)?

Well, we're drifting farther and farther afield from aviation, but I'll take
a whack at this.

There are simply no easy solutions to the problems caused by a culture that:

- Humiliates those who excel academically...
- Accepts and encourages very early, single-parent child-bearing...
- Expects males to play little or no role in child rearing...
- Has no social sanctions against absentee fathers...
- Regards working 9 to 5 for "chump change" as "selling out to the Man"
- Expects the Federal Government to fulfill every basic need...
- Sees authority figures as the enemy...
- Views the sale of drugs as an acceptable economic alternative...
- Accepts violence as a normal way to solve disputes...

Many explain away the development of the under-class culture as being a
"relic from the days of slavery" -- but this doesn't explain the growing
Latino and white aspects of this culture. There is far more going on here
than simply the collapse of black society.

For most of us, the inner city is a bizarro world where up is down, left is
right, smart is dumb, and hard work is viewed as silly -- but for a huge
(and growing) percentage of our inner-city population, it is just "life."
And, as we've seen in the aftermath of Katrina, it has produced a violent
and corrosive subculture that scares the bejeesus out of people when it's
exposed.

This whole phenomenon is so hard to understand -- God knows I've tried.
I've sat down with black friends who have "made it out" and asked them to
explain the ideals and values of the inner city to me in a way that makes
logical sense -- and they are every bit as frustrated -- no, MORE
frustrated -- by it than I am. Because, in short, there *is* no logic to
it -- especially to those who are trapped in it. It's just an immediate
gratification, get-through-the-day way of life that is made possible by
oodles of tax support we now call "entitlements," which have allowed the
development of a culture that no longer sanctions unproductive behavior.
Over time, this has created a generational expectation and acceptance of
personal behaviors that most people would regard as self-destructive.

Fact: Early, single childbirth is the single highest behavioral correlation
with poverty.
Fact: Dropping out of high school correlates strongly with poverty and
crime.
Fact: Violence as a way of solving disputes often leads to prison.

Eliminate these three problems, and you've largely eliminated the underclass
in America. No cash, no entitlements required -- just a cultural sea
change.

But there are historic solutions.

Take, for example, the Jews. For centuries, one of the most hated minority
groups in the world, they came to dominate finance and many Fortune 500
businesses in America. By every measure, they have "made it out" by
literally believing the mirror-image of every under-class belief I've
outlined, above. They did it by banding together for mutual support, by
selling and buying only from other Jewish-owned and operated businesses, and
by making sure that their children received a terrific education. They
overcame incredible obstacles of prejudice, language and distance by coming
together, rather than ripping apart, as our inner cities continually do.

I'm afraid solutions are going to take more than Bill Cosby pointing out the
obvious. After all, how do you change the attitudes of an entire culture?

It's going to take a complete -- and painful -- reassessment of our "Great
Society" entitlement programs. We simply can't continue to provide the
financial support that is enabling an entire segment of our population to
self-destruct. It is morally and (from the standpoint of national survival)
logically wrong to reward self-destructive behavior.

Worse, although in the short term throwing money at the issue "makes the
problems go away" so that polite society can get on with their lives --
after all, they're only killing each other, right? -- it has created a
growing problem that cannot end well. We simply must face this issue and
deal with it as a society, sooner than later, rather than meekly continuing
to accept the Left's failed approach to the problem.

> And: what have you done in your former job except stepping _over_ the
> bodies not knowing if dead or high on drugs or whatnot?

I survived. That was the best I could hope for at the time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>> However, the cretins that have been
>>> looting, raping, and shooting at rescuers represent the end product of a
>>> failed culture that has been propped up by an endless stream of tax
>>> dollars,
>>> in hopes that the inner city problems won't spread to the "nice"
>>> neighborhoods.
>>
>> What is your solution (not right now during rescue, but in general)?
>
> Well, we're drifting farther and farther afield from aviation, but I'll
> take a whack at this.
>
> There are simply no easy solutions to the problems caused by a culture
> that:
>
> - Humiliates those who excel academically...
> - Accepts and encourages very early, single-parent child-bearing...
> - Expects males to play little or no role in child rearing...
> - Has no social sanctions against absentee fathers...
> - Regards working 9 to 5 for "chump change" as "selling out to the Man"
> - Expects the Federal Government to fulfill every basic need...
> - Sees authority figures as the enemy...
> - Views the sale of drugs as an acceptable economic alternative...
> - Accepts violence as a normal way to solve disputes...
>
> Many explain away the development of the under-class culture as being a
> "relic from the days of slavery" -- but this doesn't explain the growing
> Latino and white aspects of this culture. There is far more going on
> here than simply the collapse of black society.
>
> For most of us, the inner city is a bizarro world where up is down, left
> is right, smart is dumb, and hard work is viewed as silly -- but for a
> huge (and growing) percentage of our inner-city population, it is just
> "life." And, as we've seen in the aftermath of Katrina, it has produced a
> violent and corrosive subculture that scares the bejeesus out of people
> when it's exposed.
>
> This whole phenomenon is so hard to understand -- God knows I've tried.
> I've sat down with black friends who have "made it out" and asked them to
> explain the ideals and values of the inner city to me in a way that makes
> logical sense -- and they are every bit as frustrated -- no, MORE
> frustrated -- by it than I am. Because, in short, there *is* no logic to
> it -- especially to those who are trapped in it. It's just an immediate
> gratification, get-through-the-day way of life that is made possible by
> oodles of tax support we now call "entitlements," which have allowed the
> development of a culture that no longer sanctions unproductive behavior.
> Over time, this has created a generational expectation and acceptance of
> personal behaviors that most people would regard as self-destructive.
>
> Fact: Early, single childbirth is the single highest behavioral
> correlation with poverty.
> Fact: Dropping out of high school correlates strongly with poverty and
> crime.
> Fact: Violence as a way of solving disputes often leads to prison.
>
> Eliminate these three problems, and you've largely eliminated the
> underclass
> in America. No cash, no entitlements required -- just a cultural sea
> change.
>
> But there are historic solutions.
>
> Take, for example, the Jews. For centuries, one of the most hated
> minority groups in the world, they came to dominate finance and many
> Fortune 500
> businesses in America. By every measure, they have "made it out" by
> literally believing the mirror-image of every under-class belief I've
> outlined, above. They did it by banding together for mutual support, by
> selling and buying only from other Jewish-owned and operated businesses,
> and
> by making sure that their children received a terrific education. They
> overcame incredible obstacles of prejudice, language and distance by
> coming together, rather than ripping apart, as our inner cities
> continually do.
>
> I'm afraid solutions are going to take more than Bill Cosby pointing out
> the
> obvious. After all, how do you change the attitudes of an entire culture?
>
> It's going to take a complete -- and painful -- reassessment of our "Great
> Society" entitlement programs. We simply can't continue to provide the
> financial support that is enabling an entire segment of our population to
> self-destruct. It is morally and (from the standpoint of national
> survival) logically wrong to reward self-destructive behavior.
>
> Worse, although in the short term throwing money at the issue "makes the
> problems go away" so that polite society can get on with their lives --
> after all, they're only killing each other, right? -- it has created a
> growing problem that cannot end well. We simply must face this issue and
> deal with it as a society, sooner than later, rather than meekly
> continuing to accept the Left's failed approach to the problem.
>
>> And: what have you done in your former job except stepping _over_ the
>> bodies not knowing if dead or high on drugs or whatnot?
>
> I survived. That was the best I could hope for at the time.


Well put, Jay. We've thrown trillions at the problem and the problem
persists. Money is not the answer.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Worse, although in the short term throwing money at the issue "makes the
>> problems go away" so that polite society can get on with their lives --
>> after all, they're only killing each other, right? -- it has created a
>> growing problem that cannot end well. We simply must face this issue and
>> deal with it as a society, sooner than later, rather than meekly
>> continuing to accept the Left's failed approach to the problem.
Very reminiscent of the Palistinians and other in the Middle East that won't
face up to their problems, instead blame others most noticably Israel.

>
> Well put, Jay. We've thrown trillions at the problem and the problem
> persists. Money is not the answer.
>
Persists? Try "has been exacerbated". Thomas Sowell has done a ton of work
and published copious materials on how progress for blacks has been stunted
since their progress peaked in the late 1950's.

Tom S. (No...not Sowell)

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:

>> That, and no demonstration of any empathy for anyone, not in
>> the current disaster, not in the past. You are a sad creature.

JH> Please. Try to keep up with the topic. We're not talking
JH> about the true victims of the hurricane or the flooding here
JH> -- those people deserve and have received our empathy and
JH> support.

Why, Jay? You with all your tremendous wisdom and experience have
already told us that all the poor have a POS car and they should have
simply driven out of harm's way.

Stay on topic? You remind me of the marxists I used to argue with
when I was living in a huge latin american city years ago. As soon as
I would counter them on one topic they would simply change subjects.

This topic is about Katrina's fall-out. See the Subject: line?
You're trying to move it to some neocon theory of inner city poverty,
a subject you know everything about because you seemed to have
collected money from welfare people for years. Given your obvious
ignorance about most every other non-aviation subject written about in
this group, your knowledge and opinions are screwed up and
bass-ackwards. Want to try lecturing us some more about flood return
periods?

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> > Well put, Jay. We've thrown trillions at the problem and the problem
> persists. Money is not the answer.

Not only is government money not the answer it inflates most of the
problems. But it gets votes for the politicians that divert money from
beneficial programs to welfare programs. If some of the welfare money had
been earmarked for strengthening the levees around NO we might not be
discussing any of this.

> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> What a coward.

Coming from the man who killfiled me over the few extra blank lines in my
signature.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> > It may have been drastic but I personally cannot abide these assholes
> > anymore.
> >
> > You can not believe how much easier it is to read these newsgroups now
> > that "Jay Honeck", "Bob Noel", "Newps", "Matt Whiting", "john smith",
> > "Dave Stadt", "Jonathan Goodish", "Cub Driver", "Otis Winslow", "W P
> > Dixon", "Gig 601XL Builder" and "George Patterson" now reside in my
> > kill file with the other trolls. It's amazing how much of the NG's
> > bandwidths are wasted by the spew of these black-hearted individuals,
> > and how little they actually contribute to on-topic discussions.
>
> What a coward.

Which is also very amusing, since I have long ago kill-filed mr tom, for one
of any number of reasons, but most likely, 'cause he is "just an ass." Go
ahead and add me too, tom. Wouldn't want to waste your precious, and *pure*
time.
--
Jim in NC

in article V68Te.312340$_o.140563@attbi_s71, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 9/5/05 8:34 PM:

>> You know, the irony of all this is what set me off about your attitude to
>> begin with--mostly memories of the '93 Mississippi floods (including Iowa
>> City) and all the nonsense that was said at that time--"What do these
>> people
>> expect? They live in a flood plain, for heaven's sake!"
>>
>> Remember those people, Jay? All those smug jackasses who wondered how
>> anyone
>> could live next to a river that was absolutely, positively 100% guaranteed
>> to flood? I wonder how many of them were from New Orleans?
>
> I didn't live in Iowa in '93, but the floods since then have convinced the
> Feds to FINALLY make it illegal (or, at least, financially impossible) for
> people to rebuild homes along the Mississippi. And they will NOT be
> rebuilt with tax money when the inevitable floods hit again.
>
> Anyone who now builds their home next to one of the world's great rivers had
> better be WAY up on a bluff overlooking the river, or independently wealthy.
>
> Which is as it should be.

Okay, so all of that was done AFTER the floods. The point I was making was
that it was as wrong to blame the victims then (many of whom were no doubt
living in family homes going back generations) as it is to blame them now.

New Orleans survived for roughly three centuries. Yeah, maybe its eventual
destruction was inevitable, but frankly, the same could be said of just
about any city, if your timeframe is large enough.

in article . com, cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:


>
> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.

Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
Every president has the power to do so.

in article , Philip S. at
wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:

> in article . com, cjcampbell
> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>
>
>>
>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>
> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
> Every president has the power to do so.

Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop. The following
doesn't come from some liberal website--it comes from the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

"The President today [11 days ago] declared an emergency exists in the State
of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response
efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning
on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster
relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and
suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide
appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under
Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public
health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the
parishes of..."

<snip list of parishes>

"Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its
discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of
the emergency."

>>>>> "MH" == Martin Hotze > writes:

MH> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> There are simply no easy solutions to the problems caused by a
>> culture that:

MH> I don't see this beeing the American culture (if one can speak
MH> of an American culture; IMVHO there are too many differences
MH> from east to west and esp north to south)

Jay is not referring to a general American culture, but his
perception of American inner-city "poor" culture.

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
> Persists? Try "has been exacerbated". Thomas Sowell has done a ton of work
> and published copious materials on how progress for blacks has been
> stunted since their progress peaked in the late 1950's.

Let's see. In the 1950's, there were hardly any black police, firefighters,
TV characters... let alone doctors, lawyers, judges, justices, secretaries
of state... It was legal, and widely practiced, to refuse to hire any
African Americans, or rent or sell housing to them, or serve them in
restaurants... In much of the nation, blacks were even forbidden by law to
use the public drinking fountains designated for whites. So that was quite a
"peak".

--Gary

> Let's see. In the 1950's, there were hardly any black police,
> firefighters, TV characters... let alone doctors, lawyers, judges,
> justices, secretaries of state... It was legal, and widely practiced, to
> refuse to hire any African Americans, or rent or sell housing to them, or
> serve them in restaurants... In much of the nation, blacks were even
> forbidden by law to use the public drinking fountains designated for
> whites. So that was quite a "peak".

Well, Gary, no one will argue that America has come a long ways from the Jim
Crow 1950s. And a huge percentage of blacks (and Latinos, and immigrants)
have continued to live the American Dream, and have made it out of initial
poverty through hard work and ingenuity.

But that's not what we're talking about. And if you take a long view of
black culture, the 1950s did represent something of a crest, with Jazz, the
Blues, Harlem, and all sorts of other cultural icons flying high.

In fact, some black celebrities have put forth that this era was a cultural
peak for blacks precisely *because* of segregation. All blacks were kept
apart from white society, and therefore all blacks -- from the elite, to the
dim -- were living together in relatively close proximity to one another.
This produced an amazing American sub-culture that is largely gone.

Now, the first thing that a successful black person does is get the hell out
of the inner city -- and who can blame them? Trouble is, places like
Harlem were quickly abandoned by the cultural elite, once they could leave,
leaving poverty and crime in their wake.

So, in fact, both you and Tom ("Doof") are correct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> There are simply no easy solutions to the problems caused by a culture
>> that:
>>
>> - Humiliates those who excel academically...
>> - Accepts and encourages very early, single-parent child-bearing...
>> - Expects males to play little or no role in child rearing...
>> - Has no social sanctions against absentee fathers...
>> - Regards working 9 to 5 for "chump change" as "selling out to the Man"
>> - Expects the Federal Government to fulfill every basic need...
>> - Sees authority figures as the enemy...
>> - Views the sale of drugs as an acceptable economic alternative...
>> - Accepts violence as a normal way to solve disputes...
>
>
> I don't see this beeing the American culture (if one can speak of an
> American culture; IMVHO there are too many differences from east to west
> and esp north to south)

I'm not sure if you have misunderstood, so I'll try to clarify.

This is not an indictment of American society as a whole. Far from it. I
am specifically talking about the phenomenon of generation-to-generation
reliance on government support that pervades much of America's large inner
cities. The group that lives in this manner has been dubbed our
"underclass," and it is a huge problem that has been largely ignored by
politicians and people (primarily on the Left) who desperately hope that
throwing money at it will make it go away.

Television coverage of Hurricane Katrina gave the world an intimate, often
ugly view of what life is really like in the inner cities of America. I'm
mildly hopeful that this international humiliation will force our political
leaders to actually deal with the issue.

But I'm not holding my breath.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> New Orleans survived for roughly three centuries. Yeah, maybe its eventual
> destruction was inevitable, but frankly, the same could be said of just
> about any city, if your timeframe is large enough.

True, but it has been brought to light that many contemporary N.O. leaders
knew -- and regarded as inevitable -- that their city was living on borrowed
time in the short-term. We're not talking geologic time here; we're talking
about in a single person's life-span.

For them to have known this, and not taken any discernible action, is
criminal.

Yesterday NPR interviewed the former city planner for N.O. (she was in that
capacity until 2000, I think), and she spoke extensively about the levee
system and its known weaknesses. Unfortunately, she also admitted that the
bureaucratic boondoggles (the levees were controlled by an entirely separate
government agency, outside the control of the city) ultimately prevented the
issue of levee strengthening from ever being presented as an option to the
voters.

In short, New Orleans government completely and utterly failed the citizens
of New Orleans. They never even brought the issue to a vote, despite
knowing the danger!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QeCTe.315690$_o.142396@attbi_s71...
>> Let's see. In the 1950's, there were hardly any black police,
>> firefighters, TV characters... let alone doctors, lawyers, judges,
>> justices, secretaries of state... It was legal, and widely practiced, to
>> refuse to hire any African Americans, or rent or sell housing to them, or
>> serve them in restaurants... In much of the nation, blacks were even
>> forbidden by law to use the public drinking fountains designated for
>> whites. So that was quite a "peak".
>
> Well, Gary, no one will argue that America has come a long ways from the
> Jim Crow 1950s. And a huge percentage of blacks (and Latinos, and
> immigrants) have continued to live the American Dream, and have made it
> out of initial poverty through hard work and ingenuity.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about. And if you take a long view of
> black culture, the 1950s did represent something of a crest, with Jazz,
> the Blues, Harlem, and all sorts of other cultural icons flying high.
>
> In fact, some black celebrities have put forth that this era was a
> cultural peak for blacks precisely *because* of segregation...
>
> So, in fact, both you and Tom ("Doof") are correct.

No, we're not both correct. Yes, it is possible to point to *some* good
things happening in virtually *any* era or circumstances (which is not to
agree with the specifics of your view on that, or the view of your unnamed,
unquoted "black celebrities"). But to summarize by saying, as "Doof" did,
that the progress of African Americans "peaked" in the 1950s is just a
travesty.

--Gary

> No, we're not both correct. Yes, it is possible to point to *some* good
> things happening in virtually *any* era or circumstances (which is not to
> agree with the specifics of your view on that, or the view of your
> unnamed, unquoted "black celebrities").

I can't remember the name (which is why I didn't attribute the quote in the
first place) but I *believe* it was Wynton Marsalis, and I *think* he said
that about Harlem's "glory years" on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross.

Or, it may have been a lead-in to a Terry Gross' question to Marsalis?

Or, it *may* have been a quote taken from the PBS mini-series about Harlem?

I know I heard it some where -- but don't quote me!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> New Orleans survived for roughly three centuries. Yeah, maybe its
>> eventual destruction was inevitable, but frankly, the same could be
>> said of just about any city, if your timeframe is large enough.
>
> True, but it has been brought to light that many contemporary N.O.
> leaders knew -- and regarded as inevitable -- that their city was
> living on borrowed time in the short-term. We're not talking geologic
> time here; we're talking about in a single person's life-span.
>
> For them to have known this, and not taken any discernible action, is
> criminal.
>
> Yesterday NPR interviewed the former city planner for N.O. (she was in
> that capacity until 2000, I think), and she spoke extensively about
> the levee system and its known weaknesses. Unfortunately, she also
> admitted that the bureaucratic boondoggles (the levees were controlled
> by an entirely separate government agency, outside the control of the
> city) ultimately prevented the issue of levee strengthening from ever
> being presented as an option to the voters.
>
> In short, New Orleans government completely and utterly failed the
> citizens of New Orleans. They never even brought the issue to a
> vote, despite knowing the danger!

On the contrary. They understood that the levee system was part of the
overall Mississippi waterway system, under control of the Army Corps of
Engineers. You cannot separate the part in New Orleans from the rest,
as it all has to work together, particularly when many of the Corps
management schemes upriver have exacerbated the New Orleans problem.

When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
money had to come from.

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article . com,
> cjcampbell
> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>
>
>>
>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>
> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the
> riots.
> Every president has the power to do so.
>
Only upon request by the local officials.

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article , Philip S. at
> wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:
>
>> in article . com,
>> cjcampbell
>> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
>>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>>
>> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President
>> Bush
>> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the
>> riots.
>> Every president has the power to do so.
>
> Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop. The following
> doesn't come from some liberal website--it comes from the White House:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
>
> "The President today [11 days ago] declared an emergency exists in the
> State
> of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local
> response
> efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning
> on August 26, 2005, and continuing.
>
> The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security,
> Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster
> relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and
> suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide
> appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under
> Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public
> health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in
> the
> parishes of..."
>
> <snip list of parishes>
>
> "Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at
> its
> discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of
> the emergency."

After the fact.

Read Article 4, Section 4, CotUS.

It really depends upon how broadly you define "Law enforcement." Only
the National Guard with a specific declaration by the states can
exercise the police powers of arrest and detention.

The active duty troops direct traffic and do other things done by the
police that look and smell like law enforcement, but lack any criminal
justice power to enforce their orders.

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Philip S." > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article . com,
>> cjcampbell
>> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops
>>> are
>>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>>
>> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President
>> Bush
>> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the
>> riots.
>> Every president has the power to do so.
>>
> Only upon request by the local officials.
>
>

I'm just waiting for someone to use the "Broken Window" fallacy.

> Let's see. In the 1950's, there were hardly any black police,
> firefighters, TV characters... let alone doctors, lawyers, judges,
> justices, secretaries of state... It was legal, and widely practiced, to
> refuse to hire any African Americans, or rent or sell housing to them, or
> serve them in restaurants... In much of the nation, blacks were even
> forbidden by law to use the public drinking fountains designated for
> whites. So that was quite a "peak".

We all know that "stuff", so how about explaining the rampant pathologies
that began starting in the 1960's after they we're "freed"? Or don't they
teach THAT PART in schools? You DO know what pathologies I'm talking about,
don't you...being so "educated" and all...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0070703787/ref=ase_thewwwcapitalsit/104-9414299-3503903?v=glance&s=books

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
>
> On the contrary. They understood that the levee system was part of the
> overall Mississippi waterway system, under control of the Army Corps of
> Engineers. You cannot separate the part in New Orleans from the rest,
> as it all has to work together, particularly when many of the Corps
> management schemes upriver have exacerbated the New Orleans problem.

So why did they (City of NO) have a separate administration for the levees?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:mfDTe.314633$x96.223338@attbi_s72...
> > No, we're not both correct. Yes, it is possible to point to *some* good
> > things happening in virtually *any* era or circumstances (which is not
to
> > agree with the specifics of your view on that, or the view of your
> > unnamed, unquoted "black celebrities").
>
> I can't remember the name (which is why I didn't attribute the quote in
the
> first place) but I *believe* it was Wynton Marsalis, and I *think* he said
> that about Harlem's "glory years" on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross.

According to Tom Sowell, Harlem was originally an upper class black
neighborhood that banned the Irish.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>New Orleans survived for roughly three centuries. Yeah, maybe its eventual
>>destruction was inevitable, but frankly, the same could be said of just
>>about any city, if your timeframe is large enough.
>
>
> True, but it has been brought to light that many contemporary N.O. leaders
> knew -- and regarded as inevitable -- that their city was living on borrowed
> time in the short-term. We're not talking geologic time here; we're talking
> about in a single person's life-span.

The main problem is NO didn't follow their carefully thought out
disaster plan. They had a plan that they worked on very hard and for a
very long time. Chances are the plan would have broken down at some
point but they never gave it a chance. They never even started using
the plan. They just sat their with their thumb up their ass and blamed
the federal government. The mayor and the governor are 100% at fault.

>> Television coverage of Hurricane Katrina gave the world an intimate,
>> often
>> ugly view of what life is really like in the inner cities of America.
>
> No. What we see here is not an insight view of what you call inner cities.
> the general public sees all of America. They (most of them) only see those
> TV reports and believe that this is the same for all of the USA.

Really? I would hope that your reporters would be smart enough to know the
difference -- but perhaps your reporters are as thick as ours?

American inner cities are really quite concentrated, relatively small
geographic areas. They are very scary places that often the police fear to
enter, that are kept placated by (a) throwing lots of tax dollars at them,
and by (b) allowing all sorts of illegal, self-destructive behavior to
flourish, such as drug sales and usage.

This is apparently done in the mistaken belief that -- so long as "they only
kill each other" -- the rest of America can get on with business. It's an
awful thing, is terribly unfair to the inhabitants, and should be a major
concern of both political parties.

Of course, neither party cares, and neither addresses the issue in any
meaningful way.

But please try to spread the word that 99% of America is nothing like what
you have seen in the horribly biased Katrina coverage of late. (Although it
is getting better, at least in the U.S. We've been seeing more and more
coverage of the positive things that are going on in Louisiana...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> According to Tom Sowell, Harlem was originally an upper class black
> neighborhood that banned the Irish.

If true, that's rich...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
> safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
> would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
> money had to come from.

What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
reinforce their levees themselves?

*Gasp!* Imagine!

Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action for
themselves?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Doof" wrote:

> in the 1960's after they we're "freed"?

To which event are you referring? And why the quotes?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
>> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a
>> basic
>> safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
>> would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where
>> the
>> money had to come from.
>
> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
> reinforce their levees themselves?
>
> *Gasp!* Imagine!

I imagine the citizens of the Midwest would then be getting a free ride.
Most of the grain exported from the central U. S. goes out through the
port of New Orleans, and much of the crude oil and other commodities
necessary to grow that grain come in the same way.

> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action
> for themselves?

If they had the money. Perhaps from tariffs on goods shipped to Iowa?
This might sound like a good idea, until one considers the prospect of
local politicians getting their paws on such loot.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>When I was sixteen I worked at a grocery store on the fringe of a poor
>>section of a city. There were a lot of welfare recipients who shopped at
>>this store to buy their weekly groceries.
>>
>>I witnessed many of these folks spending US gov't money on very poor food
>>choices. Couple that with the fact that most of these folks get
>>absolutely
>>zero exercise and it doesn't take a superb imagination to understand why
>>many look the way they do.
>
>
> America is the only country in the world with fat poor people.
Cheapest "dinner out" is Micky D's. I had a really poor student with a
heart condition caused by obesity (in the 8th grade).

Margy

In article 2>,
James Robinson > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> >> New Orleans survived for roughly three centuries. Yeah, maybe its
> >> eventual destruction was inevitable, but frankly, the same could be
> >> said of just about any city, if your timeframe is large enough.
> >
> > True, but it has been brought to light that many contemporary N.O.
> > leaders knew -- and regarded as inevitable -- that their city was
> > living on borrowed time in the short-term. We're not talking geologic
> > time here; we're talking about in a single person's life-span.
> >
> > For them to have known this, and not taken any discernible action, is
> > criminal.
> >
> > Yesterday NPR interviewed the former city planner for N.O. (she was in
> > that capacity until 2000, I think), and she spoke extensively about
> > the levee system and its known weaknesses. Unfortunately, she also
> > admitted that the bureaucratic boondoggles (the levees were controlled
> > by an entirely separate government agency, outside the control of the
> > city) ultimately prevented the issue of levee strengthening from ever
> > being presented as an option to the voters.
> >
> > In short, New Orleans government completely and utterly failed the
> > citizens of New Orleans. They never even brought the issue to a
> > vote, despite knowing the danger!
>
> On the contrary. They understood that the levee system was part of the
> overall Mississippi waterway system, under control of the Army Corps of
> Engineers. You cannot separate the part in New Orleans from the rest,
> as it all has to work together, particularly when many of the Corps
> management schemes upriver have exacerbated the New Orleans problem.
>
> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
> safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
> would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
> money had to come from.

That may not be completely true.
Does the Corp control all the levees?
Or only those adjacent to the Misissippi and the canals?

> The main problem is NO didn't follow their carefully thought out
> disaster plan. They had a plan that they worked on very hard and for a
> very long time. Chances are the plan would have broken down at some
> point but they never gave it a chance. They never even started using
> the plan. They just sat their with their thumb up their ass and blamed
> the federal government. The mayor and the governor are 100% at fault.

Our local NPR station did an hour long interview with one of the
reporters that wrote the 2002 Time-Piciune story. He had some
interesting things to say.
go to

www.wosu.org
click on NPR 820
click on Open Line
select the 10 AM program for 7 September 2005

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>When I was sixteen I worked at a grocery store on the fringe of a poor
>>>section of a city. There were a lot of welfare recipients who shopped at
>>>this store to buy their weekly groceries.
>>>
>>>I witnessed many of these folks spending US gov't money on very poor food
>>>choices. Couple that with the fact that most of these folks get
>>>absolutely
>>>zero exercise and it doesn't take a superb imagination to understand why
>>>many look the way they do.
>>
>>
>> America is the only country in the world with fat poor people.

Please be careful how we "snip" -- I only wrote the very last line of that
post, above.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I imagine the citizens of the Midwest would then be getting a free ride.
> Most of the grain exported from the central U. S. goes out through the
> port of New Orleans, and much of the crude oil and other commodities
> necessary to grow that grain come in the same way.

I don't think 25% is "most".

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Peter R. wrote:
> >> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why the hell were they there? Everyone in America knew that New
> >> > Orleans --
> >> > and everything for 100 miles on each side -- was about to be blasted by
> >> > Katrina.
> >>
> >> Jay, many didn't have the economic means to escape the storm, nor a place
> >> to which to escape. That area is about the poorest part of the US.
> >
> > This argument is starting to wear a little thin as more information
> > becomes available. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had a plan
> > for evacuating more than a million people from the city, including
> > providing transportation for up to 300,000 people who had no means of
> > getting out themselves. Neither the governor nor the mayor (who has
> > been very quick to blame everyone but himself) chose to implement this
> > plan, despite the fact they had plenty of warning and all of the needed
> > resources.
>
> If that turns out to be the case, then the mayor and governor are certainly
> among those at fault. But the above point still stands: whichever officials
> may have screwed up, it's still the case that thousands of people were stuck
> with no means of evacuation.
>

Of course, you will get no argument from me there. But you must have
seen the TV pictures of hundreds, maybe even thousands of buses stacked
like cordwood in the flooded areas. Why weren't they used?


> > The argument that people are unable to leave also weakens as we get
> > more and more incidents of people refusing to leave when they are
> > offered transportation, despite the fact that they are being told that
> > they will get no more food or water or medical services if they stay.
>
> There have certainly been reports of such refusals now that the National
> Guard is on the scene. I can't tell yet how widespread it is. Anecdotally,
> though, the people staying put seem largely to be home owners who don't want
> to abandon their (well-stocked) homes, and thus are largely distinct from
> the stranded population that urgently needed prompt rescue. (Whether the
> holdouts will need rescue in a few weeks remains to be seen.)

May be moot. The mayor has said that anyone who will not leave
voluntarily will be arrested. It will be interesting to see how he
accomplishes that.

You see what you want to see. It looked to me that it was all kinds of
people who would not leave, not just rich folks with property to
protect. Those who don't want to leave have been giving some
interesting, if not very relevant, reasons:

1) They don't want to leave pets.
2) They are poor and don't know how they would support themselves if
they leave.
3) Fear of the unknown/flying/boats/spiders etc.

Hmm. I wager our Scottie, Badger, could take pretty good care of
herself for a few weeks. Although I am quite attached to the dog, I
really am not willing to give up my life for her. In fact, I would
almost rather she remain on duty in the house while I am not there. She
would probably hold the rats at bay for some time.

As for the poor, they have it so good where they are? What are they
doing to support themselves there? It seems completely irrational to
me.

For the rest, two words: tranquilizer darts. :-)

Philip S. wrote:
> in article , Philip S. at
> wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:
>
> > in article . com, cjcampbell
> > at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
> >> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
> >
> > Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
> > sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
> > Every president has the power to do so.

To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise
to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both."

The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy and Marines are included by
DoD regulation.

The cases and circumstances authorized by the Constitution or Congress
are quite limited: National Guard troops acting under the control of
states (not federal authority), military units acting to quell domestic
violence (in L.A., for example), certain support activities in the war
on drugs, use of the Judge Advocate as a prosecuter, and the Coast
Guard, which has full authorization to enforce the law.

Thus, the President may not order the National Guard to protect
property until it has been determined that a state of civil unrest is
in progress. Small scale looting, rape, murder or burglary are not
civil unrest. But the governor could have ordered the National Guard to
start enforcing the law at any time. Why didn't she?

>
> Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop.

Oh, and I did not get this from some liberal website, either.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
>>> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
>>> safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
>>> would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
>>> money had to come from.
>>
>> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
>> reinforce their levees themselves?
>>
>> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>
> I imagine the citizens of the Midwest would then be getting a free ride.
> Most of the grain exported from the central U. S. goes out through the
> port of New Orleans, and much of the crude oil and other commodities
> necessary to grow that grain come in the same way.
>

I suppose transport fees, paid by the shipper to the port authority and
passed to their customers, would be out of the question.

Are we all so inured to subsidies that we can't see past tomorrow?

> To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
> enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.

The state's National Guard, on the other hand, are not.

john smith wrote:
> > I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
> > of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
> > a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
> > are not organized before then.
>
> Except that FEMA is proving itself to be lead by incompetent and inept
> individuals. The military is proving to be the primary source of
> organized relief.

Well, it is easy to say that. But as President Bush said, what have
they done wrong? If the President is going to fire people or ask for
resignations, he is going to need some specifics other than general
allegations of incompetence. Following federal and state regulations is
not generally considered to be incompetence, so it will take some
deeper investigation to see what, if anything, can be done about FEMA.
Personally, I think a lot of the trouble will be found to have started
at Homeland Security. This agency was a bad idea in the first place,
and it has yet to demonstrate an ability to deal with any emergency
competently. I am not sure how anyone could expect FEMA to operate
efficiently with Homeland Security breathing down their necks. "Before
we send in the National Guard, we have to confiscate all the tweezers."
:-)

Okay, here is a new point of view.
Let's say that new building standards and codes are adopted before any
reconstruction can occur.
Due to hazardous waste contamination, nothing can be rebuilt until the
site is completely decontaminated.
How long is it going to take to decontaminate the affected area?
Next, insurance is going to be insufficient to rebuild new structures to
the new code. Is the federal government going to issue loans for the
difference? Or, are the owners going to have to come up with the extra
cash?
This is going to take a LONG time!

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
> > Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
> > safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
> > would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
> > money had to come from.
>
> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
> reinforce their levees themselves?
>
> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>
> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action for
> themselves?

You mean to tell me that you are not affected by the levees breaking? I
know I am stuck way out here in the Philippines, but even I have heard
some things about the price of gas, coffee, the overall economy, etc.

Suppose everyone in New Orleans had that attitude. "Hey, that levee is
on the west side of town, let them pay for it." "Nah, I don't live
right next to the levee, let those guys pay for it." "I don't want to
pay for any part of the levee that does not actually touch my
property." And so forth.

I heard that Davy Crockett lost some of his key supporters because
while he was in Congress he voted to appropriate $10,000 to help flood
relief victims on the Mississippi. He went on to lose the election. So
much for Crockett's image as a rugged individualist.

Some of us, you know, are sick and tired of spending federal disaster
relief funds to bail out people in the Midwest who are so stupid as to
live in an area that is regularly devastated by tornadoes. They all
ought to just move out of there.

I guess provincialism is alive and well.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doof" wrote:
>
>> in the 1960's after they we're "freed"?
>
> To which event are you referring? And why the quotes?

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Is Politics The Way?
by Walter Williams (November 3, 2004)

"Numerous studies show that children raised in stable two-parent households
do far better than those raised in single-parent households. They are less
likely to have out-of-wedlock births, less likely to engage in criminal
behavior and more likely to complete high school. Historically, black
families have been relatively stable. From 1880 to 1960, the proportion of
black children raised in two-parent families held steady at around 70
percent; in 1925 Harlem, it was 85 percent. Today, only 38 percent of black
children are raised in two-parent families. In 1940, black illegitimacy was
16 percent; today, it's 70 percent. Stable two-parent families are vital for
a child's development. The solution to the problem of unstable families
won't be found in the political arena. There's nothing a president,
congressman or mayor can do. "

These are just the major highlights. If you REALLY want to know the facts,
rather than Jessie Jackson's spin and the left/MSM slurping it up, read "The
Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell. He goes into depth about
the pathological behavior that the welfare state created. Such factors as
intergenerational dependency, gross irresponsibility, criminality,
intransigence ...all the traits we're seeing in _certain_ segments down in
NO.


Or, just like parents that never seem to kick their kids out of the roost,
continue to make excuses and make book on what happens when the **** hits
the fan nationally.

in article , Doof at
wrote on 9/7/05 8:37 AM:

>
> "Philip S." > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article . com,
>> cjcampbell
>> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
>>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>>
>> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
>> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the
>> riots.
>> Every president has the power to do so.
>>
> Only upon request by the local officials.

From the Louisiana governor, August 27:

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976

"Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of
such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that
supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
disaster."

in article . com, cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/7/05 7:02 PM:

>
> Philip S. wrote:
>> in article , Philip S. at
>> wrote on 9/6/05 7:28 PM:
>>
>>> in article . com, cjcampbell
>>> at wrote on 9/6/05 3:31 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> People who are not Americans may not know this, but federal troops are
>>>> actually prohibited from performing law enforcement duties.
>>>
>>> Except when the president calls on them to do so. The first President Bush
>>> sent the Guard, the Army and the Marines into L.A. in 1992 during the riots.
>>> Every president has the power to do so.
>
> To the contrary, military personel are prohibited from performing law
> enforcement duties by the posse comitatus act of 1878.
>
> "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
> authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
> part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise
> to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
> not more than two years, or both."
>
> The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy and Marines are included by
> DoD regulation.
>
> The cases and circumstances authorized by the Constitution or Congress
> are quite limited: National Guard troops acting under the control of
> states (not federal authority), military units acting to quell domestic
> violence (in L.A., for example), certain support activities in the war
> on drugs, use of the Judge Advocate as a prosecuter, and the Coast
> Guard, which has full authorization to enforce the law.
>
> Thus, the President may not order the National Guard to protect
> property until it has been determined that a state of civil unrest is
> in progress. Small scale looting, rape, murder or burglary are not
> civil unrest. But the governor could have ordered the National Guard to
> start enforcing the law at any time. Why didn't she?

See my earlier post. She requested federal help, in unambiguous terms, two
days before the storm struck.
>
>>
>> Oh, and one more thing, and then I'll let the matter drop.
>
> Oh, and I did not get this from some liberal website, either.

Good for you. And it seems that I reneged on my earlier statement that I'd
let the matter drop.

in article . com, cjcampbell
at wrote on 9/7/05 7:08 PM:

>
> john smith wrote:
>>> I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
>>> of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
>>> a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
>>> are not organized before then.
>>
>> Except that FEMA is proving itself to be lead by incompetent and inept
>> individuals. The military is proving to be the primary source of
>> organized relief.
>
> Well, it is easy to say that. But as President Bush said, what have
> they done wrong? If the President is going to fire people or ask for
> resignations, he is going to need some specifics other than general
> allegations of incompetence. Following federal and state regulations is
> not generally considered to be incompetence, so it will take some
> deeper investigation to see what, if anything, can be done about FEMA.
> Personally, I think a lot of the trouble will be found to have started
> at Homeland Security. This agency was a bad idea in the first place,
> and it has yet to demonstrate an ability to deal with any emergency
> competently. I am not sure how anyone could expect FEMA to operate
> efficiently with Homeland Security breathing down their necks. "Before
> we send in the National Guard, we have to confiscate all the tweezers."
> :-)

I actually agree with much of what you say here. On the other hand, it
should be noted that "Brownie", the head of FEMA, needed to be informed by
TV reporters that evacuees were being sent to the New Orleans convention
center. He honestly had no idea what was happening.

"Philip S." > wrote in message
> See my earlier post. She requested federal help, in unambiguous terms, two
> days before the storm struck.

What assistance did she ask for?

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
> reinforce their levees themselves?
>
> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>
> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action for
> themselves?

It's not their property. That would be sort of like the State of Tennessee
trying to take over or enhance some of TVA's stuff. The Feds will not stand for
that sort of thing. They certainly didn't when Tennessee tried to take control
of the Telico project.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article , Doof at
> wrote on 9/7/05 8:37 AM:

>>>
>> Only upon request by the local officials.
>
> From the Louisiana governor, August 27:
>
> http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976
>
> "Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of
> such severity and magnitude

It hadn't even occured yet.

> that effective response is beyond the
> capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that
> supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
> property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
> disaster."

This is "unambiguous"?

So they didn't know WHAT assistance they would need, only that SOMETHING was
going to happen.

At that point in time?

What it sounds like is the typical "disaster relief funds" request, not
direct SPECIFIC assistance they would later need. Contrast this situation
with what occurred after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

Until the levee broke later on, what damage was there?

Great Point George!
Down on Clark Hill Lake in Georgia, the Corps of Engineers has strict
rules as to what a person can build on their own property. The Corps of
Engineers built the dam.....but what does that have to do with someone
building a shed on his property 25 miles from the dam?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:YUNTe.644$0Q2.157@trndny01...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
>> reinforce their levees themselves?
>>
>> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>>
>> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action
>> for themselves?
>
> It's not their property. That would be sort of like the State of Tennessee
> trying to take over or enhance some of TVA's stuff. The Feds will not
> stand for that sort of thing. They certainly didn't when Tennessee tried
> to take control of the Telico project.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
>>Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a basic
>>safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
>>would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where the
>>money had to come from.
>
>
> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
> reinforce their levees themselves?
>
> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>
> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action for
> themselves?

Here's a tidbit for you. Reported today was the fact that the Feds gave
NO tens of millions of dollars to fix/repair/upgrade the levees. What
did they do with this money? They built a statue in town and pocketed
the rest. They got what they deserved.

> Some of us, you know, are sick and tired of spending federal disaster
> relief funds to bail out people in the Midwest who are so stupid as to
> live in an area that is regularly devastated by tornadoes. They all
> ought to just move out of there.

The federal government has never spent $100 Billion on tornado recovery
for the whole country!

I didn't write this!

> > john smith wrote:
> >>> I don't think most people are fooled by the usual idiot media reporting
> >>> of federal incompetence. The next local elections in Louisiana may show
> >>> a real backlash, if a recall movement or even impeachment proceedings
> >>> are not organized before then.

"Newps" > wrote

> Here's a tidbit for you. Reported today was the fact that the Feds gave
> NO tens of millions of dollars to fix/repair/upgrade the levees. What
> did they do with this money? They built a statue in town and pocketed
> the rest. They got what they deserved.

Source?

Martin wrote:
>many people here are not really well educated, read the headlines of
>tabloids and watch news similar to FOX news ...


On Aug. 31, two photos published on the Yahoo News website caught the
attention of many readers. In both, people are wading through
chest-deep water with food in their hands. One caption describes the
young Black man shown as "looting a grocery store," while the other
describes the two white people as "finding bread and soda from a
local grocery store."

The media still continue to contribute to the racial devide.

White Foragers Report Threat Of Black Looters

NEW ORLEANS-Throughout the Gulf Coast, Caucasian suburbanites
attempting to gather food and drink in the shattered wreckage of
shopping districts have reported seeing African=ADAmericans "looting
snacks and beer from damaged businesses." "I was in the abandoned
Wal-Mart gathering an air mattress so I could float out the potato
chips, beef jerky, and Budweiser I'd managed to find," said white
survivor Lars Wrightson, who had carefully selected foodstuffs whose
salt and alcohol content provide protection against contamination.
"Then I look up, and I see a whole family of [African-Americans] going
straight for the booze. Hell, you could see they had already looted a
fortune in diapers." Radio stations still in operation are advising
store owners and white people in the affected areas to locate firearms
in sporting-goods stores in order to protect themselves against
marauding blacks looting gun shops.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
>> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a
>> basic safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in
>> the city would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which
>> is where the money had to come from.
>
> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
> reinforce their levees themselves?
>
> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>
> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action
> for themselves?

Well, as I understand the situation, it's far more complicated than
that, and simply "fixing" the levees is insufficient.

The problems N.O. has are a result of many of the Corps programs to
contain the Mississippi, which have resulted in drying of large areas of
former swamp, and subsidence in the entire delta through soil
contraction. The lack of flooding has also cut off the supply of silt
that historically built up the delta. These changes, along with the
pumping of domestic water from wells, has exposed the city to storm
surges, which would previously have not been a problem. Specifically,
many barrier islands that provided protection have simply disappeared
below the gulf; Large areas of swampland between the city and gulf have
flooded, effectively moving the gulf closer to the city; The city itself
has subsided, which further exposed many areas that were previously
above water; The subsidence has lowered the effective level of the
dikes, and the protection they previously afforded.

The $15 billion program the Corps proposed involved a number of actions
that were intended to protect many more communities than just New
Orleans from storm surges. One was to allow the river to again flood
areas of the delta to rebuild the barrier islands, reduce subsidence,
and redeposit silt to build up the land. Another was the construction
of a gate at the entrance to Lake Pontchartrain to control the storm
surge. The gate would be closed as a surge approached, and would
significantly reduce the amount of water entering the lake, reducing the
risk to all communities around the lake. Finally, there were
improvements to the dikes and barrier walls on the north side of the
city to protect against whatever storm surge remained with the
protection of the lake entrance gate.

As you can see, many of the problems New Orleans had were as a result of
water management policies that benefitted everyone on the river, to the
detriment of N.O. Some of the problems were self-induced. Full
protection of the city requires a systemic approach on the part of the
Corps, and simply shoring up the dikes is only part of an overall
package necessary to reestablish adequate protection.

Flyingmonk wrote:

> White Foragers Report Threat Of Black Looters

I smell an Onion...

You smell correctly.

The items you list are a problem but they are NOT the problem NO is facing
this time around. NO is below the level of the surrounding water. They build
levees to hold the water back and to create canals to pump what water does
make it in, out.

Two of those levees failed. Neither of the levees that failed were on the
river they both were on canals that fed the lake.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
>>> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a
>>> basic safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in
>>> the city would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which
>>> is where the money had to come from.
>>
>> What would have happened if the citizens of N.O. had raised funds to
>> reinforce their levees themselves?
>>
>> *Gasp!* Imagine!
>>
>> Unheard of, I know, but couldn't the locals have actually taken action
>> for themselves?
>
> Well, as I understand the situation, it's far more complicated than
> that, and simply "fixing" the levees is insufficient.
>
> The problems N.O. has are a result of many of the Corps programs to
> contain the Mississippi, which have resulted in drying of large areas of
> former swamp, and subsidence in the entire delta through soil
> contraction. The lack of flooding has also cut off the supply of silt
> that historically built up the delta. These changes, along with the
> pumping of domestic water from wells, has exposed the city to storm
> surges, which would previously have not been a problem. Specifically,
> many barrier islands that provided protection have simply disappeared
> below the gulf; Large areas of swampland between the city and gulf have
> flooded, effectively moving the gulf closer to the city; The city itself
> has subsided, which further exposed many areas that were previously
> above water; The subsidence has lowered the effective level of the
> dikes, and the protection they previously afforded.
>
> The $15 billion program the Corps proposed involved a number of actions
> that were intended to protect many more communities than just New
> Orleans from storm surges. One was to allow the river to again flood
> areas of the delta to rebuild the barrier islands, reduce subsidence,
> and redeposit silt to build up the land. Another was the construction
> of a gate at the entrance to Lake Pontchartrain to control the storm
> surge. The gate would be closed as a surge approached, and would
> significantly reduce the amount of water entering the lake, reducing the
> risk to all communities around the lake. Finally, there were
> improvements to the dikes and barrier walls on the north side of the
> city to protect against whatever storm surge remained with the
> protection of the lake entrance gate.
>
> As you can see, many of the problems New Orleans had were as a result of
> water management policies that benefitted everyone on the river, to the
> detriment of N.O. Some of the problems were self-induced. Full
> protection of the city requires a systemic approach on the part of the
> Corps, and simply shoring up the dikes is only part of an overall
> package necessary to reestablish adequate protection.
>

Most, if not all the fault, with failing to upgrade Levees lies with
the Louisiana Congressional Delegation. There a report in today's WSJ
that they were able to get a $400,000 for the Mississippi River Trail
and Bikepath and $3,200,000 for bike and pedestrian crossings of the
Washington-Palmetto Canal in this year's highway bill. Obviously, the
locals have a problem setting priorities and would resent any attempt by
the Bush administration to force them to rethink where Federal monies
are best spent.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
>
> When the budget for improving the levees was cut by the Feds, New
> Orleans tried over and over again to get the money reinstated as a
> basic
> safety measure for the city. Bringing the issue to a vote in the city
> would have done nothing to free up the federal funds, which is where
> the
> money had to come from.

The Industrial Canal levee failure is believed to be caused by a very
large barge that broke loose.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:8A%Te.27418$7f5.18975@okepread01...
> The items you list are a problem but they are NOT the problem NO is
> facing this time around. NO is below the level of the surrounding
> water. They build levees to hold the water back and to create canals
> to pump what water does make it in, out.
>
> Two of those levees failed. Neither of the levees that failed were on
> the river they both were on canals that fed the lake.
>

sfb wrote:

> The Industrial Canal levee failure is believed to be caused by a very
> large barge that broke loose.

Its actually been draining the city...

"sfb" > wrote:

> Most, if not all the fault, with failing to upgrade Levees lies with
> the Louisiana Congressional Delegation. There a report in today's WSJ
> that they were able to get a $400,000 for the Mississippi River Trail
> and Bikepath and $3,200,000 for bike and pedestrian crossings of the
> Washington-Palmetto Canal in this year's highway bill. Obviously, the
> locals have a problem setting priorities and would resent any attempt by
> the Bush administration to force them to rethink where Federal monies
> are best spent.

They don't get a choice about where to spend that money; It has to be
spent where the bill designates. It's also a far cry from the estimated
$15 billion required for mitigation according to the Army Corps of
Engineers proposals.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> "sfb" > wrote:
>
>> Most, if not all the fault, with failing to upgrade Levees lies with
>> the Louisiana Congressional Delegation. There a report in today's WSJ
>> that they were able to get a $400,000 for the Mississippi River Trail
>> and Bikepath and $3,200,000 for bike and pedestrian crossings of the
>> Washington-Palmetto Canal in this year's highway bill. Obviously, the
>> locals have a problem setting priorities and would resent any attempt by
>> the Bush administration to force them to rethink where Federal monies
>> are best spent.
>
> They don't get a choice about where to spend that money; It has to be
> spent where the bill designates. It's also a far cry from the estimated
> $15 billion required for mitigation according to the Army Corps of
> Engineers proposals.

But it is the states congressional delegation that should take part in
writing the bill. If they could only get $3.6 million they should have
gotten it assigned to levee upgrades not bike paths.

Please stop trying to give the Louisiana Congressional delegation a
pass. They have full control on where and what money is spent in the
state. Apparently, they know how to get money for bike paths, but not
for levees.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> "sfb" > wrote:
>
>> Most, if not all the fault, with failing to upgrade Levees lies with
>> the Louisiana Congressional Delegation. There a report in today's WSJ
>> that they were able to get a $400,000 for the Mississippi River Trail
>> and Bikepath and $3,200,000 for bike and pedestrian crossings of the
>> Washington-Palmetto Canal in this year's highway bill. Obviously, the
>> locals have a problem setting priorities and would resent any attempt
>> by
>> the Bush administration to force them to rethink where Federal monies
>> are best spent.
>
> They don't get a choice about where to spend that money; It has to be
> spent where the bill designates. It's also a far cry from the
> estimated
> $15 billion required for mitigation according to the Army Corps of
> Engineers proposals.

"Doof" wrote:

> These are just the major highlights. If you REALLY want to know the
> facts, rather than Jessie Jackson's spin and the left/MSM slurping it
> up, read "The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell.

I have not read much of Sowell, but always thought he was not
descriminating enough. Most of all, I think he is a crypto-blame
shifter: that is, at bottom he is no different from Jackson, blaming
whites for the problems of blacks. The greatest blame, in my opinion,
must fall on American black leaders of the last 40 years who have
inculcated the ideas of entitlement, reparation and irresponsibility
into black culture in the United States. If he has hit this point hard
enough, I have missed it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Lavish tastes of card-carrying lowlifes

Profiteering ghouls have been using debit cards distributed in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina - intended to buy essentials for evacuated
families - in luxury-goods stores as far away as Atlanta.

"We've seen three of the cards," said a senior employee of the Louis
Vuitton store at the Lenox Square Mall in affluent Buckhead, who asked
not to be named. "Two I'm certain have purchased; one actually asked if
she could use it in the store. This has been since Saturday."

The distinctive white cards were distributed by the Red Cross and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and carry a value of up to $2,000.

"It doesn't say anything on the card other than alcohol, tobacco and
firearms cannot be purchased with it," the store employee told me.
"There's nothing legally that prevents us from taking it,
unfortunately. Other than morally, it's wrong."

The source told me that the two women who had made purchases with the
card each bought a signature monogrammed Louis Vuitton handbag in the
$800 range.

"They didn't look destitute by any stretch. You would never have said,
'They must be one of the evacuees.' ... The one that I dealt with
yesterday was 20. She'll be 21 next month." The source described the
reaction of other store-keepers in the mall - which includes luxury
brands Ferragamo, Burberry, Judith Leiber and Neiman Marcus - as
"outrage."

"It doesn't say anywhere on there, but it would have to be a good
amount to be shopping in here," the source said with a dark chuckle.

source: http://nydailynews.com/front/story/345030p-294601c.html

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

pictures of Katrina damages

http://www.plaqueminesparish.com/EmergencyPreparedness/MorePhotos.html

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

> Profiteering ghouls have been using debit cards distributed in the wake
> of Hurricane Katrina - intended to buy essentials for evacuated
> families - in luxury-goods stores as far away as Atlanta.

This is news? Anyone with half a brain knew that there would be rampant,
massive fraud associated with the government handing out $2K debit cards to
Katrina victims.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The New Louisiana Purchase
Wouldn't it be more cost effective and cost the taxpayers less money for
the Federal Government to just pay all the property owners 10% over
appraised value for all the real estate in New Orleans and turn the area
into a big coastal National Park?

New Orleans is a major port exporting grain from the Midwest to the
world so they just can't walk away.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> The New Louisiana Purchase
> Wouldn't it be more cost effective and cost the taxpayers less money
> for
> the Federal Government to just pay all the property owners 10% over
> appraised value for all the real estate in New Orleans and turn the
> area
> into a big coastal National Park?

In article <SZWUe.1946$b37.1338@trnddc04>, sfb wrote:
> New Orleans is a major port exporting grain from the Midwest to the
> world so they just can't walk away.
>

Not insignificant but hardly crucial; New Orleans ranks #14 in the top
20 U.S. Ports:

(http://www.bts.gov/publications/us_international_trade_and_freight_transportation_ trends/2003/html/table_13.html)

Still, a grain terminal could be maintained without risking a million
people.

Nice try baby, but your chart is ranked by container shipping. Grain are
bulk cargos. Levees are needed to maintain water depth for navigation.

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> In article <SZWUe.1946$b37.1338@trnddc04>, sfb wrote:
>> New Orleans is a major port exporting grain from the Midwest to the
>> world so they just can't walk away.
>>
>
> Not insignificant but hardly crucial; New Orleans ranks #14 in the top
> 20 U.S. Ports:
>
> (http://www.bts.gov/publications/us_international_trade_and_freight_transportation_ trends/2003/html/table_13.html)
>
> Still, a grain terminal could be maintained without risking a million
> people.

In article <iuYUe.649$YI6.353@trnddc05>, sfb wrote:
> Nice try baby, but your chart is ranked by container shipping. Grain are
> bulk cargos. Levees are needed to maintain water depth for navigation.

Ahhh, try reading the posts. New Orleans is is _not_ an insignificant
port overall and _yes_ it is important to grain exports with some nine
of the twelve central gulf coast elevators with deep draft channels.

This could be why I suggested rebuilding the grain terminals.

What fraction, do you suppose, of the now displaced or dead New
Orleans population was devoted to grain shipment?

My original point was New Orleans is a major port so we just can't walk
away which you countered by saying it was on #14 using a container
shipping numbers.I lost track of whether you are saying I'm full of ****
or admitting your are.

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> In article <iuYUe.649$YI6.353@trnddc05>, sfb wrote:
>> Nice try baby, but your chart is ranked by container shipping. Grain
>> are
>> bulk cargos. Levees are needed to maintain water depth for
>> navigation.
>
> Ahhh, try reading the posts. New Orleans is is _not_ an insignificant
> port overall and _yes_ it is important to grain exports with some nine
> of the twelve central gulf coast elevators with deep draft channels.
>
> This could be why I suggested rebuilding the grain terminals.
>
> What fraction, do you suppose, of the now displaced or dead New
> Orleans population was devoted to grain shipment?

sfb opined

>New Orleans is a major port exporting grain from the Midwest to the
>world so they just can't walk away.

Ports further up the Mississippi are more important for geain shipping.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Other than Baton Rouge, what are the deep water ports? Do they have the
capacity to make up for the loss of New Orleans?

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> sfb opined
>
>>New Orleans is a major port exporting grain from the Midwest to the
>>world so they just can't walk away.
>
> Ports further up the Mississippi are more important for geain
> shipping.
>
>
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu in 2005!
> Why wait for nature?
>

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote
>
> Ports further up the Mississippi are more important for geain shipping.

Nope, for the reason that all grain further up must first be loaded onto
barges, then transferred to freighters at N.O.

My suggestion? We need to keep the port open, and other industry in the
area that can't be moved, and French quarter, and perhaps some of the other
historic areas, but let the rest revert back. Put in a good mass transit
line to the area, from a "new" New Orleans, further up the river.
--
Jim in NC

I say build all houses in NO a la houseboat style and tug tow them away
or just let them float in place with retractable angkors to accomodate
water level. Just another one of my 'will never work' ideas. OK guys,
I got my deflector beanie hat on this time so I'm thinking clear w/o
outside influence. : -)

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ <---make your own deflector beanie hat.

Morgans opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote
>>
>> Ports further up the Mississippi are more important for geain shipping.

>Nope, for the reason that all grain further up must first be loaded onto
>barges, then transferred to freighters at N.O.

The grain port is between N.O. and Baton Rouge.

>My suggestion? We need to keep the port open, and other industry in the
>area that can't be moved, and French quarter, and perhaps some of the other
>historic areas, but let the rest revert back. Put in a good mass transit
>line to the area, from a "new" New Orleans, further up the river.

That is likely to be the natural result. Maney of the relocated are likely to
stay where they are. That is , unless governments rebuild the whole city.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?