Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen,

The Federal Response seems to have had a problem mainly in New Orleans, not across all the three gulf states. This might tell you something. The focus of this immense failure you speak of had a few more actors involved than merely Federal official. In fact where we had the worst “response” is where you had the highest expectation that the Federal Government would fix everything right away and it is also where the failure to plan by local officials created the problem in the first place. This does not speak to the failure of big government or the advocacy of small government so much as it speaks to the idea of self sufficiency and first reliance on local planning and preparedness.

To make this into an issue of relying MORE on the Federal Government is missing the point entirely. Watching all the news reports of people aghast that there wasn’t a Federal official immediately at their door to hold their hand is a bit disconcerting to me. I suspect that this attitude contributed to the hysteria regarding the “disasterous” response.

As I’ve mentioned in comments before, those who support a bigger government will not get better results merely because bigger is better. There is good evidence that the primary role of the Federal government should be providing security and order immediately after such events and facilitating private relief efforts.

How many people died specifically as a result of this slow response in New Orleans?

European nations have the kind of government that you are advocating and have been used as precisely the example we should follow in these things and yet 35,000 people died due to a heat wave just two years ago. Is this the kind of ‘competence’ of which you are speaking? How could something of such horrific magnitude have happened in just such a socialized democracy of which you champion?

People must at least believe in the responsibilities they are given

This quote is the key to the whole discussion and needs answered first and foremost. Government does have a responsibility, on the local, state and federal levels. After these disasters, we need to re-evaluate the roles of responsibilities of each and how they work together.

The Government should ALWAYS help those who truly cannot help themselves. But, a line needs to be drawn on those people who can help themselves and choose not to, and those who have chosen poorly. Do we neglect them, “NO”. But we do not help them in the same way as we do the helpless.

If we enable those who can help themselves to indeed do nothing, we are not helping them. In fact, we are actually killing them.

I support the idea of a limited government, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe there are times when the federal government will need to act. It does however mean that rather than three or four levels of government officials it should be maybe two.

The main difference between the Clinton response and the Bush response was thanks to Congress FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security. That seems to be something not addressed by most, but from my understanding Democrats as well as Republicans supported that change. That said? Sometimes the only way government changes is when it doesn’t work right.

There are some things that can’t be helped. This was a really big natural disaster that hit a city that is below sea level. It was a disaster predicted by experts for more than half a century. The response (or the disaster) is proving less bad than first anticipated. We lost about 1000 people. That is a lot, but not much compared to the 10,000 plus the mayor of New Orleans predicted and it is much, much less than the Euros lost in a heat wave as Eric mentioned. I have seen ordinary spring floods in advanced parts of Europe.

Big bureaucracies don’t do a good job. They are inevitably surprised by events that have been happening with monotonous regularity since the end of the last ice age. This is nothing new for Americans, European, Asians or almost anyone else. New Orleans went really bad because so many people misbehaved. Had it not been for the Hobbesian chaos of New Orleans, we would be talking about the heroic response to a natural disaster.

Private industry had done well. Much of the industry is up and running again – already. NGOs and charities also did their jobs. So did the government, in its fashion.

It does not certainly show the need for more government. There seemed to be no shortage of resources. State, local and Federal governments all had the resources available to handle the crisis. They just didn’t manage them well.

Just answer this question. What resources did the governments lack?

As for the Homeland Security – we got that giant bureaucracy in response to the call for a bigger government response. The argument made at the time is that we needed to centralize everything and fully fund it all. So now we can centralize a little more?

Lisa, organization of Homeland Defense and FEMA fall under the executive branch, not Congress. This is the Whitehouse’s handiwork, not Congress’s.

Eric Simonson:

35,000 dead from a European Heat Wave TWO YEARS AGO? May I ask why you quote an event 2 YEARS AGO? If Big Government in Europe is sooo worthless, THOUSANDS should be dead EACH YEAR. Could it be that the Record Heat Wave mentioned never happened before thus no plans were made for it? Could it be that now it COULD happen the Europeans made plans and thus you’re failure to quote a more recent occurance?

A more relevant question would be how many Americans die each year due to insufficient HealthCare Coverage. I suppose you think they are just freeloaders that don’t matter. Typical Republican.

David,

The Patriot Act had to be approved and funded by Congress. Everyone was on board with it at the time…Nice try…

Aldous,

Could it be that the Record Heat Wave mentioned never happened before thus no plans were made for it? Could it be that now it COULD happen the Europeans made plans and thus you’re failure to quote a more recent occurance?

Could it be that the a Hurricane of that magnitude has never hit New Orleans in modern times before, thus no real plans were made for it? Could it be that now it COULD happen and the United States has now made plans and thus your failure to quote a more recent occurance? (Take Rita for instance)

Your logic slays me…and what does this have to do with Healthcare coverage? Typical democrat.

Stephen,
I hope you enjoyed having Houston emptied out for a day or two. And I agree that America needs a Strong, but limited government. However, the problem with Katrina was not caused by the lack of the size of our government, but the way it is being ran. Under President Clinton, FEMA was given the authority to cut through the “RED TAPE” when a natural disaster happened. Katrine and now Rita’s federal assistance is sinking due to the “RED TAPE.”

Eric,
If Rita would of came to Houston as a Category 4 Hurricane, you would of seen President Bush have a heart attack. Because while the local and state first responders were unable to control the evacuation of the area, do you want to think that they could of handled Houston being flooded?

No, self sufficiency and all the planning in the world goes out the window at the snap of the ball. Hence, that is the problem that President Bush has. Total Lack of Imagination and the ability to think on the spot of a solution. Thats why he wants to put the military in charge, they have learned that A does not necessarily lead to B.

Even the Governor of Texas was surprised when he found out that besides Nurses, the city of Houston needed citizens to come back to work in the grocery stores and gas stations. Wow, we know that took a huge step in Human Thinking, huh.

No, big Government is not the answer in a natural disaster; however, quick command thinking and execution to deal with the problems caused by things changing at a drop of the hat is a must. Look at what the Coast Guard did during Rita. Their commander was smart enough to follow Rita into shore. What was the Presidents’ response? What was the Governors’ response? To this date, President Bush still don’t know that Rita hit Cameron Louisiana not the state of Texas.

That is the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton didn’t care about the paperwork, he just wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Bush on the other hand believes that as long as it looks good on paper, it is suppose to work in the “Real World.”

David,

I believe Congress voted to merge FEMA into Homeland Security, so they must have had something to do with it don’t you think?

Wasn’t the left criticizing Bush for not going along with the Homeland Security Bill in the first place?

And another somewhat interesting conversation brought to a screeching halt by the comments of Aldous…

Aldous,

In two years can we use the same reponse about Katrina as you did about the heat wave? TWO YEARS AGO, Why bring it up noWWW!!??

As for ‘freeloaders’ wanting health care, why don’t they have health care? It is hard to get additional coverage? Medicare and Medicaid already attempt to ensure that those that need help get it, of course in doing so on such a grand scale it become an entitlement, not a help, and anyone meeting XXX regardless of their status or need are given help, directly out of the pockets of other people trying to do right by their own families. It it the responsibility of the US federal government to make sure that everyone is covered by health care? It’s a noble goal but one that 1) would be be frought with typical governmental beauracracy and corruption and 2) not legal for the US federal government to provide (hint: read the constitution).

David,

Wasn’t moving FEMA to Homeland Security (and the creation of the ‘Department of Homeland Security) something that was suggested by the 9/11 commission? Didn’t congress and the democrats complain that Bush didn’t follow their suggestions quickly enough?

Perhaps we could resurrect Sam Walton and put him in charge of FEMA.

“Wal-Mart’s emergency plan pays off”

Ooh, I should have included this quote (url above):

But by Friday, all but 15 of the idled stores had reopened. From Boutte, La., to Pass Christian, Miss., Wal-Mart frequently beat FEMA by days in getting trucks filled with emergency supplies to relief workers and citizens whose lives were upended by the storm.

Wal-Mart’s speed in responding to Katrina underscores the extent to which it and other big-box retailers like Home Depot have become key players in responding to natural disasters. Whereas FEMA has to scramble for resources, Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart has it owns trucks, distribution centers and dozens of stores in most areas of the country. It also has a specific protocol for responding to disasters, and it can activate an emergency command center to coordinate an immediate response. In the short term, at least, the hurricane has boosted Wal-Mart’s tattered image, damaged by a major sex-discrimination suit and allegations that it gives workers stingy pay and benefits.

Eric,
Maybe we should stop President Bush from appointing his friends into places where our National Security is at stack. Or at least make them spend on what the money was intended for.

Eric-
I heard Haley Barbour complaining about the federal response, among others. I cannot, therefore, credit your statement that the problem seems to be restricted to New Orleans.

This is not about relying more or less on the Federal government. This is about the Federal Government’s power being there to help the states and the localities when disasters overwhelm their ability to react. The whole trouble here is that FEMA took exactly your point of view. You’re so wrapped up in that point of view, in fact, that you fail to understand that people want help now, not a political lecture on the need to ween them off “entitlements” like federal disaster relief.

You need to get out of the Ivory Tower and realize that this is about repairing and remediating the disaster before the economic scar tissue forms, making complete recovery more difficult. This is not about bigger or smaller, but effective. I expect the politicians and the officials to do their jobs, and those who appoint these people to make damn sure they’re capable of doing it.

European nations have the kind of government that you are advocating and have been used as precisely the example we should follow in these things and yet 35,000 people died due to a heat wave just two years ago. Is this the kind of ‘competence’ of which you are speaking? How could something of such horrific magnitude have happened in just such a socialized democracy of which you champion?

Eric, did you ever happen to ask me what my idea of a good mixture between social programs and free market was?

I didn’t think so. No, I told you in my entry:

The myth about Democrats and Liberals like myself is that we love bureaucracy. In all actuality, we love results, and bureaucracies of appropriate size to maintain them.

We want a government that works. Maybe you’re willing to let the wheels come off the bus before it gets fixed, but the rest of us would just as well want things to be done right.

As for heatwaves, you guys are comparing apples and oranges. Heatwaves are local phenomena, and really a matter of the heat staying more intense than the locals are used to. The temperatures that crippled Chicago and ravaged France are the kind of temperatures we get on a regular basis here in Houston. Besides, the death toll is the worst part of it, and the only real substantial damage. Our situation is much different from that.

Regardless, it’s a smokescreen. It’s saying thousands of Americans can die in a hurricane because officials here and elsewhere were at a loss to deal with the heat waves. It’s absurd on the face of it: Chicago and Paris still stand. There is no equvalency. Not only that, but two wrongs do not make the failures of the federal response acceptable. The GOP should be ashamed to have such low standards.

Discerner-
The problem with your approach is that you’re counting on your good luck to properly determine the help needed. You failt to realize one important things about disaster victims: they want things to get back to normal. Their idea of a good time is not depending on government assistance. Help them now, and without being stingy and then they don’t become a burden. Wait on it, and people’s lives will break down.

Jack-
There is plenty of evidence that things could have been done to at least mitigate the impact of the hurricane, if not prevent it. Part of that could have been done by local officials, but the feds are also involved.

The Hobbesian chaos of New Orleans might have been prevented by a more prompt response. It also could have been an exaggeration of what really happened, fostered by a media used to portraying the urban poor, regardless of race, color or other attribute, as lawless folks to be feared, rather than typically honest folks with limits to their patience and indulgence.

I think the problem with your approach, and that of most Republicans, is that you see Bureacracy itself as the problem, not merely the raw material of the response. Like any material, it can be wasted, misapplied, turned into junk.

It can also be refined, reworked, and made more efficient. It’s all about dealing with things in terms of purpose, rather than politics and ideology. We can start by hiring people to deal with these issues who actually know what they are doing.

This is more about power than anything else. It’s there to be used, how do we use it? It’s fruitless to complain about power and its effects, and never work or think about channelling it appropriately.

Eric, let me ask you a question. Locally, when people were clearing out of here in North Harris County, Walmarts shut down, having run out of food. They’re still operating on partial capacity now.

Had the disaster been worse, could we have counted on Walmart to be able to fill our emergency needs in the crucial first few days?

Discerner-
Look, there is a well publicized example of officials war-gaming the possibility of New Orleans getting flooded, so don’t claim this notion was out of the blue. This was one of three big threats that officials working on Homeland Security came up with.

Your logic is useless without sound facts to base premises on.

discerner, The Patriot Act has little to do with reorganizing DHS and FEMA. If you are going to pontificate on government, try doing a google search first to check to see if what flows out the keyboard has any relation to reality at all.

The President picks the head of DHS and FEMA. Why? Because they fall under the Executive Branch of Government. Not under Congress. Yes, Congress controls the purse strings aside from the budget, but, organization of the Executive Branch of government falls to the President and his cabinet and administrators.

Rhinehold, you are the winner. That is correct. The DHS was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and its creation and funding were part of an appropriations bill Congress had to sign on to.

In the words of Michael Brown of Katrina infamy, in a speech in gave at the 2004 International Association of Emergency Managers:

Thanks to President Bush for bringing together 22 agencies whose mission includes protecting the domestic shores of this nation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was one of those original 22 agencies that now make up the Department of Homeland Security.

Either Brown was right in praising Bush for bringing FEMA into the DHS or Brown was incompetent even before Katrina hit. Take your poison conservatives, you can’t have it both ways.

But stop trying to shift blame for Whitehouse actions on Congress. It amazes me how much of this spin BS is put out to shift responsibility from where it belongs. Polls show Americans ain’t buying it anymore, thank goodness.

Also see Homeland Security Act of 2002 where the plan is acknowledged as the President’s.

David-
Homeland Security was created in October of 2002, long before the 9/11 commission First convened in March and April of 2003.

I guess the thing that must be confronted here is the gap between what kind of government America as a whole wants, and the Republicans for their part desire. Most Americans are pretty comfortable with our hybrid capitalism.

But not the people running this government. They don’t want all that, so they do all kinds of things to weaken the programs and co-opt them on behalf of special interests that they see no conflict in assisting.

They don’t have the discipline of those who believe that government should work when doing these things. They don’t have the sense that using these positions for personal gain is unjust. They don’t have the sense that government matters, and that it can make a difference for the better.

Also, they are not entirely honest about wanting to remove the feds from these proceedings. Bush now suggests that we run the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast through the Pentagon.

The fact of the matter is, Part of our problem in Iraq is that instead of running the nation-building through the experts in the State Department, they ran it through the military. Our armed forces are trained to be brilliant fighters, but they are not diplomats, and they are not necessarily trained for disaster relief (unless we’re speaking about the national guard, which really should be here, not there, taking care of things for the states)

Moreover, it does not make strategical sense to co-opt the army for disaster every time something of this scale happen. In short, adopting Bush’s plan here would lose us wars in the future. In fact, terrorists could plan to divert our forces in precisely that way.

When is the Republican party going to realize that we need specialized, dedicated disaster relief here, not something done through the proxy of potentially crippled states and localities or a military system needed elsewhere for things it’s better suited to doing.

Just say it: here we need the governments’ help! Here, we need to do what it takes to get this coast back in shape, and better protected from the next storms. This is no time to use the failures of the past to justify the failures of the future. Let’s get it right the first time, and not have to ask years later why we didn’t take care of business.

I am curious to know why there were 3000 registered sex offenders in New Orleans. This is roughly 1% of the total population.

I liked the example of Wal-Mart mentioned above. Maybe we should consider privatizing FEMA?

Good article, Stephen. To misquote Einstein: the government should be as small as possible, but no smaller.

It’s a fact that there are some things the federal government can do better than any other organization. Responding to a catastrophic natural disaster or terrorist attack is one of them.

On the other hand, did you see where the Pentagon wants President Bush to shift disaster response from FEMA to the military? That’s as bad an idea as putting the military in charge of post-war Iraq.

AP,

Are you familiar with the movie (title I can’t remember) where Denzel Washington is a cop and Bruce Willis is a General. There’s a terror threat to NYC and the mayor(?) wants Willis to take charge. His reply was “I’m (the military) the last person you want in charge of civilians.”

The rationale is simple. The military is designed and trained to go out and kill an enemy. Period. They impose martial (i.e. military) law. That is; no civil rights, follow orders or else. Any other job, e.g. Search and Rescue or policing is out of the soldiers training. See also: US Army in Baghdad.

From what I have seen and heard a great deal of credit should go to the people of Texas who organized and executed the evacuation efforts. As well I know that some Watchblog contributers live in Texas and I hope all are well.

Are we really sure that Bush’s goal is less government? He wants to get rid of as may programs as he can get away with, sure, but I don’t think revoking posse comitatus can qualify as “small government,” seeing as how it will allow the president to use the military as a police force on our own soil.

I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned on the blog before, but I find this development most disturbing. Right after “apologizing” for his botched response, Bush is looking for more ways to reduce our freedoms — and once again, all under the guise of protecting us. Tell us, Mr. Bush — why would we need to use the military as a police force in the homeland if you hadn’t sent all the National Guardsmen on a mission to Iraq in the first place?
Anti-big government, my foot. Bush is just opposed to spending money on anything that isn’t a war.

From DailyKost this morning:

“The president believes the government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited government we’ve ever had.”

—Daily Show correspondent Rob Corddry

I think that summarizes things perfectly. It’s not necessarily a question of bigger or smaller - it’s a question of competent vs incompetent. Altho Reds that are into limited government should probably rethink their party affiliation: Bush Republicans have clearly signed on to the old Tip O’Neil school of big government.

That was an excellent movie, Dave — “The Siege”. Great comparison there.

Alejo,

Bush doesn’t want smaller gov’t. He wants the gov’t to spend on his priorities. E.g. The military, pork for (R) districts, profiteering, etc… Instead of social programs like health, tax relief for people who need it (like the middle class), or the ecology.

AP,

Thanks

William,

For those who don’t know, the Daily Show is on Comedy Central. It is a brilliantly brutal satire with Jon Stewart. Who, unlike Bill O’really, actually won some Emmy’s.

BTW: Who has read the latest from Brownie? “My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional”
Typical modern conservative response; “Who? Me?” Bush and his cronies look more and more like Alfred E Newman every day.

Question: Michael Brown stated “I’ve overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I’m doing, and I do a pretty dan good job of it.” I would like to know if we have had that many disasters since 2001? Maybe Mr Brown was referring to White House disasters.
Bob Cramer

Steve Smith-
It’s far less than that. New Orleans had almost half a million people there. The other 481,674 are not sex offenders, a fact I think you should note.

As for the evacuation, it was prompt but it could have been better organized.

I know this from personal experience. While me and my mother were not among the evacuees, we had to travel along a local surface road clogged with them to get out. It took two hours to travel about ten miles Twenty minutes under normal traffic conditions would have been the typical trip time.

The traffic jam could have become a disaster of its own, had Rita borne down on the arteries coming out of Houston. Hopefully, the lesson will be learned, and the evacuations will be staggered in the future, to allow the highways to conduct evacuees out at best speed.

While I recognize the imperfect nature of disaster efforts, the problem with most of the Katrina mistakes was their predictably problematic nature. These weren’t unexpected problems, and in fact were staring folks right in the face.

The local and state officials who put pork or corrupt gain ahead of maintenance and improvement of vital flood and storm management systems richly deserve a share of the blame. But those in congress and in the White House who did likewise, and allowed such things to happen, must be accordingly blamed. What’s more, their mistakes must be atoned for by dedicated, full force remediation of the disaster, and not this lazy, lily-livered, laissez faire, unrepentant response.

The Republican party, having fought, kicked, and clawed its way into majority position in our government’s leadership should not be seen slinking out the backdoor when America calls out in its need. It should not be passing the buck and the burden onto local and private organizations ill-equipped to do the full job that needs to be done. You guys bought your power, now accept the responsibility that comes with it, or give it up.

Stephen:
Excellent points. What a difference a day makes. That extra day for Houston got the people off of the roads in the end. If they had only less than two days, we may have seen a huge disaster, with people dying on the highways from the storm.
Had New Orleans been afforded an extra day, perhaps the steps needed to get the rest of the people out would have been feasible.

I totally agree with you regarding the responsibility issue. Now that they got what they wanted so badly, they should accept it and do the best job possible; not blame everyone else when they fall short.

As far as disaster planning in New Orleans, or any other city, I think it’s a matter of planning for what they can control, and hoping that it doesn’t get any worse than that. Not the best way of managing things, but it’s my opinion that we would see similar results in virtually any US city with a catastrophe appropriate to their situation.
When the worst does happen somewhere, then others learn from it and try to apply what they learned to the new situation. At least for the short term, anyway. Everyone usually forgets after a while, and then it’s back to the usual gambling-for-your-life scenario.

One last point: I’ve now gone through both Katrina and Rita, here in southeast Lousiana, and I’m tired of the muckraking. It’s getting in the way of results. We were flooded pretty badly as a result of Rita, and I’m still hearing about blame for the slowness of fema response in Katrina. Meanwhile, houses are flooded and businesses are wiped out even more than before. This energy needs to be put into fixing the problems and not fixing the blame.

Stephen Daugherty,

Using your population figure for NO of 484,674 (although there is a recent report based on the 2004 numbers of a population decrease to 462,226) the sex offender stats evolve as follows:

Total population 484,674
Male population 227,312 (46.9%)

Female population257,362 (53.1%)
Sex offenders 3,000 (recent estimates say number is likely as high as 4,500)
Sex offenders male 2,910 (97% of sex offenders nationwide are male)
Sex offend. female 50 (3% of sex offenders nationwide are female)

# of male sex offenders missing from NO 1.2% of the male population OR, if the figure is as high as some estimates of 4,500…

# of male sex offenders missing from NO 1.9 % of the male population

Thanks for pointing out the error of my original statement, it gave me an opportunity to do a more thorough analysis. I think you should note the corrected figures.

Politics aside, it appears that an evacuation of a mid to major size metropolitan area (I have seen several and been part of one which was a
blackout in NYC, I was in the subway) is never going to be easy. The availability of gasoline is a major issue. You would think, in reducing an evacuation to it’s simplest reference form, that it would become easy if practiced often enough.

Just like in school or business practicing for a fire drill. First one row/section then the next. A section leader to account for people, etc. I am not trying to over simplify but it is certainly possible. Practicality is another issue.

Steve Smith-
Let me point out another error, then. You generalized percentages from nationwide numbers on sex offenders to apportion out the numbers on Louisiana. You also offer an additional ad hoc set of percentages based on that gender notion for total population.

The important questions here regard what Louisiana considers a sex crime, and whether the criminal justice system artificially increases the number of sex offenders living in the big city in New Orleans.

Which is another point to make: what are the urban vs. suburban/rural concentrations of sex offenders elsewhere? Measuring such numbers for New Orleans with such shock is meaningless if such artificial concentrations are normal for urban environments.

Stephen Daugherty,

There appears to be no limit to the depth you will go to dillute what is essentially a relativeley valid analysis on the sex offender population of NO.

Now we need definitions of what constitutes a sex crime by Louisiana definition, broken down buy urban and suburban, etc.

I simply used “sex offender” in the same way as was used by the media to bring to our attention how many were unaccounted for from NO.

You can accept what figures you like. It is obvious that you will continue to manufacture potential variables to anything that is not consistent with your views.

Stephen,
I usually tend to agree with you, however, I do not think a large government accomplishes much.
As shown by the aftermath of Katrina and now Rita, it appears that all having a large government does is confuse the issue. Not only that, but it also creates a number of “pass-the-buckers” instead of actually being able to actually follow the tracks of Bush, Brown, the Sec. of Homeland Affairs,etc in determining the the blame, for the mils-handling of the hurricane problems, some of which could have been handled ahead of time. (ex. The Navy could have located a hospital ship safely around the tip if Fl. so it would be ready to approach the disaster areas if needed.)
Few supplies were ready, because of the confusion among the various politicians
(governmental employees) on where they needed to be sent.

I am not suggesting that our government attempt to become a one on one government, but certainly the confusion caused with the hurricanes does show that a large government simply added to the confusion involved when help was needed and not received. Perhaps a more limited government might organize things a tad better.

Steve Smith-
Dilute it? It dilutes itself. First you were saying it was one percent of the population, but in actuality, the math supports a smaller proportion. Then you make a claim on the basis of national figures for what the number of sex offenders in local New Orleans is, which itself represents a fallacious approach. Only if you’re working from local percentages or numbers can you make a local claim that stands up on the facts.

As for those other factors, yes I’m throwing them in to trip you up, but those are tests that can be easily passed if the truth agrees with your claim. If not, then we both have a better idea of how things really are, instead of being stuck with an unreliable claim.

Yes, I am skeptical, but I am questioning what you say, instead of denying it outright. You can still win the argument if you do the research to prove your point.

Too many independents and Republicans accept poor arguments and make ones as well. If you guys want greater credibility, make sure of your facts, and think out the implications and exceptions before we do. Otherwise, any rhetorical victories will be just wins by wordplay.

Linda H.-
Have you ever worked at a place that was understaffed or disorganized? Such places become inefficient on account of not being able to process the work in a proper time period. We don’t need a government that’s small because positions and funding have been cut to still existing programs asked to do more, we need a government that is that small because it can do all its asked to do with that number of people, and that level of funding. Otherwise, it’s an exercise in futility to expect small government to benefit Americans. What we need is the right funding and the right manpower, with the right organization to do what we Americans expect our government to do.

Stephen Daugherty,

I am not going to belabor a point that has been satisfactorilly made (within an acceptable margin of error) by delving into the new set of variables you throw out. The math is correct when using only the male population of NO since males commit 97% of the sexual offenders.

There is analytical precedent for using national averages of comparable city sizes to generate a workable number.

My intention of the post is not to compete with someone and/or win an argument. This is a completely non-political issue meant only to illustrate yet another “sub issue” in a natural disaster scenario.

It’s been made to your satistfaction, not mine. What is the point, anyways? That NOLA, as a liberal, mostly minority city, allows more depraved behavior to go on? Or is it something else, perhaps something more moderate? You’re not clear on that. We’re beginning to find out that our portrait of NOLA as degenerating into Lord of The Flies anarchy was exaggerated to say the least.

I call on you to be more disciplined about your figures because I’m tired of Republicans and Independents challenging us on the facts when theirs aren’t straight. It matters what picture we get of a situation. It matters whether we rightly or wrongly malign the residents of a city like NOLA.

There may be analytical precedent for your numbers shuffling, but that doesn’t validate your conclusion or the inference leading to it. It’s still a guess, and deserves the scrutiny and skepticism that a guess engenders.

My objections are legitimate. Registered Sex Offenders are convicts, by definition, subject to the displacement of a prison sentence and/or the ostracism of the community. Additionally, if you compare the figure of sex offenders (15,000) in the general population to that of the State’s population (4.5 million), the proportion of the population falls to about a third of a percentage point. Even if you double that proportion with your gender percentage, it stays below 1%. The way I figure it, Sex Offenders are typically parolees and unwelcome in their communities, so they head for more anonymous big cities for that reason, if not for the reason that many of the halfway houses are there as well. The proportion of offenders is greater, in my view, than the population would naturally engender on its own. This is a pattern, by the way, that you can refute and confirm by research, if you so desire, comparing the proportion of offenders in a city to that of the state. The same can be said about whether this is a consistent pattern state by state.

If it’s not a political issue, why do you make a point of talking about the sex offenders here when I’m talking about the need for an honest, forthright, hard-working federal effort at putting this part of the country back together? What’s the point, if not to cast aspersions at the people we would help, or make some comment about the immorality the welfare state engenders?

Has it occured to you that my reason for bringing this issue up at all was to demonstrate that when all reasonable aspects of evacuation are in place and/or put into place, the criminal population must be addressed. We now have somewhere between 3000 and 4500 convicted sex offenders that basically are now starting with a clean slate. I did not make this fact up. It has been well reported in several media presentation.

Using the staes population as you suggest is useless because the entire state did not evacuate.

It is you who have begun to introduce some of the more social and political aspects. You have indication where and why the halfway house are in the city, casting aspertions on the people we would help, immorality and welfare state, depraved behavior, etc.

Now that you have made that point it would be interested for someone to pursue the ramifications. I have no interest in doing so but thank you for highlighting the possibility for us.

I as well am dissapointed that the Democrats, Liberals and others are unwilling to accept anything that is not supportive of their views and, will restructure the subject matter in an attempt to use it to suit there own cause.

Forgive the atrocious spelling in my previous post. I have been distracted by the loss of a close friend this week.

Steve,

First; My condolences.

Second; I think the (L) reposnse to your post is that it seems pretty clear there was implied aspersion onto the people of NO. If not, you should have simply stated “There are now 3000 unaccounted sex offenders.”

Thirdly; Most likely this isn’t as bad as it seems since a level 3 is required to register wherever they are or face going back to jail. If they don’t then this is no different than if they just disappeared in normal times.

In MA, at least, there are 4 levels of offenders. 1,2,3,Predator. Level 1 and 2 are generally people who did something they shouldn’t have as a mistake or probably just a one time event. The level 3 has deep problems and is likely to re-offend. The “predator” term speaks for itself. My town just recently got it’s first level 3. I was very surpised to learn that there were 10 level 1 and 2 already in town. Digging in deeper I was at least mollified that 7 of these 10 generally did stupid things in their past that now makes them “sex offenders”
Basically, 3000 doesn’t really mean anything by itself.

Stephan,

Yes I most definetly have worked in such an enviroment, I worked for the NC Governemnt for almost 25 years. And the Federal support was a joke. I don’t just mean money, but the rules generated by the project.

I don’t mean a government that is too small to do it’s job. That would be ridiculous. However I do believe there are too many people in our government today who don’t have the foggiest how to DO their jobs, and all they do is confuse the issues.

I would like to see a mass firing of these people - those given governmental jobs as pay-back for their help in getting ANY politician elected, friends who are not capable of handling the jobs they have been given, and the many people who are simply being paid for doing little to nothing. I believe that if this were done, we’d have a more efficient government, and one that just might be able to run on a budget.

Heck, no one has any idea what it costs to maintain the White House. There is no budget for the staff to adhere to. For all I know there are people running around the Whhite House who don’t actually have a job, and they are getting paid anyway.

am curious to know why there were 3000 registered sex offenders in New Orleans. This is roughly 1% of the total population.

What the heck can that mean? Your question here as originally asked is not neutral, but asks for an explanation of what is a potentially problematic presence. You blew up at me when I offered alternative explanations.

You had every opportunity to correct us on our obvious impression of what you said. It’s not until the second to last post that you even state that your main point concerned the evacuees. But how does that square with what you said first? It doesn’t. You had three or four posts to clear up whatever misunderstandings you believed we had with what you said. In the absence of other context we read into your posts that you implied NOLA residents, known to be more liberal than moderate were not as morally upright as others.

Much quibbling about big government responses has been rationalized on the basis of the unfair assumption that inner city residents were less civilized than other storm victims, that their perceived greater dependence on feds lead them to be more passive, more vulnerable to the disaster. Never mind that the unwarranted fear of NOLA residents contributed to the stand-offish, even prejudicial behavior of relief workers, neighboring cities, and federal workers. Never mind that even now it’s being used as an excuse to further weaken an already faltering system.

I just wish you could remember that these were our fellow Americans, mostly honest people, who were harmed in this disaster. Too much of your rhetoric, and that of others centers on a distrust of liberals and people of lower economic classes. It’s time that people in your neck of the woods realize that these folks aren’t deserving of such blanket suspicion.

I have reread my posts regarding the discussion pertaining to the sex offender issue and have concluded that wording (or lack therof) very likely confuses the reader in terms of the author’s intent.

I apologize to those who were misled.

The cursory and eventually more detailed analysis is accurate enough to depict the % of sex offenders that are now missing as a result of hurricane Katrina.

I have spent time researching - Googling statistics and various statutes regarding requirements for sex offender registration in LA and elsewhere, pulling up MSNBC articles, statutes, even Megan’s Law (and other) applications.

There is little sense in much further discussion regarding this issue. I can tell you however, not for any purpose other than being informative that, my research suggests that Louisiana and the city of NO come up severely wanting in their interpretation, application and enforcement of sex offender registration and tracking requirements. This includes their own state laws on the subject.

I don’t understand why you state that I should remember that these were our fellow Americans who were harmed in the disaster. Are you suggesting that I have no compassion for humankind. That sir, would not be an accurate character assessment.

If you wonder why I reminded you of those things, recall that you had not clarified your position, and therefore I had no reason to assume that you were attentive to the character issues. Now that you have cleared things up, you should not take those criticisms to heart.

That said, you could have expressed the point better by making unambiguous statements regarding the system itself, rather than expecting the rest of us to come to the same conclusion of the significance of those statistics.

Additionally, if those are the matters you wished to discuss, this was not the proper forum to begin with. This entry was about the politics of disaster response, not the Louisiana criminal courts or legislature.

Words cannot adequately express my feeling of absolute stupidity for being the first one to ever post an off topic message in the Watchblog forum.

Thank you for calling the correct format to my attention. I look forward to ongoing criticisms and guidance.

Unambiguous - WoW, unquestionably the word of the day.