--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 9/1/05 4:36:10 P.M. Central Daylight > Time, > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > > Again: With projects designed to prevent or mitigate > > > > > the effects of a natural disaster, it is CHEAPER FOR > > > > > THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to pay for the projects than it > > > > > is to PAY FOR THE RELIEF EFFORT AND THE RECONSTRUCTION. > > > > > > > > > > Not to mention, in this case, having to deal with the > > > > > disruption in the oil supply. > > > > > > > > > > Major natural disasters affect the entire country, > > > > > not just the immediate areas where they happen. > > > > > > > > > > It is VERY MUCH IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST to fund > > > > > such projects. > > > > > > > > > > This is not real complicated to understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again the federal government did fund the project. It never > > > > intended to fund > > > > > it 100%. And when federal funding was cut by 44% it was up > to > > > the > > > > state and > > > > > local governments to make up the difference and they could > > have, > > > > they chose > > > > > not to. What you are proposing is the city and state refuse > to > > > > take any > > > > > responsibility for their own protection and demand the > federal > > > > government do it all > > > > > and if they don't we'll make you pay for the mess should one > > > > occur. That's > > > > > called blackmail. It's like a person holding a gun to his > head > > > > demanding > > > > > favors. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why was it that after 9-11 Rudy Giuliani became known > > as "America's > > > > Mayor"? I think it's because, first and foremost, it is the > > local > > > > officials who must take responsibility for disasters. And then > > > > there was Pataki on the scene as well. Certainly, Bush entered > > the > > > > scene and gave moral support as well as federal funds and, of > > > > course, because the attack was from the air, the federal Air > > Force > > > > got involved and air traffic stopped for several days...but my > > > > image is of the local and state officials taking charge and > > running > > > > the show. > > > > > > > > Certainly, things are NOT being run properly and, yes, it is > > fair > > > > and proper to assign blame. But why the apparent focus on the > > Feds? > > > > > > Do you suppose part of it was that after 9/11, except > > > for the immediate area of the disaster, the city's > > > infrastructure was still working just fine and we > > > didn't *need* the feds to come in? > > > > All bridges to the city closed off? Much of telephone > > communication cut off? Roads clogged? Sorry, I don't think that > > is indicative of "infrastructure working just fine". > > Well, actually what it's indicative of is that > you don't know what the hell you're talking about. > > Phone service was just fine everywhere but in the > immediate area.
No, it wasn't. My brother lives in Brooklyn and it took me 3 days to contact him. I finally got him on cell phone. Brooklyn isn't in Manhattan. Yes, I was able to contact a friend of his who lives in Manhattan but that took me 24 hours. > TV and radio stations affected by > the disaster quickly found other ways to transmit. > Electricity was still on and water still running > all over New York except in the immediate area. > There were no shortages of food or any other supplies. > Hospitals weren't affected. Mail service wasn't > interrupted except to and from the immediate area. > > The bridges were closed only temporarily, I believe > only the first day. Roads weren't "clogged" any > more than they usually are. > > As I said, New York's infrastructure, in stark > contrast to that of New Orleans, was in working > order *except* for the immediate area of the > disaster. Most people's lives weren't affected > at all, except psychologically. > > In other words, bad as it was, it was so different > from New Orleans that your attempted comparison is > just ludicrous. > > > Regardless, it is obvious that the disaster relief in NOLA is NOT > > working right. Should Big Brother in Washington be the one > > responsible? > > > > I wonder whether if it were terrorists who blew up the 3 or 4 levee > > sections that appear to be the cause of all the flooding whether it > > would be the Feds who would everyone would be blaming? > > I imagine that if the feds' response was anything > like what it has been in New Orleans, everybody > would be blaming them for an incompetent relief > effort, yes, indeedy. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
