Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - amarain

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 396
11
so one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says something else.

you're back to the hindsight 20/20 thing

FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers, the governor, local disaster/emergency mangement officials begged the goverment for help. It's not like it was just this random guy who said "hey you should do this." It was clear foresight. They saw it coming and issued tons of warnings. This is not a 'hindsight is 20/20' situation.

when you have two differing opinions on the best way to protect the city and one, after the worst case scenario occurs, is right, you have a hindsight is 20/20 situation.


So that's it? If everyone is shouting at the government "you've got to do this before it's too late!," the government ignores it, then the disaster occurs and proves them right, are you just going to shrug and say "well, hindsight's 20/20"?

There is a very real point to this. It was fairly obvious what needed to be done - so obvious that the government had been working on it for a decade - and then the current president made an enormous mistake that likely cost billions of dollars and many lives. You don't just say, well that sucks but hey you can't blame the guy, he didn't know. He did know, and we should hold him accountable for his mistake.

12
so one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says something else.

you're back to the hindsight 20/20 thing

FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers, the governor, local disaster/emergency mangement officials begged the goverment for help. It's not like it was just this random guy who said "hey you should do this." It was clear foresight. They saw it coming and issued tons of warnings. This is not a 'hindsight is 20/20' situation.

13
Didn't anyone read the original article???

The levees have been known to be a major issue for years. From that article:

"On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain."

As we all know, it was the levees on Lake Pontchartrain that collapsed, flooding the city with lake water.

14
So now the question of how long weve feared "New Orleans sinking" becomes relevant.  Weve known for a very very long time that the city was vulnerable.  Through how many administrations do you think?  Was the probability of a hurricane striking any lower during Clinton's years?  Would that justify his doing nothing but keeping funding in place, which resulted in no action?

?

That's not true though. He actually funded the projects to reinforce the city. Bush, instead, decided it wasn't important.


Quit trying to turn this into a partisan issue. It's not about left vs. right. It's about holding our government respnsible for its actions, whatever party it is.

i've probably missed a good bit of this discussion, but don't actually have the time to read it.  however, and not saying this is directed at you am', but this pretty much started out as a partisan issue.  "if bush hadn't been in power, this might not have happened"

That doesn't make it partisan though. I didn't say "if a Republican hadn't been in power, it wouldn't have happened." I'm criticizing him based solely on his actions, not on party affiliation or partisan feelings.

15
Law School Applications / Re: dean's certifcation letter
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:56:00 AM »
It's any college where you did work towards a degree, whether you receive that degree or not.

I'm assuming this includes work toward a master's degree?

Yes. It's a pain. And I really don't understand the point, but whatever.

16
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Intelligent Design Theory
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:53:40 AM »
OK, if humans were intelligently designed, why does a woman give birth through a tiny ring of bone? What's the point of male facial hair or of the appendix? Why do women get PMS?

Doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

17
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Intelligent Design Theory
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:40:35 AM »
See, I'm not arguing that creationism is necessarily wrong (although personally I believe it is) just that it isn't science. There is no scientific proof for creationism. It simply isn't there.

Now, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to believe in it - for some people, faith is all about believing crazy things that there is no proof of. But it isn't science and it shouldn't be taught in science class.

Evolution is the best theory we have right now. There exists the most scientific proof for it. Maybe it's wrong - who knows? It's certainly not foolproof. But it is the closest scientific explanation we have at this moment in history, that that's why we should teach it in science class, flaws and all, while not ignoring those flaws.

18
Law School Applications / Re: dean's certifcation letter
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:24:21 AM »
It's any college where you did work towards a degree, whether you receive that degree or not.

19
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Intelligent Design Theory
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:22:30 AM »
ID is basically, we don't know what happened, we can't explain it, it must be God.

That's not science.

Apparently you didn't both reading what I posted.

Actually, I did uh, both reading it. That's where I'm getting it from.

20
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Intelligent Design Theory
« on: September 01, 2005, 11:18:58 AM »
ID is basically, we don't know what happened, we can't explain it, it must be God.

That's not science.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 396