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 8 9 ... 396
31
Only a few things in life piss me off.

And one of them is the fact that people who have absolutely no idea as to the economic position of the state of Louisiana like to "pretend" that they know "what is going on" in this state because, Oh! Something has happened there! I know every f-ing little thing about the state of Louisiana now!

Guess what? Louisiana has ALWAYS been completely destitute and without relief from much federal funding. It has ALWAYS in the top 5 for highest poverty rates. This entire state is so deep in debt, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. We have an incredibly high infant mortality rate, teen pregnancy rate, single-parent in poverty rate, and off the charts rates for just about every other negative issue you can imagine. Louisiana is virtually an unending cesspool of disease and poverty, and the bad areas far outweigh the good areas in this state. I've lived here for almost 21 years and been actively involved in state politics for the past 6 of those, so before you dismiss me as just another ranter, just rest assured that I know what I'm talking about.

This state is home to some of the poorest areas in the country, and most of this state could probably qualify as a third world country. This is not a new occurance. It has been like this for many many years, through many many administrations.

Go look up the data if you don't believe me, but don't play all f-ing high and mighty and pretend that you know everything about something you have never experienced.

This has been my rant.

And it's been a few days coming.

I don't understand what this has to do with the topic, which is that the federal government cut funding to a crucial public safety project in Louisiana. OK, Louisiana is very poor. And...?

32
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Intelligent Design Theory
« on: September 01, 2005, 10:24:25 AM »
There is absolutely no reason why evolution and religion are in any way mutually exclusive. Evolution is entirely compatible with Christianity and Islam and Judaism and many other religions. What's the big deal? Why do people insist that God couldn't have been responsible for evolution in the first place? ???

33
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.

No, it is.  You've drawn a line and blamed who you wanted to blame.  So, again, what did he ACCOMPLISH?  So funding sits there, and youre off the hook?  The theory is, you just have the money and that money solves the problem.  But if you never SOLVE THE PROBLEM, what good is having the funds sitting there?

 ::) The project was in the works. It stopped when the funding stopped.

From the article, which you obviously didn't bother to read:
"Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside."

You are clueless. Why don't you actually pay attention to what's being said before you say things like "The theory is, you just have the money and that money solves the problem."

34
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.

35
So why didnt the governor do anything about it? 

Like what?

If he, too, ignored the warnings, I would hold him responsible as well.

oh I see, these were secretly held and secretly "ignored" warnings.  What do you mean like what?  Hes the governor.  Of the state of LA.

 ??? Who said anything about secrecy? What are you talking about? ???

I don't know if he did anything or not. I don't know if the state of Louisiana has the capability to carry out that kind of project. I don't know if they were doing what they could. I don't know if they were pleading with the federal government for help.

What does the governor have to do with the topic anyway? I'm specifically talking about the federal government. Unless you believe that the federal government bears no responsibility for such projects or disasters, which is another subject entirely (which I am happy to discuss in another thread).


Vino, thanks for clarifying the point about who is responsible for the levees.

36
Did any of you guys actually read the article?

37
So why didnt the governor do anything about it? 

Like what?

If he, too, ignored the warnings, I would hold him responsible as well.

38
The effects are predictable, the cause i.e. when and where of the hurricane are not so predictable.    There are just so many other factors involved.  The city has a duty, the state has a duty, with the proper allocation of incetives, private enterprise has a duty.

Your making it sound very simplistic.  Add funding, problems go away.  It just doesnt work like that.

of course it does.  to the Dems, funding is the solution to everything

i'm not attacking, but in all seriousness, throwing more money at a problem in hopes of it clearing up seems to be about the best solution the Dems have for anything (education, for example)

You're missing the point. First of all, I'm not a "Dem". Second of all, I'm not saying "just throw funding at it". This was a specific project with a specific aim - reinforcing the walls that hold back Lake Pontchartrain. They warned that these walls could collapse in a storm, causing major flooding. FEMA called it one of the top 3 disaster scenarios, saying that it should be a top priority.

The warnings were ignored, the storm came, the walls collapsed, major flooding occurred, and now we have an enormous catastrophe. Exactly like they said it would happen.

This is hardly akin to the intelligence in Iraq, which we have now found to be in some cases, deliberately falsified (the Niger yellowcake memo) by an unknown party. And that is a completely different issue. Would my point be more true or more credible if I had been in favor of the war? It's a red herring.

I'm not saying that the entire disaster could have been averted, but some of it could have. It's a very clear cause and effect.

39
How is it a conspiracy? There were serious warnings about a virtually certain disaster ("it's not if, it's when") from the US Army Corps of Engineers and from FEMA (back in 2001), there had been projects in the works for fortifying the levees that hold back Lake Pontchartrain, and in 2004, the Bush administration cut the funding by 80%, presumably becaus ethey didn't think it was that important.

I'm not making this up. FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers are hardly some wacko left-wing organizations.

It really doesn't make you angry that some of this could have been prevented??


40
Law School Applications / Re: Fee Waivers
« on: September 01, 2005, 09:28:35 AM »
I haven't gotten any fee waivers except from a couple random schools I'd never heard of before. What gives? Is it because I took the LSAT in Feb. '05? Or is my GPA (3.45) too low?   :(

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 396