←
→
maelorin: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

just in case you were wondering

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 05:57pm on 05/09/2005 under , , , , ,

fema could not have been surprised by the need to respond to the aftermath hurricane katrina.

surely fema's own louisiana disaster history alone would be enough evidence to establish that it would be likely to be required, wouldn't it?

Music:: butterfingers - unemployed
Mood:: 'bitchy' bitchy
←
→
There are 6 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] velvetink.livejournal.com at 12:28pm on 05/09/2005
Well they had Galvaston 100 or so years before too, which is not that far away. Same scenario.
[link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 02:26am on 06/09/2005
i wonder how deep the global weather change denial goes in this administration ...
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] velvetink.livejournal.com at 03:36am on 06/09/2005
Probably as deep as the denial to see that the right to bear arms {ie the average citizen} is causing them more harm than good. I've been having conversations here on LJ, & while they are up in arms and whinging about the lawlessness/shooting going on in New Orleans in the aftermath, they can't see a change is necessary for their future. Mention banning guns {even a percent of guns - like they did here}, & they point blank say it can't be done and won't work. It seems to me it's not "just" the government who is not self-reflective. :(
[link] [parent] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 05:14am on 06/09/2005
i wonder if the 'founding fathers' might not have worded the provision differently if they were to have learned how it would be interpreted into the future. the right to bear arms was not intended to provide the people with unrestrained means, it was supposed to enable them to protect the state as a militia - and to defend the constitution against an illegitimate government.

lack of self-reflection seems to be endemic amongst contemporary mundanes.

i might not be in the usa, but i can't help but be aware of it. and as a lawyer with international law expertise and an interest in comparative law, i can't help myself trying to understand stuff. dagnabbit.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] velvetink.livejournal.com at 03:39am on 06/09/2005
sorry I just realised you were talking about weather change & Australia...- here nobody wants to put their money up first and start doing anything re; droughts. They could be well underway on some projects now.
[link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 05:17am on 06/09/2005
actaully, i was talking about you federal governments obstinance. ours does likewise, but looks to yours for help justifying their position.

seems no one in politics understands exponential growth. or if they do, they're wilfully ignoring it.
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31