That Pesky Protocol
With all the fuss about the Fed's failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, those who wish to carp and whine tend to forget or neglect to tell that the state has control in these situations and the Fed doesn't come swooping in until requested.
Now, Fox News' Major Garrett reported an interesting tidbit that has been kept hush hush so far. It seems there was food, water and hygiene supplies loaded and ready to move in to NOLA immediately following Katrina BUT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA SAID NO! They were afraid it would impede their evacuation efforts if the victims were provided food, water, etc. They indicated that they didn't want to encourage people to go to the Superdome. Interesting. However, the reporting of the Red Cross trucks being held up by the state has been pretty much nil.
On a side note, if any of you want to do a little research - go check out Hurricane Floyd - 1999.
Seems to Ol' BC that the Donks failed miserably when they were in charge and Floyd wasn't near the catastrophy Katrina has turned out to be. Maybe it's just that Bush is still involved with the Feds and the left despises him so much.... Here's another thought. What would they do if a conservative got elected president?
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 12:53 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I am still waiting for someone to point out the (1) article and (2) section of the US Constitution that says the Federal Govt. has the right, not the responsibility, but the right, to mobilize an effort following a natural disaster.
Can anyone help me out on that one?
Welcome back Baron. It has been some time since I read the US Constitution, but I don't recollect that right being given to the Federal government. Maybe I need to look at it again. There may be a Socialist or two pass by and enlighten us.
Beef,
Let me take your response line by line:
"The constitutionality of such actions seems inconsequential to me."
For some reason, that response does not surprise me coming from you. I don't think the constitutionality of anything has ever bothered you. But it bothers the hell out of me.
"If your neighbor is dying because a tornado just ripped through his house, you don't go to your book on bylaws of the neighborhood to see whether it is legal to aid him or not."
No, but you might go to the law. You see, Beef, neighborhood bylaws aren't really the law. By contrast, the constitution is. It is what protects us from the federal government. In theory, the feds aren't supposed to act unless it gives them the right to act. Too many times, they act without authority.
"I do not see a significant distinction here."
I do, and I hope, now, you do, too. There is a clear distinction between neighborhood bylaws and the United States Constitution.
"It is Americans helping Americans."
No. It is NOT Americans helping Americans. It is some Americans being helped by people who are forced to pay them or else the government will show up to their house with guns and put them in jail. That is not "help."
"I don't care who it is or if it is legal or not."
Of course not. Why would you? Perhaps I can come to your place and help myself to your food. Maybe I will take a couch or a TV while I am at it. Don't approve? I don't care if it is legal or not. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"Our humanity, love, and concern for others should be the only forces that guide our actions, not some moldy piece of paper."
Deal. You can expect me at your house in the near future. Please don't bother with those pesky locks. It will only slow down "humanity, love, and concern" if I have to worry about how I am going to help myself to your stuff.
Mark,
Believe it or not, you and I agree! We both think people should voluntarily help those in need.
I would rather my funds go through a private charity or church to reach those in need.
My reply was aimed solely at whether or not the federal government should be in the business of redistributing money from Eerie, Pennsylvania and Fort Wayne, Indiana to the Gulf Coast. I don't think the guy punching a 40 hour a week clock in a widget factory and shoveling 30 inches of snow every winter should be forced to subsidize the guy who chooses to build a house in paradise. If the Gulf Coast resident's house blows down or floods, which is going to happen if he chooses to live on the coast, that is his own fault. Some guy in Brainerd, Minnesota shouldn't have to pay for it.
That said - you and I both agree that people should voluntarily give to those in need. However, private charity, preferably the church, should be the conduit. The federal government is not the church. It is not a private charity. It is not set up to deliver voluntary contributions. The only method it has to deal with disaster is to force people to work for other people.
I don't know about you, Mark, but I call that slavery. The Lord loves a cheerful giver; he wants to free the slave.
Boy, Beef.
You really know how to pile it, don't you.
All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.
Whether or not you agree, this IS the governing philosophy of America, and ALL free people. If you don't want to acknowledge it, I hope you are at least glad that this is the formula the Founders set up so that you would have maximum freedom to say the weird things you do.
The reason the Founders didn't set up a socialist Constitution (one that allows this sort of aid) is simple: They knew the people are better off taking care of these things themselves, either by self-sufficiency or by charity. You would have more to give the charities, who do a better job than any government ever will, if the government hadn't taken so excessively from you in the form of taxation. Imagine how much more you could contribute to alleviating the suffering in that part of the country if you only had more control over your money.
That is why the law was written as it was.
Some of the wisest men ever to live they were, and their vision is the one that needs to be re-implemented.
RWR
First, you assume that if people are not taxed they are going to have surplus money for aiding others instead of just spending it.
Judging by the overwhelming outpouring of donations coming from people from all walks of life in America, I'd say that people having more money in their pockets as a result of being taxed less would definitely result in more going to Louisiana.
Secondly, all men are not created equal. We may hope for this under the law, but it is still just an ideal that has no foundation in reality.
Lucky for you, the Founding Fathers thought differently. Because of their belief that people's inequality is largely self-imposed, you have the opportunities and freedoms you have here in America.
Thirdly, you assume that people will give to charity when asked. This is debateable.
See my answer to "firstly". Furthermore, if I wouldn't give my money to a particular charitable cause, what right has the government to give my money to a cause I wouldn't support? That is unethical at best.
Fourthly, you make the mistake of believing that rights come from some power outside of ourselves. They don't. They come from men's heads, and the men with the power are the ones who get to decide if their idea of right prevails or not.
Again, you and I are both lucky the Founding Fathers believed differently. The governing philosophy in America is that rights are derived from God, and the Constitution guarantees those rights by putting restrictions on the government. In America, the Federalist system is SUPPOSED to be in place, whereby the people are the most powerful, and each branch of government gets less powerful as you move closer to the feds.
This is what is wrong with America today. People are willing to accept this nonsense as if it were even legal.
RWR
Baron is right, by the way.
RWR
Wow, Beef.
Seems to me you'd be happier crawling into a hole somewhere and just shriveling up.
And I thought the Sage was a cynic ...
RWR
Post a Comment
<< Home