I'm curious what local and state authorities have been doing all of this time? If they were so worried about the levees and their potential to fail in a Cat. 4 or Cat. 5, I am sure that at some point in time, through temporary tax increases, bonds, etc. the necessary work could have been accomplished. It's just too early to start pointing the finger. I think what we are going to find, though, is that much of the trouble (the levees, response, and everything inbetween) could have been avoided were it not for a bloated bureaucracy.

The local infrastructure was wiped out in New Orleans, not the state of Louisiana. Of course, this is after the hurricane. Prior to the hurricane there were evacuation orders. If the mayor of New Orleans and even the governor of Louisiana were so concerned with the well-being of the citizens staying behind, shouldn't they have deployed resources before the hurricane made landfall? For days prior various weather services repeatedly said, "This is a Category 5 hurricane with the very real possibility of hitting New Orleans." Even New Orleans' own planning for a hurricane states that citizens who stay behind will be left on their own, without government resources. I'm more concerned with your last statement, "the feds [having] the resources to be there the next day." I am equally troubled by this not because I think the federal government should have been in New Orleans the next day but because of the inability. I cannot believe (and hope it's not true) that the federal government cannot move resources and personnel within a 24-hour (or even 36-hour) window. As far as what occurred after the hurricane (looting, rapes, assaults, etc.), you're going to see a lot of politicians try to pass the ball. Some are going to say it was the job of President Bush to send more personnel to the region. Others may point out that in neighboring Mississippi the governor declared marial law immediately following the hurricane while the governor of Louisiana, for one reason or another, did not do the same until the situation had deteriorated. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the federal response but I don't think the federal government is the only portion of government to blame for how Hurricane Katrina unfolded.

If I read the declaration correctly it was a state of emergency, not martial law. I would have to research if there is a difference but, simply going by my basic understanding, I think a declaration of emergency and a declaration of martial law are separate. In the next few weeks and months we'll know what took place inside of New Orleans once there was an absence of government. I was watching "NewsHour" tonight on PBS but couldn't really gain a firm grasp as to how bad the situation was, since the footage took place once the National Guard and police agencies across the country had swarmed the city. Right now I can simply go by published accounts as to the "rapes and lootings and hordes of gangs with guns." One thought, separate from the conversation, is how the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the posterchild for the Second Amendment. As some have pointed out, those looting firearms were more than likely doing so to protect themselves. If you were not already exercising your Second Amendment right prior to Hurricane Katrina (again, according to published reports) you not only had the vicious side of nature to deal with but also the vicious side of mankind.

From the Wikipedia article on martial law: "Contrary to many media reports, martial law has not been declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. Rather, a state of emergency has been declared, which does give some powers similar to that of martial law. On the evening of August 31, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did declare 'martial law' (in name at least) in the city and said that 'officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.' Another common rule during riots and disasters is a curfew from sunset until sunrise."

A governor could still, in theory, simply disregard the court. Lord knows Lincoln did it all throughout the Civil War.

This is amazing. Instead of just accepting it, the media is actually threatening to sue the gov't. Perhaps we've turned a corner. I was having a conversation with a friend last night about the lessons that the American people have learned over the last five years. Starting with the 2000 election, then 9-11, the 2004 election, and finally Hurricane Katrina. These all, in my mind could be described as national disasters of one form or another. This, of course, is my admittedly biased opinion.

Tragedies happen from time to time and we are not immune to them. The 2000 election was a tragedy not because Bush won and I didn't vote for him. It was a tragedy because it was a failure of our political process. Whether you believe that the Bushies stole the election from Gore with the help of a conservative Supreme Court, or you believe Bush was the rightfull winner of the election, it's a fact that the majority of American voters did not vote for him. Doesn't this expose flaws in our system? Shouldn't the majority be represented no matter what the beliefs of the majority?

This leads to me to 9-11. It happened. On our soil. It was bad. Whether you believe that the Bushies were involved from day one in the planning and execution of the attacks or you believe that they were victims just like the rest of us, there was a breakdown in our system that allowed the PATRIOT Act to be passed without any major dissent and without even being read on the floor. Now, some people say that in times where their security is in question, they are willing to give up some rights if it makes them safer. I see no problem with this. I do have a problem when the same people promising me security via the PATRIOT Act, are changing the name "french" fries to "freedom" fries on the sole grounds that the French had a differing opinion than they did. It doesn't make me feel very secure, considering the fact that I too have differing opinions on issues than this administration does.

Now, the 2004 election is not as big a tragedy as the other events, but it did cause a vast number of people to simply lose hope in their fellow Americans to think and act in the best interest of all, and not just a few.

Hurricane Katrina, the most terrible thing to happen on our soil since the Civil War, was the biggest eye opener of all. The media woke up and people are waking up from a slumber that we've been in since Camelot. How can the Bushies ever tell us that they can protect us again? How can they ever tell the world that they are making it safer. I don't want to dive into the particulars of Katrina Week because thinking about it makes me physically ill, but THIS WAS BAD. People say: "this is not something that you expect to see in America". Well I don't think this is something you expect to see ANYWHERE.

My largest hope as we move out of this tragedy and attempt to go on with our lives is that we don't forget. I'm not talking about the victims, I'm talking about OUR government's response. The sight seeing of Condoleezza Rice and the real estate shopping of Dick Cheney, and the brush clearing of George Bush is what I'm talking about. Let's remember how incompetent Brown and Chertoff were when they actually had to do their jobs, not to mention how they got their jobs in the first place.

Let's remember to hold our leaders accountable so that something like this never happens again. The 2004 election was so terrible because it was as if the American people allowed themselves to be fooled twice. I hope, I believe, that now, finally, people are going to start to migrate out of the dark woods that we have all been living in for decades and demand representitive government. Demand that politicians operate with transparency. Demand that the media hold the government accountable. And, most importantly, vote in the best interest of our fellow citizens.

I could have clarified my thoughts a little better. In 2000, had Bush won the popular election, and there had been no evidence of shenanigans in Florida, I would not have been happy. I would, however, have felt OK in knowing that that was the direction that the majority of Americans wanted to go in.

I agree that the electoral college has done the job it was designed to do. I can't help but think, however, that it may be a bit antiquated at this point. I see nothing wrong with revisiting the Electoral Process and updating it for the 21st century. It was established in a time with a much smaller population, and much, much less communication technology. It's purpose at the time, if what I know is true, was to make an even playing field. Those in the wilderness of the western US (from the Mississippi to the Pacific) would have just as much say in choosing a president as those in the more populous east coast. It kept the people who had gone west from being ignored.

With the advent of the television, and especially the internet, this, in my opinion, is not as big of a concern.