Ugly Americans - New Orleans

[grizbeer]

when you threatened homicide did you tell them you meant it "literally". I guess I am missing the context issue - if the President makes on more speech or photo op in LA she is going to punch him, literally - where is the context problem?

I can't say I honestly remember whether or not I added the word "literally" the last time I told somebody that if they did X, I was going to kill them. Frankly, though, I don't think it really matters if I did; anyone with half an ounce of common sense would have taken the quote for what it was (i.e. my way of expressing my displeasure with whatever they were doing, and not as an actual death threat).

I guess my point is that sometimes it's more productive to look at the meaning behind someone's words, instead of getting hung up on exactly how they choose to express it. Reading the Senator's quote, do you honestly think she intended it as an actual threat to the President? If not, then expressing so much outrage over her choice of words instead of focusing on the message she was trying to convey seems like a somewhat disingenuous way of deflecting attention away from the actual point she was trying to make.

Of course, I suppose if you're just a politico with an agenda, then it makes perfect sense to simply flap your arms and scream "oh my god, she THREATENED THE PRESIDENT!!", instead of actually addressing the point she's trying to make. If that's the case, then by all means, carry on. Just know that those of us who still think for ourselves are on to you.

Wow Grizlaw I'm disapointed in you. I think you are a little out of line here - you asked for a link showing the Sen threatening violence against the President, I gave you a link showing what she said. Note that I never said that she threatened violence, or put put words in her mouth, but just posted the link to what she said and made fun of the fact that she included the word literally, when most likely she meant figuratively. You then attack me as taking it out of context. I respond to that and you call me politico with an agenda?

Do I think she will hit the President? How the hell do I know, I don't know her, but I doubt she meant she was going to hit the President, Certainly is was a stupid thing to say, and probably said out of anger. Do I think she could injure the President, no.

However, I do think it was completely out of line for her to say she was going to hit the President. How come you haven't said it was out of line? Don't you think it was stupid and out of line to say that, or are you such a "politico with an agenda" that you are beyond condemning something someone says as long as it is against Bush? Also, why are local officials beyond reproach. As you state her original point is that local officials are bot to be blamed in any way for this, on national officials. Why is this acceptable?

HB's original point was that some LA officials response to this tragedy has been less than inspiring, and pointed to her statement as an example. I think threatening to punch the President of the US, whether meant literally or metaphorically, is in poor taste and poor leadership. If you don't agree with that than perhaps you need to examine your own ability to view things objectively before you attack others.

[Grizlaw]

Wow Grizlaw I'm disapointed in you. I think you are a little out of line here - you asked for a link showing the Sen threatening violence against the President, I gave you a link showing what she said. Note that I never said that she threatened violence, or put put words in her mouth, but just posted the link to what she said and made fun of the fact that she included the word literally, when most likely she meant figuratively. You then attack me as taking it out of context. I respond to that and you call me politico with an agenda?

Whoa, wait a sec. I can see how you took my post in the way you did, but it is not what I intended; I wasn't attacking you, and I was not calling you a politico. I also wasn't really "attacking" you when I pointed out that, in context, the Senator's quote was not as offensive as the generic facts would indicate (you must admit, a blank statement that she "threatened violence against the president" is substantially more offensive than what she actually said, when you bear in mind what we both seem to agree her likely true message was).

Was it a poor choice of words? Yes. Unprofessional? Absolutely. But that's really as far as I would go with criticizing Senator Landrieu's statement.

My main point was, and still is, that everyone is trying to deflect the blame elsewhere in this situation, and we should look at the facts rather than allowing rhetorical techniques to cloud our view of this situation. I don't know whose "fault" the insufficient response to the crisis is; maybe Bush is right and the local officials are 100% at fault. We won't know that until after an investigation has been done, which will probably be a while. However, Senator Landrieu said what she said because she believes Bush is unfairly shifting blame to the local officials. I don't know if she's right or not, but it would be unfortunate if we ignored the assertion she is making and instead focused on her poor choice of words as if that were the primary issue (as the "politicos" would have us do, to use my phrasing from before).

That's my only point. I'm sorry if it came off as a personal attack before; it was not my intent.

--GL

[Bleedinbluengold]

I heard on the radio, yesterday, that the NO paper actually ran a 5-part story in 2002 detailing what would happen to NO "when", not "if."

Supposedly, the story was amazingly accurate compared to what actually happened after Katrina.

If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that people everywhere take personal responsiblity to prepare themselves. I have very little faith that you will get much outside help in the first 72-96 hours after such an enormous event. Also, take care to help your neighbor. Maybe if we all do this, the aftermath won't be as horrible as it was/is in NO.

[SonomaCat]

I got a good laugh out of this blurb:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/09 ... tml#010853

It really does boil down all of the rhetoric we are hearing from the various groups, doesn't it?

That being said, I like the ideas floating around to investigate what went wrong later (and I prefer Hillary's idea of a 9-11 style committee to the President's plan for a more self-styled review), and set aside all of the present bickering by all sides for now. Once everything is cleaned up and everybody has a home again, then we can sort through the facts and figure out who messed up, what should have been done, and what we can learn from these failures for the inevitable "next time" that something similar to this happens. In this day and age, it is becoming more and more apparent that we can use all of the informed intelligence we can get to allow our leaders to make good decisions, and there is no better way to learn than to observe our own failures.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Once everything is cleaned up and everybody has a home again, then we can sort through the facts and figure out who messed up, what should have been done, and what we can learn from these failures for the inevitable "next time" that something similar to this happens.

But, "cleaned up and home again" might not be for 10 years.

I like Hillary's idea as well. I think they should study it for 4 years. Keeps congress from messing up other areas of our lives.

Here's the deal - First response has to come from the locality and the State. The Federal gov't just CAN'T be first on the scene. AND, we wouldn't want them to be. In fact, a just read an unconfirmed source of info that part of the delay from the Feds was due to the fact that the LA governor and mayor were extremely worried about the Feds usurping State authority....very interesting, if true. If true, that says a lot about the state of the perception of the Federal Gov't - post 9/11.

[SonomaCat]

Once everything is cleaned up and everybody has a home again, then we can sort through the facts and figure out who messed up, what should have been done, and what we can learn from these failures for the inevitable "next time" that something similar to this happens.

But, "cleaned up and home again" might not be for 10 years.

I like Hillary's idea as well. I think they should study it for 4 years. Keeps congress from messing up other areas of our lives.

Here's the deal - First response has to come from the locality and the State. The Federal gov't just CAN'T be first on the scene. AND, we wouldn't want them to be. In fact, a just read an unconfirmed source of info that part of the delay from the Feds was due to the fact that the LA governor and mayor were extremely worried about the Feds usurping State authority....very interesting, if true. If true, that says a lot about the state of the perception of the Federal Gov't - post 9/11.

Yeah, all of those logistics and inter-level squabbles should be exactly the kinds of things that are researched, fact-checked, reviewed, and published for everyone to see. It's obvious that a lot of people screwed up here, and the nobody did what needed to be done to save a lot of lives (for whatever reason). I'm just really tired of all of the current finger pointing (I made the mistake of listening to the left wing and right wing radio voices last night, and it was enough to make me sick).

[SonomaCat]

This is somewhat disturbing as well. Maybe exposing this kind of political patronage in light of the massive responsibilities of agencies such as FEMA will force some responsibility on the political system and root out the old boys network mentality a bit (not a partisan shot -- this sort of thing is a long-standing tradition, I know).

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_repo ... 3718c.html

[Hell's Bells]

Once everything is cleaned up and everybody has a home again, then we can sort through the facts and figure out who messed up, what should have been done, and what we can learn from these failures for the inevitable "next time" that something similar to this happens.

But, "cleaned up and home again" might not be for 10 years.

I like Hillary's idea as well. I think they should study it for 4 years. Keeps congress from messing up other areas of our lives.

Here's the deal - First response has to come from the locality and the State. The Federal gov't just CAN'T be first on the scene. AND, we wouldn't want them to be. In fact, a just read an unconfirmed source of info that part of the delay from the Feds was due to the fact that the LA governor and mayor were extremely worried about the Feds usurping State authority....very interesting, if true. If true, that says a lot about the state of the perception of the Federal Gov't - post 9/11.

I dont like Hillary's idea - it smells like sombody is trying to hide somthing to me and i do not like it at all.

How can we find out who is to blame in all of this

first of all BnB i like your idea that the federal goverment should not be the frist responder for anything in the states...it is the localitys problem. if it wasnt then why the hell do we have states in the frist place? I read in the paper that the Mayor of NO finally did what he should have done BEFORE THE F## STORM HIT. *you can add a lot of emphasis to that - if he has the power to do that now he had the power to do that before the storm hit - IE good ol hells thinks he has a lot of blood on his hands*

*interesting poll out by cnn*
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrin ... index.html

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46187

i will try to find another source of that article *cnn or fox...dont have time to now have to goto class...groan* but it is being reported on 550 kbow when i drove up to tech today

[Hell's Bells]

This is somewhat disturbing as well. Maybe exposing this kind of political patronage in light of the massive responsibilities of agencies such as FEMA will force some responsibility on the political system and root out the old boys network mentality a bit (not a partisan shot -- this sort of thing is a long-standing tradition, I know).

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_repo ... 3718c.html

look at the states first BAC

[SonomaCat]

This is somewhat disturbing as well. Maybe exposing this kind of political patronage in light of the massive responsibilities of agencies such as FEMA will force some responsibility on the political system and root out the old boys network mentality a bit (not a partisan shot -- this sort of thing is a long-standing tradition, I know).

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_repo ... 3718c.html

look at the states first BAC

I'm looking at everybody, HB. Yeah, it's obvious that the state and local people dropped the ball, but that does nothing to preclude scrutiny of the federal level as well. As I said, I hope that a comprehensive report is done that outlines ALL of the mistakes that were made on ALL levels, regardless of whose political party gets touched up in the process.

An independent commission's analysis of what happened certainly seems like a lot better idea to me than to have any of us rely upon the political talking heads to inform us as to who we should blame based on thin anecdotal evidence and misinformation and politicians engaging in hysterical finger pointing away from themselves.

The fact is, none of us have a friggin' clue what really happened and who really dropped the ball at any given point in this process ... or even what the process is ... or if there was a process in place ... and if not, why not? These are the questions that need to be answered, and we're not going to find them in any of the partisan blogs or "news" sources. We need a well-thought out independent commission to do the heavy lifting for the future benefit of our country ... a concept often overlooked by short-sighted politicians.

[SonomaCat]

I dont like Hillary's idea - it smells like sombody is trying to hide somthing to me and i do not like it at all.

Huh? Hillary's idea is to have an independent commission to study the whole fiasco, similar to the 911 commission. Outside of the fact that Hillary's name is attached to it and we are programmed to believe that anything with the name "Clinton" is evil, how can you possibly suggest that her idea would help anyone hide anything? The reality of such an idea is just the opposite of what you are suggesting.

[SonomaCat]

The CNN articles notes that the Superdome might be torn down ... that's the only good news I have heard out of NO in a long time.

[grizbeer]

Whoa, wait a sec. I can see how you took my post in the way you did, but it is not what I intended; I wasn't attacking you, and I was not calling you a politico. I also wasn't really "attacking" you when I pointed out that, in context, the Senator's quote was not as offensive as the generic facts would indicate (you must admit, a blank statement that she "threatened violence against the president" is substantially more offensive than what she actually said, when you bear in mind what we both seem to agree her likely true message was).

Was it a poor choice of words? Yes. Unprofessional? Absolutely. But that's really as far as I would go with criticizing Senator Landrieu's statement.

My main point was, and still is, that everyone is trying to deflect the blame elsewhere in this situation, and we should look at the facts rather than allowing rhetorical techniques to cloud our view of this situation. I don't know whose "fault" the insufficient response to the crisis is; maybe Bush is right and the local officials are 100% at fault. We won't know that until after an investigation has been done, which will probably be a while. However, Senator Landrieu said what she said because she believes Bush is unfairly shifting blame to the local officials. I don't know if she's right or not, but it would be unfortunate if we ignored the assertion she is making and instead focused on her poor choice of words as if that were the primary issue (as the "politicos" would have us do, to use my phrasing from before).

That's my only point. I'm sorry if it came off as a personal attack before; it was not my intent.

--GL

Sorry GL, I thought you were calling me names - I over reacted, and read more into than what you were saying - and I am pretty much in total agreement with the point you are making.

[iaafan]

Allow me to be my usual vague self for a second. Bush is asking for $52 billion for N.O. cleanup. N.O. was asking for $110 million to fix its levees. So lets just say that was gross underestimate on NO's part and round it up to $1 billion. A $51 billion dollar mistake. But there probably would've been a couple billion in damage anyway, so it's only a $49 billion mistake.

That's quite a mistake someone made when he/she/it didn't grant the request. That trip on the $235 million bridge to Nowhere, Alaska and the downtown Bozeman parking garage ($4 million) are looking lame now.

[Hell's Bells]

I dont like Hillary's idea - it smells like sombody is trying to hide somthing to me and i do not like it at all.

Huh? Hillary's idea is to have an independent commission to study the whole fiasco, similar to the 911 commission. Outside of the fact that Hillary's name is attached to it and we are programmed to believe that anything with the name "Clinton" is evil, how can you possibly suggest that her idea would help anyone hide anything? The reality of such an idea is just the opposite of what you are suggesting.

1) similer to the 911 comission? the very same comission that did not investigate a "firewall" that was errected by one if it's members? are you kidding me? About the only reason why to have a comission is to point a finger at sombody, especially if that comission comes from the exeuctive branch, congress...ect, people whos careers depend upon getting elected.

[Hell's Bells]

Once everything is cleaned up and everybody has a home again, then we can sort through the facts and figure out who messed up, what should have been done, and what we can learn from these failures for the inevitable "next time" that something similar to this happens.

But, "cleaned up and home again" might not be for 10 years.

I like Hillary's idea as well. I think they should study it for 4 years. Keeps congress from messing up other areas of our lives.

Here's the deal - First response has to come from the locality and the State. The Federal gov't just CAN'T be first on the scene. AND, we wouldn't want them to be. In fact, a just read an unconfirmed source of info that part of the delay from the Feds was due to the fact that the LA governor and mayor were extremely worried about the Feds usurping State authority....very interesting, if true. If true, that says a lot about the state of the perception of the Federal Gov't - post 9/11.

I dont like Hillary's idea - it smells like sombody is trying to hide somthing to me and i do not like it at all.

How can we find out who is to blame in all of this

first of all BnB i like your idea that the federal goverment should not be the frist responder for anything in the states...it is the localitys problem. if it wasnt then why the hell do we have states in the frist place? I read in the paper that the Mayor of NO finally did what he should have done BEFORE THE F## STORM HIT. *you can add a lot of emphasis to that - if he has the power to do that now he had the power to do that before the storm hit - IE good ol hells thinks he has a lot of blood on his hands*

*interesting poll out by cnn*
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrin ... index.html

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46187

i will try to find another source of that article *cnn or fox...dont have time to now have to goto class...groan* but it is being reported on 550 kbow when i drove up to tech today

AFTER THE STORM

Blame Amid the Tragedy
Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin failed their constituents.

BY BOB WILLIAMS
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

As the devastation of Hurricane Katrina continues to shock and sadden the nation, the question on many lips is, Who is to blame for the inadequate response?

As a former state legislator who represented the legislative district most impacted by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, I can fully understand and empathize with the people and public officials over the loss of life and property.

Many in the media are turning their eyes toward the federal government, rather than considering the culpability of city and state officials. I am fully aware of the challenges of having a quick and responsive emergency response to a major disaster. And there is definitely a time for accountability; but what isn't fair is to dump on the federal officials and avoid those most responsible--local and state officials who failed to do their job as the first responders. The plain fact is, lives were needlessly lost in New Orleans due to the failure of Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the city's mayor, Ray Nagin.

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.


A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan. Again, they did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.
The New Orleans contingency plan is still, as of this writing, on the city's Web site, and states: "The safe evacuation of threatened populations is one of the principle [sic] reasons for developing a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan." But the plan was apparently ignored.

Mayor Nagin was responsible for giving the order for mandatory evacuation and supervising the actual evacuation: His Office of Emergency Preparedness (not the federal government) must coordinate with the state on elements of evacuation and assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas. Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation.

The city's evacuation plan states: "The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas." But even though the city has enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, the mayor did not use them. To compound the problem, the buses were not moved to high ground and were flooded. The plan also states that "special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific lifesaving assistance. Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuation procedures as needed." This was not done.

The evacuation plan warned that "if an evacuation order is issued without the mechanisms needed to disseminate the information to the affected persons, then we face the possibility of having large numbers of people either stranded and left to the mercy of a storm, or left in an area impacted by toxic materials." That is precisely what happened because of the mayor's failure.

Instead of evacuating the people, the mayor ordered the refugees to the Superdome and Convention Center without adequate security and no provisions for food, water and sanitary conditions. As a result people died, and there was even rape committed, in these facilities. Mayor Nagin failed in his responsibility to provide public safety and to manage the orderly evacuation of the citizens of New Orleans. Now he wants to blame Gov. Blanco and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In an emergency the first requirement is for the city's emergency center to be linked to the state emergency operations center. This was not done.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid

http://www.montanastandard.com/articles ... fj6g80.txt

The mayor's everyone-out directive _ which superseded an earlier, milder order to evacuate made before Hurricane Katrina crashed ashore Aug. 29 _ came after rescuers scouring New Orleans found hundreds of people ignoring warnings to get out.

[iaafan]

Hoooooray for Halliburton,
Baaaa-dada-dada-dada Halliburton.

I hear they might be able to help on that cleanup down south. Phew, we're so lucky to have them in times of crisis. We can all thank George Bush for his connections.

[Hell's Bells]

Hoooooray for Halliburton,
Baaaa-dada-dada-dada Halliburton.

I hear they might be able to help on that cleanup down south. Phew, we're so lucky to have them in times of crisis. We can all thank George Bush for his connections.

they are the only american company aquipped to help the oil industry
who the hell do you want there...the French?

[iaafan]

Oui, oui! Ze French are already in there mi ami! You may have heard of the "French Quarter." It's this little historic area in New Orleans known for some of the best partying in the world....among other things. Mardi Gras....Geaux Saints.....Geaux Tigers.....Geaux Green Wave. Those damn French, if they wouldn't have meddled around with us a couple hundred years ago we could've been part of the British Commonwealth. Dang those Frenchmen anyway.

[iaafan]

Actually Halliburton is in Iraq not spending the money it was given to clean things (all those oil spills) up there. So now we need them in N.O. so they can not spend that money. George Bush is like Halliburton's mommy...."Whatever you don't spend junior, you get to keep!" To which Halliburton replies, "Yippeeee! Lets divert the money into our Disneyland trip fund for next year!"