I was going to email this to Mr. Card, but I can't find a logical place to do so, so I am posting it here.
In his essay "Jackals After The Storm", Mr. Card states: "I'll take the critics seriously when one of them shows me footage or paper that demonstrates that they knew and gave warning that the levee would break, and nobody listened."
In fact, FEMA ranked a possible levee breach in New Orleans as one of the most likely and potentially catastrophic disasters to hit America as far back as 2001 (others listed include a terrorist attack on New York City, which proves that these guys know what they're talking about.) Bush's statement about anticipating the breach of the levees is demonstratably true.
Furthermore, Bush had made specific funding decisions that exacerbated the problem with the levees, and according to the Red Cross, the Department of Homeland Security had specifically prevented them from entering the city for several days. Many also feel that Bush's merging of FEMA with the DHS contributed to that organization's inability to act swiftly and decisively.
The Katrina disaster was a failure at all levels of government, including the federal. To deflect criticism of the Bush adminstration's part in the debacle by claiming that "there was nothing he could have done" and attributing it all to "jackals" in the news media is disingenuous in the extreme. Many, many people are honestly and genuinely upset about the administration's reaction to this crisis. I don't think it's unreasonable that the leader of the country make an attempt to lead, and that he make hard decisions that could prevent disaster regardless of the supposed "ridicule" he would have come under for doing so. After all, isn't that what Bush's supporters claim he's good at?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Gutsy first post.
Posted by Prankster (Member # 8632) on :
Ummm...thanks?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
That wasn't a compliment. You're one of a hundred or so new people who start their Hatrack career by assaulting Mr. Card's political views or writing.
I'm not 99% sure that that is what you are doing because I haven't kept up with Mr. Card's views specifically. But from the below quote I'd say you are.
quote: In his essay "Jackals After The Storm", Mr. Card states: "I'll take the critics seriously when one of them shows me footage or paper that demonstrates that they knew and gave warning that the levee would break, and nobody listened."
In fact, FEMA ranked a possible levee breach in New Orleans as one of the most likely and potentially catastrophic disasters to hit America as far back as 2001 (others listed include a terrorist attack on New York City, which proves that these guys know what they're talking about.) Bush's statement about anticipating the breach of the levees is demonstratably true.
Posted by Prankster (Member # 8632) on :
Well, I disagree with his political views, yes. I was hoping to start a discussion about it.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
You could, and can still, start a discussion about it. But start it here. Posted by Prankster (Member # 8632) on :
I see, my mistake. Thanks. Feel free to close this thread.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I can't close it. You have to click on the pencil and paper on your first post and check the box that says," Delete Post?"
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
deleting the post's an option, but - mind this. why's it better to put it in the Food and Culture section - you're commenting on Orson Scott Card's War Watch writings, right? if you want to get it directly to Card, just ask around for his e-mail. but if it's a comment on his work, i.e, these essays, then the forums for discussion about OSC, they fit fine with this topic, right? I just can't see why not.
I still suspect there is a better place to put this information though, and that's on the War Watch forums on ornery.org - they still have'em, right?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why would a discussion about Orson Scott Card's political views not belond in the "Discussions About Orson Scott Card" forum? This is an good critique of OSC's position - and I can't help but agree with it. The risks of levee breaches in the event of a major hurricane was extremely well documented - in the days before the storm, every newspaper was reporting about those risks.
Of course, the Al Qaeda threat was well-known before 9/11 too, and neither Bush nor Clinton went too far towards solving that threat. The real problem is that the people didn't worry much about these threats until they actually happened - and in America when the people don't care, the politicians don't often act.
Welcome to Hatrack - good discussion is welcome on either forum, regardless of any claims to the contrary.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
oh. well, I guess it's irrelevant, Prankster got scared off anyhow by the fella w/ 1000+ posts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
1000? Pfft... newbie. Posted by Prankster (Member # 8632) on :
Hey, I'm still here. And I'm happy to discuss it here too.
You guys are cool, I must say. I appreciate that the discussion has been reasonable and moderate so far. I only discovered this site a little while ago, hence my lack of posting, but I promise I'm not a troll.
Posted by Elan (Member # 8627) on :
quote:In his essay "Jackals After The Storm", Mr. Card states: "I'll take the critics seriously when one of them shows me footage or paper that demonstrates that they knew and gave warning that the levee would break, and nobody listened."
Not an argument for or against OSC's political views. But this was a public service announcement from 2004 warning of the potential danger to New Orleans if the levees broke. Starring that claymation hero, Mr. Bill.
I've been around like.. forever! and have few post:
Ornery vs Hatrack-the Jackal commentary was on Ornery, not this site and is being debated as intended on ornery.com. Am I wrong, or is that why there are two separate sites?
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
And yes, there were warnings given in the media. I have three kids living in Lousiana and they all heard the warnings about the levees and the fact that NO would flood because it's below sea level, the levees were built for a cat3 not a cat5 hurricane, and they haven't been built to withstand even the cat3.
Again, www.ornery.com (where you started) would have clarified every post, every link, and data on this debate.
Posted by Prankster (Member # 8632) on :
Except I started on this site and linked to Ornery from there. And I wanted to address OSC specifically. Isn't Ornery a group site with many contributors?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Don't worry, Prankster, in my first post I accused OSC of vandalizing a bathroom with a screwdriver.
So you're in pretty good shape, actually.
However, I've never seen OSC reply to one of these posts. I think it's because he feels his essays stand alone, and do not need further clarification or debate. He's stated his position, and that's generally that.
I could be wrong about this.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
However, since the topic is here, and being discussed, I'll go ahead and respond to something...
quote:The Katrina disaster was a failure at all levels of government, including the federal. To deflect criticism of the Bush adminstration's part in the debacle by claiming that "there was nothing he could have done" and attributing it all to "jackals" in the news media is disingenuous in the extreme.
Actually, it's not. Disingenuous means that you have said something you know to be untrue. Card genuinely believes this. It might be distasteful in your opinion, but it is not disingenuous.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's so hard to get a clear picture of what happened federally with Katrina. Every MSM article refers to the "slow" federal response -- not to question whether it was slow, but buried in a clause as an assumption -- despite the fact that it started 2 days before the hurricane hit: the fastest response in American history. The Reuters article refers to "cuts" in funding for levees under Bush; given the current level of honesty, I don't know if this means reductions in funding, or increases, as it often means in political ads.
Somewhere over the past decade the press stopped simply leaving out info it found inconvenient (such as, in this case, Clinton-admin levels of funding for levees) and started telling outright lies: Dowdifying quotes, repeating known falsehoods, forging documents. I just don't have a reason for believing that they stopped, suddenly, when Katrina hit. So I need confirmation of things I read. They may be true. They may not.
Katrina's not as tough to find out about as the war in Iraq, because we often find several articles on a particular aspect. But it's still pretty tough.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
You know, I'd love to rspond to this.. I have family members who are there, and family members who worked as engineers for the government before and after the storm hit. Let's just say: it is nowhere near as simple as just picking out people to blame, etc. etc. But to go into it in longform here seems a waste of this forum.
Of course, for people who want to use anything to bash any political leader of any political alliance, whether it's governor/mayor/president, they have their pick and can make their case. In the end, though, there are too many things that went on here to really delve into with this kind of short form response method of a UBB. And this isn't that kind of forum anyway.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Prediction (and I hope I'm right): less than 10 dead from Rita, in FL and TX put together.
FL knows evacuation.
TX is already evacuating for a Sunday landfall. The chances that yet another mayor of a major city will respond to a Category 5 by not putting the city's evacuation plan into effect, just don't seem high.
The chances that another governor will say "no" to National Guard troops is not high.
...and Houston has, in a way, a bigger problem that NOLA. It's got its own population, plus a big chunk from New Orleans! They'll evacuate.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)