I guess they're a bit peeved.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Wow. That made me want to clap. Good for them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Amen. Selah.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
To those responsible for that editorial in the Times-Picayune:
Right on, Brothers and Sisters.
And to the leaders in the national agencies who have been a day late (several days, actually) and a dollar short, and to you Mr. President, who is ultimately responsible for their actions:
Quit trying to spin your way out of this one. The nation is watching, and we will remember.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
An interesting blog post by a grad student I know in the School of Library and Information Science, using a lot of information from the Times-Picayune: http://sampo.stderr.org/index.cgi/2005/09/04#sept04.05 Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The Australian Govt is getting blasted here because they have not been into New Orleans to help stranded Australians.
Meanwhile, at least 2 Australian news crews have been, and have personally evacuated 10 stranded Australians (and got the exclusive footage, of course.)
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I could be wrong, imogen, but I think I heard somewhere that the government (the US government) had not been allowing embassy and consulate officials from other nations access to NO. I don't know if this is still the case, if it was true to begin with. I do know that I saw a report on either CNN or MSNBC with some folks from Scotland, I believe it was (might have been Ireland) who said that they had not been able to contact nor heard from people from their government, either.
Not that this lets government officials off the hook; I think they should have been insisting. But it is an extenuating circumstance.
Edit to insert word for clarity.
[ September 04, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Amazing. Everything the mayor and the governor did seems to be Bush's fault; everything Bush did seems to be to their credit!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
No, I know that little miss attitude.
Of course, the Australian public is saying that Australia should not have taken no for an answer.
There is now a Australian consular official in NO - the first consular official from any country to be allowed in, if our media is correct.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Amazing. Everything the mayor and the governor did seems to be Bush's fault; everything Bush did seems to be to their credit!"
If only there was someone at the top responsible for making sure that agencies in the government are prepared for these things. If only there was someone at the top who could lead the effort to help the city of New Orleans. If only there was someone at the top whose main responsibility was to protect the American people and make sure that there were systems in place to help those who need it the most. Oh wait...
Harry Truman used to say "the buck stops here". This is why Bush is seen that way. He is at the top. To me, the buck stops with him.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
"The buck stops here."
I really hate that quote. Yes, there is some truth to that. You can't take it too far though. Bush can't be responsible for every single official in this country. He can't be all-knowing and actively anticipating every problem. If he were, then we'd just sit around complaining about all his spying and constant interference in a pristine, boring country with a whole lot of restrictive rules.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nice link, Fugu.
quote: These people dropped the ball and people died because of it. Period.
I don't think it's overly dramatic to say they were murdered by negligent politicians.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wait a minute, it was New Orlean's Mayor whose idea it was to house people in the Superdome...without an "exit strategy" and it's Bush's fault for not providing him with one? So the Crescent was open yet Mr. Nagin did NOTHING to evacuate the superdome? To quote my Bush hating friends "What was the exit strategy Mr. Nagin? When will the people be heading home? Give us a date and time Mr. Nagin"
What the ....?
quote:Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It's accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.
And Hurricane's and flooding of course make it soo much easier to get to as well!
quote:How much easier it is to access in 2005 after a hurricane and with constant flooding now that there are interstates under water and bridges knocked down, airports on the other side of the city from the flood and helipads with gun toting thugs waiting and shooting at you, cruise ships, barges that evacuated the area and buses Mayor Nagin let be DESTROYED by the Hurricane and diesel-powered trucks that have to travel over hurricane ravaged land to get to New Orleans and having to have the BACKBONE established on how their goods are to be distributed and how they are to get OUT.
I fixed the quote above to include TRUTH and help remind people of the fact that there was a HURRICANE and that NEW ORLEANS IS FLOODED as it appears the letter writers forgot. BTW Letter writers...the Hurricane that caused all this was called "KATRINA" not "BUSH" although I didn't see the name KATRINA anywhere in the letter.
quote:Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent.
Note to the coast guard and national guard, stop rescuing people and please take back all the people you rescued already back to their rooftops as you really didn't rescue them per the newspaper reports. Way to slap the people trying to make the situation better.
quote:Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame.
Your people do deserve to be rescued. In fact they've been RESCUING PEOPLE since immediately AFTER the storm and although you're ungrateful in every sence of the word, they're trying to rescue people RIGHT NOW who didn't leave and STILL won't leave. That and the people who shoot at them which makes the operation run ever so much smoothly. Kinda like some of the people who could have left, but didn't and then cry foul when the help comes in a form different than they think it should.
quote:There were thousands of people at the Convention Center because the riverfront is high ground. The fact that so many people had reached there on foot is proof that rescue vehicles could have gotten there, too.
It's also proof that they could have left the city. Or do you actually defend the "I won't leave my house when I know a hurricane is comming, but I'll wade through chest high water afterwards to look for food and water I didn't think to get before hand, especially since I was staying." Yes some couldn't leave on their own. WHAT did your precious Mr. Nagin DO to find out WHO they were and HOW to get them out of there? What was the evacuation plan? Where were Mr. Nagin's Busses? Where are they NOW?
quote:We, who are from New Orleans, are no less American than those who live on the Great Plains or along the Atlantic Seaboard. We're no less important than those from the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia.[quote] And they are also no MORE American than those parts. And those parts have been hit with predicted devastation as well, and the response has been similar but the death toll higher in NO. Are the poor in NO different than the poor in Florida? Are they different than the poor along the Atlantic Coast? What makes the NO victims special? Or is it the circumstances that make it unique? Perhaps it's just me, but maybe a HURRICANE plus an ongoing FLOOD plus 100,000 people STILL IN THE CITY AT LANDFALL might actually provide some unique challenges to those responding. Possibly and overwhelming challenge. Throw in your local armed thugs, and it may just be a MESS.
[quote]Our people deserved to be rescued.
And no one has said otherwise, and in fact they are being rescued. They are being overwhelmed with the requests for "rescue" and yet they still respond. For your Uninformed benefit, it's all they've been doing since landfall. Rescuing. Over and over and over.
quote:No expense should have been spared.
Is it being spared?
quote:No excuses should have been voiced.
So you'd prefer lies than hear what challenges they are actually facing? Maybe you can only hear the politically attackable words the President says and so when he mentions that there are problems and they're going to be "fixed" you don't hear that?
quote:Especially not one as preposterous as the claim that New Orleans couldn't be reached.
If it was SO accessible, with so many ways in the city would have been vacant because that many ways would have been available for the people to get out.
But 100,000 people remained. They couldn't find a way out of the city, so I find it extremely believable that after a DEVASTATING REGION AFFECTING Hurricane and it's continual FLOOD that it MIGHT just be a little hard to get in AND that it might be hard to rescue, feed and evacuate 100,000 people in the process.
To the writers of the open letter I can only offer as sympathy the job openings at the National Enquirer. That or any Bush hating political pundit org.
That's all I can offer to the writer's of a letter that can remember the name "BUSH" frequently during the letter to try and place blame, yet fail to mention the name "KATRINA" even once.
FYI The Times-Picayune of New Orleans the Hurricane that devastated your area was called KATRINA even though you want so BADLY to call it BUSH.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Bush can't be responsible for every single official in this country.
The trouble is that Bush doesn't seem to be responsible for anything. He's not responsible for his policy of restructuring FEMA, or the mistakes the agencies under him make, or for the lack of funding his administration gave to protecting New Orleans from this situation. He's not responsible for our failures in Iraq, for the corruption among contractors in Iraq, and for the terrorist attacks the Iraq War provoked. He's not even responsible for his own claims about WMDs being in Iraq. He's not responsible for our failures in Afghanistan, for shifting attention away from Iran, or for our inability to find Osama bin Laden. He's not responsible for North Korea getting Nuclear Weapons on his watch, despite the fact they justified it based on his policies. He wasn't responsible for 9/11, despite the warnings beforehand. He's not responsibile for the economic downturn that dominated most of his presidency, for the slow recovery, for the limited job growth, and for the staggering budget deficit that has returned only since he moved into office. He's not responsible for any of the government leaks from within his administration. It's not clear that he's admitted any mistake yet - instead blaming it on other lesser officials, bad guys, or inanimate forces of nature, or just pretending that no mistake has been made.
So, here's the question: If not to take responsibility for things that happen as a result of his policies and administration, why do we bother electing a President anyway?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
*cheers Tresopax*
Treason ---------> *applauds Tresopax*
*bows to Tresopax*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:If not to take responsibility for things that happen as a result of his policies and administration, why do we bother electing a President anyway?
Ask Bill Clinton and every president before him as well.
And your whole post reads like someone with a chip on their shoulder who wants to blame Bush for EVERYTHING and:
quote:inanimate forces of nature
You killed your whole post by claiming "inanimate forces of nature" since I know of no forces that are "inanimate" in nature.
But hey, you're right. GWB must be the DEVIL!
It scares me you believe he's responsible for even half of the things you listed. Saddens me as well.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I don't think Tres is actually blaming Bush for everything. I think there was a point to be made here. Personally I have NEVER heard Bush say, "Sorry, my bad" for anything. (I'm sure people will look now to get quotes to prove me wrong) It is just amazing how nothing is ever his fault. Tres, if I'm wrong I apologize.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually he is responsible:
He's responsible for responding to 9/11 instead of pussyfooting around. He successfully invaded Afghanistan and toppled that terrorist government with MINIMAL casualties. He's responsible for forcing OBL to find refuge elsewhere and made it clear that ANY government that harbors or supports him is in trouble. He's responsible for removing Sadaam Hussein from IRAQ. He's responsible for the people of Iraq even having the glimmer of any freedom whatsoever. He's responsible for every school and building built in that country. He's responsible for every election they've had. He's responsible for the opportunity they have to draft a new constitution. He's responsible for their ability to protest and speak their mind. He's responsible for the TURN in the economy that was in a downward spiral from the beginning of the last year of Clinton's presidency. He's responsible for starting dialogue on SS reform that the libs can't get enough silence of (SS is taboo if your a dem). He's responsible for initiating tax reform and trying to lessen the burden by giving tax cuts.
And since you're using such a broad brush to place blame, let's be fair shall we:
He's responsible for every home rebuilt and life saved in Florida due to their hurricane's last year. He's responsible for every life saved in New Orleans due to the the action of the Government aid NOW. He's responsible for every Truckload of federal aid, he's responsible for every home to be repaired. He's responsible for every evacuee.
He's responsible for every federal dollar sent to Indonesia following their catastrophe.
He's responsible for trying to implement "No Child Left Behind" to fund schools/education.
Oh and then he's certainly responsible for Palestine having a state and Israel's withdrawl from the Gaza Strip.
Now, I'm no Bush fan, but I'm posting the opposite of your "Bush is responsible for every bad action since inaguration" with something to show how ------ it is in my opinion to post something like that.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman:
quote:inanimate forces of nature
You killed your whole post by claiming "inanimate forces of nature" since I know of no forces that are "inanimate" in nature.
From dictionary.cambridge.org:
quote:inanimate adjective - possessing none of the characteristics of life that an animal or plant has
Is a hurricane alive?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:inanimate adjective - possessing none of the characteristics of life that an animal or plant has --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is a hurricane alive?
I didn't think someone could misunderstand a dictionary. I was wrong.
Do you know what the characteristics of life are vs. being alive?
Here's another question for you. Is an "animated" film alive? Is a robot that is fully "animated" alive?
Your little reference has the sentence: He looks at me as if I'm an inanimate object.
Do you know what an "inanimate object" is?
Are you actually claiming a hurricane is an "inanimate object"?
Nice backfire.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
You know what? I refuse to converse with you anymore until you're capable of discussing something without being rude. I never understood it when other people would try to argue with you in serious threads, and here I go doing that twice in one day. Won't happen again.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I never realised a somewhat questionable use of an adjective could destroy a whole, much lengthier argument.
Good thing overuse of capitals doesn't have the same effect, huh CStroman?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mmmm. . . not sure how the President can take all the blame. I'm not sure why Nagin and the LA governor are on the ticker-tape end of this parade, since it is their state and town that was devastated, and their specific oversights (school busses not used in the evacuation, no police boats provided) that allowed the devastation to reach such proportions.
I wonder if we are seeing the development of a new federalism? So many people are blaming the feds for their mistakes in this tragedy-- but the planning and much of the power for disaster relief HAS to come from the state.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Disaster relief and prevention on anything approaching this scale is one of those things that no state can manage on its own without maintaining a tax burden far above those states which do not need such preparations, or a significantly lower level of services.
That is why there is not a single state in the union which does it all by itself, with the possible exception of california and its very large tax base to spread costs among. The federal government steps in everywhere because it makes sense for the federal government to do so as a representative of the collective, whose duty it is to protect against not just enemies foreign and domestic, but human and natural.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I think few people have been trying to give the President all the blame, but when federal funding for major hurricane protection and flood prevention projects has provably been dropping dramatically and being attributed along the way to the increased costs of the war in Iraq, its pretty dang easy to see where some of the blame generally lies, and then to trace that to more specific sources.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think it's overly dramatic to say they were murdered by negligent politicians.
Maybe not overly dramatic, but certainly inaccurate on several levels.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I never realised a somewhat questionable use of an adjective could destroy a whole, much lengthier argument.
I was thinking the same thing.
quote:He's responsible for every home rebuilt and life saved in Florida due to their hurricane's last year. He's responsible for every life saved in New Orleans due to the the action of the Government aid NOW. He's responsible for every Truckload of federal aid, he's responsible for every home to be repaired. He's responsible for every evacuee.
Yes, but it's easy to take responsibility for good things that happen. If Bush ever doesn't want to, I'd be more than willing to do that. America doesn't even have to pay me.
But in an era where failures seem so plentiful, who is going to take responsibility and be held accountable for that which goes wrong? If we aren't holding people accountable at the level where changes can be made to fix the things that went wrong, and instead blame lower levels of government or forces of nature, then those mistakes are going to repeat again and again in one form or another. Writing off problems as "Katrina's fault" simply means changes will not be made and we will once again be met with the same troubles the next time a catastrophe occurs - after all, we won't convince nature to change her ways, no matter how much we place the responsibility to change on her.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
To Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, you weren't conversing, you were trying to attack and discredit me by quoting a dictionary, which you misinterpreted, and I called you on it, to which you took offense.
So you trying and failing to make me look bad, which actually resulted in you looking bad, is my being rude?
I apologize for pointing out your mistake, and I'll accept yours for attempting (and failing) to do the same to me, as long as your willing to offer it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, she's the one who read the dictionary correctly, Chad. Inanimate is not always the opposite of animated, which has as a special meaning moving cartoons. And yes, an animate robot does have some of the characteristics of life, whereas a hurricane does not, despite often being anthropomorphized. Movement is not sufficient for being considered animate, nor lack of movement necessary for being considered inanimate.
Its a bit of a peculiar usage in respect to a hurricane, but perfectly correct.
As she was merely politely correcting with a source your incorrect attempt to undermine her argument, you're the one who got rude first.
Not to mention that even if she had misused the word inanimate it would have nothing to do with the weight of her argument, and that you think so reveals the depth, or lack thereof, of your understanding.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:As she was merely politely correcting with a source your incorrect attempt to undermine her argument, you're the one who got rude first.
Fugu you are wrong as she didn't just "politely" post the dictionary quote, she added the:
"Are hurricane's alive?"
Which is similar to my questions to her, which she took offense to.
And fugu, a Hurricane is indeed an animate object as it moves which is a property of life from the microbial upwards. In fact the dictionary says it has NONE of the characteristics of life to be "inanimate".
A rock sitting on the ground is "inanimate" (unless you take the earth rotation into account). If you pick it up and throw it at someone, then it is no longer "inanimate" is it not?
The dictionaries I know have inanimate as the opposite of animate.
Dictionary.com
Fugu, it was a nice attempt to defend her, and to try to attack me (do you even realize this?), but in fact she was wrong. And so are you. I'm sorry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You've illustrated yourself one problem with trying to use motion as the determinant. Also, here's a conundrum for you: living things can also sit still; therefore everything sitting still is animate.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And if I may fugu. Let me answer your rebuttal thus:
Dictionary.com
quote:in·an·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt) adj. 1.Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead.
2. Not animated or energetic; dull.
Grammar. Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.
Main Entry: in·an·i·mate Pronunciation: (')in-'an-&-m&t Function: adjective
: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit b : lacking consciousness or power of motion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Also, here's a conundrum for you: living things can also sit still; therefore everything sitting still is animate.
They are still moving at the organic and microbial layer. Cells do in fact have motion. Blood moves. Hearts pump.
Please see the bold print above.
Thank you, that is all fugu.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, have you yet bothered to talk about how
quote:From dictionary.cambridge.org:
quote:Is a hurricane alive?
Constitutes an attack? You say it does, but for some reason I don't see it. Perhaps you could point out the aspects that make it an attack instead of a mere disagreement? If you want, I can go through your post in response and point out how it was an attack.
And yes, I feel no particular problems with attacking you, Chad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh* Apparently you still misunderstand how words can have multiple definitions.
As for your attempted weasel-wording, the atoms in everything are moving at the atomic level, therefore everything is animate!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Constitutes an attack? You say it does, but for some reason I don't see it.
As I am sure you see my response wasn't an attack either since it asked the same type of question just multiple times of her.
Quite simple really.
Also could you please distinguish which "she" we're talking about here as we have Tresopax and Rappin' Ronnie Reagan who in my knowledge are two separate people and at least two separate posters but your posts don't differentiate between the two. They mention both posts by the two people and refer to the person as a collective "she".
It would help me to know who you are talking about specifically.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
At the level they are observable, YES.
You are welcome to disagree and believe that a category 5 hurricane with 175 mph winds that rip the roofs off of houses and knock down trees and kill hundreds of people is an "inanimate" object. And your welcome to believe that it's correct to call it so.
Go right ahead.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman:
quote:inanimate forces of nature
You killed your whole post by claiming "inanimate forces of nature" since I know of no forces that are "inanimate" in nature.
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: And if I may fugu. Let me answer your rebuttal thus:
Dictionary.com
quote:in·an·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt) adj. 1.Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead.
2. Not animated or energetic; dull.
Grammar. Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.
Main Entry: in·an·i·mate Pronunciation: (')in-'an-&-m&t Function: adjective
: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit b : lacking consciousness or power of motion.
CStroman, I agreed with most of the points you made, but when you attacked Tresopax's use of 'inanimate' as a way to destroy the argument, it didn't have any base; what's more, with this post, you proved her use of the word correct. There was never anything to take offense over in the first place, so just let it go.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You know what, I agree and resolve myself to putting this thread back on topic which is about the open letter from the NO Times.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I apologize to RRR and Tres for mixing them up.
As for your rudeness, allow me to present snideness and smugness:
quote:I didn't think someone could misunderstand a dictionary. I was wrong.
Condescension:
quote:Your little reference has the sentence:
Heck, more condescension and smugness:
quote:Do you know what an "inanimate object" is?
Are you actually claiming a hurricane is an "inanimate object"?
Nice backfire.
You seriously don't think any of the above is rude?
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Why doesn't everyone just let bygones be bygones, as it were, and go back to the discussion at hand, rather than attacking one another? We're supposed to be a community, and doing such isn't going to help that.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Condescension:
Your little reference has the sentence.
At least we're keeping our sense of humor.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Was that a rebuttal?
My suggestion? Don't feed the troll!
It'll only make him grow laaaarger.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Wow folks! We need to cool down and stop with the personal attacks and get back to discussion.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Right: there should be someone with authority to make the evacuation mandatory; to order the buses used to make it happen; to allow use of troops in the state of Louisiana.
There is. It's the governor.
Why elect a President? To handle the executive branch on federal issues. These are not federal issues, and it is illegal for the President to do it unless the governor gives it her ok.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm not going to point all the blame at the governor or the mayor or the president or fema, etc. yet.
I am going to keep an open mind.
Yes things didn't go as I would have thought they should (and many thought) but I don't know the scope of what they were facing and it seems like there are alot of variables to consider. Such as 4 states affected: Florida, Mississippi, Louisianna and Alabama, and other huge factors that make this unique.
I do have some tough questions for both the governor, mayor and fema, and the administration.
I want to know what the plans of each were prior to landfall. And I want to know long term specific plans to each approach.
I also want to know chronology of government events.
It seems that because alot of people couldn't SEE the response, they assumed there wasn't one behind the scenes and already in progress.
I just want to know if they were doing all they could.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
At issue here to a large degree is that you can't mount a rescue from the area that was destroyed. The mayor can only prepare for a catastrophe within the boundaries of his city. The Governor can only prepare or respond to a catastophe from within his state.This article should give you a good feeling for why.
Now I haven't got a lot of information about the state level, but I do know that Mayor Nagin had asked for help improving the levees and such to prevent the city from flooding, but didn't get it. This particular scenario was described as being one of the three most likely tragic scenarios the federal government faced, but they reduced funding, rather than increased it.
Of course, New Orleans voted over 70% for Kerry, that couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
There are two separate issues here. One was preparation, before the storm. This scenario was predicted, but nothing was done to prevent it. Essentially, the government gambled and lost.
The other issue is response. Yes, it's reactive rather than proactive, but you don't have to worry about odds. When a city is being/has been destroyed, you don't wait around, you act.
The government waited around, while other agencies acted. The comparison is easy to see, especially for the people who are living it.
As far as blame is concerned, Bush certainly does a good job of pointing the finger at others. After the Northeast blackout a couple of years ago, Bush acted like heads should roll because for a couple of days we had to live without electricity. What a catastrophe! My ice cream melted and I sweated! Big deal. Power outages happen. We live with it.
But airplanes fly into the twin towers, and Bush waits 20 minutes (or whatever) to finish reading to an elementary school class, then flies around the country with his tail between his legs, acting like he was personally threatened.
And a Cat 5 hurricane bears down on New Orleans, and Bush is on vacation at his ranch, and doesn't send in help until it's too late for thousands who have died.
Sorry folks. If you can't see that Bush bears responsibility, you have blinders on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sorry, Glenn, if you can't even present an accurate story, you're one of the ones making political hay out of this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My, my. NO voted mostly for John Kerry, and so Bush said, "to hell with hurricane safety for THOSE jerks! They can all drown for all I care!"
Hard to take that sort of stupidity seriously.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I don't think Bush deserves ALL of the criticism, but I do think he deserves some. This is all IMHO, as I don't really know enough of the details in responsibility lies at mayor, governor, FEMA, president, etc.
The reason I think he deserves some criticism on how the whole thing was handled is that "safety of American citizens" has been one of the big things he keeps pushing as a priority of his administration. The ball was dropped on multiple levels, but when it's a particular ball that the president has been claiming as his own, I think he holds some responsibility there.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I'm letting anyone ELSE off the hook for things that should have been done. Oversights at the local level like the buses that have been mentioned, those are things the respective mayors and governors should have to answer for. But oversights at the federal disaster relief, multi-state level, those are what FEMA and Bush should answer for.
Again, just my opinion as a citizen. I am far from a civics or politics expert.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:My, my. NO voted mostly for John Kerry, and so Bush said, "to hell with hurricane safety for THOSE jerks! They can all drown for all I care!"
Hard to take that sort of stupidity seriously.
And yet, there are definitely going to be some people in predominantly Democratic areas that wonder if the resources were slow to trickle down to them for political reasons. I don't buy into that logic either, but it's a measure of just how frustrated people are with the feelings of being ignored by this administration.
In an atmosphere where events are staged and only dyed-in-the-wool supporters of GWB ever get a chance to be near him, it's easy to succumb to a feeling that if you aren't his supporter, it doesn't matter that you are a citizen.
He helped foster that attitude by being so insular, so I don't really feel upset that he has to field that kind of criticism, even if it is nonsense. There's an expression of genuine frustration with his leadership style behind those statements and I don't think he should be let off the hook for that. It doesn't surprise me that that frustration might boil over and take on an unreasonable tone when disaster strikes.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
What y'all have to understand is how frightened and neglected people are feeling. Every day we're hearing new stories from just about everyone we know about all the misery and disaster that's going on quite near us.
(Example: My boyfriend's parents were volunteering at an animal shelter, and there was supposed to be a shipment of pets coming in from New Orleans, to be restored to the loving arms of their owners or at least taken to somewhere not flooded. The U-Haul truck wasn't ventilated properly, and very nearly all of these animals died, and it was the responsibility of the volunteers at the shelter to take the dead animals out of their cages so that the cages could be reused.)
We're hearing way, way worse than that on a daily basis, and it's really personal, because it's right here near our homes, it's happening to people we know. People are scared to go volunteer because we keep hearing stories of carjackings and rapes, but we can't just sit at home and do nothing. Every day, we run into some new stupid inconvenience, and it's such a minor complaint that it makes us think of the real horrors people are facing, and it's frightening. And just about everyone has family and friends to worry about: If it's not people who lost their New Orleans homes, it's family members whose professions require them to go into New Orleans on a daily basis, and we're reading about looting and shooting in New Orleans, and we're desperately worried for our loved ones.
Even if the response had been perfect, we would still be facing such tremendous loss, the loss of family and homes and this city that defines our state. And the response hasn't been perfect, or even as close to perfect as might be expected; and people are scared and angry. We aren't getting the help we need. We feel that no one is listening. We are looking to the federal government for aid in the biggest natural disaster ever to strike our country, and we don't feel that we are getting it.
So before you blast the people who wrote this letter, Chad, please think about what it's like for the people who have been stricken. Please understand that we have good reason to be angry and afraid.
quote: We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore! -- Network
Jen
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rakeesh said: " My, my. NO voted mostly for John Kerry, and so Bush said, "to hell with hurricane safety for THOSE jerks! They can all drown for all I care!""
Bush's record has made it absolutely clear that those that supported him are put first in line for funding.
It's perfectly reasonable to look back with hindsight and see that when the destruction of New Orleans was merely a possibility, the Bush administration cut funding that would be wasted if this storm had never materialized.
That's not what I'm blaming him for.
What I'm blaming him for is his reaction when this disaster was all but inevitable.
Dag said: "Sorry, Glenn, if you can't even present an accurate story, you're one of the ones making political hay out of this. "
Excuse me? What precisely is inaccurate about saying that you can't mount a rescue from within a disaster area?
Are you reacting to the New Orleans voter comment? Is it innacurate, or merely unprovable?
Or are you actually claiming that Bush did something proactive that the rest of us never heard about?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Excuse me? What precisely is inaccurate about saying that you can't mount a rescue from within a disaster area?
Nothing. But this:
quote:doesn't send in help until it's too late for thousands who have died.
is a lie. FEMA was on site Monday.
quote:Are you reacting to the New Orleans voter comment? Is it innacurate, or merely unprovable?
It's unprovable because it's inaccurate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"is a lie. FEMA was on site Monday."
In what numbers? Where? Why has this been kept secret?
"It's unprovable because it's inaccurate. "
It's unprovable because it's unprovable. Bush isn't going to admit it. It's also unprovable that it isn't accurate. I happen to believe that it is.
I think this is what Bush thinks of anyone who doesn't support him.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
You know I can't stand Bush but it's funny anyone ever thought that was his middle finger. It is so clearly his thumb! lol.
The second one, however! Ha!
edited for comma.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why has this been kept secret?
It hasn't. Half the complaints I've read have started, "FEMA's been here since Monday and they haven't yet..."
It's interesting you feel free to make such statements when you don't even know when they arrived on site.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My statement began with: "In what numbers?" FEMA being "on site" doesn't constitute "sending in help" unless they are prepared to do something.
My comment about it being kept secret was sarcastic. You are making the claim that help was sent in, (or actually opposing my claim that help was not sent in, without providing any evidence to the contrary) and acting like my statement is so obviously inaccurate that it doesn't even deserve comment.
Yet even Bush admits that the response was insufficient, he just fails to take responsibility for it.
What was that I said about blinders?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Insufficient help is not the same as no help.
Unblind thyself.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm with Enigmatic. I don't think the President is blameless, but I think the truth of it is that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I DO think that the president should expect to get most of the blame, deserved or not, just because he's the president and that's one of the downsides of that position.
Is it fair? No. But people want to blame somebody for everything, and he's very visible. Is it all his fault and nobody else's? Not that either. Will people who are also partly to blame come off smelling like roses? Probably.
It's a highly emotional time for all of us, really. A lady I know pretty well just found out her father-in-law is dead. The body has been identified. The man's house is gone, and along with it any documents showing who his insurance was with and where his funeral arrangements, etc. were made (not that the place is still there, probably).
It's a nightmare for her and her husband. He's on antidepressants, and may even need to be admitted somewhere. It's devastating.
We're raw, still, and someone is going to get burned by the blame game we're playing in this state of hightened emotional stress.
It will probably be the President, and I'm okay with that. It's really hard to sympathize with him in the middle of theis horror. Sorry. It justr IS.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I just think it is a shame that the mayor couldn't have taken a better example from someone like Guiliani. Guiliani took personal charge of his city. He organized things, and kept everyone on the same page. He didn't just sit there, do nothing, then blame others. Guiliani saw NYC as his city. Mayor Nagin should have had his police, fire, and all emergency personnel out there on the streets. He could have been directing where to go in his city. He didn't take charge like a leader should.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I don't find it so hard to believe that help was slow in coming at least partly because NO voted for Kerry.
Look what happened in California with the energy "crisis" a few years ago. Enron (friends of Bush, of course) cynically charged California more and more for energy, and laughed about it, and not only did the Bush administration not do anything about it, but in the aftermath refused to give the state any kind of help in getting satisfaction for what was clearly unethical, if not outright illegal, price gouging by his little friends.
And, gee, guess what? The governor of California at the time was a Democrat (Gray Davis), and the state had voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election. I am convinced that if the administration in California at that time had been Republican, Enron would never have gotten away with that nonsense.
So, call me a cynic. That's how I see it, and I'm far from the only one.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
LMA, you're a cynic Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In a disaster, it's important to know as early as possible who's to blame for everything that's gone wrong to that point. It makes the relief and recovery effort so much more effective. It focuses people's minds on the tasks at hand and ensures crucial cooperation. It steels people so well to face the many troubles and inconveniences that lie ahead. As long as it's somebody else's fault, any situation can be handled.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am convinced that if the administration in California at that time had been Republican, Enron would never have gotten away with that nonsense.
What, exactly, has convinced you of this? Do you have access to information that hasn't been made public.
What people putting out these conspiracy theories are forgetting is that politicians are well aware of the benefits to be gained from disaster relief, and the political pitfalls associated with doing it badly.
Without a modicum of proof, it's fiction-writing.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Guiliani took personal charge of his city. He organized things, and kept everyone on the same page. He didn't just sit there, do nothing, then blame others. Guiliani saw NYC as his city. Mayor Nagin should have had his police, fire, and all emergency personnel out there on the streets. He could have been directing where to go in his city. He didn't take charge like a leader should.
New York City still had electricity and all of its communication systems intact. The mayor of New Orleans had no way to communicate with pretty much anyone. Even cell-phone service was out. Its virtually impossible to lead anyone when you can't communicate with them.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: New York City still had electricity and all of its communication systems intact. The mayor of New Orleans had no way to communicate with pretty much anyone. Even cell-phone service was out. Its virtually impossible to lead anyone when you can't communicate with them.
Oh....so how was FEMA and Bush supposed to do better? Why didn't the mayor plan for this? How did he not know that was going to happen? Still doesn't answer the question of where did he send the emergency responders.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
What has convinced me of that, dag?
Well, mostly the rhetoric that came out of the White House at the time. It was a while ago, so I don't have any links to post to news stories, but basically Bush wouldn't even talk to Davis about the issue. I do recall very well one occasion when Bush was taking questions and, while I can't recall the exact quote (it was several years ago, you know), the gist of what he said was that California had gotten itself into the situation, and they could get themselves out. As if the state could have just refused to pay the exorbitant fees Enron was charging for the energy and go on blackouts. I don't think that was a very realistic assessment.
There was also a fairly widespread feeling in California that Bush's reason for not doing anything about the situation was that he was trying to make the voters of California angry enough at Gray Davis to get rid of him and elect a Republican governor. And I'll give this to Bush...it worked. And that's not cycnicsm, it's plain fact. If it hadn't been for that whole situation, there never would have been a recall of Davis and Arnold would not be governor now.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Wow, Bush is even more brillant than I thought he was. That is an incredible plan to come up with!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I do recall very well one occasion when Bush was taking questions and, while I can't recall the exact quote (it was several years ago, you know), the gist of what he said was that California had gotten itself into the situation, and they could get themselves out. As if the state could have just refused to pay the exorbitant fees Enron was charging for the energy and go on blackouts. I don't think that was a very realistic assessment.
So Bush presents a specific reason realated to a long-espoused free-market philosophy for not intervening, and this is evidence that he actually has an entirely different reason?
quote:And I'll give this to Bush...it worked. And that's not cycnicsm, it's plain fact. If it hadn't been for that whole situation, there never would have been a recall of Davis and Arnold would not be governor now.
Or, if CA hadn't decided to create half a free-market and ban construction of power plants, there wouldn't have been a recall.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm sure Bush was behind the 1996 decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate the energy markets.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Okay. I surrender. Nothing is ever Bush's fault. He's a saint.
Sheesh.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Enron was certainly not his fault
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: Okay. I surrender. Nothing is ever Bush's fault. He's a saint.
Sheesh.
Oh, I see. Disagreeing with someone (and providing reasons for that disagreement) proposing that Bush let people die for political gain must mean that I think he's a saint.
Sheesh.
[ September 06, 2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Or, maybe just a Republican-controlled Congress:
quote:As late as 1994, electric utilities slightly favored Democrats over Republicans with their campaign contributions. But like many industries, electric utilities dramatically increased their preference for Republican candidates and committees following the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. Between the 1994 and 1996 election cycles, the proportion of contributions from electric utilities going to Democrats dropped by nearly half, from 53 percent to 32 percent. During the same period, the proportion of contributions to Republicans leapt from 47 percent to 68 percent. Electric utilities continue to favor Republicans with their campaign contributions by more than 2 to 1.
AWMA = Air & Waste Management Association (?)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
In the aftermath of death, grief cries out for justice.
If we want to blame anyone for this, let's please blame the person who made the hurricane. He's got broad shoulders. I'm pretty sure he can take it.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: In the aftermath of death, grief cries out for justice.
If we want to blame anyone for this, let's please blame the person who made the hurricane. He's got broad shoulders. I'm pretty sure he can take it.
If you really believe that God made the hurricane, can you offer an explanation as to why?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he either created the hurricane, or at least knew it was coming, had the power to prevent it and decided to do nothing to prevent it. In human terms that amounts to almost the same thing. Granted, you may believe that God is above human judgement, but that doesn't prevent humans from judging him and his works.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Only the religious have the ability to blame God. I have to stay out of that one.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I don't think that he requires that you actually believe in him to blame him for it.
johnsonweed, I'm not ignoring your question. I just don't want to go into a discussion of whether or not God made the hurricane. My point is that ultimately, the deaths were caused by the hurricane, not by Bush or anyone else. The problem with hurricanes and earthquakes and volcanos is that we have no one to blame. Yet grief cries out for justice. This is natural and normal, and *should* happen as part of the process of working through grief. It must be someone's fault.
Feeling this deeply, crying out for it, is normal and expected, but it shouldn't be taken very seriously.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
And this is why the world needs supervillians! If the hurricane had been caused by Dr. X's weather machine from the seclusion of his island volcano lair then we would totally have someone to blame for it. So much more clear cut than discussions about politics and state/federal jurisdictional responsibilities.
--Enigmatic
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
No problem jeniwren,I was just baiting you for fun. I habe Katrina burn out and needed a new think to discuss.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: If we want to blame anyone for this, let's please blame the person who made the hurricane.
Wasn't that Bush? An ingenious plan to wipe out the non-white Democrat population of New Orleans? From what I've been hearing, it sounds like Bush orchestrated the whole disaster.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep, and while everyone is evacuated from the area, he'll send in some legislators to redistrict the place in favor of Republican candidates.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)