posted
Lyrhawn, no one knew the helicopters would be needed. No one expected that many people to be stranded on their roofs. And, even after the hurricane hit and left, they still didn't need the helicopters. It wasn't until after the levee breach that they knew they needed them.
I really, really wish the government and everyone else had the psychic ability to look into the future that you seem to think they do.
I want to know how you expect convoys to move into a city that has been virtually cut off. Did you miss the video or still shots of the bridges that are destroyed? How do you move convoys across bridges that no longer exist?
The reason the help took so long to get there is not entirely due to people not caring or not being ready or prepared - part of the reason is that they simply could not get in there. They still can't get in there.
So many people panicked and put a run on gas in Mississippi both before and after the storm that the Red Cross still has relief trucks full of supplies stranded in Meridian MS because they're out of gas. They can't get down there. Read the story I linked to in my thread about dsyntery and cholera, they mention it there.
There are a lot of things that have gone wrong and there are things that people and government agencie did wrong, I truly believe that. But I don't believe that we can predict and plan things to the extent that you think we should be able to. I just don't think it's possible when you're dealing with natural disasters.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some facts that don't get enough attention: Belle's right, there were a series of powerful tornados in GA, some east of Atlanta, hundreds of miles from landfall.
This storm was worse than Camille, the worst hurricane in US history (in some terms), except possibly for the unnamed storm that destroyed Galveston in 1900.
It set a record for storm surge, approx. 25 ft waves surged inland. That's what was so deadly in Miss. and Ala. I think Camille had a 22 ft max storm surge.
Andrew had higher sustained winds, but was much smaller. Katrina was HUGE. The disaster area is 90,000 freakin' square miles, an area the size of Great Britain!!
It really was too late 72 hours before the storm to do much. Hurricanes can weaken and intensify dramatically in a few hours, as Katrina did. And at that point, the landfall point is not totally predictable, it can shift hundreds of miles from the best prediction.
Aside for the long delays getting into NO in force, I personally think everyone's doing the best they can.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn the Crescent city connection is still operable, but it's the only major one. So that's why all the trucks you see are in giant convoys.
Many of them would have come in on I-10, or across the twin spans, and they would have been spread out and arriving over different periods of time.
Any relief vehicle, say in Florida, which normally would have come in on I-10 is having to go perhaps hundreds of miles out of its way to come in on the crescent city connection (I'm not totally familiar with the geography, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and any relief supplies in Arkansas, or coming south on I-59 is also going to have to divert way out of its way to come through on the connection.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, that last wasn't aimed at you specifically, but at everyone that's been throwing out blanket criticism of the government response lately. Some of the criticism is correct, lots of it I disagree with.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It really was too late 72 hours before the storm to do much. And at that point, the landfall point is not totally predictable, it can shift hundreds of miles at the last minute.
Bingo! But to some people that doesn't matter, they want troops poured into the area before landfall with NO plan on how to get the people out or how to SUSTAIN THEM. EDIT: and to basically go door to door to find out who needs to be extracted as there weren't people standing on their roofs needing to be evacuated until AFTER the storm hit.
I want Lyrhawn to tell me exactly how President Bush failed to pre-emptively strike prior to New Orleans and how he failed to magically make trucks appear in NO immediately afterwards because you seem to have a strong opinion on whose fault it is and I would like to find out what facts/thinking on the failure found those opinions.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all those people who have been offering to help with their boats that were turned away by local authorities? Supplies couldn't have been motorboated in? I know the Navy and Coast Guard have zodiacs, they couldn't go in with supplies on those? and leave with rescued stranded people?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You can't just send untrained people into areas to rescue folks. Plenty do it anyway, and I admire them, but the government can't sanction that.
What happens when they themselves get stranded - now the officials have one more person to rescue. What if the people going in encounter folks with medical emergencies they aren't trained to handle or help with? What if they only make things worse instead of better? I'm sorry, but first responders and rescuers undergo extensive training for a reason and it's not something we should just send anybody to do unless they've had some of that training.
As for the Navy and Coast guard - from where are they going to launch these zodiacs? The naval ships still won't be there for a few days, you can't have them just sitting in the gulf waiting to launch their zodiacs in the midst of a hurricane and you can't move ships into the gulf until you know for sure where the hurricane is going to go.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FEMA did turn away supplies, that's a fact. A LA official, I think that poor parish president that broke down and cried on Meet the Press, said Walmart sent 3 semis of water to NO on Tues or Wed, and FEMA turned them away, saying they weren't needed.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was anyone else struck by all the diabetics in NO? For unknown (to me) reasons, the Gulf Coast has some of the highest concentrations in the US of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and other serious medical conditions. Yet another complication that's killing people. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I'd like to hear who exactly turned them away and what reason they gave for it, in detail. Not that I don't believe you, but if that was the case then it's despicable. Water is still needed desperately, I hope the semis turned around and went to Gulfport or Biloxi, because they certainly still need water.
However, because I know how rumors fly, I'd want to hear details to be sure what that guy reported is completely accurate.
Poverty and ill health go hand in hand, unfortunately. New Orleans is also an area famous for its rich, fattening foods.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO was the 7th highest city for the amount of obesity present. Lots of diabetics and other related health problems would be highly prevalent in NO too.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was someone with FEMA. No other details, sorry. I know how rumours fly. This was on a national network news show, I think on Meet the Press. Possibly Fox News Sunday. MtP reruns late tonight, I'm taping it anyway.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ray Nagin was clamoring for help since it was first announced that Katrina would hit the Gulf coast. He ordered a mandatory evacuation, but with so many people unable to evacuate themselves, what was he to do? He asked for help. And the reason Republicans are blaming Louisiana is because the Blanco, Mary Landrieu, and Ray Nagin are all democrats
But a mayor cannot request aide when the Governor of the state doesn't want it. Bush wanted the federal government to take over the evacuation of NO since the local government couldn't get it done, but Blanco said no. Washington Post
Sure, the mayor might have said he was not capable of handling the situation, but the president cannot do anything about it. The Governor must mobilize the National Guard. That is how the system works. Bush had a lot more leeway after 9/11 because it was foreign attack on the USA. In this case it was a natural disaster. If the state governor wouldn't give control to the federal government, then they can't legally take control.
People said that that the military could have kept the peace, but that is also not legal. The national guard can police in the USA, but the military cannot. Bush did end up sending in military for non police functions, but that is the limit of what they can legally do.
Another claim I have seen was that the military could have helped transport people out of the area. This again, could have been done locally. By now most people have likely seen the yahoo photo of all the busses that were left sitting where they were eventually flooded. The state could have used those to get people out before hand, but chose not to. As people have mentioned elsewhere, at this point it is tough to get people out. The roads are flooded, and there are a limited amount of helicopters...and even those are not meant to quickly transport the number of people that need to be moved.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The url code wouldn't work for some reason on edit so I appreciate the small url hints. Sorry it took so long as I was busy watching the Cougars lose on Saturday.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I think he should take some fire for being on vacation when this happened. He keeps making the argument that he can do his job just as well from Crawford as he can from the White House, but I don't buy it. I believe he would have handled the situation differently if he were in the Oval Office instead of biking around a field of poppies.
Hey! That's a coincidence!
I wrote the stupidest thing you read, and you wrote the stupidest thing I read!
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
I really didn't mean to ever become partisan about this, but I'm just getting fed up.
I honestly read, here on Hatrack, somebody post that Bush's job is to protect people from disasters like this.
Nobody expected this. Let's take off the hindsight glasses. People made the best decisions they could at the time they could make them. We've experienced hurricanes before, and nothing like this ever happened.
There was no anticipating the level of the tragedy. Even after the hurricane had passed, the full effect of the tragedy hadn't set in yet. People were saying even after the hurricane that New Orleans had dodged the bullet.
So let's stop playing woulda-coulda-shoulda partisan games. It is beyond worthless.
Instead, let's concentrate on what's actually happened there now.
Mistakes have absolutely been made. By everyone, on every side. Not because anyone is incompetent, but because we haven't experienced anything like this before.
We're learning from it. Just like we had to learn from 9/11, we have to learn from this. That doesn't change the fact that everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances, and will do everything in their power to do better next time.
And that applies to all parites.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to a little bit. I'll agree to back off the "Bush should have..." rhetoric, as rereading my previous posts I believe some of what I said was unfair. But this isn't the best we could have done.
NOAA had been tracking Katrina since it was just a little whirlwind out in the Atlantic. They tracked it moving into Florida. They warned that when it hit the Gulf it would probably pick up steam, but no one really batted an eyelash. When it got out into the Gulf, people started to move, but still no one thought to kick it into high gear. By the time it had grown into a Category 5, it was too late to fix the problem.
What we need to do is examine the way we look at emergency preparedness and what the criteria are for getting emergency supplies set up in advance of a disaster. NOAA told everyone to look out. We've known for years that if something happened to New Orleans we should look out. Last year when the Congress/Bush cut funding for the levee repair, we knew we had to look out.
This didn't come out of some blind alley to whack us upside the head. We knew it could happen, and had warning signs for days. So yes, we made mistakes, ones that should not have been made, and some of that I am willing to forgive, based entirely on the condition that everyone who screwed up steps up and says "I did this wrong, and here's how we should do it next time."
I don't think you can say "well what if the storm had missed?" Because it didn't miss, and we didn't think it was going to miss. Everytime information is staring you in the face, you can't look at it and blink, because it might not be true. Hell, we went to Iraq ignoring obvious evidence, and we know how that turned out don't we?
That part of the process needs to be examined. Because obviously it doesn't work. If someone doesn't already have the job, someone needs to be in charge of managing hurricane disasters on the coast, looking for potential threats and then preparing to move resources into place before the threat hits, and then being prepared to clean up afterwards. You would think this is FEMA's job, but they obviously weren't equipped to handle it. Especially if this is just the beginning of how the next 40 years are going to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my point is getting proven. Republicans (if you count this thread alone at least) are defending the Fed. Government and saying it was the STATES repsonsibility (and I of course agree) and they failed. The Democrats are blaming the Fed Gov. (Bush in particular so I am not surprised) and asking them to be the militants they think they are.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: The url code wouldn't work for some reason on edit so I appreciate the small url hints. Sorry it took so long as I was busy watching the Cougars lose on Saturday.
Man, I remember the first time I broke the frames, and someone steered me to tinyurl....I loved it.
Since you are a Bush supporter I figured it would take at least three days for you to try and fix it...
(I was kidding, just in case someone might take me seriously about that last one....I wouldn't usually post a notice of joke, but considering the topic... )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, has anyone compared Miss. to LA when it comes to reactions to this disaster? Again, a highly Republican state hasn't complained about a lack of help even after having at least equal devistation aside from perhaps NO. The criticism from LA constituents has been non-stop against the Feds. Again, this proves its who you are and not what happened that determines who is getting blamed.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've seen on the news, the Federal response in Miss. was almost immediate. They were in, help was delivered. People weren't complaining of not having food there 5 days later.
That's perhaps part of the reason for the difference.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think my point is getting proven. Republicans (if you count this thread alone at least) are defending the Fed. Government and saying it was the STATES repsonsibility (and I of course agree) and they failed. The Democrats are blaming the Fed Gov. (Bush in particular so I am not surprised) and asking them to be the militants they think they are.
Occasional, you're point is NOT proven. Plenty of Republican and conservative critisism has been leveled at the federal response, including by Sen. Lott of Miss.
quote:In a sign of the political pressure facing Bush, Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader, said he has been battling the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its Mississippi counterpart for help for his state and urged Bush to cut red tape.
After a one-on-one meeting with Bush in Poplarville, Lott said: "I am demanding help for the people of Mississippi to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina." ... Bush has been under fire from Democrats and Republicans alike for a sluggish federal response to a flood that has made hundreds of thousands homeless and is feared to have killed thousands along the northern Gulf of Mexico coast.
quote: "Government at all levels failed," Sen. Susan Collins (search), R-Maine, said at the Capitol. She announced that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee would hold hearings, adding, "It is difficult to understand the lack of preparedness and the ineffective initial response to a disaster that had been predicted for years, and for which specific, dire warnings had been given for days."
quote:The spotlight began to turn yesterday on Michael Brown, the head of Fema, who had minimal emergency management experience before joining the agency in 2001, and had spent the previous 10 years organising horse shows for the International Arabian Horse Association. Press reports claimed he had had to leave that job because of questions about his performance.
posted
There's an aspect to this that I don't think has been brought up yet. The situation has demonstrated that we weren't ready to deal with a major disaster. Despite this being recognized as one of the top 3 dangers, our agencies didn't seem at all prepared to handle it.
Disasters can be man-made as well as natural. America is now under serious threat of major terorist attacks, which will likely be much less predictable than this major hurricane scenario that we were anticipating. I worry that the situation in New Orleans is an indication of the disaster response and recovery we can expect in the wake of a successful terrorist attack.
I have to wonder what the heck they've been doing in planning for the aftermath of attacks, if this is the kind of response they can muster to an anticipated disaster.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This surprised me: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The spotlight began to turn yesterday on Michael Brown, the head of Fema, who had minimal emergency management experience before joining the agency in 2001, and had spent the previous 10 years organising horse shows for the International Arabian Horse Association. Press reports claimed he had had to leave that job because of questions about his performance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: WASHINGTON — The leader of the U.S. government's much-criticized handling of hurricane relief efforts in the Gulf Coast came to Washington in 2001 with scant background in dealing with natural disasters. But he had an important connection: His new boss was an old friend who had managed George W. Bush's successful campaign for the White House.
Michael D. Brown left his job in Colorado supervising horse-show judges to work for Bush's longtime political aide, Joe Allbaugh, who was heading the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the new administration.
Brown had been a lawyer active in Republican politics whose most relevant emergency response experience was a stint supervising police and fire departments as assistant city manager in an Oklahoma City suburb.
But within two years, he rose from FEMA's general counsel to deputy director and, when Allbaugh left, he moved to the agency's top spot.
This was a patronage "plum job," pure and simple. Every administration does it. But one would have thought that GWB, the post-911, security-minded president would have reserved positions like this for qualified people, rather than as a political reward.
Brown is probably safe. The president's track record right now is this: He only fires or asks for resignations for perceived disloyalty. Incompetence is tolerated and protected.
(and, for the record, I'm not particularly happy with the performance of the local and state Democrats in this deadly fiasco, either.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard that the FEMA leader once upon a time had a near-cabinet position post. But since 9/11 it got lumped in with a bunch of other stuff under Homeland Security or something like that. So there wasn't as much scrutiny over the position as there had been. I don't know but I would think that might be part of the problem. Assuming that information was true.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: By the way, has anyone compared Miss. to LA when it comes to reactions to this disaster? Again, a highly Republican state hasn't complained about a lack of help even after having at least equal devistation aside from perhaps NO. The criticism from LA constituents has been non-stop against the Feds. Again, this proves its who you are and not what happened that determines who is getting blamed.
Mississippi suffered a lot of damage, certainly, but it wasn't on the scale of what happened in New Orleans, as you said yourself; that alone disproves your point, as the conditions enabled help to get where it needed to go immediately, as transportation systems weren't damaged nearly as much as they were in Louisiana. Blame's to be had at all levels of government, certainly, but it's completely illogical to try to make a tenuous and unprovable connection between the way a state voted and the relief response. Remember, much of the relief in Louisiana came from within the state itself; more came from the feds when they were overwhelmed. Mississippi, again, was better able to deal with it because the infrastructure there wasn't as heavily damaged, nor was the damage so concentrated in just one place (as it was in a city the size of New Orleans). If you're going to make the connection that politics had something to do with the response time, it would make a good deal more sense for the government to respond as quickly as possible so that they'd be viewed as handling the situation favorably. Remember when Florida was struck just before last year's election? The damage and relief effort was dealt with swiftly, and the state swung to Bush by a much, much larger margin than anyone had predicted. That lends credence to the idea that helping a state as quickly as possible in a situation like this would be more beneficial politically; thus, it makes more sense to expedite the relief effort for the reason you cited. Not political punishment, but a way to entice the state back over to that party during the next elections (say, the upcoming congressional elections in 2006, for example, to help cement a Republican majority?). Either way, I don't think the relief time should be politically motivated, but as I said, it makes far more sense to help the state rather than 'punish' it in this manner.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: our agencies didn't seem at all prepared to handle it.
Now, just a second. Just because Harry Connick, jr. was able to get to the convention center before most of the other help got to New Orleans doesn't mean anything. All those other agencies clearly had, you know, other stuff they had to do besides getting food and water to thousands of people.
Edit: I meant superdome, not convention center. Pardon.
Just get snarky, Dag. You're pretty good at strawmen and red herrings.
The question at hand was whether the "slow response" was a fabrication of democrats, since the majority of the attention is on New Orleans, and Bush and Co. are trying to blame local politicians.
Lott is complaining that FEMA's response is slow and bureaucratic, not that funding for flood preparation was cut in retribution for failure to support Bush.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: New Orleans emergency management plan. Here is an important section in the first paragraph.
"We coordinate all city departments and allied state and federal agencies which respond to citywide disasters and emergencies through the development and constant updating of an integrated multi-hazard plan. All requests for federal disaster assistance and federal funding subsequent to disaster declarations are also made through this office.
also (in response to Glenn Arnold's last statement) some media are now pointing out that some of the federal aid that was sent to New Orleans designated FOR levee repair, improvement and construction was not used for that purpose when it arrived there. Local corruption. I will try to find that article link again.
posted
I keep hearing people say "nobody could have anticipated this" or "nobody expected this". I've seen those statements over and over but they are completely false.
For those who may have missed the other thead, here is an article published in 2001 in Scientific American telling all about the disaster in advance, as well as telling about the near miss in 1998 that should have been our final wake up call.
Whatever else one can say about what we've done or not done or should have done, one can not say that we didn't clearly see it coming.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or you could just watch the repeat of last night's The Daily Show where Jon Stewart, just back from vacation, shows the footage of someone who did know it could happen. It was a very funny show and I'm glad he's back from vacation.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Did Mississippi vote for Kerry?" Just get snarky, Dag. You're pretty good at strawmen and red herrings.
And you're pretty good at unfounded conspiracy theories and misstatements about when federal help arrived in New Orleans.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The "FEMA is not a first responder" argument disappears as soon as the local first responders are rendered inoperative by the state of disaster. In other words you can't mount a rescue from within a disaster area.
What local officials were responsible for was to ask for help, which they did. The republicans' early claim that Governor Blanco did not ask for help is bogus. She requested federal help on Friday the 26th, before landfall. But FEMA demanded that full control be turned over to them, effectively putting local officials out of the loop.
The quote you offer above partly explains why this isn't supposed to happen. The local leaders know the area, they're supposed to coordinate and provide their knowledge to the rescue teams, not be swept aside by the federal guys.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By day 4 our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was dangerously abysmal. As the desperation and despair increased, street crime as well as water levels began to rise. The hotels turned us out and locked their doors, telling us that the “officials” told us to report to the convention center to wait for more buses. As we entered the center of the city, we finally encountered the National Guard.
The Guards told us we would not be allowed into the Superdome as the city’s primary shelter had been descended into a humanitarian and health hellhole. The guards further told us that the city’s only other shelter, the Convention Center, was also descending into chaos and squalor and that the police were not allowing anyone else in. Quite naturally, we asked, “If we can’t go to the only two shelters in the city, what was our alternative?” The guards told us that that was our problem, and no they did not have extra water to give to us.
quote: As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander’s assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.
We questioned why we couldn’t cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little traffic on the six-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their city.
quote: “We found it absolutely incredible that the authorities had no way to get there for four or five days, that they didn’t go in and help these people, and we made it in a two-wheel-drive Hyundai," said Hans Buder, who made the trip with his roommate Byrd and another student, David Hankla. ... "Anyone who knows that area, if you had a bus, it would take you no more than 20 minutes to drive in with a bus and get these people out"...
quote: The officials responded they were going to take care of us. Some of us got a sinking feeling. “Taking care of us” had an ominous tone to it.
Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking city) was correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, “Get off the ****ing freeway”. A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his truck with our food and water.
You do realize that you haven't so much as offered a counterargument? All you've done is adopt a smug attitude that my arguments are inaccurate, unfounded or unworthy.
You've demonstrateed time and time again that when you don't like what you're hearing all you have do do is lob insinuations of dismissal at those you're arguing with, and then praise yourself for having won the argument. Well, the guy in Michigan was murdered for his atheism. Nothing changed that, but you sure made the argument go away.
That doesn't mean you won.
By the way, my belief that BushCo. defunded the New Orleans flood control effort for political retribution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. I doubt it is likely to be tested, but it is not unfounded. The funding was cut. No one disputes that. The city did vote in large numbers for Kerry. No one disputes that either. And BushCo. has made it absolutely clear that anyone who doesn't support him gets fired, gets discredited, gets outed, gets the finger. The evidence is circumstantial, that I'll give you, but the claim is not unfounded.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the medication... I believe blacks are at higher risk for diabetes than the general population of the USA. New Orleans has a mostly black population. Statistically I believe your diabetes incidence would be higher than the rest of the country.
I still don't know who is "in charge" NOW! What I am disappointed in, is that there *still* isn't a clear chain of command, and Blanco and Nagin still seem to be in some sort of power struggle.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
