I remember having to keep a journal in high school English all about my feelings and my perceptions of the world around me.
I also remember having to write reports in History class, all full of dates and names and facts.
We need reporters, not journalists.
OT. Have you noticed all the calls for gun control in the aftermath of the Crandon, WI massacre by the cop? "Disarm the cops" said one sign. "No guns for government" said another. Any body else see that? No?
Kevin (and all), if any of you have Direct TV, I highly recommend watching Ch. 375 (Link TV). They have a news from the Middle East show called Mosaic that airs three or four times a day. The bias between Israeli news and Iranian news is shocking and sometimes outright hilarious. Check it out...love the stories Syria as well!!
Of course, you compare it to our media and you really get sick because everything is so spun beyond recognition here that it's hard to see what the truth is and I am really not convinced that the blogsphere helps. Huffington Post sends out "daily briefs" to people. It isn't news...it's their slant. The right has their daily briefs as well.
One of the burden of being an autonomous sentient being is to evaluate input to determine its truth value.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
Ah, but I don't forget what I know. Thus, I have damned little respect for those who write as Michael Crichton describes. This is the first time I have seen this statement of his, but I have been making the same complaint for about four decades.
"Where is the truth? Perhaps there is none."
Sure there is, Mark. The truth remains the truth, regardless of what people think, and regardless of what people write. The difficulty is digging it out of the tremendous volume of non-truth. The problem is the lack of willingness to exert the required effort.
"... and I am really not convinced that the blogsphere helps."
I am convinced that the blogosphere is one of the few things that does help. The key to combatting non-truth is fact checking, and the blogosphere has made fact checking perhaps four orders of magnitude easier and faster than it was before the dawn of the internet.
I recall, with a curious mix of pleasure and horror, the research I did using the library at university. It was well run, well organized, and had over a million volumes on the shelves.
Golly. A million volumes. All paper. Indexed and cross-referenced by cards, in file drawers.
What took days then, if it was possible at all, takes minutes now, with access to a planetful of information. Re-checking the facts, by anyone else, is even easier and faster.
The solution is reverence for facts and for the truth that can be gleaned from the facts. For most people, spin is more interesting and requires less thought, and most people are driven to spin by abhorrence for the intolerable labor of thought. So, spin wins.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
Hasn't it already happened? What's the cure?
Regardless, however, we're stuck depending on the legacy media to do the leg work, and most of them don't.
And therein lies the greatest weakness of the blogosphere.
The vast majority of bloggers, myself included, are at best armchair reporters, relying on other sources of information. Rarely do we go for primary sources, a critical piece in reporting, mostly because of time and money constraints.
While those 'journalists' are paid to get the primary source information, and yet have the darnedest time reporting the facts.
DJ:"Sure there is, Mark. The truth remains the truth, regardless of what people think, and regardless of what people write. The difficulty is digging it out of the tremendous volume of non-truth. The problem is the lack of willingness to exert the required effort."
AMEN!
I've known that the "killing" of Al-Dura was faked for a long time. I didn't find the original video which demonstrated the fakery to me, but I did find two excellent similar videos. The first one directly addresses the video which was used as an excuse for more violence by the jihadis. The second one is a general treatment of how Palestinians stage these videos, including several examples of how scenes were staged the same day that the Al-Dura scene was staged.
Bottom line: the staging of Al-Dura's supposed murder by the Israelies was done better than most of the staged "incidents" on that day. Even so, there is no doubt in my mind that it actually was staged.
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
I don't think there is any non truth to the statement above and requires no digging at all. Do you?
I take this statement as being the truth. There is no doubt in my mind that this would happen. It is reality. Now, I would imagine there are hundreds of millions of people who do not think this true and, in fact, would describe it as propaganda. Are these people all Palestinians? No. Are they all stupid? Maybe but are they seeing something that I am not?--never having been to Israel and going only on what my Jewish friends have said, one of who served in the army.
Sitting at the Atlanta Airport on Monday, I was beaten senseless with all the CNN news casts.
Regardless of the story, it was told quite literally breathlessly. The vapid blonde on the screen spoke as if she had just finished a sprint.
All the pictures were flashy closeups of some item from a crime scene showed over and over and over.
You couldn't tell what was happening, but you could tell it was bad.
The same thing happened with Iraq coverage. Only shots of bloody soldiers, explosions, menacing music, screen text reading "The Ongoing Struggle In Iraq", even though the story was about how violence had decreased.
The manipulation goes well beyond words and is woven into a hypnotic visual and sound-byte system that attempts to prevent you from thinking too much about what you're hearing. I tell you, it puts George Bergeron’s headphones to shame (bonus points to the first person to get the reference).
Second tid bit. My aunt is an ER nurse and we were talking last week. She said that one of the oddest things she had to to was remove an Atlanta Journal and Constitution from a man's nether region.
Said that was about all the AJC was good for anyway.
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
I don't think there is any non truth to the statement above and requires no digging at all. Do you?
I think this statement does require digging. Here's why:
By itself, this statement is nothing more than a mere assertion. It's a truth claim, but without evidence, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not this statement is actually true.
Any assertion requires more digging to determine whether or not the evidence actually supports the assertion. If the evidence does support the assertion, then you can honestly reach the conclusion that the statement is true. If the evidence contradicts the assertion, then it's legitimate to conclude that the statement is false. If no evidence at all is found, then the statement is nothing more than an assertion which at best, might be true, but unless otherwise proven, deserves to be treated with suspicion.
In this case, I am well aware of what Palestinian children are taught, how often Palestinians are lied to (see the Pallywood video I referred to above), and the constant drumbeat within the Arab nations and Islam to push Israel into the sea. I'm also aware of how Israel actually treats Arabs (both good and bad) and the discussions and restraints shown by Israel. Because of this evidence, I accept that statement as true. That evidence -- especially knowledge of the propaganda involved -- also explains why some people refuse to accept the truth of that statement.
In short, it is the evidence which demonstrates the truthfulness of a statement, not how well it aligns with our chosen beliefs. Further digging is always required. Whether that digging occurs before or after a statement is made is far less important.
What I find myself wondering is how much of what we are discussing comes from the different generations of journalists in the business. The senior editors and "reporters" are all likely about the same age, and coming up they didn't have the internet available to do all that fact checking.
When those raised in the information age start to take over the senior editor positions, I wonder if legacy media will continue to act in this way? Or, what might be the better question: Will they be able to get those senior editor positions after their elders have driven their papers into the ground with their obvious dissembling?
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
The correct quote is:
"If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their arms, there would be no more Israel."
The author is Margo Howard, the daughter of the late Ann Landers.
I quoted this statement to you in Kevin's parlor many moons ago. I think it is the truth and have since I first read it. I stated so when I posted it.
Now, did you read what I just wrote, word for word, or did you just skim it? Did you see the most important part of it?
I wrote that I think it is the truth, not that it is the truth. Why so? Because it is not a fact, rather it is a prediction, i.e. an opinion. It may or may not have sound reasoning behind it, but no matter what that reasoning is, it is still only an opinion.
Remember my observation that opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but they seldom withstand close scrutiny?
And, do you begin to see why I have harped so long and hard on the differences between facts and opinions?
Yeah, I see your point. Unfortunetly, though, the only way to truly prove if this statement is fact or truth is one or the other of the actions mentioned happens. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the latter would happen. Been there and done that...wasn't pretty.
"I was speaking of the Holocast, which is what would happen if Jewish people layed down their arms."
I suspected that was what you were referring to. Your point is well taken and quite proper, but it's not that the Jews laid down their arms, it is rather that they had yet to take them up. Read on.
First, though, I suggest you proofread a bit better next time. Your words were, with a bit of emphasis to show why I asked:
"I wouldn't want to live in a world where the latter would happen. Been there and done that...wasn't pretty."
You weren't there and you didn't do that.
Mind you, I'm not trying to "pile on" here. I'm just pointing out, yet again, that words have meaning.
The coincidence is that I'm currently reading The Wall, by John Hersey. He is the editor, not the author, who is Noach Levinson, a Jew who lived through the Warsaw ghetto and the Jewish uprising therein. He was a chronicler, a person with an incurable urge to document their story. The book consists of ordered excerpts from the four million words of his handwritten notebooks over a 3 1/2 year period.
The section I just finished ended with an entry from October 1, 1942, the last sentence of which was "And now, Chavairim, what are we doing to get ready to fight the Germans?" It is the first mention of the idea among them. By that time, about 300,000 Jews had been "resettled" to Treblinka, and the Jews still in the ghetto knew of the end those 300,000 met there with the certainty of an eyewitness account. The Jews took up arms then and haven't laid them down since. One can hardly blame them.
"If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their arms, there would be no more Israel."
is a prediction, but it's an opinion only in the same way that my prediction of what will happen if you jump off the top floor of the Empire State Building is an opinion. There are many times when any reasonable person who has looked at the facts doesn't have to try something to know how it will turn out.
Hey, I just read the list of 101 ways the media has lied and actually had a good laugh. Curious that list doesn't mention many right wing journalisitc lies, half truths and distortions. Well, they are all perfect, after all, and would never consider distorting reality to push a polical agenda, right?
"for not having "conservatives" on the list. There turns out to be a good reason for that: there just aren't that many who pass the criteria for clear dishonesty in the public debate."
Hee Hee Hee. I want to thank you very much Kevin. This has put a smile on my face and deep laughs from my belly that will last all day :)
"There are many times when any reasonable person who has looked at the facts doesn't have to try something to know how it will turn out."
I agree. It is a prediction nontheless, and its probability of being true, in my opinion, exceeds 99%. That is why I stated that I think it is the truth.
"criticize his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history"
LOL! You have got to be kidding me!!!
Why, because you can't analyze information to know that's true?
The response to New Orleans was staggeringly effective, timely, and well-ordered. It really only failed in PR, which wouldn't have mattered, because the story that was being told had been decided long before it happened. (How many rapes and murders occurred at the Superdome?)
The fact that you don't know that to be true shows that you've never done anything like that.
Nor can you look at the evidence and see what a success it was.
The failures in the New Orleans area were all local. The Governor failed to heed Bush's urgent pleas to declare an imminent disaster - without which he couldn't act legally. The Mayor neglected the written plans for evacuation.
So New Orleans had to be rescued from it's own failure. The Coast Guard (One of those Federal Agencies), FEMA had to rush to fill the failure of the local government. And did so. I know this, Mark, and I've got some appreciation for how much it took in the way of heroics to do that, to change the plans, we don't have 3 days to get ready like we were supposed to, we've got to go now.
Yes, Mark, by any reasonable standard, the administration's handling of Katrina was incredibly successful.
Except for not locking up the local and state politicians who failed in their jobs, failed to do their assigned and expected duties. That's my largest gripe with the response. Second is the PR side, but that's a lost cause. That's Bush's pragmatic side, and it's hard to argue with, given the track record of the Press Corps.
I know this won't help any, but Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures? (Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage.)
So, none of this was Bush's fault at all? It was all the local politicians Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin...
Is this where we've come to now in our culture? When you don't like something you here, you blame the liberal media or the liberal education system and then Poof! You can rationalize anything. How unbelievably warped....
Unix, I am going to start by asking you if you or anyone you knew anyone who was in New Oreleans during Katrina.
And believe me, I have plenty more to say after I hear your response regarding the Bush administration's response.
I usually do not respond to your drivel, but in this case:
I know people who lived in New Orleans through Katrina. I have relatives who live in Metarie, a suburb which did not suffer much flooding damage - few inches of water. Why? Because where they live people built up the swamps they had drained before putting houses on them. Some they did not do in the 9th Ward. Is that Bush's fault? Those houses were built in the 60s. Blame the Democrat governors and Presidents, Mark, if you feel that the executive branch was lax.
I know state officials and National Guardsmen who were involved in the efforts to evacuate New Orlenas.
None of them have any glowing reviews of the Feds as a group. But they have even less good to say about the local government of New Orleans or Babblin' Blanco. Did the Feds act as fast as was human possible? No. But in many cases they acted as fact as was bureaucratically possible.
I live in South Louisiana, Mark. I was here for Katrina. I remember watching "Choclate City" Nagin issue the evacuation order: Sunday morning about 12 hours before the tropical force winds arrived. Is it Bush's fault that he did not follow his city's emergency plan, because it might cause panic? Did Bush leave all those school buses to flood? Why did Nagin allow the last Amtrak train to leave empty except for the company's employees and their families?
Blanco did not issue the emergency order Sunday mroning. I have heard that the Feds sent her letter back because the wording was not correct. Some find this unforgivable on the part of the Feds. I find it unforegivable on the part of a woman who uses my tax dollars to employ thousands of laywers, and cannot get a legal document correct.
Mark: Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin...
I know that's not just the rhetorical device you think it is.
When you don't like something you here, you blame the liberal media or the liberal education system
Mark: I asked you a specific question if you felt the need to reply. Before you insult too many people and their education, prove you can comprehend basic reading. Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures? (Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage.)
I notice you didn't actually address specifics. Because when you address those, you find that, golly, almost none of the deficiencies were in areas the feds were supposed to, or legally able to address. So as long as you can keep it vague, non-specific, and emotional, you can feel superior.
But when actual examples are demanded.. "Good god, you can't be serious!"
Yes, I am.
if you or anyone you knew anyone who was in New Oreleans during Katrina.
Technically no.
All of my friends, (including one of my former best friends), and a one of my wife's best friends got out prior to Katrina landfall. I know quite a few people who live in New Orleans, if that's what you're asking. And we can discuss the clusterfuck that is FEMA and the rebuilding. But as for anybody who was in NO? No.
(http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com/2006/06/03/)
(Of course, the metadiscussion comes right back with your denunciation of Federal Response - here I laud it, and you deride it, then you insist on giving those same people (that you insist can't do anything right) more money and power!)
How unbelievably warped....
Mark: How many Hurricane Task Forces have you served on? Personally, I've served (got volunteered for) on 3. Just, you know, so we can compare experiences and expectations.
Now, as I already asked you once: What specifically are you complaining about?
Blanco did not issue the emergency order Sunday mroning. I have heard that the Feds sent her letter back because the wording was not correct. Some find this unforgivable on the part of the Feds. I find it unforegivable on the part of a woman who uses my tax dollars to employ thousands of laywers, and cannot get a legal document correct.
Given that she's waited until it was too late for the Feds to help until after landfall - makes perfect sense to me. I doubt Mark will understand why you'd reject something done wrong, especially when later it would be used to blame you, not the procrastinator.
(And Mark gets upset about 7 minutes 9/11/01.)
But that's the lovely part of Mark's worldview. If you follow the law, the rules, when "of COURSE" you shouldn't have, you're wrong! Don't follow the rules, and have a negative effect, no matter your intent or rationale, and WHAT WERE YOU THINKING! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!"
Heck, turn out to be right, and they'll ignore you.
"And believe me, I have plenty more to say after I hear your response regarding the Bush administration's response."
Mark, why don't you begin by answer his questions, instead of doing your usual, which is to ignore what you are asked and then ask questions of your own? Once again, you take your usual stance, namely that you cannot be called on to explain an answer that you do not provide, so you just don't provide any.
Will you ever learn?
"So, none of this was Bush's fault at all?"
Yes, you blithering, unthinking idiot, none of the feddle gubmint's response to hurricane Katrina was President Bush's fault.
"It was all the local politicians Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin..."
You are absolutely correct on two different levels:
1) The failures were the fault of the locals, primarily the local politicians.
2) You don't even know where to begin. You haven't got a fucking clue.
So, I'll help you.
Let's follow a simple train of rational thought, using you as the subject. Think and reason as if you are a typical citizen of New Orleans, at risk, in peril, and in need of help.
Ready?
You live in New Orleans, a city near the coast, a city sandwiched between a big river and a lake, a city that largely lies below the level of the ocean and the lake. It's a risky place to live. A whopping big hurricane, hitting it with a bullseye, could utterly reclaim it for Mother Nature in just a few hours.
Hurricanes happen. If a hurricane is going to hit your fair city, you need to be warned, right? Perhaps if you were warned early enough, you could save your miserable ass and live to tell about it.
Well, a hurricane happened. I watched on TV for days as it grew and grew into a monster, a category 5 meat grinder. You saw it too, didn't you? You watched the warnings, and ignored them as usual.
Then, three day before the hurricane made landfall, President Bush went on national television and pleaded with Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation of New Orleans. You see, he doesn't have the authority to order an evacuation, and he doesn't have the authority to tell Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation. All he had the authority to do was to ask the Mayor of New Orleans to his job.
THREE FUCKING DAYS BEFORE LANDFALL, DUDE.
Beats me what Mayor Nagin did, or what Gubnor Blanko did, but neither one ordered an evacuation until twelve hours before landfall. What these two incompetent local politicians did was generate panic in some and gridlock in all. Some got out, some couldn't get out. Most importantly, the local resources that these local politicians should have ordered into use were left to drown along with those they should have been used to save.
Now, let's get back to you, shall we?
You're sitting in your living room, watching the TV that showed the warnings you ignored, when suddenly you realize that, by golly, this fuckin' storm is coming right at you! Uh, lessee now, you gotta DO SOMETHING! You gotta get out, or get to high ground, or SOMETHING!
Yeah, but how? You have no automobile, you use the bus. Ain't no busses today.
OK, the telephone works. Call for help.
CALL WHO?
Now, we're at the nub of the situation, aren't we? You need help, you can't help yourself, you wanna get your ass saved, and all you have is a telephone.
WHO DO YOU CALL FOR HELP?
How about the local police? Nope. How about the local fire department? Nope. How about the local ambulance service? Nope. How about the Mayor? Nope. How about the Gubnor? Nope.
Ahah! Finally, you decide that you should call the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Yeah, that's it! A disaster happens, and it's the President's JOB to get on the phone and make a gazillion calls to organize busses and ladder trucks and canoes and helicopters and Hollywood celebrities to save my miserable ass, and if I don't get saved IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FAILURE THAT CAUSED IT!
Now, Mark, can you begin thinking from there, backtrack to a point of rationality and start anew, or do you still not understand how utterly fucking twisted it is to blame the President of the United States personally for everything that goes wrong during a hurricane and its aftermath?
And then will you be so kind and considerate as to answer Jedi's question to you?
This should be another fascinating example of the derailment of Markadelphia's logic train, followed by a National Traffic Safety Board analysis of the incident.
Followed by Markadelphia still blaming everything on George W. Bush and the Feddle Gubmint.
Kevin: Murray Gell-Man Amnesia effect? You be the judge!
I was saving my comment on exactly that point for my response... Well, presuming Mark has some specifics for me.
Followed by Markadelphia still blaming everything on George W. Bush and the Feddle Gubmint.
And insisting that if, IF, we can JUST get the "right people" into place, eventually that it will justify the huge amount diverted from taxes, from growth, from productivity. (While denouncing "Corporate Imperialism", and ignoring that the single biggest relief effort after Katrina and the levee failure was run by Wal-Mart. (Inc.))
Unix (et all), I am going to answer your (framed) question, most assuredly, but if you'll indulge me, I need to wade through the swamp of unreality that was your first post.
I am going to begin with the story of Mary and Sara (not their real names).
Mary is a friend of mine, from MN, who took her daughter Sara to NO for a cheerleading competition (not their real names). When Katrina hit, they were stuck there. They went to the Superdome with thousands of others. The next three days of their lives can only be descrived as horrific. They saw people get attacked and beat up. They had no food and barely any water. They went to sleep on the nights they were there to people screaming. One morning they woke up and a person, down the hall from where they were squatting, had died. Sara also witnessed the person jump to their death from the upper deck. Not a pleasant thing for a 14 year old girl to see.
I went over to her house about three days after she got back to check in on her. She looked like she had been in war zone. To this day, she looks upon people like yourself, Unix, with shock and amazement.
This was a complete and utter failure of government at every level. There is no doubt in my mind that Nagin and Blanco were at fault. But so was the Bush Administration. In a moment of rare humility, I recall President Bush standing up and taking responsibility for the lack of response by the federal government calling it "poor." Even he is not excusing himself, Unix, so I don't understand why you are.
1. The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government that significantly undermined and detracted from the heroic efforts of first responders, private individuals and organizations, faith-based groups, and others.
2. The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative.
3. The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond more effectively to Katrina — which had been predicted in theory for many years, and forecast with startling accuracy for five days — demonstrates that whatever improvements have been made to our capacity to respond to natural or man-made disasters, four and half years after 9/11, we are still not fully prepared. Local first responders were largely overwhelmed and unable to perform their duties, and the National Response Plan did not adequately provide a way for federal assets to quickly supplement or, if necessary, supplant first responders.
Mark:
(This isn't really directed at you, you understand, because I know you can't understand.)
Notice how we all predicted you were not going to use facts? Facts aren't framing, they're asking you, specifically, what's your problem.
Yesterday, there was a hellacious problem in my department. We had a meeting, because our backups are slow, and our networking guy said "Well, we're not hitting more than 40% port utilization, so the network is fine". To which I said "Uh, BUHWHA? If we're only getting 40%, then we've got a big problem." After a lot of very bad feelings and grumbling, during the investigation we find out that the new software doesn't do historical trends, so that 40% was only for the 5 minutes he was looking (during the day, no backups). OKAY. Now he's upset at me, and I've had to point out, that we'd have not had a problem, had he told me what he knew and where it was based on. But based on what he was saying, standing by, and insisting was right, I knew he was wrong. Had he been able to say even "I don't know what the port utilization is", it wouldn't have gotten me to - I had to - call into question his ability. Because when I have 5 servers sending backups down Gig Ether pipes, and the 1 server they're sending to reportedly isn't getting maxed out on the network......
Same thing with you. If you give the facts as you know them, then they're addressable. Then you get to come to consensus on what the facts are. If you and I are arguing over how many Sqeebs are getting Sleeq. And your numbers are coming from the Knights who say "Ni!", and mine are coming from the Undertakers of the Living, then we can try and figure out why there might be a difference in the numbers.
Even he is not excusing himself, Unix, so I don't understand why you are.
Interesting. I live in a hurricane zone (Central Florida).I keep 15 gallons of drinkable water around at all times. I have a pantry stocked with sealed, non-perishable foods. I have plenty of ammunition and firearms that can withstand harsh weather in order to fend off those who might harm us. And I've studied how to survive if everything gets wiped out.
And I have a 5 & a 2 year old to boot.
Now, Mark, tell me - how does the government fit into this?
Sorry, but while I'll pour out cash like I'm loaded to help out, you're not going to get sympathy from me in the form of allowing the government more power.
The fault is more at the feet of people like you, Mark. You've helped create a society that depends so strongly on others to survive that when those others don't show up, they suffer. There is nothing wrong with self reliance (well, except that it takes power away from authoritarians). There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible for themselves. We're a generous nation of plenty, and we will help when things get down (we did for Katrina, in spades) and we don't need Uncle Sam to provide every little thing for us.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Nagin and Blanco were at fault. But so was the Bush Administration."
Then why do you seem to consistently lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet? Especially when Nagin and Blanco are legally required to act first?
No, you spilled a lot of ink but you did not answer Jedi's question. You simply offered generalizations that you read somewhere else:
"1. The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government that significantly undermined and detracted from the heroic efforts of first responders, private individuals and organizations, faith-based groups, and others.
"2. The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative."
Here it his again, emphasized for your poor reading comprehension skills:
"Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures?"
Your response explains nothing and provides no specifics. Yet again, it's just someone else's opinions.
You have blamed the President of the United States for personal failures in the federal response to hurricane Katrina. My questions to you about that are:
1) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President do that you think he should not have done?
2) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President not do that you think he should have done?
3) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President do that you think he should have done but done better?
Recall, teacher, that we live in a federal republic, not a democracy, and not a monarchy. So, in all answers, please give details and please quote the specific articles and sections of the Constitution which give the President of the United States the authority and responsibility to do what you think he should have done.
So President Bush says he was caught be surpirse at the levee failures but then we find out later that the White House did know? It seems to me they were completely out of touch with what was happening in New Oreleans and, as the report above, states failed to initialize recovery efforts in a timely fashion.
My complaint, as with other Bush Administration actions, centers around competence. Rather than hire appropiately skilled people to do the job, he hires "loyal Bushies" aka cronies who are incompetent (see Brown and Cherthoff). They weren't competent to accurately judge how to deal with the levee failures and oddly seemed lackadaisical about how serious the situation was in New Oreleans.
"Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage"
Uh....what? Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one. As far as Mississippi goes, which was no doubt hit very hard, months later, thousands of people were still homeless and storm damage was piled up in the street. Where was the federal help? Why was it so slow in coming? Again, I don't think it was a simple matter of red tape. I don't think the people who are running disaster recovery in DC are competent.
Now, it's time to address some other comments beginning with this classic:
"President Bush went on national television and pleaded with Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation of New Orleans.”
Completely false. Here is what actually happened:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509060011
This is another example how a story can be spun to sustain a deluded belief system and, I think, an excellent nomination for #102 on how the media lies and/or deliberately falsifies information. Conidering the AT's comment on Katrina started all of this, I think it only apporpiate.
“Given that she's waited until it was too late for the Feds to help until after landfall - makes perfect sense to me.”
Also incorrect. How about a timeline grounded in reality? Filled with documented facts.
No, I'd like to wrap up my side of the debate by stating the President Bush himself has stated over and over again that the federal response to Katrina was poor. He accepted his responsibility in the failure and asked the public to "blame him." This is a good thing and it shows that can at least be a slightly reasonable man. It is for this reason, and all of the ones listed above, that I think that the statement
"his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history"
Mark:
We get closer to specifics. But you're still very vague. For someone with that much condemnation, surely you can rattle of some specific complaints?
My source for this part is here
And you point to something, and don't point out anything specific. It's good you're pointing to sources, but you're not, actually showing anything specific inside those sources.
So President Bush says he was caught be surpirse at the levee failures but then we find out later that the White House did know?
This would be (closer to) "specific" if it actually were anywhere near what that link reports. Yes, Bush said he was caught by surprise. The article basically says that the message that there was a levee breach wasn't communicated well/correctly.
OK, yes, you're right, that's a problem. Now where's the failure of the federal response? Is that the first time a message wasn't handled correctly? The US Navy and US Coast Guard were already enroute to the area to provide assistance. What, due to that miscommunication failed to occur, Mark, to prove your contention that the Bush Administration was failing at something?
Rather than hire appropriately skilled people to do the job, he hires "loyal Bushies" aka cronies who are incompetent (see Brown and Cherthoff). They weren't competent to accurately judge how to deal with the levee failures and oddly seemed lackadaisical about how serious the situation was in New Oreleans.
These would be the same cronies who were lauded for their quick response to the 2005 Hurricanes in Florida? Who had FEMA working better, instituting massive management fixes and changes in response to prior failures?
See how easy it is to parrot some lines, Mark, but when you look into the issue, it's not so clear? Yet you claim to not believe in real truth, and open-mindedness. You can claim they're unqualified.
So back it up.
Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know anything about the actual problems occurred.
Katrina's storm surge and winds were a smallish Category 1 hurricane on New Orleans. Gulfport, Miss, took the strong Cat 3 brunt. (Notice the lack of humanitarian disaster there.)
The Levees, built at a cost of many billions of dollars, and controlled by local levee boards, were supposed to handle a Cat 3 hurricane. (Note also, Katrina was a Cat 4+ - almost to a 5 at one point, less than 4 days to landfall, and the locals, knowing the Levee's weren't built to take thatSTILL didn't order the evacuation to begin.)
The levees failed, Mark. Katrina didn't knock 'em down, they failed at a load under their design capacity. A series of thunderstorms, a Tropical Storm - a Depression even! As we know now - a strong rain over a period of time was all that was needed to undermine the Levees in those places.
Katrina passed NO, and for hours, everybody was ecstatic that they'd dodged the bullet. No problems. I remember watching the Weather Channel people in NO, and talking about how there was just minor wind damage, and the Levees had held.
As far as Mississippi goes, which was no doubt hit very hard,
It was flattened! There are towns where whole neighborhoods are gone.
Why aren't you complaining about the incompetence there?
Simple, Mark. They knew that FEMA is geared up to coming in after the fact, writing checks, and assisting. Those 3 Task Forces I was on? It was widely known that we'd not see FEMA for a week after the hurricane hit. We had a FEMA rep, with a fancy satellite phone. (That didn't work.) She was there to try and figure out what we'd need. We got lucky, the hurricanes were small, not a lot of damage, nothing was really needed.
months later, thousands of people were still homeless and storm damage was piled up in the street. Where was the federal help? Why was it so slow in coming?
Mark: I'm asking this in all seriousness. Do you believe in magic?
Because it takes years to clean up and repair. Charleston, S.C. wasn't totally fixed two years after Hurricane Hugo. Because it takes a damn long time to do these things.
Again, I don't think it was a simple matter of red tape. I don't think the people who are running disaster recovery in DC are competent.
But you're willing to give them more money and power. Despite that you think they're incompetent.
Specifically, what should they have done differently?
I keep asking, you keep dodging. Are you competent enough to ask that question, to challenge them?
Unix, you want specifics, read the reports I linked.
"Then why do you seem to consistently lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet? Especially when Nagin and Blanco are legally required to act first?"
I didn't. I was respoding to the comment that Katrina was a succesful recovery operation.
"Now, Mark, tell me - how does the government fit into this?"
Robb, uh, because that's why we pay taxes. While I think, obviously, that people have to take responsibilty for themselves, we have a government that is supposed to help in times of crisis. They didn't.
"Why didn't your friends leave when they knew a major hurricane was coming?"
They tried but they couldn't find any transportation at all. Should they have walked?
1. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
2. By not having number one going on, there would've been more National Guard troops to help out.
3. I would've begun coordinating the mobilization of the National Guard sooner then three days after landfall.
4. I would've deployed the active military sooner than 8 days after landfall.
5. I would've picked up the phone and told Chertoff and Brown to act with more urgency.
6. I would've asked FEMA to request personnel before, not after landfall.
7. I would've evacutated the Superdome immediately.
8. I would've enacted the National Response Plan before the levees breached and on the same day a state of emergency was declared.
9. I would've sent Army communications experts into the area on Day One so I could get real time information.
10. I would not have suspended Davis-Bacon worker protection.
11. I would've enacted ALL of the recomendations of the 9-11 commission, many of which would've helped somewhat with the response.
They tried to leave on the Saturday before the hurricane hit, right away after the cheerleading competition. Everyone was trying to get out and their flight wasn't scheduled to leave until Monday afternoon, as they were going to stay and sight see on Sunday.
They were told by local authorities to stay and ride it out like everyone else who couldn't make it out. Of course, Nagin was telling everyone to leave on Sunday so it is clear that no one knew what they were doing--at any level of government.
"Katrina's storm surge and winds were a smallish Category 1 hurricane on New Orleans. Gulfport, Miss, took the strong Cat 3 brunt."
The National Hurricane Center stated that power failures in NO caused a lack of accurate wind measurements. They did conclude, however, that based on the few measurements they had that the wind force was category 1 or 2. And this went on for hours.
Mark: Unix, you want specifics, read the reports I linked.
Bullshit. That's not being specific.
Now, you did better with the next post. (but you mostly cribbed off of the DPC. Don't you require footnotes for your students? Teach plagarism?)
1. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
What does that, other than your BDS, have to do with it? (Additionally, what if the LA NG had been stationed in Saudia Arabia and Quatar? You know, where we had about 100k in total forces for 12 years prior to 2003? Including a lot of NG and Reserve?)
2. By not having number one going on, there would've been more National Guard troops to help out.
Not for sure, as above. So you're guessing here. Maybe, maybe not. How many of the LA NG were overseas?
3. I would've begun coordinating the mobilization of the National Guard sooner then three days after landfall.
Traditionally, that's the job of the Governor of the State. Ask the DPC about that, why dontcha?
4. I would've deployed the active military sooner than 8 days after landfall.
How soon? And on what basis? Where would you have stationed them?
Remember, there was a Navy group sailing to the coast directly behind Katrina - including a hospital ship - that was in place less than a day after landfall. So... since we know the Navy was in place, the day after and had been mobilized out of Florida several days before.... What does that mean for the validity of your complaint?
5. I would've picked up the phone and told Chertoff and Brown to act with more urgency.
Faster! Faster! Harder! Harder!
With... what? 2 days after Katrina the skies were littered with Helicopters - enough to make it a hazard to put more in the area. So what should they have done? Bush should have yelled at them?
6. I would've asked FEMA to request personnel before, not after landfall.
Request personnel? What? You mean, volunteers? Before there was a known need?
7. I would've evacutated the Superdome immediately.
You and what magical dragons? That's where the evacuation point was, that's where the NG was HQ'ed, that's where the food and medical supplies were. WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE GONE, and do we need to start calling you Harry Potter?
8. I would've enacted the National Response Plan before the levees breached and on the same day a state of emergency was declared.
Really. Well, Mark, those Levees right now are in the same danger of breaching. Should we declare it a national emergency? You want the President to declare a national emergency, when the locals won't follow the law, and refuse to evacuate?
9. I would've sent Army communications experts into the area on Day One so I could get real time information.
Mark, Day One the problem was there wasn't a problem. Day two, the flooding was becoming a problem. Day 3, the problem wasn't getting real time information, it was sifting through it. There was plenty of real time info, lots of it bogus, lots of it crap.
10. I would not have suspended Davis-Bacon worker protection.
*boggle*. OK, now, you're just crazy.
First, IIRC, DB is still in effect. I know they lifted it for a short time.
Secondly, how in the bloody hell of this real world we live in can you lamblast Bush for not doing enough, then insisting that Union Wages be mandated for the recovery?
Davis-Bacon slows response. Slows rebuilding. Makes a mockery of every claim you've made against Bush. You want faster and better? Yet you'll insure higher unemployment, require massive amounts of red tape to do anything, and intrude a federal bureaucracy on the rebuilding. (My bitch is that they didn't suspect DB nationwide.)
11. I would've enacted ALL of the recomendations of the 9-11 commission, many of which would've helped somewhat with the response.
I'd ask for specifics, but no, no, you've taught me my lesson. Don't ask for what you know you won't get.
They did conclude, however, that based on the few measurements they had that the wind force was category 1 or 2. And this went on for hours.
It was a mild Cat 1, Mark. Our friends had less than $1000 worth of wind damage to their houses. The hurricane winds had nothing to do with the levee breach. That was soley due to the pressure of the water, and (a little due to the storm surge). Any heavy storm, even one without the warnings that Katrina came with, could have caused the same undermining.. It can happen right now. Today. Tomorrow. Almost all of the levees in New Orleans have the same design "Defect".
So, do you want Bush to order everyone out of New Orleans?
While I think, obviously, that people have to take responsibilty for themselves, we have a government that is supposed to help in times of crisis. They didn't.
A great number of people, Mark, worked their asses off, risked their lifes, their careers, and worked tirelessly to help. I know some of them. I know of others. Why don't you find the story of the LA NG at the Superdome, and wonder why it's not more widely told?
Remember the subject of this post? And how things are reported? Had the press been telling you about the Naval group off the coast, had they been talking about the heroic efforts of the helicopter pilots and their crews maintaining the choppers, had they talked about how much the National Guard maintained order at the Superdome, in the best of a bad situation.... (How many rapes and murders occured at the Superdome, Mark? How many journalists lost their jobs for the reporting?)
There's no magic. It takes time, and effort to move people in. Bridges aren't safe, you can't move heavy equipment over them immediately. You can't put equipment on the coast - you'll lose it to the hurricane.
But, all of that aside, Mark:
Why are you only talking about New Orleans?
Ask yourself why you're not talking about Gulfport. Or Pascgoula. Or Mobile. Biloxi. Why is all of your complaints about one local area, and what's different about that area?
(And this time, try and come up with something more original than cribbing off of the DPC?)
From the Dome, the Louisiana Guard's main command ran at least 2,500 troops who rode out the storm inside the city, a dozen emergency shelters, 200-plus boats, dozens of high-water vehicles, 150 helicopters, and a triage and medical center that handled up to 5,000 patients (and delivered 7 babies). The Guard command headquarters also coordinated efforts of the police, firefighters and scores of volunteers after the storm knocked out local radio, as well as other regular military and other state Guard units.
Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited "10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves" by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one.
...
"TV of the Superdome was perplexing to most folks," Thompson said. "You had them playing the tapes of the same incidents over and over, it tends to bias your thinking some, you tend to think it's worse than it really is." Official estimates at this point suggest the Guard, working from the Dome, saved 17,000 by air and uncounted thousands more by boat.
Let's try that again: The cavalry wasn't late. It didn't arrive on Thursday smoking a cigar and cussing. It was there all along.
The National Guard's response to Katrina was even more robust than I suspected in my reporting for RealClearPolitics in September, and in more detail for National Review, where I revealed for the first time that rescue operations saved up to 50,000 lives, with perhaps an equal number making their way to shelters on their own.
Fifty thousand New Orleans residents were in danger of death from drowning, heatstroke, dehydration and disease. That was a tough one to get through the media reality-distortion field, but the numbers have since been confirmed by Congress, the White House, Louisiana state officials and the relevant agencies themselves. If anything, I understated the size of the rescue effort. What I didn't understand was the critical role the Superdome headquarters played.
Read the whole thing, Mark. It'll do you good. It even says FEMA screwed up! (And Mark? I've got a ton of problems with what FEMA has done, and is doing. But I'm appalled we've given them more money, more FTEs, more responsibility, and ordered people to answer to them But those are seperate issues, and you're having enough trouble keeping yours straight, we'll deal with them later.)
To provide a summary, Mark, the Levee breach following Katrina has a lot of lessons.
You've learned none of them. Instead, you've gone off screeching on things unrelated.
The NG in NO performed heroically. The Coast Guard, US Navy performed well above any normal sort of expectations. They adapted, modified, and overcame.
As a result of the media circus, the BDS, the automatic gainsaying of anything related to Bush (even the staffed-with-lifers Federal Bureaucracy that's easily 75% hard core Democrat), we won't learn the lessons, and improve upon what we've done.
And we'll throw out the lessons of a success story based on the screeching of people who've never even organized a Church Picnic. Much less tried to deal with the logistics of the single largest rescue effort ever undertaken... That by any reasonable measure succeeded brilliantly. (Just imagine how much of a non-story it would have been had NO actually done it's job, had competent and non-corrupt officials and politicians, and actually evacuated, where the huge effort wasn't required?)
You might want to ask your friend who had to deal with some unpleasantness, if she would have preferred to be wandering outside, without the structure and support that she took advantage of. You might want to ask yourself - considering the situation, isn't her very story, by itself, a success? She and her daughter survived, were rescued, and now are back to their normal lives, aren't they?
illuminating, to say the least. The money quotes are:
"George Bush and the federal government are not to blame for the disaster we have witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"In fact, the primary responsibility for the disaster response lies with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and other local officials.
"Yet leading Democrats and their allies in the major media are clearly using this disaster for political purposes and ignoring one obvious fact.
"This fact – which needs to be repeated and remembered – is that in our country, state and local governments have primary responsibility in dealing with local disasters.
[...]
"Let's remember that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was created only in 1979. It was formed to coordinate and focus federal response to major disasters – to "assist" local and state governments.
[...]
"First responders and the manpower to deal with emergencies come from local communities: police, fire and medical. Under our federal system, these local departments answer to local authorities, not those in Washington. These first responders are not even under federal control, nor do they have to follow federal orders.
"In addition to local responders, every state in the Union has a National Guard.
"State National Guards answer first to the governor of each state, not to the president. The National Guard exists not to defend one state from an invasion by another state, but primarily for emergencies like the one we have witnessed in New Orleans and in other areas impacted by Katrina."
There is a great deal more, so read the whole thing.
----
Now, Mark, your statement that
"Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one."
leaves me shaking my head. With this statement, you have exceeded even your own record for blithering stupidity.
No, Mark, we have nothing to explain regarding this statement. You do, but as usual, you won't.
I have seen numerous videos and pictures of the Riverwalk area of New Orleans, where I've been many times. Those pictures show the damage, twenty floors up and higher, that those hotels suffered. I've been in those hotels many times and I remember what they used to look like.
They are on high ground and they suffered horrible damage from well above the level of the flood waters all the way to their roofs. Now what do you suppose caused this damage? Was it seagull shit? Kids throwing rocks? Or was it the winds of hurricane Katrina?
With this statement alone, your credibility now stands at ZERO. You couldn't get any lower if you tried. You have demonstrated thereby an utter disconnect with reality and yet another instance of just making shit up.
You keep insulting our intelligence by making such statements, Mark. You keep stating that you don't care what we think of you. I can't help but wonder why you appear to think that we care to know your thoughts about anything. Your motive escapes me.
But, keep it up, dude. You are a living, breathing stereotype. Your blitherings do immeasurable good for our cause. We couldn't possibly be believed if we made up someone like you, but you're real.
They are on high ground and they suffered horrible damage from well above the level of the flood waters all the way to their roofs. Now what do you suppose caused this damage? Was it seagull shit? Kids throwing rocks? Or was it the winds of hurricane Katrina?
Right. Katrina was a Cat 1 hurricane over New Orleans.
My point - the Levees were "built" to take a Cat 3.
And they didn't break for ~6-8 hours after the winds and rain ceased.
Thus, the real damage, the huge amounts of upheaval, the danger was all from the flood waters - which was only tangentially due to Katrina. That much water could have come from a Tropical Storm, a hurricane North of New Orleans....
Sorry, DJ, but you'll need to argue with me, not Mark on that one. Yes, Katrina did some damage with wind. Not a lot. The usual smallish Hurricane amount, few million here, or there. Not "no" as in really, absolutely no, but "no" as in "in the scheme of things, that doesn't really matter."
That's not the case in Gulfport, for instance, where the tidal surge and the winds were a strong 3.... and whole neighborhoods disappeared.
Notice the difference between the "Katrina" damage. One was hit directly by Katrina, one time occurance.
The other suffered a levee breach - the exact sort could happen right now.
Thus my contention that the real damage (hardly 200 Billion worth) was caused "by" Katrina...
Well, isn't that where most of the people affected by the lack of federal response were located?
"even says FEMA screwed up!"
Isn't FEMA part of the federal response? So, I guess we are in agreement.
I don't care what the media missed or didn't miss. I spend very little time watching the MSM because I can't stomach the endless OJ/Anna Nicole/Brittany baloney. I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event.
" the BDS, the automatic gainsaying of anything related to Bush"
Well, apparently Bush himself suffers from BDS because even he admits how poor of a job he did.
DJ, I would humbly suggest that you re-read the timeline link that I put above. Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong. You, along with others, can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
Then you base your view on an infinitesimally small part of the data. Which might be the reason you're so ill informed.
Again, why is it Bush's (or hell Nagin or Blanco's for that matter) responsibility to ensure I can survive a storm? I'm prepared. Costs less than $50 to totally stock up on everything you'd need for a week after a hurricane to survive.
Again, the fault is at the liberals' feet who demand the government take care of everyone, especially since you've seen over and over how shitty of a job they do.
Well, isn't that where most of the people affected by the lack of federal response were located?
"Lack of federal response" is what's being debated. Surely by now you'd understand the concept of not trying to "sneak" in the debate subject.
And no.
Look up Gulfport, MS. Biloxi, MS.
The LA coastline, and MS coastline. Those outnumber the people in New Orleans who were "affected".
What's incredibly obvious, and you can't see, is that Gulfport, Biloxi, were devestated by Katrina. (Directly). Blown away.
Yet, where are the claims of mismanagement in their response? (Yes, there are some. I've got some. Not like you're whining about with FEMA not coming in with Pete, the Magic Dragon.)
If there's one place where there's a problem, and nobody else has that problem.... IF you were right, Mark.... Then they'd have the same problems.
Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong.
Blanco and Nagin forced there to be a rescue of heroic proportions.
Had they done their job, in accordance with their policies and statements, the town wouldn't have had 200,000 people in desperate need of rescue.
That's the "What Else" you can't wrap your mind around.
You, along with others, can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?
Ah. Mark, how many murders occurred at the Superdome?
How many rapes? Be specific in your answers.
I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event.
Didn't I tell you, and you argued with me that you didn't, that you tended to make your mind up on anecdotes, didn't understand the concept of reliable sources and data?
You guys are handling this just fine (and I think I may well be out of patience with Mark for the forseeable future, here), but I just wanted to add...
I used to live in New Orleans, left about three years before Katrina stuck. So yes, I know what the city looked like before Katrina and how trashed it got.
I can also tell all of you with total confidence that everybody in New Orleans who knew anything about them knew the levees were totally inadequate. They weren't designed that well to begin with, and they were crumbling under years of inadequate maintenance. The Geology department of Tulane had a betting pool over whether the city would still be there in fifty years. While I was there, hurricane Georges and a tropical storm whose name I can't remember just brushed us, and there was very widespread flooding then, under conditions that the average Floridian would scoff at as a moderately brisk rainstorm.
How come nobody did anything? Because in Louisiana, political corruption is basically the norm, especially in NO. The Kingfisher wasn't unique, he was just the most brazen and charismatic. Nobody wanted to fix them because that would mean being unpopular for spending tons of money to fix something that was not, by their definition, a problem, because nothing had happened yet to endanger someone's political career. Why didn't they evacuate? Because they were still betting on luck favoring them and didn't want to risk their hides if it turned out the storm passed them by. It was absolutely typical behavior- pretending there was no real problem had become habit.
Absolutely nothing about Katrina or what happened in its aftermath, including the NOPD turning on the citizenry (they were famously corrupt), surprised me in the slightest- including Nagin and Blanco's attempt to shift all the blame to Bush.
"Sorry, DJ, but you'll need to argue with me, not Mark on that one."
Your point is well made and well taken, but I don't completely agree.
Mark's statement was that the hurricane "didn't actually do any damage," which is simply not true. The damage the hurricane did directly in New Orleans was large and significant, in my opinion (as I've seen pictures of it), but it was indeed a mere pittance compared to the damage done by the levee breaches in New Orleans and by the bullseye elsewhere.
The biggest cause of death and destruction in a typical hurricane is not the wind, rather it is the storm surge, when the winds and the lowered atmospheric pressure pull the ocean up into a dome and drive it onto shore. That is what killed Biloxi and Gulfport, and it is what piled the water up into the canals and into Lake Ponchartrain, and so it is the ultimate cause of the water being high enough to breach the levees in New Orleans. Had there been no storm, there would have been no wind, no surge, no breach, and no damage.
So, I give credit where it is due. All the damage was due to hurricane Katrina, but the mechanism by which it did most, but not all, of that damage in New Orleans was the levee breaches.
-----
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
This is precisely what we have complained about, Mark. You base your view on someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts. In the vernacular of an engineer, you're trying to draw a fifth order curve through two data points.
"Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong."
My statement in that regard was:
"The failures were the fault of the locals, primarily the local politicians."
I have neither asserted nor implied that it was "all the fault of Blanco and Nagin". Still having trouble with reading comprehension, aren't you?
I state categorically that the major blame for people being stranded in New Orleans instead of evacuating, which was the major cause of the human misery involved, was the fault of Mayor Nagin and Gubnor Blanco. The hurricane hit at six AM Monday. The Gubnor had declared a state of emergency on Friday before. In the meantime, these two, who were the local politicans with the authority and responsibility thereto, failed catastrophically to implement a plan that had been carefully drawn up long before for just such an emergency. This was their failure, not the President's failure, and not the feddle gubmint's failure.
"It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?"
Sure I do. Sometimes they are. We keep asking you for hard evidence to see whether you, a far-left liberal, are right on this occasion. You keep refusing to supply it. All you come up with is other people's opinions, and now you state explicitly that your view of the response to hurricane Katrina is based on two such opinions.
-----
LabRat, my first trip to New Orleans was in September, 1988, coincidentally when hurricane Gilbert was ginning up in the lower Gulf of Mexico. It was a Cat 5+ hurricane at the time and was the one that later hammered the Yucatan Peninsula for days. The question being talked about on the plane down (and I mean by nearly everyone in earshot), was whether or not it would head north or west. If north, then we would be in the bullseye.
I live in, and was raised up in, Tornado Alley. I've seen many tornadoes over many years and I have a very healthy respect for them (indeed my brother lost his house to one). When tornado season is upon us, I pay attention. When watches and warning are sounded, I gear up and I mean damned fast. When I moved into this house, within one month I had a new, prefab concrete tornado shelter firmly planted and close at hand.
When we arrived in New Orleans, I began asking questions of the locals, including the baggage agent in the aiport, the cab driver, the bellhop, the registration clerk at the hotel, the waiters in the restaurants, and so on and so on. There was not only no concern, there was no interest even in learning that a hurricane was brewing. I was dumbfounded.
I've been back many times since then, and I find your statements about the place to be quite believable.
Mark's statement was that the hurricane "didn't actually do any damage," which is simply not true.
He was quoting me, just wasn't being obvious. (In which lies a lesson for Mark about keeping things as clear as possible). In all fairness to Mark, he was sneering at me saying that.
That's me, and him quoting me, not Mark saying that.
I see that now, and it took some doing. It is that non-obvious, even with several readings. Had Mark actually put a couple of quotes around that one sentence, or something similar in its structure, I might have understood it. As it was, I completely missed what he meant.
Mark, my apologies.
And, it should be an object lesson to everyone (yes, including me). Words have meaning, and so do structure and punctuation. If you want to be understood, then make an effort to be understandable.
Lots to respond to here...I will take them one at a time.
"Again, why is it Bush's (or hell Nagin or Blanco's for that matter) responsibility to ensure I can survive a storm?"
This is a very good point. To a certain extent I agree with it. If more people took responsibility in their lives, there would, in fact, be less need for government. That would be a good thing.
But there will always be people who need help. That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes. We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence.
Mark: That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes. We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence.
Nice sentiment.
Since in real life, it doesn't work that way, what then?
I doubt you're being merely facetious - you do know that mere incompetence is rarely enough to terminate someone's government employment? (Bloody hell, I've seen Federal Employess not be fired for looking at porn 6 hours a day.)
(Again, you're in a fantasy, "Oh, if it only were like this" world, and we're trying to talk about the real world. As much as we keep trying to extend you courtesy, and stretch to your view, you're not doing the same in reverse.)
Ah. Mark, how many murders occurred at the Superdome? How many rapes? Be specific in your answers.
According to official reports, 0 in each category. According to my friends who were there, 0 people were murdered, 1 women was raped, and multiple people were assaluted. In addtion, 1 person killed themselves and an elderly woman died from lack of care.
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here, Unix...that conditions in the Superdome were akin to the Hilton?....but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them.
Lab, all parties are equally to blame. I understand fully and accept how corrupt and criminal New Orleans is and have never said that Nagin and Blanco were faultless. They were awful. So was President Bush, by his own admission. Deal with it.
....but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them - Mark
So there still thousands of people in the Superdome and Convention Center in New Orleans? The Levees and floodwalls are still breached? The water has not been pumped out of the low lying areas? Really and truly?
While I despise New Orleans for the crime, corruption, and insane drivers, I have been there several times since the storm. I have not seen huge starving crowds at the Dome, or vast bodies of water with houses sticking up out of them. And I think that the news media would mention the refugees that wandered onto the field during the Saints' game. Don't you?
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here,
Believe us, Mark, we know. We KNOW you don't know.
but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them.
No one? They were in the superdome by themselves? Fending for their own? There was no one there at least trying to help them? What were they eating, by the way? Where were they getting water? Why were they at the Superdome?
The point is, Mark, is according to reports, that we now know to be false that there were hundreds of murders and gang-rapes all over the Superdome. The Army's relief convoy - in which space was a premium! sent 3 refrigerated morgue trucks because of those reports.
And then you said I "can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying."
But it turns out that the media was lying! (And how do you not know that and use that line in this discussion?)
And what your saying "happened during Katrina" doesn't match up with the after-action reports. I'm not saying things were great - they never are after something like a hurricane. (Ever... been through a hurricane, Mark? Do you have any idea of what's normal? (And that's aside from the fact that the situation only luckily was due to Katrina. Yes, Luckily. Because it's not impossible for those levees to breach - again - without the NG being set up, or the Navy on the way, or the Coast Guard already sortieing))
But - you've not changed your storyline, your opinion, your viewpoint, since those discredited rape and murder stories were the talk of the day.
Now, as for "no one helped them", again, Mark, that's bullshit.
They might not have had a bed in the Hilton. They might not have had running water, it might have been a shitty place to be.
But dammit, Mark, what was the alternative?
Real world. No magic allowed. No Star Trek Transporters or other technology. No Time Travel. What could the National Guard have done differently, given the real world constraints.
Mark: So, when my friend's daughter saw someone jump to their death, it wasn't a fact but just an opinion? It was only her perception of what happened?
It is an attributable fact.
(Is it true you're a teacher? What do you teach? Nah, strike that, there's no way I can't be boggled that you grade students and then fail here.)
You can relate that observation, if you can trust that person's observations, and if the people you're talking to can, as well. It's not just your estimation, but theirs that matters here.
This isn't an attack on the daughter, but to use this for instance, I don't know if she's prone to hysteria. Or had glasses she wasn't wearing. So if you say "Sally said someone just fell out of the 2nd balcony", that's a lot more reliable, and usable, than "People are jumping to their deaths all over the place!", or even (the story I heard originally), was that Gangs were tossing people off of the upper deck.
But that's a far, far, far cry from what you'd have us believe, that "No one" was assisting your friends. By the way, who policed up the body?
"Ever... been through a hurricane, Mark? Do you have any idea of what's normal?"
No, but most of my family lives in Missouri. I was born there and I, like DJ, have been through several tornados.
"Real world. No magic allowed. No Star Trek Transporters or other technology. No Time Travel. What could the National Guard have done differently, given the real world constraints."
Quick point about Star Trek before I answer your question. I know I've been chided about living in the fantasy land of Star Trek...it will never happen here etc...but if you look at the old show, some of things they enviosned have come true. Computer storage discs, cell phones (communicators), and even phasers. Could it be that food replicators and (gasp!) the elmination of currency could be next?
Alright, onto your question about the National Guard.
The coordination of National Guard units outside of the area should have been done sooner. On Friday Aug 26th, when the affected governors requested assistance from the DOD, I would've begun coordination on this day. Remember, the NHC declared Katrina a 2 at that point with the possibility of going to a 4.
The Governors asked again the DOD for help again on Sat Aug 27th and again on Sunday the 28th, which finally started some mobilization. Overall, there was a real lack of urgency which, had I been in charge, would not have been the case.
If you notice, since that time, federal response has improved dramtically, although there are still complaints about lack of National Guard troops in states to assist with natural disaster.
"someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts"
Quote the whole statement, Mark. I stated:
"You base your view on someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts."
which is demonstrably true. Your own statement about it was:
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
Their observations are second-hand to you and not demonstrable to us or anyone else as being factual. True or false, they are only the stories of two people. I pass no judgment on them, I simply point out that theirs is a microscopic view of a huge event. Basing your view on them, which you have stated explicitly that you do, is myopic in the extreme.
The central question of this discussion is not what happened inside the Superdome, rather it is why a large number of people were stranded there at all. It was because they were not evacuated, which was because the local gubmint of New Orleans and the state gubmint of Louisiana did a piss-poor job of preparing for an impending disaster. It was their responsibility, not the feddle gubmint's and not the President's.
"If more people took responsibility in their lives, there would, in fact, be less need for government. That would be a good thing."
Damned right.
"But there will always be people who need help. That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes."
That's a very slippery slope, Mark, one that those on the left side of the aisle have been pushing the country down for most of the last half-century. Some do so for ideological reasons (good comes from the gubmint, not from free enterprise), and some do so for political reasons (benefits buy votes). The net effect is that people take less responsibility for their own needs and look to the gubmint to fulfill them. In short, it breeds dependence on gubmint, it breeds parasitism, and it breeds hatred for the economic system that generates wealth and makes paying taxes possible.
Compare the responses to hurricane Katrina in the Mississippi coastal area to that in New Orleans. In the former, people stood up, buried their dead, and got busy with rebuilding their homes and their lives. That is what self-reliant people do. It wasn't "news", and so the MSM largely ignored it. In the latter, people began screaming in short order that the President didn't personally supervise cleaning up the mess and rebuilding everything, all at no cost to them, and all within weeks, if not days. They looked immediately to the gubmint, and I mean all the way to the top of the gubmint, with the demand that someone come and make it all better. Two years later, many were still living in gubmint-paid hotels in Oklahoma and Texas, still complaining that no one had cleaned up their houses so they could move home. Yes, really; I watched the interviews.
"We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence."
Welcome to reality, Mark. We don't "hire" gubmint, we "elect" gubmint, which then sets its own rules, in its interest, not ours. The people who actually do the work, the "public servants" as they are called, are nearly immune from disciplinary action of any kind by the gubmint, and totally immune to such action by those of us who actually pay their salaries.
So, it matters who we elect to office. If we elect people who like dependence on gubmint, we'll get more of it. Fostering more dependence on gubmint is the central tenet of the Dimocrat Party.
Yes, it's true. And isn't that a good thing? Don't I fit neatly into the model that all teachers are blinded by anti-American rage, paranoia, and co-opted by Communist forces bent on the destruction of everything that is good and wholeome about America?
Not "help was slow in coming", or "help was slow and insufficient". You said no one helped them. Was that hyperbole? Or do you use absolute statements like that all the time?
In any respect, I have better things to do than try to understand your twisted little world view. You believe what you want, regardless of evidence. A classic leftist.
DJ, Unix, Kevin, and company, I do not know how you trudge through that dreck, but you have far, far more patience than I.
"because the local gubmint of New Orleans and the state gubmint of Louisiana did a piss-poor job of preparing for an impending disaster."
True, but so did the federal government. It IS their repsonsibility, DJ. This was a disaster of extraordinary magnitude. Even if the local government was perfect, the feds needed to be there.
Again, President Bush has admitted how poor of a job was done and taken responsibility. Why can't you?
As to the rest, I pulled this quote off of Wikipedia and I think it is apporpiate here. It rings true for me as a Minnsotan (re: 35W bridge collapse) as well.
"While condemnation of the government response to Katrina has centered on specific failures detailed above, significant criticism has also identified political conservatism as the overriding cause of problems in the way the disaster was handled. These critics argue that the alleged unreadiness of the United States National Guard, negligence of federal authorities, and haplessness of officials such as Michael Brown did not represent inherent incompetence on the part of the federal authorities.
Instead, these failures are seen as natural and deliberate consequences of the conservative ruling philosophy embraced by the George W. Bush administration, especially conservative policies to force reductions in government expenditure, privatize key government responsibilities such as disaster preparedness, and prioritize military spending over spending at home.
These critics also target what is perceived as the failed reconstruction effort in New Orleans, claiming that it represents another political success for "sink or swim" ideology: a "government-subsidized gentrification plan" intended to eliminate what the neoconservative news magazine The Weekly Standard has called "the community that appalled the rest of America when wall-to-wall television coverage of Katrina showed us just what it looked like: poor, black, with astonishingly high unemployment and welfare dependency rates."
Arguments targeting the role of conservatism in these aspects of the Katrina response cite examples such as the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the more than US$150 million Homeland Security awarded in contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater USA for services in the disaster, and statements such as those by U.S. Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson that “only the best residents should return" to the reconstructed city of New Orleans."
Ah yes. Wikipedia - the ultimate in accuracy. No chance of opinions masquerading as facts there, nosiree.
Try again Mark. The failure is with you. You want the poor and downtrodden dependent on the Government so you can enslave them, thus ensuring votes for all liberal causes.
Me? I want them to do like I do and fend for themselves. If they weren't so reliant on Uncle Sam, they'd have done much better. But keep blaming Bush, it's working so well for you.
"So why are you defending Bush? Can't you admit he's wrong?"
Because he's not. He was actually a man about the whole thing. Rather than blame someone else for the problems, he took responsibility for the mistakes he made. If he did this more often with the other mistakes he has made, I might have more respect for him.
Robb, I did not intend the quote from Wikipedia to be fact, it was a simple observation which I think to be true to a certain extent.
"your twisted little world view. You believe what you want, regardless of evidence. A classic leftist."
In a word, no. No, sir. What we see here is classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black. Never admit fault, never back down, never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious. And, most importantly, deflect any criticism by mis-characterizing your opponent as having reality comprehension issues which you, in fact, have.
Rather than blame someone else for the problems, he took responsibility for the mistakes he made.
I realize that Bush apologised. And then asked for - and recieved huge amounts of money and power and increased the size of government.
(Remember how you in another thread, kept saying we defend Bush and can't say when he's wrong? Here we are! Disagreeing! Now you still sterotype us and refuse to admit it refutes your prior claims!)
Well, Mark, I understand totally why he - who believes in larger government - "Admitted fault". Have you ever heard of B'rer Rabbit?
But we get back again to what "mistakes" did he make?. For instance, you claimed the DoD wasn't "Activated" until 8 days after "landfall" (nevermind that wasn't the problem). But there was a Navy Task Force off the coast 18 hours later. So, either he waited 8 days, or the Navy Task Group wasn't there.
And why are those the first times it's been a problem in 6 years, including 15 or so hurricanes (Three in Florida in 1 year!)?
classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black.
Mark, "neo-conservatism" is what Bush practices. To you it's what you use as a unthinking insult.
never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious.
*cough*.
How many rapes and murders occurred at the Superdome, Mark? It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying.
How many rapes and murders were reported by the media?
How does that affect your statement?
And please defend your statement that but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them., based on your friends.
Did no one help your friends? At all?
Arguments targeting the role of conservatism in these aspects of the Katrina response cite examples such as the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
It's not worth it to point out to you how ludicrious that is.
Failed rebuilding effort?
Mark, we've now exceeded the inflation adjusted cost of the Marshall plan just in New Orleans. If it's "failed", it's not the federal government's fault.
But, no, again you've got the locked-in-oxymoronic and unarguable that the Government is filled with incompetents who waste money - so give them more money and power.
"DJ, Unix, Kevin, and company, I do not know how you trudge through that dreck, but you have far, far more patience than I."
And Kevin, our long-suffering host, has far more than we.
"... but so did the federal government. It IS their repsonsibility, DJ."
NO, Mark, responding to hurricane-caused disasters is NOT the responsibility of the Feddle Gubmint.
It should help if it can, sure, but it should help because it is the feddle gubmint's responsibility, NO.
If you continue to think otherwise, then kindly quote the Articles and Sections of the Constitution that say it is, or show why the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution do not apply. Details, Mark, I want details, and rational, logical thinking.
Ah, what am I thinking? The lottery is a better bet.
"Again, President Bush has admitted how poor of a job was done and taken responsibility. Why can't you?"
Because I don't buy into the notion that the Head Guy What's In Charge is personally responsible for every failure of every subordinate who reports to him, even if he stands before a microphone and accepts such responsibility. If every CEO were held responsible personally for every failure of every subordinate who reports to him, and (as many Dimocrats have screamed about President Bush) ought to be canned therefore, then every CEO of every corporation and every gubmint entity ought to be canned and replaced daily.
Is he responsible for appointing Secretary Brown? Certainly. Is he personally responsible for the failures of Secretary Brown? No, not at all. Is he personally responsible for the failures of those who report to Secretary Brown? No, not at all. To say otherwise is to say that the President should have personally performed the jobs of the Secretary and of those who report to the Secretary, or at minimum should have personally supervised every goddamned thing they did, all the time to make sure they did it and did it right.
No, as I've explained to you before, I believe in delegation of authority, which necessarily entails delegation of responsibility. I don't hold President Bush personally responsible for any failure of the Feddle Gubmint in responding to hurricane Katrina, and I would make that statement no matter who the President is.
As a simple illustration, consider a real scenario, as in "been there, done that." If I go to the local tag agency to renew my driver's license and the clerk (who is a gubmint employee) screws something up, do I blame the Gubnor (whom the license agent reports to) personally for the screwup and call for his resignation? No, I get pissed at the agent, not the Gubnor, because I know the Gubnor isn't personally responsible for the screwup.
You keep repeating your statement that I quoted above as a mantra. I confess (even though I really don't think it's accurate) to a vision of you jumping up and down with your finger pointing and foam-flecked spittle flying, screaming, "See? He said so!"
Years ago, the Dimocrat Party, its followers, and the liberal left in general began using a simple tactic. They simply blame President Bush personally for everything bad that happens, everything that goes wrong, and everything that isn't just hunky dory. If you throw shit on the wall, some of it sticks, and some people will come to think of the shit and the wall as one and the same. They still use this tactic, and it is frightfully effective in no small measure due to the abyssmal stupidity of the public at large.
You buy into this in great measure, Mark. You point with apparent glee to his statement about accepting responsibility as if it validated the notion that he personally screwed things up, and that if only he had done better, then everyone else would have done better, too, and there wouldn't have been screwups.
I don't buy it, and I don't for the life of me understand why anyone else does.
And I can't help but wonder how the behavior of the left will change regarding this tactic when we get a President they approve of. They blame President Bush for everything and yet they wouldn't blame President Clinton for anything. Yeah, that's hyperbole, but the comparison is that sharp.
Moreso, I've got nothing but contempt for FEMA's response to Katrina, and the Levee Breach.
So you and I agree? Not really. That's why I asked you for specifics. (As usual, you cribbed from somebody else.)
FEMA traditionally wrote checks for rebuilding stuff afterward. This was the first real time they've tried to "manage". Note how successful it was. A year before, 3 hurricanes criss-crossed Florida, and FEMA did an excellent job (under Brown!) of helping with the recovery.
But in New Orleans, a complete clusterfuck of idiocy had occurred - due to the utter failure of the lower levels of government, (not even getting into the Levee Board Corruption issues) hundreds of thousands of people were in dire need of assistance. Which, your slanders aside, they almost in totality got.
Hundreds of thousands of people were bussed around the country, fed, clothed, housed.
The reason I say the Federal Response was incredibly successful is because I've got some idea (and you don't) of how complicated Logistics is. Of how the NG and DoD stepped up to the plate, and fixed problems that the other agencies created.
Now, FEMA? Dropped the ball in a huge fucking way.
Now, Mark, the difference between your and my opinion on that? Because I was against giving FEMA the power and control in the first place. I'm more against giving them more as a result of their slavish concern with paperwork, red tape, ineffective bureaucracy.
Because Mark, no, getting on the phone and yelling doesn't fix a mindset so broken that they're forcing EMT's into sexual harassment classes for 2 days before deploying them to disaster areas. Nor do I blame Bush directly for that, other than he should have cleaned that whole morass out - but it's a damn near impossible task given civil service protections.
The same protections you support.
So, I'm unhappy with the FEMA response. You... Just.. blame Bush.
Note I disagree with Bush on almost everything involved here. But I also understand reality, and what's realistic.
I couldn't believe the Halliburton and Blackwater comments took that long. Well, Mark, that was in response to you, and your like-minded friends screaming about DOING SOMETHING NOW. You need something done NOW, you hire people with the infrastructure in place. That's Halliburton. Which is why Clinton no-bidded Halliburton continually through his administration. BW is newer, but if you want people on the streets...
And Mark, there's something called Posse Comitatus. It's a real problem to quite a few of your magical fixes.
So I'm strongly in disagreement with you, even though on the surface, we'd appear to be in agreement. Even though I don't "blame Bush" for the total and complete failure of government on the local level. (And I can realistically say "What was he supposed to do, arrest Nagin and Blanco? With what authority? And what about right now where the same problem exists?)
The difference is according to me, getting FEMA/the federal government out of the way, cutting their funding! Not allowing them to dictate who can assist in disaster recovery, ban people from helping, try and take over working systems... is a good thing, and the lesson to take home from the failures.
Your list of What Would Mark Have Done is largely bereft of real lessons. (You'd have yelled at people on the phone. Well, gee, Mark, I suspect you would have, which is why nobody would be moving without your say-so, and nothing would get done.) Other than that, what would you do? Scramble around before the situation is known, gesticulating wildly? (It's not a good idea.)
In a word, no. No, sir. What we see here is classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black. Never admit fault, never back down, never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious. And, most importantly, deflect any criticism by mis-characterizing your opponent as having reality comprehension issues which you, in fact, have.
*click*click*click*click*
The mag and chamber are empty and dry firing really isn't a recommended best practice.
Something nagged at my memory after my last comment, and I suddenly recalled what it was. (Two things happen as you get older; 1) your memory fails; and, 2) I forget the other one.)
The following is an excerpt from Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who served as a Military Aide to President Clinton. He was one of the carriers of the "nuclear football", the briefcase that allows the President to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
"His [President Clinton's] cynicism never ceased to astound me. In February 1998, for example, President Clinton and the staff decided to visit a tornado-ravaged area of Florida. We did an "I feel your pain" helicopter flight over and around the areas so that the president could survey the damage in which forty people were killed.
"Colonel Ron Berube, the commander of the Marine One Squadron and Presidential Marine One pilot, flew from one area of destruction to another, giving President Clinton and his senior staff a running commentary. He went to great lengths to plan the flight route and position the helicopter so that the president could get a real sense of the damage. The military aide had maps out to show the president just where they were and the extent of the devastation.
"The president, however was busy playing a game of hearts with his pals White House counsel Bruce Lindsey and press secretary Joe Lockhart. He couldn't be bothered -- not even to look out the window occasionally. When it was time to align Marine One with the press helicopter for a picture, the president quickly peered out the window, feigning an interested and grief-stricken expression. The sole reason for the trip, in his mind apparently, was for that photograph. This playacting by the president was something I never ceased to marvel at -- expecially at how effective it was with his target audience. While he made few mistakes -- like walking in with a broad smile at Ron Brown's funeral -- he almost always knew what to do to impress his audience. In that regard, he and the first lady were soul mates."
Given that, I can't help but think of two simple questions. If President Bush should have personally done something about the deteriorating and poorly designed levees in New Orleans, then, um, shouldn't President Clinton have done something about them, too? And so, why is President Bush personally to blame that they failed, but not President Clinton?
Well, a possible answer to your question is that I think that President Clinton is personally responsible for several failures during his administration. I'm not sure if disaster recover is one of them because, for the most part, he appointed people who were skilled at their jobs as opposed to some of the mindless sycophants we have had to endure these last few years.
But you will get no argument from me regarding Bill Clinton's failures in his presidency, the chief one of which was the complete failure, one four key occasions, to stem the growth of Al Qaeda. Of course, he has since admitted to how flawed his policy was during that time.
So did Bush with the Katrina recovery. He has accepted responsibility for his actions, or lack therof, and for that I respect him more.
"So did Bush with the Katrina recovery. He has accepted responsibility for his actions, or lack therof, and for that I respect him more."
It is an action that is straight out of Management 101. Don't forget that he has a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard.
The rules are simple: 1) Don't upbraid a subordinate in the presence of his subordinates, as it destroys his effectiveness and his authority in their eyes; 2) Don't upbraid a subordinate in public, as it is not the public's business; and, 3) Take responsibility, publicly if necessary, for the failures of those whom you lead, as doing otherwise destroys your credibility and effectiveness in their eyes. It is ordinary politeness, and has very little real significance, but it is part and parcel of leadership, and organizations of any kind don't function effectively if these rules are not followed.
Consider applying it otherwise. If President Bush is to blame for the failures of the levee walls in New Orleans, as some have claimed he is, then President Clinton is even more to blame, as he had eight years to fix them while President Bush had less than four.
It becomes very preposterous in short order, doesn't it?
To hold that the President is responsible for everything that goes wrong is to state that the President is supposed to make everything happen properly. To paraphrase Kevin, must he do everything?
No, and blaming him for everything that goes wrong is nothing more than throwing shit on the wall.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/journalistic-integrity.html (90 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I remember having to keep a journal in high school English all about my feelings and my perceptions of the world around me.
I also remember having to write reports in History class, all full of dates and names and facts.
We need reporters, not journalists.
OT. Have you noticed all the calls for gun control in the aftermath of the Crandon, WI massacre by the cop? "Disarm the cops" said one sign. "No guns for government" said another. Any body else see that? No?
Kevin (and all), if any of you have Direct TV, I highly recommend watching Ch. 375 (Link TV). They have a news from the Middle East show called Mosaic that airs three or four times a day. The bias between Israeli news and Iranian news is shocking and sometimes outright hilarious. Check it out...love the stories Syria as well!!
Of course, you compare it to our media and you really get sick because everything is so spun beyond recognition here that it's hard to see what the truth is and I am really not convinced that the blogsphere helps. Huffington Post sends out "daily briefs" to people. It isn't news...it's their slant. The right has their daily briefs as well.
Where is the truth? Perhaps there is none.
>>Where is the truth? Perhaps there is none.
One of the burden of being an autonomous sentient being is to evaluate input to determine its truth value.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
Ah, but I don't forget what I know. Thus, I have damned little respect for those who write as Michael Crichton describes. This is the first time I have seen this statement of his, but I have been making the same complaint for about four decades.
"Where is the truth? Perhaps there is none."
Sure there is, Mark. The truth remains the truth, regardless of what people think, and regardless of what people write. The difficulty is digging it out of the tremendous volume of non-truth. The problem is the lack of willingness to exert the required effort.
"... and I am really not convinced that the blogsphere helps."
I am convinced that the blogosphere is one of the few things that does help. The key to combatting non-truth is fact checking, and the blogosphere has made fact checking perhaps four orders of magnitude easier and faster than it was before the dawn of the internet.
I recall, with a curious mix of pleasure and horror, the research I did using the library at university. It was well run, well organized, and had over a million volumes on the shelves.
Golly. A million volumes. All paper. Indexed and cross-referenced by cards, in file drawers.
What took days then, if it was possible at all, takes minutes now, with access to a planetful of information. Re-checking the facts, by anyone else, is even easier and faster.
The solution is reverence for facts and for the truth that can be gleaned from the facts. For most people, spin is more interesting and requires less thought, and most people are driven to spin by abhorrence for the intolerable labor of thought. So, spin wins.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
Astute diagnosis, Doctor Geek. Very astute.
Seriously accepting the "no truth"/"relative truth" proposition is the sign of a broken memetic immune system, and indicates an entity ripe for cognitive takeover.
Hasn't it already happened? What's the cure?
Regardless, however, we're stuck depending on the legacy media to do the leg work, and most of them don't.
And therein lies the greatest weakness of the blogosphere.
The vast majority of bloggers, myself included, are at best armchair reporters, relying on other sources of information. Rarely do we go for primary sources, a critical piece in reporting, mostly because of time and money constraints.
While those 'journalists' are paid to get the primary source information, and yet have the darnedest time reporting the facts.
But still, it's better than before!
Mark: "Where is the truth? Perhaps there is none."
DJ: "Sure there is, Mark. The truth remains the truth, regardless of what people think, and regardless of what people write. The difficulty is digging it out of the tremendous volume of non-truth. The problem is the lack of willingness to exert the required effort."
AMEN!
I've known that the "killing" of Al-Dura was faked for a long time. I didn't find the original video which demonstrated the fakery to me, but I did find two excellent similar videos. The first one directly addresses the video which was used as an excuse for more violence by the jihadis. The second one is a general treatment of how Palestinians stage these videos, including several examples of how scenes were staged the same day that the Al-Dura scene was staged.
Bottom line: the staging of Al-Dura's supposed murder by the Israelies was done better than most of the staged "incidents" on that day. Even so, there is no doubt in my mind that it actually was staged.
DJ, good points but consider this statement.
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
I don't think there is any non truth to the statement above and requires no digging at all. Do you?
I take this statement as being the truth. There is no doubt in my mind that this would happen. It is reality. Now, I would imagine there are hundreds of millions of people who do not think this true and, in fact, would describe it as propaganda. Are these people all Palestinians? No. Are they all stupid? Maybe but are they seeing something that I am not?--never having been to Israel and going only on what my Jewish friends have said, one of who served in the army.
Two quick points -
Sitting at the Atlanta Airport on Monday, I was beaten senseless with all the CNN news casts.
Regardless of the story, it was told quite literally breathlessly. The vapid blonde on the screen spoke as if she had just finished a sprint.
All the pictures were flashy closeups of some item from a crime scene showed over and over and over.
You couldn't tell what was happening, but you could tell it was bad.
The same thing happened with Iraq coverage. Only shots of bloody soldiers, explosions, menacing music, screen text reading "The Ongoing Struggle In Iraq", even though the story was about how violence had decreased.
The manipulation goes well beyond words and is woven into a hypnotic visual and sound-byte system that attempts to prevent you from thinking too much about what you're hearing. I tell you, it puts George Bergeron’s headphones to shame (bonus points to the first person to get the reference).
Second tid bit. My aunt is an ER nurse and we were talking last week. She said that one of the oddest things she had to to was remove an Atlanta Journal and Constitution from a man's nether region.
Said that was about all the AJC was good for anyway.
I got it, but I had to look it up.
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
I don't think there is any non truth to the statement above and requires no digging at all. Do you?
I think this statement does require digging. Here's why:
By itself, this statement is nothing more than a mere assertion. It's a truth claim, but without evidence, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not this statement is actually true.
Any assertion requires more digging to determine whether or not the evidence actually supports the assertion. If the evidence does support the assertion, then you can honestly reach the conclusion that the statement is true. If the evidence contradicts the assertion, then it's legitimate to conclude that the statement is false. If no evidence at all is found, then the statement is nothing more than an assertion which at best, might be true, but unless otherwise proven, deserves to be treated with suspicion.
In this case, I am well aware of what Palestinian children are taught, how often Palestinians are lied to (see the Pallywood video I referred to above), and the constant drumbeat within the Arab nations and Islam to push Israel into the sea. I'm also aware of how Israel actually treats Arabs (both good and bad) and the discussions and restraints shown by Israel. Because of this evidence, I accept that statement as true. That evidence -- especially knowledge of the propaganda involved -- also explains why some people refuse to accept the truth of that statement.
In short, it is the evidence which demonstrates the truthfulness of a statement, not how well it aligns with our chosen beliefs. Further digging is always required. Whether that digging occurs before or after a statement is made is far less important.
Yes, Ed, very true and well written..although I would add one thing to your comments...
"the discussions and restraints shown by Israel"
should be
"the discussions and INCREDIBLE restraints shown by Israel"
What I find myself wondering is how much of what we are discussing comes from the different generations of journalists in the business. The senior editors and "reporters" are all likely about the same age, and coming up they didn't have the internet available to do all that fact checking.
When those raised in the information age start to take over the senior editor positions, I wonder if legacy media will continue to act in this way? Or, what might be the better question: Will they be able to get those senior editor positions after their elders have driven their papers into the ground with their obvious dissembling?
After much thought and a desire to formulate a verbose and insightful comment, I decided against it and submit this:
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper--Thomas Jefferson
Interestingly enough, that was Joe Huffman's quote of the day on Sunday.
"If the Palestinians stop fighting, there will be peace. If the Israelis stop fighting, there will be no more Israelis."
The correct quote is:
"If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their arms, there would be no more Israel."
The author is Margo Howard, the daughter of the late Ann Landers.
I quoted this statement to you in Kevin's parlor many moons ago. I think it is the truth and have since I first read it. I stated so when I posted it.
Now, did you read what I just wrote, word for word, or did you just skim it? Did you see the most important part of it?
I wrote that I think it is the truth, not that it is the truth. Why so? Because it is not a fact, rather it is a prediction, i.e. an opinion. It may or may not have sound reasoning behind it, but no matter what that reasoning is, it is still only an opinion.
Remember my observation that opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but they seldom withstand close scrutiny?
And, do you begin to see why I have harped so long and hard on the differences between facts and opinions?
Yeah, I see your point. Unfortunetly, though, the only way to truly prove if this statement is fact or truth is one or the other of the actions mentioned happens. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the latter would happen. Been there and done that...wasn't pretty.
"Been there and done that...wasn't pretty."
Been where, and done what, exactly?
I was speaking of the Holocast, which is what would happen if Jewish people layed down their arms.
"I was speaking of the Holocast, which is what would happen if Jewish people layed down their arms."
I suspected that was what you were referring to. Your point is well taken and quite proper, but it's not that the Jews laid down their arms, it is rather that they had yet to take them up. Read on.
First, though, I suggest you proofread a bit better next time. Your words were, with a bit of emphasis to show why I asked:
"I wouldn't want to live in a world where the latter would happen. Been there and done that...wasn't pretty."
You weren't there and you didn't do that.
Mind you, I'm not trying to "pile on" here. I'm just pointing out, yet again, that words have meaning.
The coincidence is that I'm currently reading The Wall, by John Hersey. He is the editor, not the author, who is Noach Levinson, a Jew who lived through the Warsaw ghetto and the Jewish uprising therein. He was a chronicler, a person with an incurable urge to document their story. The book consists of ordered excerpts from the four million words of his handwritten notebooks over a 3 1/2 year period.
The section I just finished ended with an entry from October 1, 1942, the last sentence of which was "And now, Chavairim, what are we doing to get ready to fight the Germans?" It is the first mention of the idea among them. By that time, about 300,000 Jews had been "resettled" to Treblinka, and the Jews still in the ghetto knew of the end those 300,000 met there with the certainty of an eyewitness account. The Jews took up arms then and haven't laid them down since. One can hardly blame them.
It's an amazing story.
The Wall is a novel (i.e., a work of ficiton) by John Hersey. Might be close to the truth, but it's still a novel.
"If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their arms, there would be no more Israel."
is a prediction, but it's an opinion only in the same way that my prediction of what will happen if you jump off the top floor of the Empire State Building is an opinion. There are many times when any reasonable person who has looked at the facts doesn't have to try something to know how it will turn out.
DJ, good points.
Hey, I just read the list of 101 ways the media has lied and actually had a good laugh. Curious that list doesn't mention many right wing journalisitc lies, half truths and distortions. Well, they are all perfect, after all, and would never consider distorting reality to push a polical agenda, right?
Oh wait...just caught this one....
"criticize his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history"
LOL! You have got to be kidding me!!!
"The Wall is a novel (i.e., a work of ficiton) by John Hersey. Might be close to the truth, but it's still a novel."
Yup, it is. I learn something new every day. Hersey himself says about it elsewhere:
"The archives are fictional but the information contained in them is based on authentic records."
"for not having "conservatives" on the list. There turns out to be a good reason for that: there just aren't that many who pass the criteria for clear dishonesty in the public debate."
Hee Hee Hee. I want to thank you very much Kevin. This has put a smile on my face and deep laughs from my belly that will last all day :)
"There are many times when any reasonable person who has looked at the facts doesn't have to try something to know how it will turn out."
I agree. It is a prediction nontheless, and its probability of being true, in my opinion, exceeds 99%. That is why I stated that I think it is the truth.
Mark:
"criticize his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history"
LOL! You have got to be kidding me!!!
Why, because you can't analyze information to know that's true?
The response to New Orleans was staggeringly effective, timely, and well-ordered. It really only failed in PR, which wouldn't have mattered, because the story that was being told had been decided long before it happened. (How many rapes and murders occurred at the Superdome?)
The fact that you don't know that to be true shows that you've never done anything like that.
Nor can you look at the evidence and see what a success it was.
The failures in the New Orleans area were all local. The Governor failed to heed Bush's urgent pleas to declare an imminent disaster - without which he couldn't act legally. The Mayor neglected the written plans for evacuation.
So New Orleans had to be rescued from it's own failure. The Coast Guard (One of those Federal Agencies), FEMA had to rush to fill the failure of the local government. And did so. I know this, Mark, and I've got some appreciation for how much it took in the way of heroics to do that, to change the plans, we don't have 3 days to get ready like we were supposed to, we've got to go now.
Yes, Mark, by any reasonable standard, the administration's handling of Katrina was incredibly successful.
Except for not locking up the local and state politicians who failed in their jobs, failed to do their assigned and expected duties. That's my largest gripe with the response. Second is the PR side, but that's a lost cause. That's Bush's pragmatic side, and it's hard to argue with, given the track record of the Press Corps.
I know this won't help any, but Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures? (Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage.)
So, none of this was Bush's fault at all? It was all the local politicians Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin...
Is this where we've come to now in our culture? When you don't like something you here, you blame the liberal media or the liberal education system and then Poof! You can rationalize anything. How unbelievably warped....
Unix, I am going to start by asking you if you or anyone you knew anyone who was in New Oreleans during Katrina.
And believe me, I have plenty more to say after I hear your response regarding the Bush administration's response.
Mark,
I usually do not respond to your drivel, but in this case:
I know people who lived in New Orleans through Katrina. I have relatives who live in Metarie, a suburb which did not suffer much flooding damage - few inches of water. Why? Because where they live people built up the swamps they had drained before putting houses on them. Some they did not do in the 9th Ward. Is that Bush's fault? Those houses were built in the 60s. Blame the Democrat governors and Presidents, Mark, if you feel that the executive branch was lax.
I know state officials and National Guardsmen who were involved in the efforts to evacuate New Orlenas.
None of them have any glowing reviews of the Feds as a group. But they have even less good to say about the local government of New Orleans or Babblin' Blanco. Did the Feds act as fast as was human possible? No. But in many cases they acted as fact as was bureaucratically possible.
I live in South Louisiana, Mark. I was here for Katrina. I remember watching "Choclate City" Nagin issue the evacuation order: Sunday morning about 12 hours before the tropical force winds arrived. Is it Bush's fault that he did not follow his city's emergency plan, because it might cause panic? Did Bush leave all those school buses to flood? Why did Nagin allow the last Amtrak train to leave empty except for the company's employees and their families?
Blanco did not issue the emergency order Sunday mroning. I have heard that the Feds sent her letter back because the wording was not correct. Some find this unforgivable on the part of the Feds. I find it unforegivable on the part of a woman who uses my tax dollars to employ thousands of laywers, and cannot get a legal document correct.
Mark:
Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin...
I know that's not just the rhetorical device you think it is.
When you don't like something you here, you blame the liberal media or the liberal education system
Mark: I asked you a specific question if you felt the need to reply. Before you insult too many people and their education, prove you can comprehend basic reading. Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures? (Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage.)
I notice you didn't actually address specifics. Because when you address those, you find that, golly, almost none of the deficiencies were in areas the feds were supposed to, or legally able to address. So as long as you can keep it vague, non-specific, and emotional, you can feel superior.
But when actual examples are demanded.. "Good god, you can't be serious!"
Yes, I am.
if you or anyone you knew anyone who was in New Oreleans during Katrina.
Technically no.
All of my friends, (including one of my former best friends), and a one of my wife's best friends got out prior to Katrina landfall. I know quite a few people who live in New Orleans, if that's what you're asking. And we can discuss the clusterfuck that is FEMA and the rebuilding. But as for anybody who was in NO? No.
(http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com/2006/06/03/)
(Of course, the metadiscussion comes right back with your denunciation of Federal Response - here I laud it, and you deride it, then you insist on giving those same people (that you insist can't do anything right) more money and power!)
How unbelievably warped....
Mark: How many Hurricane Task Forces have you served on? Personally, I've served (got volunteered for) on 3. Just, you know, so we can compare experiences and expectations.
Now, as I already asked you once: What specifically are you complaining about?
Eric:
Blanco did not issue the emergency order Sunday mroning. I have heard that the Feds sent her letter back because the wording was not correct. Some find this unforgivable on the part of the Feds. I find it unforegivable on the part of a woman who uses my tax dollars to employ thousands of laywers, and cannot get a legal document correct.
Given that she's waited until it was too late for the Feds to help until after landfall - makes perfect sense to me. I doubt Mark will understand why you'd reject something done wrong, especially when later it would be used to blame you, not the procrastinator.
(And Mark gets upset about 7 minutes 9/11/01.)
But that's the lovely part of Mark's worldview. If you follow the law, the rules, when "of COURSE" you shouldn't have, you're wrong! Don't follow the rules, and have a negative effect, no matter your intent or rationale, and WHAT WERE YOU THINKING! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!"
Heck, turn out to be right, and they'll ignore you.
"And believe me, I have plenty more to say after I hear your response regarding the Bush administration's response."
Mark, why don't you begin by answer his questions, instead of doing your usual, which is to ignore what you are asked and then ask questions of your own? Once again, you take your usual stance, namely that you cannot be called on to explain an answer that you do not provide, so you just don't provide any.
Will you ever learn?
"So, none of this was Bush's fault at all?"
Yes, you blithering, unthinking idiot, none of the feddle gubmint's response to hurricane Katrina was President Bush's fault.
"It was all the local politicians Good God, Unix. I don't even know where to begin..."
You are absolutely correct on two different levels:
1) The failures were the fault of the locals, primarily the local politicians.
2) You don't even know where to begin. You haven't got a fucking clue.
So, I'll help you.
Let's follow a simple train of rational thought, using you as the subject. Think and reason as if you are a typical citizen of New Orleans, at risk, in peril, and in need of help.
Ready?
You live in New Orleans, a city near the coast, a city sandwiched between a big river and a lake, a city that largely lies below the level of the ocean and the lake. It's a risky place to live. A whopping big hurricane, hitting it with a bullseye, could utterly reclaim it for Mother Nature in just a few hours.
Hurricanes happen. If a hurricane is going to hit your fair city, you need to be warned, right? Perhaps if you were warned early enough, you could save your miserable ass and live to tell about it.
Well, a hurricane happened. I watched on TV for days as it grew and grew into a monster, a category 5 meat grinder. You saw it too, didn't you? You watched the warnings, and ignored them as usual.
Then, three day before the hurricane made landfall, President Bush went on national television and pleaded with Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation of New Orleans. You see, he doesn't have the authority to order an evacuation, and he doesn't have the authority to tell Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation. All he had the authority to do was to ask the Mayor of New Orleans to his job.
THREE FUCKING DAYS BEFORE LANDFALL, DUDE.
Beats me what Mayor Nagin did, or what Gubnor Blanko did, but neither one ordered an evacuation until twelve hours before landfall. What these two incompetent local politicians did was generate panic in some and gridlock in all. Some got out, some couldn't get out. Most importantly, the local resources that these local politicians should have ordered into use were left to drown along with those they should have been used to save.
Now, let's get back to you, shall we?
You're sitting in your living room, watching the TV that showed the warnings you ignored, when suddenly you realize that, by golly, this fuckin' storm is coming right at you! Uh, lessee now, you gotta DO SOMETHING! You gotta get out, or get to high ground, or SOMETHING!
Yeah, but how? You have no automobile, you use the bus. Ain't no busses today.
OK, the telephone works. Call for help.
CALL WHO?
Now, we're at the nub of the situation, aren't we? You need help, you can't help yourself, you wanna get your ass saved, and all you have is a telephone.
WHO DO YOU CALL FOR HELP?
How about the local police? Nope. How about the local fire department? Nope. How about the local ambulance service? Nope. How about the Mayor? Nope. How about the Gubnor? Nope.
Ahah! Finally, you decide that you should call the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Yeah, that's it! A disaster happens, and it's the President's JOB to get on the phone and make a gazillion calls to organize busses and ladder trucks and canoes and helicopters and Hollywood celebrities to save my miserable ass, and if I don't get saved IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FAILURE THAT CAUSED IT!
Now, Mark, can you begin thinking from there, backtrack to a point of rationality and start anew, or do you still not understand how utterly fucking twisted it is to blame the President of the United States personally for everything that goes wrong during a hurricane and its aftermath?
And then will you be so kind and considerate as to answer Jedi's question to you?
This should be another fascinating example of the derailment of Markadelphia's logic train, followed by a National Traffic Safety Board analysis of the incident.
Followed by Markadelphia still blaming everything on George W. Bush and the Feddle Gubmint.
This is really getting to be repetitive.
Murray Gell-Man Amnesia effect? You be the judge!
Kevin:
Murray Gell-Man Amnesia effect? You be the judge!
I was saving my comment on exactly that point for my response... Well, presuming Mark has some specifics for me.
Followed by Markadelphia still blaming everything on George W. Bush and the Feddle Gubmint.
And insisting that if, IF, we can JUST get the "right people" into place, eventually that it will justify the huge amount diverted from taxes, from growth, from productivity. (While denouncing "Corporate Imperialism", and ignoring that the single biggest relief effort after Katrina and the levee failure was run by Wal-Mart. (Inc.))
Part One
Unix (et all), I am going to answer your (framed) question, most assuredly, but if you'll indulge me, I need to wade through the swamp of unreality that was your first post.
I am going to begin with the story of Mary and Sara (not their real names).
Mary is a friend of mine, from MN, who took her daughter Sara to NO for a cheerleading competition (not their real names). When Katrina hit, they were stuck there. They went to the Superdome with thousands of others. The next three days of their lives can only be descrived as horrific. They saw people get attacked and beat up. They had no food and barely any water. They went to sleep on the nights they were there to people screaming. One morning they woke up and a person, down the hall from where they were squatting, had died. Sara also witnessed the person jump to their death from the upper deck. Not a pleasant thing for a 14 year old girl to see.
I went over to her house about three days after she got back to check in on her. She looked like she had been in war zone. To this day, she looks upon people like yourself, Unix, with shock and amazement.
This was a complete and utter failure of government at every level. There is no doubt in my mind that Nagin and Blanco were at fault. But so was the Bush Administration. In a moment of rare humility, I recall President Bush standing up and taking responsibility for the lack of response by the federal government calling it "poor." Even he is not excusing himself, Unix, so I don't understand why you are.
Part Two
These are my sources for this section
http://www.katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/execsummary.pdf
The summary:
1. The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government that significantly undermined and detracted from the heroic efforts of first responders, private individuals and organizations, faith-based groups, and others.
2. The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative.
3. The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond more effectively to Katrina — which had been predicted in theory for many years, and forecast with startling accuracy for five days — demonstrates that whatever improvements have been made to our capacity to respond to natural or man-made disasters, four and half years after 9/11, we are still not fully prepared. Local first responders were largely overwhelmed and unable to perform their duties, and the National Response Plan did not adequately provide a way for federal assets to quickly supplement or, if necessary, supplant first responders.
Mark:
(This isn't really directed at you, you understand, because I know you can't understand.)
Notice how we all predicted you were not going to use facts? Facts aren't framing, they're asking you, specifically, what's your problem.
Yesterday, there was a hellacious problem in my department. We had a meeting, because our backups are slow, and our networking guy said "Well, we're not hitting more than 40% port utilization, so the network is fine". To which I said "Uh, BUHWHA? If we're only getting 40%, then we've got a big problem." After a lot of very bad feelings and grumbling, during the investigation we find out that the new software doesn't do historical trends, so that 40% was only for the 5 minutes he was looking (during the day, no backups). OKAY. Now he's upset at me, and I've had to point out, that we'd have not had a problem, had he told me what he knew and where it was based on. But based on what he was saying, standing by, and insisting was right, I knew he was wrong. Had he been able to say even "I don't know what the port utilization is", it wouldn't have gotten me to - I had to - call into question his ability. Because when I have 5 servers sending backups down Gig Ether pipes, and the 1 server they're sending to reportedly isn't getting maxed out on the network......
Same thing with you. If you give the facts as you know them, then they're addressable. Then you get to come to consensus on what the facts are. If you and I are arguing over how many Sqeebs are getting Sleeq. And your numbers are coming from the Knights who say "Ni!", and mine are coming from the Undertakers of the Living, then we can try and figure out why there might be a difference in the numbers.
Even he is not excusing himself, Unix, so I don't understand why you are.
You're not really married, are you?
Mark:
And.. your... specific.. complaint(s)... are what?
The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government
And.. your... specific.. complaint(s)... are what?
The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative.
And.. your... specific.. complaint(s)... are what?
The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond
And.. your... specific.. complaint(s)... are what?
Interesting. I live in a hurricane zone (Central Florida).I keep 15 gallons of drinkable water around at all times. I have a pantry stocked with sealed, non-perishable foods. I have plenty of ammunition and firearms that can withstand harsh weather in order to fend off those who might harm us. And I've studied how to survive if everything gets wiped out.
And I have a 5 & a 2 year old to boot.
Now, Mark, tell me - how does the government fit into this?
Sorry, but while I'll pour out cash like I'm loaded to help out, you're not going to get sympathy from me in the form of allowing the government more power.
The fault is more at the feet of people like you, Mark. You've helped create a society that depends so strongly on others to survive that when those others don't show up, they suffer. There is nothing wrong with self reliance (well, except that it takes power away from authoritarians). There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible for themselves. We're a generous nation of plenty, and we will help when things get down (we did for Katrina, in spades) and we don't need Uncle Sam to provide every little thing for us.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Nagin and Blanco were at fault. But so was the Bush Administration."
Then why do you seem to consistently lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet? Especially when Nagin and Blanco are legally required to act first?
Mark,
Why didn't your friends leave when they knew a major hurricane was coming?
Same old shit, Mark, different day.
No, you spilled a lot of ink but you did not answer Jedi's question. You simply offered generalizations that you read somewhere else:
"1. The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government that significantly undermined and detracted from the heroic efforts of first responders, private individuals and organizations, faith-based groups, and others.
"2. The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative."
Here it his again, emphasized for your poor reading comprehension skills:
"Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures?"
Your response explains nothing and provides no specifics. Yet again, it's just someone else's opinions.
You have blamed the President of the United States for personal failures in the federal response to hurricane Katrina. My questions to you about that are:
1) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President do that you think he should not have done?
2) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President not do that you think he should have done?
3) Regarding the response of the feddle gubmint to hurricane Katrina, what specifically did the President do that you think he should have done but done better?
Recall, teacher, that we live in a federal republic, not a democracy, and not a monarchy. So, in all answers, please give details and please quote the specific articles and sections of the Constitution which give the President of the United States the authority and responsibility to do what you think he should have done.
Part Three
Mark: specifically, what are your complaints with the federal response to the levee failures?
My source for this part is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html
So President Bush says he was caught be surpirse at the levee failures but then we find out later that the White House did know? It seems to me they were completely out of touch with what was happening in New Oreleans and, as the report above, states failed to initialize recovery efforts in a timely fashion.
My complaint, as with other Bush Administration actions, centers around competence. Rather than hire appropiately skilled people to do the job, he hires "loyal Bushies" aka cronies who are incompetent (see Brown and Cherthoff). They weren't competent to accurately judge how to deal with the levee failures and oddly seemed lackadaisical about how serious the situation was in New Oreleans.
"Please also explain/show where these issues impacted Mississippi, you know, where Katrina actually did the damage"
Uh....what? Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one. As far as Mississippi goes, which was no doubt hit very hard, months later, thousands of people were still homeless and storm damage was piled up in the street. Where was the federal help? Why was it so slow in coming? Again, I don't think it was a simple matter of red tape. I don't think the people who are running disaster recovery in DC are competent.
Part Four,
Now, it's time to address some other comments beginning with this classic:
"President Bush went on national television and pleaded with Mayor Nagin to order an evacuation of New Orleans.”
Completely false. Here is what actually happened:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509060011
This is another example how a story can be spun to sustain a deluded belief system and, I think, an excellent nomination for #102 on how the media lies and/or deliberately falsifies information. Conidering the AT's comment on Katrina started all of this, I think it only apporpiate.
“Given that she's waited until it was too late for the Feds to help until after landfall - makes perfect sense to me.”
Also incorrect. How about a timeline grounded in reality? Filled with documented facts.
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-105
And your disputes are where exactly?
“WHAT WERE YOU THINKING! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!"
No, I'd like to wrap up my side of the debate by stating the President Bush himself has stated over and over again that the federal response to Katrina was poor. He accepted his responsibility in the failure and asked the public to "blame him." This is a good thing and it shows that can at least be a slightly reasonable man. It is for this reason, and all of the ones listed above, that I think that the statement
"his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history"
is ludicrous.
Mark:
We get closer to specifics. But you're still very vague. For someone with that much condemnation, surely you can rattle of some specific complaints?
My source for this part is here
And you point to something, and don't point out anything specific. It's good you're pointing to sources, but you're not, actually showing anything specific inside those sources.
So President Bush says he was caught be surpirse at the levee failures but then we find out later that the White House did know?
This would be (closer to) "specific" if it actually were anywhere near what that link reports. Yes, Bush said he was caught by surprise. The article basically says that the message that there was a levee breach wasn't communicated well/correctly.
OK, yes, you're right, that's a problem. Now where's the failure of the federal response? Is that the first time a message wasn't handled correctly? The US Navy and US Coast Guard were already enroute to the area to provide assistance. What, due to that miscommunication failed to occur, Mark, to prove your contention that the Bush Administration was failing at something?
Rather than hire appropriately skilled people to do the job, he hires "loyal Bushies" aka cronies who are incompetent (see Brown and Cherthoff). They weren't competent to accurately judge how to deal with the levee failures and oddly seemed lackadaisical about how serious the situation was in New Oreleans.
These would be the same cronies who were lauded for their quick response to the 2005 Hurricanes in Florida? Who had FEMA working better, instituting massive management fixes and changes in response to prior failures?
See how easy it is to parrot some lines, Mark, but when you look into the issue, it's not so clear? Yet you claim to not believe in real truth, and open-mindedness. You can claim they're unqualified.
So back it up.
Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know anything about the actual problems occurred.
Katrina's storm surge and winds were a smallish Category 1 hurricane on New Orleans. Gulfport, Miss, took the strong Cat 3 brunt. (Notice the lack of humanitarian disaster there.)
The Levees, built at a cost of many billions of dollars, and controlled by local levee boards, were supposed to handle a Cat 3 hurricane. (Note also, Katrina was a Cat 4+ - almost to a 5 at one point, less than 4 days to landfall, and the locals, knowing the Levee's weren't built to take that STILL didn't order the evacuation to begin.)
The levees failed, Mark. Katrina didn't knock 'em down, they failed at a load under their design capacity. A series of thunderstorms, a Tropical Storm - a Depression even! As we know now - a strong rain over a period of time was all that was needed to undermine the Levees in those places.
Katrina passed NO, and for hours, everybody was ecstatic that they'd dodged the bullet. No problems. I remember watching the Weather Channel people in NO, and talking about how there was just minor wind damage, and the Levees had held.
As far as Mississippi goes, which was no doubt hit very hard,
It was flattened! There are towns where whole neighborhoods are gone.
Why aren't you complaining about the incompetence there?
Simple, Mark. They knew that FEMA is geared up to coming in after the fact, writing checks, and assisting. Those 3 Task Forces I was on? It was widely known that we'd not see FEMA for a week after the hurricane hit. We had a FEMA rep, with a fancy satellite phone. (That didn't work.) She was there to try and figure out what we'd need. We got lucky, the hurricanes were small, not a lot of damage, nothing was really needed.
months later, thousands of people were still homeless and storm damage was piled up in the street. Where was the federal help? Why was it so slow in coming?
Mark: I'm asking this in all seriousness. Do you believe in magic?
Because it takes years to clean up and repair. Charleston, S.C. wasn't totally fixed two years after Hurricane Hugo. Because it takes a damn long time to do these things.
Again, I don't think it was a simple matter of red tape. I don't think the people who are running disaster recovery in DC are competent.
But you're willing to give them more money and power. Despite that you think they're incompetent.
Specifically, what should they have done differently?
I keep asking, you keep dodging. Are you competent enough to ask that question, to challenge them?
Specifically, Mark. What should they have done?
Unix, you want specifics, read the reports I linked.
"Then why do you seem to consistently lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet? Especially when Nagin and Blanco are legally required to act first?"
I didn't. I was respoding to the comment that Katrina was a succesful recovery operation.
"Now, Mark, tell me - how does the government fit into this?"
Robb, uh, because that's why we pay taxes. While I think, obviously, that people have to take responsibilty for themselves, we have a government that is supposed to help in times of crisis. They didn't.
"Why didn't your friends leave when they knew a major hurricane was coming?"
They tried but they couldn't find any transportation at all. Should they have walked?
What would I have done differently?
1. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
2. By not having number one going on, there would've been more National Guard troops to help out.
3. I would've begun coordinating the mobilization of the National Guard sooner then three days after landfall.
4. I would've deployed the active military sooner than 8 days after landfall.
5. I would've picked up the phone and told Chertoff and Brown to act with more urgency.
6. I would've asked FEMA to request personnel before, not after landfall.
7. I would've evacutated the Superdome immediately.
8. I would've enacted the National Response Plan before the levees breached and on the same day a state of emergency was declared.
9. I would've sent Army communications experts into the area on Day One so I could get real time information.
10. I would not have suspended Davis-Bacon worker protection.
11. I would've enacted ALL of the recomendations of the 9-11 commission, many of which would've helped somewhat with the response.
"They tried but they couldn't find any transportation at all. Should they have walked?"
When did they try?
They tried to leave on the Saturday before the hurricane hit, right away after the cheerleading competition. Everyone was trying to get out and their flight wasn't scheduled to leave until Monday afternoon, as they were going to stay and sight see on Sunday.
They were told by local authorities to stay and ride it out like everyone else who couldn't make it out. Of course, Nagin was telling everyone to leave on Sunday so it is clear that no one knew what they were doing--at any level of government.
Just caught this one:
"Katrina's storm surge and winds were a smallish Category 1 hurricane on New Orleans. Gulfport, Miss, took the strong Cat 3 brunt."
The National Hurricane Center stated that power failures in NO caused a lack of accurate wind measurements. They did conclude, however, that based on the few measurements they had that the wind force was category 1 or 2. And this went on for hours.
Mark:
Unix, you want specifics, read the reports I linked.
Bullshit. That's not being specific.
Now, you did better with the next post. (but you mostly cribbed off of the DPC. Don't you require footnotes for your students? Teach plagarism?)
1. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
What does that, other than your BDS, have to do with it? (Additionally, what if the LA NG had been stationed in Saudia Arabia and Quatar? You know, where we had about 100k in total forces for 12 years prior to 2003? Including a lot of NG and Reserve?)
2. By not having number one going on, there would've been more National Guard troops to help out.
Not for sure, as above. So you're guessing here. Maybe, maybe not. How many of the LA NG were overseas?
3. I would've begun coordinating the mobilization of the National Guard sooner then three days after landfall.
Traditionally, that's the job of the Governor of the State. Ask the DPC about that, why dontcha?
4. I would've deployed the active military sooner than 8 days after landfall.
How soon? And on what basis? Where would you have stationed them?
Remember, there was a Navy group sailing to the coast directly behind Katrina - including a hospital ship - that was in place less than a day after landfall. So... since we know the Navy was in place, the day after and had been mobilized out of Florida several days before.... What does that mean for the validity of your complaint?
5. I would've picked up the phone and told Chertoff and Brown to act with more urgency.
Faster! Faster! Harder! Harder!
With... what? 2 days after Katrina the skies were littered with Helicopters - enough to make it a hazard to put more in the area. So what should they have done? Bush should have yelled at them?
6. I would've asked FEMA to request personnel before, not after landfall.
Request personnel? What? You mean, volunteers? Before there was a known need?
7. I would've evacutated the Superdome immediately.
You and what magical dragons? That's where the evacuation point was, that's where the NG was HQ'ed, that's where the food and medical supplies were. WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE GONE, and do we need to start calling you Harry Potter?
8. I would've enacted the National Response Plan before the levees breached and on the same day a state of emergency was declared.
Really. Well, Mark, those Levees right now are in the same danger of breaching. Should we declare it a national emergency? You want the President to declare a national emergency, when the locals won't follow the law, and refuse to evacuate?
9. I would've sent Army communications experts into the area on Day One so I could get real time information.
Mark, Day One the problem was there wasn't a problem. Day two, the flooding was becoming a problem. Day 3, the problem wasn't getting real time information, it was sifting through it. There was plenty of real time info, lots of it bogus, lots of it crap.
10. I would not have suspended Davis-Bacon worker protection.
*boggle*. OK, now, you're just crazy.
First, IIRC, DB is still in effect. I know they lifted it for a short time.
Secondly, how in the bloody hell of this real world we live in can you lamblast Bush for not doing enough, then insisting that Union Wages be mandated for the recovery?
Davis-Bacon slows response. Slows rebuilding. Makes a mockery of every claim you've made against Bush. You want faster and better? Yet you'll insure higher unemployment, require massive amounts of red tape to do anything, and intrude a federal bureaucracy on the rebuilding. (My bitch is that they didn't suspect DB nationwide.)
11. I would've enacted ALL of the recomendations of the 9-11 commission, many of which would've helped somewhat with the response.
I'd ask for specifics, but no, no, you've taught me my lesson. Don't ask for what you know you won't get.
They did conclude, however, that based on the few measurements they had that the wind force was category 1 or 2. And this went on for hours.
It was a mild Cat 1, Mark. Our friends had less than $1000 worth of wind damage to their houses. The hurricane winds had nothing to do with the levee breach. That was soley due to the pressure of the water, and (a little due to the storm surge). Any heavy storm, even one without the warnings that Katrina came with, could have caused the same undermining.. It can happen right now. Today. Tomorrow. Almost all of the levees in New Orleans have the same design "Defect".
So, do you want Bush to order everyone out of New Orleans?
While I think, obviously, that people have to take responsibilty for themselves, we have a government that is supposed to help in times of crisis. They didn't.
A great number of people, Mark, worked their asses off, risked their lifes, their careers, and worked tirelessly to help. I know some of them. I know of others. Why don't you find the story of the LA NG at the Superdome, and wonder why it's not more widely told?
Remember the subject of this post? And how things are reported? Had the press been telling you about the Naval group off the coast, had they been talking about the heroic efforts of the helicopter pilots and their crews maintaining the choppers, had they talked about how much the National Guard maintained order at the Superdome, in the best of a bad situation.... (How many rapes and murders occured at the Superdome, Mark? How many journalists lost their jobs for the reporting?)
There's no magic. It takes time, and effort to move people in. Bridges aren't safe, you can't move heavy equipment over them immediately. You can't put equipment on the coast - you'll lose it to the hurricane.
But, all of that aside, Mark:
Why are you only talking about New Orleans?
Ask yourself why you're not talking about Gulfport. Or Pascgoula. Or Mobile. Biloxi. Why is all of your complaints about one local area, and what's different about that area?
(And this time, try and come up with something more original than cribbing off of the DPC?)
Ah, this is what I was looking for:
Mark:
What The Media Missed
From the Dome, the Louisiana Guard's main command ran at least 2,500 troops who rode out the storm inside the city, a dozen emergency shelters, 200-plus boats, dozens of high-water vehicles, 150 helicopters, and a triage and medical center that handled up to 5,000 patients (and delivered 7 babies). The Guard command headquarters also coordinated efforts of the police, firefighters and scores of volunteers after the storm knocked out local radio, as well as other regular military and other state Guard units.
Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited "10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves" by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one.
...
"TV of the Superdome was perplexing to most folks," Thompson said. "You had them playing the tapes of the same incidents over and over, it tends to bias your thinking some, you tend to think it's worse than it really is." Official estimates at this point suggest the Guard, working from the Dome, saved 17,000 by air and uncounted thousands more by boat.
Let's try that again: The cavalry wasn't late. It didn't arrive on Thursday smoking a cigar and cussing. It was there all along.
The National Guard's response to Katrina was even more robust than I suspected in my reporting for RealClearPolitics in September, and in more detail for National Review, where I revealed for the first time that rescue operations saved up to 50,000 lives, with perhaps an equal number making their way to shelters on their own.
Fifty thousand New Orleans residents were in danger of death from drowning, heatstroke, dehydration and disease. That was a tough one to get through the media reality-distortion field, but the numbers have since been confirmed by Congress, the White House, Louisiana state officials and the relevant agencies themselves. If anything, I understated the size of the rescue effort. What I didn't understand was the critical role the Superdome headquarters played.
Read the whole thing, Mark. It'll do you good. It even says FEMA screwed up! (And Mark? I've got a ton of problems with what FEMA has done, and is doing. But I'm appalled we've given them more money, more FTEs, more responsibility, and ordered people to answer to them But those are seperate issues, and you're having enough trouble keeping yours straight, we'll deal with them later.)
To provide a summary, Mark, the Levee breach following Katrina has a lot of lessons.
You've learned none of them. Instead, you've gone off screeching on things unrelated.
The NG in NO performed heroically. The Coast Guard, US Navy performed well above any normal sort of expectations. They adapted, modified, and overcame.
As a result of the media circus, the BDS, the automatic gainsaying of anything related to Bush (even the staffed-with-lifers Federal Bureaucracy that's easily 75% hard core Democrat), we won't learn the lessons, and improve upon what we've done.
And we'll throw out the lessons of a success story based on the screeching of people who've never even organized a Church Picnic. Much less tried to deal with the logistics of the single largest rescue effort ever undertaken... That by any reasonable measure succeeded brilliantly. (Just imagine how much of a non-story it would have been had NO actually done it's job, had competent and non-corrupt officials and politicians, and actually evacuated, where the huge effort wasn't required?)
You might want to ask your friend who had to deal with some unpleasantness, if she would have preferred to be wandering outside, without the structure and support that she took advantage of. You might want to ask yourself - considering the situation, isn't her very story, by itself, a success? She and her daughter survived, were rescued, and now are back to their normal lives, aren't they?
I find this story
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/4/151327.shtml
illuminating, to say the least. The money quotes are:
"George Bush and the federal government are not to blame for the disaster we have witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"In fact, the primary responsibility for the disaster response lies with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and other local officials.
"Yet leading Democrats and their allies in the major media are clearly using this disaster for political purposes and ignoring one obvious fact.
"This fact – which needs to be repeated and remembered – is that in our country, state and local governments have primary responsibility in dealing with local disasters.
[...]
"Let's remember that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was created only in 1979. It was formed to coordinate and focus federal response to major disasters – to "assist" local and state governments.
[...]
"First responders and the manpower to deal with emergencies come from local communities: police, fire and medical. Under our federal system, these local departments answer to local authorities, not those in Washington. These first responders are not even under federal control, nor do they have to follow federal orders.
"In addition to local responders, every state in the Union has a National Guard.
"State National Guards answer first to the governor of each state, not to the president. The National Guard exists not to defend one state from an invasion by another state, but primarily for emergencies like the one we have witnessed in New Orleans and in other areas impacted by Katrina."
There is a great deal more, so read the whole thing.
----
Now, Mark, your statement that
"Katrina didn't actually do any damage in New Orelens. You're going to have to explain that one."
leaves me shaking my head. With this statement, you have exceeded even your own record for blithering stupidity.
No, Mark, we have nothing to explain regarding this statement. You do, but as usual, you won't.
I have seen numerous videos and pictures of the Riverwalk area of New Orleans, where I've been many times. Those pictures show the damage, twenty floors up and higher, that those hotels suffered. I've been in those hotels many times and I remember what they used to look like.
They are on high ground and they suffered horrible damage from well above the level of the flood waters all the way to their roofs. Now what do you suppose caused this damage? Was it seagull shit? Kids throwing rocks? Or was it the winds of hurricane Katrina?
With this statement alone, your credibility now stands at ZERO. You couldn't get any lower if you tried. You have demonstrated thereby an utter disconnect with reality and yet another instance of just making shit up.
You keep insulting our intelligence by making such statements, Mark. You keep stating that you don't care what we think of you. I can't help but wonder why you appear to think that we care to know your thoughts about anything. Your motive escapes me.
But, keep it up, dude. You are a living, breathing stereotype. Your blitherings do immeasurable good for our cause. We couldn't possibly be believed if we made up someone like you, but you're real.
DJ:
Actually, he was answering me there.
They are on high ground and they suffered horrible damage from well above the level of the flood waters all the way to their roofs. Now what do you suppose caused this damage? Was it seagull shit? Kids throwing rocks? Or was it the winds of hurricane Katrina?
Right. Katrina was a Cat 1 hurricane over New Orleans.
My point - the Levees were "built" to take a Cat 3.
And they didn't break for ~6-8 hours after the winds and rain ceased.
Thus, the real damage, the huge amounts of upheaval, the danger was all from the flood waters - which was only tangentially due to Katrina. That much water could have come from a Tropical Storm, a hurricane North of New Orleans....
Sorry, DJ, but you'll need to argue with me, not Mark on that one. Yes, Katrina did some damage with wind. Not a lot. The usual smallish Hurricane amount, few million here, or there. Not "no" as in really, absolutely no, but "no" as in "in the scheme of things, that doesn't really matter."
That's not the case in Gulfport, for instance, where the tidal surge and the winds were a strong 3.... and whole neighborhoods disappeared.
Notice the difference between the "Katrina" damage. One was hit directly by Katrina, one time occurance.
The other suffered a levee breach - the exact sort could happen right now.
Thus my contention that the real damage (hardly 200 Billion worth) was caused "by" Katrina...
"Why are you only talking about New Orleans?"
Well, isn't that where most of the people affected by the lack of federal response were located?
"even says FEMA screwed up!"
Isn't FEMA part of the federal response? So, I guess we are in agreement.
I don't care what the media missed or didn't miss. I spend very little time watching the MSM because I can't stomach the endless OJ/Anna Nicole/Brittany baloney. I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event.
" the BDS, the automatic gainsaying of anything related to Bush"
Well, apparently Bush himself suffers from BDS because even he admits how poor of a job he did.
DJ, I would humbly suggest that you re-read the timeline link that I put above. Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong. You, along with others, can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?
Oops, that was me up there.
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
Then you base your view on an infinitesimally small part of the data. Which might be the reason you're so ill informed.
Again, why is it Bush's (or hell Nagin or Blanco's for that matter) responsibility to ensure I can survive a storm? I'm prepared. Costs less than $50 to totally stock up on everything you'd need for a week after a hurricane to survive.
Again, the fault is at the liberals' feet who demand the government take care of everyone, especially since you've seen over and over how shitty of a job they do.
Mark:
Well, isn't that where most of the people affected by the lack of federal response were located?
"Lack of federal response" is what's being debated. Surely by now you'd understand the concept of not trying to "sneak" in the debate subject.
And no.
Look up Gulfport, MS. Biloxi, MS.
The LA coastline, and MS coastline. Those outnumber the people in New Orleans who were "affected".
What's incredibly obvious, and you can't see, is that Gulfport, Biloxi, were devestated by Katrina. (Directly). Blown away.
Yet, where are the claims of mismanagement in their response? (Yes, there are some. I've got some. Not like you're whining about with FEMA not coming in with Pete, the Magic Dragon.)
If there's one place where there's a problem, and nobody else has that problem.... IF you were right, Mark.... Then they'd have the same problems.
Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong.
Blanco and Nagin forced there to be a rescue of heroic proportions.
Had they done their job, in accordance with their policies and statements, the town wouldn't have had 200,000 people in desperate need of rescue.
That's the "What Else" you can't wrap your mind around.
You, along with others, can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?
Ah. Mark, how many murders occurred at the Superdome?
How many rapes? Be specific in your answers.
Mark:
I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event.
Didn't I tell you, and you argued with me that you didn't, that you tended to make your mind up on anecdotes, didn't understand the concept of reliable sources and data?
The plural of anecdote is not data, mark.
You guys are handling this just fine (and I think I may well be out of patience with Mark for the forseeable future, here), but I just wanted to add...
I used to live in New Orleans, left about three years before Katrina stuck. So yes, I know what the city looked like before Katrina and how trashed it got.
I can also tell all of you with total confidence that everybody in New Orleans who knew anything about them knew the levees were totally inadequate. They weren't designed that well to begin with, and they were crumbling under years of inadequate maintenance. The Geology department of Tulane had a betting pool over whether the city would still be there in fifty years. While I was there, hurricane Georges and a tropical storm whose name I can't remember just brushed us, and there was very widespread flooding then, under conditions that the average Floridian would scoff at as a moderately brisk rainstorm.
How come nobody did anything? Because in Louisiana, political corruption is basically the norm, especially in NO. The Kingfisher wasn't unique, he was just the most brazen and charismatic. Nobody wanted to fix them because that would mean being unpopular for spending tons of money to fix something that was not, by their definition, a problem, because nothing had happened yet to endanger someone's political career. Why didn't they evacuate? Because they were still betting on luck favoring them and didn't want to risk their hides if it turned out the storm passed them by. It was absolutely typical behavior- pretending there was no real problem had become habit.
Absolutely nothing about Katrina or what happened in its aftermath, including the NOPD turning on the citizenry (they were famously corrupt), surprised me in the slightest- including Nagin and Blanco's attempt to shift all the blame to Bush.
"Sorry, DJ, but you'll need to argue with me, not Mark on that one."
Your point is well made and well taken, but I don't completely agree.
Mark's statement was that the hurricane "didn't actually do any damage," which is simply not true. The damage the hurricane did directly in New Orleans was large and significant, in my opinion (as I've seen pictures of it), but it was indeed a mere pittance compared to the damage done by the levee breaches in New Orleans and by the bullseye elsewhere.
The biggest cause of death and destruction in a typical hurricane is not the wind, rather it is the storm surge, when the winds and the lowered atmospheric pressure pull the ocean up into a dome and drive it onto shore. That is what killed Biloxi and Gulfport, and it is what piled the water up into the canals and into Lake Ponchartrain, and so it is the ultimate cause of the water being high enough to breach the levees in New Orleans. Had there been no storm, there would have been no wind, no surge, no breach, and no damage.
So, I give credit where it is due. All the damage was due to hurricane Katrina, but the mechanism by which it did most, but not all, of that damage in New Orleans was the levee breaches.
-----
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
This is precisely what we have complained about, Mark. You base your view on someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts. In the vernacular of an engineer, you're trying to draw a fifth order curve through two data points.
"Your assertions that it was all the fault of Blanco and Nagin are just flat out wrong."
My statement in that regard was:
"The failures were the fault of the locals, primarily the local politicians."
I have neither asserted nor implied that it was "all the fault of Blanco and Nagin". Still having trouble with reading comprehension, aren't you?
I state categorically that the major blame for people being stranded in New Orleans instead of evacuating, which was the major cause of the human misery involved, was the fault of Mayor Nagin and Gubnor Blanco. The hurricane hit at six AM Monday. The Gubnor had declared a state of emergency on Friday before. In the meantime, these two, who were the local politicans with the authority and responsibility thereto, failed catastrophically to implement a plan that had been carefully drawn up long before for just such an emergency. This was their failure, not the President's failure, and not the feddle gubmint's failure.
"It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying...don't you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they might be right on occasion?"
Sure I do. Sometimes they are. We keep asking you for hard evidence to see whether you, a far-left liberal, are right on this occasion. You keep refusing to supply it. All you come up with is other people's opinions, and now you state explicitly that your view of the response to hurricane Katrina is based on two such opinions.
-----
LabRat, my first trip to New Orleans was in September, 1988, coincidentally when hurricane Gilbert was ginning up in the lower Gulf of Mexico. It was a Cat 5+ hurricane at the time and was the one that later hammered the Yucatan Peninsula for days. The question being talked about on the plane down (and I mean by nearly everyone in earshot), was whether or not it would head north or west. If north, then we would be in the bullseye.
I live in, and was raised up in, Tornado Alley. I've seen many tornadoes over many years and I have a very healthy respect for them (indeed my brother lost his house to one). When tornado season is upon us, I pay attention. When watches and warning are sounded, I gear up and I mean damned fast. When I moved into this house, within one month I had a new, prefab concrete tornado shelter firmly planted and close at hand.
When we arrived in New Orleans, I began asking questions of the locals, including the baggage agent in the aiport, the cab driver, the bellhop, the registration clerk at the hotel, the waiters in the restaurants, and so on and so on. There was not only no concern, there was no interest even in learning that a hurricane was brewing. I was dumbfounded.
I've been back many times since then, and I find your statements about the place to be quite believable.
DJ:
Mark's statement was that the hurricane "didn't actually do any damage," which is simply not true.
He was quoting me, just wasn't being obvious. (In which lies a lesson for Mark about keeping things as clear as possible). In all fairness to Mark, he was sneering at me saying that.
That's me, and him quoting me, not Mark saying that.
I see that now, and it took some doing. It is that non-obvious, even with several readings. Had Mark actually put a couple of quotes around that one sentence, or something similar in its structure, I might have understood it. As it was, I completely missed what he meant.
Mark, my apologies.
And, it should be an object lesson to everyone (yes, including me). Words have meaning, and so do structure and punctuation. If you want to be understood, then make an effort to be understandable.
Lots to respond to here...I will take them one at a time.
"Again, why is it Bush's (or hell Nagin or Blanco's for that matter) responsibility to ensure I can survive a storm?"
This is a very good point. To a certain extent I agree with it. If more people took responsibility in their lives, there would, in fact, be less need for government. That would be a good thing.
But there will always be people who need help. That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes. We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence.
Mark:
That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes. We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence.
Nice sentiment.
Since in real life, it doesn't work that way, what then?
I doubt you're being merely facetious - you do know that mere incompetence is rarely enough to terminate someone's government employment? (Bloody hell, I've seen Federal Employess not be fired for looking at porn 6 hours a day.)
(Again, you're in a fantasy, "Oh, if it only were like this" world, and we're trying to talk about the real world. As much as we keep trying to extend you courtesy, and stretch to your view, you're not doing the same in reverse.)
Ah. Mark, how many murders occurred at the Superdome? How many rapes? Be specific in your answers.
According to official reports, 0 in each category. According to my friends who were there, 0 people were murdered, 1 women was raped, and multiple people were assaluted. In addtion, 1 person killed themselves and an elderly woman died from lack of care.
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here, Unix...that conditions in the Superdome were akin to the Hilton?....but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them.
Lab, all parties are equally to blame. I understand fully and accept how corrupt and criminal New Orleans is and have never said that Nagin and Blanco were faultless. They were awful. So was President Bush, by his own admission. Deal with it.
....but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them - Mark
So there still thousands of people in the Superdome and Convention Center in New Orleans? The Levees and floodwalls are still breached? The water has not been pumped out of the low lying areas? Really and truly?
While I despise New Orleans for the crime, corruption, and insane drivers, I have been there several times since the storm. I have not seen huge starving crowds at the Dome, or vast bodies of water with houses sticking up out of them. And I think that the news media would mention the refugees that wandered onto the field during the Saints' game. Don't you?
"someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts"
So, when my friend's daughter saw someone jump to their death, it wasn't a fact but just an opinion? It was only her perception of what happened?
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here,
Believe us, Mark, we know. We KNOW you don't know.
but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them.
No one? They were in the superdome by themselves? Fending for their own? There was no one there at least trying to help them? What were they eating, by the way? Where were they getting water? Why were they at the Superdome?
The point is, Mark, is according to reports, that we now know to be false that there were hundreds of murders and gang-rapes all over the Superdome. The Army's relief convoy - in which space was a premium! sent 3 refrigerated morgue trucks because of those reports.
And then you said I "can't face what happened during Katrina because you can't take criticism. It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying."
But it turns out that the media was lying! (And how do you not know that and use that line in this discussion?)
And what your saying "happened during Katrina" doesn't match up with the after-action reports. I'm not saying things were great - they never are after something like a hurricane. (Ever... been through a hurricane, Mark? Do you have any idea of what's normal? (And that's aside from the fact that the situation only luckily was due to Katrina. Yes, Luckily. Because it's not impossible for those levees to breach - again - without the NG being set up, or the Navy on the way, or the Coast Guard already sortieing))
But - you've not changed your storyline, your opinion, your viewpoint, since those discredited rape and murder stories were the talk of the day.
Now, as for "no one helped them", again, Mark, that's bullshit.
They might not have had a bed in the Hilton. They might not have had running water, it might have been a shitty place to be.
But dammit, Mark, what was the alternative?
Real world. No magic allowed. No Star Trek Transporters or other technology. No Time Travel. What could the National Guard have done differently, given the real world constraints.
Eric, I meant at the time...not now...
Mark:
So, when my friend's daughter saw someone jump to their death, it wasn't a fact but just an opinion? It was only her perception of what happened?
It is an attributable fact.
(Is it true you're a teacher? What do you teach? Nah, strike that, there's no way I can't be boggled that you grade students and then fail here.)
You can relate that observation, if you can trust that person's observations, and if the people you're talking to can, as well. It's not just your estimation, but theirs that matters here.
This isn't an attack on the daughter, but to use this for instance, I don't know if she's prone to hysteria. Or had glasses she wasn't wearing. So if you say "Sally said someone just fell out of the 2nd balcony", that's a lot more reliable, and usable, than "People are jumping to their deaths all over the place!", or even (the story I heard originally), was that Gangs were tossing people off of the upper deck.
But that's a far, far, far cry from what you'd have us believe, that "No one" was assisting your friends. By the way, who policed up the body?
"Ever... been through a hurricane, Mark? Do you have any idea of what's normal?"
No, but most of my family lives in Missouri. I was born there and I, like DJ, have been through several tornados.
"Real world. No magic allowed. No Star Trek Transporters or other technology. No Time Travel. What could the National Guard have done differently, given the real world constraints."
Quick point about Star Trek before I answer your question. I know I've been chided about living in the fantasy land of Star Trek...it will never happen here etc...but if you look at the old show, some of things they enviosned have come true. Computer storage discs, cell phones (communicators), and even phasers. Could it be that food replicators and (gasp!) the elmination of currency could be next?
Alright, onto your question about the National Guard.
The coordination of National Guard units outside of the area should have been done sooner. On Friday Aug 26th, when the affected governors requested assistance from the DOD, I would've begun coordination on this day. Remember, the NHC declared Katrina a 2 at that point with the possibility of going to a 4.
The Governors asked again the DOD for help again on Sat Aug 27th and again on Sunday the 28th, which finally started some mobilization. Overall, there was a real lack of urgency which, had I been in charge, would not have been the case.
If you notice, since that time, federal response has improved dramtically, although there are still complaints about lack of National Guard troops in states to assist with natural disaster.
But we can't talk about that, can we?
"someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts"
Quote the whole statement, Mark. I stated:
"You base your view on someone else's opinions, and not on demonstrable facts."
which is demonstrably true. Your own statement about it was:
"I base my view on two people who were there, both of whom are still traumitized by the event."
Their observations are second-hand to you and not demonstrable to us or anyone else as being factual. True or false, they are only the stories of two people. I pass no judgment on them, I simply point out that theirs is a microscopic view of a huge event. Basing your view on them, which you have stated explicitly that you do, is myopic in the extreme.
The central question of this discussion is not what happened inside the Superdome, rather it is why a large number of people were stranded there at all. It was because they were not evacuated, which was because the local gubmint of New Orleans and the state gubmint of Louisiana did a piss-poor job of preparing for an impending disaster. It was their responsibility, not the feddle gubmint's and not the President's.
"If more people took responsibility in their lives, there would, in fact, be less need for government. That would be a good thing."
Damned right.
"But there will always be people who need help. That's where the government comes in and that's why we pay taxes."
That's a very slippery slope, Mark, one that those on the left side of the aisle have been pushing the country down for most of the last half-century. Some do so for ideological reasons (good comes from the gubmint, not from free enterprise), and some do so for political reasons (benefits buy votes). The net effect is that people take less responsibility for their own needs and look to the gubmint to fulfill them. In short, it breeds dependence on gubmint, it breeds parasitism, and it breeds hatred for the economic system that generates wealth and makes paying taxes possible.
Compare the responses to hurricane Katrina in the Mississippi coastal area to that in New Orleans. In the former, people stood up, buried their dead, and got busy with rebuilding their homes and their lives. That is what self-reliant people do. It wasn't "news", and so the MSM largely ignored it. In the latter, people began screaming in short order that the President didn't personally supervise cleaning up the mess and rebuilding everything, all at no cost to them, and all within weeks, if not days. They looked immediately to the gubmint, and I mean all the way to the top of the gubmint, with the demand that someone come and make it all better. Two years later, many were still living in gubmint-paid hotels in Oklahoma and Texas, still complaining that no one had cleaned up their houses so they could move home. Yes, really; I watched the interviews.
"We pay them to do a good job. If they don't, we should fire them for incompetence."
Welcome to reality, Mark. We don't "hire" gubmint, we "elect" gubmint, which then sets its own rules, in its interest, not ours. The people who actually do the work, the "public servants" as they are called, are nearly immune from disciplinary action of any kind by the gubmint, and totally immune to such action by those of us who actually pay their salaries.
So, it matters who we elect to office. If we elect people who like dependence on gubmint, we'll get more of it. Fostering more dependence on gubmint is the central tenet of the Dimocrat Party.
"Is it true you're a teacher?"
Yes, it's true. And isn't that a good thing? Don't I fit neatly into the model that all teachers are blinded by anti-American rage, paranoia, and co-opted by Communist forces bent on the destruction of everything that is good and wholeome about America?
I would think you would be happy.
You said no one helped them, MArk.
Not "help was slow in coming", or "help was slow and insufficient". You said no one helped them. Was that hyperbole? Or do you use absolute statements like that all the time?
In any respect, I have better things to do than try to understand your twisted little world view. You believe what you want, regardless of evidence. A classic leftist.
DJ, Unix, Kevin, and company, I do not know how you trudge through that dreck, but you have far, far more patience than I.
"because the local gubmint of New Orleans and the state gubmint of Louisiana did a piss-poor job of preparing for an impending disaster."
True, but so did the federal government. It IS their repsonsibility, DJ. This was a disaster of extraordinary magnitude. Even if the local government was perfect, the feds needed to be there.
Again, President Bush has admitted how poor of a job was done and taken responsibility. Why can't you?
As to the rest, I pulled this quote off of Wikipedia and I think it is apporpiate here. It rings true for me as a Minnsotan (re: 35W bridge collapse) as well.
"While condemnation of the government response to Katrina has centered on specific failures detailed above, significant criticism has also identified political conservatism as the overriding cause of problems in the way the disaster was handled. These critics argue that the alleged unreadiness of the United States National Guard, negligence of federal authorities, and haplessness of officials such as Michael Brown did not represent inherent incompetence on the part of the federal authorities.
Instead, these failures are seen as natural and deliberate consequences of the conservative ruling philosophy embraced by the George W. Bush administration, especially conservative policies to force reductions in government expenditure, privatize key government responsibilities such as disaster preparedness, and prioritize military spending over spending at home.
These critics also target what is perceived as the failed reconstruction effort in New Orleans, claiming that it represents another political success for "sink or swim" ideology: a "government-subsidized gentrification plan" intended to eliminate what the neoconservative news magazine The Weekly Standard has called "the community that appalled the rest of America when wall-to-wall television coverage of Katrina showed us just what it looked like: poor, black, with astonishingly high unemployment and welfare dependency rates."
Arguments targeting the role of conservatism in these aspects of the Katrina response cite examples such as the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the more than US$150 million Homeland Security awarded in contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater USA for services in the disaster, and statements such as those by U.S. Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson that “only the best residents should return" to the reconstructed city of New Orleans."
Mark:
President Bush has admitted how poor of a job was done and taken responsibility. Why can't you?
So why are you defending Bush? Can't you admit he's wrong?
Ah yes. Wikipedia - the ultimate in accuracy. No chance of opinions masquerading as facts there, nosiree.
Try again Mark. The failure is with you. You want the poor and downtrodden dependent on the Government so you can enslave them, thus ensuring votes for all liberal causes.
Me? I want them to do like I do and fend for themselves. If they weren't so reliant on Uncle Sam, they'd have done much better. But keep blaming Bush, it's working so well for you.
"So why are you defending Bush? Can't you admit he's wrong?"
Because he's not. He was actually a man about the whole thing. Rather than blame someone else for the problems, he took responsibility for the mistakes he made. If he did this more often with the other mistakes he has made, I might have more respect for him.
Robb, I did not intend the quote from Wikipedia to be fact, it was a simple observation which I think to be true to a certain extent.
"your twisted little world view. You believe what you want, regardless of evidence. A classic leftist."
In a word, no. No, sir. What we see here is classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black. Never admit fault, never back down, never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious. And, most importantly, deflect any criticism by mis-characterizing your opponent as having reality comprehension issues which you, in fact, have.
Mark:
Rather than blame someone else for the problems, he took responsibility for the mistakes he made.
I realize that Bush apologised. And then asked for - and recieved huge amounts of money and power and increased the size of government.
(Remember how you in another thread, kept saying we defend Bush and can't say when he's wrong? Here we are! Disagreeing! Now you still sterotype us and refuse to admit it refutes your prior claims!)
Well, Mark, I understand totally why he - who believes in larger government - "Admitted fault". Have you ever heard of B'rer Rabbit?
But we get back again to what "mistakes" did he make?. For instance, you claimed the DoD wasn't "Activated" until 8 days after "landfall" (nevermind that wasn't the problem). But there was a Navy Task Force off the coast 18 hours later. So, either he waited 8 days, or the Navy Task Group wasn't there.
And why are those the first times it's been a problem in 6 years, including 15 or so hurricanes (Three in Florida in 1 year!)?
classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black.
Mark, "neo-conservatism" is what Bush practices. To you it's what you use as a unthinking insult.
never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious.
*cough*.
How many rapes and murders occurred at the Superdome, Mark?
It's always the liberals twisitng things or the media lying.
How many rapes and murders were reported by the media?
How does that affect your statement?
And please defend your statement that but the fact is that thousands of people needed help and no one helped them., based on your friends.
Did no one help your friends? At all?
Arguments targeting the role of conservatism in these aspects of the Katrina response cite examples such as the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
It's not worth it to point out to you how ludicrious that is.
Failed rebuilding effort?
Mark, we've now exceeded the inflation adjusted cost of the Marshall plan just in New Orleans. If it's "failed", it's not the federal government's fault.
But, no, again you've got the locked-in-oxymoronic and unarguable that the Government is filled with incompetents who waste money - so give them more money and power.
"DJ, Unix, Kevin, and company, I do not know how you trudge through that dreck, but you have far, far more patience than I."
And Kevin, our long-suffering host, has far more than we.
"... but so did the federal government. It IS their repsonsibility, DJ."
NO, Mark, responding to hurricane-caused disasters is NOT the responsibility of the Feddle Gubmint.
It should help if it can, sure, but it should help because it is the feddle gubmint's responsibility, NO.
If you continue to think otherwise, then kindly quote the Articles and Sections of the Constitution that say it is, or show why the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution do not apply. Details, Mark, I want details, and rational, logical thinking.
Ah, what am I thinking? The lottery is a better bet.
"Again, President Bush has admitted how poor of a job was done and taken responsibility. Why can't you?"
Because I don't buy into the notion that the Head Guy What's In Charge is personally responsible for every failure of every subordinate who reports to him, even if he stands before a microphone and accepts such responsibility. If every CEO were held responsible personally for every failure of every subordinate who reports to him, and (as many Dimocrats have screamed about President Bush) ought to be canned therefore, then every CEO of every corporation and every gubmint entity ought to be canned and replaced daily.
Is he responsible for appointing Secretary Brown? Certainly. Is he personally responsible for the failures of Secretary Brown? No, not at all. Is he personally responsible for the failures of those who report to Secretary Brown? No, not at all. To say otherwise is to say that the President should have personally performed the jobs of the Secretary and of those who report to the Secretary, or at minimum should have personally supervised every goddamned thing they did, all the time to make sure they did it and did it right.
No, as I've explained to you before, I believe in delegation of authority, which necessarily entails delegation of responsibility. I don't hold President Bush personally responsible for any failure of the Feddle Gubmint in responding to hurricane Katrina, and I would make that statement no matter who the President is.
As a simple illustration, consider a real scenario, as in "been there, done that." If I go to the local tag agency to renew my driver's license and the clerk (who is a gubmint employee) screws something up, do I blame the Gubnor (whom the license agent reports to) personally for the screwup and call for his resignation? No, I get pissed at the agent, not the Gubnor, because I know the Gubnor isn't personally responsible for the screwup.
You keep repeating your statement that I quoted above as a mantra. I confess (even though I really don't think it's accurate) to a vision of you jumping up and down with your finger pointing and foam-flecked spittle flying, screaming, "See? He said so!"
Years ago, the Dimocrat Party, its followers, and the liberal left in general began using a simple tactic. They simply blame President Bush personally for everything bad that happens, everything that goes wrong, and everything that isn't just hunky dory. If you throw shit on the wall, some of it sticks, and some people will come to think of the shit and the wall as one and the same. They still use this tactic, and it is frightfully effective in no small measure due to the abyssmal stupidity of the public at large.
You buy into this in great measure, Mark. You point with apparent glee to his statement about accepting responsibility as if it validated the notion that he personally screwed things up, and that if only he had done better, then everyone else would have done better, too, and there wouldn't have been screwups.
I don't buy it, and I don't for the life of me understand why anyone else does.
And I can't help but wonder how the behavior of the left will change regarding this tactic when we get a President they approve of. They blame President Bush for everything and yet they wouldn't blame President Clinton for anything. Yeah, that's hyperbole, but the comparison is that sharp.
The supreme irony of this whole thread, Mark?
You're proving Kevin's original point, over, and over, and over again.
Murray Gell-Man Amnesia.
Worst case I've ever seen. Possibly terminal to brain function.
Mark:
Moreso, I've got nothing but contempt for FEMA's response to Katrina, and the Levee Breach.
So you and I agree? Not really. That's why I asked you for specifics. (As usual, you cribbed from somebody else.)
FEMA traditionally wrote checks for rebuilding stuff afterward. This was the first real time they've tried to "manage". Note how successful it was. A year before, 3 hurricanes criss-crossed Florida, and FEMA did an excellent job (under Brown!) of helping with the recovery.
But in New Orleans, a complete clusterfuck of idiocy had occurred - due to the utter failure of the lower levels of government, (not even getting into the Levee Board Corruption issues) hundreds of thousands of people were in dire need of assistance. Which, your slanders aside, they almost in totality got.
Hundreds of thousands of people were bussed around the country, fed, clothed, housed.
The reason I say the Federal Response was incredibly successful is because I've got some idea (and you don't) of how complicated Logistics is. Of how the NG and DoD stepped up to the plate, and fixed problems that the other agencies created.
Now, FEMA? Dropped the ball in a huge fucking way.
Now, Mark, the difference between your and my opinion on that? Because I was against giving FEMA the power and control in the first place. I'm more against giving them more as a result of their slavish concern with paperwork, red tape, ineffective bureaucracy.
Because Mark, no, getting on the phone and yelling doesn't fix a mindset so broken that they're forcing EMT's into sexual harassment classes for 2 days before deploying them to disaster areas. Nor do I blame Bush directly for that, other than he should have cleaned that whole morass out - but it's a damn near impossible task given civil service protections.
The same protections you support.
So, I'm unhappy with the FEMA response. You... Just.. blame Bush.
Note I disagree with Bush on almost everything involved here. But I also understand reality, and what's realistic.
I couldn't believe the Halliburton and Blackwater comments took that long. Well, Mark, that was in response to you, and your like-minded friends screaming about DOING SOMETHING NOW. You need something done NOW, you hire people with the infrastructure in place. That's Halliburton. Which is why Clinton no-bidded Halliburton continually through his administration. BW is newer, but if you want people on the streets...
And Mark, there's something called Posse Comitatus. It's a real problem to quite a few of your magical fixes.
So I'm strongly in disagreement with you, even though on the surface, we'd appear to be in agreement. Even though I don't "blame Bush" for the total and complete failure of government on the local level. (And I can realistically say "What was he supposed to do, arrest Nagin and Blanco? With what authority? And what about right now where the same problem exists?)
The difference is according to me, getting FEMA/the federal government out of the way, cutting their funding! Not allowing them to dictate who can assist in disaster recovery, ban people from helping, try and take over working systems... is a good thing, and the lesson to take home from the failures.
Your list of What Would Mark Have Done is largely bereft of real lessons. (You'd have yelled at people on the phone. Well, gee, Mark, I suspect you would have, which is why nobody would be moving without your say-so, and nothing would get done.) Other than that, what would you do? Scramble around before the situation is known, gesticulating wildly? (It's not a good idea.)
In a word, no. No, sir. What we see here is classic neo-conservatism aka the pot calling the kettle black. Never admit fault, never back down, never change your mind, stay on course despite the obvious. And, most importantly, deflect any criticism by mis-characterizing your opponent as having reality comprehension issues which you, in fact, have.
*click*click*click*click*
The mag and chamber are empty and dry firing really isn't a recommended best practice.
Something nagged at my memory after my last comment, and I suddenly recalled what it was. (Two things happen as you get older; 1) your memory fails; and, 2) I forget the other one.)
The following is an excerpt from Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who served as a Military Aide to President Clinton. He was one of the carriers of the "nuclear football", the briefcase that allows the President to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
"His [President Clinton's] cynicism never ceased to astound me. In February 1998, for example, President Clinton and the staff decided to visit a tornado-ravaged area of Florida. We did an "I feel your pain" helicopter flight over and around the areas so that the president could survey the damage in which forty people were killed.
"Colonel Ron Berube, the commander of the Marine One Squadron and Presidential Marine One pilot, flew from one area of destruction to another, giving President Clinton and his senior staff a running commentary. He went to great lengths to plan the flight route and position the helicopter so that the president could get a real sense of the damage. The military aide had maps out to show the president just where they were and the extent of the devastation.
"The president, however was busy playing a game of hearts with his pals White House counsel Bruce Lindsey and press secretary Joe Lockhart. He couldn't be bothered -- not even to look out the window occasionally. When it was time to align Marine One with the press helicopter for a picture, the president quickly peered out the window, feigning an interested and grief-stricken expression. The sole reason for the trip, in his mind apparently, was for that photograph. This playacting by the president was something I never ceased to marvel at -- expecially at how effective it was with his target audience. While he made few mistakes -- like walking in with a broad smile at Ron Brown's funeral -- he almost always knew what to do to impress his audience. In that regard, he and the first lady were soul mates."
Given that, I can't help but think of two simple questions. If President Bush should have personally done something about the deteriorating and poorly designed levees in New Orleans, then, um, shouldn't President Clinton have done something about them, too? And so, why is President Bush personally to blame that they failed, but not President Clinton?
Well, a possible answer to your question is that I think that President Clinton is personally responsible for several failures during his administration. I'm not sure if disaster recover is one of them because, for the most part, he appointed people who were skilled at their jobs as opposed to some of the mindless sycophants we have had to endure these last few years.
But you will get no argument from me regarding Bill Clinton's failures in his presidency, the chief one of which was the complete failure, one four key occasions, to stem the growth of Al Qaeda. Of course, he has since admitted to how flawed his policy was during that time.
So did Bush with the Katrina recovery. He has accepted responsibility for his actions, or lack therof, and for that I respect him more.
"So did Bush with the Katrina recovery. He has accepted responsibility for his actions, or lack therof, and for that I respect him more."
It is an action that is straight out of Management 101. Don't forget that he has a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard.
The rules are simple: 1) Don't upbraid a subordinate in the presence of his subordinates, as it destroys his effectiveness and his authority in their eyes; 2) Don't upbraid a subordinate in public, as it is not the public's business; and, 3) Take responsibility, publicly if necessary, for the failures of those whom you lead, as doing otherwise destroys your credibility and effectiveness in their eyes. It is ordinary politeness, and has very little real significance, but it is part and parcel of leadership, and organizations of any kind don't function effectively if these rules are not followed.
Consider applying it otherwise. If President Bush is to blame for the failures of the levee walls in New Orleans, as some have claimed he is, then President Clinton is even more to blame, as he had eight years to fix them while President Bush had less than four.
It becomes very preposterous in short order, doesn't it?
To hold that the President is responsible for everything that goes wrong is to state that the President is supposed to make everything happen properly. To paraphrase Kevin, must he do everything?
No, and blaming him for everything that goes wrong is nothing more than throwing shit on the wall.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>