Asymmetrical Information

Amen.

"You catch more flies with honey than with showboating behaviour that outrages every fibre of their being."

Certainly true, as your choice of headline demonstrates.

Michael, you are a prime candidate for the STFU stick, it would appear.

Jane, brava.

Charlie, considering some of the comments on other Katrina entries here (shorter versions: 'why didn't the stupid poor people get out? because they're stupid and poor, that's why!' or 'why is it only black people loot?') I find Jane's appeal for restraint here, aimed at people not likely to take either of those two lines of reasoning (both of which are disgusting and vile and made me want to shout STFU! to be a little misdirected.

Jane, it's too late. Even Kevin Drum, normally a fair and reasonable liberal, sees Katrina as just another excuse to beat Bush around the ears. That's just life in modern America, I guess.

"Shut up, or you'll only get people angry" might be more effective if the situation weren't getting actively worse, hour by hour, instead of slowly being cleaned up. Whatever the government is doing--state or federal--isn't working, and they damned well better be held accountable for it as long as people are dying.

Many people here are eager to hold Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin accountable for the problems New Orleans is facing, and if their criticism prevents similar crises from happening in the future, by shaking politicians and leaders out of their upright siestas, that's all for the best. Yet I don't think the federal role should go unexamined because, um, why? How is that helping the relief effort, again, to ignore problems that are getting worse?

If that pisses people off or alienates them, that's their problem. People are dying out there and I sure as hell want the state and federal government to do a better job if the next disaster hits MY town.

Whatever else that FEMA and the refugees are doing right now, they're not reading this blog. I'm really not concerned that I'm giving aid and comfort to the enemy if I question why New Orleans has become Lord of the Flies and what should be done to keep it from happening again.

Yes, I'm sure the last thing the people traumatized by this disaster would want is for us to take urgent steps to make sure this doesn't happen again next week.

It can hardly happen again next week; the waters have equalized, and all the residents are being evacuated.

More to the point, there is a big difference between saying "Mr Nagin should be doing X, Y or Z to get people to safety", which is perfectly legitimate, and saying "New Orleans was destroyed because it is a sinful city" or "New Orleans was destroyed because of global warming", both of which are dubious, and inappropriate while we are still in the throes of a disaster.

via wolcott:

There is no "next week" when it comes to getting answers and fixing accountability for failure under this president. Next week never comes.

Look at 9/11. There were tough questions about the breakdown of communications at Ground Zero, the lateness in scrambling fighter jets once the hijacked planes were heading toward NY and DC, Bush's strange behavior on that day, etc., and in the aftermath those questions were considered inappropriate, "divisive." We needed to grieve first, heal; and then the tough questions could be raised.

But they weren't. As months passed, the focus was on overthrowing the Taliban and avenging 9/11, and tough questions were taken off the table as the drumbeat was about the Nation Moving Forward. The media fell into zombie lockstep behind the invigorated Bush agenda. It took the 9/11 widows and esp the "Jersey Girls" to push and shame the Congress, the media, and the administration into launching a proper investigation, otherwise it would have all slid into the memory hole apart from the iconic images of the smoking towers before their collapse.

No, this is the time for politics, none better, because I can tell you just from being out of NY a few days that a lot of people in this country are shocked and sobered by New Orleans, but they're also worried and pissed off. They're making the connection between the money, manpower, and resources expended in Iraq and how raggedy-ass the rescue effort has been in the Gulf. If you don't say it now when people's nerves are raw and they're paying full attention, it'll be too late once the waters receded and the media-emoting "healing process" begins.

Hear, hear. Shrub already went on Good Morning America and lied to the entire world, saying no one could imagine that the levees would break.

No one, other than the Army Corps of Engineers, National Geographic, FEMA, NPR, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, and everyone who lives in the bloody city...

The time is now to reach out and help these people, and make sure that the politicians on *both* sides of the aisle those inaction (or direct action) led to this suffering pay with their jobs, at the very least.

So, el jefe, if everyone but Shrub knew about the bad levees, why didn't they take action? Want to bet what would be the fate of a New Orleans bond issue that sought to provide every resident with his own moat, boat, 3 month supply of water and food, generator, rescue helicopter, second home on high ground and whatever else needs to be done to absolutely assure that kindly old Mother Nature
can't take out NO again?

Of course the global warming and God's hand arguments are stupid and pointless, but let's not lump those in with some of the other issues that have actual, verifiable links to the facts at hand. It's perfectly valid to discuss government policy toward funding flood control and changes in FEMA's structure in recent years. You seemed to be saying that there's no point in discussing anything that might have led to our current situation, and that's the line Scott McClellan took this morning when someone asked about levee funding, so if I'm wrong and you do separate policy analysis from kookiness, then we'll be in agreement.

No, I seem to be saying that the time for such discussions is after we've buried the dead. You seem to be reading something I didn't write.

It can hardly happen again next week ...

To clarify, of course this particular disaster won't happen again next week. But there is no particular reason to believe that a disaster of this scale won't happen again next week (as opposed to some arbitrary week in the future that we might all find more convenient). There's still a fault line in California. Al Qaeda isn't on sabbatical.

I seem to be saying that the time for such discussions is after we've buried the dead.

And I strongly disagree. The best opportunity for fixing institutional fuck-ups is when the issue is in the air and the consequences are on everyone's minds, on their tvs, generating attention and outrage. It's even more important when the lack of attention could mean keeping people trapped in deadly situations there even longer when we should be doing everything within our power to rescue them. Postponing any discussion for months because it's not appropriate, or disrespectful to the dead, or whatever is a good way to kill any momentum for fixing the problem.

Assuming that one's priority is fixing the problem and preventing it from happening again, and not trying to make sure that one's side avoids as much responsibility and blame as possible.

If I'm reading something you didn't write, I'm not the only one, because DBL seems to think he's agreeing with you by criticizing Kevin Drum for pointing out how badly prepared the federal government has been for this crisis, which was completely predictable as a scenario, if not at a given time. I'm willing to read whatever argument you can put forth for why we should shut the fuck up about it, particularly if it goes beyond "you might alienate people" or "your argument is kooky and irrelevant", because I'm quite confident that neither of those apply to the specifics Kevin and others are bringing up.

And if calling for a damn close look at FEMA, the levee funding, the botched evacuation, and the botched rescue means I'm "getting up on my political hobbyhorse and riding to glory over the corpses of Katrina's victims", all I have to say is "YIPPEE-KAI-YAY, MOTHERFUCKER!"

Creech,

Since you can't read, let me be more specific:

Shrub *lied* about the levees. He knew about the need to shore up levees and pumps in New Orleans, because he cut funding for them from the Army Corps of Engineers. He has also cut FEMA down to the bone.

Jane:

Screw waiting until the dead are buried; we did that for 9/11, and the scoundrels used the opportunity to hide their mistakes with the burial shrouds. Never again.

el jefe - Hindsight is very powerful. Let's see how well you do with foresight. If a Cat. 3 storm hit Long Island in the right spot, Fire Island would be wiped off the map and a pretty large part of the south shore of Long Island would follow. We know that sooner or later that's going to happen. What, exactly, do you think should be done, now, with that forekowledge? Would you evacuate Fire Island and the Hamptons? Keep 50 ferry boats anchored off Fire Island ready to evacuate should the need ever arise?

It's not so easy when you don't have the benefit of hindsight, is it?

DBL:

Did President Bush cut funding to the Army Corps of Engineers that was needed to shore up New Orleans' levee and pumping systems to survive a Category 5 hurricane, or not?

Has President Bush dismantled FEMA systematically, including demolishing programs designed specifically to floodproof dwellings, or not?

Did his so-called opposition on the other side of the isle stand by helplessly while this was done, or not?

That's the hindsight that we are capable of researching for sure right now.

If you look into it, you'll discover that the funding that was cut was for a feasibillity study on federal funding for levee changes that would have been concluded in 2008.

Got that? not "fix the levees" but "study into the feasibility of fixing the levees sometime in the future." In 2008.

On the other hand, Mark Twain talks about the problems of flooding in New Orleans in the 1880s.

New Orleans just made a bet and lost.

Lurker over at Winds of Changes made this comment that I think is relevant to the thread.

"There's plenty of government failure to point fingers for this disaster; and it's about equally shared between both parties. Anyone trying to lay this solely on the Bush administration is being unseriously partisan, likewise the ones saying that they are blameless.

It is granted that the federal goverment had assumed authority for controlling Mississippi river flooding, having vested it to the Army Corps of Engineers. Seriously though. Would the Corps of Engineers have turned down extra funding from the City of New Orleans or the State of Louisiana dedicated to improving huricane survivability? Obviously, the Corps would have happily accepted it and done a good job. No money was provided. Why?

New Orleans and Louisiana obviously had priorities that were more important than hurricane and flood protection... like building a new basketball arena and luring the NBA Charlotte Hornets to town with huge subsidies.

EVERYONE knew that this was a disaster waiting to happen, anyone that has watched any TV news during the last couple of Gulf hurricanes at least. Sorry if the Feds didn't take the problem anymore seriously than the locals, whose very own lives and fortunes were at stake.

Let's all move along now. And don't forget to whistle past the graveyard."

bullshit. one project that was being *raced to completion this summer*, and could not be because of funding cuts, was a bridge and levee job at that 17th street canal. you need to spend less time listening to rush.

Moreover, the cuts started back in 2003.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313

Never mind the FEMA cuts that you still can't address.

El Jefe, Judson and Brittain 33 show their true stripes and a few other things as well. Without a clue as to what the spending cut actually involved, they assume on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that those unspent dollars, like most other federal spending, would have been wisely spent (in NOLA, a city and state well known and respected for their sound management of fiscal matters) in such a way that the situation we now have would have been prevented or substantially mitigated. What evidence is there that the specific funding referred to would have made a difference? And, of course, Bush himself maliciously decided to make this cut.

At bottom, the cause of this disaster is rooted in mother nature and human nature. Living on the coast, below sea level, calls for certain precautions, and this is not limited to laying all of your bets on a levee system. Most of those precautions are mainly apparent in hindsight. Even with those precautions, too many people decided to stay. Nothing in that Corps of Engineers study answers the basic question: how do you move 200,000 people in 48 hours who are unwilling or unable to cooperate?

If we're going to take this out of Bush's hide don't stop there. Every pork-barellin' hack, from Ted Stevens to Robert Byrd to Tom Harkin to Chuck Hagel, etc., gave higher priority to their vote-buying scheme than to one of the most likely large disasters this country faced. In case it escapes you, the nation hasn't lacked for discretionary domestic spending increases over the past five years.

Personally, I'd rather wait a week or so for that discussion, however.

McKinney:

Did the Bush Administration cut those funds or didn't they? Did the Democrats let them get away with it or not? It's simple to determine.

Did the Bush Administration savage FEMA down to nothing or didn't it? It's simple to determine.

Your ad hominem attacks are cute (I can almost picture the talking point faxes), but we won't let your asshole bosses wash off the blood this time.

el jefe...
So, NOLA's annula spend of less than 1% of their opperational budget on fixing her levies is George Bush's fault, or is there maybe blame to go around?
Dropping everything to witch-hunt while people are dying and suffering is helpful in what way?
As catchy as BU$H LIED, NOLA DIED may be, I think you are proving the author's point.

Jefe, the problem was identified in 1979 and a solution would have taken 10 to 15 years to build.

Seems to me your complaint is with Jimmy Carter.

Oh, and the things being rushed was a feasibility study. The onloy way it would have helped this week is if they filled sandbags with red tape.

Watch it Charlie. Facts thay fly in the face of the meme are to the el jefe as garlic is the vampire.
And you know little is as dangerous as a pissy vampire in an italian eatery.

"they assume on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that those unspent dollars, like most other federal spending, would have been wisely spent"

OK, the thinking I always hear from the right is that the government has no right to their money, and shouldn't tell people how their money should be spent. So now I hear that Federal money shouldn't go to local governments, because they can't be trusted to spend it wisely. Is it your argument that the Federal government is better suited to spend the money than people that are closer to the scene? Could you possibly have a more paternalistic attitude?

El Jefe, you write, "Your ad hominem attacks are cute (I can almost picture the talking point faxes), but we won't let your asshole bosses wash off the blood this time."

I am duly chastened. No more ad hominem's from me. I'll try to be more like you and keep it on a higher, more civilized plane. My apologies. Seriously.

Chris--I am simply posing the question, what historical evidence is there that the state of LA or the city of NO would, if given 70 mm dollars, have spent it in such a way that it would have materially mitigated or prevented the situation we have today?

I am neither paternalistic nor anything else. I do have a guarded view of the wisdom with which the feds and many states spend their money.

I'm with el jefe! How many Republicans would be following that advice if Bill Clinton was responsible for the following:

Even Mike Savage (last night) was griping about how Bush's crew pulled money that was going to be put into New Orleans levee improvement, and put it into the Iraq war. It was on CNN last night, IIRC. I don't know the details, but it certainly is fair game for being exposed so we know what happened. No, folks - don't pussy out and "not play politics." Those defending their own traditionally and hypocritically use the "don't play politics" card just to deflect criticism from their favorites more than for principle. The American people should appreciate this *now*.

PS: mckinneytexas, your attempt to rebutt el jefe et al is pitiful. It is not a matter of "proving" that the levee money would be well spent, but rather that it was bad enough in principle to pull allocated funds (and much-needed National Guard, etc!) for a phony neocon project that real conservatives like the folks at The American Conservative. I suppose your employer could yank your pay for another project unless you could prove it would be well spent.

Bush and you Bush loyalists are going to get the disdain you deserve, more and more as this gets out. Pull that sock over your own heads and leave it there.

Shrub already went on Good Morning America and lied to the entire world, saying no one could imagine that the levees would break.

It's called tact.

The truth is that New Orleans has, year after year, chosen to gamble that *this* year wouldn't be when the nature finally won its struggle against the levees and flooded the city. This year, the gamble didn't pay off. But Bush can't go on TV and say "OF COURSE YOUR CITY FLOODED, YOU BUILT IT BELOW SEA LEVEL BETWEEN AN OCEAN AND A RIVER AND DIDN'T BOTHER PROTECTING IT WELL ENOUGH", now can he.

My eyes must be deceiving me. For a second there I thought that someone had referred to Michael Savage as if his ranting with his latest conspiracy theory on the Iraq war was anything other than par for the course.

Poor Jane. Not only did she post something sane and reasonable, and with an opening paragraph that hearkens to her classic posts from the Live@WTC period, but she explicitly asked that political hobby horses be set aside for the present.

Instead, she got the cavalry.

Fittingly, the flag bearers of the new Wild Wild Waste seem to have facsimiled the other end of a horse on their respective sticks...

This is not the time. No matter how fervently you believe that this could all have been avoided if only everyone had listened to you about [global warming/the election of George Bush/wetlands preservation/the coming vengeance of the Lord on sinners everywhere], this is not an appropriate time to mention that fact.

I disagree. If there was a shred of sense to the numerous accusations flying around, I think it would take a warped sense of decorum to refrain from mentioning them until a certain amount of time elapsed. Should we also politely hold back from arresting and prosecuting murderers until the family is done grieving?

The problem is, most of the "blame game" I've seen regarding New Orleans is utterly absurd.

I've already seen the "Sodom & Gomorrah" redux claim made by an hardline evangelical Christian who happens to be in an online discussion group that I started, and since I can't imagine this belief being any more palatable when the disaster is long behind us, he may as well be stating it now.

Of more concern is the "this was obviously due to global warming" claptrap, because as opposed to the "God's vengeance" stuff, this particular nonsense many uninformed people are willing to swallow hook-line-and-sinker. And of course, it almost always segues into a denouncement of Bush and his supposedly lax environmental policies which are putting us all at risk. However, reputable climatologists - take your pick, William Gray, Roger Pielke, Patrick Michaels, etc. - are all quick to point out that the upswing in frequency and severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic over the last ten years or so can't be due to global warming, because globally the number of severe storms has been declining during the same period; these things run in regional cycles, and have been more-or-less constant on a worldwide basis for as long as anybody has been studying it (well over a century). But don't tell that to environmental "experts" like Robert Kennedy Jr., or Cindy Sheehan, who are quick to lay the blame at Bush's feet! Oh, if only he had signed the Kyoto treaty, hurricanes would have been outlawed by legislative fiat!

Equally bothersome is the opportunity some Dems have taken to bash Bush for the level of preparedness New Orleans had for such a storm. Like he's personally responsible for the levees that protect our 35th-largest city! I wonder what tune these folks would be singing if this storm had hit five years ago, when Clinton was in office, and the same exact systems were in place?

Oh, and I guess we should also have a permanent cadre of 10,000 National Guardsmen stationed outside every city in the nation, ready to spring into action should some natural disaster strike.

But I think Monday-morning quarterbacking is fine, if it's valid criticisms rather than just the illogical agenda-driven demagoguery that I've been seeing so far. Whatever public officials were responsible for anticipating and dealing with such an emergency should be held accountable, if it can be shown that they have been lax in any way.

Hmmm...

Blasting Bush for a lack of concern for victims of tragedy did seem to nudge him into providing more aid for victims of the tsunami last year. Maybe if he feels a sense of shame over having failed to assume the proper role of a leader, perhaps then he will be more assertive in taking a leadership role in the current crisis. Perhaps it is our moral responsibility to shame Bush into doing more about New Orleans.

The particular comment that struck me was el jefe's:

Shrub *lied* about the levees. He knew about the need to shore up levees and pumps in New Orleans, because he cut funding for them from the Army Corps of Engineers.

That Bush cut funding for (the feasibility study to investigate) shoring up the levees is evidence that he knew they needed shoring up? Can't you hear his evil laughter, see him rubbing his hands together in glee? It's like saying I deliberately didn't buy milk today because I knew we were going to run out tomorrow. Wha??

That Bush cut funding for (the feasibility study to investigate) shoring up the levees is evidence that he knew they needed shoring up? Can't you hear his evil laughter, see him rubbing his hands together in glee? It's like saying I deliberately didn't buy milk today because I knew we were going to run out tomorrow. Wha??

And even if he had, somehow, known that the city was due to flood -- so what? The citizens of New Orleans and Louisiana should have paid to fix the problem -- not the citizens of the other 49 states. Louisiana already gets more federal money than it contributes in taxes. My state, California, receives far less than it pays. Anyone suggesting that I should fund public-works projects in Louisiana can kiss my tanned Californian ass.

Poor Jane. Not only did she post something sane and reasonable,

The bullshit's flowing extra thick these days.

One network had an interview yesterday with an official who mentioned the cuts in Corps spending for the levees. After some give and take with the reporter, he admitted the money cut was to be used to repair parts of the levee that survived and that the levee broke in areas that were not targetted for this money.

I find myself wishing that all those who just couldn't wait to get up on their political hobbyhorse and ride to glory over the corpses of Katrina's victims would take a minute to sit down in a quiet, soothing place with a refreshing beverage, take off their shoes and socks, wiggle their toes a little, and then carefully cram those socks into their mouths before anything else escapes.

I disagree. The situation at hand is entirely political.

We hire these people to make decisions via a political process. It's evident over the last few days..that at least a few of them haven't been doing the job properly.

Crying foul for people pointing out that the politicians haven't been doing their job in a situation like this is silly, frankly.

The levees should have been fixed and reinforced. It's been known by the government for years that it needed done. The wetlands should not have been allowed to be developed. The government knew this would endanger the city in a flood situation and ignored it.

New Orleans is a city with a very large population below the poverty line. Many people don't have cars and rely on public transportation. The transportation wasn't provided when THE GOVERNMENT ordered the city evacuated.

There's obviously more..but you get the idea.

This is a time for finger pointing. Our government failed a very large group our fellow citizens..and is still failing them right this minute. Yes, it's political. It's a political system. Deal with it.

The "let's shut up and bury the dead" meme has a strong whiff of partisan maneuvering, and I'm unwilling to give it credence. I understand the appeal, and the "they deserved it because they burned fossil fuels" or "they deserved it because of Mardi Gras" rhetoric needs a severe cram down. The best things that citizens can do is put far more effort to donating to the relief as they do to blog-commentary bloviating, and if you are a believer to say a prayer.

But as Arthur points out, and third thing people should the relevant political leaders account. The hotter the political pressure, the snappier the political response. Turn it up.

Naturally, given that he reports to all of us (as opposed to the mayor of New Orleans), much of the criticism in the national forum is going to head towards Bush. Frankly, he deserves it. The levee stuff is suggestive of misguided priorities, but the real issue that no Bush defender has been willing to touch is FEMA and the preparedness for this hurricane. Why not? Because anyone watching videos of New Orleans can see the pathetic response. As for his "no one could anticipate a breech of the levees," be honest and admit it was a catastrophically stupid thing to say anyway you slice it. This OBVIOUSLY (for those of you with a penchant for ALL-CAPS) was a general possiblity: major studies from anywhere (along with common sense) said that given New Orleans positioning, this was a danger. More pointedly, why was there not greater preparation for this scenario in this particular instance? This seems to be more likely what Bush meant, and it is almost as foolish as claiming not to know it could happen in general. If Bush didn't anticipate it in this particular instance, he might have taken a closer look at any of the news coverage of the hurricane as it moved towards New Orleans. Without an exception, they mentionned the possiblity that one way or another New Orleans might succumb to water. Once it looked like this catastropic scenario even might happen this time, major disaster relief efforts should have been prepared.

Whatever, I, and the people trapped in New Orleans, sure must be glad that the hospital ship will be activated and underway in a few days. Maybe by the time it gets there a private construction company will have fixed at least one whole in the levee. Maybe conservatives can rally around that and start defending laissez-faire disaster relief.

Off to donate.

I'm sure it's not the only mistake, but the second paragraph should start "But as Arthur points out, the third thing people should do is to hold the relevant political leaders account."

My apologies... release the ad hominem grammar hounds.

As I've said before, Peter, if somebody wants to take it out of Bush's hide, fine, but let's not end it there on the federal level. Let's target every pork-seeking hack who favored his personal vote-buying scheme over devoting resources to one of the most likely huge disasters the nation would face. Let's devote particular attention to the pork-seeking hacks in Louisiana, who did the same in their own back yard. Let's target the hacks who made the transfer of wealth to wealthy and middle class retirees capable of providing for themselves the central function of our national government, more important than any other priority. Let's run them all out on a rail!!!!

Oops. One question, however. Why did all those hacks behave in this manner? Might it be due to the fact that a majority of the voters in this society demanded it of them? What chance is there of these same voters demanding that the hacks abandon their vote-buying schemes, to better target situtations like that of New Orleans'? Peter, how do I go about firing those voters?

To paraphrase the last line of P.J. O'Rourke's great book, the hacks are us.

Will, you're welcome to try to bring up the role of Social Security, but I suspect its stock will not rise much in the marketplace of ideas about why everything went wrong.

Otherwise, I do agree with some of what you said. Accountability needs to be looked at at both a federal, state, and local level. Louisiana's politicians are not known for their effectiveness or integrity whether they have an R or a D after their names. The role of the Army Corps of Engineers and federal planning for flood projects should be examined to see if their priorities are set by need or by political connections. Federal investment in infrastructure should have some sort of rational process behind it instead of shoveling as much cash into Glacier Bay as Don Young can carry. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if FEMA, the National Guard, and flood control funding are most of what people want to talk about. Flood control probably least of all because it's wonkish, dealing with decisionmaking issues, and because Republicans can quickly make the point that even if Bush had approved the money, it wouldn't have fixed the problems in time to avert the flooding.

This is a time for finger pointing. Our government failed a very large group our fellow citizens..and is still failing them right this minute. Yes, it's political. It's a political system. Deal with it. - Carla

Just wondering...

a) In your post, you refer vaguely to "the government" and "the politicians". If New Orleans and the other impacted areas weren't as prepared as they could or should have been to either prevent the scope of this disaster or deal effectively with it's aftermath, does any responsibility for that lie at the state or local levels, or is all of it Dubya's fault?

b) If the exact same storm had hit New Orleans five years ago under Clinton's watch, the situation would have been exactly the same. Would you have been so quick to accuse "the government" of failing us?

Well, brittain, I never asserted that my view would be popular. One question, however: why isn't it rational to question sending revenue to people who can live perfectly well without it, before revenue is directed to prevent the most likely natural catastrophe the nation faces? Other than the pure pursuit of power, why have any
sacred cows?

If people want to have Bush tear his hair and rend his garments, as he is subjected to excoriation, fine. If the same treatment isn't afforded nearly all members of Congress, and the tens of millions of citizens who demand that their elected representatives behave in this manner, however, this desire is a smug pursuit of an unearned sense of moral superiority. Blah, blah, blah, and don't be surprised the next time your government gets it's priorities wrong.

Lemme know when granny and grandpa decide to take one less vacation per year, so San Francisco can have better earthquake preparedness, then I'll know that granny and grandpa are serious in the proclamations of outrage at the Federal response to New Orleans' plight. Until then, it's all just posturing.

b) If the exact same storm had hit New Orleans five years ago under Clinton's watch, the situation would have been exactly the same.

Begging the question. FEMA has changed for the worse since Clinton left town, as no less a prominent Democrat than Alan Greenspan's wife stated. I believe it is likely FEMA would have functioned much better in the aftermath of the storm under Clinton; you probably won't concede that, but you must concede that it is indeed POSSIBLE for a federal agency to behave differently depending on who is leading it and who those leaders report to.

Of course, if the same situation had played out five years ago, many Republicans would be praising Mike Foster's strength and courage under fire and heaping all the blame on President Clinton for failing to come through fast enough to save New Orleans.

I suspect there are a lot of former NO residents who are kicking themselves in the backside for not having been a bit more attentive to their needs locally. In a democracy, you get the government, and the government services, you deserve. Absent a discrete decision traceable to Bush, Clinton, Greenpsan or any of us that can be causally linked to levee failure in NO, the blame game doesn't wash. Sometimes, bad things happen and hindsight is a wonderful thing. It also has a high chickenshit quotient.

The time is now. Americans have a short attention span, and this won't get fixed if we fall for the delaying tactics of politicians.

Absent a discrete decision traceable to Bush

Look at FEMA's plans for a natural disaster that everyone knew was going to happen someday, and whose resolution was known to be a federal responsibility. FEMA's an executive branch agency, the President chooses its head and works with Congress to set its budget. Why don't you tell us about the current head of FEMA and his professional experience prior to joining the government, it could be interesting. Heck, why not talk to the scheduler who thought it was a good idea for Bush to go gallivanting around the southwest playing guitar and eating birthday cake as conditions grew worse. Bush has demonstrated in the past that a genuine national emergency can make him cancel his vacation and fly back to D.C.--even in the middle of the night--to sign a bill that he believes can save a human life.

You can spin this as "liberals are blaming Bush for a hurricane hitting New Orleans" but anyone with half a brain can look past that to the real issues.

Brittain, why don't you demonstrate that Bush plucking a guitar on Monday had any discernible difference? The choice to head FEMA may have made a difference, but the mere assertion of that doesn't make it true. Did James Lee Witt ever oversee the relief efforts of a similar-sized disaster, including the evacuation of the worst-governed major city in the U.S. while it was flooding, a city which lies in one of the worst-governed states in the union? What does it mean when a large portion of a major city's police force abandons their post (I've heard some NOPD officers quoted that some precincts had an 80 percent desertion rate), if it does not outright join in on the looting?

If one wishes to be critical of Bush, fine, but don't make stuff up, like plucking a guitar on Monday was sigificant, or suppose things without evidence. Sure, personnel choices may have been crucial, just as funding choices may have been, which we discussed above, but neither you or I have enough information right now to make informed judgements on the matter. Of course, making informed judgements is really not the primary concern of many at this time.

I agree, it's too early to make judgments. We don't know. I'm not an expert in disaster management, neither are you, and neither is anyone else here.

That doesn't mean we can't identify when things are going very, very wrong and the people we entrust to be experts in this field appear to be derelict in their duty. We can see that things are going wrong that are under the control of the government, and we should investigate. My central point is that if it's too early to make judgments, it's certainly far too early to say that shit happens, the federal government is blameless, which is what mckinneytexas would have us do because he supports the current leadership in principle.

Umm, el Jefe, when did we get budget line-item veto for the Presidency?

Last I checked, Congress passed budgets with line item specifics, and Bush either signs or veto's them... and Bush hasn't used his veto pen for any purpose ever. He doesn't get to cherry-pick spending items to approve/deny...

If you want to blame budget cuts, or budget mismanagement, shouldn't you target the people who write and pass the budget?

And parts of the levee were rebuilt, not as much as they'd like, but some. And it WAS the rebuilt parts that failed.

Would rebuilding other sections have helped or hurt? Damn hard to tell when the rebuilt section fails...

Could more have been done? yes. Could more have always been done regardless of what was or was not done? ...

Begging the question. FEMA has changed for the worse since Clinton left town, as no less a prominent Democrat than Alan Greenspan's wife stated

A Democrat said that things have gotten worse under a Republican President? Oh, well then it MUST be true. No Democrat would ever accuse a Republican of having made things worse if it wasn't true. :)

Blasting Bush for a lack of concern for victims of tragedy did seem to nudge him into providing more aid for victims of the tsunami last year.

This smells suspiciously like a self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not the 'blasting' had any real effect on what was planned and when it was sent. Given the kind of time and organization needed to measure an effective, well-planned response to a large-scale disaster, the 'blasters' may have done nothing to change course of events, save to heat their own premises.

Britain33:

The bullshit's flowing extra thick these days.

This is now the second time (at least) in this thread that you have proven yourself to either be drinking, or in some way too emotionally close to this tragedy to provide much in the way of reasonable analysis (I'm not going to patronize you further by quoting the definion of the word, or of "sane" -- look them up yourself if you really need the education).

Whichever the case, kindly shut up, or change your tone. Whatever your actual motivations and however pure they may in fact truly be, you are milking this cow like the best political opportunitist out there, and said cow is now so chapped that the thin trickle of remaining milk is rapidly turning red.

The only parties who accept bloody political milk are dogs and vampires. The rest might find more common ground with you if you took a little vacation from this...well, it would seem to be an under-disciplined anger.

I believe it is likely FEMA would have functioned much better in the aftermath of the storm under Clinton; you probably won't concede that

I'm more than willing to concede it, if you provide details. What could and would the Clinton-funded/Clinton-appointed FEMA have done differently in this situation? Maybe you do have good specific points to make, but I'm not going to just take your claim on faith.

Of course, if the same situation had played out five years ago, many Republicans would be praising Mike Foster's strength and courage under fire and heaping all the blame on President Clinton for failing to come through fast enough to save New Orleans.

Clearly there are people of all political stripes who are blinded to facts by partisan hatred. Not you, maybe, and I'd like to think that I'm not one of them either. The mayor of NO is a Democrat, which I am not, but I recall thinking how competent and on-top of the situation he seemed to be during the preparations leading up to the hurricane.

The mayor of New Orleans may not be a bad guy, or even an incompetent guy, but he, God bless 'em, took the job of heading up what is probably the major city with the most rotten culture of corruption in the U.S.. The State of Louisiana indicts Governors like J-Lo collects engagements. I can think of no worse place, in the sense of the prevailing political culture, for a disaster to strike.

It's been just four and a half days since Katrina made landfall, and three since the first levee breach, IIRC... National Guard troops are now on scene, armed, highly visible, and getting supplies to areas impossible to reach in necessary force a couple of days ago. The Superdome mostly did its job, sheltering 10,000 people through sustained winds that approached tornado speeds, and then it failed. The levees held for a while, and then they failed - but unfortunately they didn't hold quite long enough, and when they failed they failed too fast, to allow those who sheltered at home to get to high ground or shelters with supplies they'd need. Residents staying in last-resort shelters throughout the city were instructed to bring food and water for 3-4 days, because it might take that long to get resupplied (as indeed it has).

Should the shelters have been pre-supplied, or more pre-supplied, during the voluntary evacuation period? Should the FEMA pre-positioned resources have been closer, different, or equipped with more flat-bottom boats, or whatever? Should there have been a contingency plan for the easily foreseeable problem of communication? All yes, I'd guess. But as Austin Bay points out here (http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=527), "We’ve a million people dispossessed and they are suffering. Critics grouse that the response to Katrina’s devestation [sic] has been abysmally slow. Compared to what? Slow compared to our expectations is the correct answer. Compared to every other nation on the planet, we’re moving at warp speed to address a natural disaster of extraordinary magnitude."

It's small comfort to those still waiting for transport to a safe dry place with food, water, and showers... but they'll get it, in the next few days, and we appear to be reaching the end of the period during which people's lives are at risk, or at any greater risk than usual, just by being within the city limits. I hope.

I've been wondering what Bush was doing while not at the scene. As when he's on "vacation" in Crawford, I'd assume much of his time was taken up with the usual work of a presidency - briefings, meetings, communications domestic and foreign. I was and am glad that he didn't cause resources to be diverted to a Presidential visit during the initial crisis period, and I misdoubt he was playing guitar the whole time...

Whichever the case, kindly shut up, or change your tone.

You find my posts objectionable? I found your post both useless and condescending, totally disrespectful of the people you disagreed with. You got the response you deserved. If you feel I'm not worth engaging, feel free to shut up or stop reading my posts. I'll be happy to do the same to you.

Rob,

Good questions. What I can offer you is a reference to Andrea Mitchell saying that FEMA was better under Clinton but doing worse since then. While this is not exactly DNA evidence, she's obviously got no political bones to pick with the President and is likely repeating something which is CW in Washington.

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/223

Clinton's appointee to head FEMA had thorough experience in this kind of work. Bush chose two political appointees who don't have relevant experience, but were closely connected to his campaign. I recognize that this sort of thing happens all the time in Washington, but it seems particularly bad to have it spread to FEMA.

This article has a lot more background and commentary. Bush praised Clinton-Gore's improvement of FEMA in a 2000 debate. Since then, it's been amalgamated into Homeland Security, and its responsibilities have been changed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aS9EbI4g0lVw&refer=us

Do I know what a Clinton-led FEMA would have done differently? Not at all, but I'm not an expert in disaster relief. I think the record shows that FEMA and natural disasters were a higher priority for Clinton than they have been for Bush, much as, say, education policy and Iraq have been higher priorities for Bush than they were for Clinton. I think, knowing how detail-oriented Clinton is and obsessed with his place in history, he would have been on top of the New Orleans situation from day one and been busting everyone's balls at the sight of the misery after the flood. I do think there's some detachment that has led to the response not being as effective as it could be. I acknowledge I'm speculating on the latter, but we will see. I can't say I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because if this isn't the result of something preventable, we're in bigger trouble than we knew.

While this is not exactly DNA evidence, she's obviously got no political bones to pick with the President

Mind explaining why it is "obvious" that a woman who is both a Democrat and a journalist would have no bones to pick with President Bush -- who is wildly unpopular among both Democrats and journalists?

Then when you're done, you could explain why we should give any weight to her opinion when she's got no experience with disaster management or recovery. She's a foreign-affairs correspondent. She only covers disaster relief when they need an extra cute blonde for the TV.

Brittain33—
With respect, you assume more than you should. You write:
“My central point is that if it's too early to make judgments, it's certainly far too early to say that shit happens, the federal government is blameless, which is what mckinneytexas would have us do because he supports the current leadership in principle.”
It is an absolute fact that bad things happen that are virtually impossible to foresee AND to form a consensus on prevention AND execute that prevention plan effectively. It took 7 separate Al Quaeda attacks for us to wake up and there is still no consensus on what to do. We spend billions in every possible direction because, despite the fact that we have a general handle on what the problem is, no clear cut solution is apparent to all.
There is no evidence, nor I am prepared to bet heavily, will there be any in long aftermath of this disaster, that any one person had a sound solution to the problems created by this precise storm hitting in the precise manner in which it struck. Nor is any one person directly, or in any meaningful way, indirectly responsible for what happened. It was a freaking hurricane, not FDA approval of a bad drug or a presidential pardon of recidivist murderer or a congressional vote authorizing war. In other words, there will be no concrete act or decision that lends itself to useful and valid after-the-fact criticism when a natural disaster that is unique in its actual manifestation occurs.
Here is an example: We had better armed forces under Bush I, and that is what Bush II inherited from the Clinton administration. Was this Clinton’s fault? Partly, but he was aided and abetted by both sides of the aisle. Was a war against Iraq foreseeable? Yes, to some degree. Were we ready for it? Hindsight suggests we could have been much more prepared, but were not. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one and, unlike hurricanes, we get to decide (a) whether we go to war or not and (b) how much effort we wish to invest.
For my part, I have a lot of issues with the current administration, not the least of which are that they spend money like drunk sailors, Bush himself is a bit of a goober who only seems to be able to lead when he has the right speech in front of him at a time when we need leadership in a big way and, despite being allegedly fiscal conservatives, they cannot bring themselves to cut subsidies in a variety of areas that simply are not government’s business.
Further, if there were competent factual evidence that Bush or some other specific person dropped the ball and materially exacerbated the current crisis, I’d favor the maximum price the law or the electorate could bring to bear.
What I am opposing is precisely what you are doing, which is finger pointing at someone who you don’t like on the strength of no evidence, just visceral distrust and animus. I think it is unfair and, at this particular time, unhelpful in the extreme. If heads need to roll, there will be plenty of time for that to happen. A rush to judgment, mob mentality is exactly what we don’t need.

Brittain, why don't you demonstrate that Bush plucking a guitar on Monday had any discernible difference?

That's not the point. The President's job is as much about appearances as it is about substance. It's about inspiration and leadership. There's a reason many people think Bush is clueless and insensitive. It's because he proves it time and again with his public reaction to a crisis.

There's a reason many people think Bush is clueless and insensitive.

Yes, it's because they already don't like George Bush for other reasons.

Six years ago the sides were reversed, and it was the Republicans using every flimsy bit of circumstantial evidence to "prove" that Clinton was a horrible, immoral person who didn't care about America. Today it's the Democrats. In four years it'll probably be the Republicans again, bitching about Hillary.

This is not about politics -- it is about open and intentional warfare (physical and mental) against the people of the USA.

Grain barges loaded with explosives by MOSSAD and local SAYANIM traitors were rammed into the LEVEE thus ensuring the flooding of the city. This is the reason why the response was SLOW -- they had to break the LEVEE with few or no witnesses present. Local SAYANIM and MOSSAD snipers have been acting as snipers and have been murdering NEW ORLEANS police officers this past week.

Land fall at PASS CHRISTIAN at 911 millibars right through the crescent of the "crescent city". The crescent is a symbol commonly associated with ISLAM. Dead bodies and blood flowing through the crescent -- a spell was cast in New Orleans by the Lucifer worshipping Kabbalah Occultists.

Michael Brown (the FEMA official in charge of rescue efforts) was FIRED from his last job for mismanagement and allegations of corruption, according to the Boston Globe.

Michael Levy (quoted in several media sources) has been riling up people at the convention center for days and getting them to chant things against the government -- typical anti american / zionist shill distracting from the ones really responsible for this.

14 year old girl raped to death (for four hours) at the convention center, according to several media sources.

7 year old boy raped to death, according to several media sources. Babies throats slits.

These zionist media shills and related whores are attempting to create a race war. ILLEGALS (gangs) vs. ALL, White people vs. ILLEGALS, Black people vs. ALL. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!! Its the ZIONISTS in the corner.

Too many coincidences -- wake up you BRAINWASHED sheep / slaves -- ITS THE ZIONISTS stupid. The child raping, robbing, and murdering JUDEO MASONICS / ZIONISTS are NOT religious -- they hide under the guise of RELIGION to fool you. Ever heard of wolves in sheeps clothing?

Now the zion media whores are blaming the victims (mostly poor, indigent, and elderly with no means to evacuate) for not evacuating -- a typical perverted zionist spin.

As they anticipated you all are needlessly mired in the minutae of Hurricane Katrina -- just like 911. Learn from the past or you will be doomed to repeat it.

The ZIONISTS thrive only if they CONTROL all sides of an issue -- as they ususally do.

The WHOS are the only important issue relating to 911, Katrina (who broke the LEVEES), Londo, Beslan, Madrid, and the school shooters. Its that elephant in the corner stupid -- called ZIONISM.

Who owns & operates the media -- that is why these SPY stories involving ISRAEL are buried or never pursued. The ZION spinning is well under way in New Orleans. They thrive on controlling ALL sides of an issue. They are pointing the finger at everyone, intentionally creating chaos. This CHAOS ensures the finger is never pointed where it belongs -- at them.

1. What do the following have in common: Clinton, Condit, Mc Greevy and 4 star general Byrnes ???

2. What do the following have in common: Lewinsky, Levy, and Cippel ???

the answer to #1 is: They were all duped into a MOSSAD honey trap.

the answer to #2 is: They are all MOSSAD agents and all happen to be self identified practicers of judaism. Only 1.9% of the US population identifies themselves as practicing judasim. This is beyond coincidence. What about all the school shooters ???

DONT LET THE ZION MEDIA SHILLS / WHORES distract from the reality that the MOSSAD has been trying to deceive our nation into fighting israels enemies for some time — including their complicity in 911 and their destruction of the LEVEE in New Orleans. PURGE THE ZION TRAITORS including the scumbags FRANKLIN, ROSEN, and WEISSMAN.

ZIONISTS are ANTI 1st amendment and ANTI 2nd amendment and they are also ANTI AMERICAN.

The #1 terrorist / spy organization in the USA continues to operate openly in Washington DC — its called AIPAC.

Imagine this: In the middle of our 'war on terror,' a foreign government (Israel) has spies who have infiltrated the highest levels of the Department of Defense.

Larry Franklin, Rosen, Weissman and the AXIS of ADL, AIPAC, and ISRAELI TRAITORS / ESPIONAGE — all indicted.

ZIONIST Douglas Feith (the architect of the IRAQ war and the boss of indicted spy Larry Franklin) resigned August 9th, 2005 and has fled the country. This story was also buried.

Who owns the MEDIA, the VOTE COUNTING MACHINES, the MILITARY, the POLITICIANS, the FEDERAL RESERVE ??? Research it to get ENLIGHTENED.

The sudden use of “HOMELAND” instead of “our country” or “our nation” – is word warfare. Why are we not talking about protecting our country or our nation? I’ll tell you why. We are no longer to think of the USA as a sovereign nation – we are to think of ourselves as having a “homeland” in the ZIONIST government. Ironically, "HOMELAND SECURITY" is run by a dual US-ISRAELI citizen named Michael Chertoff.

Those who think this is going to far – have no idea of the heartless, ruthless, gutless psycho-warfare propagandists we should be fighting.

Remove these dual citizens from critical posts in the USA government IMMEDIATELY -- such as Michael Chertoff. NO MORE dual loyalties. This is a war -- not pattie cakes with your playground chums. "WAR THROUGH DECEPTION"

A squad / commission should be immediately established to find the zion agents / traitors responsible for destroying the LEVEE. These types of squads for TRAITORS are commonly referred to as FIRING SQUADS.

"No one censors speech they agree with."

IF I PUT MY POST IN ALL CAPS, THAT MAKES IT TRUE.

And over-use of punctuation adds to the credibility, doesn't it??!!!!&*@

From the weblog of the objectivistly-named Jane Galt, here is the worst of American reaction to the New Orleans disaster in a nutshell. Below find samplings of statements that reveal a seemingly bottomless capacity for churlish, selfish, callous, racist cruelty by self-congratulatory blog barnacles who coolly watch the NOLA tragedy play out from the comforts of their dry, food-filled, proudly right-wing homes. I believe many of them may fancy themselves a tad intellectual, and hard-nosedly so. The poverty of their arguments demonstrates otherwise. And as none of them lay claim to any sort of humanitarian compassion, you won't be surprised to find it absent here. Hold on to your lunch:

Sorry, YMMS, but compared to Mr Dagger up there, you're an amateur.

Step right up, wingnuts, and take your turn licking the anus of George W. Bush, the man who can do no wrong, as he is anointed by Lord God.

You're dead wrong. The time to call out injustice, incompetence and lies is when you see it and when it can help.

George Bush's Failure's: Six Strikes and You're Out

You're holier than thou, concerned, reflective tone is actually funny given the strangely detached, self-involved and frankly nonsensical things your group has posted on you're blog site over time. You apparently live in the same fantasy world as George Bush. Yes, it would be great for conservatives and supporters of Bush if people were quiet right now (and you laughably ask people not to be political in a political post).

Unfortunately, he's made so many colossal mistakes and misjudgments and contributed to such tragedy that your false sanctimony is not only unlikely to be heeded but is laughable.

George Bush's Failure's: Six Strikes and You're Out

Remember, folks: if it's on a virulently left-wing website, it has to be the truth!

Tres amusant.

I note you posted this exactly 64 minutes before posting that price-gouging was a public benefit. Or is eat-the-poor economic theory somehow not a "hobbyhorse"?

I note you posted this exactly 64 minutes before posting that price-gouging was a public benefit. Or is eat-the-poor economic theory somehow not a "hobbyhorse"?

I don't see any inconsistency on Jane's part. In this post, she argues that the decent thing to do is to not to politicize the tragedy by playing the "blame game" until after it's been completely dealt with. Personally, I don't agree with this, I just find much of the blame going around to be either irrational, irrelevant, or exhibitive of 20/10 hindsight.

Her next post, about so-called "price gouging", does not politicize the tragedy, so long as you don't count high gas prices as a tragedy equivalent to the death, suffering, and loss of life and property we've seen in NO. They may both have the same cause - Hurricane Katrina - but they are different things.

Incidentally, if you want to counter Jane's arguments in that post, you're going to need to do a little better than just slamming them as "eat the poor economic theory".

(aside: apparantly "the poor" in America are people who a) own cars, and b) need to fill them with gas to get to their jobs. What a great country!)

Jane is pretty much echoing Thomas Sowell on this (I don't remember which book). For those interested, he gives a number of historical examples of when "price gouging" was permitted in order to encourage extraordinary efforts to overcome shortages.

Unfortunately, sound economic theory gets in the way of holier-than-thou posturing from the left.
Would they prefer to keep prices low and prolong the shortages?

You find my posts objectionable?

No. I found the latent spite riding in a couple of your early posts to be objectionable, thus polluting some of your posts.

I found your post both useless and condescending, totally disrespectful of the people you disagreed with.

You mean, the same ones like judson, who immediately responded to Jane's post by dragging a bunch of Bush stereotyping 9/11 propaganda into the discussion, then el jefe prefacing an ostensibly reasonable point of view with partisan sneering, then you posting (I take time to edit) "And if calling for a damn close look at FEMA, the levee funding, the botched evacuation, and the botched rescue means I'm "getting up on my political hobbyhorse and riding to glory over the corpses of Katrina's victims", all I have to say is 'YIPPEE-KAI-YAY, MOTHERF-----!'"

That looks a lot like a hobby horse riding the posterior, to me. Is that really what YOU consider a reasonable response? Put another way, if I had posted all that first, save for reasoning from the opposite perspective as your own, would you have treated it with any greater dignity?

You got the response you deserved.

Hold the phone, the portion of my post which you quoted, and then described as (and I edit again) "bulls---", was the claim that Jane has posted something "sane" and "reasonable." If you wanted to match snark for snark, go ahead; I can deal with that just dandy. But you didn't do that, and instead dismissed the substance with a post that was...how did you put it? Condescending and useless?

If you feel I'm not worth engaging,

Some of your posts approached worthless, yes, in terms that suggested you might be generally walking your future credibility off a cliff. As I already asked, would you have suffered comparable foolishness lightly had I had initiated it from the opposite point of view?

feel free to shut up or stop reading my posts.

Sorry, duty calls. Or a surfeit of free time, if you prefer to define it that way.

I'll be happy to do the same to you.

That's up to you, based on whatever standards you use for making such a decision. FWIW I generally stop reading forum posters, regardless of what they think of me, when the party in question proves over a course of time that said party either (a) was never interested in reasoned debate, (b) was once interested but has allowed some sort of axe grinding to become a more important priority, or (c) may be interested but has taken to making the literary content of their posts universally vulgar or otherwise generally offensive (frequent uses of obscenity, cursing, sneering, racism, etc.). 'Out of the contents of the heart the mouth speaks', and so forth.

Anony-mouse,

You can play that both ways, you know. During the time I've been posting to this site, I've seen posters argue that being poor can be linked to GENETICS. (not mentioning that there have been threads here that suggest I am, as an African American only 85% as intelligent on average as a white person.)
One would think, that based upon the blind racism and classism presented almost daily on this blog that Hurricane Katrina would be looked upon by many here as a triumph of eugenics.
I'm still waiting to be proven that my assumption is incorrect.

--Cobra

Cobra, I have no idea what that has to do with the points I raised. Please do note that the sweeping generalizations you included in that post are much of the reason I consigned your writing to category (2) quite some time ago. Coming by a grievance honestly (as you doubless have in your course of life) is not the same thing as an unlimited title to spin the whetstone.

WHO BROKE THE LEVEE INTENTIONALLY BY RAMMING IT WITH GRAIN BARGES ???

1) The LEVEE system was under the operation and control of ZIONIST gambling interests. RESEARCH IT YOURSELF TO GET ENLIGHTENED.

2) FIVE SHOT DEAD IN NEW ORLEANS were DEPT OF DEFENSE workers investigating the INTENTIONAL LEVEE BREAK

3) Intentionally breaking the 17th street levee flooded 80% of the city and caused the CHAOS --the LEVEE was intentionally broken after the storm had passed. In fact the hurricane was a CAT 2 when it passed over the city. This is the reason why the response was INTENTIONALLY SLOW -- few or no witnesses to the INTENTIONAL BREAKING OF THE LEVEE.

4) There is nothing "natural" or "predictable" when a LEVEE IS INTENTIONALLY BROKEN.

5) ZIONISTS are ANTI 1st amendment and ANTI 2nd amendment and they are also ANTI AMERICAN, as evidenced by their own actions and speech.

6) The child raping, robbing, and murdering JUDEO MASONICS / ZIONISTS are NOT religious -- they hide under the guise of RELIGION to fool you. Ever hear of wolves in sheeps clothing?

7) The #1 terrorist / spy organization in the USA continues to operate openly in Washington DC — its called AIPAC. ADL is a close 2nd.

8) A squad / commission should be immediately established to find the zion agents / traitors responsible for destroying the LEVEE.

9) These types of squads for TRAITORS are commonly referred to as FIRING SQUADS.

I've seen posters argue that being poor can be linked to GENETICS. (not mentioning that there have been threads here that suggest I am, as an African American only 85% as intelligent on average as a white person.)
One would think, that based upon the blind racism and classism presented almost daily on this blog that Hurricane Katrina would be looked upon by many here as a triumph of eugenics.

So you think that anyone who, for example, read Hernstein & Murray's The Bell Curve and found persuasive it's data, analysis, and conclusion that blacks tend on average to have a lower intelligence than whites (something that I think was just one of it's many conclusions, but I haven't read it), must be secretly harboring a kind of genocidal glee at the fact that Hurricane Katrina probably killed more blacks than whites? If that's what you're implying, it's a pretty rotten and unfounded accusation, IMO.

And what on earth is 'classism', the belief that it's justified for some people to have more than others? Is anybody who isn't a communist a 'classist'?

I think Cobra was reacting to the trolls who stopped by to claim that the flood had improved New Orleans by getting rid of the worthless people.

It would be kind of surprising if there were no genetic differences in intelligence among different groups from different parts of the world. That would suggest that no culture or environment rewards intelligence more, or less, than any other culture or environment. From a human rights perspective, of course, none of this is relevant. We don't base people's rights on their ability to score well on an IQ test. Even if we knew for certain that the average member of Group A was dumber than the average member of Group B, that wouldn't change the fact that they are both entitled to the same treatment under the law.

Comments are Closed.