somedaybitch

::high five::

From:

sadly for most people civics wasn't a class in high school either... it was just some dry words on a page that never apply to them. Hell, they probably understand [or pretend to] the separation of
Church and State better than the separation of state from federal...

Late Lament: I wish all these damn politicians would sit down and agree to worry about their people first and fixing stuff next, AND THEN worry about who didn't do what at the right time. :rolleyes: it just breeds a lot of bad thoughts/words/deeds. This is NOT a photo op. I wish I could feel like anyone with some kind of power wasn't constantly maneuvering for gain. By the same token they don't realize how much of a boost political careers take if you come in for the big win. I mean at all levels. Play the blame game AND LOOK WEAK. Take charge and say "this is what we will do" [sometimes you need to say I have a plan] and people gravitate towards that
even if they don't agree with the plan. For the Prez. I don't know what his natural tendency is for crisis [hands off/on] but he might have led by pushing: call all three governors when katrina is a cat5 still out there and say "wherever this thing hits, you call me. we'll back you up." Seems like a trifle, to tell people what they already know. that FEMA is there, that if fema isn't enough there are levels behind it. But if you tell people this, then they make decisions based on your EXPRESSED interest. perhaps less timelag in decisions, perhaps less feeling of being helpless...

ah, mightabeens, now...

In my heart of hearts I think this is simple. Most people can't clearly envision a thousand individual anything... so to look at something at this magnitude doesn't sink in, unless you are there, and then the magnitude overwhelms. guess I should climb down off'n this soapbox before I fall off, eh? ;)

From:

he did lead by pushing. he had to talk the mayor of NO into ordering the evacuation in the bloody first place. the guy wasn't going to. a whole lot more people would be dead if he hadn't.

he was the one that declared the area a disaster before the hurricane even struck, so that the help could be there as fast as possible given that there's a 72 hour delay once declared.

he was the one that was put off by the Governor when she said she needed 24 hours to think about it.

and then there's the folks bitching about the troops not getting deployed sooner, and bein' all mad at Rumsfeld's remarks at his press conference because he said they got there as soon as they could. well where the fuck were they supposed to deploy exactly prior to the waters receding? no roads in. no train rail in. can't parachute them in on accounta that minor detail of 20 odd feet of water. where were they supposed to stage? the roof of the Superdome?

folks can't have it both ways. they bitch and accuse Bush of being a fascist, and then bitch when he doesn't actually act like one. he didn't cause the bloody thing but he can't violate states' rights and traipse in there like he owns the joint. the hurricane itself wasn't even the worst problem. the levees breaking in multiple places was. and that? not a federal responsibility. the infrastructure of a given state is up to its government to maintain.

did stuff get frelled? oh God yes. is FEMA suffering from having been pulled under the umbrella of Homeland Security? oh God yes. but none of that made the levees break. and pointing fingers, motivated solely by partisan bullshit, solves absofuckinglutely nothing.

by all means be frustrated, and outraged, and mortified, and any other not even remotely good enough adjective. and by all means want to know what happened, demand answers to the questions of where the systems broke down. but do it to stop this from happening again in the future, not to score points for your political agenda.

and, of course, by "you", i mean "they", not, you know, you.

From:

Obviously, I haven't been to civics class in the US, and I'm not trying to be snide, I promise, but --

not to score points for your political agenda

There's a reason why Karl Rove is in charge of political decisions when there's a governmental fuck up. Everything this administration (or any other) does is for the purpose of futhering its political agenda. That's what administrations do. That's what politics is about. And the guys on the other side this time realize that if they don't ask for accountability now, while public sentiment is high, what they've got back up and numbers and will, they'll never get it. Ever. They never have before. W's communication machine is too good. (I'm not saying propaganda, but it's what I'm thinking -- it's stunning when you look at it closely and realize how brilliant Rove is at it.) They can't give Rove the time to turn around and start snowing people under.

I'm not arguing about who's right, although you know every well what I think, I'm just explaining the reason behind the political maneuvering and the strength of the negative reactions. The half of your country's population that believes George W. Bush is a menace or an incompetent or a crook or whatever you like has been helpless to do anything about it for five years. They feel strongly about the damage he's doing to their country. They see this as their One True Chance to tip the balance, to right what they see is so terribly wrong. It doesn't mean they're not interested in fixing what is wrong now, in saving people, fixing levees, etc; it means they're looking toward a bleak future and they finally, finally have an opportunity to tip the scale, to have some political influence, to take back control of their lives, and that -- that's beyond a hurricane. That justifies all the points you can score, when all other political avenues have let you down, including the US media, the ones who are supposed to be your voice, up to this point.

he was the one that was put off by the Governor when she said she needed 24 hours to think about it.

I'm confused about this, honestly. I have in front of me a copy of a letter from the governor of Louisiana requesting the president declare a state of emergency, dated 27 august. Can you link me to the stuff about the governor turning Bush down? I'm curious.

Although, overall, you realize the breakdown of responsibilities between feds and state and local is not what interests people. If your government promises safety and prompt response to an emergency, you'll expect them to have streamlined the chains of command so that they can handle the level of threats of the era you're living in; it's their job. I guess you also expect them to come back from vacation a little faster.

It's been said by many, but it doesn't make it any less true. If this had been a large-scale terrorist attack, the aftermath would have been so, so bad. FEMA -- the state it's in -- cannot possibly handle a biological threat. That's problematic. And symptomatic of what half of your country thinks makes this administration not just callous, but dangerous.

You can't expect people not to yell. Loud. I'm saying this with the utmost respect for you, and the understanding that, yes, I am a foreigner.

From:

hmmm, see to my ear both sides are trying to make political hay here so "not to score points for your political agenda" could easily be aimed at both sides from my perspective. One can't ignore the bottom line issue of local control in all this, and that is where there is certainly a breakdown. The governor and the mayor of N/O have both done what they can to deflect blame to the feds, who are doing the same to deflect blame to the gov and mayor. That makes it a zero sum game. And it is one. There are enough frell-ups at every level... I SEEMS as though there was a heavy reliance on a FEMA plan by the locals, instead of having a good plan themselves. The FEMA plan is compromised by various shortfalls, but it would be a far more general plan to start with.

If you want to pin the tail on a root-cause, why was there no plan to evacuate all those that DIDN't have cars? And who would be in a position to know how many people like that would be around? Probably NOT Rove. It would be someone local who would know this, and probably not the governor either, it would be the Mayor and aldermen[or whatever they are called] who would say "Look, people in my ward don't have cars, or any transport out, or anywhere to go, once they leave. Can I get some help dealing with that..." It may be a sore point, and it is certainly presented that way, but it is not for FEMA to know the particulars of that, untill they are told. It is not for the head of homeland security to know All that FEMA knows, it isn't for the Prez to know what his homeland security chief knows.

IMHO this isn't a failure of political ideology, this isn't a tipping point for or against any administration, local or national. This is a natural disaster, by far exacerbated by manmade failings. Those failings exist at every level, and on the whole political spectrum. It might be easier to point to a political failing if it was all one party screwing up bottom to top, but it isn't, it's both. There MAY be political fallout, depending on who is believed. I just don't think all the dire predictions about pretty much everything from which charity is scandal plagued to the logic of rebuilding a city that will still be below sea level, are worth the energy spent on them.

Importantly, though it seems to be continually lost within the magnitude of the problems in N/O, that is but a PART of the whole. Many other people lost everything in this world... if their heartbreak is not watching their house sit in a pool of sludge up to it's eaves, it may be instead looking at an empty slab where their house once stood. The hearbreak is none the less.

IMHO it is those images which should drive us on to aid people, not if I agree with the nomination of Roberts to the supreme court, think global warming causes everything [as if warm/cool cycles haven't always existed] and that THIS administration CAUSED global warming, or that the Louisiana governor is doing a good or bad job...

;)

From:

hmmm, see to my ear both sides are trying to make political hay here so "not to score points for your political agenda" could easily be aimed at both sides from my perspective.

Which is exactly what I said. You can't expect either side not to.

it isn't for the Prez to know what his homeland security chief knows.

I'm afraid that it is for the President, in fact, to know all these things, to have competent people around who know all these things and brief him regurlarly, and it is the President's job to be prepared for all eventualities. Tough responsibility, but he asked for it. That doesn't cancel out the inefficiencies at the State and local levels, but that doesn't negate the role of the federal government who declared the emergency at the behest of the governor, either.

this isn't a failure of political ideology

It is ideology that strips FEMA of its infrastructure and budget. It is ideology that places an untrained man at its head. It is ideology that sends the National Guard to wage war in another country. It is ideology that wants to reduce the role and responsibility of the federal government in domestic affairs. It is ideology that cuts taxes that can be used to modernize the country's infrastructures and educate its people. It is ideology that promulgates legislation which encourages the wild, unregulated exploitation of the coastal landscape. It is ideology who places the so-called war against terrorism over the war against proverty. (I don't blame them. One looks much cooler than the other.)

This may be a natural disaster, but it has exposed the consequences of the political ideologies of men. The aftermath of Katrina is all about ideology.

Doesn't mean that I expect reforms to come out of this. American society has become less and less reactive in the last thirty years. I don't foresee that much of a change.

it is those images which should drive us on to aid people

I'm pretty sure it's those images that drive people to help, as Americans instinctively feel the need to fill up the gaps left by the destruction of social safety nets, somehow. I also don't doubt that it's possible to demand accountability and help at the same time. It's not that much multitasking, really. :)

From:

so, the President of a nation with 300 million people should know that 60000 of them in New Orleans, Louisiana don't have transportation and in an evacuation scenerio, the local goverments hadn't taken that into account? He should know this? Has any other president known this? In '65 during hurricane Betsy did they know? Or in '69 during camille... The point I am making is that it is not for one person to know every plan of every municipality in every state in the US, even if it was POSSIBLE. It is for the LOCAL people to plan. Once it crosses state boundries, then there may be a regional plan, and THAT plan is where a national agency like FEMA comes in.

I believe that this is where you and I see differences... You think it is the federal government who SHOULD have the lead in this, and I don't. If they can co-ordinate the various state and local agencies to help them work together, and across state lines, that is their calling. IMHO it is the local govt. who should have the lead, because only they know the needs of their own people. If this is what you mean about ideology, I guess I can agree. But tying the woes of this hurricane specifically to THIS administration, seems to be a stretch. Some of these plans have been in place for decades, the group charged with maintaining the levees has been neglecting them for years... and they are all locally elected... interesting article on that HERE which points out that this is a local, state AND federal debacle. Anyway, see what you think... hopefully this is all though provoking for WG too... since we have kinda taken over he post... :D
AFD

From:

so, the President of a nation with 300 million people should know that 60000 of them in New Orleans, Louisiana don't have transportation and in an evacuation scenerio, the local goverments hadn't taken that into account? He should know this?

When a hurricane of category 5 has been forecast for days? Of course, he should know this. And by that, I mean that he should make sure that he stands very close, and listens very carefully, to someone who does. Especially when he's just declared a federal emergency at the behest of the governor. I've just spent thirty minutes triple checking sources, and WG's information seems erroneous: the governor asked first for a declaration of emergency (this gets a mention in the press as soon as the 26th); she never turned down anyone.

If this is what you mean about ideology, I guess I can agree.

I'm not sure what else you want to call it. This wasn't the way things were under the previous administration; this is the way it is now. That's not a result of chance or the phase of the moon, that's a result of politics, which is ideology in action.

This administration has decided that federal government should have nothing to do with natural disasters, because it stands against big government. (Or because if anything goes wrong, the White House can blame someone else.) Fine. They destroyed the whole system of cooperation that existed between federal, state and local agencies.

Unfortunately, alternative structures don't get built in a day. They banked that the next natural disaster would occur under the next administration, that no one would notice they'd gutted the whole country's support system and left state agencies hanging in the wind. They lost.

But tying the woes of this hurricane specifically to THIS administration, seems to be a stretch.

Not at all. FEMA was praised far and wide for its competence under Clinton. It's a complete mess under Bush. Which other administration is supposed to take the blame? The governor asked and got from Bush that a federal emergency be declared before Katrina made landfall. The federal authorities did not implement any of the basic preparedness measures such a declaration entails. Who gets held accountable for that?

The people of the state of Louisiana can take up whatever their problem is with their local officials, who could have made better use of what National Guard Bush left them. The rest of the country is perfectly justified in taking it up with their President. They're the ones who might be failed by him next time.

This administration has enacted a neo-con ideology at all levels; fair enough: they've been elected on that basis after all. But the messy aftermath of Katrina is a direct result of this ideology. It's only fair that they should deal with that, too. It's that whole thing about eating and cake.

Some people are okay with the trade off. (You seem to be, from what I can tell...) It seems like half your country agrees with you. The other half doesn't. That's what we call an ideological divide.

Here's a couple of links of my own.

I'm sure WG will yell if we're annoying. :)

From:

simplystars.livejournal.com

FWIW, I'm finding both sides of the conversation to be beneficial, and I want to thank both of you for it.

From:

You're welcome. I find this type of discussion, where everyone keeps their head, to be fruitful and constructive.

From:

I suppose if we were to say that upon an administration change, you overhaul ALL disaster plans, you might be able to look at this particular administration and pin the blame for all failures on them. It doesn't work that way. The articles you link are great reads, and I have heard such things last year. You're right, and I was unhappy that FEMA was put under security, rather than being independent. So many mis-steps on so many parts. That doesn't change the long written plans being wholly inadequate for this particular disaster times 2. That doesn't change the fact that the sinecure jobs in N/O were given to political allies of the governor, that then didn't maintain the levees, that broke and flodded the city, that changed an epic catastrophy into something biblical.

The reason Clinton's FEMA was a model was NOT that he had some kind of ideological insight to run it that way. It was directly related to Hurricane Andrew, that devastated homestead, FL. The kudos to him are THAT HE LEARNED FROM THAT FAILURE. I can think of no reason that G.W.B. eviscerated FEMA other than it was tied to Clinton, and that sadly is a rule for politico's rather than the exception. Clinton did similar things [look at NASA under him...] But none of them had such difficult effects...

So what's the big picture? We can argue all day about these sorts of things. That doesn't help. You may have noticed I'm a centrist, and so I generally don't look at things as being simple like 'well if Bush hadn't been in office, this wouldn't have happened...' Things would have been different surely, but only the naive would assume it HAD to be better. It could have been worse, too. The bottom line for me, is that we are here now, we cannot go back and undo what is done. We CAN learn from it. Unfortunately I have noticed that people often go to the polar opposite, rather than trying to nudge things to being better. they will call for Brown's head on a platter, perhaps Chertoff's too, but that won't fix the problem.

Perhaps they will at some level realize that what you need is an independent and expert federal agency that can coordinate all the disparate entities in an emergency, and get things done, without being an inefficient and bloated agency. This is the point at which I think that drawing a line up and saying that GWB is horrible, or the best thing since bread was sliced, is counter productive. Becoming MORE partisan will just result in an eventual 55/50 split in the country...

From:

you guys aren't annoying at all. feel free to continue. dialogue between folks with brains never bugs me.

From:

Thanks.

You know why I'm reacting so strongly? You know what's truly heartbreaking about this? This is another victory for terrorism.

The aim of terrorism is to make you change the way you were doing things before. I'm quoting from the New Scientist. They're scientists, so presumably they know to crosscheck their sources, but if you like I'll try to find other links for that information.

"The logistics of dealing with the extensive flooding in the aftermath of a hurricane have also been analysed. A year ago, disaster relief experts concluded a desktop simulation exercise dubbed hurricane Pam, in which a category 4 hurrican -- the force at which Katrina made landfall -- hit New Orleans and caused storm surges to overtop the levees, leaving 400,000 to 500,000 homeless from flooding.

"Yet the lessons of this exercise appear to have been ignored by its organisers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 'It was a great exercise, but I'm not sure the planned follow-on was funded,' says Bill Massey, former hurricane supremo at FEMA and a consultant on the hurricane Pam exercise.

"His fear, like that of many other commentators, is that the money and personnel to act on the exercise leaked away into the federal Department of Homeland Security, which was set up in 2003 in response to the 9/11 attacks. 'The emphasis, unfortunately, is on terrorism,' says Massey."

Single-issue priority stretches and skews limited resources across the board, with local and state agencies falling into step with the federal agenda. That's particularly deadly in matters of preparedness, when you need to consider more than one scenario to be effective. The hurricane Katrina situation is symptomatic of the shortfalls of that mindset.

It kills me to think of Bin Laden patting himself on the back for a job well done. It's a good thing Al Qaeda isn't any more reactive than the US government, because now would be a great time to attack.

Or for Canada to invade.

From:

and i continue to be genuinely puzzled by one state handling itself and the other not. same resources, same hurricane, the "handling" state getting the full force of the storm even, same federal government, same federal resources.

Or for Canada to invade

that's pretty funny.

From:

To tell you the truth, I haven't had time to check facts on the situation in Mississipi. Did they not lose any people? Was the flooding as catastrophic as far as infrastructures? The concentration and ratio of urban-to-rural population identical? I must admit I can't honestly discuss the point with you. I don't know enough about it.

From: (Anonymous)

1) The death count in Mississippi is at least 151, as of September 5. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=abQ.b9KwYqDU&refer=top_world_news

The death count in Louisiana is expected to be in the thousands once the floodwaters recede.

There has been some looting in Mississippi, and at least one report of a shelter without adequate hygiene and supplies: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/232fed92-2117-11da-a603-00000e2511c8.html

Residents are wondering where FEMA and the National Guard are in rural areas: http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/09-09-05_z1_news_01.html

2) No. The flooding in New Orleans due to the breach in the levees added to and expanded the destruction caused by Katrina. The flooding also impacted the ability of the city to restore utilities and impeded self-rescue efforts. Many people who survived Katrina died because of the flood, which either caused them to drown or cut off their access to immediate rescue. The worst hit areas of New Orleans were built below sea level, and therefore flooded when the levees broke. The areas above sea level, such as the French Quarter and the Garden District, are relatively intact and face the most danger from fires and unlawful activity rather than Katrina-related activity. The floodwater has affected the restoration of power, which means not all pumps needed to remove the water can be used. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3346578

While the storm surge laid waste to the Mississippi coast and caused some waterfront communities and most of Biloxi's casinos to be washed away, the area does not have the same problems with standing floodwater as New Orleans. Biloxi is above sea level. Therefore, electricity and other services are being rapidly restored. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050909/clf023.html?.v=23

2) Not at all. The largest cities hit in Mississippi were Biloxi, Gulfport and Pascagoula. According to the US Census bureau, the population estimates as of July 1, 2004 were 71,851 for Gulfport; 50,5115 for Biloxi and 25,873 for Pascagoula. By comparison, the population estimate for New Orleans was 462,269. The estimate of the population in the overall metropolitan areas are: New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner: 1,317,541; Gulfport-Biloxi: 248,965 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/hurricanes_tropical_storms/005672.html

For a more detailed breakdown of the cities, dated 2000:
Biloxi: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=biloxi&_cityTown=biloxi&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010
Gulfport: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US2806220&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C16000US2806220&_street=&_county=gulfport&_cityTown=gulfport&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160
New Orleans: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US2829700&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C16000US2829700&_street=&_county=new+orleans&_cityTown=new+orleans&_state=04000US22&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160

A few demographics from the above fact sheets:
In 2000, New Orleans was 28.1% white, 67.3% black. The median household income was $27,133.
Same year, Gulfport was 62.2% white, 33.5% black. The median household income was $32,779.
Same year, Biloxi was 71.4% white, 19.0% black. The median household income was $34,106.
For the US in 2000, the population was 74.1% white, 12.5% black, and median household income was $41,994.

Judging on population size alone, it is unfair to compare the two areas. This discrepancy grows when one adds the floodwater in New Orleans, which is not affecting Gulfport-Biloxi.

From:

i allow anonymous posting on my lj, for one person in particular who knows who he is. if this isn't that person, it's kinda rude to post without signing your name. if it is him, hey, sign your name next time loser.

From:

ultimately, at least for me, the big picture is that those of us living in potential disaster zones know.. we know, because we've been told every time something happens that there's the potential that nobody's going to be able to help for anywhere from 24-72 hours (San Francisco earthquake, Northridge earthquake, etc for examples from my end of the spectrum). We're told to plan when there's nothing to worry about, to put stuff aside, and to practice getting out, just in case. And on the local and state government level, their plans recognize that it's possible that they're going to be it for a while and that the Feds (no matter who's in office, no matter how their structurally organized into government) will not be able to help, won't be able to be mobilized in time to give immediate assistance. They'll be able to help within 72 hours. That's how the federal bureaucracy works. Over at protein wisdom, they talk about what FEMA is and what their plans are: http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18967/ - feel free to take out the spin that doesn't agree with your leanings and go with the raw facts of it.

and if what

bexxa is reporting in her lj is discovered to be true? heads will roll.. here's a link to what she's talking about: http://www.radioblogger.com/#000967

From:

I forgot to add - that doesn't mean that things couldn't be done differently or better and I hope they investigate to see where the breakdowns were...

and with regards to the Red Cross story - I don't think that the Red Cross cares too much about ideology at this point... they're too busy trying to care for the people that they wanted to start helping much earlier..

From:

I saw this exact same report on CNN, days ago, about Red Cross trucks being turned back. And the Red Cross said the orders came from FEMA.

Polarization of the media networks and government spin means I try to crosscheck my sources all the time. I can't believe a word that's on Fox News (or that comes out of the White House communication's office), but I try not to take everything on CNN on faith, either. If it's also reported in a couple of newspapers and on a foreign network, I'll start to think there's something there.

For example, I'd like to find a few other sources or be able to crosscheck events before I take this seriously.

I hope they investigate to see where the breakdowns were...

I hope Bush isn't left to investigate himself.

And I hope that this is looked at in light of this administration's claim that domestic safety has been their first priority. If they can declare an emergency three days ahead of the event and still not be deployed when disaster hits, their electoral promise of national preparedness has fallen way short of the mark.

From:

And the Red Cross said the orders came from FEMA.
Actually, that's inaccurate... the orders didn't come from FEMA, they came from Louisiana's state office of Homeland Security...

here's the red cross' FAQ: http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html

here's the link to CNN's story that tells the state's story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.redcross/index.html

and here's a transcript from the update for the "keeping the red cross and salvation army out of NOLA" story from foxnews's reporter Major Garrett: http://www.radioblogger.com/#000970

and here's a guy who called the red cross himself: http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2005/09/another_katrina_1.html

From:

Thanks for the links. There's so much crap flying around, like that senior White House official saying the governor had turned down Bush, when there're copies of her letters dated way before landfall for everyone to see, you really have to work at contextualizing every single piece of information. So thanks for that. It saves me a bit of effort.

From:

apparently there's also an interesting article in today's NYT. don't have a link though.

From:

The reason Clinton's FEMA was a model was NOT that he had some kind of ideological insight to run it that way. It was directly related to Hurricane Andrew, that devastated homestead, FL.

He had the political will to do something about it. To learn from it. To put the weight of the federal government behind it. That's ideology. The belief that it is the responsibility of the federal govenment to do something about it.

Bush doesn't. He doesn't believe it's the feds' job.

I can think of no reason that G.W.B. eviscerated FEMA other than it was tied to Clinton

All politics are not created equal. That's why there are elections. Politicians want to leave their mark on a government: that's politics. The way in which they choose to leave their mark: that's ideology.

I can think of a great many reasons why GWB gutted FEMA, in the very same way he wants to gut Social Security and within the very same ideological framework: the federal government deals with foreign affairs (war, yeah!); domestic affairs are best left to individuals within the forces of the free market. And I caricature only a little.

That doesn't change the fact that the sinecure jobs in N/O were given to political allies of the governor

And as I said, that's for the people of Louisiana to take up with their elected officials and whip their asses. But if there's an earthquake in San Francisco or a terrorist attack in Chicago, it's not the governor of Louisiana or the mayor of New Orleans that's going to come, hopefully, to the rescue. People care about issues that are relevant to them. This isn't a surprise.

We can argue all day about these sorts of things. That doesn't help.

I disagree. It helps a lot. The number of people who go to the polls, in any country, without the slighest clue what the issues are, and what the reality is, is beyond appalling. Loud public debate can only make it better; it certainly can't make it worse. "Now is not the time for politics," is Bush's catch phrase because it is so incredibly convenient for him. If he had his way, it would never be time for politics.

(And I agree with Jon Stewart that the media haven't done their job on that front. Until now.)

Things would have been different surely, but only the naive would assume it HAD to be better.

We don't know what it would have been. We can only deal with what's in front of us.

We CAN learn from it.

You ARE learning from it. I don't see why there should be a choice between DEBATE and ACTION. A healthy democracy calls for both.

they will call for Brown's head on a platter, perhaps Chertoff's too, but that won't fix the problem.

I feel fairly confident in my political analysis when I say that, for half of your population, this will be a very good start, having seen Brown's CV and listened to Chertoff in the first few days of the disaster.

Perhaps they will at some level realize that what you need is an independent and expert federal agency that can coordinate all the disparate entities in an emergency, and get things done, without being an inefficient and bloated agency.

One can only hope.

From:

Becoming MORE partisan will just result in an eventual 50/50 split in the country...

I'm sorry, but it's a little late. Your country is already split. That won't change as long as he's in power. Your president will never be accused of governing from the center. There are issues people are willing to compromise on, and others that they aren't. He's gone to bat on every single one of them, never admitting a mistake and never giving an inch. You don't create national consensus by enacting a neo-con agenda (like you wouldn't create it by enacting a neo-socialist one).

Going back to my original point (digressing? me? no!), this is way beyond a hurricane for a lot of people. It's a crystallizing issue. And no wonder. From where we're standing here, your country was left without leadership for four days in the midst of a national emergency (same way we wondered where Bush was for the first 24 hours after 9/11) -- and it wasn't even an unannounced emergency.

Now your people are being told, by the governement who promised them that dead soldiers and dead civilians in Iraq would guarantee safety at home, who asked them to sacrifice in the name of national security, that should there be an such emergency in the future -- like, say, a terrorist attack -- they should expect to be on their own for the first 72 hours. Can't be helped. It's the way the federal government works. Take it up with your local officials.

Is it a wonder people are a little pissed?

From:

gingerwood.livejournal.com

My feeling is that there is more than enough blame to go around at every level government. I normally think that special investigations are a waste of time and money, but in this instance I think that we really need one to figure out exactly what happened in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

I'm far more interested in smoothing the process out than I am in getting anyone fired.

From:

I'm far more interested in smoothing the process out than I am in getting anyone fired.

yes, this. because ultimately that is all that matters. learning from where we fuck up and trying to not fuck up in the future. i don't care about blame. just fix the fucking problems.

From: (Anonymous)

One comment...I love you. ;-)

::mushies::

~Rexy

From: