• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Politicizing hurricane Katrina

a_unique_person said:
I was claiming no more than what I did. To extrapolate this event to be representative of the whole of the US was never my intent. A local article stated that Katrina has forced the US as a whole to once again face up to the racism and poverty. Much of the country has moved on, much of it is still stuck in the past.

I don't believe, for example, that any of the forum members would endorse these actions. That they can still happen says something, though.
Click to expand...

So what WAS your intent? Just wondering, that's all. What overall larger point were you trying to make by mentioning the story?

Do you think the US ever does anything good? Do you think the US is overall good for the world, or bad for the world?

Just trying to gain some perspective that I can approach your posts from. It helps to interepret things properly in the future.

And believe me, I have plenty of gripes about my own country, and post them frequently on this forum.
 
a_unique_person said:
Make that nearly all.
Click to expand...

Did you think I was endorsing the actions?

This is from my post:
"Hey, if this ONE jurisdiction did that, then there should be hell to pay, no question about it. The fact that they would do that infuriates me."
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't believe, for example, that any of the forum members would endorse these actions. That they can still happen says something, though.
Click to expand...
My visceral reaction is that it really pisses me off. Here you have people that have gone through hell and then there are people who could help that were not helping.

I have watched an interview with the police chief for Gretna and he said that they had secured their city and evacuated many of the residents. They knew of the looting going on and they were concerned that the lawlessness in New Orleans would spill over into their city and they really did not have the man power to protect the property of their citizens. This was a high priority to protect their citizens. This is what they were hired to do.

I'm sorry, while I understand their concern I don't think it is a good enough justification. At the very least they could have set up something on that side of the river and processed people through. Secured buses and taken them some place else. Even if it was at a slow pace. Provide water and some food and at least allow people to stay on the bridge until they could be processed. Sure, it could have created a magnet for people that could be problematic and could have even created a dangerous situation but forcing people to just turn back displays a callousness that I find reprehensible. What I'm trying to say is that they could have done something and they did nothing. In fact there are reports from credible people that the police from Gretna crossed the bridge to the New Orleans side and forced people to disperse taking from those who were homeless their water and food. Those folks, the officers that did this need to be locked up IMO.
 
RandFan said:

This was a high priority to protect their citizens. This is what they were hired to do.
Click to expand...
I think the police in Gretna did an admirable job protecting the citizens who paid their wages, as well as protecting the property within their jurisdiction.


I'm sorry, while I understand their concern I don't think it is a good enough justification. At the very least they could have set up something on that side of the river and processed people through. Secured buses and taken them some place else. Even if it was at a slow pace. Provide water and some food and at least allow people to stay on the bridge until they could be processed.
Click to expand...
"They" were not prepared to do so. And suppose "they" -- whatever "they" actually did -- had been armed citizenry of Gretna? Would you hold them to the same standard "Oh, our first mission is to "save lives""? Also note that no lives appear to have been lost in this instance.

Would you have willingly chanced destruction of your property and that of your neighbors, as well as subjecting you and your neighbors to unknown, possibly high, risk? And would you expect your local police to do the same?


Sure, it could have created a magnet for people that could be problematic and could have even created a dangerous situation ...
Click to expand...
How about, in the highest likelyhood would have created an even more dangerous situation ....


What I'm trying to say is that they could have done something and they did nothing.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying they did exactly what local police are paid to do.


In fact there are reports from credible people that the police from Gretna crossed the bridge to the New Orleans side and forced people to disperse taking from those who were homeless their water and food. Those folks, the officers that did this need to be locked up IMO.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that crossing the bridge into New Orleans and forcing people to disperse would be outside expected guidelines and actionable. At this point the unanswered question is "did they actually do so?".
 
Bush on Katrina response: 'I take responsibility'
President George W. Bush took responsibility on Tuesday for any failures in the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina that struck two weeks ago and acknowledged the storm exposed deficiencies at all levels of government four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Asked if Americans should be concerned their government remains unprepared to respond to another major disaster or a terrorist attack, Bush said: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."
Click to expand...
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.bridge/index.html

"Our people had left. Our city was locked down and secured, for the sake of the citizens that left their valuables here to be protected by us."

The chief said he had not spoken with any of the officers involved in the incident.

More than 56 percent of Gretna's population is white, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, and under 36 percent are black.

Some evacuees said police took food and water from a group that had camped out on the bridge.

Slonsky said the group that camped on the bridge had some food and water and felt relatively safe. But fellow evacuee Larry Bradshaw said, the police came back at dusk.

"Jumped out of his car with the gun aimed at us, screaming and cursing and yelling at us to get the blank-blank away," he said "And just, just so rabidly angry. And we tried to reason, we tried to talk. And he was just putting his gun in the face of young children and families. It said Gretna on the police car."
Click to expand...
 
John Ziegler, a So Cal talk show host has an editorial. Here are some of items from his list but you can find the entire editorial at:

John Ziegler

"What We Have Learned In The Two Weeks After Katrina"

That even when it is totally obvious that he/she is really by far the most responsible for all of this, God still never gets blamed for anything.
Click to expand...
That the answer to saving a city that was doomed by geography/topography and socialism seems to be to change nothing except adding massive amounts of even more socialism.
Click to expand...
That Celine Dion is nuttier, Geraldo Rivera is more of a showboat, Sean Penn is more of a media whore, Howard Dean is even more partisan, and Wolf Blitzer is more of a racist than we ever thought before.
Click to expand...
That it is possible for Greta Van Susteren to stop talking about Natalie Hollaway for an entire week.
Click to expand...

Jen
 
"What We Have Learned In The Two Weeks After Katrina"

That John Ziegler, a So Cal talk show host that wrote an editorial, is just another partisan hack.
Click to expand...

;)
 
originally postted by Randfan
Ok, the focus is on Bush et al. Bush and his administration. Bush and his advisors. Bush and those who work with him. Come on. Get off of the propaganda and spin. This is a distinction with little or no difference and is completly beside the point. And that point is, that it is demonstrable that Blumenthal does not care about ALL of the facts. Only those that fit with his world view. True or not true?
Click to expand...
There you go again. You seem to be very worried about propaganda. If you believe that what he said was propaganda on the basis that although nothing he said was factually incorrect but simply that he failed to make every point you wanted him to make I have to ask if you always include every fact of relevance. If you do noty then on your own claim you are also guilty of propaganda and should likewise be castigated for propaganda.

Please be honest in your answer.

You have also made another claim about Blumenthall. I have shown that your first claim was false. To try to be fair to you let me assume that your were just being loose with your words rather than that you simply don't care about the accuracy of your own claims.

Please provide support for your latest claim that Blumenthall only cares about facts that fit his world view.
 
RandFan said:
... it is demonstrable that Blumenthal does not care about ALL of the facts. Only those that fit with his world view. True or not true?
Click to expand...
Might it be that Blumenthal's world-view is shaped by facts? When he makes a point he justifies by facts relevant to that point, but that doesn't mean he's not aware of other facts that do not bear on his argument.

Blumenthal writes mostly about the White House because a) the White House is important and b) White House level politics is his area of expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom