PDA

View Full Version : Katrina - First Hand


Judy G. Russell
September 3rd, 2005, 12:15 PM
I thought this report really needed to be repeated. It was posted at the NOLA.COM website:

Jeff Rau, a family and now personal friend to whom I will forever be linked, and I were volunteering with a boat and pulling people out of the water on Wednesday. I have a first-hand experience of what we encountered. In my opinion, everything that is going on in the media is a complete bastardization of what is really happening. The result is that good people are dying and losing family members. I have my own set of opinions about welfare and people working to improve thier own lot instead of looking for handouts, but what is occurring now is well beyond those borders. These people need help and need to get out. We can sort out all of the social and political issues later, but human beings with any sense of compassion would agree that the travesty that is going on here in New Orleans needs to end and people's lives need to be saved and families need to be put back together. Now.

I will tell you that I would probably disagree with most of the people that still need to be saved on political, social, and cultural values. However, it must be noted that these people love thier friends and families like I do, desire to live like I do, and care for their respective communities (I was even amazed at the site of seemingly young and poor black people caring for sickly and seemingly well-to-do white people and tourists still needing evacuation from New Orleans' downtown area) the same way I care for mine.

Eight people in particular who stood out during our rescue and whose stories deserve to be told:

1.) We were in motor boats all day ferrying people back and forth approximately a mile and a half each way (from Carrolton down Airline Hwy to the Causeway overpass). Early in the day, we witnessed a black man in a boat with no motor paddling with a piece of lumber. He rescued people in the boat and paddled them to safety (a mile and a half). He then, amidst all of the boats with motors, turned around and paddled back out across the mile and a half stretch to do his part in getting more people out. He refused to give up or occupy any of the motored boat resources because he did not want to slow us down in our efforts. I saw him at about 5:00 p.m., paddling away from the rescue point back out into the neighborhoods with about a half mile until he got to the neighborhood, just two hours before nightfall. I am sure that his trip took at least an hour and a half each trip, and he was going back to get more people knowing that he'd run out of daylight. He did all of this wit! h a t!
wo-by-four.

2.) One of the groups that we rescued were 50 people standing on the bridge that crosses over Airline Hwy just before getting to Carrolton Ave going toward downtown. Most of these people had been there, with no food, water, or anyplace to go since Monday morning (we got to them Wed afternoon) and surrounded by 10 feet of water all around them. There was one guy who had been there since the beginning, organizing people and helping more people to get to the bridge safely as more water rose on Wednesday morning. He did not leave the bridge until everyone got off safely, even deferring to people who had gotten to the bridge Wed a.m. and, although inconvenienced by loss of power and weather damage, did have the luxury of some food and some water as late as Tuesday evening. This guy waited on the bridge until dusk, and was one of the last boats out that night. He could have easily not made it out that night and been stranded on the bridge alone.

3.) The third story may be the most compelling. I will not mince words. This was in a really rough neighborhood and we came across five seemingly unsavory characters. One had scars from what seemed to be gunshot wounds. We found these guys at a two-story recreational complex, one of the only two-story buildings in the neighborhood. They broke into the center and tried to rustle as many people as possible from the neighborhood into the center. These guys stayed outside in the center all day, getting everyone out of the rec center onto boats. We approached them at approximately 6:30 p.m., obviously one of the last trips of the day, and they sent us further into the neighborhood to get more people out of homes and off rooftops instead of getting on themselves. This at the risk of their not getting out and having to stay in the water for an undetermined (you have to understand the uncertainly that all of the people in these accounts faced without having any info on the resc! ue ef!
forts, how far or deep the flooding was, or where to go if they want to swim or walk out) amount of time. These five guys were on the last boat out of the neighborhood at sundown. They were incredibly grateful, mentioned numerous times 'God is going to bless y'all for this'. When we got them to the dock, they offered us an Allen Iverson jersey off of one of their backs as a gesture of gratitude, which was literally probably the most valuable possession among them all. Obviously, we declined, but I remain tremendously impacted by this gesture.

I don't know what to do with all of this, but I think we need to get this story out. Some of what is being portrayed among the media is happening and is terrible, but it is among a very small group of people, not the majority. They make it seem like New Orleans has somehow taken the atmosphere of the mobs in Mogadishu portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," which is making volunteers (including us) more hesitant and rescue attempts more difficult. As a result, people are dying. My family has been volunteering at the shelters here in Houma and can count on one hand the number of people among thousands who have not said "Thank You." or "God Bless You." Their lives shattered and families torn apart, gracious just to have us serve them beans and rice.

If anything, these eight people's stories deserve to be told, so that people across the world will know what they really did in the midst of this devastation. So that it will not be assumed that they were looting hospitals, they were shooting at helicopters. It must be known that they, like many other people that we encountered, sacrificed themselves during all of this to help other people in more dire straits than their own.

It is also important to know that this account is coming from someone who is politically conservative, believes in capitalism and free enterprise, and is traditionally against many of the opinions and stances of activists like Michael Moore and other liberals on most of the hot-topic political issues of the day. Believe me, I am not the political activist. This transcends politics. This is about humanity and helping mankind. We need to get these people out. Save their lives. We can sort out all of the political and social issues later. People need to know the truth of what is going on at the ground level so that they know that New Orleans and the people stranded there are, despite being panicked and desperate, gracious people and they deserve the chance to live. They need all of our help, as well.

This is an accurate account of things. Jeffery Rau would probably tell the same exact stories.

Regards,
Robert LeBlanc

fhaber
September 3rd, 2005, 01:51 PM
Did you catch the three pundits on the News Hour last night? I've never seen three members of the inside-the-Beltway royalty so worked up, entirely independent of political persuasion. David Brooks was plain pissed. Oliphant was blaming the Dems more than the Repubs.

Let us pray the gathering national revulsion is commensurate with the negligence that has been displayed, or this really is post-Weimar Germany, and there truly is no hope for us.

Judy G. Russell
September 3rd, 2005, 02:16 PM
Let us pray the gathering national revulsion is commensurate with the negligence that has been displayed, or this really is post-Weimar Germany, and there truly is no hope for us.
I think there is some hope, since most people don't seem inclined to just let this one go. (Some seem -- amazingly -- inclined to give just about anything a pass as long as it's not their ox that's getting gored. They don't seem to realize that the next crisis may be the one that leaves them out in the cold.)

FEMA in particular has GOT to be removed from DHS and given both authority and resources commensurate with what we want it to be able to do. And the folks who run it have to be -- have GOT to be -- professionals and neither bureaucrats nor politicians.

I was just appalled this morning to read the following, at the NOLA.COM website:

September 3, 2005, Chicago Sun Times

BY STEPHANIE ZIMMERMANN AND SCOTT FORNEK Staff Reporters

A visibly angry Mayor Daley said the city had offered emergency, medical and technical help to the federal government as early as Sunday to assist people in the areas stricken by Hurricane Katrina, but as of Friday, the only things the feds said they wanted was a single tank truck.

That truck, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency requested to support an Illinois-based medical team, was en route Friday.

"We are ready to provide more help than they have requested. We are just waiting for their call," said Daley, adding that he was "shocked" that no one seemed to want the help.

... Daley said the city offered 36 members of the firefighters' technical rescue teams, eight emergency medical technicians, search-and-rescue equipment, more than 100 police officers as well as police vehicles and two boats, 29 clinical and 117 non-clinical health workers, a mobile clinic and eight trained personnel, 140 Streets and Sanitation workers and 29 trucks, plus other supplies. City personnel are willing to operate self-sufficiently and would not depend on local authorities for food, water, shelter and other supplies, he said.
as well as this one (from MSNBC's article on one of the few remaining fully operating hospitals in the area, West Jefferson):

“We are very disappointed, to be quite honest, in the federal and state people,” says the hospital’s CEO, Gary Muller. “We’ve had open roads since Monday afternoon and we have gotten no assistance from FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency]. It’s totally disgraceful. We’re one of three open hospitals and we still can’t get them to say we need food.”

Muller says he told FEMA officials on Monday that the hospital needed an additional generator to supplement its own emergency power system. “They have been here twice to assess whether we need the generator. Twice. Today is Friday and we still don’t know if we’re getting it. This is the government? It’s terrible.” (FEMA officials did not return calls asking for comment.)

Dick K
September 3rd, 2005, 02:22 PM
FEMA in particular has GOT to be removed from DHS and given both authority and resources commensurate with what we want it to be able to do. And the folks who run it have to be -- have GOT to be -- professionals and neither bureaucrats nor politicians.Judy -

Yes. It is clear that FEMA should be thoroughly restructured and taken out from under DHS. The New Orleans disaster seems to have proved that whatever else DHS is involved in, responsibility for natural disaster recovery efforts should not be in their portfolio. DHS was cobbled together from bits and pieces of existing agencies, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the "a little of this and a little of that" approach is just plain not working. I am still trying to figure out the logic of putting the Coast Guard under DHS, for example....

rlohmann
September 3rd, 2005, 03:13 PM
...or this really is post-Weimar Germany, and there truly is no hope for us.If you mean Weimar Germany, I don't think so, at least not yet, but there are similarities sufficent to make that a profoundly disturbing allusion.

Peter Creasey
September 3rd, 2005, 03:30 PM
>> Katrina - First Hand <<



Judy, And here's some "first hand" news received from someone who lives in Baton Rouge, LA. He has some refugees from New Orleans living in his house.

3) The NO-FLY zone NEEDS to be there. It is FULL of military and civilian aircraft. I've never seen so much air traffic in my life. There is an ARINC number through Omaha Control which is in charge of all traffic in the no-fly zone. Participating aircraft call them on that discrete ARINC freq and they give clearance into the zone based on the mission. If you are not part of that mission, you aren't going. Fortunately, we moved the DC-3 operation to Lafayette and I'm off the hook on that. Every inch of the BTR airport is basically covered with helicopters , C-117s, DC-8s and all other types of BIG stuff. We have a few dozen of the BIG military fuel trucks.

Yesterday, I saw "a BIG something" air to air refueling two helicopters at one time while in a large 360 turn. THAT'S something you don't see every day. According to the stupid bastards on TV, "See there, they're not even going TOWARD New Orleans. They're just going around in circles." I'm getting really weary of people who are complaining that nothing is getting done.

4) Don't believe any of the crap you are seeing on TV. This effort is HUGE and it is moving. Remember that the PLANNED military evacuation of our people in Siagon was not nearly this successful. They had a lot of notice. Here, the notice was ZERO.

5) The death toll is very high. No, I'm not going to post the number that the coroner told me yesterday. It's too big for public consumption at this point. It is staggering. Mind boggling. But, it's not as big as many predicted it would be when this was discussed over the years. More have been saved than expected.

6) MANY have been saved. MANY. Tens of thousands are out and gone out of state and are fine. You see none of that. Hueys are dropping loads of people constantly--outside of N.O.--to waiting busses that leave the state. The folks you see hollering and bitching on TV are on dry land. There are thousands more still in the water. You need to go get them out of the water and taken to dry land BEFORE you can take them out or worry too damned much about the ones on dry land. The floating dead are becoming an issue to the living still in the water. Of course the ones who are *relatively safe* make wonderful TV backdrop for the talking heads who are not helping anything. (I shoulda broken Geraldo Rivera's leg when he was at my hanagr yesterday. I appologize for that lack of action. I was busy and wasn't thinking. Please forgive me. )

7) Many more will die through no lack of effort on anyone's part. They will die for two reasons. One, they did not leave when told to leave and Two, the gargantuan effort will fail as it was always KNOWN would happen when the levies were topped. This is NOT unexpected by ANYONE who has lived here for very long. Tragic? Yes. Unexpected? No. About the tragedy expected? No, it's not nearly as bad as many thought it would be. Was there a way to avoid it? Yes. New Orleans could have been MOVED and that was not going to happen. Guess what? If they rebuild New Orleans, we will all get to see this happen again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a living in a dreamland.

8) I can't do a damned thing about the media or Jesse Jackson who declares that "this is like the bowels of a slave ship" which is calculated to incite hatred and a riot or even a civil war.

Judy G. Russell
September 3rd, 2005, 03:46 PM
Bottom line: DHS is to make us feel good about the possibility of preventing another 9/11. It doesn't have a darned thing to do with real emergency preparedness, and oh BROTHER has it shown that it doesn't have the capability of dealing with a real emergency. Let's have the prosecutors and investigators do their thing in trying to keep us secure, and keep the folks who will save our buns if an emergency does occur separate. Which means getting FEMA, the Coast Guard and a whole bunch of other agencies OUT from under the DHS umbrella. It's too big, too unwieldy, cobbles together too many disparate functions.

Lindsey
September 3rd, 2005, 11:42 PM
Did you catch the three pundits on the News Hour last night? I've never seen three members of the inside-the-Beltway royalty so worked up, entirely independent of political persuasion.
I didn't see the News Hour, but the same observation has applied pretty generally. Reporters on the scene are almost universally angry at how incompetently things were handled in the early days, and most back in the newsroom have been pretty disgusted as well, and are showing it. Even Robert Siegel on ATC was getting testy with an official he was interviewing--Chertoff, I think. Joe Scarborough, reporting from Biloxi, has been quite critical of the Administration. And Linda Wertheimer uncharacteristicly gave vent to her anger about the situation in an editorial spot on "Morning Edition" this morning.

I think a lot of them are just getting fed up with happy talk that so plainly contradicts what they can see with their own eyes.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 3rd, 2005, 11:57 PM
>> Katrina - First Hand <<
Frankly, I'm not inclined to put too much weight on an analysis that blames the victims with, "They didn't leave when they were told to leave." A lot of them COULD NOT leave--because they had no money, because they had no transportation, because they or someone they were responsible for couldn't travel--lots of reasons.

But the person you are quoting contradicts himself. First he says "There was zero notice," and then later he said, "This was not unexpected." So which is it?

As for the people on land: Yeah, they weren't in the water any more, but they were placed in horrendous conditions, in some cases without food or water, and little or no information about what was to follow.

Many people who were rescued from roofs and attics were dropped on an Interstate highway to camp out under the overpass. Many of them were there for several days in sweltering heat, without food or water or any sort of sanitary facilities. They were told buses would come to take them to shelters, but none showed up until Jesse Jackson brought in a convoy. It turns out there were buses waiting just a few miles away, but nobody informed the drivers that there were people waiting for them under the overpass. That's just poor planning and coordination, and those people had every right to expect better.

--Lindsey

fhaber
September 4th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Haber Family Sitcom, pilot show, partially copied from an email I sent out:

(For our Euro/Ozzie contingent, and anyone who lives under a rock - Brooks is usually the far-from-token near-right-winger - he's half the opinion segment, and carries his weight very competently. They brought in a token Black, for obvious reasons, last night. Clarence Page is also no foaming Sharpton - he's often on the side of self-reliance. Remember, our Public TV is currently in damp-underwear reactive mode, scared of any Liberal shadow they might cast.)

I yanked Molly away from pre-poaching Saturday's salmon, DEMANDING she hear
Brook's comments (rebroadcast, an hour later on another channel). I was blown
away by the "historicity" of his reasoning:

o Johnstown flood = the dawn of muckraking and anti-monopoly legislation - as
well as the Progressives.
o 1927 flood = the birth of the New Deal and the boiling soup in which the
Kingfish was born.

This much content and depth of thinking on, of all things, TV, impressed me mightily, indeed probably overimpressed me. The measured rage shown by these worthies, all most definitely part of the Establishment - welcome inside the Beltway at all the Best Places - was again most impressive.

My wife listened to it all, then said, "Brooks has some very good assistants.
I'll bet none of them get bylines."

And I thought I was a blase' New Yorker.

Now we'll see if the body politic has any guts.

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 12:15 PM
My wife listened to it all, then said, "Brooks has some very good assistants. I'll bet none of them get bylines."

And I thought I was a blase' New Yorker.
ROFL!!! Molly is amazing. And she's probably right.

As for anybody in the body politic having any guts... don't count on it.

Dick K
September 4th, 2005, 05:44 PM
...but none showed up until Jesse Jackson brought in a convoy.
You left out the part (reported on Salon.com, that infallible source of truth) which noted that the highly-trumpeted Jesse Jackson/Maxine Walters "convoy" struck out on the first two places it went to pick up refugees (or at least as many could fit in the bus seats that were not occupied by reporters from the likes of Salon.com) because those sites had already been evacuated by less-publicized National Guard convoys. In desperation, the Jesse & Maxine show finally went to Louis Armstrong Airport where they found refugees waiting for ANG flights out, but at least they had found their refugees.

Dick K
September 4th, 2005, 09:46 PM
There is yet another incredibly powerful first-hand story here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-04-katrina-reportersnotebook_x.htm).

Lindsey
September 4th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Haber Family Sitcom, pilot show, partially copied from an email I sent out:
Thanks for the rundown! I think the News Hour offers video clips on its web site; I'll definitely have to look for that one!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 4th, 2005, 10:20 PM
You left out the part
Haven't seen that particular story on Salon; what I was reporting was what I saw on MSNBC (hardly a left-wing source).

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Dear Lord... can't hardly read it through the tears.

Lindsey
September 5th, 2005, 12:30 AM
The folks you see hollering and bitching on TV are on dry land. There are thousands more still in the water. You need to go get them out of the water and taken to dry land BEFORE you can take them out or worry too damned much about the ones on dry land.
You might want to take note of this report (http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09.html#076001) from the Times-Picayune:


About 100 people have died at the Chalmette Slip after being pulled off their rooftops, waiting to be ferried up the river to the West Bank and bused out of the flood ravaged area, U.S. Rep. Charles Melancon, D-Napoleonville, said Thursday.

About 1,500 people were at the slip on Thursday afternoon, where critical supplies like food and water are scarce, he said. Melancon expressed serious frustration with the slow pace of getting these items to the people waiting to finish their journey to safety.

Many of those at the slip were evacuated from a shelter set up at Chalmette High School that suffered massive flooding as the waters rose during Hurricane Katrina.

Melancon said people are being plucked out of their water-surrounded houses, but the effort to get them out of Chalmette and provide them with sufficient sustenance is the problem.
People aren't out of danger just because they are on dry land.

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Haven't seen that particular story on Salon
From hard-hitting Salon journalist Stephen Elliot's continuing coverage (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/03/the_bus/) of the Katrina aftermath:

I decided to get on one of the buses headed for New Orleans, even though our exact destination wasn't certain. As we left there were reports that people were still stranded along Highway 10, and I was told the intention was to go get them. But Waters was under the impression we were headed for the New Orleans convention center. After we'd driven a few miles we got word that both the highway encampment and the convention center had been evacuated, and it was decided that we'd head to the airport, where thousands of people had been moved from downtown.
Elliot, as observant readers will recall, is the very same guy who did his very best to fan the flames of class hatred by describing how some police officers were sleeping in real beds and getting hot dogs to eat between shifts, thereby making it at least partially understandable that they be shot at by looters and thugs among the flood victims.

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 01:32 AM
Dear Lord... can't hardly read it through the tears.Judy -
Yeah; it is a remarkable story and an inspiring example of how a journalist can do his job without sacrificing either his humanity or his "journalistic objectivity."

RayB (France)
September 5th, 2005, 05:35 AM
Judy -
Yeah; it is a remarkable story and an inspiring example of how a journalist can do his job without sacrificing either his humanity or his "journalistic objectivity."

The problem is. how many do or will . . . . . . . and then, of course, there are the viewer ratings and you won't convince me that isn't still a consideration in spite of the tragic circumstances. Sickening! (My turn to be cynical)

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 08:54 AM
The ones I've particularly admired have been the folks from the Times-Picayune -- chased out of their own homes and their own building by Katrina and yet achieving what they've achieved through the online editions. Astounding job of journalism. Truly amazing. Hope there are some Pulitzer folks paying attention.

Peter Creasey
September 5th, 2005, 12:34 PM
>> I'm not inclined to put too much weight on an analysis <<

Lindsey, It appears that some people here are rejecting reality because it doesn't suit their agenda. I never said anything about "dry land". It was in a quote from a "first hand" email that you choose to not accept.

Jeff
September 5th, 2005, 12:40 PM
From hard-hitting Salon journalist Stephen Elliot's continuing coverage (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/03/the_bus/) of the Katrina aftermath:


Elliot, as observant readers will recall, is the very same guy who did his very best to fan the flames of class hatred by describing how some police officers were sleeping in real beds and getting hot dogs to eat between shifts, thereby making it at least partially understandable that they be shot at by looters and thugs among the flood victims.


There's some reason for that font used with that statement?

- Jeff

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 02:22 PM
There's some reason for that font used with that statement?Huh? What font? It looks perfectly ordinary to me.

Dick K
September 6th, 2005, 04:18 AM
The ones I've particularly admired have been the folks from the Times-Picayune -- chased out of their own homes and their own building by Katrina and yet achieving what they've achieved through the online editions. Astounding job of journalism. Truly amazing. Hope there are some Pulitzer folks paying attention.Judy -

For another amazing first-hand account from the heart of New Orleans, see the "Interdictor" blog at http://mgno.com, run by a small team from a New Orleans ISP which has somehow managed to keep running on diesel generators. This blog has been running continuously throughout the entire week, and it is mind-boggling. In addition to minute-by-minute reporting from the scene, it includes links to literally thousands of raw digital photos taken by the team and webcam coverage of their operation.

MollyM/CA
September 6th, 2005, 06:15 AM
Note the date. Sent by a friend, but when I checked the reference I found the article by searching the NG library on 2004 and New Orleans --might be legal to quote it as it's available free.

Subsidence from pumping water out of local (Central CA) aquifers determined the flood patterns here in 1989 --some areas are as much as 30 feet below the benchmarks.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE
OCTOBER, 2004

GONE WITH THE WATER

By Joel K. Bourne, Jr.


It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV "storm teams" warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising there: Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city. As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn't—yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

"The killer for Louisiana is a Category Three storm at 72 hours before landfall that becomes a Category Four at 48 hours and a Category Five at 24 hours—coming from the worst direction," says Joe Suhayda, a retired coastal engineer at Louisiana State University who has spent 30 years studying the coast. Suhayda is sitting in a lakefront restaurant on an actual August afternoon sipping lemonade and talking about the chinks in the city's hurricane armor. "I don't think people realize how precarious we are,"
Suhayda says, watching sailboats glide by. "Our technology is great when it works. But when it fails, it's going to make things much worse."

The chances of such a storm hitting New Orleans in any given year are slight, but the danger is growing. Climatologists predict that powerful storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk. "It's not if it will happen," says University of New Orleans geologist Shea Penland. "It's when."

Yet just as the risks of a killer storm are rising, the city's natural defenses are quietly melting away. From the Mississippi border to the Texas state line, Louisiana is losing its protective fringe of marshes and barrier islands faster than any place in the U.S. Since the 1930s some 1,900 square miles (4,900 square kilometers) of coastal wetlands—a swath nearly the size of Delaware or almost twice that of Luxembourg—have vanished beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Despite nearly half a billion dollars spent over the past decade to stem the tide, the state continues to lose about 25 square miles (65 square kilometers) of land each year, roughly one acre every 33 minutes.

A cocktail of natural and human factors is putting the coast under. Delta soils naturally compact and sink over time, eventually giving way to open water unless fresh layers of sediment offset the subsidence. The Mississippi's spring floods once maintained that balance, but the annual deluges were often disastrous. After a devastating flood in 1927, levees were raised along the river and lined with concrete, effectively funneling the marsh-building sediments to the deep waters of the Gulf. Since the 1950s engineers have also cut more than 8,000 miles (13,000 kilometers) of canals through the marsh for petroleum exploration and ship traffic. These new ditches sliced the wetlands into a giant jigsaw puzzle, increasing erosion and allowing lethal doses of salt water to infiltrate brackish and freshwater marshes.

While such loss hits every bayou-loving Louisianan right in the heart, it also hits nearly every U.S. citizen right in the wallet. Louisiana has the hardest working wetlands in America, a watery world of bayous, marshes, and barrier islands that either produces or transports more than a third of the nation's oil and a quarter of its natural gas, and ranks second only to Alaska in commercial fish landings. As wildlife habitat, it makes Florida's Everglades look like a petting zoo by comparison.

Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely bedfellows—scientists, environmental groups, business leaders, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to forge a radical plan to protect what's left. Drafted by the Corps a year ago, the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially estimated to cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice as much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a plan to spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years to fund the most promising projects. Either way, Congress must authorize the money before work can begin.

To glimpse the urgency of the problem afflicting Louisiana, one need only drive 40 minutes southeast of New Orleans to the tiny bayou village of Shell Beach. Here, for the past 70 years or so, a big, deeply tanned man with hands the size of baseball gloves has been catching fish, shooting ducks, and selling gas and bait to anyone who can find his end-of-the-road marina. Today Frank "Blackie" Campo's ramshackle place hangs off the end of new Shell Beach. The old Shell Beach, where Campo was born in 1918, sits a quarter mile away, five feet beneath the rippling waves. Once home to some 50 families and a naval air station during World War II, the little village is now "ga'an pecan," as Campo says in the local patois. Gone forever.



(SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS CUT BY mm)


The oil industry has been good to Louisiana, providing low taxes and high-paying jobs. But such largesse hasn't come without a cost, largely exacted from coastal wetlands. The most startling impact has only recently come to light—the effect of oil and gas withdrawal on subsidence rates. For decades geologists believed that the petroleum deposits were too deep and the geology of the coast too complex for drilling to have any impact on the surface. But two years ago former petroleum geologist Bob
Morton, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, noticed that the highest rates of wetland loss occurred during or just after the period of peak oil and gas production in the 1970s and early 1980s. After much study, Morton concluded that the removal of millions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and tens of millions of barrels of saline formation water lying with the petroleum deposits caused a drop in subsurface pressure—a theory known as regional depressurization. That led nearby underground faults to slip and the land above them to slump.

"When you stick a straw in a soda and suck on it, everything goes down," Morton explains. "That's very simplified, but you get the idea." The phenomenon isn't new: It was first documented in Texas in 1926 and has been reported in other oil-producing areas such as the North Sea and Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. Morton won't speculate on what percentage of wetland loss can be pinned on the oil industry. "What I can tell you is that much of the loss between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne was caused by induced subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal. The wetlands are still there, they're just underwater." The area Morton refers to, part of the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary, has one of the highest rates of wetland loss in the state.

The oil industry and its consultants dispute Morton's theory, but they've been unable to disprove it. The implication for restoration is profound. If production continues to taper off in coastal wetlands, Morton expects subsidence to return to its natural geologic rate, making restoration feasible in places. Currently, however, the high price of natural gas has oil companies swarming over the marshes looking for deep gas reservoirs. If such fields are tapped, Morton expects regional depressurization to continue. The upshot for the coast, he explains, is that the state will have to focus whatever restoration dollars it can muster on areas that can be saved, not waste them on places that are going to sink no matter what.

A few days after talking with Morton, I'm sitting on the levee in the French Quarter, enjoying the deep-fried powdery sweetness of a beignet from the Café du Monde. Joggers lumber by in the torpid heat, while tugs wrestle their barges up and down the big brown river. For all its enticing quirkiness, for all its licentious pleasures, for all its geologic challenges, New Orleans has been luckier than the wetlands that lined its pockets and stocked its renowned tables. The question is how long Lady Luck will shine. It brings back something Joe Suhayda, the LSU engineer, had said during our lunch by Lake Pontchartrain.

"When you look at the broadest perspective, short-term advantages can be gained by exploiting the environment. But in the long term you're going to pay for it. Just like you can spend three days drinking in New Orleans and it'll be fun. But sooner or later you're going to pay."

I finish my beignet and stroll down the levee, succumbing to the hazy, lazy feel of the city that care forgot, but that nature will not.

Jeff
September 6th, 2005, 12:52 PM
Huh? What font? It looks perfectly ordinary to me.

You are oblivious to the sudden increase in print size and density from your first sentence to your castigation? Fan the flames indeed. Or did you mean something else?

- Jeff

Jeff
September 6th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Note the date. Sent by a friend, but when I checked the reference I found the article by searching the NG library on 2004 and New Orleans --might be legal to quote it as it's available free.

Subsidence from pumping water out of local (Central CA) aquifers determined the flood patterns here in 1989 --some areas are as much as 30 feet below the benchmarks.

As to the article the author deserves a Cabinet level post, and I know of one that should be made vacant immediately. As to subsidence, a very large part of northern Holland has sunk quite considerably. There used to be a lot of natural gas under it. It always was below sea level, now it's *way* below sea level.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
September 6th, 2005, 07:49 PM
Somehow the font switched from Arial to Times Roman.

Judy G. Russell
September 6th, 2005, 07:53 PM
Wow... that's fabulous... what an amazing amazing website...

Judy G. Russell
September 6th, 2005, 07:54 PM
I remember reading that article... last year...

Dick K
September 6th, 2005, 08:19 PM
You are oblivious to the sudden increase in print size and density from your first sentence to your castigation? Fan the flames indeed. Or did you mean something else?Completely oblivious. I saw no "change in print size and density." Indeed, until Judy pointed it out, I had not even noticed that there had been a switch (nearly imperceptible to my eyes) from Verdana 2 to Times Roman 3. I have no idea how this font change occurred, but suspect it was a "carryover" from the quoted text. In any case, I am sorry it bothered you, and I have re-edited the offending message to realign the fonts. I do stand by the text, however.

Lindsey
September 6th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Yeah; it is a remarkable story and an inspiring example of how a journalist can do his job without sacrificing either his humanity or his "journalistic objectivity."
Or perhaps your own messages are an example of how the measure of objectivity is in itself subjective.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 6th, 2005, 08:59 PM
?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 6th, 2005, 09:35 PM
Lindsey, It appears that some people here are rejecting reality because it doesn't suit their agenda.
That may be, but I don't think I'm one of them. Besides--what makes you think a partial report from a guy in Baton Rouge (which is hardly a "first hand" account of what is happening in New Orleans) is more reliable than what reporters and others in New Orleans are saying?

I never said anything about "dry land". It was in a quote from a "first hand" email that you choose to not accept.
That e-mail was what I was responding to. He seemed to be saying people who had been evacuated to dry ground had no cause for complaint. 100 people died at Chalmette slip last Thursday waiting for further evacuation after being dropped there, possibly from dehydration. They were on dry ground, but that didn't mean they were out of danger.

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 7th, 2005, 02:10 AM
!
. . . . .

Dick K
September 7th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Or perhaps your own messages are an example of how the measure of objectivity is in itself subjective.Well, given a choice between whate we have seen here of USA Today reporter/photographer/paramedic Robert Davis' personal accounts of what is happening on the front lines, and Salon scribe Stephen Elliot's sniping from the sidelines, I'll take Davis.

Your mileage may differ, or maybe I am not reading Elliot closely enough <shrug>..

ndebord
September 7th, 2005, 11:05 AM
Well, given a choice between whate we have seen here of USA Today reporter/photographer/paramedic Robert Davis' personal accounts of what is happening on the front lines, and Salon scribe Stephen Elliot's sniping from the sidelines, I'll take Davis.

Your mileage may differ, or maybe I am not reading Elliot closely enough <shrug>..

Dick,

There have been reports that police destroyed cameras and CF cards from the Toronto Star and the NO Times Picayune while their reporters were taking photographs of police shooting at looters and police firefights with gangs.

In both the Superdome and the Convention Center, the gangs supposedly had AK-47s and shotguns which meant that they both overmatched and outnumbered the few police that were in both locations. You will hear a lot more about the rapes and murders commited by these gangs.

Jeff
September 7th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Completely oblivious. I saw no "change in print size and density." Indeed, until Judy pointed it out, I had not even noticed that there had been a switch (nearly imperceptible to my eyes) from Verdana 2 to Times Roman 3. I have no idea how this font change occurred, but suspect it was a "carryover" from the quoted text. In any case, I am sorry it bothered you, and I have re-edited the offending message to realign the fonts. I do stand by the text, however.

Your castigation is no longer bold, but it's still the same seriously larger print than your sentence introducing the quotation. And I wear trifocals. If this is some sort of problem with the software it had better get fixed ASAP, as such could be the start of unintended unpleasantness.

- Jeff

Dick K
September 7th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Your castigation is no longer bold, but it's still the same seriously larger print than your sentence introducing the quotation. And I wear trifocals. If this is some sort of problem with the software it had better get fixed ASAP, as such could be the start of unintended unpleasantness. I just looked at the post in edit mode; my comments (both before and after the quoted material) are in Verdana 2, and the quoted material is in Times New Roman 3. What more do you want me to do? (BTW, I also wear trifocals, and I really don't see that much difference between the comments and the quoted material....)

Dick K
September 7th, 2005, 03:22 PM
There have been reports that police destroyed cameras and CF cards from the Toronto Star and the NO Times Picayune while their reporters were taking photographs of police shooting at looters and police firefights with gangs. Nick -
Do you know where the reports appeared? Even making allowances for the fear, exhaustion, and nervousness of the police, it is never good when the cops start seizing cameras, tape, film, or (O tempora! O mores!) CF cards.

In both the Superdome and the Convention Center, the gangs supposedly had AK-47s and shotguns which meant that they both overmatched and outnumbered the few police that were in both locations. You will hear a lot more about the rapes and murders commited by these gangs.Pretty grim stuff, indeed.

Judy G. Russell
September 7th, 2005, 04:56 PM
I saw one report several times -- on MSNBC and CNN, I think, plus others -- of one situation where a news crew drove right up after a shooting and the police reacted by grabbing cameras etc. then. I didn't read of any other cases.

Dick K
September 7th, 2005, 07:37 PM
I saw one report several times -- on MSNBC and CNN, I think, plus others -- of one situation where a news crew drove right up after a shooting and the police reacted by grabbing cameras etc. then.Judy -
Unless there were security considerations of which we are not aware, this is just dumb, dumb, dumb!

ndebord
September 7th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Nick -
Do you know where the reports appeared? Even making allowances for the fear, exhaustion, and nervousness of the police, it is never good when the cops start seizing cameras, tape, film, or (O tempora! O mores!) CF cards.

Pretty grim stuff, indeed.

Dick,


This from the Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1125611421477&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 09:36 PM
There have been reports that police destroyed cameras and CF cards from the Toronto Star and the NO Times Picayune while their reporters were taking photographs of police shooting at looters and police firefights with gangs.
I heard something along that line, too--and worse:

New Orleans Police Accused of Beating/Detaining Reporters
Reporters Without Borders has issued a warning about police violence against journalists working in New Orleans. According to the group, on Sept. 1 police threatened a reporter and photographer from the Toronto Daily Star at gunpoint because they were seen covering a clash between police and individuals identified by police as looters. When police realized the photographer had snapped photos, they threw him to the ground, grabbed his cameras and removed the memory cards containing about 350 photographs. His press card was also torn from him. When the photographer asked for his photographs back, police officers threatened to hit him. Police also detained a photographer from the New Orleans-based Times Picayune after he was seen covering a shoot-out involving the police. Police smashed all of his equipment on the ground

But since I heard it on "Democracy Now!", I am sure it will be automatically discounted by some parties here. But FWIW, here (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14894) is the article from Reporters Without Borders. There's confirmation of the incident involving the Time-Picayune photographer here (http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09.html#075875) and perhaps here (http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09.html#076000).

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Your mileage may differ, or maybe I am not reading Elliot closely enough <shrug>..
I haven't read Elliot's other reports, but perhaps the problem is that you are not reading them objectively enough. I haven't seen, in what I have read, an awful lot of difference between Elliot describing what he has seen and Davis describing what he has seen.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 09:57 PM
Elliot, as observant readers will recall, is the very same guy who did his very best to fan the flames of class hatred by describing how some police officers were sleeping in real beds and getting hot dogs to eat between shifts, thereby making it at least partially understandable that they be shot at by looters and thugs among the flood victims.
Nobody was condoning shooting at police or anyone else.

And by the way, Mr. Objective: it wasn't hot dogs, it was sausages (and not the Jimmy Dean brand, but sausages from a first-class restaurant--likely hand-ground), not to mention chocolate cake and prime rib. I know the New Orleans police are under an awful lot of strain, and they have a horrendous job to do. But life had been very hard on the poorer residents of New Orleans, too. And from other things I have heard, it rather sounds like the local authorities were not inclined to treat them with much sympathy. Even so, I was more turned off by the restaurant owners sitting on their hoards of food and their cool storage, and using them to bargain for favors from the police, than by the police themselves.

Maybe you can't see that, but on the one hand, there's Judy in New Jersey, recovering from major surgery, and feeling very guilty because she's not capable of going down there and helping out; and on the other hand, you have these folks that are right there and content to sit on the porch and drink champagne while people around them die of heat and thirst. Maybe it's me, but that just hits me wrong. Nothing to do with class; everything to do with humanity.

--Lindsey

ndebord
September 7th, 2005, 10:00 PM
Lindsey,

Well since we have the actual NOLA and Star reports, it doesn't matter which side replays the story. Come to think of it, I've not heard a peep out of Fox on this story, although I have heard plenty of Arabian horseshit from Fox about how FEMA did a good job and it is all those democrats fault (the gov and the mayor).

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 10:18 PM
This from the Star:
Thanks; I tried searching their web site, but couldn't find anything.

FWIW, this morning's "DN!" broadcast included a first-hand account by New Orleans resident David Gladstone, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning at the University of New Orleans, an account which contained another rough-handling encounter with the authorities:

DAVID GLADSTONE: Well, I live and work out at the lakefront, and on Sunday morning, I realized I couldn't stay there. So, I went – I don't own a car and lost my last chance to leave with friends, so I checked into a hotel in the downtown area, which a lot of New Orleanians do during hurricanes, because they are old buildings and they have weathered many storms. This storm, unfortunately, was unlike any other we have had in the city. I was able to get a hotel room, and I did weather the hurricane itself on Sunday night. Monday morning, it was clear that help wasn't coming anytime soon, people really weren't sure what was happening. They didn't have information. They couldn't go back to their homes. I tried to go back to mine, but the streets were flooded. So, I decided to stay another night in the central business district.

By Tuesday morning, the streets were flooded. My hotel had diesel fumes, diesel fuel floating in about two feet of water in the lobby. It was a chaotic situation, and I realized I had to leave the hotel, as many other people were doing, because of fire hazard. So I found myself on the street with really nowhere to go. I had a couple of bags. I was wandering around Canal Street observing – observing looting and other things in the downtown area. I made my way to one of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the French Quarter, Faubourg Mariné, where I was able to find some cold beer. New Orleans is New Orleans, after all. And I met some people with a car, and I helped them get it out of the city. And we left sometime Tuesday night.

AMY GOODMAN: What happened when you were walking by a car with military or whoever walking by?

DAVID GLADSTONE: The person I was with had driven with me back to the central business district to find some people he had offered a ride out of the city to, as well, and while he was in waist-deep water looking for them, I was standing by the car when some official people on a Caterpillar tractor pulled up to me and were screaming at me to move the car, even though they could get around it. I yelled back that I -- that it wasn't my car, and I didn't have the keys. And I was yelling for the owner of the car to come back and move it, and in the yelling and screaming, at one point, the officer removed his gun from his holster and pointed it right at me and then another one jumped off the Caterpillar and butted me up against the side of a building with his – what looked like an M-16 rifle or something like that. And it was really at that point I realized that social order, at least as I knew it, had broken down in the city, and that I had to get out. Fortunately, I was able to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: What about these descriptions of looting? The now famous contrast of pictures, A.P. showing a black person carrying a bag, saying “one of the looters,” and then A.F.P., Agence France Presse showing two white people, saying they had taken food and water, you know, to survive?

DAVID GLADSTONE: I think it's really a shame that we have been hearing so many reports in the media linking looting with race. To begin with, most of the looting I observed on Canal Street and in the French Quarter was – consisted basically of people taking necessities, like food and water. Anything they could eat, like candy, because most people felt – most people I spoke with felt that they were on their own, that they were not – whether it was well-founded or not, they believed that they were on their own and that they had to survive. I saw some people – I did see some people taking clothes and things like that, but by far, most of the people I observed looting in shops were taking necessities.


--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 10:25 PM
plenty of Arabian horseshit from Fox about how FEMA did a good job and it is all those democrats fault (the gov and the mayor).
Yeah; that is, apparently, the latest Rove-mandated talking point.

I don't doubt that there have been mistakes made by the state and local people as well, but doesn't change the fact that (a) FEMA has screwed up very badly, in many instances hampering the relief efforts rather than helping them; and (b) the quality of their response would not appear to compare well with what they did in Florida in 2004. I hope then when an investigation is done, the reasons for the difference in the handling of Florida 2004 and Mississippi/Louisiana 2005 will be carefully explored.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 7th, 2005, 10:28 PM
If this is some sort of problem with the software it had better get fixed ASAP, as such could be the start of unintended unpleasantness.
Might be a difference in the way the fonts are rendered by IE and the way they are rendered by a Gecko browser.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 7th, 2005, 10:54 PM
Unless there were security considerations of which we are not aware, this is just dumb, dumb, dumb!I suspect it was just panic at the moment -- not a policy of taking the cameras, etc., but just one momentary "oh sh!t!" reaction.

ndebord
September 8th, 2005, 12:17 AM
I suspect it was just panic at the moment -- not a policy of taking the cameras, etc., but just one momentary "oh sh!t!" reaction.

Judy & Dick,

NO has been a crime-ridden city for years. Our own Jack Maple did a lot to improve what had been by all accounts, a terminally ill police force. He probably could have done more if he had not died so young from colon cancer.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=119&subsecID=213&contentID=2155

P.S. I don't get something here. I'm cutting and pasting URLs into these messages and they are not coming out properly. Is there something I need to know about how to do this?

Dick K
September 8th, 2005, 02:09 AM
NO has been a crime-ridden city for years. Our own Jack Maple did a lot to improve what had been by all accounts, a terminally ill police force.
Nick -

Family members of some of my relatives by marriage are from New Orleans, and the late husband of one of them was a NO police officer. From what they have said, I can confirm that the NO Police Department was (and may still be--I just don't know) thoroughly corrupt. Ditto the city administration, although from all signs, the current mayor was doing a good job on rooting out the endemic corruption.

P.S. I don't get something here. I'm cutting and pasting URLs into these messages and they are not coming out properly. Is there something I need to know about how to do this?
What exactly do you mean when you say they "are not coming out properly"?

Dick K
September 8th, 2005, 02:13 AM
I haven't seen, in what I have read, an awful lot of difference between Elliot describing what he has seen and Davis describing what he has seen.
I dunno. One thing that struck me in the two pieces that were quoted here were their descriptions of what happened when the two encountered real, live refugees. Elliot recounted not stopping as he drove past a man who seemed to be looking for help or for a ride; Davis described dropping his reportorial gear and joining a team of paramedics who were succoring the refugees.

As I said, maybe I have not read enough of Elliot.

Judy G. Russell
September 8th, 2005, 09:51 AM
I'm cutting and pasting URLs into these messages and they are not coming out properly. Is there something I need to know about how to do this?
They are working perfectly as hotlinks, Nick.

ndebord
September 8th, 2005, 10:44 AM
Judy,

Good to hear they're working as hotlinks. Tks.

fhaber
September 8th, 2005, 12:15 PM
If they were those ubiquitous Andouilles things, the NO chorizos, then their social caste lies somewhere in between your and Dick's poles. These *are* to be found in every po' boy's gumbo, and good ones, too.

And not exactly in Dick's defense, but as a sad commentary - If every cop has his price, I'd put a N'Orlean's cop's somewhere down around one sausage, from what I remember.

Dick K
September 8th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Nobody was condoning shooting at police or anyone else.Who said anyone "was condoning shooting at police"? What I did say was that this story was used by some to rationalize the shooting, along the lines of, "I can understand why people might be tempted to shoot at the cops," or wondering aloud if those shooting at the police had heard about the cops' feasting/swilling/showering. Introducing these rationales with pious disclaimers along the lines of, "Of course, I do not approve of shooting at the police, but...." just doesn't carry much weight with me. That line of argument kind of reminds me of the statements which seem to crop up after Palestinian terrorists bomb an Israeli pizza parlor and kill a bunch of teenagers: "Of course, I condemn terrorism, but...one must take into consideration the frustrations of the Palestinian people which drive them to this kind of behavior...." My son-in-law is a police officer, and he has volunteered to go to the Gulf Coast to help out in any way he can. He is awaiting word as to whether his services will be needed, but I admit that I tend to react pretty emotionally when I see people saying that they "can understand" why looters and thugs might want to take pot shots at the cops.

And by the way, Mr. Objective: it wasn't hot dogs, it was sausages (and not the Jimmy Dean brand, but sausages from a first-class restaurant--likely hand-ground)... Really? Where did you hear that? Not in the Stephen Elliot story, which simply referred to the police "grilling sausage links over charcoal barbecues." No mention of the provenance of those sausages, let alone any likelihood of their being hand-ground. "Grilling sausage links" is a perfectly accurate, albeit subjectively loaded, description of cooking hot dogs; the quoted words evoke images of a stadium tailgate party,...which I am willing to bet was exactly Elliot's intention. Given the locale, one might suspect that the "sausage links" were Cajun andouille rather than Oscar Meyer weenies, but if the reader came away with the impression that they were "from a first-class restaurant--likely hand-ground," then Elliot succeeded in implying what he did not actually state.

I know the New Orleans police are under an awful lot of strain, and they have a horrendous job to do. But life had been very hard on the poorer residents of New Orleans, too. And from other things I have heard, it rather sounds like the local authorities were not inclined to treat them with much sympathy. Even so, I was more turned off by the restaurant owners sitting on their hoards of food and their cool storage, and using them to bargain for favors from the police, than by the police themselves. [...] you have these folks that are right there and content to sit on the porch and drink champagne while people around them die of heat and thirst.Well, according to Elliot's story, the Brennans certainly did not appear to be breaking their necks to get their food to the Convention Center, but I am sure they were not alone in finding a way to ride out the disaster. (Indeed, I saw another story about a bunch of people on a luxury yacht who were floating along quite comfortably and even offered ice water to a police team that had come to "rescue" them.) Using the restaurant's rapidly warming walk-in coolers to store medicine sounds fine at first blush, but I suspect it would have been wildly impractical. For openers, the French Quarter was pretty much isolated from the major part of the city which was a disaster area, so how would the medicines (a) be collected in the disaster area, (b) brought to the restaurant(s), and (c) be redistributed to those who needed them? If a diabetic is stranded at the Convention Center with a few vials of insulin that need refrigeration, I don't see how a thawing cooler in the French Quarter is going to be of any more immediate use than a hospital refrigerator in Baton Rouge. Taking away the guy's insulin and trying to move it to a dicey cooler in the French Quarter just does not seem to answer the problem; what FEMA and the local authorities should have been doing was either getting the diabetic out of there or bringing refrigeration capacity in.

Should the Brennans have been eating their roast beef and drinking their champagne? Should they have renounced the food and drink that was available to them because it was not available to all? (G.K. Chesterson allegedly said that the answer to a hat shortage is not to start cutting off heads.) Well, as noted above, the folks in the Quarter were pretty well cut off from the flooded disaster area, and there was no practical way of getting their stuff to the flood victims. So, I guess the real question to ask is how far does one have to be from the area before one can take a shower or eat decent food with a clear conscience? On the other side of town? On the other side of the state? On the other side of the country? You and I felt gut-wrenching sympathy for the New Orleans victims, but that did not keep us from eating (and eating pretty well, in all likelihood) while they were undergoing their agony.

Jeff
September 8th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Might be a difference in the way the fonts are rendered by IE and the way they are rendered by a Gecko browser.

--Lindsey

Ah, thank you! I was just about to ummm discuss with Dick the blindness to his post which I don't have. I think you may have just found his. If you're right such is not good at all. I mean dammit, we all have to see the same thing if we're going to see anything at all, and Dick and I are apparently not seeing the same thing.

- Jeff

The same thing, like that new and noxious yellow moving eye strain. If he can't see it, I certainly can. And I wish I couldn't. Should I get Gecko?

ndebord
September 8th, 2005, 07:39 PM
Dick,

DK>> Family members of some of my relatives by marriage are from New Orleans, and the late husband of one of them was a NO police officer. From what they have said, I can confirm that the NO Police Department was (and may still be--I just don't know) thoroughly corrupt. Ditto the city administration, although from all signs, the current mayor was doing a good job on rooting out the endemic corruption.

Don't know. Haven't been down to NO since 1958. The previous Mayor and previous police chief supposedly took what Maple gave them and ran with it. The new Mayor is corporate and an unknown in the political soup down there, which means he "may" not be corrupt and I sure hope they are better now than the national joke they were before. The Big Easy didn't come by its name for no reason, you know.



As for the quote problem. What I was cutting and pasting from was longer than the "hot links" (as Judy called it) that was showing up in my posting(s) here. As she said, I was wrong and it is working ok. I was just getting antsy.

<sigh>

estherschindler
September 8th, 2005, 08:05 PM
Your castigation is no longer bold, but it's still the same seriously larger print than your sentence introducing the quotation. And I wear trifocals. If this is some sort of problem with the software it had better get fixed ASAP, as such could be the start of unintended unpleasantness.

Must be your browser. The only font change I saw was in your quoteback when it was shown in italics.

Dick K
September 8th, 2005, 09:31 PM
Ah, thank you! I was just about to ummm discuss with Dick the blindness to his post which I don't have. I think you may have just found his. I just looked at the "offending" post in IE6 (I normally use Firefox 1.06), and I must say that I can see no difference whatever between the first paragraph and the last paragraph. The intervening paragraph (the quoted material) may be in a very slightly different font, but that difference is barely noticeable, if it is noticeable at all. So, feel free to "ummm discuss [my] blindness."

The same thing, like that new and noxious yellow moving eye strain.You know, until Lindsey clarified it, I had no idea what you were talking about. Sorry you don't like the avatar.

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 09:44 PM
I suspect it was just panic at the moment -- not a policy of taking the cameras, etc., but just one momentary "oh sh!t!" reaction.
No, there were enough independent reports that it really did seem to be a matter of policy (National Guard units were refusing to allow news crews into the city at all at one point, and there were other reports that reporters already there would no longer be allowed to accompany authorities in patrol boats), but it also seems to have been reversed by this evening, perhaps as a result of adverse publicity, or perhaps from someone in authority with some common sense coming through and saying, "What pinhead decided this?"

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I dunno. One thing that struck me in the two pieces that were quoted here were their descriptions of what happened when the two encountered real, live refugees.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Davis jumped in to assist an official rescue team. He had some assurance that they, at least, were safe people to take up with. Elliot declined to stop to pick up a stranger. In a time and place where car jackings were rampant, do you entirely blame him? One other reporter's account I was reading this afternoon mentioned sitting in the passenger seat of his truck while he was filing a report, in an area that was crawling with National Guard and police, and having some 6-foot guy open the driver's side door, slip into the seat and tell him, "I need your car." The reporter beat him off with a drainpipe he happened to have handy. Still, I had the impression that Elliot was not entirely happy about having chosen to play it safe. But he reported it anyway. That strikes me as honest, and what more do you want from a reporter?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 8th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Oh I heard other reports about not accommodating the news media, sure, but that was the only report I heard of deliberately taking film or cameras.

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 10:14 PM
Who said anyone "was condoning shooting at police"?
You implied that I was. And you still are. Please spare me your pious disclaimers.

but I admit that I tend to react pretty emotionally . . .
Thank you for at least admitting that your perspective may not be completely objective. I do commend your son-in-law's selflessness and courage, and I wish him well in what is certain to be a horrendous job. As I said, I'm certainly not condoning or excusing shooting at anyone. I'm sorry that strikes you as pious, but I'm not sure what I could say that wouldn't.

Should the Brennans have been eating their roast beef and drinking their champagne? Should they have renounced the food and drink that was available to them because it was not available to all?
No, I wasn't advocating that they renounce food and drink. But I'd really have liked to have heard them express any regret at all at the plight of those in the shelters, or any wish to offer them some sort of aid. Instead, they seemed tickled to death at being able to trade their abundance for favors from the police. "This is working out well for us," they said. I'm sorry, it just really hit me wrong.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 10:19 PM
that new and noxious yellow moving eye strain.
Now, now. Be nice.

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. You can set your options not to show avatars, you know. ("User CP" on the menu bar, then choose "Edit Options").

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 10:23 PM
What I was cutting and pasting from was longer than the "hot links" (as Judy called it) that was showing up in my posting(s) here.
For a long URL, the software snips out the middle of what is posted in the message and substitutes "..." (which I think Mozilla also does when there's a long URL to display on the status bar). Doesn't affect the URL that is used for the underlying link.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 8th, 2005, 10:27 PM
Oh I heard other reports about not accommodating the news media, sure, but that was the only report I heard of deliberately taking film or cameras.
Oh, I see. Yes, you may be right about that. (Though I think barring news crews from the area, not to mention detaining reporters, as was done with the guy from the Toronto Star, goes a little beyond simply not accommodating them.)

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 9th, 2005, 02:11 AM
Oh I heard other reports about not accommodating the news media, sure, but that was the only report I heard of deliberately taking film or cameras.The credible reports I heard were to the effect that the authorities (Federal, state, municipal--take your pick) did not want the newsies to take pictures of bodies during the corpse recovery phase, so as to avoid the shock of families learning the fate of missing loved ones on the eleven o'clock news or on the front page.

The incredible reports included hysterical blog comments alleging that either (a) all reporters were being banned from New Orleans, or (b) the police and military were turning back any "dark skinned" journalists or photographers.

Dick K
September 9th, 2005, 02:13 AM
Davis jumped in to assist an official rescue team. He had some assurance that they, at least, were safe people to take up with. Elliot declined to stop to pick up a stranger. In a time and place where car jackings were rampant, do you entirely blame him?...Still, I had the impression that Elliot was not entirely happy about having chosen to play it safe.You may have a valid point there, but nowhere did I get the impression that Elliot was "not entirely happy" with his choice.

Dick K
September 9th, 2005, 02:19 AM
But I'd really have liked to have heard them express any regret at all at the plight of those in the shelters, or any wish to offer them some sort of aid.Neither of us will ever know what was or was not said, of course, but I do not share your faith that Elliot faithfully and scrupulously reported everything the Brennans said during their conversation. Reporters are noted cherry pickers; selecting what to quote and what to leave out is an essential part of their profession.

MollyM/CA
September 9th, 2005, 09:53 AM
Here's an interesting report from two paramedics who'd gone to NoLA to attend a conference and were stranded.



Two days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the Walgreen's store at the corner of Royal and Iberville streets remained locked. The dairy display case was clearly visible through the widows. It was now 48 hours without electricity, running water, plumbing. The milk, yogurt, and cheeses were beginning to spoil in the 90-degree heat. The owners and managers had locked up the food, water, pampers, and prescriptions and fled the City. Outside Walgreen's windows, residents and tourists grew increasingly thirsty and hungry.

The much-promised federal, state and local aid never materialized and the windows at Walgreen's gave way to the looters. There was an alternative. The cops could have broken one small window and distributed the nuts, fruit juices, and bottle water in an organized and systematic manner. But they did not. Instead they spent hours playing cat and mouse, temporarily chasing away the looters.

We were finally airlifted out of New Orleans two days ago and arrived home yesterday (Saturday). We have yet to see any of the TV coverage or look at a newspaper. We are willing to guess that there were no video images or front-page pictures of European or affluent white tourists looting the Walgreen's in the French Quarter.

We also suspect the media will have been inundated with "hero" images of the National Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the "victims" of the Hurricane. What you will not see, but what we witnessed, were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and kept the generators running. The electricians who improvised thick extension cords stretching over blocks to share the little electricity we had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses who took over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually forcing air into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive. Doormen who rescued folks stuck in elevators.

Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, "stealing" boats to rescue their neighbors clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who helped hot-wire any car that could be found to ferry people out of the City. And the food service workers who scoured the commercial kitchens improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded. Most of these workers had lost their homes, and had not heard from members of their families, yet they stayed and provided the only infrastructure for the 20% of New Orleans that was not under water.

On Day 2, there were approximately 500 of us left in the hotels in the French Quarter. We were a mix of foreign tourists, conference attendees like ourselves, and locals who had checked into hotels for safety and shelter from Katrina. Some of us had cell phone contact with family and friends outside of New Orleans. We were repeatedly told that all sorts of resources including the National Guard and scores of buses were pouring in to the City. The buses and the other resources must have been invisible because none of us had seen them.

We decided we had to save ourselves. So we pooled our money and came up with $25,000 to have ten buses come and take us out of the City. Those who did not have the requisite $45.00 for a ticket were subsidized by those who did have extra money. We waited for 48 hours for the buses, spending the last 12 hours standing outside, sharing the limited water, food, and clothes we had. We created a priority boarding area for the sick, elderly and new born babies. We waited late into the night for the "imminent" arrival of the buses. The buses never arrived. We later learned that the minute the arrived at the City limits, they were commandeered by the military.

By day 4 our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was dangerously abysmal. As the desperation and despair increased, street crime as well as water levels began to rise. The hotels turned us out and locked their doors, telling us that the "officials" told us to report to the convention center to wait for more buses. As we entered the center of the City, we finally encountered the National Guard. The Guards told us we would not be allowed into the Superdome as the City's primary shelter had descended into a humanitarian and health hellhole. The guards further told us that the City's only other shelter, the Convention Center, was also descending into chaos and squalor and that the police were not allowing anyone else in. Quite naturally, we asked, "If we can't go to the only 2 shelters in the City, what was our alternative?" The guards told us that that was our problem, and no they did not have extra water to give to us. This would be the start of our numerous encounters with callous and hostile "law enforcement".

We walked to the police command center at Harrah's on Canal Street and were told the same thing, that we were on our own, and no they did not have water to give us. We now numbered several hundred. We held a mass meeting to decide a course of action. We agreed to camp outside the police command post. We would be plainly visible to the media and would constitute a highly visible embarrassment to the City officials. The police told us that we could not stay. Regardless, we began to settle in and set up camp. In short order, the police commander came across the street to address our group. He told us he had a solution: we should walk to the Pontchartrain Expressway and cross the greater New Orleans Bridge where the police had buses lined up to take us out of the City. The crowd cheered and began to move. We called everyone back and explained to the commander that there had been lots of misinformation and wrong information and was he sure that there were buses waiting for us. The commander turned to the crowd and stated emphatically, "I swear to you that the buses are there."

We organized ourselves and the 200 of us set off for the bridge with great excitement and hope. As we marched past the convention center, many locals saw our determined and optimistic group and asked where we were headed. We told them about the great news. Families immediately grabbed their few belongings and quickly our numbers doubled and then doubled again. Babies in strollers now joined us, people using crutches, elderly clasping walkers and others people in wheelchairs. We marched the 2-3 miles to the freeway and up the steep incline to the Bridge. It now began to pour down rain, but it did not dampen our enthusiasm.

As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.

We questioned why we couldn't cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little traffic on the 6-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City. These were code words for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans.

Our small group retreated back down Highway 90 to seek shelter from the rain under an overpass. We debated our options and in the end decided to build an encampment in the middle of the Ponchartrain Expressway on the center divide, between the O'Keefe and Tchoupitoulas exits. We reasoned we would be visible to everyone, we would have some security being on an elevated freeway and we could wait and watch for the arrival of the yet to be seen buses.

All day long, we saw other families, individuals and groups make the same trip up the incline in an attempt to cross the bridge, only to be turned away. Some chased away with gunfire, others simply told no, others to be verbally berated and humiliated. Thousands of New Orleaners were prevented and prohibited from self-evacuating the City on foot.

Meanwhile, the only two City shelters sank further into squalor and disrepair. The only way across the bridge was by vehicle. We saw workers stealing trucks, buses, moving vans, semi-trucks and any car that could be hotwired. All were packed with people trying to escape the misery New Orleans had become.

Our little encampment began to blossom. Someone stole a water delivery truck and brought it up to us. Let's hear it for looting! A mile or so down the freeway, an army truck lost a couple of pallets of C-rations on a tight turn. We ferried the food back to our camp in shopping carts. Now secure with the two necessities, food and water; cooperation, community, and creativity flowered. We organized a clean up and hung garbage bags from the rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We designated a storm drain as the bathroom and the kids built an elaborate enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken umbrellas, and other scraps. We even organized a food recycling system where individuals could swap out parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!).

This was a process we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina. When individuals had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself only. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids or food for your parents. When these basic needs were met, people began to look out for each other, working together and constructing a community.

If the relief organizations had saturated the City with food and water in the first 2 or 3 days, the desperation, the frustration and the ugliness would not have set in. Flush with the necessities, we offered food and water to passing families and individuals. Many decided to stay and join us. Our encampment grew to 80 or 90 people. From a woman with a battery powered radio we learned that the media was talking about us. Up in full view on the freeway, every relief and news organizations saw us on their way into the City. Officials were being asked what they were going to do about all those families living up on the freeway? The officials responded they were going to take care of us. Some of us got a sinking feeling. "Taking care of us" had an ominous tone to it.

Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, "Get off the fucking freeway". A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his truck with our food and water. Once again, at gunpoint, we were forced off the freeway. All the law enforcement agencies appeared threatened when we congregated or congealed into groups of 20 or more. In every congregation of "victims" they saw "mob" or "riot". We felt safety in numbers. Our "we must stay together" was impossible because the agencies would force us into small atomized groups.

In the pandemonium of having our camp raided and destroyed, we scattered once again. Reduced to a small group of 8 people, in the dark, we sought refuge in an abandoned school bus, under the freeway on Cilo Street. We were hiding from possible criminal elements but equally and definitely, we were hiding from the police and sheriffs with their martial law, curfew and shoot-to-kill policies.

The next days, our group of 8 walked most of the day, made contact with New Orleans Fire Department and were eventually airlifted out by an urban search and rescue team. We were dropped off near the airport and managed to catch a ride with the National Guard. The two young guardsmen apologized for the limited response of the Louisiana guards. They explained that a large section of their unit was in Iraq and that meant they were shorthanded and were unable to complete all the tasks they were assigned.

We arrived at the airport on the day a massive airlift had begun. The airport had become another Superdome. We 8 were caught in a press of humanity as flights were delayed for several hours while George Bush landed briefly at the airport for a photo op. After being evacuated on a coast guard cargo plane, we arrived in San Antonio, Texas.

There the humiliation and dehumanization of the official relief effort continued. We were placed on buses and driven to a large field where we were forced to sit for hours and hours. Some of the buses did not have air-conditioners. In the dark, hundreds if us were forced to share two filthy overflowing porta-potties. Those who managed to make it out with any possessions (often a few belongings in tattered plastic bags) we were subjected to two different dog-sniffing searches.

Most of us had not eaten all day because our C-rations had been confiscated at the airport because the rations set off the metal detectors. Yet, no food had been provided to the men, women, children, elderly, disabled as they sat for hours waiting to be "medically screened" to make sure we were not carrying any communicable diseases.

This official treatment was in sharp contrast to the warm, heart-felt reception given to us by the ordinary Texans. We saw one airline worker give her shoes to someone who was barefoot. Strangers on the street offered us money and toiletries with words of welcome. Throughout, the official relief effort was callous, inept, and racist. There was more suffering than need be. Lives were lost that did not need to be lost.


I've removed the names and addresses and attributions that came with the report, for the sake of the writers' privacy. It came to me through Anders Sterner's Suspects list and he considers the credentials of the posters to be impeccable.

mm

MollyM/CA
September 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM
<Sorry you don't like the avatar.

Oh, is that what 'the moving yellow' etc (moving??) was about? I LOVE that studious 'caution' sign!

Jeff
September 9th, 2005, 01:01 PM
I just looked at the "offending" post in IE6 (I normally use Firefox 1.06), and I must say that I can see no difference whatever between the first paragraph and the last paragraph. The intervening paragraph (the quoted material) may be in a very slightly different font, but that difference is barely noticeable, if it is noticeable at all. So, feel free to "ummm discuss [my] blindness."

I would if I could, but I can't. Try as I might there appears to be no way to post your post as I see it.

- Jeff

Jeff
September 9th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Now, now. Be nice.

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. You can set your options not to show avatars, you know. ("User CP" on the menu bar, then choose "Edit Options").

--Lindsey

Compared to what I think about animated ads, and anything else of that ilk, I *am* being nice.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Do a screen capture and then attach the screen capture as an attachment GIF, BMP, JPG, etc.).

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2005, 03:53 PM
That's why this new software is so nice. You don't like avatars? Turn 'em off. (User CP | Edit Options, scroll down to Thread Display Options and take the checkmark OUT of the box for Show Avatars) Or if you'd dump IE in favor of a decent browser like Firefox you could tell the browser to let animations run ONCE and then stop -- or not run at all.

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Jesus Kee-rist. And then some. Appalling does not begin to describe that.

ndebord
September 9th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Here's an interesting report from two paramedics who'd gone to NoLA to attend a conference and were stranded.



I've removed the names and addresses and attributions that came with the report, for the sake of the writers' privacy. It came to me through Anders Sterner's Suspects list and he considers the credentials of the posters to be impeccable.

mm

For those of us who want names and dates SFGate has a briefer version of this story:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/09/BAGL1EL1KH1.DTL

Lindsey
September 9th, 2005, 09:55 PM
Here's an interesting report from two paramedics who'd gone to NoLA to attend a conference and were stranded.
Wow, that's a very powerful testament. Reminds me of some aspects of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 9th, 2005, 09:57 PM
Compared to what I think about animated ads, and anything else of that ilk, I *am* being nice.
I hear ya. That's one reason I tend not to read the online version of the Washington Post--they're particularly enamoured of moving ads, it seems, even on their "suitable for printing" pages.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 9th, 2005, 11:25 PM
The incredible reports
Believe FEMA's excuse for the barring of photos of corpses if you want; frankly, I don't find that entirely credible. At the beginning of this thing, Brown said that one of the primary missions of the extra people he was requesting from DHS would be to project a positive image of the relief effort. And for sure corpses in the street aren't going to help you do that.

But the restrictions on reporters went beyond simply a "no photos of corpses" rule, and the reports were not limited to lone-wolf bloggers. NBC's Brian Williams mentioned on September 7 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050907c) that an NBC crew had been prevented from taking pictures of a Guard unit in the French Quarter, and that reporters were being barred from access to the Superdome and the Convention Center. Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/ts_nm/censorship_dc) reported that on the 6th, FEMA announced that reporters would no longer be allowed to ride along on recovery missions.

There was only one first-hand report, by blogger Bob Brigham, of being turned away at a National Guard checkpoint and told that they were under orders not to allow the media in. (And from the way the post reads, he wasn't the only one being turned away; he spoke of TV trucks being turned around.) He got in later by joining an 82nd Airborne convoy. What he says doesn't seem so far beyond belief to me; Brian Williams mentions that he suspects the decision not to allow the NBC team to photograph that National Guard unit was made on a whim, and I think Brigham's experience may have been an example of the same thing. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the ground rules in New Orleans.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2005, 11:30 PM
I think barring news crews from the area, not to mention detaining reporters, as was done with the guy from the Toronto Star, goes a little beyond simply not accommodating them.I agree with that. But again I think a lot of this is being done ad hoc -- not because there's any specific policy but probably more because there isn't one (the idiots).

Lindsey
September 10th, 2005, 10:11 PM
But again I think a lot of this is being done ad hoc -- not because there's any specific policy but probably more because there isn't one (the idiots).
Quite possibly--that certainly was what Brian Williams seemed to think. And that was likely why one journalist (I can't remember who it was) said the rules seemed to change hourly.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 10th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Well, CNN went to court and got an order from a federal judge that the media could NOT be barred from NOLA or from reporting on (and taking pictures of) the recovery of any bodies. FEMA backed down tonight with the court order in place.

Lindsey
September 12th, 2005, 12:26 AM
Well, CNN went to court and got an order from a federal judge that the media could NOT be barred from NOLA or from reporting on (and taking pictures of) the recovery of any bodies. FEMA backed down tonight with the court order in place.
I had thought the FEMA backed down after just the threat of a suit, but in any case: the order has been rescinded. And rightly so--it's not up to FEMA to decide what pictures the news media should and should not take.

--Lindsey

Peter Creasey
September 12th, 2005, 08:35 AM
>> I thought this report really needed to be repeated. <<

Judy, Here's another slant that says things were different than the media protrayed...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

Judy G. Russell
September 12th, 2005, 09:11 AM
Turns out you're right and an initial news report I saw was wrong. The AUSA representing the Government presented the judge with a memorandum from Gen. Honore saying the media would not be impeded in its coverage.

Judy G. Russell
September 12th, 2005, 09:12 AM
A Pittsburgh columnist? Not even one on the scene? That's the best you can do?

Peter Creasey
September 12th, 2005, 09:58 AM
>> That's the best you can do? <<

Judy, I haven't been trying nor will I. I just happened to see this report.

We have no way to judge which reports are correct. There are countless reports on both sides of the issue, pro and con. Hopefully the facts will come to light.

I don't have a favorite in this case. It seems only fair, though, that both sides get a modicum of exposure here, regardless of how we stand personally.

ndebord
September 12th, 2005, 10:14 AM
>> That's the best you can do? <<

Judy, I haven't been trying nor will I. I just happened to see this report.

We have no way to judge which reports are correct. There are countless reports on both sides of the issue, pro and con. Hopefully the facts will come to light.

I don't have a favorite in this case. It seems only fair, though, that both sides get a modicum of exposure here, regardless of how we stand personally.

Pete,

Though you don't have a favorite, as I read this guy's column, I do't see any first-hand knowledge going on, so it is just an opinion piece and as such, I don't give it any more weight than any other talking head: which is to say no weight at all, just hot air.

Lindsey
September 12th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Here's an interesting report from two paramedics who'd gone to NoLA to attend a conference and were stranded.
An audio version of this account was broadcast on "This American Life" Sunday (or at least, Sunday is when it was broadcast by my local public radio station). Recommended listening. In fact, I recommend the entire show (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/ra/296.ram) (this story was the second one in the set); it consisted entirely of first-hand accounts of experiences of Katrina (except in one case of an account from a woman living in a FEMA-maintained trailer park in Florida in the aftermath of last year's hurricanes there, included because it's assumed that similar parks will be set up to house those displaced by Katrina).

Audio for "This American Life" is also available at http://www.audible.com/thisamericanlife.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 12th, 2005, 10:00 PM
It seems only fair, though, that both sides get a modicum of exposure here, regardless of how we stand personally.That presupposes that there are two sides (I suspect there are multiple positions on this) and that both have factual support (some do, some don't and some are made up out of pretty near whole cloth).

Dick K
September 13th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Though you don't have a favorite, as I read this guy's column, I do't see any first-hand knowledge going on, so it is just an opinion piece and as such, I don't give it any more weight than any other talking head: which is to say no weight at all, just hot air.Nick -

Applying the same standards, I presume you would also put Michael Moore and Josh Marshall in the category of weightless, hot air spouting, talking heads. Right?

Dick K
September 13th, 2005, 04:44 PM
There was an excellent description and analysis of the precipitous drop in the Presdent's popular approval ratings in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091200668.html) in the "Washington Post."

The "Post" piece goes on to note, however, that unlike some of those commenting here, the American public does not seem to believe that the entire blame for the New Orleans catastrophe can be laid at the feet of the White House and the Administration. In this vein, take a look at this column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801667.html) by Charles Krauthammer. While Krauthammer can sometimes come across as not much more than a right-wing windbag, I think that this time his distribution of the blame--to everyone, including the President, FEMA, the state authorities, the municipal authorities, the Congress, and the American people--is quite persuasive.

Lindsey
September 13th, 2005, 05:10 PM
unlike some of those commenting here, the American public does not seem to believe that the entire blame for the New Orleans catastrophe can be laid at the feet of the White House and the Administration.
Who here made such a claim?

While Krauthammer can sometimes come across as not much more than a right-wing windbag
Only sometimes?

--Lindsey

ndebord
September 13th, 2005, 07:49 PM
Nick -

Applying the same standards, I presume you would also put Michael Moore and Josh Marshall in the category of weightless, hot air spouting, talking heads. Right?
Dick,

I differentiate between reporting and opinion pieces. This guy tried to have it both ways and he obviously had not done anything first hand.

As for Michael Moore, he is the first one to tell you that he is not an objective journalist of the 2 points of view school. Polemics are his thing, along with a dose of self: sort of like Bill O'Reilly and a whole school of imitators of that genre of news programs.

However, having said that, I saw a lot of truth in Moore's breakthough into celebrity status in his Flint Michigan story. Biased? Yes. Truthful in its insights? Definitely. I say this because I grew up 50 miles north of Flint and know the town well. In its glory days and watched as it descended into Dante's Inferno.

Marshall I don't know much about, so I can't comment.

ndebord
September 13th, 2005, 07:56 PM
There was an excellent description and analysis of the precipitous drop in the Presdent's popular approval ratings in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091200668.html) in the "Washington Post."

The "Post" piece goes on to note, however, that unlike some of those commenting here, the American public does not seem to believe that the entire blame for the New Orleans catastrophe can be laid at the feet of the White House and the Administration. In this vein, take a look at this column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801667.html) by Charles Krauthammer. While Krauthammer can sometimes come across as not much more than a right-wing windbag, I think that this time his distribution of the blame--to everyone, including the President, FEMA, the state authorities, the municipal authorities, the Congress, and the American people--is quite persuasive.
r
Dick,

The guy who wrote the book on the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was on CSPAN the other day and pretty much nailed it. The whole idea of federal intervenrtion was born out of that natural disaster and Herbert Hoover made his bones because of it. As Secretary of Commerce he was put in charge of fixing things and with a wide swatch of the countryside surrounding NO and north of the city under water he managed to do a much faster job of relief then than now, without the benefit of air power and with the roads and railroads totally submerged. His effort was applauded by, among others, that liberal newspaper, The Chicago Tribune, which said the local authorities (city and state) were overwhelmed and they were happy to see him step into (forgive the pun) the breach.

Dick K
September 13th, 2005, 08:00 PM
I differentiate between reporting and opinion pieces. This guy tried to have it both ways and he obviously had not done anything first hand.Nick -

The way I read it, he was giving his opinion based on ceonversations he had held with people who were professionally qualified to comment. Did his opinion lean in one direction? It definitely did, but I did not read the piece as an attempt at "reporting."

As for Michael Moore, I saw a lot of truth in Moore's breakthough into celebrity status in his Flint Michigan story. Biased? Yes. Truthful in its insights? Definitely.
I agree. "Roger and Me" was the first piece of quality work from Moore. Unfortunately, it was also the last ;).

Dick K
September 13th, 2005, 08:04 PM
The guy who wrote the book on the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was on CSPAN the other day and pretty much nailed it. The whole idea of federal intervention was born out of that natural disaster and Herbert Hoover made his bones because of it.Nick -

No argument, but I think Krauthammer made some very valid points when he noted the pre- and post-hurricane failures of the President, FEMA, the State of Louisiana, the city of New Orleans, the Congress, and the American people.

ndebord
September 13th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Nick -

No argument, but I think Krauthammer made some very valid points when he noted the pre- and post-hurricane failures of the President, FEMA, the State of Louisiana, the city of New Orleans, the Congress, and the American people.

Dick,

Can't argue with that at all. As some have said, there is plenty of blame to go around today in the City of NO, the state of Louisana and the Federal Government through its appointed agent, FEMA. As an aside, in 1927 Jim Crow was more than a little alive. Some would say it is doing well today in certain parishes on the other side of the Mississippi outside NO.

Judy G. Russell
September 13th, 2005, 09:07 PM
I don't know of anyone here who says the blame for NO is to be laid 100% at Bush's feet. God knows there's more than enough blame to go around.

However, the blame for the fact that FEMA was completely out to lunch is Bush's -- it was on his watch, it's his responsibility. Rumor has it he may actually say so in a speech Thursday night. Wonder if someone hit him over the head with that sign from Harry Truman's desk" "The buck stops here."

Judy G. Russell
September 13th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Lord yes... if even 10% of the stories about folks being turned back at gunpoint from Jefferson Parish or Gretna are true...oh man...

Lindsey
September 13th, 2005, 10:02 PM
Marshall I don't know much about, so I can't comment.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/inside/marshall.html

I happen to like him--he strikes me as a real go-getter and a pretty decent guy. I've never been sure just what Dick has against him, but he loses no opportunity to disparage him.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 13th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Lord yes... if even 10% of the stories about folks being turned back at gunpoint from Jefferson Parish or Gretna are true...oh man...
The two paramedics in the story posted here were on CNN briefly last night, and Anderson Cooper questioned one of the Gretna officials (I didn't catch who it was) about their story. The official denied that guns were fired over the heads of the crowd, and he says the reason they weren't allowed to cross to the other side of the river was that the community on the other side of the river had been completely evacuated, so they didn't want more people coming in when they didn't have the means to support them, and they also had a duty to protect the property of the residents there. Maybe, but that's not the explanation the paramedics say they were given, and it wouldn't explain the Gretna sheriff screaming obscenities at them when he chased them off of an overpass where they later found shelter, or their camp being broken up (apparently deliberately) with the downdraft of a helicopter, nor does it explain why the NO police directed them to the bridge in the first place (except, of course, just to get them out from in front of their building). What did the authorities expect people to do? They're told to fend for themselves, they're told to leave the city, and then they're shot at and threatened when they try to do just that.

I got the impression that Cooper was skeptical of the official story; he said he intended to look into it further.

A large part of the problem, it appears, is that there is still a lack of centralized authority. An LA Times reporter on MSNBC tonight was saying that the ground rules change with every hour and every checkpoint. Some troops are still trying to restrict what reporters can see and take pictures of, despite orders to the contrary from the Pentagon.

--Lindsey

ndebord
September 13th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Lord yes... if even 10% of the stories about folks being turned back at gunpoint from Jefferson Parish or Gretna are true...oh man...

Judy,

I'm inclined to believe all the stories. My Missouri relatives spent quite a lot of time in NO and they had stories to tell that would raise the hair on the back of your head! Of course, my Kansas relatives say the same things about the Missouri people. <g>

ndebord
September 13th, 2005, 10:27 PM
Lindsey,

In 1966 I hitchhiked from Michigan to CA, the southern route. Did not go through NO then, but plenty of other southern towns. As a northern boy, was not exactly made welcome by the local low enforcement types.

In the 50s when I was in NO, I was too young to know anything except what my relatives had to say about the Big Easy, which was enough to make my eyes grow big even if I didn't quite get what they were implying way back then.

Judy G. Russell
September 14th, 2005, 11:14 PM
they also had a duty to protect the property of the residents there.What horse-manure. Property interests should always... always... give way to the need to save lives.

Judy G. Russell
September 14th, 2005, 11:15 PM
I'm inclined to believe all the stories. My Missouri relatives spent quite a lot of time in NO and they had stories to tell that would raise the hair on the back of your head! Of course, my Kansas relatives say the same things about the Missouri people. <g>I'm certainly inclined to believe some of them... and that's enough to turn my Yankee stomach.

Lindsey
September 14th, 2005, 11:55 PM
What horse-manure. Property interests should always... always... give way to the need to save lives.
You'll get no argument from me on that!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 14th, 2005, 11:56 PM
I'm certainly inclined to believe some of them... and that's enough to turn my Yankee stomach.
A mutual friend of ours knows a woman whose family is in New Orleans, and she tells similar stories. And that kind of thing turns my Southern stomach, too.

--Lindsey

ndebord
September 15th, 2005, 12:02 AM
I'm certainly inclined to believe some of them... and that's enough to turn my Yankee stomach.


As I reread the posts and try to decipher the Bush Administration, I realize how cut off my TV news has recently become. I have DirecTV and recently lost CNN world, then the Canadian News Broadcast and so have started to look and see what I can get that is better for my cable/satellite monthly fix.

The salvation has been the internet and foreign news sources. This from Bangkok ironically reprints Maureen Dowd (The Times online will soon put all its various columnists behind a paid subscription firewall) tells us once again that our Emperor has no clothes:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/15Sep2005_news25.php

And Newsweek did itself proud:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

Judy G. Russell
September 15th, 2005, 10:35 AM
Jim Crow is alive and well in too many places, and not just in the south.

Jeff
September 15th, 2005, 01:54 PM
And Newsweek did itself proud:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

What copy editor?

" Looters and well-armed gangs, like TV crews, moved faster."

Bill Hirst
September 15th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Jim Crow is alive and well in too many places, and not just in the south.
It seems like we humans have some sort of psychological need to have a target for our xenophibia. Skin color is just the latest excuse in a long list of hatreds that probably goes all the way back to Neandertals vs Cro Magnons.

-Cynical in Cooperstown.

ndebord
September 15th, 2005, 10:10 PM
What copy editor?

" Looters and well-armed gangs, like TV crews, moved faster."


Jeff,

What? You've never seen the security that comes with well-known field reporters from big ass cable shows?

<ggg>

Dick K
September 15th, 2005, 11:27 PM
What copy editor?

" Looters and well-armed gangs, like TV crews, moved faster."
What's the matter with that? In the context of the rest of the paragraph (see below), it makes excellent sense and at least partially answers the question, "Why did it take the US military so long to get there when the TV reporters were on the spot so quickly?" (FWIW, I agree that the Newsweek article was an excellent summary and commentary on the issue.)

TV viewers had difficulty understanding why TV crews seemed to move in and out of New Orleans while the military was nowhere to be seen. But a TV crew is five people in an RV. Before the military can send in convoys of trucks, it has to clear broken and flooded highways. The military took over the shattered New Orleans airport for emergency airlifts, but special teams of Air Force operators had to be sent in to make it ready. By the week after the storm, the military had mobilized some 70,000 troops and hundreds of helicopters—but it took at least two days and usually four and five to get them into the disaster area. Looters and well-armed gangs, like TV crews, moved faster.

Judy G. Russell
September 16th, 2005, 11:29 AM
It seems like we humans have some sort of psychological need to have a target for our xenophibia. Skin color is just the latest excuse in a long list of hatreds that probably goes all the way back to Neandertals vs Cro Magnons.I know you're right: we love to divide people into us and them with us being the good guys and them being (at a minimum) the bad guys. But many Christian sects for many years taught that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and that adds a whole 'nother dimension to it -- and one that is going to be exceedingly hard to eradicate.

Lindsey
September 16th, 2005, 05:33 PM
But many Christian sects for many years taught that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and that adds a whole 'nother dimension to it -- and one that is going to be exceedingly hard to eradicate.
More prominent among todays evangelicals, I think, is the notion that financial prosperity is a sign of goodness, and poverty is a sign of moral failing. The notion is that rich people are rich because God has rewarded them for their moral superiority--never mind people like Ken Lay who are super rich as the result of cheating thousands of little guys out of billions of dollars.

Thus it follows that taxing the rich is a bad thing, because that punishes them for being good people. And government programs to aid those in poverty are a bad thing, because they reward people for their moral failings.

What ever happened to the "blessed are the poor" and "as ye have done to the least of these" teachings of Jesus in the New Testament in this new theology is a good question. I sometimes think they've replaced the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with the Gospel according to Milton Friedman and Grover Norquist.

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 16th, 2005, 05:56 PM
I don't know of anyone here who says the blame for NO is to be laid 100% at Bush's feet. God knows there's more than enough blame to go around.Judy -

You are correct, and I withdraw the allegation that any forum members said Bush was 100% responsible for the mishandling of the NO catastrophe and its aftermath. What I probably had in mind were the posts whose authors could not understand why a majority of the American people did not hold Bush directly responsible for the debacle.

However, the blame for the fact that FEMA was completely out to lunch is Bush's -- it was on his watch, it's his responsibility. Rumor has it he may actually say so in a speech Thursday night. Wonder if someone hit him over the head with that sign from Harry Truman's desk" "The buck stops here."
As we now know, he did accept the responsibility in his speech. A hollow gesture? Too little, too late? We'll have to wait and see.

It has been kind of sad to hear Mary Landrieu blast Bush for his failings in handling the disaster but then, when asked why the Louisiana state and municipal authorities had dropped the ball on such things as using the famous school bus fleet to evactuate New Orleans, she says that there is no need to engage in finger-pointing. As you (and Krauthammer, in the article I cited) point out, there is more than enough blame to go around to all concerned.

RayB (France)
September 17th, 2005, 04:36 AM
Judy -

You are correct, and I withdraw the allegation that any forum members said Bush was 100% responsible for the mishandling of the NO catastrophe and its aftermath. What I probably had in mind were the posts whose authors could not understand why a majority of the American people did not hold Bush directly responsible for the debacle.


As we now know, he did accept the responsibility in his speech. A hollow gesture? Too little, too late? We'll have to wait and see.

It has been kind of sad to hear Mary Landrieu blast Bush for his failings in handling the disaster but then, when asked why the Louisiana state and municipal authorities had dropped the ball on such things as using the famous school bus fleet to evactuate New Orleans, she says that there is no need to engage in finger-pointing. As you (and Krauthammer, in the article I cited) point out, there is more than enough blame to go around to all concerned.

Being long distance spectators of this natural and unnatural disaster, we have the advantage of seeing more global response than you get at home. The Bush-haters/Anti-Americans are having a field-day as one would expect. Most, of course, have no knowledge of who and/or what we REALLY are. Their opinions are based on, God forbid, on US media reports, Hollywood and the likes of the Michael Moores. Regardless of what the end result of investigations turns out to be, it doesn't matter here because the damage will have been done and they will merely think 'cover-up'. What saddens me is that the same will happen at home for those with their 'blinders' firmly in place. I have faith that most of us will see the problem and solution for what it is. I saw, for instance, one major poll showed only 13% blamed the Prez for the problem. Common sense is still alive and well in the overall populace it would appear.

We have great feelings of sorrow for the people who suffered as we would with any disaster but are totally saturated with all the finger-pointers and Monday Morning Quaterbacks. We don't 'hear' them anymore. The 'Task' now is to evaluate what happened, or not happened, from those who could have evacuted and didn't, to Local, State and Federal plans that weren't executed. Find the holes and fix them.

The big problem now, as Cindy has recommended, it to get the occupying US troops out of Louisiana! Sigh!

Judy G. Russell
September 17th, 2005, 02:41 PM
What ever happened to the "blessed are the poor" and "as ye have done to the least of these" teachings of Jesus in the New Testament in this new theology is a good question. I sometimes think they've replaced the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with the Gospel according to Milton Friedman and Grover Norquist.Those aspects of Christianity don't seem to occur to the so-called Christians. (One of my favorite bumper stickers is: The Christian Right is Neither.)

Judy G. Russell
September 17th, 2005, 02:46 PM
It has been kind of sad to hear Mary Landrieu blast Bush for his failings in handling the disaster but then, when asked why the Louisiana state and municipal authorities had dropped the ball on such things as using the famous school bus fleet to evactuate New Orleans, she says that there is no need to engage in finger-pointing. As you (and Krauthammer, in the article I cited) point out, there is more than enough blame to go around to all concerned.It has been sad. Politically understandable (she needs to avoid alienating her local supporters) but foolish and shortsighted. Gods, I am so tired of politicians. What I would give for a statesman or two...

ndebord
September 17th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Dick,

DK> It has been kind of sad to hear Mary Landrieu blast Bush for his failings in handling the disaster but then, when asked why the Louisiana state and municipal authorities had dropped the ball on such things as using the famous school bus fleet to evactuate New Orleans, she says that there is no need to engage in finger-pointing...

Landrieu is an established Louisiana pol. When she tried to evade providing a straight answer to a question from Anderson Cooper, he blasted her non-answer and she gave him the look only long-established political animals can give. "How dare you call me out on XY or Z?" Accountability is not in the vocabulary for 99% of the pols out there imo.

Dick K
September 17th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Accountability is not in the vocabulary for 99% of the pols out there imo.Nick -

I am afraid you are right. That unhappy state of affairs may explain why the other 1% are so appealing, even if one does not completely agree with their political views. (John McCain is a case in point.)

Lindsey
September 18th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Regardless of what the end result of investigations turns out to be, it doesn't matter here because the damage will have been done and they will merely think 'cover-up'.
This is why it is important that the investigation be done by an independent commission, something the Administration is apparently opposed to, and Republicans in Congress seem willing so far to go along with what the president wants. Bad idea, and I hope they'll be made to realize it.

The point is not to find people to hang, but to evaluate, without regard to political fallout, what went wrong and what might be done in the future to prevent those same problems. And after that, the task is to put someone in charge of carrying out the recommended reforms that has the clout to get it done.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 18th, 2005, 09:36 PM
The point is not to find people to hang, but to evaluate, without regard to political fallout, what went wrong and what might be done in the future to prevent those same problems. And after that, the task is to put someone in charge of carrying out the recommended reforms that has the clout to get it done.It pains me to see people like Tom Kean (the former Republican Governor of NJ and head of the 9/11 Commission) saying that if that Commission's recommendations on emergency communications setups had been accepted and enacted, the problems in NOLA would have been much more manageable.

ndebord
September 18th, 2005, 10:32 PM
Nick -

I am afraid you are right. That unhappy state of affairs may explain why the other 1% are so appealing, even if one does not completely agree with their political views. (John McCain is a case in point.)

Dick,

Yes, McCain is appealing....irrational at times, but still appealing.

One of the regrets I have about my fellow 'Nam Vets is that so few of them took up public service. I didn't use to believe this cliche, but I'm becoming more of a mind to argue that service in a war, good, bad or ugly, should be a prerequisite for holding any kind of foreign policy spot. Be it President or cabinet.

I've had a bellyfull of chicken hawks.

ndebord
September 18th, 2005, 10:35 PM
It pains me to see people like Tom Kean (the former Republican Governor of NJ and head of the 9/11 Commission) saying that if that Commission's recommendations on emergency communications setups had been accepted and enacted, the problems in NOLA would have been much more manageable.

Judy,

Tom Kean is the only NJ governor I respect.

Lindsey
September 18th, 2005, 11:06 PM
It pains me to see people like Tom Kean (the former Republican Governor of NJ and head of the 9/11 Commission) saying that if that Commission's recommendations on emergency communications setups had been accepted and enacted, the problems in NOLA would have been much more manageable.
Well, of course, the 9/11 Commission's report is only fairly recently out, and it takes time to formulate policies in response to recommendations, but it was certainly known even before that report was written that communications between first responders was a critical problem on 9/11, so it's beyond my understanding why the hurricane plan for New Orleans did not give serious consideration to that issue. And yes, those plans were primarily the responsibility of the state and local governments, and they certainly deserve blame for the fact that they proved inadequate, but as I understand it, FEMA also put its stamp of approval on those plans, so they bear a share of the blame on that score, too.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
Until the rules against women in combat positions are changed, I'd take issue with any such prerequisite.

Judy G. Russell
September 19th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Tom Kean is the only NJ governor I respect.We've actually had some fairly good ones. And some things done by Republican Governors here have been quite amazing. I mean, where else can you imagine a Republican Governor (Bill Cahill) naming his Democratic predecessor (Dick Hughes) as chief justice of the state Supreme Court??

Judy G. Russell
September 19th, 2005, 03:52 PM
The problem with emergency communications was widely reported immediately after 9/11. It's been FOUR YEARS. The 9/11 Commission released its report in July 2004. That's 13 months before Katrina.

We can act, overnight, to send an entire nation full of politicians scurrying around like mice to respond (foolishly) to the medical issues of one woman -- Terry Schiavo -- and we can't figure out what to do about emergency communications in a year or four years?

Lindsey
September 19th, 2005, 05:58 PM
The problem with emergency communications was widely reported immediately after 9/11. It's been FOUR YEARS. The 9/11 Commission released its report in July 2004. That's 13 months before Katrina.
Yeah; it would be nice to see that at least some progress had been made on that front. Certainly there was no sign there had been in New Orleans.

I heard on the radio (at least I think that's where it was--it could have been the article in this past week's issue of Time) that something like half of the people at FEMA had no significant experience in disaster response. That's appalling.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 19th, 2005, 06:25 PM
I heard on the radio (at least I think that's where it was--it could have been the article in this past week's issue of Time) that something like half of the people at FEMA had no significant experience in disaster response. That's appalling.And none of the top managers. All were political hacks.

ndebord
September 19th, 2005, 10:46 PM
Until the rules against women in combat positions are changed, I'd take issue with any such prerequisite.

Judy,

Despite the rules, in Iraq, as in any guerilla conflict, some of the women are involved in combat. The rules, as the saying goes, bend when faced with the reality of boots on the ground.

Dick K
September 20th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Marshall I don't know much about, so I can't comment.Nick -

You are not missing much, IMO. Joshua Micah Marshall is a Washington policy wonk who has been writing an anti-Bush blog (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/) for at least the last year or so. Here's just a portion of the way he (and his comrade-in-blog-arms, Markos Moulitsas) were described last fall, in a New York Times magazine article (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/gslis/read/fear-laptops.html) about the bloggers covering the 2004 presidential election campaign:

Joshua Micah Marshall, in his columns for The Hill and articles for The Washington Monthly, writes like every other overeducated journalist. But on his blog, Talking Points Memo, he has become an irate spitter of well-crafted vitriol aimed at the president, whom he compared, one day, to Tony Soprano torching his friend's sporting-goods store for the sake of a little extra cash. When Marshall's in a bad mood, he portrays mainstream journalists as a bunch of ''corrupt,'' ''idiotic'' hacks, mired in ''cosmopolitan and baby-boomer self-loathing,'' whose bad habits have become ''ingrained and chronic, like a battered dog who cowers and shakes when the abuser gives a passing look.'' Moulitsas's site, Daily Kos, teems with information -- sophisticated analysis of poll numbers, crystal-ball babble, links to Senate, House and governor ''outlook charts.'' But what pulls you in is not the data; it's his voice. He's cruel and superior, and he knows his side is going to win.

Marshall has been favorably mentioned by the Blessed Saint Molly of Ivins, which may account for some of his readership. I will, however, concede that he has two things going for him: (a) He is not quite as vicious and mean-spirited as Moulitsas' Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) blog and the Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/) forums, and (b) he uses an attractive typeface and layout.

Judy G. Russell
September 20th, 2005, 05:57 PM
I agree. But your rule would still end up favoring men over women until the rule against women in combat positions is changed. (I'm confident it will be, I just don't know when.)

Lindsey
September 20th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Here's just a portion of the way he (and his comrade-in-blog-arms, Markos Moulitsas) were described last fall, in a New York Times magazine article (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/gslis/read/fear-laptops.html) about the bloggers covering the 2004 presidential election campaign:
If I'm not mistaken, Matthew Klam's primary claim to fame is as a writer of fiction, but maybe that's why the NYTimes chose him for that particular assignment. From one commentary (http://subintsoc.net/situationroom/?p=662) on Klam's piece:


These days I mostly ignore what the establishment media says about bloggers. It’s usually a predictable mix of condescension, ridicule, and thinly veiled anxiety that the blogs are gaining influence at the expense of "real journalism".

But Matthew Klam’s piece on political blogs in this weekend’s NY Times stands out. It takes all of the above attitudes to dazzling new heights — and tops them with a few other staple Times prejudices: contempt and loathing for passionate liberalism, a contrasting and mysterious silence about right-wing excesses, and plenty of old-fashioned class snobbery.
and more to the point:


The sober and articulate Josh Marshall becomes "an irate spitter of well-crafted vitriol" whose trademark is "oversimplifying weighty issues". He is mocked by Klam for his home-made press pass and wrinkled clothes.
Josh's clothes may not be so wrinkled any more; he was married this past spring. But whether his commentary is irate and vitriolic, as Klam would have it, or simply pointed and sardonic, I'll leave for Nick and others to decide for themselves after reading what he has actually written.

Marshall has been favorably mentioned by the Blessed Saint Molly of Ivins
Irate spittle and vitriol, anyone? Why can you never mention Molly Ivin's name without folding it into some snarky remark?

Actually, though, Marshall has been favorably mentioned by far more people than that. The first mention I ever saw of him was in a column by Molly Ivins some years ago (small correction to your post, BTW: TalkingPointsMemo.com was launched more then just "a year or so" ago--its debut was November 12, 2000), but I see him mentioned all over the place now. A piece by Rachel Smolkin (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3682) in American Journalism Review last year called him (along with Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus, and Andrew Sullivan) one of "the rock stars of political blogging," and noted that "[his] thoughtful site won praise from several journalists interviewed for this article." Klam not among them, I assume, but then Klam is not really a journalist himself.

By the way, you (or some others here) might be interested in a profile (http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/alumni_spotlight/as_042303marshall.html) that appeared in an "Alumni Spotlight" piece on Princeton's web site a couple of years ago.

-Lindsey

Dick K
September 21st, 2005, 02:02 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Matthew Klam's primary claim to fame is as a writer of fiction, but maybe that's why the NYTimes chose him for that particular assignment. From one commentary (http://subintsoc.net/situationroom/?p=662) on Klam's piece:...
I am not at all surprised that Marshall's friends and admirers would come to his defense against the Klam article (although whether Klam is also a noted writer of fiction seems to be irrelevant), but that defense speaks even more about the defenders themselves:
...a few other staple Times prejudices: contempt and loathing for passionate liberalism, a contrasting and mysterious silence about right-wing excesses, and plenty of old-fashioned class snobbery.
So the NYT is anti-liberal and soft on the right wing? GMAB! This is the only major newspaper in the United States which has continued to oppose Senate approval of the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice. And the "passionate liberalism" which these folks think receives insufficient support from the NYT is simply an euphemism for the far-out beliefs espoused by the wing-nut leftists who seem to have captured the Democratic Party and made a mockery of the once-proud party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. And old-fashioned class snobbery? Uh; does the name of Jason Blair ring any bells?

...(small correction to your post, BTW: TalkingPointsMemo.com was launched more then just "a year or so" ago--its debut was November 12, 2000)
Uh, what I actually said was that Marshall had been writring his blog for at least the last year or so. I cheerfully concede that he has been spinning his stuff for five years (which, in my math, qualifies as "at least a year").

By the way, you (or some others here) might be interested in a profile (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/web_exclusives/alumni_spotlight/as_042303marshall.html) that appeared in an "Alumni Spotlight" piece on Princeton's web site a couple of years ago.
Yes; I saw that profile when it originally appeared in the Princeton Alumni Weekly. You may not be surprised to hear that when the PAW profiles alumni authors, it usually does so in flattering terms.

Irate spittle and vitriol, anyone? Why can you never mention Molly Ivin's name without folding it into some snarky remark?
Oh, come on. I know there are those who worship the ground on which Molly Ivins walks, but I regret I am not among them. I personally think she has driven the whole "spunky little Texas gal" image into the ground, but if you really consider a joking reference to her as Saint Molly of Ivins to be in the same league as the "irate spittle and vitriol" directed by Marshall at Bush, I think some lightening up may be in order.

Lindsey
September 21st, 2005, 05:43 PM
So the NYT is anti-liberal and soft on the right wing? GMAB!
I'm sorry you are unwilling to see it, but soft on the right wing? Yes, absolutely they are. Judith Miller was practically taking dictation from right-wing sources in her reporting on the WMD that turned out to be a figment of someone's fevered imagination. The NYT led the witch hunt against Wen Ho Lee. They got Whitewater wrong from the start, but that didn't prevent them from continuing to flog it. But the Bush Administration got handled with kid gloves until very recently.

an euphemism for the far-out beliefs espoused by the wing-nut leftists who seem to have captured the Democratic Party and made a mockery of the once-proud party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.
Far-out beliefs? Such as?

If the "wing-nut leftists" have captured the Democratic Party, then how come all of its leading presidential candidates at this point are from the centrist establishment of the party?

If there is any element in the Democratic Party that has "made a mockery of the once-proud party of Franklin Roosevelt," just take a look at the Democrats who went along with the bankruptcy "reform" bill. If you ask me, the Democratic Party needs more Wellstones, not more Bidens and Liebermans.[/QUOTE]

if you really consider a joking reference to her as Saint Molly of Ivins to be in the same league as the "irate spittle and vitriol" directed by Marshall at Bush, I think some lightening up may be in order.
If it were just the one reference, I'd overlook it. But it is every single time you refer to her. You are ticked off any time someone uses a less-than-deferential appellation for Bush. Why doesn't it occur to you that other people might be annoyed when you do the same sort of thing?

And just for the record: Josh Marshall's blog is not "anti-Bush," as you asserted. It is, rather, pro the sorts of things Franklin Roosevelt stood for. When Bush comes in for criticism, it's because he's trying to dismantle Roosevelt's legacy. That's why Marshall was leading the charge among bloggers fighting Bush's privatization plans for Social Security. Privatization is the first step along the path to phase out.

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 22nd, 2005, 07:02 PM
If the "wing-nut leftists" have captured the Democratic Party, then how come all of its leading presidential candidates at this point are from the centrist establishment of the party?
Screaming Howard "I hate Republicans!" Dean is a centrist? Lord help us...

If it were just the one reference, I'd overlook it. But it is every single time you refer to her. You are ticked off any time someone uses a less-than-deferential appellation for Bush. Why doesn't it occur to you that other people might be annoyed when you do the same sort of thing?
Because one is the President of the United States, and the other is just a columnist. Neither of us may have voted for Bush, and neither of us may think he is any great shakes as a leader, but surely you do not really believe that the offices of President and scrivener are equally deserving of respect, regardless of the qualities of the incumbents?

Lindsey
September 22nd, 2005, 09:20 PM
Screaming Howard "I hate Republicans!" Dean is a centrist? Lord help us...
Howard Dean is not a candidate for president.

Because one is the President of the United States, and the other is just a columnist.
A distinction without a difference. He's a president, not a king.

surely you do not really believe that the offices of President and scrivener are equally deserving of respect, regardless of the qualities of the incumbents?
I don't think anyone is deserving of gratuitous disrespect. And I think even a waitress in a roadside diner, or the housemaid who cleans your hotel room is just as deserving of respect as the president of the United States.

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 23rd, 2005, 12:23 AM
Howard Dean is not a candidate for president.
Perhaps not, but we were originally talking about those who have taken over the Democratic Party. I think the Chairman of the DNC qualifies for that category.

A distinction without a difference. He's a president, not a king.
In either case, one can (and usually should) show respect for the office, regardless of one's opinion of the incumbent. The distinction, by the way, does make a difference; for example, when referring to POTUS, we write, "the President" (with a capital P, as a sign of respect); when referring to Josh Marshall, Molly Ivins, or even to George Will, we write "the columnist" (with a lower case c).

I don't think anyone is deserving of gratuitous disrespect. And I think even a waitress in a roadside diner, or the housemaid who cleans your hotel room is just as deserving of respect as the president of the United States.
A noble sentiment. I assure you that I also read "Nickled and Dimed," and I have the utmost respect for waitresses and housemaids. It is far more respect than I have for a lot of political columnists. (And I suspect you feel this way as well, although perhaps not in regard to the same columnists.)

Wayne Scott
September 23rd, 2005, 12:08 PM
Thanks, Judy. I'm very late reading this for reasons you know, my trip.
The media have made it seem that the people left in New Orleans are a bunch of blood thirsty armed murderers.
Now we're looking at more water spilling into New Orleans from Rita.

Maybe not a Curm

Judy G. Russell
September 23rd, 2005, 03:41 PM
Now we're looking at more water spilling into New Orleans from Rita.Not to mention so many of the Katrina evacuees having to run for their lives... again. Can you imagine? Like lightning striking twice.

Lindsey
September 23rd, 2005, 11:09 PM
Perhaps not, but we were originally talking about those who have taken over the Democratic Party. I think the Chairman of the DNC qualifies for that category.
Your comment was made in answer to my question: If the "left wing-nuts" have taken over the Democratic Party, then why are its current leading presidential candidates all from the centrist establishment?

Howard Dean is chairman of the party largely by virtue of having shown a talent for grass-roots organizing. And he's only one guy. He's a servant of the party; he hasn't "taken it over."

In any event: I hate to break this to you, but Howard Dean is not a radical leftist. He really is a centrist. Don't just take my word for it; check out this assessment (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/09/being_howard_dean/) from the Boston Globe:

Though many among the Democrats' small but influential center-right faction are aghast at the thought of Dean heading the party, it's easy to forget who Howard Dean is. Despite his leadership in opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq, Dean was a moderate Vermont governor.

He was a fiscal conservative and friendly to business. Fans of Vermont's progressive hero, congressman Bernie Sanders, say Dean is no liberal. Dean alienated many liberals staking out moderate stands on health insurance, guns, environmentalism, and gay marriage. Vermont became the first state with domestic partnership only because a court ordered the Legislature to approve gay marriage or some equivalent and Dean opted for the more cautious approach.
Or if you don't care for the Boston Globe, how about Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm) (hardly a hotbed of radical leftism, I should think)?

Conservative Vermont business leaders praise Dean's record and his unceasing efforts to balance the budget, even though Vermont is the only state where a balanced budget is not constitutionally required. Moreover, they argue that the two most liberal policies adopted during Dean's tenure -- the "civil unions" law and a radical revamping of public school financing -- were instigated by Vermont's ultraliberal Supreme Court rather than Dean. "He was not a left-wing wacko," says Bill Stenger, a Republican and president of Jay Peak Resort, who says he supported Dean because of his "fiscally responsible, socially conscious policies."

By the way, you didn't answer the other question I asked: What "far-out beliefs" do you think are being espoused by the people who control the Democratic party? (I won't address the question of whether anybody is actually in control of the Democratic party.)

when referring to POTUS, we write, "the President" (with a capital P, as a sign of respect)
Oh? That's not the way I remember learning it. And just to be sure that my memory hadn't played me false, I stopped by the bookstore and checked both the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style. They agreed with what I remembered: The word is capitalized when it is immediately followed by a name ("President Reagan"), but not otherwise ("The president announced today..."). The same rules apply for the president of the local Rotary Club or the high school PTA--they're not unique to the president of the country. When it's capitalized, it's because it's part of a title. "Columnist" is not a title; if it were, it would follow the same rules of capitalization. (Note also that the same rules would apply to such "titles" as "Citizen" or "Comrade" in the context of revolutionary France or Russia.)

A noble sentiment. I assure you that I also read "Nickled and Dimed," and I have the utmost respect for waitresses and housemaids. It is far more respect than I have for a lot of political columnists. (And I suspect you feel this way as well
You would be wrong; I have no particular animosity for political columnists in general. And while there are some I disagree with strongly, and even find egregious (Ann Coulter comes to mind in that category), I would not routinely use sarcastic putdowns to refer to them.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 23rd, 2005, 11:21 PM
Not to mention so many of the Katrina evacuees having to run for their lives... again. Can you imagine? Like lightning striking twice.
Unfortunately, we had better get used to it. One climatologist that was interviewed on Diane Rehm's show a couple of days ago said that this level of hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin was likely to last at least another decade. And that's assuming that it's only reflective of the high activity phase of a multi-decadal cycle. If that cycle has been shifted toward storms of greater intensity as a result of global warming, well...

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 24th, 2005, 12:56 AM
Your comment was made in answer to my question: If the "left wing-nuts" have taken over the Democratic Party, then why are its current leading presidential candidates all from the centrist establishment?
I think that "wing-nut leftists" (my phrase) and "left wing-nuts" (your words) are two quite different terms with different connotations. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately.

Howard Dean is chairman of the party largely by virtue of having shown a talent for grass-roots organizing. And he's only one guy. He's a servant of the party; he hasn't "taken it over."
I stand corrected and am please to learn that Howard Dean is a servant of the party. It is hard to find decent servants these days.

Oh? That's not the way I remember learning it. And just to be sure that my memory hadn't played me false, I stopped by the bookstore and checked both the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style. They agreed with what I remembered: The word is capitalized when it is immediately followed by a name ("President Reagan"), but not otherwise ("The president announced today..."). The same rules apply for the president of the local Rotary Club or the high school PTA--they're not unique to the president of the country. When it's capitalized, it's because it's part of a title. "Columnist" is not a title; if it were, it would follow the same rules of capitalization. (Note also that the same rules would apply to such "titles" as "Citizen" or "Comrade" in the context of revolutionary France or Russia.)

I guess it depends on your style guide.The GPO Style Manual (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/index.html), which is the ultimate style reference for us gummint drones, notes

3.35. To indicate preeminence or distinction in certain
specified instances, a common-noun title immediately following
the name of a person or used alone as a substitute for it is
capitalized.
Title of a head or assistant head of state:
William J. Clinton, President of the United States: the
President; the President-elect; the Executive; the Chief
Magistrate; the Commander in Chief; ex-President Bush;
former President Truman; similarly the Vice President;
the Vice-President-elect; ex-Vice-President Mondale
James Gilmore, Governor of Virginia: the Governor of
Virginia; the Governor; similarly the Lieutenant
Governor; but secretary of state of Idaho; attorney
general of Maine Obviously, style guides differ, so let's take another example of a protocolary situation in which the incumbent of the Presidency receives treatment more deferential than that accorded to John Q. Citizen: If a group of people of both genders are seated in a room, and Michael Moore or Josh Marshall walks in, no one is obliged to rise. (True; some may choose to do so for whatever reason, but there is no obligation to stand.) On the other hand, if the President of the United States walks in, every American citizen present--male or female, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--is expected to stand as an indication of respect for the office represented by the President. Fans of the "West Wing" will recall an episode in which President Bartlet explicitly made this point to a woman member of a right-wing fundamentalist group which was visiting the White House.

Judy G. Russell
September 24th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Definitely scary, no matter how you cut it.

Lindsey
September 24th, 2005, 10:50 PM
I think that "wing-nut leftists" (my phrase) and "left wing-nuts" (your words) are two quite different terms with different connotations. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately.
Oh, for God's sake. I deeply apologize; I did not mean to misquote you, I was simply going from memory. If those two terms have different connotations, it is news to me, and I would have no idea what the difference is.

Meanwhile, you have once again failed to answer the question.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 24th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Definitely scary, no matter how you cut it.
Also scary, though I don't know how well this opinion reflects the consensus of the scientific community as a whole:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=8761

--Lindsey

ndebord
September 26th, 2005, 12:52 AM
Dick,

From time to time, Molly Ivins hits the nail right on its head.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/25910/

Dick K
September 26th, 2005, 03:31 PM
From time to time, Molly Ivins hits the nail right on its head.Nick -

True enough. As the old adage goes, even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day ;).

ndebord
September 26th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Nick -

True enough. As the old adage goes, even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day ;).

Dick,

Can I take that as a grudging admission that Molly hit the nail on the head this time out?

<vbg>

Lindsey
September 26th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Can I take that as a grudging admission that Molly hit the nail on the head this time out?
I think she hit it pretty squarely with this column (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/13503076p-14343596c.html), too. (Free registration required).

--Lindsey

Dick K
September 26th, 2005, 09:54 PM
Can I take that as a grudging admission that Molly hit the nail on the head this time out? <vbg>Nick -

Alas, no <g>. I will admit that Ivins hit the nail on this one, but I am afraid it was not quite squarely on the head.

First off, let's note that this was not a story that Ivins broke (and I know you did not claim it was). Several media outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, had run the story.

My real quibble with that spunky lil' gal from Texas (as she and her fans would apparently have us believe her to be) lies in the details. To provide a constant leitmotif for her piece, and starting with her very first sentence, Ivins describes Alderson as "a veterinarian" or as "a vet." He isn't, and Ivins should have known better.

Dr. Alderson's bachelor's degree was in animal husbandry, but his doctorate was a Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky, not a DVM. To repeat, he is not a veterinarian. Some may say that is a distinction without a difference, but I think it demonstrates that at least in this instance, Ivins is more interested in being snarky than in being accurate.

Now, it is true that most of Alderson's FDA experience was on the animal health side, and appointing him the head of the Office of Women's Health (if indeed he was named to that position--there seems to be a lot of confusion on that) was a pretty insensitive if not downright boneheaded decision. The job does not call for a gynecologist--it is more of an advocacy position than a medical one--but anyone who stopped to think for a minute should have realized that putting Alderson in the job would inevitably lead to a "What on earth were they thinking?" reaction,...particularly in the wake of the FEMA débâcle. For the record, BTW, here is the way the FDA describes the OWH position:


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health (OWH) serves as a champion for women's health both within and outside the agency. To achieve its goals, OWH:




Ensures that FDA functions, both regulatory and oversight remain gender sensitive and responsive;
Works to correct any identified gender disparities in drug, device and biologics testing, and regulation policy;
Monitors progress of priority women's health initiatives within FDA;
Promotes an integrative and interactive approach regarding women's health issues across all the organizational components of the FDA; and
Forms partnerships with government and non-government entities, including consumer groups, health advocates, professional organizations, and industry, to promote FDA's women's health objectives.

As you can see, there does not appear to be anything in that job description which requires either a medical degree or being female, but at least the latter would seem to be a desirable qualification, much like an EEO official being a member of a racial or national minority. Saner heads appeared to have prevailed in the FDA, as the eventual nominee for the job--Ms. Theresa A. Toigo--is obviously of the female persuasion. She is not a doctor (neither medical, veterinary nor philosophical); her bachelor's degree is in pharmacy, and she also holds an M.B.A. Both degrees are from Rutgers, which will warm the cockles of a certain Rutgers Law School adjunct professor's heart.

I rarely find much I can agree with in Salon.com, but if you do want a grudging admission from me <g>, I grudgingly admit that Tim Grieve's War Room piece (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/09/19/fda/index.html) gave a much more reasoned description of the Alderson kerfuffle than did Ivins.

The real substance of this issue, however, constitutes an illustration of why I voted against George W. Bush in 2004. The fact that Susan Wood felt constrained to resign as head of OWH because of the FDA's dilatory approach to the "morning after pill" is a sad example of what happens when religious fundamentalism gains the upper hand over science and medicine. As I said, it is sad.

Judy G. Russell
September 26th, 2005, 11:51 PM
Both degrees are from Rutgers, which will warm the cockles of a certain Rutgers Law School adjunct professor's heart.You rang?

Dick K
September 27th, 2005, 12:31 AM
You rang?
Gimme an R....
Gimme a U....
Gimme a T....
....

RayB (France)
September 27th, 2005, 02:30 AM
Sorry to regress to the name of this topic, but here is an interesting article. Many suggested that we wait for facts to surface on this tragedy before panicing. Here is an interesting report:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#082732

AND - the Fat Lady ain't not even sung yet!

Dick K
September 27th, 2005, 02:50 AM
Sorry to regress to the name of this topic, but here is an interesting article. Many suggested that we wait for facts to surface on this tragedy before panicing. Here is an interesting report:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#082732

AND - the Fat Lady ain't not even sung yet!
Uh, Judy posted that very same article yesterday as the first item in the thread, "Truth: The First Casualty."

Dick K
September 27th, 2005, 03:54 PM
(Free registration required).
Not necessarily; Bugmenot works just fine there.

Lindsey
September 27th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Not necessarily; Bugmenot works just fine there.
Yes, I know. I was just trying to give people a "heads-up".

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 27th, 2005, 05:33 PM
To provide a constant leitmotif for her piece, and starting with her very first sentence, Ivins describes Alderson as "a veterinarian" or as "a vet." He isn't, and Ivins should have known better.
In all fairness, the wording went out to describe Alderson in the quickly-retracted (and later denied) press release appears to have been something like "an FDA veteran trained in animal husbandry who spent much of his career in the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine" (or at least, that was the Washington Post's formulation); Alderson's official bio, according to Salon, says that "the majority of his FDA career has been in the Center for Veterinary Medicine"; and he is elsewhere described as "a specialist in veterinary medicine." Calling him a veterinarian would not seem to be so great a leap. (FWIW, Maureen Dowd did the same in her September 21 column (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/opinion/21dowd.html). Note -- that link available by subscription only.)

Whether or not a specialist in veterinary medicine can be properly called a veterinarian, or whether one must be (or have been) a licensed practitioner to merit that title, I don't know, but on the Diane Rehm Show (http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/09/27.php) today, Alderson was called a veterinarian by none other than Dr. Susan Wood, the woman whose job he was apparently briefly appointed to fill, and whose supervisor he was in his capacity as the FDA's associate commissioner for science. (The clip, if you wish to hear it, begins at 10:45 into the audio.) So while, yes, more precision on Ivins's part would have been nice, she wasn't that far out of line, and it doesn't take away from the main point, which was that Alderson's technical background was not in the health of women, but of animals. Granted, as you have said, that lack of qualification was more apparent than real, and Wood herself said that it made some sense to tap her immediate superior to temporarily fill the position, but given the controversy that led to Wood's departure, it sent a terrible message to replace her with a veterinary specialist.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me as to (a) what the difference is between "wing-nut leftists" and "left wing-nuts"; and (b) who the "wing-nut leftists" are who "seem to have captured the Democratic Party" and what "far-out beliefs" they are espousing.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
September 28th, 2005, 03:17 AM
**what "far-out beliefs" they are espousing**

What beliefs of any kind are they espousing, for that matter?

Lindsey
September 29th, 2005, 08:56 PM
What beliefs of any kind are they espousing, for that matter?
We haven't yet established who "they" refers to. But that, and what beliefs "they" were perceived to be espousing (plus the nature of the difference between the terms "wing-nut leftists" and "left wing-nuts"), were the questions I put to Col. Kahane, who has not yet seen fit to clarify his remarks.

--Lindsey