Who can you believe anymore?

LA Times


Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy
Rumors supplanted accurate information and media magnified the problem. Rapes, violence and estimates of the dead were wrong.By Susannah Rosenblatt and James RaineyTimes Staff WritersSeptember 27, 2005BATON ROUGE, La. — Maj. Ed Bush recalled how he stood in the bed of a pickup truck in the days after Hurricane Katrina, struggling to help the crowd outside the Louisiana Superdome separate fact from fiction. Armed only with a megaphone and scant information, he might have been shouting into, well, a hurricane.The National Guard spokesman's accounts about rescue efforts, water supplies and first aid all but disappeared amid the roar of a 24-hour rumor mill at New Orleans' main evacuation shelter. Then a frenzied media recycled and amplified many of the unverified reports."It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Bush said Monday of the Superdome.His assessment is one of several in recent days to conclude that newspapers and television exaggerated criminal behavior in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, particularly at the overcrowded Superdome and Convention Center.The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."Indeed, Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a national television audience on "Oprah" three weeks ago of people "in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."Journalists and officials who have reviewed the Katrina disaster blamed the inaccurate reporting in large measure on the breakdown of telephone service, which prevented dissemination of accurate reports to those most in need of the information. Race may have also played a factor.The wild rumors filled the vacuum and seemed to gain credence with each retelling — that an infant's body had been found in a trash can, that sharks from Lake Pontchartrain were swimming through the business district, that hundreds of bodies had been stacked in the Superdome basement."It doesn't take anything to start a rumor around here," Louisiana National Guard 2nd Lt. Lance Cagnolatti said at the height of the Superdome relief effort. "There's 20,000 people in here. Think when you were in high school. You whisper something in someone's ear. By the end of the day, everyone in school knows the rumor — and the rumor isn't the same thing it was when you started it."Follow-up reporting has discredited reports of a 7-year-old being raped and murdered at the Superdome, roving bands of armed gang members attacking the helpless, and dozens of bodies being shoved into a freezer at the Convention Center.Hyperbolic reporting spread through much of the media.Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness."The Los Angeles Times adopted a breathless tone the next day in its lead news story, reporting that National Guard troops "took positions on rooftops, scanning for snipers and armed mobs as seething crowds of refugees milled below, desperate to flee. Gunfire crackled in the distance."The New York Times repeated some of the reports of violence and unrest, but the newspaper usually was more careful to note that the information could not be verified.The tabloid Ottawa Sun reported unverified accounts of "a man seeking help gunned down by a National Guard soldier" and "a young man run down and then shot by a New Orleans police officer."London's Evening Standard invoked the future-world fantasy film "Mad Max" to describe the scene and threw in a "Lord of the Flies" allusion for good measure.Televised images and photographs affirmed the widespread devastation in one of America's most celebrated cities."I don't think you can overstate how big of a disaster New Orleans is," said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a Florida school for professional journalists. "But you can imprecisely state the nature of the disaster. … Then you draw attention away from the real story, the magnitude of the destruction, and you kind of undermine the media's credibility."Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part."If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering."Some of the hesitation that journalists might have had about using the more sordid reports from the evacuation centers probably fell away when New Orleans' top officials seemed to confirm the accounts.Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass appeared on "Oprah" a few days after trouble at the Superdome had peaked.Compass told of "the little babies getting raped" at the Superdome. And Nagin made his claim about hooligans raping and killing.State officials this week said their counts of the dead at the city's two largest evacuation points fell far short of early rumors and news reports. Ten bodies were recovered from the Superdome and four from the Convention Center, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.(National Guard officials put the body count at the Superdome at six, saying the other four bodies came from the area around the stadium.)Of the 841 recorded hurricane-related deaths in Louisiana, four are identified as gunshot victims, Johannessen said. One victim was found in the Superdome but was believed to have been brought there, and one was found at the Convention Center, he added.Relief workers said that while the media hyped criminal activity, plenty of real suffering did occur at the Katrina relief centers."The hurricane had just passed, you had massive trauma to the city," said Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard."No air conditioning, no sewage … it was not a nice place to be. All those people just in there, they were frustrated, they were hot. Out of all that chaos, all of these rumors start flying."Louisiana National Guard Col. Thomas Beron, who headed security at the Superdome, said that for every complaint, "49 other people said, 'Thank you, God bless you.' "The media inaccuracies had consequences in the disaster zone.Bush, of the National Guard, said that reports of corpses at the Superdome filtered back to the facility via AM radio, undermining his struggle to keep morale up and maintain order."We had to convince people this was still the best place to be," Bush said. "What I saw in the Superdome was just tremendous amounts of people helping people."But, Bush said, those stories received scant attention in newspapers or on television.Times staff writer Scott Gold contributed to this report.

Another reason to hate Fat Boy Bill

"Pentagon lawyers during the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of intelligence reports that identified September 11 leader Mohamed Atta months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, according to congressional testimony yesterday."

Peggy Noonan Clobbers Bush Spending!

And he deserves every word. I'm sick of having to explain how it could be that conservatives believe in less government spending when GWB is giving drunken sailing a bad name.

It's a long one, but she is dead on all along the way.

---------------------------------------------------
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291
'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--"But where's the money going to come from?"--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying "Republicans don't care about black people," and "They're always tightwads with the poor."

In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--"whatever it takes"--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.

George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.

Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.

Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.

As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.

Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.

Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.

At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration "the pre-Bush era." See where it got them.

Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?

The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, "Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger." That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.

But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.

Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.

First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.

Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.

Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.

The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.

Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, "Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it." We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.

Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.

Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--"Here's a check"? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to "Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy." Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?

At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a "compassionate conservative." The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.

But conservatives also understood "compassionate conservatism" to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.

I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: "We're having some trouble with part of the base but"--smile--"we can weather that."

Well, they probably can, short term.

Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.

Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.

If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;

If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;

If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;

If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is "Whatever it takes";

If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?

And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?

It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Lesson: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Myth De-Bunker: School Vouchers

This PDF runs through 7 myths about school vouchers.

We need more.

I got this tripe from my cousin.

Dr. West explains how much smarter he is than you are. Oh yeah, and let's not forget. Bush=Hitler.










My cousin is cool, but this article from Dr. West is really just a lot of hogwash.


This is not discourse.

This is also not something that has not been happening.

This is politicizing a catastrophy, and it has grown from the knee-jerk reaction to any move made by the President. "It's all about the racist right," "It's all about the health care," "It's all about ignoring any progress."

What it's really about is being against Bush.

It is pathetic that someone who holds the equivalent of the bully pulpit for black America could only throw barbs at a man who has been in power for 5 years. The self proclaimed Marxist is happy to pile on when death comes. He says the message of conservatism toward the poor is that "you are on your own," (which is incorrect) and then loosely ties that attitude to the aftermath of the broken levees. There is no mention of the failure of any other entities. Clearly there is enough blame to go around.

The appropriate response comes from Armstrong Williams at TownHall.com. In one of the best statements related to the entire crisis, he says this:

On this point, I want to be clear. This notion that race was a factor in the
relief effort is not only dishonest, it is reprehensible. The reason why most of
those stranded in the Superdome were black is because two-thirds of the city’s
residents are black. In fact, much of the city’s local representatives are
black. New Orleans has a black city Council. They have black elected
representatives. They have black judges. All of whom failed to send any buses to
evacuate New Orleans’ residents before the hurricane hit.

There is more Here

Ask a Judge

The Instapundit (Glenn Harlan Reynolds)wants some questions answered by the new Chief Justice Nominee.

He asks:

September 12, 2005
Judge Bork's Inkblot
By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing.


Good interesting questions...

How Would YOU do it?

Ol' Blue Eyes had a big hit with a song about doing things "His Way." Now that everyone's had a chance to complain about the response time to the Hurricane/Flood, lets put up or shut up about ways to remedy the problem. What is your way?

Over at Wizbang, Jay Tea outlines the options, and shoots them down. It seems that there wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to prevent the problems. Well nothing short of beefing up and following the original state and local plans. Check it out

Why no Congressional Inquiries on the '95 Heat Deaths?

I'm just gonna link to the Gavin Report where the question is asked of Senator Clinton:

How come she never called for a commission to investigate why at least 1,000 Americans died in a 1995 heat wave when her husband was president?

While I'd like to know what happened just as much as the next busybody, I wonder why we never got a similar request for another American tragedy ten years ago?

Check out the whole thing here: Pathetic

Kan-tro-vers-ye

Kanye is the man on wax. I got his new "Late Registration" on the first day it came out. I love his sh!#. But when it came to expressing himself on air; "Telethon Freestyling" if you will, he made an ass of himself. No other way to look at it.

Everyone wants to say that the telethon was the right forum. I don't quite agree, but I guess a case could be made for that arguement. There are really two issues here.

1. Could he have been more effective?
2. Was his statement correct?

Yes and no.

1.
When I first heard that tha' Kan-yiza said "George Bush doesn't like Black people" I just knew the statement was out of context. He has oratory skills, and would have had more to say than that, right? Well sorta. I saw his kukoo rant and lost a bit of respect for the guy. I give him a 'D' for delivery and a 'C' for the material. If he had to go 'off script' like that, it could have at least been coherent. Write it up before hand, and give some supporting statements. That would have made him look like more than just a stupid flavor of the month rapper.

I don't ever expect to hear about it, but I hope his mother smacked him for lack of preparedness. She's (or was) the chair of Chicago State University's department of English, Speech and Modern Languages.

If that's the way he's gonna be an activist, stick to da' beats.

His rant makes her look bad.

2.
Bush doesn't like black people... Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige, $15B in aid for the nations of Africa. Yeah, definding him with the same people is almost a cliche'. But so is saying that he doesn't like black people. The difference is that the defense is right, and the claim is stupid.

Watch, as Kanye makes an ass of himself.

Somebody can't wait to make you a slave.

I'm no scholar. I pretend, but I really don't know much about "the classics." I always find it interesting when someone uses them to base an arguement. When they do, they often expose me to new ideas. And other times they reaquaint me with ideas I have long believed, but had not been able to study.

Lee Harris's (Bio Columns) column about disorder in New Orleans does just that. He makes a good case to say that those who lose battles are likely to end up slaves. Aristotle said it first and he just agreed, but it is illustrates an important point that I have agreed with for a long time. The "big kid" wants to take your "candy" and if there is nothing to stop him, you're screwed; sometimes literally. And that this is a "natural" thing. Though to dispute. Take a look at his offering.

"Contrary to Aristotle's claim, people were not enslaved because they scored low on IQ tests, or because they exhibited a high degree of co-dependency on standardized psychological profiles. They were made slaves because they could be made slaves; they were made slaves because they were too weak and too helpless to defend themselves against the ruthless and heartless warrior elite that happened to come across them."

Think You know your race? Think again.

The The US Census Bureau says that even if you think you are "American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, black, [or] white," if anyone in your history has lived in an area where Spanish is the predominant language, then you are a new race. That race is Hispanic. Welcome to Oceana.

Here is a little more to confuse you:

• People who are Hispanic may be of any race.
• People in each race group may be either Hispanic or Not Hispanic.
• Each person has two attributes, their race (or races) and whether or not they are Hispanic.

So now, if a white person from Spain, a Native American from Texas, and and a Phillipino person from... well... the Phillipines are all seen in the same light, why do we waste time with this anyway?

Star Parker has a great column about it. The essenece of her thoughts are this:

The only reason why anyone would care about this is that the very odious attitudes and ideas that historically provided the rationale for discrimination and persecution have been transformed into platforms for political power, preferences and entitlements.

Shine Star, Shine.

How could a Black Person be a Republican?

Well, I will outline this for myself later but whenever I run across someone else who already has outlined their view I will highlight it. And to tell the truth, there is more weight in being a conservative than a Republican in my eyes. I mentioned that I would explain later. This is not "later." Son Greg, Dr. Wallace. Son Eric at dinner.

Today we start with a gentleman running for Lt. Gov. of the State of Illinois. I'll let Dr. Eric Wallace speak for himself.

MS-13 Takedown! 660 Arrests in 5 countries!

"I haven't seen anything like this in 23 years," said veteran FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker, who oversaw the operation.

GOOD!

Here's a tough question...?

Nykola asks:

Let's just say hypothetically, you have about 15 minutes to decide what to take. You may be leaving on foot, loading up your car or even hopping on a plane. Either way,

What must absolutely come with you?

Well now that I have so many pictures in my computer, I'd want to keep those. I don't know whether I'd be able to burn them fast enough though. I'd also bring the cat. Vicious little *$*#! But she's getting used to me. Besides. My wife would murder me if I tried to leave her. (the cat)

I'd look for insurance papers, photos, and my proof of who I am.

The pragmatic part would have to take over if I only had 15 minutes.

I might take more, but I don't know what...

Raise your shirt, Get Rescued?!?!?!

If this is true, it is pathetic.

How could anyone use this event to get off on people waiting to be resued? "Show me your ----, or I'll just let you die." What kinda crap is that?

There were Buses and Roads to the Superdome

This is another example of the lack of vision on part of all involved. If someone could have seen this satellite shot earlier, we would have been able to get people out of the Superdome.



The question still remains. Why didn't anybody use an arieal view to find a dry path for escape?

(Thanky Ramblings Journal!)

I was responding to this:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/damn-right-i-blame-bush.html

And I said.

Goodness me, I must contend that your rant proves you to be among the most witty, and insightful blocks of wood ever to bless a cobbler's studio.

Clinton never tried to ratify Kyoto, and even if he had, the reduction of greenhouse gasses would probably not have changed by now.

The people stranded in New Orleans desreve their fate because of their support of Bush? Well I know that Black support in Ohio got up to about 16%, but elsewhere it hoovers in the 5%-9% range. These people didn't want him! They wanted Kerry.


Oh and who was it who aproved disaster funds BEFORE the hurricane hit?
And who was it who offered to take over the evacuation of the city?
And who was it who left his "vacation" early?
And who was it who pushed the hand of the authorities to institute a manditory, not volunteer, evacuation?

Yeah. Block of wood. Probably balsa. It floats.

Hello. I just wanted to post a comment to somebody.

What better way to start a blog than to post from the great and powerful Mark Steyn?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn04.html