PDA

View Full Version : Ultimate Cynicism: The Political Exploitation of a Tragedy


MavKikiNYC
09-02-2005, 10:51 AM
NY Times Editorial
Waiting for a Leader

Published: September 1, 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

MavKikiNYC
09-02-2005, 10:58 AM
It's pieces of shit like this that make me the angriest. This ridiculous exploitation of a natural disaster and the ensuing human tragedy to try to inflict political damage.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

I loathe the NYTimes. I do not think I would lift a finger to stop the destruction of its offices, or to prevent harm to the gutless "editors" who deal in this type of exploiation.

May its demise continue.

LRB
09-02-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
NY Times Editorial
Waiting for a Leader

Published: September 1, 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

It's incredibly sad that there are many who readily use this horrible tragedy in Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida to promote their own political agendas instead of banding together to help those victims who still stand in desperate need. There will be more than enough time to play the blame game later, I think now all efforts should be directed towards helping the victims and the game of politically getting a leg up should be suspended until the victims of Katrina are safe and have the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing.

reeds
09-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

Drbio
09-02-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

You know reeds...most of the time I just blow you off as silly but this one inspires me to tell you to go F*ck yourself.


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/09/02/katrina.impact/top.katfri23.jpg
I am VERY PROUD of OUR President.

Mavdog
09-02-2005, 02:09 PM
I much prefer this example set by the legislature:


Congress Approves $10.5B in Katrina Aid By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

Congress approved a $10.5 billion down payment Friday to cover the immediate rescue and relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina's sweep across the Gulf, amid complaints that the government's response has been inadequate.

The bill passed the House by voice vote after Senate approval late Thursday. It comes as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government's front-line responder in natural disasters, is spending more than $500 million a day on Katrina.

An increasingly polarized atmosphere has defined Washington this year, but as in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror assaults, erstwhile political adversaries teamed up to ensure speedy passage of the aid legislation.

A skeleton crew of lawmakers was all that was needed to advance the bill; to hold recorded votes could have delayed it as lawmakers would have had to scramble back to Washington from their August vacation.

The new aid averts the possibility that money might run out before Congress reconvenes on Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the bill was only the first step toward a "comprehensive, long-term response to the Katrina disaster." He promised Congress would provide more humanitarian aid, combat gasoline price gouging, provide assistance to businesses and the unemployed, rebuild infrastructure and utility systems, and help local law enforcement.

"Make no mistake, this $10.5 billion is initial relief," DeLay said.

they went to work and they did what they do best- appropriated the money for the relief efforts.

This comment from the pres:


"I want to thank the Congress for acting as quickly as you did," Bush said of the $10.5 billion measure, which he was signing into law later Friday. "But I've got go to warn everybody that's just the beginning."

Good counsel on the long term need this relief is going to take. The pictures from the gulf coast are horribly remniscent of the SE asian tsunami.

Bush is there in Mississsippi today with a stop in NOLA. there have been some warm pictures of him with people who have been harmed by this tragedy.

first, the visit today is a big event which uses the backdrop for positive political gain, so in as much as you want to wait for the relief to be accomplished before any politics take root, it isn't going to happen and neither side of the argument will delay sending their message. media rules.

second, perhaps it was a desire by the editor to launch this quick, and he went too quick to hurl blame at the feet of bush. however, consider that it is just because of this type of reaction (as well as how the scenes there are portrayed) which is producing the quick response by the WH.


The bill combines $10 billion in new FEMA funds — enough to last just a few weeks — and $500 million for the Pentagon's role in the relief mission. The FEMA funds, among other uses, will finance food and emergency shelter, medical care, debris removal, generators and cash payments to hurricane victims. FEMA will also funnel funds to other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for repairing levees around New Orleans and pumping out the flood waters inundating the city.

Long-term costs were anyone's guess. For starters, it could be months before New Orleans is cleared of flood waters, and until then, it's impossible to determine long-term needs. Many areas have yet to receive visits from federal officials.

Frustration with the rescue effort — and the continued lack of help for many of the mostly poor and black victims in New Orleans — reached a boil as the Congressional Black Caucus blasted Bush's handling of the crisis.

"I'm ashamed of America. I'm ashamed of our government," said Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. "I'm outraged by the lack of response by our federal government."

To help ease some of the economic pain from the storm, the Department of Labor announced Friday that it is providing an emergency grant of up to $50 million to create 10,000 temporary cleanup and recovery jobs for displaced workers in Mississippi.

"Workers in these temporary jobs will be involved in the provision of food, shelter and other services to fellow Mississippians," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

Still, at least one prominent politician got off script Thursday — House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Asked in an interview with the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago paper, whether it makes sense to spend billions rebuilding a city that lies below sea level, a reference to New Orleans, Hastert replied, "I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me."

Hastert later issued a statement saying he was not "advocating that the city be abandoned or relocated," but he did not travel to Washington to preside over the debate.

hey, don't mess with those n'orleans boys dennis.....

Drbio
09-02-2005, 02:18 PM
President Bush stated that the response effort is "not acceptable" and that it will improve.

YOUR President is doing great things.

LRB
09-02-2005, 03:02 PM
Fortunately not all liberal democrats care more about advancing their political agendas than saving the lives of their fellow countrymen, unfortunately not all are like this. And yes there as a few Republicans who can meet that description as well.

Of course you can get positive political publicity from being seen touring the disaster scene and making anouncements of sending aid. So long as looking good is secondary in importance to getting the aid to those victims who need it, I don't give a rat's @$$ which political party gets to have positive political publicity. But which this juvenile sniping and blaming takes place to get a political leg up at the expense of slowing down aid and attempting to play on the fears of the nation in a crisis situation, that is just totally uncalled for. Sure there have been mistakes made by policticians on both sides of the isle in this situation. But now is not the time to stop and point the finger that should be working to bring aid to those in need.

A big part of the problem in the delay of aid is those who are delaying the process of getting aid while concentrating on blaming the opposition instead of seeking ways that they personally can help the situation. Fortunately most people are concentrating on getting aid to the people 1st. However with a disaster of such unprescedented size, it will take a while for the aid to fully get there. Some logistical problems will take a certain amount of time and no political sniping will hurry that up, but it could slow it down.

reeds
09-02-2005, 03:06 PM
I wonder if the 200billion we spent on the war in Iraq would come in handy right about now? Hmmm..just a thought..but then again, it is much more important to take care of the evil Sadaam and the terrorist than to have a surplus of funds in case our own country suffers a tragedy....

LRB
09-02-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
I wonder if the 200billion we spent on the war in Iraq would come in handy right about now? Hmmm..just a thought..but then again, it is much more important to take care of the evil Sadaam and the terrorist than to have a surplus of funds in case our own country suffers a tragedy....

Thanks Reeds for giving an example of the selfserving behavior of the political slimeballs I was referring to. I'm glad to see how you will exploit the death and suffering of your fellow countrymen even when their lives are still in the balance to promote your political agenda. We can only be thankful that you don't have any sort of position where you assistance was needed in getting aid to the victims, because I have a felling that it'd be cold day in hell before you'd even consider putting getting aid to them before you political agenda.

Arne
09-02-2005, 03:50 PM
But it's just right, what Reeds says. 200 billions would come in handy at the moment. Why spend 200 millions for a war just like that and then "only" spend 10 billions for a catastrophe like what happens in New Orleans.

And here is something to think about for all these people who said France and Germany were "ungrateful", because they didn't join in to the Iraq war.





"Germany, France Offer U.S. Medical Aid, Equipment
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Germany and France, the two leading European opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, have offered aid to the U.S. to help the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, which probably killed thousands of people in four Gulf coast states.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Germany is ready to provide help including airlift capacities, vaccination, water purification, medical supplies and pumping services. The aid is available in the short term and can be brought to the U.S. on German air force and chartered planes, Schroeder said. The U.S. government has agreed to receive the help in principle, he said.

``The pictures that we see on television are hard to bear,'' Schroeder told reporters today at the Chancellery in Berlin. ``It is not only our historical duty because we've received unlimited help from the American people after the war, but it also goes without saying'' that Germany will try to help as much as it can.

France has 35 disaster relief workers in the Caribbean islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe ready to leave for the U.S. the minute they are asked, Denis Simonneau, deputy spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, said at a press briefing today. A 60-strong disaster relief team in mainland France could be sent ``very quickly,'' he said.

Simonneau said France has offered 600 tents, 1000 camp beds, 60 generators, and three portable water treatment plants that are stockpiled in Martinique. In addition two planes, two naval ships and a hospital ship are standing ready in the Caribbean, he said.

French Experience

``We have lots of experience with hurricanes in Martinique and Guadeloupe,'' French ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte said at a press lunch in Paris yesterday. ``President (Jacques) Chirac has made it clear that France will provide whatever help is requested.''

Nathalie Loiseau, a spokeswoman at the French embassy in Washington, said France made its offer yesterday and is awaiting a response. ``We weren't expecting a response within hours,'' Loiseau said. ``There's an inter-agency committee that meets every day and they will examine the offers and decide which ones conform to what they need and what the U.S. have the means to accept.''

The disaster may be the biggest in the U.S. since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake when as many as 6,000 died. It may cost $50 billion, Standard & Poor's said, making Katrina the most expensive hurricane in U.S. history.

S.O.S.

Some 15,000 to 20,000 people are stranded without help around New Orleans, a city of 500,000 before the disaster struck. The city's mayor Ray Nagin issued a ``desperate S.O.S.,'' telling Cable News Network ``people are desperate and they are trying to find food and water.''

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved $10.5 billion in disaster relief and as many as 15,000 security officers are headed for the city, which has seen looting and rape as public order collapsed.

The hurricane wreaked havoc throughout Louisiana and Mississippi as well as Alabama and Western Florida. Television channels showed crowds at the New Orleans convention center, with people pleading for food, water and medicine."

Arne
09-02-2005, 03:52 PM
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

MavKikiNYC
09-02-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

Indeed not, Reeds. You couldn't have.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

In brief, two feet up you and your whore of a mother's ass.

God bless.

MavKikiNYC
09-02-2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Not even the NYTimes made this mistake, Arne.

THE OUTLOOK
Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: August 30, 2005

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Arne
09-02-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: reeds
Great great write up..couldnt have written it any better myself!! Two thumbs up!!

Indeed not, Reeds. You couldn't have.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

In brief, two feet up you and your whore of a mother's ass.

God bless.

Woah...don't be so polite...


Here's some information about this quoted Mr Gray...: "Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force" I just don't believe this guy. But hey, it's the American way to downplay environmental issues like global warming.

Did you know that way before Katrina ever hit New Orleans the city was already losing an acre of wetland every 24 minutes?


Plus, here's another man's opinion...: (Wall Street Journal)

"Man-Made Mistakes
Increase Devastation
Of 'Natural' Disasters
September 2, 2005; Page B1

While storms such as Hurricane Katrina are sometimes called an act of God or a natural disaster, the devastation they leave behind is not. Some scientists believe even the storms themselves could be at least partly man-made.

As Theodore Steinberg argues, God is getting a bum rap. "This is an unnatural disaster if ever there was one, not an act of God," says Prof. Steinberg, an environmental historian at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. "If the potential for mass death and destruction from extreme weather existed anywhere in the U.S., it existed in New Orleans."

In his 2000 book "Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America," Prof. Steinberg documented how much of the toll from "natural" disasters, from the 1886 Charleston earthquake to 1990s hurricanes, has been exacerbated by human actions.

The temporary lull in hurricane activity in Florida, from 1969 to 1989, spurred a reckless building boom, for example, putting billions of dollars worth of condos and hotels within reach of storm surges, notes Roger Pielke Jr., of the University of Colorado, Boulder. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 would have caused an estimated $90 billion damage had it occurred in 2000, he calculated. It caused just over $1 billion, in today's dollars.

It isn't only hurricanes whose destructiveness has been increased by human actions. Tornadoes turn mobile homes into matchsticks (one of Prof. Steinberg's first jobs was at a New York brokerage firm, where he followed the trailer-home industry). From 1981 to 1997, he found, more than one-third of all deaths from tornadoes occurred among people living in mobile homes; federal regulations didn't require them to withstand high winds, and a 1974 statute actually pre-empted stricter state standards with more lax federal ones.

Throughout the South and Midwest, mobile-home communities and poor neighborhoods are also much more likely to be sited in flood plains.

In New Orleans, the worst-hit parishes were the lower-income ones. But the city also ignored the power of nature. More than one million acres of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, or 1,900 square miles, have been lost since 1930, due to development and the construction of levees and canals. Barrier islands and stands of tupelo and cypress also vanished. All of them absorb some of the energy and water from storm surges, which, more than the rain falling from the sky, caused the current calamity. "If these had been in place, at least some of the energy in the storm surge would have been dissipated," says geologist Jeffrey Mount of the University of California, Davis. "This is a self-inflicted wound."

Studies estimate that for every square mile of wetlands lost, storm surges rise by one foot.

Leaving aside whether the levees that broke in New Orleans could have been better constructed, their very existence contributed to the disaster. Built to keep the city from being flooded by the Mississippi, they also keep the Big Muddy from depositing silt to replenish marshes and the river's delta, as do projects that direct the river's water and sediment out to sea to create a deep shipping channel.

The result is that much of New Orleans fell below sea level. Combined with the dredging to build canals, "the Gulf of Mexico is a lot closer to New Orleans than it was when Hurricane Betsy ripped through in 1965," says Prof. Steinberg. Now the gulf is in the city.

The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

The best science to date suggests the frequency of hurricanes doesn't reflect global warming. Straightforward physics, however, says their intensity might. As the seas and air warm, there is more evaporation, which fuels storms, and more energy available to pump them up. A new analysis by atmospheric physicist Kerry Emanuel of MIT suggests the net power of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and Pacific typhoons), a combination of the energy they pack and how long they last, "has increased markedly since 1970."

The power of storms in the North Atlantic has tripled, while the power of those in the western North Pacific has more than doubled.

Similarly, a 2004 study from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that a warmer world is likely to deepen hurricanes' central pressure (a measure of their power) and intensify the rainfall they bring. Today's storms, the scientists write, "may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

By continuing to blame weather extremes on random events, the "stuff happens" attitude, officials and city planners are ignoring their contributions to the disasters that have pummeled the planet and promise to become only worse.

MavKikiNYC
09-02-2005, 06:42 PM
Here's some information about this quoted Mr Gray...: "Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force" I just don't believe this guy.

Uhm...well at least your skepticism is rationally based.




The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

<u>The best science to date suggests the frequency of hurricanes doesn't reflect global warming. </u>


Even the article you post in reply clearly points out the lack of connection to global warming, although it goes on to make some speculative observations about speculated connections.

LRB
09-02-2005, 10:33 PM
By ignoring the true science behind global warming, and instead fear mongering unscientificly based and political agenda fueled warninga about global warming during every weather based natural disaster, the proponents of global warming do far more to damage their cause than to increase support. Essientially the over vocal "enviromental nutcases" have caused millions to turn a deaf ear to legitimate enviromenta concerns due to the numerous outright lies and not so cleverly crafted deceptions to perpetuate their cause. Addmittedly, many are not purposefully attempting to decieve, but are rather showing their incredible ignorance to the facts. Credibility once lost is incredibly hard if not impossible to regain.

Arne
09-03-2005, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by: LRB
By ignoring the true science behind global warming, and instead fear mongering unscientificly based and political agenda fueled warninga about global warming during every weather based natural disaster, the proponents of global warming do far more to damage their cause than to increase support. Essientially the over vocal "enviromental nutcases" have caused millions to turn a deaf ear to legitimate enviromenta concerns due to the numerous outright lies and not so cleverly crafted deceptions to perpetuate their cause. Addmittedly, many are not purposefully attempting to decieve, but are rather showing their incredible ignorance to the facts. Credibility once lost is incredibly hard if not impossible to regain. So right, so right... I only hope that your president reads this, because just a few days ago he admitted that the Iraq war was, indeed, about the oil.


No I'm gonna quote my own article and tell you, what I read:


The ultimate question is whether Katrina's power reflects human-caused global warming, or is at minimum a harbinger of the kinds of storms we can expect in a warmer world.

No single freak storm can be attributed to global climate trends. But for hurricanes to form, the surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic must exceed about 80° Fahrenheit. That is more likely in a warmer world.

And now something about global warming...:


"The debate's over: Globe is warming
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.

The Larsen B ice shelf, on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula, has shattered and separated from the continent as a result of warming.
National Snow and Ice Data Center

General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.

They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.

The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by 2100. A "middle of the road" projection is for an average 5-degree increase by the end of the century, says Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

What the various factions don't necessarily agree on is what to do about it. The heart of the discussion is "really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it's happening," says energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. "What are my company's options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Are there new business opportunities associated with addressing climate change? Those are the questions many businesses are asking today."

The players

GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt recently announced that his company, which reports $135 billion in annual revenue, will spend $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Joining him for the announcement were executives from such mainline corporations as American Electric Power, Boeing and Cinergy.

Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. "Global warming is a universal moral challenge," the partnership's statement says.

And high-profile politicians from both parties are getting into the act. For example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases that heat in the atmosphere.

To be sure, many companies — most notably oil industry leader ExxonMobil — still express skepticism about the effects of global warming. And the Bush administration has supported research and voluntary initiatives but has pulled back from a multi-nation pact on environmental constraints.

The administration was on the defensive last week when The New York Times reported that a staff lawyer has been softening scientific assessments of global warming. White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended such action as a routine part of a multi-agency review process.

Nonetheless, the tides of change appear to be moving on.

"As big companies fall off the 'I don't believe in climate change' bandwagon, people will start to take this more seriously," says environmental scientist Don Kennedy, editor in chief of the journal Science. Companies aren't changing because of a sudden love for the environment, Kennedy says, but because they see change as an opportunity to protect their investments.

"On the business side, it just looks like climate change is not going away," says Kevin Leahy of Cinergy, a Cincinnati-based utility that reports $4.7 billion in annual revenue and provides electricity, mostly generated from coal, to 1.5 million customers. Most firms see global warming as a problem whose risks have to be managed, he says.

Power companies want to know what sort of carbon constraints they face — carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas — so they can plan long term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties in the future, he says.

Science and solutions

Climate scientists say this acceptance comes none too soon. "All the time we should have been moving forward ... has been wasted by arguing if the problem even exists," says Michael Mann of the University of Virginia.

The IPCC estimates that rainfall will increase up to 20% in wet regions, causing floods, while decreasing 20% in arid areas, causing droughts. The Environmental Protection Agency says melting glaciers and warmer ocean waters will likely cause an average 2-foot rise in sea level on all U.S. coasts by 2100.

Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. There are now about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the end of the century, atmos-pheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.

Moving ahead with solutions looks like the hardest part of the equation for the United States. The Bush administration's stance has frustrated advocates of a more aggressive response.

Bush explained in a 2001 speech why he opposed joining the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to curb greenhouse gases: "The (Kyoto) targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases."

Instead, the administration "harnesses the power of markets and technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation," former Energy Department head Spencer Abraham wrote last year in Science. He pointed to tax incentive programs, climate research and technologies such as "FutureGen," the Energy Department's 10-year,$1 billion attempt at creating a coal-fired power plant that emits no greenhouse gases.

Other administration efforts:

• The $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative announced two years ago in Bush's State of the Union address.

• A $49 million carbon "sequestration" initiative with 65 projects to see whether carbon dioxide can be stripped from emissions.

• Participation in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source.

The administration has encouraged voluntary efforts. Fourteen trade groups representing industrial, energy, transportation and forest companies have signed up for a program aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 18% by 2012.

So why isn't this enough to assuage critics?

Rick Piltz, a science policy expert who resigned in protest from the administration's Climate Change Science Program in March, says the reliance on voluntary measures and long-term technology breakthroughs is a roadblock against simple conservation steps that could curb emissions now. Piltz provided the edited documents that were the subject of last week's story in The New York Times.

Commonly cited examples of the conservation steps Piltz mentions:

• Incentives for emission controls on the oldest and least efficient power plants.

• More stringent mileage and tailpipe requirements on vehicles.

• Expanded tax credits for more efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and appliances.

Political leaders will support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the economy, says William Reilly, co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former head of the EPA under President George H.W. Bush. "But there is a lot going on, and I think we will be seeing some movement on this."

Away from the political arena, other irons are in the fire:

• More people are advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand."

• Immelt called for the United States to adopt an emissions-trading plan for greenhouse gases. Taking a cue from the EPA's policy of having companies buy and sell permits to release sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, economists suggest that such a scheme would limit carbon dioxide by making emissions economically less feasible. In Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would commit the country to such a plan.

No 'silver bullet' solution

Pressure for reforms may come most strongly from "socially responsible" investors. "We make bottom-line arguments to companies to make decisions in the interests of their shareholders," says John Wilson of Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $3.5 billion in investor funds. The firm advises 1,000 Catholic institutions, such as churches, schools and hospitals.

A Christian Brothers resolution in May asked ExxonMobil "to explain the scientific basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change." The resolution garnered 10.3% of shareholders' votes, representing 665 million shares worth more than $36 billion, despite the opposition of management.

"The future of energy is plainly moving away from fossil fuels and we want the companies (that) we invest in to explain how they plan to adjust," Wilson says.

Dooley, of the Battelle Institute, says: "We need a whole series of 'home runs' and maybe even a couple of 'grand slams' to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play."

"No one seriously talks about trying to address climate change with one technology," Dooley says. "Everyone understands that there isn't a 'silver bullet' out there waiting to be discovered."

MavKikiNYC
09-03-2005, 06:06 AM
So you'll trust the journalistic representation of a reporter from USA Today, but not a scientific explanation from former US Air Force Meteorologist?

Go figure.

dude1394
09-03-2005, 09:08 AM
It's all on what side of the aisle they land kiki. Rationality and logic have nothing to do with it anymore.

Arne
09-03-2005, 11:26 AM
You two should just read. The article is quoting scientists.


A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that...

So I believe a scientist but I don't trust the scientist who worked for the gouvernment.

MavKikiNYC
09-03-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

LRB
09-03-2005, 02:00 PM
Arne it only seems like you care about 3 things. 1) hating Bush 2) global warming 3) spewing whatever lies, half truth's, and misleading articles that support your positions. It appears obvious to me that you don't give a damn about the suffering human beings in New Orleans and other areas hit by Katrina, that is other than how they can be exploited to make your political points. Somehow I have the feeling that nothing would make you happier than to see millions die in a way that you could exploit to show how you were right, and conversely nothing would make you sadder than to see millions of lives saved if it make you political agenda appear to be wrong. That's just sad and pathetic.

Mavdog
09-03-2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

a warmer earth is expected to produce stronger hurricanes.

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricane will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

noaa (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html)

the recent years have had the 2nd and 3rd warmest subsurface water temperatures on record. warmer water produces more intense hurricanes.

no, global warming didn't cause this hurricane, yet it is an example of what we can expect if the earth's temperature continues its rise.

MavKikiNYC
09-03-2005, 03:38 PM
a warmer earth is expected to produce stronger hurricanes.

the recent years have had the 2nd and 3rd warmest subsurface water temperatures on record. warmer water produces more intense hurricanes.

no, global warming didn't cause this hurricane, yet it is an example of what we can expect if the earth's temperature continues its rise.

Had C-span going on in the background, and they replayed testimony/presentations from (I believe) representatives from different emergency planning entities, among them some meterologists/weather forecasters. Came in on the middle of this, so I don't know the context of the meetings; did catch the presentation date as 06.29.05.)

The point was made, that the bulk of generally accepted research showed that there was no established causality between global warming and the number and frequency of hurricanes, relative to natural variation.

The presenter (missed his name/affiliation) did acknowledge that there was one study that theorized that there could be a 5-10% increase in the intensity of storms, over the next 80 years.

Drbio
09-03-2005, 04:49 PM
Why are you guys wasting so much time talking to some hokey bassackwards frenchie retreater?

Arne
09-03-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: Arne
And last but not least, America should start to take global warming seriously.

Maybe I misunderstood.

But if your original incorrect thesis (implict or explicit) was that global warming was reponsible for this hurricane, no scientist in either article supported you. In fact, they have stated the contrary.

Nah, but global warning raises the chances of hurricans and other natural catastrophes. That's my point. And it can raise the grade of a tragedy like this sometimes.

Arne
09-03-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Arne it only seems like you care about 3 things. 1) hating Bush 2) global warming 3) spewing whatever lies, half truth's, and misleading articles that support your positions. It appears obvious to me that you don't give a damn about the suffering human beings in New Orleans and other areas hit by Katrina, that is other than how they can be exploited to make your political points. Somehow I have the feeling that nothing would make you happier than to see millions die in a way that you could exploit to show how you were right, and conversely nothing would make you sadder than to see millions of lives saved if it make you political agenda appear to be wrong. That's just sad and pathetic.


You know what? Fuck you.

I care about every single fucking person in New Orleans. I care about all people that's why I'm standing up for more tollerance and a gouvernment who actually supports a social security system. A gouvernment where it shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor in order to get saved.

mavsman55
09-03-2005, 06:36 PM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Honesly, these people need help. It's not the time to be playing the blame game and using the situation to your advantage. I don't sense any sympathy for the victims of this horrible event. Whether or not you have a problem with Mr. Bush, what happened has already happened. Anything negative said about him due to this event can't be interpreted as anything other than taking advantage of the situation.

Arne
09-04-2005, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by: mavsman55
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Honesly, these people need help. It's not the time to be playing the blame game and using the situation to your advantage. I don't sense any sympathy for the victims of this horrible event. Whether or not you have a problem with Mr. Bush, what happened has already happened. Anything negative said about him due to this event can't be interpreted as anything other than taking advantage of the situation.

Nah, it's about opening peoples eyes. Because if nothing was going on in New Orleans, nobody would even listen to anything.

alby
09-04-2005, 04:51 AM
its amazing to me how there are people using, exploiting, and wrongfully taking advantage of the terrible tragedy in the gulf coast to promote their own individual politcial agendas. instead of unifying together as a country supporting the president and his administration in this great time of need, there are those who criticize it playing the blame game and pointing the finger at our president.

how is it considered helping the people in the region hit by the hurricane when you donate money towards the recovery efforts but at the same time create unrest and instability between the government and the people?

there is a time and place to show your distaste towards the government, its pretty obvious that this is definitely not one of those times.

Arne
09-04-2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by: alby
its amazing to me how there are people using, exploiting, and wrongfully taking advantage of the terrible tragedy in the gulf coast to promote their own individual politcial agendas. instead of unifying together as a country supporting the president and his administration in this great time of need, there are those who criticize it playing the blame game and pointing the finger at our president.

how is it considered helping the people in the region hit by the hurricane when you donate money towards the recovery efforts but at the same time create unrest and instability between the government and the people?

there is a time and place to show your distaste towards the government, its pretty obvious that this is definitely not one of those times.


First of all, he's not my president. I'm not an American. Second of all, do you really think it hurts the people of New Orleans if you criticise the government? Do you really think that this effects them in a bad way??? I DON'T THINK SO. The people in New Orleans are angry at the government as well and it can only help the situation if you pressure the government into taking actions!

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 07:43 AM
Well I'm sure the politicians are feeling the pressure you're applying, especially since you aren't even eligible to vote.

Why don't you go fuck ChIraq's corpse?

Arne
09-04-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Well I'm sure the politicians are feeling the pressure you're applying, especially since you aren't even eligible to vote.

Why don't you go fuck ChIraq's corpse?

Why don't you go suck your great presidents cock? I'm not french, asshole.

You guys started all this name-calling, so you should stop it, as well.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 09:11 AM
Why don't you go suck your great presidents cock?

Was gonna suggest that to you, but he's already busy fucking Democrats up one side and down the other.

Eat that instead.

Arne
09-04-2005, 09:41 AM
Uuuuhhhh...

mavsman55
09-04-2005, 09:51 AM
The people in New Orleans are angry at the government


I'm not an American

So tell me.. how could you possibly know this?

Arne
09-04-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: mavsman55

The people in New Orleans are angry at the government


I'm not an American

So tell me.. how could you possibly know this?
You know I actually can speak another language, I can read American newspapers, I can read the articles on the internet, I see it on television: mostly black and poor people who are very angry with the government.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 12:14 PM
So as we suspected, you know nothing.

mavsman55
09-04-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by: Arne

Originally posted by: mavsman55

The people in New Orleans are angry at the government


I'm not an American

So tell me.. how could you possibly know this?
You know I actually can speak another language, I can read American newspapers, I can read the articles on the internet, I see it on television: mostly black and poor people who are very angry with the government.

Exactly. Media. You see, all you know is what the media tells you. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected by this hurricane. What the Media does is go to incredible heights to reach the handful of people who are pissed off about the help they received and blame it on the government. This makes for interesting news stories. This makes money for the Media. This is why, in a time like this, you'll rarely see somebody complementing government aid on television or in newspapers. Why you rely on this tainted system so much is confusing.

Mavdog
09-04-2005, 02:08 PM
the media was and is not guilty of misrepresenting or dramaticizing the situation in new orleans. don't try to charaterize this as the "media" pushing the tragedy.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
the media was and is not guilty of misrepresenting or dramaticizing the situation in new orleans. don't try to charaterize this as the "media" pushing the tragedy.

The hell they haven't.

The media have DEFINITELY skewed and distorted much of the coverage toward the most negative, most sensational aspects of the tragedy. And <u>everyone</u> I have talked to has commented on it.

I am sickened by what I see many in the media succmubing to, be it out of a sense of helpless guilt, or pure cynical opportunistic, malevolence--from simplifying and minimizing the immensity of what the emergency responders were facing; to engaging in a destructive game of finger-pointing and blame-assigning in the middle of a rescue operation; to trying to kick open a racial angle to the story.

There will be an accounting for the participation by some in the media of an attempt to exploit this tragedy, and you won't be able to prevent that by denying it.

mavsman55
09-04-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
the media was and is not guilty of misrepresenting or dramaticizing the situation in new orleans. don't try to charaterize this as the "media" pushing the tragedy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It is a depressing and unfortunate situation, but we all know that the media uses these depressing situations to make good news stories. There are, without a doubt, people who are probably pleased with rescue efforts and evacuations and such. But, we will never see any of these people on tv or in the news because the media focuses more on negative aspects of situations than positive.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
the media was and is not guilty of misrepresenting or dramaticizing the situation in new orleans. don't try to charaterize this as the "media" pushing the tragedy.

Horseshit post of the year.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 04:30 PM
Have to disagree here. From a neutral standpoint it's not at all surprising that tragedies are a welcome occasion to judge a leader. 9/11 was a tragedy, but other than a few nutcases, nobody in the media critizised the president's reaction afterwards, because he handled the situation as good as it could've been handled.
The war on terror has been a massive tragedy for the innocent families amongst the Afghans and Iraquis that have been bombed out of their houses and/or lost some of their relatives, yet the right-wing media has not stopped to exploit that very tragedy for their own cause and to emphasize the greatness of the president. So it works both ways.
The difference now is, that other than 9/11, this tragedy could've been handled better. There's absolutely no reason that people would have to stay without food and water for as long as five days in a civilized country. There's no way you allow gangs to take over and the police having to retreat because they are being outarmed in a civilized country. This situation could have been handled better, the president himself said so and it's only fair when the media puts a finger on it. Prayers for those who have to suffer through all this.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Why is noone askin Mayor Nagrin about his level of prepreparedness? Oh yeah...it's because they are all lining up (in th emdia) to blame it on the governor and Bush).

Again...I call bullshit.

u2sarajevo
09-04-2005, 04:48 PM
The city code states that in events of evacuation School Buses, vans, whatever means of transportation the government has will be used to route the needy out of the city.

Unfortunately for Mr. Nagrin, the DMN has pictures of scores of New Orleans School Buses parked in a lake.

?????

But it's all Bush's fault.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 04:49 PM
[/quote]...tragedies are a welcome occasion to judge a leader.[/quote]

Yeah, nothin' like a good tragedy.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 04:51 PM
So when all is running well, you praise the leader and when there's some doubt you put the blame on someone a few steps down the ladder? Nope, that strategy has stopped being effective some 20 years ago.
Besides, this is a tragedy beyond the means a mayor or even a govenor (at least the gov of louisiana) has. This is huge. And I ask again: Don't you think that it should've been possible to ship in some food , water and troops sooner than it has been done?

Drbio
09-04-2005, 04:54 PM
According to General Honore of the National Guard (who himself is a New Orleans native), the US government responded very effectively, but that noone was able to predict the logistical hurdles due to the devastation. There is no blame here. It's a natural disaster. The response has been evaluated by professionals to be a good response. It's the people who had to survive through this unfotunate mess that are angry. You can't blame them, but they are not all aware of the difficulties. To blame Bush or the government is pretty misguided.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 04:55 PM
I still ask....where is the criticism of Nagrin? I see you sidestepped that with a poke at Bush.

u2sarajevo
09-04-2005, 04:56 PM
I am sure that no matter how long it took to ship in food, water, troops you would have complained. The media would have complained. Anyone on the right would have complained.

That's the MO.

Mavdog
09-04-2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
The hell they haven't.

The media have DEFINITELY skewed and distorted much of the coverage toward the most negative, most sensational aspects of the tragedy. And <u>everyone</u> I have talked to has commented on it.

I am sickened by what I see many in the media succmubing to, be it out of a sense of helpless guilt, or pure cynical opportunistic, malevolence--from simplifying and minimizing the immensity of what the emergency responders were facing; to engaging in a destructive game of finger-pointing and blame-assigning in the middle of a rescue operation; to trying to kick open a racial angle to the story.

There will be an accounting for the participation by some in the media of an attempt to exploit this tragedy, and you won't be able to prevent that by denying it.

you know, I've spoken to a lot of people, and nobody expressed the view that this tragedy was handled very well. there's no control of the event itself, nature does what nature does, yet the reaction by those whose job it is to help has been late in arriving.

even the pres acknowledged this very fact.

the leveed broke sunday night, but it was wednesday before the response geared up, and thursday befor the feds were in town.

ijust who made the decisions that led to the tardy response hasn't been answered, but the question needs to be asked. was it the new systems at homeland security? was it a breakdown in command at fema?

Drbio
09-04-2005, 04:59 PM
Wow...mavdoogie spoke to a lot of people. amazing. nothing like conversing with liberal firends who obviously are not in the know. i/expressions/moon.gif

Arne
09-04-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
So as we suspected, you know nothing.

Are you in New Orleans right now? No. So so please shut up you don't know much more than I do since you have "only" the media as well. I see politicians who say tell me that it shouldn't be a matter of how rich you're in order to get saved! The government knew about all these thousand of people who would be stucked in the city, but they didn't send convois before the hurrican happened although everybody should've been evacuated.

The only thing I'm hearing from you guys is that I'm exploiting the death and suffering of these people in order to bash the government. But the truth is rather that you guys are hidding behind the deaths and sufferings of these people in order to don't get hit in the face by facts. Fact is that it's just irrational to think that it reasonable thing to cut New Orleans flood control funding by 71.2 millions in order to get some money for a war. And don't say that a hurrican hitting New Orleans came unexpected, because it was named one of the most likely disasters in the USA before it happened.

I'm ending this discussion right now, since &yacute;ou guys don't seem to be able to bring up the neccesary open-mindedness for any discussion that tends in another direction than your governments political direction. However, I can pretty much understand that, because I assume that more than 80% of you guys are voting for the Republicans.

You could argue for Anarchy if you're "playing" 12 on 1 or something like that and you were indeed feeling like a winner just because of the 11 other people who support you. There can't be a objective discussion because the majority will call the minority names just because there's no chance for the minority to defend itself. The majority won't really react to what is said, it will only suppress the minority. Like I said, in that way you could consider yourself winning an argument for Anarchy as the new national system, as well. I will admit that the minority will sometimes distend things a little bit, as well and that situation will be used by the majority once again to make their point seem more rational.

Ending this discussion I'd like to say that this situation here presented by me is pretty much simular to what is going on in this world. There's too less effort to try to understand other opinions, opinions of the minority, out there which causes the minority to sometimes seem a little bit irrational. This cycle can only be broken by a bit of tollerance and a bit of empathizing.






Post scriptum: It would be nice if people tried to react halfway decent to this post and if they tried not to quote a single sentence only in order to have a big Republican laugh at me. Me whom you prejudged as once American, then Frenchman. Just think about my post a little bit.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 05:00 PM
Wrong again mavdookie. The President acknowledged that the results were not what he wanted but that the effort was sufficient.

Seems like you never let a fact get in the way.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 05:00 PM
Who gives shit about your cowardly french response Arne?

u2sarajevo
09-04-2005, 05:04 PM
Doc.... can we try to have a conversation without the insults and name calling?

Let's be civil.

Arne already stated he is not from France.

Arne
09-04-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
Who gives shit about your cowardly french response Arne?

Tells its own tale.

Mavdog
09-04-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
I still ask....where is the criticism of Nagrin? I see you sidestepped that with a poke at Bush.

nagrin has his own bad decisions to defend. the superdome/convention center mess being one.

that's a seperate issue than the lack of a rapid response to the event.

IMO bush has done ok, he saw there was a problem and he acted. it was clear he got in a few people's faces, that's when things started really going.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 05:06 PM
I really don't even care about Nagrin. I could understand his frustration, the man was obviously totally unable to cope with what he had at hand. This is a lot more than a mayor, any mayor ever had to handle. The guy needed help. And all I want to know is: Why did that help arrive on day five and not on day three? That's all I want to know. This ain't gonna be the last storm to hit a shore - any shore, around the world - and twenty years from now, people won't know or won't care about Bush or the Democrats in 2005, but about what has been learned from this mess. And there's a lot to be learned.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman

Besides, this is a tragedy beyond the means a mayor or even a govenor (at least the gov of louisiana) has. This is huge. And I ask again: Don't you think that it should've been possible to ship in some food , water and troops sooner than it has been done?

So how would you have done it?

How long should it have taken to know how many people were going to need to be evacuated? To this very hour, they don't know how many people are in attics or other buildings awaiting rescue, or any idea of how many are dead. Some of the people they find are refusing to come out, believing that the waters will recede in a couple of days and that they can begin to go about the process of recovery.

How should they have estimated how much relief in the form of water, food, medicine, diapers and other essentials were going to be needed, where it was going to be needed, how to get it to where it was going to be needed, how it was going to be distributed, who was going to distribute it and who was going to provide security for the distributors?

How long would it have taken to have sites in remote cities prepared to receive X-hundred thousand refugees? They're still figuring out what to do with all the people.

How long should it have taken to mobilize transportion and staff, get it into the areas where it was needed, and then get the refugees onto the buses/boats/planes?

How long should it take to disseminate information when there is no system for doing so?

How long should it have taken them to know that the levees weren't going to collapse further?

When should all of this have been mobilized? By what hour of what day should it have been done in advance so as to have minimized death, suffering, discomfort and even inconvenience? (Just assume for the sake of argument that they could ignore the law and bureaucratic regulations.)

They (magical, whoever They) should've been able to do all of this (and much, much more) by when?

We are NOT immune from disaster or suffering.

Mavdog
09-04-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
Wrong again mavdookie. The President acknowledged that the results were not what he wanted but that the effort was sufficient.

Seems like you never let a fact get in the way.

it appears that you have a singular opinion on what the word "unacceptable" means (after all, he's said it about a dozen times over the last 4 days...) . it certainly isn't a synonym for "sufficient". i/expressions/anim_roller.gif

mavsman
09-04-2005, 05:24 PM
So how would you have done it?

How long should it have taken to know how many people were going to need to be evacuated? To this very hour, they don't know how many people are in attics or other buildings awaiting rescue, or any idea of how many are dead. Some of the people they find are refusing to come out, believing that the waters will recede in a couple of days and that they can begin to go about the process of recovery.

Doesn't matter. As soon as you know that there are A LOT of people to be evacuated, you take action.


How should they have estimated how much relief in the form of water, food, medicine, diapers and other essentials were going to be needed, where it was going to be needed, how to get it to where it was going to be needed, how it was going to be distributed, who was going to distribute it and who was going to provide security for the distributors?

Doesn't matter. As soon as you know that there is A LOT of water food and medicine needed, you take action.


How long would it have taken to have sites in remote cities prepared to receive X-hundred thousand refugees? They're still figuring out what to do with all the people.

Just bring'em somewhere. Build tents. Bring in the Salvation Army. It has been starting to work at day 5, why not two days before.


How long should it have taken to mobilize transportion and staff, get it into the areas where it was needed, and then get the refugees onto the buses/boats/planes?

It takes me not even 20 hours to go to Australia, so go figure.



How long should it have taken them to know that the levees weren't going to collapse further?

It took them two days to come in after the bowl was filled up.


They (magical, whoever They) should've been able to do all of this (and much, much more) by when?

By Wednesday

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 05:26 PM
Clearly you don't have the capacity to discuss this, but......


it doesn't matter.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 05:28 PM
Sweet. Is the adequate response "you smell", or "yours is smaller than mine" around your little place?

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 05:30 PM
I'll bet yours is, but....

it doesn't matter.

I'm just saying you're clearly not able to discuss this with any level of analysis or seriousness, because if you're going to just say "Doesn't matter." , then you clearly aren't able to conceive the scale of what happened.

It's easy to emit flatulent yelps of "It could've been done sooner/better/differently" without beginning to take into account all of the variables.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 05:47 PM
So you don't think all this could've been handled without people having to starve for five days, when in the Tsunami region people - and almost all of them - were getting food and water within day 3, or without the police having to retreat because they felt overwhelmed by the wave of terror? I think it could've been handled better and I just don't care if it has been the mayor's the govenor's or the president's fault. When did they implant you that chip that says that the pres can't do wrong?

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman
So you don't think all this could've been handled without people having to starve for five days, when in the Tsunami region people - and almost all of them - were getting food and water within day 3, or without the police having to retreat because they felt overwhelmed by the wave of terror? I think it could've been handled better and I just don't care if it has been the mayor's the govenor's or the president's fault. When did they implant you that chip that says that the pres can't do wrong?

Actually, I don't think this could have been done much sooner--maybe 24 hours at most. And while I agree that 24 hours is a helluva long time for the people waiting, it really doesn't seem like that much time to mount an operation of this scale. And this isn't even taking into account the need to get people/supplies into Mississippi.

Also, it doesn't seem like you're taking into account the fact that New Orleans experienced a hurricane on Monday, followed by massive flooding on Tuesday---two events not one, distinguishing the event from the tsunami. Plus, the geography of New Orleans virtually guaranteed that a hurricane of this magnitude was going to result in massive loss of life and suffering. It's one thing to recognize that. It's another thing altogether to demand that someone somehow prevent it by doing something-it-doesn't-matter-what-just-do-something.

If you want to argue that they should have begun a mandatory evacuation of the city on Thursday before the hurricane struck on Monday, then I'd listen with a lot of interest. But how would that have worked?

mavsman
09-04-2005, 06:19 PM
I'm not talking about what I'd have done, because like most of us, I'd just have been standing there, pointing at things, shouting and hoping for a beer to arrive. All that I'm saying is that 9/11 has been handled in a much better way than this. And the fact that NO had to be prepared for something like that, because everyone was telling them "you live in a bowl, fot crying out loud." So there have got to be some rescue-plans.

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 06:30 PM
Man, this is in no way comparable to what happened in New York. The comparison is meaningless.

The situation in New Orleans and Mississippi dwarfed what happend in New York in scale, in complexity, in every respect.

The effort in New York was in a defined, static space. And frankly, there wasn't that much rescue to be done.

In New Orleans, there are tens of thousands of people to rescue, attend to, provide for and THEN relocate. It's ongoing as I write this, almost a week after they reached the point of no-return.

I think that it's difficult for people to accept that a lot of the loss of life and misery was inevitable. That if you couldn't get the people out before the hurricane hit(and there were a lot of peole that you weren't going to be able to evacuate--people in hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) then there was going to be a terrible toll to pay in terms of misery and loss of life.

For whatever reason, people aren't able to get their minds around that.

LRB
09-04-2005, 06:41 PM
What's sad is those who are criticizing the response by the federal government, should realize that US servicemen, federal food and water, and representatives from federal agencies were there in a matter of hours. Also consider that New Orleans does not have that many land routes to access the city due to being located virtually in the middle of a sizeable swamp. Add to that the fact that the airports were not fully useable at best, and it makes it very difficult to get resources to the city.

The resources needed to aid New Orleans were on a size and scale never before seen in the US. And that doesn't include all the other coastal areas hit. Of course the response could have been better, but everyone who can walk on water please step forward. The federal government doesn' even have primary nor secondary responsiblity in relieving the victims. They have the tertiary responsibility. But certainly it is indeed the federal government's duty to step in when requested by state and local officials when local resources have been overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster. But as the full facts of this come out in the coming months, and it will take a while, I'm sure we'll see that there were mistakes made on every level from the individuals living in New Orleans to the mayor and local government to the govenor and stat government right up to the President and federal government. However I feel that it is grossly unfair and definitely nonproductive to spend time criticizing anyone for not being perfect. The mistake should be something more than the average mistake any of us has made or would be likely to be made. To accurately ascertain if this is the case we need more facts than are currently present. However, some people, and I speak to those on both sides of the isle as well as those with no party affiliation, tend to push personal ideology over facts, especially when it becomes necessary to wait for the facts. After all it is human nature to be impatient.

However from past experience, we should know to coordinate the number of governmental intities, personnel, and physical resources needed for the relief of the vicitms of Katrina is a monumental task at best. Anyone expecting this to be done in a handful of hours is simply being unrealistic at best. Taking a handful of days is certainly not unreasonable to fully coordinate this effort, and in fact may later be proved to be an extraordinary effort. That doesn't mean would could have done better, but rather it would have been extremely unrealistic to have expected to do better.

It will takes months to restore this area to have the basic necessities to support the return of residents and years to decades to fully recover if at all. We've never had a disaster of this scope and magnitude in this country before. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have overwhelming needs for the basic essientals of life, and even mores so the tools to restore self sufficiency in providing those necessities for themselves and their families. Instead of playing the party blame game with opinions based on only the most generally of hand picked facts, we should be working together as a nation and a people to help our fellow citizens in need.

mavsman
09-04-2005, 06:42 PM
Yeah, but then again, I have relatives in the army that had to go to the tsunami region and at day 3 they were there, building tents and what not. Germans, Americans, whatsoever. It took the US 2 days to get there and their help was much appreciated, and, as my relative told me, they really knew what they were doing. So once again,eho kept them from being effective?

LRB
09-04-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman
I'm not talking about what I'd have done, because like most of us, I'd just have been standing there, pointing at things, shouting and hoping for a beer to arrive. All that I'm saying is that 9/11 has been handled in a much better way than this. And the fact that NO had to be prepared for something like that, because everyone was telling them "you live in a bowl, fot crying out loud." So there have got to be some rescue-plans.

Did you know that after the 1st 3 days of Katrina hitting land that the coast guard performed more rescues than they did in the entire year of 2003? Some things are of such a magnitude that it is unrealistic to be prepared to fully deal with even the most basics of damage control within hours. Most assuredly there were rescue plans in place, however the needs of the situation grossly outpaced the resources that were available for the fist few days. Even now, with house to house searching needed in a city of 500,000 it will be days more before it can be realistically expected that 99% + of those needing rescued have been. However the efforts so far are more deserving of being called extraordinary than underachieving.

LRB
09-04-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman
Yeah, but then again, I have relatives in the army that had to go to the tsunami region and at day 3 they were there, building tents and what not. Germans, Americans, whatsoever. It took the US 2 days to get there and their help was much appreciated, and, as my relative told me, they really knew what they were doing. So once again,eho kept them from being effective?

The US was there day 1. I don't know what you could possibly be referring to other than the bulk of the federal resources. However the Coast Guard was doing rescures immediately after the storm subsided if not before. FEMA and other federal agencies were there within hours of request for help by local government with prepositioned emergency supplies.

It's unfair to confuse taking days to get near the level of resources present to get the situation into a semblence of control to having a prescense. Do to the magnitude of the situation, the amount of resources and the constaining logistics took some time. There was no realistic way around this.

reeds
09-04-2005, 07:17 PM
"Doc.... can we try to have a conversation without the insults and name calling?

Let's be civil.

Arne already stated he is not from France. "
Of COURSE THEY CANNOT..

MavKikiNYC and DrBIo are just dripping with class...this is a few of their responses in this thread alone...Debate is one thing- being a classless AZZZ hole is another...BOOT THEIR BUTTS


KIKI

"Indeed not, Reeds. You couldn't have.

Cotton candy rhetoric--full of simplistic statements of the obvious, half-baked accusatons, and foolish shoulda-couldas.

In brief, two feet up you and your whore of a mother's ass." Mothers ass?? WOW...very classy reply

"Well I'm sure the politicians are feeling the pressure you're applying, especially since you aren't even eligible to vote.

Why don't you go fuck ChIraq's corpse? " nice....again...what grade are you in anyway???

Oh, Cant forget the moron DRBIO...
"You know reeds...most of the time I just blow you off as silly but this one inspires me to tell you to go F*ck yourself."

You two represent the republican party to a T....you should both be so proud.....NOT

MavKikiNYC
09-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Civility is overrated.

&lt;Edited by Kiki&gt; off.

This is typical of you Reeds---nothing to contriubte to the discussion, just an attempt to antagonize with idiotic attempts to hijack the discussion.

You do in fact represent everything that is wrong with the Democratic party.

P.S. I will stand by my opinon of your mother.

Drbio
09-04-2005, 08:02 PM
Genius kiki.

Evilmav2
09-04-2005, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
The city code states that in events of evacuation School Buses, vans, whatever means of transportation the government has will be used to route the needy out of the city.

Unfortunately for Mr. Nagrin, the DMN has pictures of scores of New Orleans School Buses parked in a lake.


The DMN did show that one picture of the flooded busses, but here are some more depicting two enormous depot's of New Orleans busses that sat unused for both the 48 hours before Katrina hit, and throughout all last Monday before the levies broke. There are at least 400 busses shown on these pictures, and assuming that each bus can carry around 66 folks, it wouldn't be absurd to imagine that they could have ferried between 20,000-25,000 folks at a time with those busses, and if they were only transporting them to Baton Rouge, each round trip would only take about four hours...

http://tinypic.com/bijv9j.jpg

http://home.mchsi.com/~idkfa/bus2.jpg

http://home.mchsi.com/~idkfa/bus1.jpg

http://www.algintech.com/DomeBuses.jpg

http://rayfelitto3.com/busses.gif

Now, there's obviously a lot of blame to go around in this mess, but even if the federal disaster management folks did made some unfortunate mistakes in their handling of this unprecedented civil disaster, I still find it absolutely crass to see local pol's like Nagin or Blanco try to dodge any responsibility for mishandling the evactuation by constantly blaming the Bush administration and the federal government for not being able to immediately move all of the troops, water, power generators, food, heavy equipment, etc... into New Orleans within mere hours of the unexpected failure of the levies (although it really only took the federal government about two days to really get rolling on the ground- a response time that to my mind is probably just about as fast as is humanly possible for a giant relief/security/rebuilding operation of this one's scale, to be feasibly mounted).

I'd say that for anyone to claim that the breakdown of civil order in New Orleans, or the awful circumstances surrounding the evacuation of the SuperDome and the Convention Center, are solely or principally the fault of the federal government and George Bush absurdly strains credulity, particularly considering the fact that the local government in New Orleans demonstrably botched their management during virtually every phase of this disaster (as attested to by the unused, ruined busses depicted above, by the late time, by the late time that the evacuation notice was finally issued, by the lack of food, water, and security provided in the shelters, and by the general collapse into ineffectuality of much of the uncoordinated, local rescue efforts within hours of the levies breaking)...

capitalcity
09-04-2005, 11:12 PM
Ray Nagin is a Fucking JOKE.

Is there anything that delegitimizes an argument faster than the race card?

reeds
09-04-2005, 11:49 PM
"Civility is overrated.

&lt;Edited by Kiki&gt; off.

This is typical of you Reeds---nothing to contriubte to the discussion, just an attempt to antagonize with idiotic attempts to hijack the discussion.

You do in fact represent everything that is wrong with the Democratic party.

P.S. I will stand by my opinon of your mother"

AS I SAID- you and DRBIO are total class all the way...I thought it was high school kids that spoke about someones mother? Exactally...Are you a junior this year?

What is typical is when you and your boyfriend Drbio are wrong and the whole board knows it, you start talking crap..typical class all the way...boys will be BOYS

chumdawg
09-04-2005, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: mavsman

Besides, this is a tragedy beyond the means a mayor or even a govenor (at least the gov of louisiana) has. This is huge. And I ask again: Don't you think that it should've been possible to ship in some food , water and troops sooner than it has been done?

So how would you have done it?

How long should it have taken to know how many people were going to need to be evacuated? To this very hour, they don't know how many people are in attics or other buildings awaiting rescue, or any idea of how many are dead. Some of the people they find are refusing to come out, believing that the waters will recede in a couple of days and that they can begin to go about the process of recovery.

How should they have estimated how much relief in the form of water, food, medicine, diapers and other essentials were going to be needed, where it was going to be needed, how to get it to where it was going to be needed, how it was going to be distributed, who was going to distribute it and who was going to provide security for the distributors?

How long would it have taken to have sites in remote cities prepared to receive X-hundred thousand refugees? They're still figuring out what to do with all the people.

How long should it have taken to mobilize transportion and staff, get it into the areas where it was needed, and then get the refugees onto the buses/boats/planes?

How long should it take to disseminate information when there is no system for doing so?

How long should it have taken them to know that the levees weren't going to collapse further?

When should all of this have been mobilized? By what hour of what day should it have been done in advance so as to have minimized death, suffering, discomfort and even inconvenience? (Just assume for the sake of argument that they could ignore the law and bureaucratic regulations.)

They (magical, whoever They) should've been able to do all of this (and much, much more) by when?

We are NOT immune from disaster or suffering.I take your point, but it was/is my impression that there were/are qualified people and capable systems in place to answer most of these questions. And that a great deal of taxpayer dollars are allocated expressly for this purpose.

I dunno, it just seems to me that for every one rescue helicopter there were three or four media helicopters there to film it. For every helicopter that brought supplies to folks at the Superdome or Convention Center, there were dozens of media members there to report on it.

Just seems to me that for all the troubles getting in an out of that place, it didn't stop all the media outlets from getting their on-camera darlings in there to stand knee-deep in putrid water. Something tells me that none of those media folk have missed a meal.

No, we aren't immune from suffering or disaster. But we are also not immune from criticism if our relief systems fail. I don't know if that's what happened, and I suspect it will take a long time to figure that out--if ever we do.

As for Bush, I will only say that he is in the unique position of being the person whose words and actions carry far more weight than anyone else's. I'll refrain at this time from passing any judgment on what he has (or has not) done, but I'm remaining aware that his pulpit is louder than anyone else's.

Evil, interesting pictures of those busses. They don't appear to be parked in water too deep to drive out of. Perhaps it is the surrounding roads that are too flooded to cross. It's conceivable that they could useless from their position on the inside.

alby
09-05-2005, 12:27 AM
How about we all stop complaining and criticizing and actually do something?


---

DONATION EVENTS
Note: The American Red Cross has asked that people NOT bring clothes, food or other items to Reunion Arena where the evacuees are being sheltered. The emergency shelter is designed to give equal treatment and donated items make that mission difficult.

Christian Community Action is organizing a community food drive to benefit victims of the hurricane Katrina. Non-perishable food donations and bottled water may be dropped off:
—From 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day (except Sunday) at Resale by CCA-Business 121 Lewisville, 2202 Business 121, and Resale by CCA-The Colony, 5000 Main St., Suite 270.
—For other locations, visit CCA online at www.ccahelps.org.

First Baptist Church in Carrollton will be collecting new blankets, new pillows, bottled water and ready-to-eat canned foods on Labor Day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to assist in the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The church is located at 2400 North Josey, Carrollton, TX 75006. For more information, call 972-242-6464, x222 or email disasterrelief@fbcc.org.

The Mesquite girls' No Fear soccer team will be hosting a food drop-off on Monday from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the corner of Pioneer and Sierra in Mesquite. Non-perishable food items, clothing and toiletries will be accepted and given to Mesquite families who are caring for friends and family members from New Orleans.

Sachse First United Methodist Church, 1520 Blackburn Road, is collecting items to help the victims. Bring donations to the Family Life Center located directly behind the main building Tuesday through Friday of the week of Sept. 5. For more information, call 972-530-1005 or e-mail preacherruss@yahoo.com.

The fifth grade Gifted and Talented class Otis Brown Elementary school is heading up a food and change drive Tuesday, Sept. 6 through Tuesday, Sept. 13.

Sewell Elementary, 4400 Hudson Drive in Sachse will be collecting donations of items Sept. 6-12 in an effort to help those in need from the Hurricane Katrina disaster. All items will be delivered to local shelters housing victims and/or to the Red Cross. Volunteers will be in the school parking lot during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up to assist with collections.

The Dallas Park Central Residence Inn, 7642 LBJ Freeway, is having a free garage sale for victims staying at the hotel at 1 p.m. Tuesday. Please bring clothes, toys, food, blankets, pillows and other items from around the house to the hotel. Anyone attending the sale will have to present an out-of-state license. For information, call general manager Melissa Van Sickels at 972-503-1333.

New Vision Christian Academy will be accepting donations of clothing, toiletries, canned goods, non-perishable items and financial donations Sept. 6 - Sept. 16 from 8 a.m.- 5 p.m. at 4710 West Illinois, Dallas.

Collin County will host a blood drive by Carter Blood Center to benefit victims of Hurricane Katrina from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tuesday at the Collin County Health Care Services office, 825 N. McDonald St. in McKinney. People from throughout the county are asked to participate. For those unable to give blood, cash and check donations will be accepted and delivered to the American Red Cross. Call 972-548-5532.

The Alliance Human Resources Group is collecting items from the the community in and around Alliance for the hurricane relief effort. Items can be brought to the trucks at the BridgestoneFirestone facility on 600 Gateway Parkway in Roanoke between daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. until Sept. 9. For more information call Alicia Sanchez or Alice Conner of BridgestoneFirestone at 682-831-2502.
Pharmacy Compounding Specialties: Donations of clothing, shoes and stuffed animals for those displaced by Hurricane Katrina are being accepted until Friday, Sept. 9 at 8061 Walnut Hill Lane in Dallas.

During the 2005 Freedom Run and Festival on Sept. 10, a portion of profits from Dallas' West End will be donated to hurricane relief. Contributions of goods and money will be collected on Market Street on the north side of Spaghetti Wharehouse. Additional details are available at www.freedomrun.com

The Columbus Dispatch is auctioning tickets for the Sept. 10 Texas-Ohio State football game, with proceeds going to hurricane relief. Click here for information.

Timarron Country Club will be collecting donations for Hurricane Katrina victims through Sept. 10 at 1400 Byron Nelson Parkway in Southlake. Monetary donations will be accepted in addition to: food, water, toiletries, diapers, wipes, baby formula, socks. All donations will go to the Salvation Army. Contact Aimee Gassmann at 817-481-7529 for more information. .

The City of Melissa is holding a disaster relief drive in cooperation with Ace Moving Company at Zadow Park, Sept. 10, from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. If you would like to drop off your donations prior to that date, you may drop them off at the City of Melissa City Hall, Tues. through Fri., Sept. 6 through Sept. 9, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., and at the First National Bank of Trenton, Melissa Branch from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.

The Dallas-area chapter of the Louisiana State University alumni association will collect cash and checks for the American Red Cross at its football season kickoff party at 6 p.m. Sept. 10 . The event will be at Ben's Half Yard House, 7102 Greenville Ave. For information, call chapter president Stacey Little at 972-437-0310.

All proceeds from Yoga, Inc. workshops on Sept. 17 & 18, Oct. 15 & 16, Nov. 12 & 13 will be donated to the Red Cross for hurricane relief. Find details and times at www.yogaincdallas.com

ONGOING DONATION OPPORTUNITIES

Allen Community Outreach: Accepting donations for flood victims who are in need of gas, food, clothing and shoes. The money will be used for basic needs as well as to provide emergency assistance (rent and utilities) for families relocating to Allen, Lucas or Fairview. Call the ACO office at 972-727-9131 or donate online at www.acocares.org with the designation "Hurricane/Flood Victim Relief." The ACO office, 301 W. Boyd, Ste. A, is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Armhole -- a men's and women's clothing store at 1910 Abrams Pkwy -- will be collecting non-perishable food items for the North Texas Food Bank to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Bring in at least 5 non-perishable food items and receive a $10 Armhole gift certificate through Sept. 17.

Basement Comics: 10% of all sales at 2414 E Highway 80, Suite 200 in Mesquite over the next 2 weeks will go to Katrina victims.

Bennigan's: Donations of essential personal articles, non-perishable food, monetary donations (please make checks payable to the American Red Cross), toys and clothing will be forwarded to local area hurricane relief efforts.

Best Friends Animal Society: Hurricane Katrina relief fund will help the animal rescue groups and shelters of Louisiana and Mississippi provide fresh water, food, shelter and ongoing veterinary care for all of the animal victims. All money donated will go directly to the groups helping the animals. To donate online, go to https://www.bestfriends.org/donate/index.cfm?.

Buckner Benevolences: Cash and in-kind donations, as well as volunteers, are need to provide emergency housing and humanitarian aid to Gulf region evacuees seeking refuge in North and East Texas. Monetary contributions may be made online and more information is available online at www.buckner.org.

Catholic Charities USA: A collection will be taken throughout the United States. Gifts should be sent to 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund, Catholic Charities USA , P.O. Box 25168, Alexandria, VA 22313-9788.

Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth: All Catholic schools of the diocese will accept evacuee students at no cost. Preference is to be given to those who were in Catholic schools in the hurricane-ravaged areas. If space for more students than those previously enrolled in Catholic schools is available, the schools have been directed to make Catholic education available to any students from these areas who need a school placement.

Christians in Cable: 100% of the proceeds going to cable company employees affected by Hurricane Katrina. Donors are invited to send their gifts to: Christians in Cable, Katrina Relief Fund, Attention: Bob Higley, 2823 West Irving Blvd. Irving, TX 75061

City Credit Union: Accepting monetary donations for the Red Cross Hurricane Relief Fund at nine branch locations. To find a branch nearest you, please visit www.citycu.org

Consumer Credit Counseling Service: Bring gently used or new clothing, shoes, socks, underwear, blankets, pillows, non-perishable food, water, personal care itemsor toys to the CCCS headquarters located at 901 North McDonald (Highway 5), Suite 600 in McKinney between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Cowboys Red River: Donations of canned goods, blankets, pillows, baby goods and money can be dropped off any time at the clubs in Dallas, Arlington or San Antonio. Call 214 352-1796 for locations.

Covenant Fellowship Church: Accepting donations Sundays 8 a.m.-1 p.m. and Wednesdays 7 p.m.- 8 p.m.

Dallas: The city has set up a hot line for those who wish to donate money and/or volunteer time. Call 214-670-4275.

Dallas Hurricane Aid: Find a place to donate or volunteer in the Dallas area. Agencies, charities, churches, and relief centers can post their needs so that the people who want to give know what to give.

Dining donations: Several restaurants in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are holding special events and donating portions of sales to hurricane relief efforts. Click for a basic list of locations holding specials; please call the restaurants for more details and to verify the information before dining.

Coppell Chamber of Commerce: Donate baby and children's supplies for about 700 hurricane victims newly arrived at the Hilton DFW in Grapevine. There is a need for diapers, disposable training pants, formula, cribs, playpens and toys. Items should be taken to Austin Ranch at 2009 Anderson Gibson Road in Grapevine (just north of the Hilton DFW). For more information, call Austin Ranch at 817-481-1536.

Council on American-Islamic Relations: has asked mosques and Islamic centers throughout the Untied States to hold special blood drives, prayers and fund-raising efforts for disaster relief. Muslim charities offering assistance to the victims include Islamic Relief and ICNA Relief.

Davis Mobility Co. at 1228 North Beltline Road, Irving is hosting local donations for North Texas Food Bank. Items being accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily.

ERA Signature Real Estate – Wylie: Donations for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts may be delivered to 808 S. Ballard Avenue, Suite 180, Wylie. Monetary donations should be made payable to THE RED CROSS. Needed items: Toothpaste, toothbrush, shampoo, comb, feminine hygiene products, baby diapers and wipes, soap, antibacterial soap, waterless soap, insecticides, Band-aides, gauze, topical antibacterial cr&egrave;mes, blankets, work gloves, duct tape, packing tape, Ready to eat meals (non-perishables), water. New clean underwear and new clean socks -- all sizes.

Flower Mound Humane Society If you would like to open your home, farm, or ranch to an animal evacuated from Louisiana to the D/FW area -- through adoption or temporary foster care, please call 972-691-7387 or complete the application at http://www.fmhs.org.

Girl Scouts in Service Unit 151 are collecting clothes, toiletry items and especially school supplies and backpacks for the evacuees. A list of the supplies needed is at www.booksyoucanclickwith.com.

In Time Management is seeking donations of furniture and air conditioning units to equip vacant homes in the Dallas area for hurricane victims. Call 972-572-3330 for information.

Jesuit College Preparatory School: Baby diapers and formulacan be brought to the AAA building of the Dallas campus.

Long Range Systems and Cub Scout Troop 52: Donate pens, pencils, paper, backpacks, notebooks, stuffed animals, and other new non-electronic toys, to help hurricane victims begin to rebuild their lives at LRS headquarters, located at 9855 Chartwell Drive in Dallas from Sept. 6-16.

Marble Slab Creamery: $3 for every large ice cream cake purchased and $2 for every small for the month of September will be donated to hurricane relief. If you don't want the cake now you may purchase a gift certificate for a cake and the donation will still be made. This is only valid at the McKinney store, 1681 N. Central Expressway, suite 800, McKinney.

Mardel Christian Stores: First Baptist Church Forney, First Baptist Church Heath and Mardel Christian Store in Mesquite are collecting Bibles and funds to purchase Bibles for evacuees of Katrina. Please make checks out to Mardel Christian Stores and deliver to 2308 N. Galloway, Mesquite, Texas, 75150; or First Baptist Church Heath,
224 Smirl Drive, Heath, Texas 75032.

Mesquite Championship Rodeo: For the next two weekends, the rodeo will donate $1 to the American Red Cross with every paid admission. For more information call 972-285-8777.

North Texas Food Bank: Collecting ready-to-eat meals and water for hurricane victims but says money is needed most. For more information call 214-330-1396.

Presbyterian Disaster Assistance: Contributions may be sent through normal mission-giving channels by designating gifts for one of the following accounts: U.S. hurricane response, DR000169; pastoral care, DR000161; church damage, DR000163. Gifts by credit card can be made by calling PresbyTel at 1-00-872-3283 or online.

Prestonwood Baptist Church: Make financial donations online or during weekend services. Prestonwood is also accepting donations of essential items such as toiletries, bottled water, baby food, diapers, canned food and bedding material (air mattresses). Donations can be dropped off at Prestonwood's City Missions Ministry building on International Parkway, just northwest of the main church building. Prestonwood is located at 6801 W. Park Blvd. in Plano. For more information, call 972-820-5216.

Red Cross: The Dallas area chapter also is seeking donations to help hurricane victims at 1-800-HELP NOW (435-7669) or 1-800-257-7575 (Spanish). Contributions to the Disaster Relief Fund may be sent to the Dallas Area Chapter, 4800 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75235.

Resource One Credit Union is accepting donations at all nine of their Texas branches. All donations should be cash or check made out to The American Red Cross. All of these funds will be delivered to the local Red Cross offices weekly. Branch locations can be found on Resource One's Web site , which also includes a direct link for people wishing to donate directly to the Red Cross.

Salvation Army: Donations of money, industrial-sized cans of vegetables, diapers, hand sanitizers, personal toiletries, flashlights, socks, insect repellent, baby formula, work gloves and plastic gloves to help hurricane victims can be delivered to 9216 Harry Hines Blvd. in Dallas. For more information, call 1-800-SAL-ARMY (725-2769).

Sleep Experts: Donations of bottled water and non-perishable food will be accepted at any of the 19 North Texas locations through the end of September. Items most needed: bottled water, hand-held snack items such as granola, energy or breakfast bars and protein items such as beef jerky, peanut butter and canned meals. Sleep Experts will arrange delivery to victims staying in North Texas. Monetary donations to the American Red Cross are also welcomed at the Sleep Experts stores. Checks should be made payable to the Red Cross.

Southgate neighborhood of Grand Prairie: No donation is too small. Pick-up available. For more info and donation drop off sites e-mail commchair@southgatehoagptx.com.

Tom Thumb Food & Pharmacy: Working jointly with WFAA-TV to raise funds for the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. "Spirit of Texas Hurricane Relief Effort" scan cards are available in all North Texas Tom Thumb store locations. Donations can be made with the scan card.

Tranquillity Massage and Fitness: 25% of all spa and massage moneys will be donated to huuricane relief efforts. Tranquility is located at 2414 E. Highway 80, Suite 190 in Mesquite.

United Methodist churches: Collecting donations via offering plates, online or by telephone. The United Methodist Committee on Relief also needs flood buckets filled with cleaning supplies that people can use to clean their homes after floods and hurricanes. For information, call 1-800-554-8583.

Verizon Wireless: Donate to the American Red Cross through text messaging. Simply text the word "help" to the phone number 2HELP (24357), and $5 will be donated. You can do this for up to $25. The donations will appear on your next monthly bill, and the entire amount of each donation will be provided to the American Red Cross to be used for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

WFAA-TV and The Dallas Morning News: Community relief fund with Chase and Bank One to benefit victims in all affected states through the American Red Cross. Donations can be made at Chase or Bank One locations in Texas. Checks should be made payable to the "Spirit of Texas Hurricane Relief Fund," with Hurricane Katrina Relief 2005 in the memo line.

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES


HOSTING
Several North Texans have contacted DallasNews.com about opening their homes to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Following is a list of Web sites that indicate they are matching hosts with evacuees. We cannot verify their legitimacy:

Craig's List: http://dallas.craigslist.org/roo/

Katrina Home: http://www.katrinahome.com/

Lending a Hand: http://www.lendinghand.org/
Meetup: http://hurricane.meetup.com/1/

MoveOn.org: www.hurricanehousing.org

Operation Share Your Home: http://shareyourhome.org

Shelter for Katrina: www.ShelterForKatrina.org

Also, if you can take someone in, please call Linda White at St. Luke's United Methodist Church, 214-887-3921. She is taking names and contact information.

---

please continue to pray for those who have been affected by katrina..

MavKikiNYC
09-05-2005, 12:28 AM
Chum, I don't doubt that there are people whose job it is to plan for all aspects of disaster managament, and I agree that people should be accountable for their failures. But I think that this case could use a lot less criticism (as you are withholding yours) and a lot more thought about what could be reasonably accomplished in what time frame. If there is information as damning about FEMA as those pictures are are to Nagin, then it will be very difficult to defend them, and they will be rightfully held accountable.

I actually feel really badly for Nagin. He was caught in a terrible situation, without much experience, and with uneven resources. I think it would have been miraculous for him to've been able to get more people out than he was able to. Even after watching him publically disintegrate as a leader and start pointing his finger at any and everyone else, I still don't want to see him accused of being an incompetent, indifferent murderer of his constituents. Incredibly there are voices among the Democrats who are accusing Bush of murder.

The parasitic media presence down there has been a bit of a curiosity for me too. It does make you wonder how they were able to be down there functioning when municipal authorities reportedly had no communication capacity. But at the same time, common sense tells you that it's a helluva lot easier for the media to be down there to gawk and squawk without really being responsible for doing anything. It's another thing entirely to mobilize and coordinate a rescue and evacuation of this scale. The media weren't trying to move anything anywhere.

I was speaking to my sister last night who had heard from a friend of hers down in Metairie. The woman's husband had been in the hospital during the hurricane, and she took him out of the hospital, packed some belongings in a truck, and even though they have lived down there for years, she paid someone to guide her though back roads out of the city. Even for people who were familiar with the area, it was tough to find their way around.

MavKikiNYC
09-05-2005, 12:30 AM
What is typical is when you and your boyfriend Drbio are wrong and the whole board knows it, you start talking crap..typical class all the way...boys will be BOYS

So are you trying to insult Doc by suggesting he's homosexual?

That's another problem with the Democrats--they'll sell out their constituents as soon as it's to their advantage.

Evilmav2
09-05-2005, 03:23 AM
Speaking of the parasitic media in general, and the New York Times in particular, this is what the NYT had to say about about 'Pork' flood control funding earlier this year:


Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.

New York Times Editorial Board, April 2005 (http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/msm-in-their-own-words-continuing.html)

Now, I my horse-sense may be wrong here, but this editorial position doesn't seem to me to very closely match that expressed in their September 1st Bush-bashing editorial (posted by Kiki) that plaintively demands to know, "Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?"...

mavsman55
09-05-2005, 02:41 PM
The fact is, what could have been done was done. It was a natural disaster. It's not like the US government was sitting back and relaxing while a state-wide crisis took place on American soil. Those of us criticizing the government for the time it took us to intervene may not know as much as they think. It's harder than it sounds to deliver supplies to hundreds of thousands of people trapped in a city that's submerged in flood water. However, rescue efforts were there immediately, and the we did what we could to help those people.

Oh yeah, and reeds, calling people names because they call other people names doesn't make you look very smart.

Drbio
09-05-2005, 03:25 PM
Where is my pink polo when I need it most?

*yawn*

MavKikiNYC
09-30-2005, 09:19 AM
Online News Hour: Covering Katrina--The Media on The Media (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/media_9-29.html)

Wow.

An excellent report here from The News Hour about the failure of the mainstream media in reporting accurately about what was going on in New Orleans post-Katrina.

Utter devastation....to the reputations of journalists and media outlets. Katrina devastated the credibility of mainstream journalists as badly as she did the city of New Orleans.

The failure on the part of the media to provide accurate reporting, and instead to report wild, salacious. unfounded rumor, (and to KNOW that they were doing so); and the fact that they missed bigger, more important stories dealing with who was REALLY accountable for the disaster response, and the failure to report all that was done WELL....

all of this exposes an abject collapse of an important instiuton---The Media.

This country needs a new media....a New Media.....a different sort of newspaper...a different sort of approach to television news coverage......and I think that something new is developing.


Coda: BTW, interesting for anyone who saw that idiot coonass Aaron Broussard about 3 weeks ago with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, in which Broussard pretty much faked an emotional breakdown while recounting the story of some colleague's mother who "drownded", while the "calvary" (sic) wasn't coming.......the story of the poor old woman in a nursing home waiting for 3-4 days to be rescued, calling her son every day asking when someone from the Federal Government was coming to get her......

.......Broussard's story didn't happen. When the supposed colleague was found and questioned, other than the fact that the colleague's mother did die, the story happened nothing like Broussard recounted. 90% fiction, based on an admittedly tragic death, but twisted and reinvented into something entirely sensational designed to politically exploit the death of someone's mother.

And Russert, for whom I normally have a lot of respect, let it go basically unchallenged. Not once, but TWICE when he had Broussard back on his show to "confront" him with the discrepancies between his story and the facts.

Tim Russert got punked.

LRB
09-30-2005, 11:09 AM
Thanks for the link to the article Kiki. I especially like this quote of Hugh Hewitt


they [the media] did not report an ordinary story; in fact they were reporting lies. The central part of this story, what went on at the convention center and the Superdome was wrong. American media threw everything they had at this story, all the bureaus, all the networks, all the newspapers, everything went to New Orleans, and yet they could not get inside the convention center, they could not get inside the Superdome to dispel the lurid, the hysterical, the salaciousness of the reporting.

I have in mind especially the throat-slashed seven-year-old girl who had been gang-raped at the convention center -- didn't happen. In fact, there were no rapes at the convention center or the Superdome that have yet been corroborated in any way.

There weren't stacks of bodies in the freezer. But America was riveted by this reporting, wholesale collapse of the media's own levees they let in all the rumors, and all the innuendo, all the first-person story because they were caught up in this own emotionalism. Exactly what Keith was praising I think led to one of the worst weeks of reporting in the history of American media, and it raises this question: If all of that amount of resources was given over to this story and they got it wrong, how can we trust American media in a place far away like Iraq where they don't speak the language, where there is an insurgency, and I think the question comes back we really can't.


I honestly don't see how we can ever trust the media again after they have blantantly told mass amounts of lies and even when the truth comes out, they still stand behind many of their lies and refuse to aknowledge the obvious. To the media it's not about facts, but rather what they can get the public to believe and take interest in. The media is no more truthful than the average politician, and a case can be made that they are much less truthful.

dude1394
09-30-2005, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman55

Originally posted by: Mavdog
the media was and is not guilty of misrepresenting or dramaticizing the situation in new orleans. don't try to charaterize this as the "media" pushing the tragedy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It is a depressing and unfortunate situation, but we all know that the media uses these depressing situations to make good news stories. There are, without a doubt, people who are probably pleased with rescue efforts and evacuations and such. But, we will never see any of these people on tv or in the news because the media focuses more on negative aspects of situations than positive.


And the media is famously, ridicuolously, unbelievably, lazy and WRONG!! Like they couldn't have corroborated a 10,000 dead statement by a politician who was politicking for more money. Like they couldn't have actually gone INTO the superdome to see the stacked and stacked number of bodies the horrific rapes occurring, etc.,etc.,etc.

Hell they'll risk life and limb to try and get a picture of a dead soldier or some iraqi with underwear on their heads because it tells the story they want. But when all they have to do is WALK INSIDE THE SUPERDOME, then somehow it's just too much trouble.

Make no mistake, these are not stupid people, they know what they are selling here and it ain't republican and it sure isn't conservative.

dude1394
09-30-2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Thanks for the link to the article Kiki. I especially like this quote of Hugh Hewitt


they [the media] did not report an ordinary story; in fact they were reporting lies. The central part of this story, what went on at the convention center and the Superdome was wrong. American media threw everything they had at this story, all the bureaus, all the networks, all the newspapers, everything went to New Orleans, and yet they could not get inside the convention center, they could not get inside the Superdome to dispel the lurid, the hysterical, the salaciousness of the reporting.

I have in mind especially the throat-slashed seven-year-old girl who had been gang-raped at the convention center -- didn't happen. In fact, there were no rapes at the convention center or the Superdome that have yet been corroborated in any way.

There weren't stacks of bodies in the freezer. But America was riveted by this reporting, wholesale collapse of the media's own levees they let in all the rumors, and all the innuendo, all the first-person story because they were caught up in this own emotionalism. Exactly what Keith was praising I think led to one of the worst weeks of reporting in the history of American media, and it raises this question: If all of that amount of resources was given over to this story and they got it wrong, how can we trust American media in a place far away like Iraq where they don't speak the language, where there is an insurgency, and I think the question comes back we really can't.


I honestly don't see how we can ever trust the media again after they have blantantly told mass amounts of lies and even when the truth comes out, they still stand behind many of their lies and refuse to aknowledge the obvious. To the media it's not about facts, but rather what they can get the public to believe and take interest in. The media is no more truthful than the average politician, and a case can be made that they are much less truthful.


Hugh's very objective analysis of what the media comes up with when the news is in their backyard and they have every resource at their disposal there is absolutley devasting to their credibility.

LRB
09-30-2005, 07:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that the media did go into the Superdome and see that there were stacked and stacked bodies and that rapes and murders weren't happening there left and right. However why use "facts" that aren't relevant to the point you're trying to make even if true, when it's so much easier to use "facts" that you have someone make up for you and custom fit to the point you're trying to make. The media has less credibilty than a politician stumping for an election. They have less credibility than a used car salesman trying to make his quota on the last day of the month. The media only reports what they want us to see, and if that's not there then they make it up out of whole cloth like Dan Rather and Marjie Maples. It's funny how Dan is still going around and telling any liberal fool who will listen how those memos were never proven false. The media never admits to getting it wrong with the same coverage that they got it wrong with. They are liars, hypocrits, and just flat out dishonest.

dude1394
09-30-2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
The media has less credibilty than a politician stumping for an election. They have less credibility than a used car salesman trying to make his quota on the last day of the month.

Not to reeds.

LRB
09-30-2005, 10:11 PM
Reeds would believe that Bush has contracted Haliburton (sp?) to create a mechanism to direct hurricanes at poor blacks if the media and/or the democrats told him this was true. Some people will believe things because of their blind faith in political dogma regardless of what proof is presented to them. If Howard Dean said the moon was made of cheese, Reeds would ask what kind.

Mavdog
10-02-2005, 10:17 AM
This is the correct summation IMO:
--------------------------------------
CARL QUINTANILLA: Well, the lesson I think is that there is never going to be any end to Monday morning quarterbacking when it comes to the media. And that's a good thing. I think it's a good thing we're asking all these questions; I think it's a good thing we're being challenged like we're being challenged on this panel.

The bottom line, though, is that the media -- often television -- is about the flow of real-time information. We were getting information from figures of authority with their own estimates. We weren't making this up certainly. I think interestingly in Katrina we saw the entire rainbow of human emotion, of human behavior; we saw people doing heroic things and we saw people doing rather sinister things.

And I think you're going to find as broad a spectrum when it comes to the media, we saw people I think less careful with their facts than they could have been and we saw others very disciplined. So I'm sure it's very easy to generalize and talk broadly about what the media did right or wrong, but this is as messy and as complicated a system as hurricanes themselves.

And we can find plenty of argue arguments for things the media did right and what they did poorly.

MavKikiNYC
10-02-2005, 10:26 AM
Qunitanilla was among the worst offenders from what I recall, and it sounds a little bit like he's attempting to pass the buck to the "figures of authority" whose information and motivations he and other journalists should have been questioning.

Ironic to hear him assert (now that the media is being confronted with its own failures) that the media did a lot right; well, so did disaster response officials. Where was the "real-time information flow" of everything the government(s)--municipal, state, federal--were doing right? Not from Carl Quintanilla.

Immutable truth revealed: NEVER trust the media.

Mavdog
10-02-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Qunitanilla was among the worst offenders from what I recall, and it sounds a little bit like he's attempting to pass the buck to the "figures of authority" whose information and motivations he and other journalists should have been questioning.

Ironic to hear him assert (now that the media is being confronted with its own failures) that the media did a lot right; well, so did disaster response officials. Where was the "real-time information flow" of everything the government(s)--municipal, state, federal--were doing right? Not from Carl Quintanilla.

Immutable truth revealed: NEVER trust the media.

pictures of people being taken from their homes by boats? check

pictures of the superdome being evacuated? check

stories of evacuees finding safe havens? check

pictures and stories of the coast guard saving people off the roofs of their houses? check

pictures and stories of the levee repair? check

pictures and stories about the repair and quick import of pumps to get the water out of NOLA? check

seems there WAS those "real time information flow" of everything the government(s)--municipal, state, federal--were doing right", and from Quintanilla, too.

MavKikiNYC
10-02-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Qunitanilla was among the worst offenders from what I recall, and it sounds a little bit like he's attempting to pass the buck to the "figures of authority" whose information and motivations he and other journalists should have been questioning.

Ironic to hear him assert (now that the media is being confronted with its own failures) that the media did a lot right; well, so did disaster response officials. Where was the "real-time information flow" of everything the government(s)--municipal, state, federal--were doing right? Not from Carl Quintanilla.

Immutable truth revealed: NEVER trust the media.

pictures of people being taken from their homes by boats? check

pictures of the superdome being evacuated? check

stories of evacuees finding safe havens? check

pictures and stories of the coast guard saving people off the roofs of their houses? check

pictures and stories of the levee repair? check

pictures and stories about the repair and quick import of pumps to get the water out of NOLA? check

seems there WAS those "real time information flow" of everything the government(s)--municipal, state, federal--were doing right", and from Quintanilla, too.


Yeah, all that AFTER decrying the Federal government for not basically averting a hurricane.

I remember in particular a report where Quintanilla and a little film crew were out driving about claiming that the roads were passable and why couldn't the federal government move in a disaster relief and evacuation force for the 25,000+ people needing to be evacuated from the Superdome and the Convention Center?

Stupidity.

LRB
10-02-2005, 11:34 AM
We were getting information from figures of authority with their own estimates.

And the media was selectively taking information from some authority figures as the gospel without any verification, while other authority figures they never gave the benefit of the doubt. "Coincidentally", it was liberal democrat officials who were given the most credence and whose statements were given the least effort to independently verify; while it was conservative republican officials who were given the least credence and whose statment were put under the most extensive magnifying glass to verify. And still even when inspection would back up republican officials statements over conflicting democrat statements, the media would just take the democrat statements as fact and the republican ones as excuses. The media showed their true political colors during Katrina and for the most part ignored truth over sensationalism and political agenda.