New Orleans

Remove all ads!

Cernak,

Before you call someone else's opinions embarrassing and ignorant, in the future, you may want to try a little harder to avoid tripping over your own.

Yes, Mrs. Bush saying these things is news. Yes, I would expect it to be reported. Yes, the former first lady commenting on the presence and care of evacuees in any city, let alone the one she lives in, is newsworthy. Neither myself, Hack, Fellinoid or anyone else have stated otherwise.

What is not news is the anti-Bush invective laced throughout the entire article. What Mr. Nichols wrote is not journalism - it's essentially an editorial. Journalists don't draw conclusions about what somebody meant and accent their opinion with insults - at least not when penning what would be considered "reporting." This is his opinion, nothing more, and he's entitled to it. My opinion is that he's being an overly partisan *sshole, and I'm damn sure I'm entitled to it.

What he neglects to mention in the article is the enormous outpouring of support from the residents of Houston, a city that WASN'T EVEN TOUCHED by Katrina. What he doesn't mention is the THOUSANDS of evacuees/refugees/whatever who have poured into Houston in the last few days, and how accomadating the city has been on such short notice. What he doesn't mention are the numerous reports of refugees being taken aback by the friendliness and hospitality shown to them by complete strangers in a city totally unaffected by the disaster that ruined their lives. What he neglects to mention are all the homeless peolple - some homeless before the floods, some as a result - who've poured into Houston and are now calling it home, exacerbating the already too-high homeless population in Houston, and that despite this, these people still aren't being turned away. No, to Mr. Nichols, Barbara Bush is a callous old bitch, and George Bush is a son of a callous old bitch, all because Bush didn't put these people up at the Ramada or something - and he deduced this opinion from one AMBIGUOUS comment from an 85 year old woman. Gimme a god damn break. There are a million other reasons - better, more productive reasons - to criticise Bush's actions over the last week than this crap from Nichols.

You obviously feel that Mrs. Bush's comments show that she's heartless. Fine, that's you. I didn't happen to read that into what she said at all, and I don't like Barbara Bush. I furthermore believe that very few people would read such into what she said if they'd read that quote outside of Mr. Nichol's article, which is why I have such a problem with Mr. Nichol's article taking on the appearance of a "news" story when it should be on his personal blog space on The Nation's website (which I used to read quite often, I might add) where it belongs. He isn't reporting what she said, he's telling YOU what to think about what she said. This isn't any more journalism than Sean Hannity reading over the days headlines on his show, cherry-picking instances where he can liberal-bash and then commenting about them. I mean come on - I think Bush is a complete horse's ass, but that still doesn't mean I agree with everything bad written about him or anyone close to him by default. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I criticise the guy who wrote it I must be shilling for Bush. Sheesh.

I'll say again: what Mr. Nichol's wrote isn't journalism, it's editorialization, and there's a difference. Reporting what Barbara Bush said and the context with which she said it is journalism. The sentance "Perhaps the former first lady was amusing herself with the notion that evacuees without bread could eat cake" and others like it are this guy's entitled and obviously biased opinion, which makes it editorialization. Not knowing the difference between the two, and then chewing people out for commenting on it is...well...quite embarrassing and ignorant.

p.s. - Ask any of the Alley veterans around here - they'll tell you that calling me a Bush apologist is like calling Mike Tyson a fag - so don't even go there, bub.

[ September 08, 2005, 08:13: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

@Cernak:
I too think he's right to bash the Bushes for their inconsiderate responses (not unlike I was earlier in this thread), but I would hardly call it news. Perhaps I should make my definitions a little clearer (though I'm sure it won't fit with most people's opinions and certainly are not textbook).

News - an impartial statement of happenings, whether global, national, or local

Journalism - the gathering and reporting of news

By these definitions, the article can be called neither news nor journalism due to the transparency of the words.

Once again, I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he should not be regarded as a legitimate news source if he can't even control himself long enough to sound even slightly credible. Admittedly, with such events it's hard to keep emotion out of it entirely, but comsider that he had however long he needed to type up this story with the poise and sensibility required of (most) news services and he still failed miserably. It's still as decent a source as any other internet blog can be (and is most likely toward the top of the heap), but sadly that's not saying much.

EDIT: Ack, DR beat me to the punch with an edit. Still, it bears repeating.

 

There is plenty of bickering going on here. Media reports are really only accutate about 50% of the time anyway. Let's not lose sight of what is important here. I just got back from New Orleans tonight after checking out my house. My fence is demolished, the roof is missing most of it's shingles so the water damage may not be repairable. I guess I got off lucky. Some houses are underwater or missing altogether.

I am Canadian, and I am now getting a taste of some of the hardhships that some people experience every day. If I could imagine what a war zone is like, I would assume it is very much like New Orleans right now. There are military personnel everywhere and military gunships and rescue choppers fly by every few minutes. Late yesterday afternoon as I was trying to repair my roof I became quite aware of how quiet the city was, and how loud my hammer strikes were. I witnessed groups of hoodlems going from vehicle to vehicle trying to find full tanks of gas. My own vehicle had it's tank pierced so that the precious fuel could be drained from it. I laid low on the roof until they left. Fortunately I had brought some extra fuel with me that I had hidden away in cans in my garage and was able to make repairs so that I could leave the next day.
I've witnessed so much sadness in the last week. People with no money, no jobs, no place to stay, family members missing or dead. I met a woman at a gas station who was trying to sell her husband's fishing rods so that she could afford a hotel room.
A few weeks ago I used to sit back and read the news papers and watch CNN and not think twice about the disasterous news stories that were being reported. I definately have a new perspective now. I think we are all lucky that we can sit back and complain about the media and not be part of the story.

 

Here here.

 

Just a point of fact: At a weigh-in, Mike Tyson told his competitor, "I'll f*ck you till you love me!"

 

Felinoid and DR: My apologies. Although Nichols article cited facts, it does editorialize in its treatment of them. The juxtaposition of the wall to wall cots and Mrs. Bush's comments was too much as an image, and will have to stand as my excuse. I still think her comments were heartless.

 

I don't understand the intent of Barbara's comment here: Did we need her to tell us that the people from New Orleans were better off in the Astro Dome than the Super Dome? Probably not, since most people with "half-a-brain" could figure that much out for themselves without the aid of her "insight." What seems to escape her is that while they are better off in this respect, they may still be separated from their families and they have no homes, no jobs to go back to.

Since many of these people are here, and I have have spoken with at least several familes a day, they appear really quite miserable. But many I have spoken with are trying to find ways to locate family members. They have no idea what's going to happen to them from here - they are homeless and jobelss, many of them just wandering around the malls and shopping areas in small clusters searching for some kind of work. So, I suppose Barbara's right: it's better than dying. I'm glad that she's here to tell us that. Even though I'm sure many of them would be suprised to hear that "since they were underprivileged anyway, this was working very well for them," which were Barbara's own words.

[ September 10, 2005, 03:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just heard a Republican getting totally demolished by a caller on public radio this morning who asked the simple question: how can you feds pass the blame onto the "local authorities" when these very local authorities -- police, firefighters, paramedics, etc, have been struggling to keep order from the very beginning, while nearly all of them have lost their homes, and while an untold number (reports still coming in) lost their lives in the storm. The Republican was left totally sputtering, even getting desperate enough to bring up "affirmative action" as a reason local authorities performed badly, before quickly backpedaling.

I really don't see how the Repubs can spin their way out of this...

 

How do you see that Bion? It is the local authorities that caused things to get out of control. It was governor Blanco and mayor Nagin who refused to evacuate the people who could not get out.The two of them had access to thousands of buses, yet they did not use them. Nagin actually had the nerve to say that using school buses was not good enough, he wanted the feds to use Greyhound and other charter buses to get everyone out. So instead of getting the poor out of the city and saving the school buses, we now have dead people and buses that are now useless. And it was Blanco who refused to send the National Guard into New Orleans when the lawlessness began. The President can't do that, only the Governor.

 

But in defense of the local authorities, with so many lines of communication down, I'm willing to give the mayor a pass on handling the aftermath of the disaster. With so few lines of communication capable of functioning after the storm, any type of organizational efforts would be limited indeed. Now, I can't give the governor a pass on this, as Baton Rouge didn't even receive a fraction of the damage sustained by New Orleans.

 

There is plenty of blame to be passed around on everyone from the citizens of the US right on up to the President and at every step in between, but this is an issue that transcends politics and enters into society in general.

Disaster aid is never fast enough in coming, and mistakes are always made. We need to get those impacted by this storm safe and as secure as reasonably possible, and not get distracted in playing politics.

 

I think it's important to determine responsibility ASAP, simply because it could happen again...the hurricane season is far from over. And...the incompetence is a signal to every terrorist out there -- "kick them when they're down" might not be too far off. We can't afford to wait.

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH ....... I don't understand why every time in this country when we have a crisis we start head hunting. It seems to me if they wanted to be prepared for something like this there would have been a better levee or dyke system around "the bowl" of New Orleans. Or maybe a big plastic bubble over it (sarcasm) anyway .. The state government didn't want the red cross there because it be a magnet. Thats just correct and stupid. Doesn't it make since for everyone to know where the red cross is so they can go there to be taken care of? Then the real heroes in this whole thing would have had an easier job (The Coast Guard) and we wouldnt have to wait for idiots (FEMA) to figure their way out of this wet paper bag. It seems as though some low lifes in that area took advantage of the situation

 

Basically people can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Now is not the time for head hunting and second guessing. If that's their agenda, they are part of the problem. Mind you, If there is more I could do to help and not doing it, then I am not truly innocent here...

 

Tal,

I agree that those responsible need to be held accountable, however accountability needs to be assigned by those who are not emotionally charged and have examined all the facts involved. Anytime there is an unprecedented undertaking there will be mistakes, especially in an environment with long chain of command, overlapping responsibilities, and complex rules of engagement. Right now we need to be evaluating what is going correctly and make sure it keeps going correctly, and what is going wrong, and make sure it is corrected. This appears to be what is happening (as evidenced by Brown being recalled back to DC and his authourity delegated elsewhere).

This is a very emotionally charged issue, and as I said, help never comes quickly enough for the victims. When a person’s house burns down, the first question after the fire is out is "what took the Fire Dept so long to get there?" It could be incompetence, or it could be any number of other reasons with varying degrees of culpability, however such accusations should not be casually made without first examining all the facts and circumstances.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not defending anyone, I simply do not want this to turn into what seems to be the inevitable witch hunt that almost always results in the creation of a scapegoat or fall guy.

 

I pretty much agree with Darkwolf but I'm also sure that the witchhunt inevitable and even necessary. Someone has to take the blame afterwards. Anyway as I have said this kind of disasters are difficult to handle since they might happen only once in a nation's history. There are no previous cases which help in solving the current disaster and therefore there is bound to be mistakes made. Anyway I personally think that there should be a neutral investigation afterwards to find out exactly what went wrong and who screwed up.

 

There are many in the press elsewhere that are already siding up and casting blame. People are entitled to their opinions, but such strong accusations and even condemnations (of individuals or organizations, not buildings though there are to be too many of those coming) should be used sparingly and only in instances where there is strong evidence of direct acts of negligence or indirect acts of gross negligence.

Personally, I think that there are a huge number of individuals, groups, and organizations that are guilty of varying degrees for unnecessary losses and misery we have seen unfold before our eyes in the aftermath of Katrina. I think that it will be despicable if society settles for one person to tag with the blame.

To be honest, I really don't expect there to be a thorough investigation. We Americans aren't very good at that, as they tend to turn into politicized debacles.