Katrina-Bush and the political questions begin

Tico
Wash your biofocals. That post was addressed to Momma Angel. But, if the shoe fits you, then be my guest.

BBB

Re: Momma


Seems to me that everyone should be cranky when thousands have diesd, many needlessly.

What a tragedy, what a god-awful mess . . .



. . . why do conservatives hate America?

BBB,

I do not know why you continually feel you should launch remarks at me that are not at all what I said.

Bulldoze the city? Where the heck did I say that? I asked a question. Considering hundreds of thousands have been effected, it just makes more sense to me to concentrate on taking care of the, oh, let's say, 399,999 thousand that wanted out and wanted help compared to the 1,000 that want to stay where they are. (Those numbers are used strictly as an example, as I don't know the actual figures.)

And lady, don't pull that race card with me. I have never used it! YOU are the one that continually labels me with that. I don't care if they had a penny or a million dollars to their name. I don't care if they are purple, orange, black, white, or man or woman. This country is trying to unite together to help these people. But, if they refuse to be rescued, and now there is a mandatory EVERYBODY must leave, and still they refuse, what are we supposed to do?

I really do try to show you some respect, BBB. Facts are facts. There were gangs running around looting, raping, and shooting. You have obviously read the papers. If you want to continue to blame President Bush for that then I suggest we start blaming blaming everyone in the world who has a differing opinion about anything then. It makes about as much sense to me.

Chrissee Wrote:



Funny, I don't remember everyone being quite so cranky when 9/11 happened. Seems to me, they took their anger and frustration over the situation and actually did SOMETHING about it. Like UNITE instead of point fingers.

I'll take your word for it.

Yeah, let's all unite and kick Mother Nature's ass for messing with us!

You are making a false corrollary. There is no revenge to be had in this situation, therefore, there is no uniting factor for Americans.

Cycloptichorn

Momma
Momma, do you know what "..." quotation marks mean? It means they are quotes from your previous post.

When it's not in quotation marks, it's my statement, which you cannot claim ownership to then complain that you didn't say it.

I would think that by now you would realize that you cannot get away with your usual practice of making a statement and then denying you said such things one or two pages later. The evidence is there, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Wise up. Either take responsibility for what you post or don't make such statements and expect to not be called on it when you later deny making them.

BTW, you asked me what some of my biases are in an earlier post. I will answer you now. I'm really biased against racists.

BBB

I don't know why, Set...

...but they sure do!

Especially them poor 'Mericans, an' especially them poor, darky 'Mericans . . .

BBB,

Fine, you call me what you want. I have never said a single thing about race. I have continually told you race, man or woman, rich or poor, it doesn't matter. They need our help. You show me one place that I made a racist statement and I most definitely will address it. Until then, please stop labeling me. Just how long do you think I should let you be so nasty to me and label me things I am most certainly not? If you expect me to come down to your level and do the same thing to you, don't. I have more respect for you as a human being than that.

Now, if you can't understand that simple statement then you just can't understand it.

And Cycloptichorn, it has nothing to do with revenge. It has everything to do with stopping the complaining and pointing fingers and just doing something about it.

Momma, looks like you're pointing fingers as much as anyone here ...

Pointing fingers at all those you think complain too much, about Bush or the admin or in general, or don't unite enough, or are not constructive enough, or persist in asking difficult questions when those should be tabled now, or post stories you think contain too much bad news, or, or, or ...

You've spent as much time pointing fingers, complaining about the complainers, as any of the complainers have.

BBB, your last post (Edit: the one re: Tico, I meant) is Report-level, take a deep breath.

Momma
Momma, sadly, it is historically true that most racists don't realize they are racists. Some are overt racists and while I don't respect them, at least I know where they stand with their direct honesty. It's the ones who don't realize they are racist and deny they are racist that are dishonest and don't deserve respect for either reason.

But let me tell you, I know a racist when I see one.

BBB

Nimh,

LOL. You know what? You are so right! Thank you for pointing that out to me!

I have a lot to do anyway! LOL. I am soooooo glad you pointed that out to me! I didn't even realize it!

Kisses!

Momma Angel

BBB Wrote:



I guess that means you are not going to point out where you believe I made a racist remark?

Incorrect. The national unity after 9/11 had everything to do with revenge. That is why it is a false correllation to make in this case, because it really isn't anything like the current situation at all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn,

What I meant was this, there is a dire situation, the important thing here (IMO) is that this situation is dealt with by the country unting together to resolve it, whether it be Mother Nature, terrorists, etc.

A whole set of relevant questions now come to the forefront regarding this administration's appointment of incompetent people to hugely important and complex posts simply because these individuals demonstrate political loyalty to Bush and crowd.

But why would real competence seem at all important in the context of this administration? It is, after all, headed up by perhaps the least competent senior political figure any of us have seen ascend a western government in our lifetimes.

It is no coincidence that the response to Katrina has been so fraught with mis-steps and no-steps. Bush is simply not able to function on his own as a competent leader because such talents and intellect are much above him.

Without the huge lumbering PR bureaucracy built up to surround him and present a picture of only the desired qualities (as determined by polling - 'resolute', 'character', 'practical', 'strong', etc) this man does not do a thing, nor does his administration. The dangers of ad libbing by Bush are too great, which is why he has been managed and presented and handled and marketed from the time he was running for the nomination.

The degree to which he is in charge at all is not clear (note Woodward's book, that decisions got made after Bush would visit with Cheney) and is highly questionable. We know how incurious he is, and how poorly informed as the world he remains.

Blatham --

Isn't this also a good opportunity to reiterate one of your other favorite point -- that the Bush administration is anti-science? It was well known that much of New Orleans lied below sea level, that the Mississippi delta was sinking, and that scenarios like Katrina were not at all unlikely. But in the first days after Katrina hit, many officials said that it came as a serious surprise. Nobody would be so dumb as to lie about being surprised knowing how damning the evidence is. So I can only conclude that prominent people in charge of response to desaster simply didn't care much what probable disasters they were facing.

The Perfect Storm, by Chris Floyd
BUSH WATCH...Chris Floyd

Chris Floyd is an American journalist who writes these weekly "Global Eye" pieces for The Moscow Times and St. Petersburg Times. His blog of political news and commentary can be found at Empire Burlesque.

The Perfect Storm
By Chris Floyd
Posted: September 9, 2005

"The river rose all day,
The river rose all night.
Some people got lost in the flood,
Some people got away all right.
The river have busted through clear down to Plaquemine:
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline.

"Louisiana, Louisiana,
They're trying to wash us away,
They're trying to wash us away…."
-- Randy Newman, Louisiana 1927

The destruction of New Orleans represents a confluence of many of the most pernicious trends in American politics and culture: poverty, racism, militarism, elitist greed, environmental abuse, public corruption and the decay of democracy at every level.

Much of this is embodied in the odd phrasing that even the most circumspect mainstream media sources have been using to describe the hardest-hit victims of the storm and its devastating aftermath: "those who chose to stay behind." Instantly, the situation has been framed with language to flatter the prejudices of the comfortable and deny the reality of the most vulnerable.

It is obvious that the vast majority of those who failed to evacuate are poor: they had nowhere else to go, no way to get there, no means to sustain themselves and their families on strange ground. While there were certainly people who stayed behind by choice, most stayed behind because they had no choice. They were trapped by their poverty - and many have paid the price with their lives.

Yet across the media spectrum, the faint hint of disapproval drips from the affluent observers, the clear implication that the victims were just too lazy and shiftless to get out of harm's way. There is simply no understanding - not even an attempt at understanding - the destitution, the isolation, the immobility of the poor and the sick and the broken among us.

This is from the "respectable" media; the great right-wing echo chamber was even less restrained, of course, leaping straight into giddy convulsions of racism at the first reports of looting in the devastated city. In the pinched-gonad squeals of Rush Limbaugh and his fellow hatemongers, the hard-right media immediately conjured up images of wild-eyed darkies rampaging through the streets in an orgy of violence and thievery.

Not that the mainstreamers ignored the racist angle. There was the already infamous juxtaposition of captions for wire service photos, where depictions of essentially the same scene - desperate people wading through flood waters, clutching plastic bags full of groceries - were given markedly different spins. In one picture, a white couple are described as struggling along after finding bread and soda at a grocery store. But beneath an almost identical photo of a young black man with a bag of groceries, we are told that a "looter" wades through the streets after robbing a grocery store.

Almost all of the early "looting" was like this: desperate people - of all colors - stranded by the floodwaters broke into abandoned stores and carried off food, clean water, medicine, clothes. Perhaps they should have left a check on the counter, but then again - what exactly was going to happen to all those perishables and consumer goods, sitting around in fetid, diseased water for weeks on end? (The mayor now says it could be up to 16 weeks before people can return to their homes and businesses.) Obviously, most if not all of it would have been thrown away or written off in any case. Later, of course, there was more organized looting by criminal gangs, the type of lawless element - of every hue, in every society - whose chief victims are, of course, the poor and vulnerable. These criminal operations were quickly conflated with the earlier pilferage to paint a single seamless picture of the American media's favorite horror story: Black Folk Gone Wild.

But here again another question was left unasked: Where were the resources - the money, manpower, materiel, transport - that could have removed all those forced to stay behind, and given them someplace safe and sustaining to take shelter? Where, indeed, were the resources that could have bolstered the city's defenses and shored up its levees? Where were the National Guard troops that could have secured the streets and directed survivors to food and aid? Where were the public resources - the physical manifestation of the citizenry's commitment to the common good - that could have greatly mitigated the brutal effects of this natural disaster?



"President Coolidge came down here in a railroad train,
With a little fat man with a notebook in his hand.
The president say, "Little fat man, isn't it a shame
What the river has done to this poor cracker's land?"

Well, we all know what happened to those vital resources. They had been cut back, stripped down, gutted, pilfered - looted - to pay for a war of aggression, to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest, safest, most protected Americans, to gorge the coffers of a small number of private and corporate fortunes, while letting the public sector - the common good - wither and die on the vine. These were all specific actions of the Bush Administration - including the devastating budget cuts on projects specifically designed to bolster New Orleans' defenses against a catastrophic hurricane. Bush even cut money for strengthening the very levees that broke and delivered the deathblow to the city. All this, in the face of specific warnings of what would happen if these measures were neglected: the city would go down "under 20 feet of water," one expert predicted just a few weeks ago.

But Bush said there was no money for this kind of folderol anymore. The federal budget had been busted by his tax cuts and his war. And this was a deliberate policy: as Bush's mentor Grover Norquist famously put it, the whole Bushist ethos was to starve the federal government of funds, shrinking it down so "we can drown it in the bathtub." As it turned out, the bathtub wasn't quite big enough -- so they drowned it in the streets of New Orleans instead.

But as culpable, criminal and loathsome as the Bush Administration is, it is only the apotheosis of an overarching trend in American society that has been gathering force for decades: the destruction of the idea of a common good, a public sector whose benefits and responsibilities are shared by all, and directed by the consent of the governed. For more than 30 years, the corporate Right has waged a relentless and highly focused campaign against the common good, seeking to atomize individuals into isolated "consumer units" whose political energies - kept deliberately underinformed by the ubiquitous corporate media - can be diverted into emotionalized "hot button" issues (gay marriage, school prayer, intelligent design, flag burning, welfare queens, drugs, porn, abortion, teen sex, commie subversion, terrorist threats, etc., etc.) that never threaten Big Money's bottom line.

Again deliberately, with smear, spin and sham, they have sought - and succeeded - in poisoning the well of the democratic process, turning it into a tabloid melee where only "character counts" while the rapacious policies of Big Money's bought-and-sold candidates are completely ignored. As Big Money solidified its ascendancy over government, pouring billions - over and under the table - into campaign coffers, politicians could ignore larger and larger swathes of the people. If you can't hook yourself up to a well-funded, coffer-filling interest group, if you can't hire a big-time Beltway player to lobby your cause and get you "a seat at the table," then your voice goes unheard, your concerns are shunted aside. (Apart from a few cynical gestures around election-time, of course.) The poor, the sick, the weak, the vulnerable have become invisible - in the media, in the corporate boardroom, "at the table" of the power players in national, state and local governments. The increasingly marginalized and unstable middle class is also fading from the consciousness of the rulers, whose servicing of the elite gets more brazen and frantic all the time.

When unbridled commercial development of delicately balanced environments like the Mississippi Delta is bruited "at the table," whose voice is heard? Not the poor, who, as we have seen this week, will overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the overstressed environment. And not the middle class, who might opt for the security of safer, saner development policies to protect their hard-won homes and businesses. No, the only voice that matters is that of the developers themselves, and the elite investors who stand behind them.

"Louisiana, Louisiana,
They're trying to wash us away"

The destruction of New Orleans was a work of nature - but a nature that has been worked upon by human hands and human policies. As global climate change continues its deadly symbiosis with unbridled commercial development for elite profit, we will see more such destruction, far more, on an even more devastating scale. As the harsh, aggressive militarism and brutal corporate ethos that Bush has injected into the mainstream of American society continues to spread its poison, we will see fewer and fewer resources available to nurture the common good. As the political process becomes more and more corrupt, ever more a creation of elite puppetmasters and their craven bagmen, we will see the poor and the weak and even the middle class driven further and further into the low ground of society, where every passing storm - economic, political, natural - will threaten their homes, their livelihoods, their very existence.

"Louisiana, Louisiana,
They're trying to wash us away
They're trying to wash us away
They're trying to wash us away
They're trying to wash us away"