Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (62487)	9/14/2005 4:16:45 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

BEHIND THE FAILURE NEW YORK Post Opinion John Podhoretz September 13, 2005 THE relief we all must be feeling at the news that the death toll in New Orleans will be a fraction of what was originally thought — with a number in the hundreds rather than in the tens of thousands — is welcome. The news — you can't call it "good news," but it is far more positive news than anybody was expecting this week — suggests something else as well: We're feeling relieved because we had been stoked up to believe the absolute worst. There was, in the air in the days immediately following the collapse of New Orleans's water defenses, an overwhelming sense of panic, with the panic in turn leading to hysteria, with bogus stories floating around about cannibalism and unconfirmed and probably erroneous tales of widespread rape and murder. Something that had never happened before was happening before our eyes on television — a large American city was being engulfed by water with tens of thousands trapped in unsanitary and dangerous conditions. It's understandable that this unprecendented event would provoke desperate feelings. But I submit the cause of the panic wasn't simply the unprecedented horror we were witnessing. It also grew out of the shockingly irresponsible conduct of local and state elected officials. Now, I'm not talking here about the failure of the mayor of New Orleans to deploy a bunch of schoolbuses to help evacuate the town, or whether the evacuation plan was followed and when states of emergency were announced. The federal government has taken the brunt of the public criticism for seeming out of touch and uncomprehending in those first few days. But what Mayor Ray Nagin and Gov. Kathleen Blanco did and didn't do was worse. They consciously and deliberately assumed an attitude of powerlessness and hopelessness in the face of New Orleans' woes that directly contributed to the lawlessness, chaos and disorder. Nagin and Blanco acted as if they were impotent bystanders rather than elected officials charged by those who put them in office with maintaining civil order and ensuring the public's safety. What did they do? They gave angry interviews. They screamed and yelled about the federal government being bad. They cried. They delayed. They said they didn't care very much about looting, and then said they cared a lot about looting, and then didn't do anything about the looting. And they didn't coordinate with each other at all. Now we're hearing that part of the problem is Nagin and Blanco don't get along, that Blanco never forgave Nagin for supporting her Republican challenger in her gubernatorial bid in 2003. Hmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? Here in New York, Rudy Giuliani crossed party lines to support Mario Cuomo over George Pataki and the two had a famously wretched and horrible relationship. It was terrible. But then came 9/11. And instantly, everything changed. The attack on New York caused both men to suspend their enmity instantly and to make common cause. They were inseparable in the days and weeks that followed, and that famous credit-hog Giuliani was always careful to include Pataki in any and every event, ceremony, meeting and word of praise he participated in, received or doled out. That's the nature of leadership at a time of genuine crisis. What's really contemptible about the conduct of Nagin and Blanco — and, to a lesser extent, the conduct of Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter — is how self-interested it really was and is. All these officials are on a knife's edge, their political viability on the line. As the months pass, their failures on the front lines of this disaster are going to be hotly debated. Thus it served their own narrow, selfish, partisan, political interest to act as if they were powerless and overwhelmed and without resources. If they can convince the people of New Orleans and the voters in Louisiana that the whole calamity was really the fault of a callous and incompetent federal government, then they might earn a reprieve from the political Siberia to which common sense suggests they will both be consigned. Rather than project an attitude of calm determination, of steely purpose, as Haley Barbour did in ravaged Mississippi, Nagin and Blanco contributed to the panic. They fed the despair. They encouraged the anger. And they indulged their petty personal grievances rather than rising above them for the common good. They did themselves, their constituents and their country a monstrous disservice. E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com nypost.com

To: abstract who wrote (62487)	9/14/2005 4:19:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"Funny how the choices all seem to fall one way, isn't it?" Even with a story of necessity like Katrina, news executives make choices aplenty. The Federal government as a first responder, with 15,000 active duty troops on the ground within 24 hours of a disaster – that was actually a novel concept before MSM insisted on it. Reporters knowledgeable about disaster relief planning would know to expect 72 to 96 hours before the Feds could step into the breach. (Despite numerous missteps, this goal was met or even exceeded.) Though these plans may now be out the window, insisting upon a wholly novel arrangement for Federal power was a choice made by a few executives in New York. A choice spurred by the wrenching images from New Orleans – but a choice nonetheless. Choice and Necessity Patrick Ruffini In Media Meanwhile in Iraq, local forces take control of the situation along the Syrian border, killing 200 insurgents: <<< The Iraqi army has killed up to 200 insurgents in the northern town of Tal Afar, commanders said on Monday. The major assault is causing dismay among some of the country's Sunni Arab minority and comes just a month ahead of a vote on a constitution which is already dividing the country. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari defied a $100,000 bounty placed on his head by a militant Islamic group to visit the scene of the insurgency, while a senior officer in Tal Afar said he expected the fighting to be over by Thursday. >>> This news bulletin serves as a reminder all but forgotten battle of Iraq. So desperate and dire and urgent just two weeks ago, Iraq has dropped off the radar screen. That's to be expected given the emergency here at home. But it also lays bare the choices the news media must make everyday – between the stories you cover because you have to, and the stories you cover because you want to. When a city is destroyed and the leader of the third branch of government dies, those are stories of necessity. On heavy news days, stories of necessity crowd out stories of choice. Today's news is dominated by the ongoing response to Katrina, the Roberts hearings, and the 9/11 anniversary. "Two Killed by Roadside Bomb" is a headline you don't see much these days. Absent a major triumph (the elections) or cataclysm (when nearly 1,000 died on the bridge), news coverage of Iraq is driven by choice not necessity. If the news value of the insurgency is low enough that it can be drowned out by events here at home, it's possible that the bad news could also be drowned out by larger events in-country – like the drafting of a Constitution or the coming referendum campaign. Even with a story of necessity like Katrina, news executives make choices aplenty. The Federal government as a first responder, with 15,000 active duty troops on the ground within 24 hours of a disaster – that was actually a novel concept before MSM insisted on it. Reporters knowledgeable about disaster relief planning would know to expect 72 to 96 hours before the Feds could step into the breach. (Despite numerous missteps, this goal was met or even exceeded.) Though these plans may now be out the window, insisting upon a wholly novel arrangement for Federal power was a choice made by a few executives in New York. A choice spurred by the wrenching images from New Orleans – but a choice nonetheless. On Katrina, the news media made the choice to blame the President first, telling on air guests to "get angry." On Iraq, the news media made the choice to cover the bad news first. On the economy, the news media made the choice to stop talking about it after it started picking up stream. (ICYMI, the markets are weathering the latest storm pretty well, unemployment is now below 5%, and the country seems poised for a run of late-'90s style growth. Of course, this has nothing to do with tax cuts.) Funny how the choices all seem to fall one way, isn't it? For all our crowing about the irrelevance of legacy media, they still have the power to choose what's important and have public opinion follow in their footsteps. New media still consists largely of reading, digesting, and debating the choices of old media. It's time to step up the game. When the high, inside fastball is called a strike a few dozen too many times, it's time for new media to start making the choices – and for old media to react to them. Blogs and talk radio today "appeal" bad news coverage through spirited commentary -- often successfully. No more. Like John Roberts, it's time to move from skillful appellate lawyer to Chief Justice. As Brendan Loy's unheeded warnings about New Orleans demonstrate, The News Is Too Important To Be Left to the Media.TM So, I'd like to throw it open for ideas. How do we make it so that the morning's New York Times and Washington Post are NOT the most discussed items on blogs everyday? So, that no one cares about what is said at the 10:30? How do we scoop the media? Do we wrest control of the omnipotent camera lens by, say, sending the milbloggers into battle with a videocam? patrickruffini.com news.yahoo.com drudgereport.com brendanloy.com cbsnews.com

To: abstract who wrote (62487)	9/14/2005 4:29:39 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

The Blame Game Look local. Rich Lowry National Review Online The Bush administration is excoriating what it calls "the blame game." If the alacrity with which Bush critics began their Katrina criticisms was unseemly, a vigorous "blame game" is still the only way to keep government failures from being conveniently ignored. But if Democrats and media get their way, recriminations will swing only one way — at President Bush and the feds. Consider Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who has informally been designated as Washington's spokeswoman for the victims of Katrina. She has called the federal response to the storm "incompetent and insulting." But asked on Fox News Sunday about the failure to evacuate the city prior to Katrina's landfall by state and local officials, Landrieu averred, "I am not going to level criticism at the local level," and suddenly insisted "now is not the time for finger- pointing." Landrieu's finger, in other words, can only point in one direction. In the interest of balance, here are some questions that should be put to state and local officials: There is a document called the "City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan," which is a detailed strategy for a looming catastrophe like Katrina. City officials have now made it clear that they never had any intention of putting it fully into operation. So why did they write it in the first place? ** The mayor wasted precious time prior to the storm having his lawyers investigate whether he had the authority to issue a mandatory evacuation, when the city's own plan says that he can. Did anyone even bother to read the plan? The plan said about 100,000 people wouldn't make it out of the city. Didn't that fact weigh on city officials' minds in the years they had to prepare for a killer storm? Why was a fleet of several hundred buses, which could have been used by an energetic and imaginative government to evacuate people prior to the storm, left in a parking lot to be flooded? Evacuating hospitals and nursing homes should have been the first priority of the city. How could they just have been left to fend for themselves? More than 30 people died in the floodwaters in St. Rita's nursing home alone. Why did the city fail to take advantage of what Amtrak says was its offer to take a couple hundred passengers on its last train out of New Orleans? How difficult would it have been to stock food and water at the Superdome? Wouldn't that have been a sounder approach rather than tell people to "eat a full meal before arriving" and bring their own food and water? Was it a good idea to try, in effect, to starve out the evacuees at the Superdome and the convention center? Local officials hammered the feds for not getting desperate evacuees at those spots food and water. But the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security explicitly prevented the Red Cross from delivering supplies on the theory that that would only encourage people to stay in New Orleans. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco didn't specifically request from the federal government what her state needed until the Thursday after the storm hit. Couldn't she have done that a little sooner? The governor has control of the National Guard. Why didn't she send more troops immediately after the storm? According to Mayor Ray Nagin, in the initial days "we fought and held that city together with only 200 state National Guard." What kind of city police force has as much as 20 percent of its personnel go AWOL when it is needed most? If the governor wanted active-duty military patrolling in New Orleans during the chaos, why didn't she accept the federalization of the National Guard that Justice Department officials say would have been necessary to make it happen? If funding for the levees protecting New Orleans was so inadequate, how could Louisiana Congressional representatives waste, as the Washington Post put it, "hundreds of millions of dollars" on "unrelated water projects"? ** Let the recriminations begin. — Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. (c) 2005 King Features Syndicate nationalreview.com

To: abstract who wrote (62487)	9/14/2005 4:30:52 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

SURVIVORS RECALL ALL THE PARKED RTA BUSES Posted by Chris Regan JunkYardBlog Now that survivors are speaking out, the media may need to explain why they ignored the buses in favor of bashing the feds: <<< To hurricane survivors Richard Allen and Sandra Montegut, their recent arrival together at Camp Couchdale has been just another, albeit more comfortable, chapter in the struggle to gather the scattered jigsaw pieces of their lives in the wake of Katrina. The pair, fellow residents of New Orleans' eastern district, finally landed at Camp Couchdale following a three-day bus ride. The neighbors spent a week in the horrifying post-storm conditions of the Superdome, sleeping in shifts and defending one another from the criminal element that quickly surfaced there. ... "The saddest thing, though," Montegut added, "was all the guardsmen standing around the place, just aching for the order to straighten it all out. I felt so bad for them, because I knew they felt that was what they should've been doing."... Both Louisianians placed the blame for New Orleans' societal breakdown squarely on the shoulders of the mayor and the governor. "It felt like they were in the middle of some big power play. They weren't concerned about the people at all," alleged Allen. Montegut, an insightful social service/forensic specialist employed by Louisiana's prison system, had gazed at a parking lot full of unengaged Regional Transit Authority buses from her position at the Superdome, and wondered why they were not being used to evacuate people from the deteriorating conditions. "[Mayor Nagin] blew it, throwing his hands up in the air and blaming Bush for days - all the while, he could've been taking care of obvious solutions like that instead of telling people who hadn't the means to leave simply to 'get out'." According to her, the RTA buses sat in their same spots even as school buses came to carry the storm-worn from the shelter. "When they originally sent the RTA buses out to bring people into the Superdome, it was the feds who made those arrangements, not the local government. It was just unbelievable, the lack of preparation on the mayor's part - even when he knew about the possible severity of the approaching storm," she said, shaking her head. As many harsh words as the two had for their government, an equal amount of praise was given to local volunteers they had encountered in the course of recovery efforts. >>> Too bad they didn't have Cable TV news available on the Superdome Jumbotron. FEMA's complete failure to provide the evacuees with live TV analysis of their situation prevented them from learning that it was all George Bush and the feds' fault. Now it will takes weeks of TV-watching for them to really understand how Bush failed them. Some may never know the truth of their own plight or how the biggest story of the entire disaster, according to the big media, was not the buses or lack of orders for guardsmen (as survivors think) but how the people in New Orleans looked "so black." (Small-town newspaper article via Free Republic) junkyardblog.net malvern-online.com themediareport.com freerepublic.com