Hi RainyDayWoman--perhaps this will enlighten you:
The Coffee House
SORTING OUT OPINION FROM FACT ON KATRINA
ljohnson's picture
By Larry Johnson | bio
While watching the MSNBC program, CONNECTED, COAST TO COAST with Ron Reagan, a man from the Evergreen Foundation was on air spinning the myth that the President had to "beg" the Governor of Louisiana to take action. Having been on this show several times I called one of the bookers, Susan Durrwatcher, to alert her to the fact that this man was misrepresenting what happened. I offered Susan the following objective, documented facts (see timeline below). Susan thanked me for my "opinion" and said "we just have a different perspective". Stunned, I asked her by what standard of journalism that an objective fact was mere opinion? I asked her to simply look at the documents and correct the record. She declined. I asked her to remove me from the MSNBC list of contacts. I'm sure MSNBC won't miss me and I am certain I will have a happy life without having to subject myself to their unprofessional approach to journalism.
The Bush White House is furiously spinning to lay the blame on the Governor and Mayor of Louisiana. My position is that I think both the Governor and the Mayor can be faulted on a variety of fronts. I do not absolve them of their responsibility to properly and fully implement their own emergency response plans. However, the Governor followed the appropriate protocol and, in accordance with the National Response Plan (NRP), asked the President in accordance with the Stafford Act, to declare a State of Emergency.
TIMELINE
section break
Friday, 26 August 2005, Governor of Louisiana declares state of emergency
Saturday morning, 27 August 2005, Governor of Louisiana asks President Bush to declare a state of emergency and requests Federal Assistance "to save lives and property". Note, the letter was published on 27 August 2005 on Lexis Nexis but was dated 28 August 2005. Bush received the letter on Saturday and responded on the same day by declaring a State of Emergency. Note, per the NRP, William Lokey was designated as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in Louisiana.
Sunday, 28 August 2005, Mayor of New Orleans orders Mandatory Evacuation.
(Note: In Governor Blanco's request on the 27th, there is a specific request for help with evacuation and a specific request for help to "save lives and protect property". )
Monday, 29 August 2005, FEMA Director Brown requests DHS Secretary Chertoff's help in getting 1000 DHS employees ready to deploy to the disaster within 48 hours.
Under the National Response Plane (see p. 93, Figure 11), once the President declares a State of Emergency the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to implement the Plan. Initially, DHS is supposed to deploy an Emergency Response Team to the State to provide expertise in assessing needs and determining appropriate courses of action. Moreover, on p. 52 of the NRP the President may act proactively under the Stafford Act.
Folks, these are not OPINIONS, these are cold, objective facts. However, MSNBC and other members of the Main Stream Media are confused about what is a fact and what is opinion.
login or register to post comments
Sep 7, 2005 -- 02:18:12 PM EST | Tags:
On September 7, 2005 - 1:35pm Memekiller said:
Facts are opinions. This is everything that is wrong with these people.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:35pm Phil from New York said:
Larry,
Thanks for your comments. The administration knows it fucked up big time, so the push-back is perhaps more fast, more furious, and more venal than any instance in the five years of the Bush presidency. Unlike the case of 9/11, Iraq, or Joe Wilson, the hurricane's potential was known in advance to all Americans, and all Americans were able to watch the disaster unfold. Only an idiot or an ideologue wouldn't see the massive culpability of the federal government here -- even though, as you noted, the state and local governments can be blamed as well.
It takes a great propaganda effort to stem this tide, and as you have witnessed, they're pulling out all stops. It's too bad you won't be on MSNBC anymore because the American people need a calm, rational, and truthful voice such as yours.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 7:51am idlex said:
It takes a great propaganda effort to stem this tide, and as you have witnessed, they're pulling out all stops.
It won't work. Even their fog machine won't turn the tide.
It might have worked if the fog machine had been up and running from day one of this tragedy, and they'd managed to keep what was happening in and around New Orleans off the news, or reported differently, or something.
But for about a week they were fast asleep. Or rather, they were on holiday. And so for a week there was unrestricted and truthful reporting, plus searing images, going out all over the world.
And now that the horse has bolted, they're trying to shut the stable door.
But it's too late. And it won't work.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:38pm Libertine said:
The facts don't matter Larry. MSNBC is more entertainment then it is a news outlet. They don't care about facts, just viewers. Newsweek is running with the same meme and when it is pointed out that Blanco did declare a state of emergency on the 26th they still refused to correct themselves. It seems a neocon administration, not worried about facts, has found themselves a neocon press to report "their" version of the "facts"...
I am betting MSNBC will be touting the Katrina oversight commission Bush has proposed as an "independant" commission.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:41pm Memekiller said:
So this is why Democrats are never on TV. They have standards.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:41pm Zappatero said:
viewerservices@m snbc.com
Connected@msnbc. com
Ligth 'em up. No wonder Ron gets steamrolled all the time by that peroxide bitch.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:45pm irishkg said:
Thank you Larry.
Since what you say is so important, you have a public reputation and many more people need to hear the truth I have to wonder if you could get a wider hearing through other outlets. I have been impressed with Koppel and Nightline on Katrina. I wonder if the people at Columbia Journalism Daily http:// www.cjrdaily.org / would include your story in their daily critique of the validity of stories and analysis in the the media.
I am so stunned at what happened that I offer my suggestions. I recognize I may be presumptuous and mean no disrespect.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:00pm ljohnson said:
Please feel free to pass on. You are anything but presumptuous.Bes t
LJ
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 6:41pm irishkg said:
Larry,
Update from Wednesday - I did send an email to Columbia Journalism (email content below) about this terrible example of journalism. As of Thurs eve. item not referenced on their site. [http:// www.cjrdaily.org /] Will check again.
I assume that if they wanted to contact you directly they would know how to do that. (yes I know it is a long shot that my email will get out of electronic in-box)
My Email to CJR Daily [Columbia Journalism Review]
To: cjrtips [at] jrn.columbia.edu
Subject: Media story from Larry Johnson deserves your bullhorn
Date: 9/7/2005 2:56:27 PM EDT
“Please check out this story at TPM Cafe blog from Larry Johnson at [link to TPM Cafe]
[Johnson at CIA (‘85-‘89) and State Dept Office of Coordinator Counter Terrorism (‘89-‘93).]
SORTING OUT OPINION FROM FACT ON KATRINA
By Larry Johnson From: Media
While watching the MSNBC program, CONNECTED, COAST TO COAST with Ron Reagan, a man from the Evergreen Foundation was on air spinning the myth that the President had to "beg" the Govr of LA to take action. Having been on this show several times I called one of the bookers, Susan Durrwatcher, to alert her to the fact that this man was misrepresenting what happened. I offered Susan the following objective, documented facts (see timeline below). Susan thanked me for my "opinion" and said "we just have a different perspective". Stunned, I asked her by what standard of journalism that an objective fact was mere opinion? I asked her to simply look at the documents and correct the record. She declined...... [Post continued at TPM Café web site]
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:46pm archpundit said:
Larry,
From another Larry, thanks for doing that, but it's damn depressing.
What's strange about this whole situation is certainly the state and local government made mistakes, but the basic plan for evacuation and the refuge of last resort was well understood with federal emergency planners, yet it seemed to catch the FEMA completely off-guard that the Superdome would need evacuation. I have written on this quite a bit here:
http:// www.archpundit.c om/archives/ 012893.html
And the nonsense about the Convention Center--it's right below the only working route in or out of New Orleans and there were checkpoints above it.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:47pm nascardaughter said:
Unbelievable. And yet so much that seems to me unbelievable has happened over the last few years. It's difficult to know how to respond or what to do next. I do not understand how a person's response to these points could be that "we have a different perspective."
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:50pm taylorm said:
I saw that too, and after reading David Brock's piece on Fox "News" and the bloggers spinning for Bush the other day, was simply amazed that MSNBC had gotten into the act as well. Chris Matthews' "Hardball" has turned into "T-ball."
There is no doubt that state and local officials acted something less than flawless, but "Brownie's" feckless "leadership" at the federal level was nothing short of eye popping, and Chertoff saying "Louisiana is a city that is largely under water," well that one left me speechless. As for President Bush, well, Bill Kristol and others seem to be seeing the flood waters at their own door:
"Almost every Republican I have spoken with is disappointed" in Bush's response to the disaster. "He is a strong president...but he has never really focused on the importance of good execution. I think that is true in many parts of his presidency."
Though how you can be a "strong president" with lousy execution is beyond me.
Anyway, there have been some journalists in the MSM doing their job for the first time in a very long time. Anderson Cooper and Keith Olbermann, even Shep Smith, which was a shock (and likely won't last), delivered the goods and the truth. Ronald Reagan just isn't one of them and besides, he isn't a journalist by any stretch of the imagination and with all due respect to him and his hearfelt efforts, got his job for one reason and one reason only.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:59pm Memekiller said:
Seems the announcement of a media comeback was very premature.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:26pm Zappatero said:
understatement of the week award.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:43pm Rick B said:
People keep adding the caveat that the state and local governments also did not act all that well. But it is the primary responsibility of the federal goverment through FEMA to coordinate all of the agencies involved in the operation.
FEMA did not coordinate anything in a timely manner, including setting up the necessary communications that would allow the coordination to occur. State and local governments were on their own so they were guessing more than planning.
Without central coordination it is obvious that state and local governments would get a lot wrong. When you keep harping on their errors, most of those can be attributed right back to FEMA's failure to do its job.
Let me repeat that. If FEMA fails to coordinate the response, state and local agencies are guaranteed to screw up a lot. That is what FEMA was supposed to prevent and failed to do.
Every tiime you state "The state adn local agencies screwed up too." you are blaming one of the victims of FEMA's failures.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 4:52pm slb said:
Though how you can be a "strong president" with lousy execution is beyond me.
Maybe he meant "a strong-arming president."
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:54pm JT Davis said:
They not only misrepresented the facts, they misrepresented the organization the man was speaking for. The Evergreen Foundation is quite different from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. The former is Canadian and a legitimate environmental organization, the latter is a right wing think tank with a fuzzy sounding name, but the graphic said Evergreen Foundation. Very sloppy or very intentional. It's outrageous either way.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:26pm JT Davis said:
Just look who funds the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Does the name Scaife ring any bells?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:34pm JT Davis said:
This may be more informative. I checked immediately when I saw Bob Williams speaking with Ron Reagan and the graphic said The Evergreen Foundation, because I am familiar with this so-called think tank, which Williamd rpresents and they are not to be confused with the Canadian Evergreen Foundation, although they do have some of the same donors.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:59pm Ann Hewitt Wort... said:
Larry -
Please do stay prominently "on the radar screen," even if it isn't MSNBC. I've been burned by the media, too; heaven forbid that the actual facts should kill the infotainment value of a well-thought- out, if only imaginary, scandal!
My husband and I are big, big fans of yours and appreciate your factual forthrightness. Perhaps you can create an even bigger presence with a more ethical outlet that would be less frustrating for you. Don't give up the fight. We listen and we quote you.
Ann Hewitt Worthington
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 1:59pm Horatio said:
Great post, Larry. But riddle me this: Why are you watching MSNBC? Why are any of you guys watching any TV news at all? Of course they're "entertainment" and not "news." Last I checked, NBC and Microsoft are corporations interested in selling their products, not providing public service. For God's sake, people, STOP WATCHING TV NEWS!!!
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:14pm DanielGree said:
It is not just MSNBC but also CNBC. They seem to work very hard at making the Bush Administration's case.
Left me make an unpleasant point about the merging of opinion and fact. I have been around the academic world to know this started with Leftwing academics. Very often facts, the truth were submerged in the name of "a greater truth."
One of the things those of us to can't stand the lies, and the misdirection of Bush, and the Republicans is too look squarely in the mirror. Then acknowledge error and more to correct it. Something I will not live long enough to see the Republicans ever do.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:24pm jackrussell said:
The real masters of relativism, Dan, are not "left wing academics," but the right, beginning with the Reagan administration. The sons & daughters of Paul de Man -- those scary deconstructionis ts -- were never much more than a bogeyman used by the anti- intellectual right wing to stir up good plain-talking folks against academic eggheads. Especially when the eggheads pointed out the dangers of environemtal degredation, social injustice, etc. You remember Lynn Cheney? That's who you keep company with when you drag this bogeyman into a discussion of this sort. [Note: Yes, I realize that you can find any number of hare brained relativistic utterances by academics over the last quarter century, but academics don't have any power. Unlike Republicans.]
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:17pm argent said:
Relativism in both academia and political discourse certainly did NOT begin with Reagan. Dan is correct: it was indeed so-called 'left-wing' academics who first began trumpeting the virtues and greater truth (or anti-truth) of Nietzsche's perspectivism, Derrida's deconstruction, and Fish's manifold interpretations. Rush Limbaugh embodies the postmodern par excellence: parody, satire, and no commitment whatsoever to a universal truth.
Let's not pull any punches here. Late-twentieth century academic liberalism (perhaps unwittingly) provided the intellectual platform with which to dismantle New Deal liberalism. The problem is that we have tenured egos incapable of owning up to their unwitting part in deconstructing the American Dream and deriding any notion of moral foundation or philosophical truth.
This isn't meant to disparage liberalism or the left (of which I happily align myself), but accountability for social and political problems has been sorely lacking among many on the left as well as the right.
It goes without saying that Republicans and in particular this administration is utterly incapable of admitting mistakes and taking responsibility. It's not in their mission statement. Only cronyism, maximum profit, moral hypocrisy and the goal of reconstituting a disenfranchised working class for cheap labor and the psychological importance of showing they're on top.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 6:52pm jackrussell said:
I realize that this is a side issue in this thread, but as a left-wing tenured professor of literature, I find it interesting. Of course relativism is older than Reagan -- I was simply trying to note when relativism, or a right-wing bastardization of it, became the philosophical center of American conservatism, which used to be about preserving old values & eternal truths, etc. Relativism itself need not be divorced from values, though. It is relativism that allows us to appreciate the values & social institutions of other cultures without necessarily wanting to adopt them ourselves. Serious academic relativism does not argue that anything goes, but that many things go & that multiple interpretations of texts & events & institutions are not only possible but necessary. Perhaps this would better be called philosophical pluralism. Deconstruction is a technique for reading against the text, i.e., not accepting the conventional interpretations of texts or events at face value, especially when that face value serves the interests of wealth & power.
I have already copped to the fact that one can find lame brained statements by academics. I don't believe such statements are representative of "left wing academics" in general. And I stand by my earlier statement that liberals ought to concern themselves with the vulgar relativism of the right rather than dragging out the right's anti- intellectual bogeymen to prove how fair liberals are. If you are actually a liberal, you are a relativist. An informed relativism lies at the heart of liberalism.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:05pm DanielGree said:
This subject also interest me. I have be in and out of universities taking classes and getting degrees for 25 years. I have a very good friend who teaches at Queens College, a cousin a professor at Emory and my brother has his Ph-D in computer science. Jack I agree with you about relative power of academics and Repubicans. A point i make to my friend at Queens to no available when he complains about the socialist bias of the faculty.
I do think however as we see in David Horowitz' diatribes against academics that the left set the stage for the distortion of facts in the name of the greater good. I certainly do not see myself as a rightwinger in anyway. But I can't help reflecting that there is trouble when anyone says truth should not be honored because we do not like the result.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:18pm jackrussell said:
Dan, you won't get an argument from me when it comes to honoring the truth, but isn't one of the triumphs of liberalism that we can recognize multiple truths? Isn't that what modern education is all about? To say that there are half a dozen ways of looking at something is not the same as saying, as my freshmen sometimes do, "It's all relative," or, "Hey, that's just your opinion." Not just any old truth will do, of course, you have to have checked it out. You have to have thought about it. You have to have tested it agains reality & rationality & your intuitive sense of justice. Thinking is hard, though--a fact the right counts on. It is part of the genius of the modern American right to have made thinking itself suspect.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 12:45pm DanielGree said:
Jack, I certainly do not believe that anyone has a lock on the truth. I agree with you that the triumph of liberalism is partly the recognition that humans and limited beings cannot know the Truth and thus through tolerance and debate a best resolution is arrived at. It is one of the things wrong with the Right. They confuse their belief in Truth and our ability to be certain what it is.
My complaint is not that Universities teach thet truth. It is, especially in ethnic studies programs and post-Modernist academics, who with the right believe in a Truth and were and are willing to bend the facts to fit that Truth.
My guess is your students are lucky to have you as a professor.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:23pm nascardaughter said:
Left me make an unpleasant point about the merging of opinion and fact. I have been around the academic world to know this started with Leftwing academics. Very often facts, the truth were submerged in the name of "a greater truth."
I have to say, I encountered way, way too much of this during my time in school, much of it explicitly political while also completely disconnected from reality -- always a bad combination. I dunno, maybe was especially exaggerated in the particular school and department I was in, but I found it scary and nauseating.
So often revolutionary systems are great at pointing out what's wrong with an existing system without giving any consideration to whether the new system will be better -- or worse. I mean, yes, everything is subjective to some degree, common sense is largely the product of social conditioning, blah blah blah. But the consequences of throwing the whole (imperfect) concept of objectivity overboard are dire. So many times I wanted to say to these professors, why do you think that this system only works to justify your own pet worldviews?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:03pm jackrussell said:
It is very difficult to respond to Nascardaughter's post because it doesn't provide any examples of the "revolutionary systems" that "these professors" proposed that were divorced from "objectivity." All too often Objectivity is just Authority wearing a false beard.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 8:04pm nascardaughter said:
Sorry 'bout that. I was talking about revolutionary systems in general, with the tool of deconstructionis t criticism (if that's the right name for it is nowadays...) as the main revolutionary system I've got in mind. Another example of a revolutionary system gone wrong, to me, would be the USSR. (Or even just straight-up Marxism: lots of insightful criticism of capitalism there, but really, why would a dictatorship of the proletariat be any better?)
I agree that objectivity is often just a mask for authority. I'm just saying that getting rid of the whole notion of objectivity doesn't really work that well, either. Not that all deconstructionis ts want to get rid of objectivity, but the tool of deconstructionis t criticism can be used in this way. I'm all for multiple truths, and suspect that a lot of us here are, but when using deconstructionis m, it's important to keep in mind that while there are multiple truths, there is also such a thing as a falsehood. Not necessarily because the critical tool itself demands it, but because the results demand it -- which is messy, but whattaya gonna do?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 6:04pm slb said:
All too often Objectivity is just Authority wearing a false beard.
Oh, I like that! I am going to steal it for my own use. ;-)
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:17pm c4Logic said:
The only power we have is the power to vote with our feet and our pocketbooks. We MUST organize boycotts. We must boycott any news organization that refuses to hold itself to standards of factual reporting. We must notify any and all advertisers that we will boycott their products if they continue to advertise with the boycotted medium.
LOOK! There is NO other way--short of terrorism--which is a monstrous, criminal approach to conflict mediation.
But the BOYCOTT works! Boycott the bastards.
I am currently boycotting EXONMOBILE, WALMART, and MSNBC for their crimes against humanity. I would be happy to add others to the list. MONEY is all these people care about. Therefore, hurt them by denying them your MONEY and your consent.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:33pm Robert Brown said:
Yawn.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:59pm JDaSilvaJr said:
"But the BOYCOTT works!" ?????
I am not going to claim to have all the answers to all the problems confronting the us today. Nor could I possibly find a basis for defending Walmart etc.
As for potential ideas however, a boycott is so absurd as to be laughable. Other than single community - single company boycotts can anyone name another successful boycott? (in other words, for example - the very effective use of boycotts against segregated bussing)
Boycott's only work on a small local basis - against small local businesses. An effective boycott of Walmart ? The number of WE necessary to have any effect on Walmart would exceed the number of displaced from Katrina. Moreover, it would be like trying to hold back the levees by hand - good for the little Dutch boy in the story - bad idea in real life.
The only thing boycotting Walmart will do is make you feel good. It will have exactly NO effect on anything else. (ok - Walmart loses the $ 200.00 you would have spent there this year - they'll get over it). The worst part though is the idea of a boycott has taken your good ideals and energy away from ideas that have a scinitilla's chance of working.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:29pm c4Logic said:
Just some of the Boycotts down through History that you claim do not work:
'History books often label the protests of Colonial America boycotts. After the British imposed taxes on tea and other imported goods in the Townshend Act of 1767, the colonists responded with the Non-importation agreement. The boycott decreased British trade, and in 1770 most of the Acts were repealed. The retention of the tea tax led to the Boston Tea Party — a more radical remedy. However, "boycott" as a term for such financial actions came into use over a hundred years later. The practice got its name from an English land agent, Captain Charles Cunningman Boycott, who led a ruthless eviction campaign against tenants in Ireland around 1880. His employees began to refuse to assist Boycott or his family in any manner.
Today the term is primarily used in labor and consumer disputes. A primary boycott is when a financial statement is made by consumers or employees in refusing to purchase goods or services from a company or employer. A secondary boycott results from pressure placed by groups on third parties to force them to join a boycott. For example, a secondary boycott exists when workers refuse to patronize firms that continue to deal with the initially boycotted party or if workers strike an employer in order to force him to join the boycott of another firm. Those specific actions are prohibited in the U.S. by the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) and the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959).
There have been numerous examples of successful boycotts in history designed to bring attention, and financial pressure, on a wide variety of issues.
* 1905: Chinese boycott of U.S. goods: China boycotts the import of American goods because of the treatment of Chinese under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
* 1930: March to the Sea: In March 1930 Gandhi led a boycott of commercial salt. He encouraged Indian people to defy the British colonial government by refusing to buy salt (which had a government tax attached) and instead making their own salt from sea water.
* 1955: Montgomery Bus Boycott: Rosa Parks, a 43-year-old black woman, refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white person. Her arrest led to a massive boycott by black citizens of the Montgomery public bus system organized by a then relatively- unknown Martin Luther King, Jr. For months, people walked, cycled or shared private cars to get around Montgomery.
* 1960s: Grape Boycott: Boycotts organized by the Ceasar Chavez and United Farm Workers union brought attention to the plight of migrant workers.
* 1980: Olympic Boycotts: The United States and 59 other nations refused to send their Olympic teams to the Moscow Olympics as a protest against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. Four years later, in a second Olympic boycott, the USSR and some of its allies refused to attend the Los Angeles Olympic Games.
* 1980/90s: Anti-Apartheid Boycotts: Many nations and groups refused to have financial dealings with South Africa when that country's racist 'apartheid' policy was in place. In addition, many nations refused to play some international sport against South African national teams and many international music groups refused to play for all-white venues such as Sun City.
* 1997: Baptists boycott Disney: Southern Baptists voted to boycott Disney, accusing its depiction of gays and violence as "anti-Christian and anti-family."'
source: THE OXFORD COMPANION OF UNITED STATES HISTORY
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 5:13pm Kache said:
c4Logic, are you aware of the current "boycott" in South America? The "Not Made In USA" label that is showing up on products made in South America to be sold outside the USA. Local manufacturers are simply giving consumers the ability to vote in the Amerikan economy with their wallets. Technically they call it "globalized democracy", the common folk call it "pay back time".
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 6:22pm slb said:
The Baptist boycott of Disney is an example of one that worked? At what point did Disney change its employment practices (because that's what the boycott was really about) or declare bankruptcy?
Likewise your example of the US boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Did it accomplish its objective and convince the Soviets to pull out of Afghanistan. No.
Effective boycotts may have been effective before the age of huge global corporations, but they're probably not going to be terribly effective these days, not unless it's against a small, local entity.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 12:52am NickDoe said:
Dislike c4logic's tone, but s/he's totally correct that a boycott is the most effective means of having an impact. Modern companies rely on continued maximal growth and profits. Even the slightest dent in that scares investors and causes stock fluctuations.
So yes, boycotting is sadly far more effective than democracy in many ways. It's pathetic, but makes sense when you think about it, we're largely a globalized, corporatized, plutocracracized world. In many ways commerce has superseded democracy. Money makes the world go round, it's all these people care about, which is why even a small boycott is tremendously effective.
Obviously one can't boycott critical things like water. However, one can most certainly not shop at the Walmarts of the world, or watch MSNBC for example. Also, it's best to notify advertisers directly that you don't like their practice of advertising on shoddy media outlets and that it effects whether you'll buy their products.
And for people who say they can't boycott optional consumption, I think they're just uninformed as to how much better they could improve their situation with a well placed boycott.
For just one of countless examples, if blacks unified around the common cause of the impoverished in NOLA, and if they boycotted media outlets that let Bush off the hook and all their advertisers, they’d throw those media outlets way into the red overnight, their stocks plummeting, as well as any advertisers fool enough to stick by them. All it would take is a spirit of unity, and for the NAACP or such to put out the word and maintain a boycott list, and the MSM would be tripping over itself to make amends.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 9, 2005 - 10:40am davcbr said:
Boycotts can work, but they have to be simple.
"..if blacks unified around the common cause of the impoverished in NOLA, and if they boycotted media outlets that let Bush off the hook and all their advertisers, they’d throw those media outlets way into the red overnight, ..."
You need to select one or two of the biggies. Say arbitrarily it is found that McDonalds has been advertising heavily on a certain outlet. Start with that. If you go after ALL the advertisers you are guaranteed to lose. It would probably be useful to look up corporate donations as part of a selection process. Then slowly add to the list, keeping it simple, and practical to follow. Offer alternatives.
dc
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:19pm Glaivester said:
As I recall, what the initial claim was was that Bush had suggested that the governor declare a mandatory evacuation. There was no indication that he was "begging."
If someone is trying to spin it into "he had to beg them to take any action," then, indeed that is a misrepresentatio n.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:32pm JC2 said:
The timeline should include the breaching of the levee. I recall Kevin Drum's site referring to a Washington Post article that stated the levee broke on Monday morning, and the US Corp of Engineers was aware of the breach. Makes sense since the storm caused the breach; it wasn't a delayed event.
Doesn't the US Corp of Engineers report to General Meyers and the Pentagon and the President? Shouldn't they all have reacted with great urgency on Monday morning to the doomsday event?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:38pm NickDoe said:
Yes, the timeline absolutly should include the breeching of the Levee, or more generally "the failing of the levee to handle a Cat 4 hurricaine" which was always predicted.
The relevant date is late Monday night, which is important because that highlights the fact that levees failed immediatly after, and possibly during the hurricaine event.
That obviously debunks the whole "second event nobody could have predicted" nonsense from Rove.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:50pm slb said:
The timeline should include the breaching of the levee.
There was more than one levee breach--there were at least three.
I've been trying to sort out the timing, but it's a little confused. The Times-Picayune web site mentioned on August 30th that the levee on the 17th Street Canal had been breached sometime late Monday morning (August 29th). This is the breach that flooded 40,000 homes in St. Bernard Parish, and is the first one I remember hearing about. Wikipedia, which has an excellent summary, says that the NO mayor mentioned the 17th Street Canal breach in an interview at 11 p.m. Monday night. It was also reported on CNN at 1:30 a.m. August 30th that the breach there was 2 blocks wide.
At 11 a.m. on August 29th, the National Weather Service reported a breach in the levee along the Industrial Canal. This is the one that flooded homes in the 9th Ward. (It's not clear to me whether the two levee breaches occured at roughly the same time, or whether this is actually the levee breach that the Times-Picayune was talking about on the 30th.) The Times-Picayune also says that the Industrial Canal levee was breached in two places.
According to Wikipedia, the floodwall along the London Avenue Canal was breached sometime on August 30th (Tuesday).
A Q&A on NPR's website says that all of these breaches were technically failures of the floodwalls on the tops of the levees (engineered only to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane), not breaches of the earthen levees themselves.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 6:48pm NickDoe said:
There was more than one levee breach--there were at least three.
Four actually AFAIK.
btw, I wrote levee thinking it was also the plural form as well? levees? How about dikes?
LOL. I really have no idea. Language always has been my worst subject, by a large margin which seems to be increasing over the years. Always been more comfortable with math, science, and the arts.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 5:51pm slb said:
Certainly four if you count both breaches in the Industrial Canal. At the time I wrote that e-mail, I wasn't sure whether there were actually two breaches in that floodwall, or just one, but it's now clear that there were, indeed, two.
btw, I wrote levee thinking it was also the plural form as well? levees? How about dikes?
Nope, "levee" is singular. Both "levees" and "dikes" are plural. Trust me, I'm a Southerner (though not from along the Mississippi).
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 9:29pm JC2 said:
This should have been posted here rather than further below:
Regarding the timing of the breaching of the levees:
The Washington Post reported:
"The Army Corps of Engineers learned that the levee had broken early Monday even as the storm hit, but it was impossible to do anything about it before lake water cascaded unimpeded into the below-sea-level city for 36 hours, turning a really bad storm into an unimaginable abomination. There was no public announcement that the levee had broken until late Monday."
http:// www.washingtonpo st.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/ 2005/09/02/A
R2005090202226_p f.html
So what did the President know and when did he know it?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 6:56am davcbr said:
I have to disagree with you, but the time line should not START at the levee breaches. It should start in 1995 when intial recommendations were made and work started on refurbishing the levees to withstand a realistic storm.
dc
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 5:53pm slb said:
The Washington Post reported:
Thanks! From what the Times-Picayune says, too, it appears that all of the levee failures may have occurred during the storm itself, and were only discovered later.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 5:42pm slb said:
Well, I said I found it difficult to sort out, and I have some corrections to post. There's a very nice timeline on the New York Times web site. (Click on the "Day by Day" tab there.) The map there makes it plain that St. Bernard Parish was flooded by the breaches in the Industrial Canal, not the 17th Street Canal, as I had seen on Wikipedia. One or both of those breaches were also the cause of the flooding in the 9th Ward. Flooding from the 17th Street Canal affected a smaller area, though much of the flooding from the Industrial Canal was in an area where flooding had already been predicted just from the hurricane, and the water from the 17th Street Canal may have flooded more deeply--in some places as much as 20 feet deep.
The NYT timeline has officials becoming aware of a breach of the levee along London Avenue Canal only on August 31 (Wednesday), but that may not mean it wasn't breached earlier. The first mention I see on the Times-Picayune site of flooding from the London Avenue Canal is at 8:32 p.m. on September 1, but the article says that engineers had determined that the breach in the floodwall along the 17th Street Canal had occurred in the course of the initial storm surge from the hurricane, and that they thought the same thing had happened to the London Avenue floodwall and "along segments of the Inner Harbor Navigation Channel that gave way and flooded Chalmette." (I'm not sure whether that is part of the London Avenue Canal, another name for the Industrial Canal, or something separate.)
The Times-Picayune article also puts paid to any notion that "nobody anticipated that the levees would fail." The engineers made plain that the floodwalls had only been designd to withstand a Cat 3 storm, and that it was fully expected that anything more would cause the floodwalls to fail. As, indeed, they did.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:34pm qwerty50 said:
This post is on fact and fictio, I will take opportunity to mention that the TPMCafe reader dogsoldier (hope I got that right) has found a timeline at the Thinkprogress blog, which seems to be very good and impartial (some very partial editorial content though!). But it seems to be most complete and too the point timeline I have seen. I'd post a link but I have a hard time even posting test, so will leave it at that. Dogoldier's link is at the Overheard in discussion area.
Interesting that (IMHO) the time line shows no obvious incompetence or negligence by Blanco, Nagin or Bush in terms of timing of announcements and decisions. I can see people arguing about whether Nagin should have ordered and evacuation Saturday when the storm was still category 3... rather than Sunday AM a few hours after it had been upgraded to 4 and 5 and became a very distinct threat to overwhelm local resources.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:47pm JT Davis said:
Here's the Think Progress Timeline:
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 6:07pm makeitstop said:
I wholeheartedly agree with memekiller about the 'weeding out' process-- these are the outlets we have. If people like you sever ties to them, the truth will never get out there.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:37pm timber said:
If there would be a real independent investigation, all htese will be exposed.
But with the news that only President Bush will do the investigation then nothing will come topass.
How come it seems that TRUTH is being subverted and Democrats are helpless to fight the lies.
Democrat leaders should have a WAR ROOM and fight lies aggressively.
America deserves better.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:38pm thelonius said:
We will soon be changing the national anthem to Deutschland Uber Alles
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:38pm thebes said:
The self- appointed emergency management expert on MSNBC has been spouting off everywhere - he even wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, repeating the same nonsense. Here's a list of his Katrina-related media appearances -
http:// www.effwa.org/ main/page.php
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:40pm djangone said:
Larry,
I've with you on this one because I've been following this meme since two days ago.
It started with an article Saturday, 8/28, by AP, in which Blanco is quoted as having said that Bush called to 'appeal' to her to evacuate. She volunteered the info that Bush called her. Kathryn Lopez at NRO's Corner cited it a week later apparently as an innocent meme-starter on Saturday 9/2. This was while Blanco was naive enough to be a team-player and credit Bush.
As a next step, Lopez either found or concocted an email from a reader two days ago to take it to the next step. Interesting that Lopez isn't brave enough to do it herself--she allows a 'reader' to do her lie-spreading. Here's the operative line:
Why did the President of the US have to call the Governor and plead with her to declare an emergency evacuation? [Emphasis mine.]
It might have been someone other than KLo who started the 'plead/beg' horseshit--I'm not sure. But the Corner is central, and so serves as a major, er, rectum. It's been fascinating to watch these things being born, rather like seeing the egg-pod room in 'Aliens.'
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:44pm djangone said:
And POW! David Brock has the full story. I should've read the link. Ah well, it was fun emailing back-and-forth with Lopez, that incredible liar.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:45pm Tinuviel said:
Larry,
Please don't stop appearing on the Keith Olberman show Countdown. He seems to be the only journalist left that is willing to tell the facts, please go on his show and tell it like it is.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:53pm JT Davis said:
I have noticed a bit of a difference in the daytime programming and the nightime segments on MSNBC.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:51pm dogsoldier said:
Excellent, Larry. You just keep pounding away at the media with the facts. You already know that I did the research on both Stafford and the NRP. And I agree: there may be areas where the Mayor and the Governor of NO/LA respectively could have done something different. However, I am of the opinion that, having done ALL of those things they needed to do (note: they were not required by the NRP), then faced with the catastrophe on their plate and those logistics, I believe that both officials, nay ALL officials in that state did as much as they possibly could before being overwhelmed.
I think these timelines are very important to debunk the Rove spin machine. There are many out in the ether right now; perhaps too many for BushCo to effectively contain. Something else I noticed:
I thought maybe I would take a peek into hostile territory, the RNC site. Blogging is at a standstill. Mehlmen is being overtaken by Katrina's consequences. The spin attempts are getting weaker and the primary blogs ignore the disaster entirely. They are all commentaries on Rehnquist and Roberts! Maybe this is a look into the tack the Repugs plan to take next. Maybe it's an avoidance response.
As distasteful as it is, I think I'll keep checking on the site. What is that saying? Fore-warned is fore-armed?
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:53pm cscs said:
Stunned, I asked her by what standard of journalism that an objective fact was mere opinion?
Larry, Larry...don't you know?
The problem is you're part of the "reality-based community."
Josh has posted the Media Matters rundown of the "pleading" lie. They do a nice job showing how a call from Bush to Blanco morphs into Bush's pleading to Nagin.
Of course, Media Matters is part of the reality-based community, too, and cannot be trusted.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 2:55pm NickDoe said:
Larry- That is the best and most concise timeline I've yet seen. Kudos.
Most importantly it targets a specific audience i.e. those vulnerable to disinformation, those not reading the news comprehensively. It strategically picks specific facts to set the record straight and de-spin them. Those facts are pivotal, the most damning, and those which the administration would most like to spin/obscure.
That timeline doesn’t burden the reader with a comprehensive rehash of known or uncontroversial issues. It's the perfect size for general public consumption and focused on counterattacking MSM and governmental spin.
That is EXACTLY what the liberal blogosphere needs far more of:
Rapid response on pivotal facts to de-spin the Rovian BS. It needs to be spammed everywhere across the blogosphere to force MSM attention.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:03pm Memekiller said:
The saddest part is this seems to be an example of the weeding out process. People like Larry leave in disgust, while those with a high tolerance for dishonesty and lying to their viewership remain on the contact list. The guys who get to offer their opinions have to first demonstrate a cooperativeness with the disinformation setup.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:15pm global yokel said:
"The Bush White House is furiously spinning to lay the blame on the Governor and Mayor of Louisiana."
Larry,
You might want to correct the line above by referring to the Mayor of New Orleans. Otherwise, you'll end up sounding as clueless as Michael Chertoff.
But great work, and keep it coming. Appreciate your courage in telling MSNBC to take a hike.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:28pm Notrol said:
Larry-
In comments to adamsj's rant's about the WaPo being spun by the "anonymous administration source" about Gov. Blanco, I replied thusly:
"The MSM isn't willing to take the risk that their "sources" might cut them off from any more "news" fodder.These corporatized vultures are afraid to commit to the dirty, disgusting, hard work of living up to what the fourth estate is supposed to represent- the unerring eye of truth and light being focused on the dim, back room dealings of these political hacks.
It's not in their business plan."
He replied, talking about the WaPo losing "credibility" and being distinct from the MSM.
My reply was, and still is, IMHO, applicable to all the "news outlets" which NBC and MSNBC seem so proud of proclaiming themselves:
"adamsj-
MSM is used in reference to the WaPo and the NY Times because they are the source for much of what passes as journalism in SmallTown, USA. Many of the "reporters" in these small town newspapers quote the story and add their own little bit of "local" reaction' but never report the error.
The constant refrain of the right-wing as to the 'liberal media" nature of the NY Times points out the strawman- Wasn't Judith Miller, using her "sources" the "Patient Zero" of the plague of false reporting about Iraq? Have you seen any more a mea culpa from the Times other that in "hindsight" they probably should have been more rigorous? Are they not defending her "right" to keep confidential sources (read: liars) covered up? I submit that in helping her in that endeavor they are complicit in the propaganda and are afraid not of poisoning their sources, but of revealing the true nature of their use of those sources.
We're not talking about a small subset organ like The Nation (no offense, Ms. Vanden Heuval) or The Weekly Standard (eat my shorts, Kristol), but a source viewed worldwide as significant as Reuters or AP in their reference and quotability.
"Management" of an enterprise uses these sources like cheap labor. The failure to demand fact checking and multiple sources by a reporter is simply viewed as a cost-containment measure. As long as the retraction is "published", their complicity in the propaganda is never questioned, and they always have a ready source of "news".
I somewhat disagree that most reportage "burns" to report the truth. Now that many of the individual reporters see a career path to punditry through the 24hr news cycle on broadcast and cable, few (like maybe Sy Hersh and MoDo) continue to get called on after pushing their points home. If a reporter is even halfway telegenic, the rewards help temper (read:co-opt) their judgment. The meltdowns this week might best be described as taking a "reality shower'. Many (specially the Fox clowns) acted like a drunk thrown into a cold shower, finally rising to near consciousness and realizing their situation."
Larry, maybe I'm just jaded, but I think their "viewpoint" is all about not pissing off the hand that's feeding them, no matter what kind of shit they're being fed.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 4:03pm dogsoldier said:
That was one of the best rebuttals I've ever read, Notrol! If you're jaded, then it's my hallucination, too.
For what it's worth, CNN's caffertyfile@cnn .com
is asking for opinions on the media. The overwhelming remarks are in the direction of thinking that the media's come back to what they are supposed to be. Poor saps.
You ought to send cafferty a copy of your excellent e-mail, Notrol.
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:31pm dogsoldier said:
I don't know how many might see this on my little blog, so I'm copying it here. Forgive me Larry but you have quite a few people who will read you over me.
Just seen on CNN, a bit from a press conference with Pelosi at another event last night. Pelosi stated that wqhen she asked President Bush why he did not fire (FEMA's) Brown, Bush replied, Well, why would I do that?"
Pelosi replied to Bush's question with, "because of all the things that went wrong there!". To which Bush replied, "What went wrong?"
This upset Pelosi to the point of commenting after the relay that "He was just oblivious; dangerous!"
That is one very pissed off lady. In fact, it looks like the women are doing a much better job of "representing" for the public than the Democratic males.
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 4:19pm Progressive Plowman said:
Dogsoldier, its probably my inability to use the index correctly, but I couldn't find your original blog with this. Could you give me the link?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:49pm dogsoldier said:
Dogsoldier, its probably my inability to use the index correctly, but I couldn't find your original blog with this. Could you give me the link?
Sorry to reply so late. I had to go offline before I got struck again by lightning here (would have been the fourth time!) Anyway, my little blog was cut and pasted entirely on this comments thread, because I thought it might get lost in the ether. It's not much but I typed as fast as I could while I watched Pelosi crucify Bush. It was BEAUTIFUL!
So, what you've already seen is what I got and what was broadcast. Strangely, I haven't seen it repeated by CNN yet. Can Rove get to them, too?
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 9:22pm dogsoldier said:
For any of you interested in the video clip of Nancy Pelosi stating Bush is "dangerous", among other things, you can see it here.
It's very short but very sweet. This lady has my attention!
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:33pm SamChevre said:
Larry--maybe you or someone here will know this--I'm trying to figure out if it's spin or fact.
Does a state of emergency enable the Federal government to coordinate the local and state responses (including National Guard)? One "fact" I keep hearing is that the Federal government didn't have/couldn't get authority to coordinate the response, which had to come from Blanco.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:55pm dogsoldier said:
Does a state of emergency enable the Federal government to coordinate the local and state responses (including National Guard)? One "fact" I keep hearing is that the Federal government didn't have/couldn't get authority to coordinate the response, which had to come from Blanco.
Very simple answer is Yes, if it is an an emergency of "national significance". That kind of incident would be one in which the local authorities would be anticipated to be overwhelmed rapidly, or unable to respond. Please note that at ANY time in which ANY member of the Cabinet feels that federal interests might be impacted, they can issue the marching orders to FEMA, as it stands now under the DHS and NRP. (See also Stafford Act)
Just an aside: I see the Repugs have pulled Bill Frist back into the fold. They now have him spouting the "local, state, federal" meme. There goes one small (very) ray of hope.
ds
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:36pm kuvasz said:
In the words of Homer J. Simpson:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
Nice Work Mr. Johnson and all who are hitting back with the facts anfd the truth about the bushevik's deriliction of duty and gross negligence.
time line anyone?
http:// www.thinkprogres s.org/katrina- timeline
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 3:52pm Progressive Plowman said:
Larry, I agree wholeheartedly with Tinuviel, please don't stop appearing on Keith Olberman's Countdown. I try to watch Matthews occassionaly, but I usually have to turn it off, seeing how big of a media trollop he's become.
How is it that a guy that spent most of his career as a sports reporter asks the best questions and has the most intelligent commentary on television. My wife and I saw his heartfelt editorial Monday night. Why aren't the others saying anything even remotely similar.
All Americans SHOULD be wanting to know the truth, and not standing for anything less. As a native of the region, at times I want more than that, but we all have fantasies, right?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:04pm c4Logic said:
JDaSilvaJr,
History has demonstrated that boycotts actually work quite well. But they only work when people make a commitment. When people, such as yourself, dismiss them as useless, and refuse to participate, no organization can occur. But organization is the key to every political success. It is the secret of the Republican success. It was the secret of the original success of the labor movement, before it was co-opted and infiltrated by organized crime. And there you have it: organized crime. What is more efficient that the organization of the Russian Mafia and the Columbian cartel? Organization is key, and boycotts DO work.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 5:15pm Superannuated P... said:
taylorm writes: As for President Bush, well, Bill Kristol and others seem to be seeing the flood waters at their own door:
"Almost every Republican I have spoken with is disappointed" in Bush's response to the disaster. "He is a strong president...but he has never really focused on the importance of good execution. I think that is true in many parts of his presidency." Well I don't know what has happened to Bush. He was certainly good at execution when he was Governor.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 6:28pm bear2k said:
I had to stop reading this column. Why does everyone want to blame Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin? These were honest, hardworking Demoncrats who had to fight against the bush administration for assistance. The ONLY person to blame is Bush! It was he and his rich appointed friends that purposely left NO to drown! After all, poor, hardworking blacks don't vote Republican! Why should they? The GOP is a biased, hate filled organization that sees blacks as slaves to rich white people. So Bush had no reason to try to rescue thousands of black Democrats. That's why he stayed on vacation after everyone could see what was happening. He didn't care. And I seriously doubt there is any truth to the lies that Bush did ANYTHING before Katrina hit. He didn't want to do anything afterwards! So why can't people see that, and stop wasting even one minute assuming Blanco and Nagin had even a tiny part to do in this tragedy? Should the facts come out (doubt they do, but you never know) I bet it will show ZERO percent of the blame on the La. gov, or New Orleans mayor. Hopefully some people will wise up to THOSE facts!
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 6:57pm west coaster said:
Larry,
Thanks for the excellent post and links.
I have been extremely displeased with the news media for allowing themselves to be bullied by the Bush administration and timid reporting on Iraq and other issues and not asking the tough questions. Some like the News Hour try like crazy to be fair and impartial yet in the process they seem as misleading because again they don’t seem to ask the tough questions and I think the News Hour is one of the better broadcast news programs.
I know this sounds corny but the news media is or should be a cornerstone in any democracy. If the public is continuously fed misleading reporting because of fear of reprisal, which it definitely is due the simple fact that the news media is owned by large corporations that are beholding to Bush then the truth will be a rare bird indeed.
I really admire you for having ideals and sticking to them, another rarity.
Keep up the great work.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:10pm NYCmoderate said:
I know most here will like the source of this timeline, but it is detailed and provides links for everything. Timeline
If nothing else, it's a good way to get links in order to fill in other timelines.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:10pm NYCmoderate said:
will not. That should have said, will not like the source... Oy.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 7:04pm slb said:
will not. That should have said, will not like the source... Oy.
I figured that was what you meant. But actually, I was impressed that the guy seemed intent on getting the sequence of events right and letting the chips fall where they might, even if he did focus a lot on looting and the school buses.
And I was also surprised to see this at the end:
This was a failure of leadership and competence. But it was also a failure of will. And for that, you need look no farther than the mirror in your bathroom, dearest readers. We elected this crew. We elected the Congresses over the past 25 years – Democratic and Republican – that failed to do the things necessary to make New Orleans safer.
Elections have consequences. Consider that fact the next time you pull the curtain in the booth to cast your vote. If nothing else, the aftermath of this tragedy reminds us of that, then perhaps something worthwhile will have been learned.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 6:59pm slb said:
I saw this on that blog dated today; I wonder if it's a result of your link <g>:
NOTE: My little hosting company has not been able to keep up with the monster traffic this site has recieved in the last 18 hours. If you have trouble leaving a comment or if the page is slow loading, I apologize.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:49pm FlyDog said:
BBC-WGBH radio's World Update had the Evergreen Foundation's Bob Williams on this morning with the same sort of comment. They now have him supplying their Quote of the day:
The Governor of Louisiana had available the National Guard. She didn't do anything. She didn't send any vehicles in. She didn't send the National Guard in. It took the action of the Federal Government to say "Get Movin'!" http:// www.bbc.co.uk/ worldservice/ programmes/ worldupdate
He also went on at length about 400 buses that he said could've been used to aid the evacuation but were in his view left idle by what he asserted was a slow mobilization by Mayor Nagin. Even assuming that's all true, 400 buses packed with 50 people each is 20,000 seats, about 4% of the New Orleans population. Sure that would've been nice to have, but in the big picture it's a rhetorical talking point, not a make-or-break part of the Katrina story. And that's assuming that Mr. Williams wasn't spinning the facts to bolster his talking point.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 7, 2005 - 7:56pm JC2 said:
Regarding the timing of the breaching of the levees:
The Washington Post reported:
"The Army Corps of Engineers learned that the levee had broken early Monday even as the storm hit, but it was impossible to do anything about it before lake water cascaded unimpeded into the below-sea-level city for 36 hours, turning a really bad storm into an unimaginable abomination. There was no public announcement that the levee had broken until late Monday."
http:// www.washingtonpo st.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/ 2005/09/02/A
R2005090202226_p f.html
So what did the President know and when did he know it?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 12:13am dtlc said:
My position is that I think both the Governor and the Mayor can be faulted on a variety of fronts. I do not absolve them of their responsibility to properly and fully implement their own emergency response plans.
Ah - blame Pres. Bush, blame Pres. Bush, and blame Pres Bush. Can you point out 10 things that
(a) the mayor failed to do?
(b) the governor failed to do?
If you can't , let me know and I will give you specific abject failures. Or even worse.
Oh, please don't mention the corruption in New Orleans. Its just a propaganda. And please don't mention that the city and the state have been run by Dems for very long time.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 1:59am MrMurder said:
Federal oversight is the issue. Hey- they didn't help evacuate the poor in Mississippi or Alabama either, lucky for them no levee that held back a 20 mile wide lake was being neglected to steal money for Halliburton in Oilraq. The closest guy they have to FEMA lost his mom staying his post of duty in Jefferson Parish. He was still waiting on fed assistance too.
The attempt to blame the mayor and governor is crap when you compare the same amount of negligence applied to other states. It's really quite damning. That could have been my family if the river was high and he'd wait five fucking days to show up?
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 3:24pm jonnybutter said:
Oh, please don't mention the corruption in New Orleans.
Oh, please don't mention corruption in Washington DC, which is so pervasive as to be the very stuff of which this government is made.
Yer doin' a heckova job, Brownie.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 1:47am TCatTAFM said:
Larry:
Thanks for the evidence that confirms what that very great screenwriter, Paddy Chayevsky - author of "Network" - once said when asked if he was writing a warning of what might happen:
"Hell no! I'm writing about what you can see every night! The here and now!"
And that was 30 years ago, and he was right (for those who wanted to look). Nowadays, it's been going on so long that the Susan Durrwatcher's of this world think it's the way things are (and unfortunately, she's right).
The day that news departments became "profit centers" for the Corporations that own the networks, they stopped being "news" departments.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 2:24am Sara said:
Against the Rove and Republican Noise Machine and its allies, what is needed in the very near future is something like the Jersey Girls -- or the Pan Am Families association -- that can symbolically carry the demand for an independent commission of Inquiry similar to the 911 Commission. You have to have a core group that can serve as representatives and spokespersons for the demand.
I don't know who could organize it -- but there have been enough celebrities in NO this week who probably understand how to build such a group, and could raise the money necessary to get things started. People who can be symbols of the wreck of the New Orleans Community would need to be diverse, and focused on a couple of straightforward objectives -- a Commission, a proper staff, Independence and power to subpoena, an inclusive set of questions regarding accountability of many agencies and individuals.
I was listening to CNN when they first broadcast the news about the rising water. The source was the Director of Tulaine University Hospital, and she was measuring the rate at which the water was rising in the Hospital -- Hospital being a few blocks from the Superdome. It was a live interview -- CNN did some additional sourcing, and less than an hour later reported that they had at least three independent sources, but had been unable to raise a comment from the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees flood walls and Levees and Dykes. At first light they got a Helicopter view. By that time they had an expert on hand who could do calculations about the flow and predict how much of New Orleans would be underwater. One thing the investigation needs to deal with is whether the Corps of Engineers had anything at all in place to inspect the levees and flood walls -- and any sort of radio system that could report breeches. I rather doubt it -- it was one of the weaknesses of the Corps during the Upper Mississippi floods back in the 90's.
Mississippi Flood Lore is full of stories of criminal breeches of the Levees. I rather doubt if there has been a serious flood when it didn't happen at least once. So don't be surprised....... In general you protect property by breeching the levee opposite the property you wish to protect.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 7:07am dalaimama said:
I don't know if the NRP PDF file has been changed since you posted this, but there is no page 93 in the plan--it's an appendix of acronyms--and no figure 11 exists before the glossaries and appendices.
The closest I could find was on page 65, figure 10.
I'd love to know I'm looking at what you wanted us to see.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 8:35am stitch said:
No amount of inaction or incompetence on the part of the city, the state, or santa clause can excuse the federal government for their legally mandated and moral obligation to respond to disasters of national significance. Once again the Republican smokescreen strategy of "deflect and smear" comes into play. The only difference is that this time tagically there are hundreds or possibly thousands of dead, mostly African American, bodies that are going to be tough for the administration to hide from the American public.
While it will not make much difference to Fox and Friends bunch who are too busy with their crisis spin game, there may be at least a handful of decent Americans who, in spite of there best efforts to support the administration, cannot stomach the results. The question is whether the outrage can last longer than the press coverage.
login or register to post comments | link |
Not yet rated.
On September 8, 2005 - 2:17pm jonnybutter said:
'Durrwatcher'?
Outlets like MSNBC are dedicated to making as many people as possible 'durrwatchers'.
tpmcafe.com |
