The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Orlean

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Why we couldn’t save the people of New Orleans




Scene outside the Convention Center after spending four days in squalor after Hurricane Katrina.

Bubbling up from the flood that destroyed New Orleans are images, beamed around the world, of America's original and continuing sin: the shabby, contemptuous treatment this country metes out, decade after decade, to poor people in general and the descendants of African slaves in particular. The world sees New Orleans burning and dying today, but the televised anarchy - the shooting and looting, needless deaths, helpless rage and maddening governmental incompetence - was centuries in the making.

To the casual viewer, the situation is an incomprehensible mess that raises questions about the intelligence, sanity and moral worth of those trapped in the city. Why didn't those people evacuate before the hurricane? Why don't they just walk out of town now? And why should anyone care about people who are stealing and fighting the police?

That hard, unsympathetic view is the traditional American response to the poverty, ignorance and rage that afflict many of us whose great-great-grandparents once made up the captive African slave labor pool. In far too many cities, including New Orleans, the marching orders on the front lines of American race relations are to control and contain the very poor in ghettos as cheaply as possible; ignore them completely if possible; and call in the troops if the brutes get out of line.

By almost every statistical measure, New Orleans is a bad place to be poor. Half the city's households make less than $28,000 a year, and 28% of the population lives in poverty.

In the late 1990s, the state's school systems ranked dead last in the nation in the number of computers per student (1 per 88), and Louisiana has the nation's second-highest percentage of adults who never finished high school. By the state's own measure, 47% of the public schools in New Orleans rank as "academically unacceptable."

And Louisiana is the only one of the 50 states where the state legislature doesn't allocate money to pay for the legal defense of indigent defendants. The Associated Press reported this year that it's not unusual for poor people charged with crimes to stay in jail for nine months before getting a lawyer appointed.

These government failures are not merely a matter of incompetence. Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption: as former congressman Billy Tauzin once put it, "half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment."

That's putting it mildly. Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes (Mississippi is No. 1). Recent scandals include the conviction of 14 state judges and an FBI raid on the business and personal files of a Louisiana congressman.

In 1991, a notoriously corrupt Democrat named Edwin Edwards ran for governor against Republican David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards, whose winning campaign included bumper stickers saying "Elect the Crook," is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for taking bribes from casino owners. Duke recently completed his own prison term for tax fraud.

The rot included the New Orleans Police Department, which in the 1990s had the dubious distinction of being the nation's most corrupt police force and the least effective: the city had the highest murder rate in America. More than 50 officers were eventually convicted of crimes including murder, rape and robbery; two are currently on Death Row.

The decision to subject an entire population to poverty, ignorance, injustice and government corruption as a way of life has its ugly moments, as the world is now seeing. New Orleans officials issued an almost cynical evacuation order in a city where they know full well that thousands have no car, no money for airfare or an interstate bus, no credit cards for hotels, and therefore no way to leave town before the deadly storm and flood arrived.

The authorities provided no transportation out of the danger zone, apparently figuring the neglected thousands would somehow weather the storm in their uninsured, low-lying shacks and public housing projects. The poor were expected to remain invisible at the bottom of the pecking order and somehow weather the storm.

But the flood confounded the plan, and the world began to see a tide of human misery rising from the water - ragged, sick, desperate and disorderly. Some foraged for food, some took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes. All in all, they acted exactly the way you could predict people would act who have been locked up in a ghetto for generations.

The world also saw the breezy indifference with which government officials treated these tens of thousands of sick and dying citizens, even as the scope of the disaster became clear. President Bush initially shunned the Gulf Coast and headed to political fund-raisers in the West.

That left matters in the bumbling hands of the director of emergency management, Michael Brown, who ranks No. 1 on the list of officials who ought to be fired when the crisis has passed. Even as local officials were publicly reporting assaults, fires and bedlam at local hospitals, Brown took to the airwaves to declare that "things are going well" as mayhem engulfed the city. When asked about the rising death toll, Brown attributed it to "people who did not heed the advance warnings." Brown's smug ignorance of the conditions of the place he was tasked to save became the final door slammed on the trap that tens of thousands of the city's poorest found themselves.

The challenge for America is to remember the faces of the evacuees who will surely be ushered back into a black hole of public indifference as soon as the White House and local officials can manage it. While pledging ourselves to remember their mistreatment and fight for their cause, we should also be sure to cast a searching, skeptical eye on the money that Bush has pledged for rebuilding.

Ten billion dollars are about to pass into the sticky hands of politicians in the No. 1 and No. 3 most corrupt states in America. Worried about looting? You ain't seen nothing yet.
 

Martin Le Acadien

Electoral Member
Sep 29, 2004
454
0
16
Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
RE: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

Pretty good insight with a few reservations, being in Louisiana we say we have the best politicians money can buy!

Heads are being called for by Anglo White, African American, Acadian French (Cajuns), Creole, Chinese and 60 other various ethnic groups who make up Louisiana Gumbo mixture! Our shame now is focused on the the Rita Nursing Home Massacre!

Stay tuned, more out of Louisiana!

Hurry up Canadian Navy!!!!
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

Our shame now is focused on the the Rita Nursing Home Massacre!


this nursing home travesty is the result of the very faulty system. It is the system that should be bearing the shame. Not the people,.......as they are true victims here.

It is "shameful" to hear the evacuees called refugees ......in their own home country. The limitations in thinking and mentality are painfully obvious. ( within the system......from the ground up.... but mainly at the top.....as this is a major event...../federal level natural event.)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: The ugly truth Why we

The phrases "internally displaced persons" and "internal refugees" are used interchangeably. The fact is that these people are refugees living in refugee camps. Not only that, but they are what is known as environmental refugees. That's as opposed to refugees from conflict.

I think they should be called what they are. Changing the terminology because something happened to a first world country instead of a third world country carries the stench of xenophobia with it.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: The ugly truth Why we

Reverend Blair said:
The phrases "internally displaced persons" and "internal refugees" are used interchangeably. The fact is that these people are refugees living in refugee camps. Not only that, but they are what is known as environmental refugees. That's as opposed to refugees from conflict.

I think they should be called what they are. Changing the terminology because something happened to a first world country instead of a third world country carries the stench of xenophobia with it.

I see your point. Why could they not simply be addressed as "evacuees"???? Give them a little dignity.......(something seriously lacking in all of this.) just a wee thought... :wink:

But then the impoverished , transient etc in "third world " countries are allowed no dignity either..

hmmm. and it does emphasize the stark contrasts between the obscenely wealthy.......and the other end of the spectrum... A nation of Xtremes.......in more ways than one. (or just its current gov't.)


just remembered that POVERTY was a key topic at the G-8 convention........ ( Africa's poverty). Someone forgot to put American poverty on the agenda , it seems.. :x :(
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

I see your point. Why could they not simply be addressed as "evacuees"???? Give them a little dignity.......(something seriously lacking in all of this.) just a wee thought...

Which is why the UN and other international agencies refer to them as displaced persons, either internal or external, most of the time. It is the press that uses the term refugee. Displaced person is the language of international diplomacy. Refugee is the language of the press. I don't think we should change either just because of where this happened.

hmmm. and it does emphasize the stark contrasts between the obscenely wealthy.......and the other end of the spectrum... A nation of Xtremes.......in more ways than one. (or just its current gov't.)

That division has always been there to some extent. Since the end of World War Two, and especially since 1980, the gap between rich and poor has been growing though. That's happened more in the US than in Canada, but it has happened in both countries.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: The ugly truth Why we

So then why were the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo called refugees when they were displaced by flooding? That happened at about the same time as Katrina btw. Didn't get much play on the news though.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

Here's one for the Hypocrisy Hall of Fame: At the same time the administration is putting Karl Rove's "pin-the-blame-on-the-locals" plan into effect, President Bush told reporters gathered at a cabinet meeting today, "I think that one of the things that people want us to do here is play a blame game. We've got to solve problems. We're problem solvers. There will be ample time for people to figure out what went right and what went wrong. What I'm interested in is helping save lives."

How noble. A week and thousands of lives too late... but noble. He makes it sound as if anyone interested in trying to figure out what went so horribly wrong in the aftermath of Katrina is somehow impeding the recovery. As if we can't help the victims and analyze the debacle at the same time. As if any time spent by reporters ferreting out the truth -- and by Congress overseeing -- would otherwise be spent tossing sandbags on the levee, disinfecting the Superdome, or driving evacuees to Houston.

As if those seeking answers will have blood on their hands.

That's certainly the ominous rhetorical tack being taken by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. He's all about moving forward, and not looking back (which isn't surprising given how many corpses he'd see in his personal rear-view mirror). "What would be a horrible tragedy," he said, "would be to distract ourselves from avoiding further problems because we're spending time talking about problems that have already occurred." Gee, Mr. Secretary, I thought that was called 'learning from your mistakes.'

So the White House is for time management and against "finger-pointing" -- a two-talking-points-for-the-price-of-one Chertoff scored when he asked, "What do you want to have us spend our time on now? Do we want to make sure we are feeding, sheltering, housing, and educating those who are distressed, or do we want to begin the process of finger-pointing?" Well, when you put it that way...

Also receiving the time management/finger-pointing memo were White House spokesman Scott McClellan, WH communications director Dan Bartlett, and former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh:

"This is not a time for finger-pointing or playing politics," said Scotty.

"I know a lot of people right now want to point fingers and criticize, but people should keep their powder dry," said Allbaugh.

"If we focused more of our attention on decisions that have already been made, rather than those before us, there's potential for making far greater mistakes... We really don't have time to play the political game right now," echoed Bartlett.

With that kind of message discipline, how long before the media start parroting the party line? With a few brave exceptions like Jack Cafferty, the correct answer would be... right about now. "Not a great time for finger pointing is it?" asked Miles O'Brien on CNN's American Morning. "When you hear it's not the right time to point the finger, doesn't that seem reasonable?" asked anchor Carol Costello a few hours later on CNN's Daybreak .

Now, it's bad enough when the media start carrying the administration's water (especially when it's as fetid as the toxic muck still covering New Orleans), but it's much, much worse when the opposition's leaders grab a bucket and join in. "Our government failed those people in the beginning," said Bill Clinton. "And I personally believe there should be a serious analysis of it...but I don't think we should do it now. I think that in a few weeks, we should have some sort of Katrina commission. It should be bipartisan, non-partisan, whatever..." Exactly: "Whatever." As in: Who gives a crap, because it will have about the same impact as all these too-long-after-the-fact commissions have -- next to none. Who knows, maybe this time President Bush will be willing to actually testify under oath -- and without Dick Cheney. Or maybe Mike Brown will pull a Condi and let it slip about a "historical" PDB entitled "FEMA Determined to Strike Out in NO."

President Clinton's helpful assertion was quickly picked up by the President's father who used it as a cudgel against anyone trying to (if you'll pardon the expression) "point the finger" at his son: "People want to blame someone... I thought President Clinton put it pretty well today when he said, 'Let's get on with it and then there'll be plenty of time to assign blame.'"

Look, if we've learned anything from watching shows like CSI, Law & Order , and their endless progeny, it's that you can't let a crime scene grow cold. You've got to start collecting and analyzing the evidence while the DNA is still fresh and let David Caruso or Vincent D'Onofrio start sweating the perps while the passions are still running high.

And make no mistake, what we saw go down -- and not go down -- in New Orleans was definitely a crime... a crime that is in many ways still in progress. Sixty percent of the city remains underwater; up to 160,000 homes in the state of Louisiana have been submerged or destroyed; 60 to 90 million tons of solid waste need to be cleaned up; experts warn that it make take "years" to fully restore clean drinking water; and an outbreak of vibrio vulnificus -- a cholera-like bacterial disease -- has been reported among some Katrina evacuees.

This is clearly going to be a very long recovery process. And the sooner we've identified those responsible for the Katrina tragedy, the sooner we can make sure they're not around to screw up the recovery.

So, yes, now is precisely the time for assessing blame. Let a thousand pointed fingers bloom!

(from A. Huttington's articles.)
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

The people of NOLA could easily have been saved.

Former Senator Breaux appeared on the Charlie Rose Show where he discussed the tragic situation in that city. His two adult children escaped because they have their own cars but it took them 12 hours to do so. Unfortunately, there is no proper infrastructure in place to mobilize the vast majority of the poorer classes. But this is something that we could have had years ago if the politicians prioritized the nation's infrastructure rather than the promotion of corporate welfare.

The first step would have been to create bullet trains. These could mobilize thousands of people within minutes. Step two was to create safe houses or camps where displaced persons could easily be housed for temporary periods. Thirdly, breakers and concrete/steel enforced seawalls would have held back the waters so that floods would not have occurred --- even an earthquake couldn't take those things down! Instead of creating these things, the government gave multiples of billions of dollars to the highway lobby and to other corporate welfare recipients.

The loss of those precious lives in NOLA was preventable. But in the USA it's the corporate welfare receiving elitists who matter the most to the politicians. The poor are priority ZERO as far as those sons of bitches is concerned.
 

GL Schmitt

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2005
785
0
16
Ontario
Re: RE: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of Ne

Martin Le Acadien said:
Last week while we were "evacuted" we got very upset to be called "refugees" !
Evacuee is theproper term here in Louisiana.
On another board, I got upset over media calling "scavengers" amongst the survivors "looters".
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

Like a monkey that has been bitten by a scorpion, the doltish can always be counted upon to entertain the dull-witted with irrelevant chatter following a major crisis. So it is with the catastrophe in New Orleans, as partisan political interests oppose one another on such questions as were Republicans or Democrats more to blame; whether federal, state, or municipal governments were most at fault; or did race or economic factors make for disparate treatment? As Thomas Pynchon so aptly expressed it: “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

One of the most important questions – going to the perverse nature of our institutionalized world – occurred in the recent flooding in New Orleans. It grossly understates the significance of this tragedy to focus attention only upon the utter failure of state and federal government agencies to respond. Standing alone, the sheer incompetence of government agencies and officials in the days following the flooding resembled the comic-opera buffoonery of a Marx Brothers film. That Jon Stewart’s insightful “The Daily Show” was the only newscast capable of putting such behavior in perspective, tells us much about the fallen state of our culture.

The speed and scope of private responses to this devastation contrasted with those of the political establishment, reflecting not simply the greater efficiency of spontaneously ordered systems, but fundamental differences in purpose. Millions of individuals from all over the world began sending food, clothing, blankets, fuel, money, water, medical supplies, and other life-and-death necessities to flooding victims. Homeowners from across the country went online to pledge over 150,000 beds to help house those whose homes had been destroyed. In the San Fernando Valley, one woman e-mailed to people that she would be collecting such items at a given location for trucking to the victims. Her e-mails were, in turn, forwarded to others and, in three days time, six truckloads of relief supplies were collected. Such experiences have been repeated manifold, with individuals, businesses, churches, and private charities voluntarily coming to the rescue of total strangers. The disaster in the Gulf Coast is an object lesson in how compassionate and cooperative we can be toward one another when our thinking has not been infected by politically-contrived and manipulated conflicts.

The responses of the state stand in stark contrast to those of individuals. From the moment government officials awoke to the enormity of the disaster – a number of days after private persons had already begun their shipments of aid – their principal purpose has been not to aid, comfort, and rescue the victims, but to establish their authority and control over them. Political systems have always served as strange attractors to the control freaks and other misfits who have never become socially housebroken. People express surprise that government didn’t come to the aid of stricken people sooner. But aiding people is not what government is about; that is the function of the marketplace and other voluntary activity. The state is about menacing, threatening, commandeering, and killing. You will not see mayors, senators, governors, or even presidents, wading through waist-deep waters to rescue a trapped family: their functions are confined to holding press conferences and muttering platitudes.

Control is what the state has always been about. If you doubt this, consider the words of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, who declared that National Guard “troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets.” She added: “They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.”

Or consider the words of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expressing what, by now, has become the underlying motto of his police-state agency: “We are in control of what’s going on in the city.” Add to this the words of one National Guard general who decreed: “We’re going to go out and take this city back. This will be a combat operation to get this city under control.”

From whom will the city be “taken back,” and to what ends? Those who have learned their political catechisms from the television priesthood will speak of “looters,” without distinguishing those stealing food and water from stores in order to survive, and without asking whether this will include a crackdown on the police officers and firemen who reportedly joined in the stealing of television sets, computers, and other valuables. Perhaps getting “this city under control” includes continuing to interfere with such voluntary efforts as Red Cross deliveries of food, Wal-Mart’s shipment of water, and physicians offering to come to New Orleans to help the sick and injured. This purpose may also explain why FEMA cut emergency communications lines from New Orleans, an action reversed by the local sheriff who then placed guards around the facility.

And where, in any of the draconian rhetoric being barked by these martinets, is even an oblique reference made to ending the suffering that has now run for two weeks? While men and women were graciously opening their homes to flood victims, state officials were locking people inside crowded, smelly convention centers and domed stadiums. While individuals were fighting the bureaucratic red tape that prevented the flow of assistance, National Guard troops were employing automatic weapons to menace dispirited flood victims. Navy helicopter pilots who deviated from their assigned roles and rescued more than 100 victims, were reprimanded for having done so and, in the process, had the state’s priorities reinforced upon them.

A police chief ordered his officers to block a bridge to prevent people from leaving the city, with some policemen firing warning shots over the heads of tourists trying to get out. Meanwhile, residents who wanted to stay in their homes were being forcibly removed – handcuffed and at gunpoint – while homeowners were having their guns confiscated in what some might suppose was a practice run for a subsequent disarming of Americans. All of this was, of course, defended in that most Rousseauian notion: “We’re trying to save them from themselves.”

“Lock and load,” and “sixteen in the clip,” were oft-heard phrases coming from National Guard soldiers, one of whom put everything in perspective: “It’s like Baghdad all over again.” To the state, the victims of a flood – like the victims of American aggression in Iraq – are “insurgents” to be brought under control. “They treated us like dirt,” one woman reported, words that have come to represent human responses to police and military behavior anywhere in the world.

It is interesting – albeit not pleasant – to observe a civilization in freefall. Panglossian optimists continue to hope – as they would at the death-bed of a loved one – for a miracle to reverse the terminal course. The belief that someone in authority can change all of this; that new leadership or new machinery can make us better than we are, continues to drive minds that have been conditioned in institutional thinking. Most of us have simply accepted, with little examination, the statist premise so well articulated by Jacques Ellul: “[w]e believe that for the world to be in good order, the state must have all the powers.” “Waiting For a Leader,” the title of a New York Times editorial written in response to New Orleans, reflects the same pathetic attitude one saw on the faces of victims at the convention center in New Orleans. This inclination is as fatal to a society as it is to those who passively await salvation by the state.

Western civilization will not be saved by the same forces that are destroying it. Einstein said it best: “a problem cannot be solved by the same thinking that created it.” Neocons and other deluded minds continue to dream of empire, as though the arrow of time can be reversed and, in the process, resurrect the fantasized world of Roman emperors or Napoleon. While the pretenders at various Washington, D.C. think-tanks continue to fancy themselves in purple and ermine robes, the realities upon which the world functions will continue their incessant march toward the decentralized, horizontally-networked systems that are rapidly displacing the command-and-control vertical structures that have long dominated mankind.

I do not recall the author of the words that have long been burned into my mind: “a man has a moral duty not to allow his children to live under tyranny.” At no time in my life has this obligation been called to accountability more than now, as our institutionalized thinking continues to play out, in exponential fashion, its implicit absurdities. The qualities that either foster or destroy a civilization are ultimately to be found only within the character and thinking of the individuals who comprise it. Our world is only as peaceful, free, loving, and creative as you and I make it; and can become violent, tyrannical, inhumane, and destructive only as our individual thinking produces such ends.

I have written of the common origins of the words “peace,” “freedom,” “love,” and “friend.” Most of us have long since forgotten what our ancestors must have implicitly understood, namely, that the intertwining of the qualities inherent in the meaning of these words is what produces a decent society. To institutionalized minds, the idea that a free and peaceful world is dependent upon people living as friends, with genuine love for one another, is passé. In our politically-structured world, “confrontation,” “control,” “ambition,” and “ally” have corrupted such earlier sentiments. These changes in thinking have been necessary to sustain the conflict-ridden world of institutional domination. A healthy society held together by trust and mutual respect deteriorates, in a politicized world, into one dominated by fear and incivility.

A complex system may experience turbulence and, later, reach a bifurcation point to which either a creative response will be made, or the system will collapse into total entropy. Modern society appears to be at such a point. The question before us is how we are to respond: by mobilizing our intelligence to generate systems that are supportive of life, or to allow the nature of our present practices to play out the destructive consequences of their premises?

Events in New Orleans have brought into focus the long-standing question that we have heretofore preferred not to face: is society to be organized by and for the benefit of individuals or of institutions? Does life belong to the living, or to the organizational machinery that the living so unwisely created? We are confronted – as was Dr. Frankenstein – by a monster of our own creation, which must control and dominate us if it is to survive. We continue to feed this destructive creature, not simply with our material wealth, but with our very souls and the lives of our children. Perhaps we direct so much righteous anger at child-molesters because we are afraid to face our failure to fulfill parental obligations to our own children.

In the outpouring of individual compassion and cooperation following the disaster in New Orleans, the state discovered a threat to its existence. Political systems thrive only through division and conflict; by getting people to organize themselves into mutually-exclusive groups which then fight with one another. This is why “war is the health of the state.” But if people can discover a sense of love and mutuality amongst them, how is the state to maintain the sense of continuing conflict upon which it depends?

This is why the state must prevent the private shipment of truckload after truckload of private aid to victims; this is why flood victims – including those who want nothing more than to remain in their homes – must be turned into a criminal class, against whom state functionaries will “lock and load” their weapons and “shoot and kill . . . if necessary.” The state is fighting for its life, and must exaggerate its inhumane, life-destroying capacities in order to terrify the rest of us into structured obedience. This is the meaning of Pogo Possum’s classic observation: “we have met the enemy and they is us.” This is why, as New Orleans continued to be under the “control” of federal agencies, the Pentagon proposed the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against “terrorist groups” using “weapons of mass destruction.” What could “terrorize” the state more than to have people realize that social order lies only within the hands of free men and women? What “weapon” could be more destructive to the state than a “mass” outbreak of love and compassion?

In the waning days of Western civilization, you and I are in a struggle between the individualized sense of humanity and the collective forces of structured order. The nature of this struggle has been no better expressed than by Gandhi: “The individual has a soul, but the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its very existence.” It is this contest between the human spirit and the machine that will determine the fate of mankind – including our children – in our post-civilized world.

September 12, 2005


Well stated.........(IMHO)
 

Martin Le Acadien

Electoral Member
Sep 29, 2004
454
0
16
Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
RE: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

. It grossly understates the significance of this tragedy to focus attention only upon the utter failure of state and federal government agencies to respond.

This statement is the central theme of what is happening in Louisiana right now. Ocean Breeze, when nobody is left in charge, everybody makes up their own rules!
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

when nobody is left in charge, everybody makes up their own rules!


absolutely.! ergo mayhem and chaos. :(
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Or

Vanni Fucci said:

vanni : that is exactly what I mean about "Mayhem and Chaos"


( bush sr. (Mayhem ) and bush JR.(Chaos ) :wink: :oops: :(