A moment, please, to remember

[Tweedling]

It's just not in some people's blood. And that's where the government should step in - and where it has obviously failed.

I think it's too easy for many people to hide behind the "it's not in my blood....I can't......It's too hard....restless leg syndrome......

 

"Republicans don't care about the people" (whether that's true or not).

It's not.

 

Where does the state responsibility belong in this?

[Gobias Industries]

I think it's too easy for many people to hide behind the "it's not in my blood....I can't......It's too hard....restless leg syndrome......

 

But for many it's a legitimate excuse. For those who haven't moved around it becomes much harder to leave...I for one have lived in Columbus my whole life and I've even loathed leaving home for vacation. I can't really imagine leaving here...unless it is for England :

 

People who were concerned with laying blame only in the most politically expedient places (in the case of the Katrina response... letting the local officials off the hook entirely) were beyond contempt. But it was not surprising. Someday the sun will go supernova, and swallow the Earth. This, too will be George Bush's fault.

 

Do you seriously expect 100-odd ill-trained police officers in hurricane rescue to be able to deal with the enormity of the problem caused by Katrina? I would seriously doubt it. That's where the federal government has to step in, where it's massive powers can come into play, and show the true strength of the United States. You can't, in good conscience, condemn people who are head over heels in a problem that requires at least 100 times the amount of capital (including human capital) required to deal with a situation that Katrina made apparent?

 

No one blames Bush for the Hurricane, everyone blames him for the aftermath and how much could have and was not done.

[Good Old Neon]

Those words moved me... "dude".

 

People who were concerned with laying blame only in the most politically expedient places (in the case of the Katrina response... letting the local officials off the hook entirely) were beyond contempt. But it was not surprising. Someday the sun will go supernova, and swallow the Earth. This, too will be George Bush's fault.

 

Dude.

 

What the aftermath of Katrina made disturbingly evident, I think, is how ill prepared we were (still are?) even after the lessons learned (or not.) from 9/11. You have to ask yourself, how would the response have differed if a cargo nuke or dirty bomb of some sort was detonated in NO

[Good Old Neon]

As reported (today.) by CNN in response to White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow

[Chendizzle]

Those words moved me... "dude".

 

People who were concerned with laying blame only in the most politically expedient places (in the case of the Katrina response... letting the local officials off the hook entirely) were beyond contempt. But it was not surprising. Someday the sun will go supernova, and swallow the Earth. This, too will be George Bush's fault.

 

Dude.

 

I guess I'm supposed to feel embarrassed/stupid for using the word "dude"?

 

Poortranslator and good ole Jnick said it perfectly, there's no way you can pile the blame on local officials, that's just idiotic. The National Guard, FEMA and other federal entities are in place to deal with disasters/emergencies that occur not only on a national scale (such as Katrina) but when the situation at hand overwhelms the capabilities of local officials.

[John Smith]

Those words moved me... "dude".

 

People who were concerned with laying blame only in the most politically expedient places (in the case of the Katrina response... letting the local officials off the hook entirely) were beyond contempt. But it was not surprising. Someday the sun will go supernova, and swallow the Earth. This, too will be George Bush's fault.

 

Dude.

Apparently I don't listen to the same news that you do as there was plenty of blame being spread around. It just seems though that whenever Bush is blamed for anything, anything at all, that when anyone in the media reports on the problem they immediately get accused of Bush-bashing. Heck they can use his direct words and stilll they get accused of Bush bashing.

 

There is this notion out there among Bush supporters that you do not criticize him regardless of what he does, though they never say as much. I have friends who say they do not support everything Bush does, but can not name a single thing he has done that they disagree with. This all goes back to the Reagan era notion of "party before country" or as they uused to say "Speak no ill of a fellow republican" Ultimately even if there were video of Bush pushing the button to start the supernova you speak of, his supporters would deny that it ever happened, accuse the press of Bush bashing and somehow bring balance to the equation by blaming it all on Clinton getting a BJ in the White House.

 

There is this false notion that there has to be balance to news. No there does not, the news is what it is. Blanco and Nagin (a former Bush supporter by the way) took tremendous heat for pre-hurricane planning and execution. Nagin took heat for the Superdome debacle. It was on all the news programs and in all the papers. HHammering on Bush was not bringing balance to the story, it was reporting on reality. But since papers also focused on the sudden and catastrophic failure of FEMA they get accused of liberal bias and are accused of blaming Bush for the Hurricane (only heard this from republicans though). The reality is that FEMA was put on the back burner because it is not an agency that the republican party thinks is worth having around (though it worked very well for them in 2004 right before the election). In 2004 when the Hurricanes were coming all of the necessary stuff for aid and recovery was moved to the region outside the hurricane zone and after the storms were over it was all moved rapidly to needed area's. In 2005 nothing meaningful was done on a federal level until after the hurricane hit. What Bush has been rightly criticized for is for the demise of FEMA. for misplaced national priorities (Iraq vs our own country). for what appears to be a racial/political disparity in how federal assistance is being handed out as Mississippi ® is getting much more relative help than Louisiana (D). The blame can be laid at the feet of Brownie and Chertoff and probably the politcal arm of the White House, but who put them in their jobs? In the corporate world the CEO and or the president of the firm take heat and are held accountable when the company does not perform as advertised, why not this administration? Where is the accountability? The same people who defend every breath Bush takes are also the same people who saw scandal in every move Clinton took, from the Christmas card list to the phony travelgate scandal. I know because I used to be one of the right wing nuts until I realized that the right dominated media was not going to let any issue slide innocent or not.

 

Here is a real life example. Some of you may know that I do federal taxes for a living. The company I work for donates a lot of money to various political candidates. As part of my job I analyze our contributions and determine the deductibility of them. FYI Political contributions are not deductible. In 2002 I was analyzing the contributions and noticed one that had a price list for White House accessibility. $5k got you a certain level of access $10k might get you a meeting with a cabinet official etc... with the big donations getting you time with the big guy. How is this un-reported event, and it is not the first one I saw like this, different from the Clinton Era practice of rewarding donors with sleepovers? Either way it looks like the White House is for sale. Yet only one made the news. It could come down to one being revealed, but I would have to imagine that there are many many solicitations like the one I saw floating around. Heck, they have to be filed with the FEC. That's true life. And handled two entirely different ways.

 

I guess to sum it up, reporting Bush's failures is not always liberal bias or Bush bashing (though sometimes it is, but rarely by the real media) Sometimes it is simply reporting on things that have gone wrong as a direct result of administration actions. There really is no need for balance when reporting on reality.

 

And balance is not what the likes of Rush, Hannnity, Coulter, Fox news or any of Murdoch's holdings really want, they want unchallenged bias...period. Otherwise balance would com from condemning Ted Nugent's comments and he would be all over the news like the Dixie Chicks were four years ago (he might also be in jail for threatening a former first lady and two presidential candidates. But Faux defends his words (Hannity a representative of Faux)

[ShuckOwens]

You had me until the "Faux News" jab. That really is kind of played out. I worked in the television news business for many years and know the political bias quite well. I now have the opportunity to work with a handful of folks at "Faux News" on a weekly basis, and can tell you first hand that many at the network (producers at least) are fairly liberal.

[John Smith]

It does not matter one bit what the rank and file of faux might be, though a center right person probably passes for liberal at faux. What really matters is the direction of the news and they always present news (Nationally not necessairly locally) with an conservative, but ore importantly anti-democrat point of view. Editorially they lean so far right that the legitimate center looks like like the far left. It is not a liberal bias on my part either it is pretty much fact, all thhat need be done is to listen to them objectivly. I have yet to hear a national news story on faux news thhat was not heavily biased, so you lost me there with your quite liberal comment. CBS on the other hand has been labeld as being liberally biased, thhat is probably true ediitorially they are, but when they presennt a story they still present it striaghter than faux.

 

Oh. and Faux news is not a jab, it is wahht I consider to be an accurate description, because they present what I consider to be a facimile of news.

 

Gotta go, have a nice weekend.

[ShuckOwens]

It is not a liberal bias on my part either it is pretty much fact

it is wahht I consider to be an accurate description

These seem to conflict with each other a bit. This message board is so skewed that my center-right opinion is beaten with John Birch branch. Hell, someone even went to the trouble of rating my "boardship" one star on my profile. Rating posters? What the hell is that all about? Is it a warning? I guess I kind of joked about being a troll here... but it was more in the spirit of the whole Jeff vs. Jay nonsense.

 

In any event, have a great weekend yourself.