Surely, this CAN'T be true, CAN IT?

[Windy]

Believe what you want, but I googled her name and found an article she wrote in that same paper in October of 2001, complaining about the discipline and asking people to write the fire commissioner to have the decision overturned.

Well, okay. But again, what does that have to do with the fact that the Sheriff himself has already cooberated some of her story and that she is not the only witness?

"Swiftboating", as you call it shows how some people are so out to discredit President Bush, that they will stoop so low as to use a deadly disaster to make him look bad, regardless of the truth.

Actually, that's not the origin of the word at all. Since you like to wiki, you should try wikiing "swiftboating".

From wikipedia:

"Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

Okay, I'm 100% confused what this has to do with anything anyone has been discussing in this thread. At what point did we decide to stop discussing the news story about the sheriff preventing refugees from entering his town and start niggling over the definition of "bigotry"?

Just for the record- I don't agree with many of the things he has done, but come on, let's not turn this into a political debate.

Fine with me, but it'll be easier for everyone to do if you skip the unfounded character assasinations and stop bringing Bush up in places where nobody else has.

[GalvestonDuck]

Okay, the thread is back after the Mods and Admins discussed it.

One word of warning, though it is a verified story and we have agreed that it should stay in this forum, if this topic does not stay civil, it will be locked.

[x-y-no]

Believe what you want, but I googled her name and found an article she wrote in that same paper in October of 2001, complaining about the discipline and asking people to write the fire commissioner to have the decision overturned.

And so what? Given independent verification of the basic facts, what relevance does any of this have? Are Socialists and "rabble rousers" neccesarily lying 100% of the time?

"Swiftboating", as you call it shows how some people are so out to discredit President Bush, that they will stoop so low as to use a deadly disaster to make him look bad, regardless of the truth.

I'm at a total loss to divine what President Bush has to do with anything in this thread.

[Stephanie]

Okay, the thread is back after the Mods and Admins discussed it.

One word of warning, though it is a verified story and we have agreed that it should stay in this forum, if this topic does not stay civil, it will be locked.

Yep Duckie, this is becoming DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to being locked permanently.

[stormie_skies]

Can we all PLEASE just remember that this is about the actions of one police department, and not in any way about President Bush, the Republicans, Democrats, socialists or anything else politically oriented???

[x-y-no]

Can we all PLEASE just remember that this is about the actions of one police department, and not in any way about President Bush, the Republicans, Democrats, socialists or anything else politically oriented???

Yes, exactly.

[Windy]

What gets me is that it seems almost impossible for anyone on this board to have any kind of discussion about anything other than the weather without somebody deciding to turn it into right/left thing. Thus, the moderators are forced to work with a hair-trigger to "pre-emptively" stop threads before they turn into a political fight. Which generally means that it's not safe to discuss anything outside of the weather on this board, which is too bad. I know I bite my lip a lot, not because what I'm planning to say is political, but because I can predict with great certainty that somebody, somewhere will respond in a political way and the thread will get locked and I'll get caught up in their fallout.

Maybe it's time for this entire "Hurricane Recovery and Aftermath" thread to be retired until the next time it's needed. (Hopefully never!) It was extremely informative in the days following the disaster, but now that the political spin machines have given their marching orders over the radio and TV waves, it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to discuss any facts relating to this disaster without someone parroting whatever rhetorical talking point they've gleaned from their favorite idealouge. It's sad that a few have to ruin it for everyone, but then again, well-reasoned discussion over the internet stopped being the norm some time in the early 90s.

[Anonymous]

Nevermind. Please close my account. I am done with this board.

[GalvestonDuck]

But see, Windy, (correct me if I'm wrong or have missed something), I'm not seeing a lot of left/right, Dem v. Rep stuff. I'm seeing discussions about city, state, and federal leaders' responses and FEMA's response. It doesn't so much seem to be about party lines, but about the chain of command (and where people tried to put a break in that chain).

I find it hard to discuss aid, recovery, and rescue responses without mentioning city, state, and federal officials by name. So, in that regard, I can see how Bush's name might come into the discussions as much as Nagin, Blanco, and Brown.

We've been watching and seeing civil discussions about the above. But then we've also seen those who want to try to toss in comments about other issues that aren't related to Katrina. And we're going to tackle those as we see fit.

[Stephanie]

You're correct Windy and it is very frustrating for the Mods.

I think that this forum is still very important to have. We knew from the beginning that we would find a few here or there with their own agenda but we'd handle them as needed.

[stormie_skies]

I would be heartbroken to see this forum deleted.

I've been in love with Louisiana since the first time I was there, and I haven't been able to tear myself away from the news about this tragedy. This is really the only place I can come where I can discuss the latest info with other people who really care about it, who know a lot about it (usually more than I do) and who can make me look at things differently. We have a great bank of knowledge here - people who work in emergency management, medical personnel, first responders, pro mets, people in the military, people who were directly affected - and I would hate to lose that. There are lessons to be learned for all of us in the aftermath of Katrina....after all, I live in a metro that is within striking distance of another big one......I want to see what can be learned ( and what can be changed) before a monster decides to take a turn into Galveston Bay.

We just all have to remember that everything in life is not about "us vs. them." There is going to be plenty of blame to pass around, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that, dissecting it and debating it. And I think it can be done without getting blatantly political - I seriously doubt that Nagin or Blanco or Brown or Bush were thinking about party lines much in the last couple of weeks. So we shouldn't think about it, either. And if someone really wants to start a political war....well, thats what the bouncers are for....



And BTW.....thanks, mods, for doing a great job in keeping heads cool in here.... these are tough, often emotional issues.....you've done a great job of being understanding while enforcing the rules.

[Stephanie]

I seriously doubt that Nagin or Blanco or Brown or Bush were thinking about party lines much in the last couple of weeks.

Absolutely!! Regardless of how this whole tragedy began, every single one of those mentioned above and everyone else in the local, state and federal government were concerned for the welfare of the citizens. I truly believe that!

It has been a VERY emotional time and yes, things will still be said that shouldn't have been, in the future. We're ALL human, but unfortunately there will be the few that has to keep opening the wounds instead of walking away and letting them heal.

[caribepr]

. We're ALL human, but unfortunately there will be the few that has to keep opening the wounds instead of walking away and letting them heal.

Beautifully written...and hopefully effective. Thank you.

[HurricaneQueen]

CNN-Cooper Anderson is covering the story right now. Gretna police chief saying that he had his city locked down and had no way to take care of the people trying to get in. No buses, no food, no water. He has no knowledge of any shooting. Unfortunately, the people who took the bridge out of NO were told to do so by NO policemen.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. I think we need much more information.

Lynn

[SouthernWx]

I may be southern, white, and have law enforcement experience .....but if this is true, the police chief and all officers who carried out his orders should IMO be tried for cold blooded murder.

They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City.
"These were code words," the paramedics wrote, "for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans."

The authors say that during the course of that day, they saw "other families, individuals and groups make the same trip up the incline in an attempt to cross the bridge, only to be turned away. Some chased away with gunfire, others simply told no, others to be verbally berated and humiliated." Lawson says that his officers "acted in the manner they were instructed to" and defends the order to close the bridge as "the right decision."


If God forbid, a massive natural disaster of this nature were to ever impact metro Atlanta.....I'd want my property protected by the local law enforcement authorities; but to forbid innocent women and children from evacuating/ escaping the hell-on-earth flooded city of New Orleans by blocking the only exit route.....it's criminal....and totally infuriating to me.

PW

[loon]

I may be southern, white, and have law enforcement experience .....but if this is true, the police chief and all officers who carried out his orders should IMO be tried for cold blooded murder.

They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City.
"These were code words," the paramedics wrote, "for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans."

The authors say that during the course of that day, they saw "other families, individuals and groups make the same trip up the incline in an attempt to cross the bridge, only to be turned away. Some chased away with gunfire, others simply told no, others to be verbally berated and humiliated." Lawson says that his officers "acted in the manner they were instructed to" and defends the order to close the bridge as "the right decision."


If God forbid, a massive natural disaster of this nature were to ever impact metro Atlanta.....I'd want my property protected by the local law enforcement authorities; but to forbid innocent women and children from evacuating/ escaping the hell-on-earth flooded city of New Orleans by blocking the only exit route.....it's criminal....and totally infuriating to me.

PW

Ah, have your cake and eat it too huh?

This one here is a touchy subject, should be interesting to see what finally happens. I said this the day after Katrina rolled in, this event will open all the sores just beneath the skin of American Society, everything that we pretend isn't there anymore, the me-me generation in full force...sad times, but really, who didn't see it coming?

cheers,
loon

[themusk]

I don't know that that was a "have your cake and eat it too" response -- both common law and the common sense of right and wrong agree that the preservation of life takes precedence over the preservation of property in an emergency.

Believe me, I want the authorities to protect my property, too, but in a life and death crisis I'd understand if it was put at some greater risk by allowing strangers to pass through my neighborhood (and I do live in what is normally a limited access housing development), or even if it were used by others in order to preserve life. I don't think such a value judgement on my part is inconsistent or at all unusual -- I think it is what most people in America, as well as what most religions, and certainly common law, agree is right and just.

If people moved into Gretna to loot, well, yes, they should be arrested and detained. If the people at the border with Gretna were pushing shopping carts full of brand new plasma TVs or some other reasonable evidence that they were intent upon looting, the people with those shopping carts (or who were otherwise demonstrating a clear intent to loot) should have been stopped. But to block desperate people, en-masse -- and I think we all saw on television that most of the people there were clearly, inarguably, desperate -- and leave them to die, is unconscionable.

I also believe it could be construed to be a violation of at least one Federal law (though don't take my word on this: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who does their own legal work and has successfully argued a few cases pro-se, and I think I remember seeing such a law).

[stormie_skies]

I don't know that that was a "have your cake and eat it too" response -- both common law and the common sense of right and wrong agree that the preservation of life takes precedence over the preservation of property in an emergency.

Believe me, I want the authorities to protect my property, too, but in a life and death crisis I'd understand if it was put at some greater risk by allowing strangers to pass through my neighborhood (and I do live in what is normally a limited access housing development), or even if it were used by others in order to preserve life. I don't think such a value judgement on my part is inconsistent or at all unusual -- I think it is what most people in America, as well as what most religions, and certainly common law, agree is right and just.

If people moved into Gretna to loot, well, yes, they should be arrested and detained. If the people at the border with Gretna were pushing shopping carts full of brand new plasma TVs or some other reasonable evidence that they were intent upon looting, the people with those shopping carts (or who were otherwise demonstrating a clear intent to loot) should have been stopped. But to block desperate people, en-masse -- and I think we all saw on television that most of the people there were clearly, inarguably, desperate -- and leave them to die, is unconscionable.

I also believe it could be construed to be a violation of at least one Federal law (though don't take my word on this: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who does their own legal work and has successfully argued a few cases pro-se, and I think I remember seeing such a law).

Very, very well put.

Most property is covered by insurance, and can be replaced if necessary.

How does one replace a person???