On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:27:12 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:08:03 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry typed:
George Cleveland wrote:
What the hell...

An old friend sent me this link:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-...alHeroes.shtml

Obviously a biased source but on the other hand only a fraction of
their allegations have to be true to be pretty damaging.

That first-hand report rings true, unlike the stories
of Dickie "On The Scene" Dean.

Sorry, can't read that one until they change the title. Any article that
starts with "The real heroes and *sheroes* of New Orleans" has just got to
be full of crap. ;-)
That *was* pretty lame.

On the other hand the writers of the piece weren't the same ones who
came up with the headline.

As a person who had dealings long ago with Socialist Workers I would
take anything they say with a large grain of salt. (Hell, I take
anything anyone says with a grain of salt. Its a wonder my blood
pressure isn't higher.) But... there are certain claims they made that
could be verified.

Were people prevented from fleeing the city by sheriff employees?
Was the operation these people set up distributing water etc. also
shutdown?

One of the posters here expressed the sentiment that he would have
evacuated even if he had to walk. These folks are claiming they tried
to do just that and they were prevented from doing so by the local
authorities. Seems to be a serious enough charge to be investigated.

Reasonable questions and here's my answer, FWIW:

From Monday to about Wednesday/Thursday, it was chaos or nearly so in
about 100,000 square miles. That chaos was nobody's "fault" - it was
the result of a storm that trashed the entire area. It took chainsaws
and/or heavy equipment to get down streets, and all major highways had
some damage, including bridges _gone_ (not potentially unsafe or cracked
- _gone_, as in not there anymore) and/or hundreds of tons - yes, tons -
of sand and debris covering them. No airport in the area was really
serviceable, and most, if not all, of the harbors and transit waterways
were equally wrecked. Now, combine that infrastructure damage with
almost no communications beyond radio to radio, pockets of people
_EVERYWHERE_, some in need of immediate rescue, looting beginning from
the get-go, including firearms and ammo, and in the case of New Orleans,
with people shooting at helicopters and rescue workers. Frankly, the
fact that these whiny little snots got water and food and evac'd in
3-4-5 days is more a testament to a whole bunch of folks of all
political parties than a reason to investigate them, but, hey, as
always, YMMV...

As to the confrontation on the bridge, I heard about stuff like that,
and it is probably true as to people being prevented from going into
other areas/parishes. But it had nothing to do with race - it had to do
with the breakdown of law and order in New Orleans proper. And that, to
me, is a telling and important point: only in New Orleans proper was
there the extreme level of looting, gunplay, and criminal activity, and
not allowing it to spread seemed and seems only sensible. Now, is it
possible that some innocents were prevented from crossing a bridge into
another parish? Almost certainly. But as they would have been no
better off across the bridge, they weren't harmed by that prevention.

HTH,
R

wrote in message

But it had nothing to do with race - it had to do
with the breakdown of law and order in New Orleans proper. And that, to
me, is a telling and important point: only in New Orleans proper was
there the extreme level of looting, gunplay, and criminal activity,

At times, this past couple of weeks, I have thought about a discussion, er,
debate, er whatever(thank goodness for your level headed spouse, or we would
have set upon one another with crab forks after a couple more beersg). I
was trying, although near-delerious, to make a case for preventing the
development of a society where the "haves" separate rapidly from the "have
nots". I described how, historically, that type of situation led to anarchy
and revolution. To some small extent, I think we saw proof of that in New
Orleans, and if I am correct, it is a frightening glimpse of where this
nation is headed. Farbeit from me to come up with an easy solution, and I am
of the opinion that we have to get the Gulf mess headed further towards
recovery before trying to have a national debate. Still, the evolution of
the US over the past 25 years or so disturbs me, the idea that maybe 2% of
the populace is distancing themselves in true economic terms from the other
98% is going to breed more, and deeper issues. Just passing a thought along,
hopefully no readers see it as a "blame Bush", or "blame anybody"
observation.
Tom

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:27:12 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:08:03 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry typed:
George Cleveland wrote:
What the hell...

An old friend sent me this link:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-...alHeroes.shtml

Obviously a biased source but on the other hand only a fraction of
their allegations have to be true to be pretty damaging.

That first-hand report rings true, unlike the stories
of Dickie "On The Scene" Dean.

Sorry, can't read that one until they change the title. Any article that
starts with "The real heroes and *sheroes* of New Orleans" has just got to
be full of crap. ;-)
That *was* pretty lame.

On the other hand the writers of the piece weren't the same ones who
came up with the headline.

As a person who had dealings long ago with Socialist Workers I would
take anything they say with a large grain of salt. (Hell, I take
anything anyone says with a grain of salt. Its a wonder my blood
pressure isn't higher.) But... there are certain claims they made that
could be verified.

Were people prevented from fleeing the city by sheriff employees?
Was the operation these people set up distributing water etc. also
shutdown?

One of the posters here expressed the sentiment that he would have
evacuated even if he had to walk. These folks are claiming they tried
to do just that and they were prevented from doing so by the local
authorities. Seems to be a serious enough charge to be investigated.

Reasonable questions and here's my answer, FWIW:

From Monday to about Wednesday/Thursday, it was chaos or nearly so in
about 100,000 square miles. That chaos was nobody's "fault" - it was
the result of a storm that trashed the entire area. It took chainsaws
and/or heavy equipment to get down streets, and all major highways had
some damage, including bridges _gone_ (not potentially unsafe or cracked
- _gone_, as in not there anymore) and/or hundreds of tons - yes, tons -
of sand and debris covering them. No airport in the area was really
serviceable, and most, if not all, of the harbors and transit waterways
were equally wrecked. Now, combine that infrastructure damage with
almost no communications beyond radio to radio, pockets of people
_EVERYWHERE_, some in need of immediate rescue, looting beginning from
the get-go, including firearms and ammo, and in the case of New Orleans,
with people shooting at helicopters and rescue workers. Frankly, the
fact that these whiny little snots got water and food and evac'd in
3-4-5 days is more a testament to a whole bunch of folks of all
political parties than a reason to investigate them, but, hey, as
always, YMMV...

As to the confrontation on the bridge, I heard about stuff like that,
and it is probably true as to people being prevented from going into
other areas/parishes. But it had nothing to do with race - it had to do
with the breakdown of law and order in New Orleans proper. And that, to
me, is a telling and important point: only in New Orleans proper was
there the extreme level of looting, gunplay, and criminal activity, and
not allowing it to spread seemed and seems only sensible. Now, is it
possible that some innocents were prevented from crossing a bridge into
another parish? Almost certainly. But as they would have been no
better off across the bridge, they weren't harmed by that prevention.

HTH,
R

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:42:58 GMT, "Thomas Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message

But it had nothing to do with race - it had to do
with the breakdown of law and order in New Orleans proper. And that, to
me, is a telling and important point: only in New Orleans proper was
there the extreme level of looting, gunplay, and criminal activity,

At times, this past couple of weeks, I have thought about a discussion, er,
debate, er whatever(thank goodness for your level headed spouse, or we would
have set upon one another with crab forks after a couple more beersg). I
was trying, although near-delerious, to make a case for preventing the
development of a society where the "haves" separate rapidly from the "have
nots". I described how, historically, that type of situation led to anarchy
and revolution. To some small extent, I think we saw proof of that in New
Orleans, and if I am correct, it is a frightening glimpse of where this
nation is headed. Farbeit from me to come up with an easy solution, and I am
of the opinion that we have to get the Gulf mess headed further towards
recovery before trying to have a national debate. Still, the evolution of
the US over the past 25 years or so disturbs me, the idea that maybe 2% of
the populace is distancing themselves in true economic terms from the other
98% is going to breed more, and deeper issues. Just passing a thought along,
hopefully no readers see it as a "blame Bush", or "blame anybody"
observation.
Tom


Well, let me make it a "blame somebody" observation:

For the most part, folks in NO are law-abiding and decent, be they
black, white, rich, poor, or sorta in-between, both as to race and
status. The criminal activity situation in NO has nothing to do with
the poor and downtrodden revolting against some upper class. There are
lots more decent folks, who happen to also be poor, in NO and all over
the area, from west of NO to Mobile, AL, and of all colors, who didn't
loot, shoot, or otherwise cause mayhem. This has to do with the
subclass of lawless animals (yes, mostly black) bred into existence by,
amongst other things, a welfare/handout state taken way too far by a
bunch of sorry-assed guilty white supposedly "liberal" enablers,
sorry-assed black "leaders" like Jackson and Sharpton who play them like
fiddles, and the sour creme on top of the stinking froth, sorry-assed
white pols like Kennedy (any of several) and the Clintons, who use it
all to keep themselves in some form of power.

As to the race aspect, notice Jesse and Al didn't tarnish their jewelry
actually doing anything but running their mouths, as opposed to a number
of black preachers, real men of God and their fellow man, who were
actually working and who stopped just long enough to tell them to shut
up.

And of course, also contributing to the problem are things like the fact
that if Bill Cosby had posted the above, it'd be "something to really
think about" for some, whereas now, it'll just be "Dicklet" or some
other such silly-assed insult from those same folks.

R

wrote in message

This has to do with the
subclass of lawless animals (yes, mostly black) bred into existence by,
amongst other things, a welfare/handout state taken way too far by a
bunch of sorry-assed guilty white supposedly "liberal" enablers,

So, to follow your logic, I am to assume that, say, Sweden will erupt into a
lawless state of chaos in a similar natural disaster. I suspect not. It has
more to do with a society establishing a permanent underclass with
inadaquate support systems in place to ever rise out of that state. It also
has to do with an unfettered worship of firearms, coupled with ridiculously
easy access, making the arming of the lawless quite easy to accomplish.
What is kind of frightening is seeing how quickly all in the area are now
arming themselves to the teeth. Eventually, those guns purchased in what has
been reported as a run on gun stores in the Gulf States, will in some
percentage find their way to the streets in that region, rendering the whole
area less safe than before, I would suspect.

and the Clintons,

no sordid political blame game can omit these favorite pariahs. Still, I
dare say the whole situation post-Katrina would have been handled in a
somewhat better fashion had old Bill been in charge, as he possessed, at the
very least, a sense of humanity. Further, he, of all recent Democrat leaders
did more to try to move Welfare from a permanence to aid when needed, so is
therefore hard to accept lumping in with some of the others you mentioned.
Worth noting, Bill actually saw the problems with political hacks at FEMA
and worked pretty hard at changing that status, starting with the
leadership. That all changed when the 'lil cowpoke got to be President and
appointed an Arabian Horse judge to the job, with no further credentials
beyond political donor status.
Tom

wrote in message
...

...whereas now, it'll just be "Dicklet" or some
other such silly-ass...

You miscapitalized "dicklet".

Who, after a week in the wilds of da Yoop among the (comparatively) highly
(if cheaply) educated, is pleased to see that dicklet still has nothing to
say......and continues to say it so verbosely and hilariously.

Wolfgang
gee but it's great to be back home.....

Wolfgang wrote:

wrote in message
...


...whereas now, it'll just be "Dicklet" or some
other such silly-ass...


You miscapitalized "dicklet".

Who, after a week in the wilds of da Yoop among the (comparatively) highly
(if cheaply) educated, is pleased to see that dicklet still has nothing to
say......and continues to say it so verbosely and hilariously.

Wolfgang
gee but it's great to be back home.....



dammit wolf... how about some lines writ about the lands far from the
maddening crowd? there's yoopin to be reported.

jeff (...and, uh, welcome back! g)

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:6%ZWe.26325$hp.1365@lakeread08...
Wolfgang wrote:

gee but it's great to be back home.....

dammit wolf... how about some lines writ about the lands far from the
maddening crowd? there's yoopin to be reported.

TR of one sort or another is forthcoming. I thought, in the interest of
fairness, that I should give others a day or two to get in their licks
first. :)

jeff (...and, uh, welcome back! g)

Thanks.

Wolfgang