Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNew Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored
The early results are in: Hurricane Gustav has helped John McCain's bid for the White House. This is nothing short of incredible.
In the combination of New Orleans and hurricanes, we have the most powerful argument possible for the necessity of "change." It's all there: gaping inequality, deep racism, crumbling public infrastructure, global warming, rampant corruption, the Blackwater-ization of the public sector. And none of it is in the past tense. In New Orleans whole neighborhoods have gone to seed, Charity Hospital remains shuttered, public housing has been deliberately destroyed--and the levee system is still far from repaired.
Gustav should have been political rat poison for the Republicans, no matter how well it was managed. Yet, as Peter Baker noted in the New York Times, "rather than run away from the hurricane and its political risks, Mr. McCain ran toward it." If this strategy worked, it was at least partly because Barack Obama has been running away from New Orleans for his entire campaign.
Unlike John Edwards, who started and ended his nomination bid surrounded by the decay of New Orleans's Ninth Ward, Obama has shied away from the powerful symbolism the city offers. He waited almost a year after Hurricane Katrina to visit New Orleans and spent just half a day there ahead of the Louisiana primary. During the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden made no mention of New Orleans in their keynotes. Bill Clinton spared just two words: "Katrina and cronyism."
In his Denver speech, Obama did invoke a government "that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes." But that only scratches the surface of what happened to New Orleans's poorest residents, who were first forcibly relocated and then forced to watch from afar as their homes, schools and hospitals were stolen. As Obama spoke in Denver, families in New Orleans were already packing their bags in anticipation of Gustav, steeling themselves for yet another evacuation. They heard not even a perfunctory "our thoughts and prayers are with you" from the Democratic candidate for President.
There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents. The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up. Sure, it was cynical for McCain to claim the hurricane zone as a campaign backdrop. But it was Obama who left that potent terrain as vacant as a lot in the Lower Ninth Ward.
Until now, Obama's supporters have largely accepted the campaign's assessment of the compromises necessary to win, offering only gentle prodding. The fact that the Republicans have managed to turn New Orleans to their advantage should put a decisive end to this blind obedience.
Republicans have a better attitude toward their candidate. When they don't like McCain's positions, they simply change them. Take the hottest-button issue of the campaign: offshore oil drilling. Just four months ago, it was not even on the radar. During the Republican primary, the issue barely came up, and when it did, McCain did not support it. None of this bothered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his newly minted American Solutions for Winning the Future. Gingrich waited patiently for what his party loves most: a crisis. It arrived in May, when oil approached $130 a barrel. First came a petition to lower gas prices by opening up domestic drilling (nonsense). Next was a poll, packed with laughably leading questions: "Some people have suggested that, to combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, the United States should use more of its own domestic energy reserves, including the oil and coal it already has here in the United States. Do you support or oppose this idea?" You can guess what people said. Two weeks later, McCain flipped on offshore oil drilling.
There was always a risk attached to making offshore drilling the centerpiece of the McCain campaign, since it is not nearly as safe as its advocates claim. Environmentalists have been trying to point this out, but nothing makes the case quite as forcefully as a Category 5 hurricane rocking oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, forcing evacuations and raising the specter of a serious spill.
Gustav was one of those rare moments when political arguments are made by reality, not rhetoric. It was the time to simply point and say: "This is why we oppose more drilling." It was also the time to recall that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the official Minerals Management Service report found more than 100 accidents leading to a total of 743,400 gallons of oil spilled throughout the region. To put that figure in perspective, 100,000 gallons is classified as a "major spill." If one is feeling particularly bold, a Category 5 hurricane is also an opportune time to mention that scientists see a link between heavier storms and warming ocean temperatures--warmed in part by the fossil fuels being extracted from those fallible platforms.
Obama was not able to make these kinds of arguments when Gustav hit. That's because his campaign had made another "strategic" decision: to compromise on offshore oil drilling. Again a vacuum that had been opened up was rapidly filled by the Republicans, who instantly (and absurdly) linked the hurricane to the need for "energy security." The morning after Gustav made landfall, Bush called for more drilling. Earlier, McCain had visited the hurricane zone with his new running mate, Sarah Palin, whose sole prior claim to national fame was telling cable shows that "we need to drill, drill, drill."
In moments of crisis, it is possible to speak hard truths with great force and clarity. But when the truth has gone silent, lies, boldly told, work almost as well.
38 Comments so far
Show AllBlue Thunder
To do, and not to know, is to act ignorantly!
The "race" has to be "close" so the "election" appears to have any substance or worth.
The current President is matched in historic unpopularity by the current Congress.
If the sytem was honest -in other words an actual vote of the people picking office-holders and actual political parties looking to fill those offices with people with their point-of-view and strategies- then all a candidate would have to do would be to repudiate the Congress, the President, and all the policies, Laws and actions that the have taken or enacted to guarantee a landslide victory.
Of course they would have to have some sound ideas for restoring what was good and creating new good in government, but this would be the icing on the cake as far as "making the sale" of attracting votes.
So why doesn't this happen?
I think the whole game has become fundamentally corrupted by corporate financial power over the last 35 years (coincidentally from about the time of U.S. Peak Oil?) which acted has a rare and aggressive cancer attacking a body with a weakened immune system (due to the burdens of empire from the conquering of the west to the cold war).
Obama's advisors don't advise him to make popular and sensible appeals to the common people because it is not his job to win the favor of the common people.
This is not what democracy looks like, nor a Representative Federal Republic.
The good news is the tools of democracy are all still in place, waiting for us to pick them up again.
The bad news is we don't remember the room we left them in.
Have Fun,
-matti.
I have said this before on blogs, and no one has said this will not resolve our current situation. We need to pass laws at our City, County, and State levels of government that require all elected government officials to represent their constituents or they will be removed from office.
Representation of constituents means by the vote of the majority. If an elected official voted yes on bombing Iran, and the represented constituents voted no, the vote of the elected official would be changed to that of the constituents.
If the elected official continued to mis-represent the people, the people could have a vote of no confidence of the elected official and the official would be removed from office. No more "four more years" of waiting to vote them out of office.
The reason the laws need to be passed at the City, County and State levels is so that first of all the law would only pass if people felt their voices were not being heard, and second because it would not require congressional approval.
No more corporate interest, no more wars of aggression, no more illegal wire tapping, no more BS!
I'd like to see Obama re-read his 2004 convention speech and re-think his decision to have advisors who represent various viewpoints instead of THE viewpoint he knows is right. Then I'd like to see him get mad, and New Orleans would be a good topic on which to start telling Americans why.
One of the most galling things I remember about Katrina is that reconstruction money was handed to INCOMPETENT DISHONEST CORRUPT CORPORATE-INDEBTED Bush administration cronies instead of to the City of New Orleans and the government of Louisiana because the administration and the Congress thought they would be corrupt. What a terrible joke. The result was that companies like Bechtel took over, let the taxpayers buy them all the equipment they needed,and instead of hiring out-of-work New Orleanians brought in poor South American citizens to work as "private contractors" for below-scale pay and housed them in places like truck trailers.
I'd like to hear talk about this kind of stuff and also about McCain, as head of the International Republican Institute (as head he must have known what it does) helped funnel money and other support to the opponents of every leader in South America who opposes US foreign policy there and who know the IMF and World Bank and mega-corporations would bleed them dry. Hugo Chavez is best known, but Evo Morales of Bolivia and Correa of Ecuador (who is refusing to renew our lease on an air base) are beginning to be hit with the "dictator" and "socialist" propaganda.
The plan for "helping" Africa involves military bases throughout the continent, staffed by mercenaries hired by our militarized Dept. of State if we don't have enough forces. So far NO African nation has been stupid enough to accept a base on its soil, thank goodness. (Google Africom-opposition and Africom-mercentaries).
Democracy Is Leavin
It’s leavin in freedom cages
It’s leavin with devil prophesy
on John the fallen angel
as dead sea revelations scroll on
for all the monopolies of truth to ride on
from Jerusalem to Mecca to Lhasa
Democracy is leavin from the US of A
and lots of other places
most with US bases
in the suited empire of pen twisting plunder
from the occupation in the holy land
to the broken Babylon in the fertile valley
and all those poppied stan lands
where joy or sorrow hides in burkas
and the body tally of the Taliban
bleeding as in culture wars
so markets rule profit is no fool
as the corporate divide and conquer whores
look for further shores to mark in more
From the board rooms to the catacombs
From mount Rushmore to Dubai
Democracy is leavin lots of places
using excusing phrases to trade freedom
for security to feed the non stop wars
to prop the corporate welfare scores
It’s leavin for the War of our bread and butter
as it writes the history for it’s end
from the new age corporate inquisition
can you be put to the question?
or will it be extraordinary rendition?
From Abu Graib to Guatanamo
Democracy is leavin
It’s leavin down the Enron towers
like a early frost on flowers
or more walls for the status quo of powers
Democracy is leavin
not just the USA
.
BORING..............another silly rant from the Lefty Fringe !!!!!!
Klein makes a good point about the failure of the Obama campaign to communicate about Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of people's lives in the Gulf Coast region.
The failure of the Bush administration to aid New Orleans and other cities devastated by the hurricanes showed that Republican leaders do not believe in federalism or using collectively funded emergency services for anything other than crowd control.
And that stance should surprise U.S. citizens who have been paying taxes over the years for real support services that didn't arrive after Katrina. The support isn't there today.
FEMA, now under the Department of Homeland Security, simply hands over U.S. taxpayer money to corporations. It's just a spigot for the rich to tap that provides no useful services.
I don't know if it's just the Obama campaign that has failed. The Democratic Party hasn't been championing the ideas that once distinguished it from the Republicans.
We have not seen other Democratic leaders step forward on this issue, although they did get one funding bill passed in Congress. The local corruption in New Orleans has been a problem too, with Democratic officials there planning for casinos and charter schools while demolishing public housing and closing hospitals.
Maybe there's been no reaction from the Obama campaign because there's no real disagreement about priorities in Washington. Here are common Democratic and Republican priorities:
1. Military Keynesianism - fund Congressional districts via unneeded military spending.
2. Multi-front wars - ensure the control of oil and global trade hegemony by adding military bases in the Middle East.
3. Reduce or eliminate social services - this action directs public monies to corporate donors (note: while this is mainly a Republican objective, few Democrats are trying to build social services these days).
4. Preserve the profits of the FIRE industries (finance, insurance and real estate) - representing the businesses of ultra-rich that fund political campaigns and write the bills for congress members to push.
The public infrastructure we have been paying for is weakened. Our tax money goes to unaccountable corporations.
Even if the Democratic Party cared, the Republicans have pushed the country into so much debt that it isn't possible to shore up our commonweath institutions. The one exception is the police, which gets public funding for crowd control training and assault weapons to be used against citizens who peacefully demonstrate their dissent from this corrupt scheme.
-TIA
Excellent post. You are articulate , attractive, and CLEAN!! (LOL)
Blue Thunder
To do, and not to know, is to act ignorantly....which we hope is not the case for most Americans coming up to the election in November. To do, and to know, yet to do contrary to the knowing is evil. Nothing short of getting into the 'know' and 'doing' in ethical relationship with that knowing will win the day for a democratic and just society for America. The common dream should be for a common sense...it's so simple! Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. What you sow , you shall reap! The Republicans will take us down the path to perdition slightly faster than the democrats...with the democrats we may have more time to pressure our congress people to make the changes to what all sane citizens KNOW to be needed. Or, and highly unlikely, we could vote in an independant like Nader or Mckinney and see the change more rapidly and with less effort by the citizens...of course the real effort would be dealing with the problem of getting a sufficient number of people into the KNOW and then into the DO to make the vote for real change. For myself, I do not know and therefor will not do...I am a Canadian.
Blue Thunder
To do, and not to know, is to act ignorantly....which we hope is not the case for most Americans coming up to the election in November. To do, and to know, yet to do contrary to the knowing is evil. Nothing short of getting into the 'know' and 'doing' in ethical relationship with that knowing will win the day for a democratic and just society for America. The common dream should be for a common sense...it's so simple! Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. What you sow , you shall reap! The Republicans will take us down the path to perdition slightly faster than the democrats...with the democrats we may have more time to pressure our congress people to make the changes to what all sane citizens KNOW to be needed. Or, and highly unlikely, we could vote in an independant like Nader or Mckinney and see the change more rapidly and with less effort by the citizens...of course the real effort would be dealing with the problem of getting a sufficient number of people into the KNOW and then into the DO to make the vote for real change. For myself, I do not know and therefor will not do...I am a Canadian.
Well Hurricane Gustav is over and became just another tropical rainstorm, but Hurricane Palin has just come on the radar as we've been discussing in other links.
But when all has been said and done at another CD comment cage,
I couldn't help but think of that book written by Jack London, "White Fang,"
one of my favorites as a child, loved all of those books, "Gentle Ben" by Walt Morey. Etc. Etc.
But anyone else who can recall it, there is this scene where Judge Weedon Scott saves White Fang, a wolf domesticated by an Indian tribe and then sold into slavery with a cruel master. So anyway as the story goes this new cruel white master puts White Fang into dog fights which he handily wins until he is in a dog fight with a pit bull. The pit bull is able to conquer the previously untouchable White Fang because White Fang is unfamiliar with it's strategy of fighting. You see the pit bull sits low to the ground and rather than try to attack viciously and quickly, it methodically strikes and then retreats wagging it's tail the whole time. Eventually it exhausts White Fang and gets a lock jaw hold on White Fangs throat and starts to throttle him.
I can't remember what technique Judge Scott uses to get the pitt bull off of White Fang as he lays at the edge of death gasping for his last breath, but it saves White Fangs life.
Anyways the book is set in Alaska of course, hmmmmmm.
Well I guess I'll have to read it for reference, seems pertinent for some reason.
Gustav is hardly "nothing more than a tropical rainstorm"! YOu wouldnt know it in the cable news media,but there is--more of the same--more water, more roofless homes, FEWER homes,and everything that STILL wasnt repaired is likely beyond repair. It's a mess. The only places "renewed" after Katrina were tourist traps and big houses on the Lake. The 9th Ward, St. Bernard Parish, etc. stayed a mess, and gawd only knows where the peope that used to live there, are now.
What does it say about a person who has become so over-managed that he's afraid to show simple humanity? What is he afraid of?
There is no difference in t he.... tw...o ......part...
Oh hell, I can't type another line of it.
Sides are now firmly taken and the only thing left now (barring some catastrophic event, of course) is to vote.
I had high Hopes for O, but once again, was let down by another democratic loser.
Ok, I'm outta here to cast my third vote for Ralph. At least I have someone to vote for. Thank you again Ralph, for taking up our issues.
Godspeed, all.
Fortunately the Democrats are not predatorily by nature and that’s why the T Rex (Party) will always attempt to rip their guts out.
But T REX does have an Achilles heel, turn their issues inside out and upside down
i think it is clear that obama has cracked under the pressure of being "so close he can taste it"
in these vicious right wing times he does not have the commitment to the ideas as espoused by our dear friend Naomi
it is a calculated move, as noted, that seems to cede the high ground to cynical analysis as opposed to commitment to progressive ideals
i think it was/is the wrong move, as evidenced by mccain's bounce on this issue
more than that though, obama has dropped the ball over and over again throughout this never ending campaign, but more and more it seems of late
to be fair to mccain, destroyed as he was by bush in 2000, hating him as he does (as noted by sydney blumenthal this week) he can fairly say that he wants change as well, as he has done
but he has been doing a lousy job of communicating - he doesn't seem to have a grasp on the issues, he is getting more paranoid on a daily basis and yet obama - who i think everyone expects to crush mccain - can't lay a glove on him
and progressives lose
obama the poster boy has no clothes
to me he looks like the black clinton - which is to say that he talks the talk but will never walk the walk
murdoch,wall street, and the imperial war machine see a friend in obama
more harsh times for the republic
cheers, b
What struck me back at the time of Katrina is that the whole thing made for such a perfect opportunity to attack the very core of the Republican message.
The Republican's always want to preach responsibility. They always preach that they want a small government. This is the core of their philosophy and how they argue in favor of destroying any governmental controls over business.
Katrina punctured that. The classic picture of what's wrong with that theory is the people after Katrina sitting on rooftops with signs saying "Please Help." And, under the Republican philosophy, there was no help coming.
This was an amazing opportunity for an opposition party to talk to the American people about how there are times when any of us can be overwhelmed by events. Its easy to talk about self-reliance and responsibility, until something massive like a hurricane hits you. Then its suddenly obvious that some things in life are just too big for individuals to deal with. And that in those times the only way to survive is for people to work together.
The alternative to the Republican philosophy was always the idea was that the government is how people in our society come together to do the things that require everyone to work together. Responding to Katrina was one. Just simply building and maintaining the levees around the city is another. Clearly no individual or business can afford to build and maintain the levees for a city. Instead, that is clearly a case where all of the people need to come together.
So, I thought for awhile that there was a great opportunity to attack the very core of Republican philosophy. The picture of those people sitting on a roof top begging for help was the future of all of us under the Republican philosophy. Sooner or later, we all can get hit by something that's too big for us to handle on our own. It might not be a hurricane, maybe its a long illness to ourselves or someone in our family. Lots of things in life can lead any of us to being in that spot. And under the Republicans, we'd just be stuck sitting on our roofs, or standing by the side of the road, with a sign that says "please help".
What's clear now is that the Democrats have no intention of challenging what I've been calling the 'Republican philosophy.' They've refused most of the time to even make Katrina a minor issue. And they've certainly declined to take advantage of this major opportunity to challenge this philosophy and to propose a more community based alternative.
That says a lot about the Democrats
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Realistically, The Dems can't afford to raise expectations that would never be met. And, There's no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, as Chomsky reminds us in his (Feb 16, 2008) essay, "Good News, Iraq And Beyond."
"The Wall Street Journal came close to the point [that regular people are meant not to lead, but to be led] in a major front-page article on Super-Tuesday, under the heading "Issues Recede in '08 Contest As Voters Focus on Character." To put it more accurately, issues recede as candidates, party managers, and their PR agencies focus on character (qualities, etc.). As usual. And for sound reasons. Apart from the irrelevance of the population, they can be dangerous. The participants in action are surely aware that on a host of major issues, both political parties are well to the right of the general population, and that their positions are quite consistent over time, a matter reviewed in a useful study by Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton, The Foreign Policy Divide; the same is true on domestic policy (see my Failed States, on both domains). It is important, then, for the attention of the herd to be diverted elsewhere."
Issues arising out of the catastrophe of Katrina must look very scary and dangerous to Barack Obama. In which case, It doesn't matter, since that indicates that he is hopelessly compromised, in which case he really could never be of any use to the majority of Americans and especially the most vulnerable Americans. All that matters is that Obama is young and fresh and a gifted orator, referencing those qualities Chomsky notes are so important to the contestants' campaign managers.
I spent some time tonight on Democracy Now's website and found this interview to be quite interesting, if somewhat hard to follow (audio issues):
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/maverick_author_paul_waldman_on_free
You really get a sense of what Chomsky means when he talks about campaign managers' focussing on personalities, character and qualities, when you see how much of what McCain's strategists say about him is bunk. You know that both candidates will be held up as superheroes, but you still don't expect total fabrication. When you look closely enough to see that deception, it's breathtaking. For example, McCain's o so principled character needs to be seen against his statement that he won't let lobbyists run the White House, while his campaign is run by them. The image of McCain they are promoting includes the idea that he is a maverick who only supports his party when he honestly agrees with it, when in fact other Republicans have more often than McCain voted against their party. In fact, his record of voting with the party is damn good.
Yep, It's ugly.
Bill from Saginaw
The "plenty of political reasons" for the Obama campaign to help create an issue vacuum "by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic domestic outrage in modern US history" are what remain a disturbing mystery to me.
Since when has it become impossible for an American politician to champion the interests of both the middle class, and America's poor or homeless people who have been displaced by an environmental disaster? What kind of "strategic" reasoning is at work behind the scenes, creating situations where "the truth has gone silent" so that "lies, boldly told, work almost as well" as speaking hard truths?
This dynamic is depressingly reminiscent of the frustrating 2004 Kerry campaign. The whole issue of George Bush's authorization of detainee torture was handed up to the Democrats upon a silver platter and was never mentioned once.
This election cycle, the McCain campaign (and the GOP's major convention themes) pound away with strident, sabre rattling calls for eternal vigilance joined at the hip to eternal military adventurism abroad against an ever-widening array of international enemy evil doers, no matter what the cost in blood or blowback, wasted lives or squandered treasure. This incessant jingoism even comes intellectually packaged up in macho-sports metaphor - the best defense is a good offense, quitters never win and winners never quit, yada-yada-yada, We're Number One!
The silence from the Democratic Party leadership in response is nearly deafening. Why not, with great force and clarity in Naomi Klein's terms, stand up and unequivocally renounce the Bush/McCain doctrine of preemptive and preventative war? Why not specifically denounce the Pax Americana pipe dream of the Project for a New American Century, the brain child of Randy Schuenemann, John McCain's chief campaign strategist on national security (and recent paid lobbyist for the "fledgling democratic state" of Georgia)?
In a two party horse race presidential campaign, where one side claims to have liberated 50 million people and valiently surged to the threshold of victory in Iraq (while the other party sits mostly silent in response to such dangerous, hyperbolic bullshit), it should come as no big surprize if a couple of weeks before November 4th many legitimately undecided, persuadable swing voters choose to believe the GOP's boldly told and unrebutted lies. Why shouldn't they believe that military aggression works, if nobody tells them otherwise?
Maybe Barack Obama does intend to speak hard truths with force and clarity about Bush/McCain preemptive war and warfare economic policies when he challenges John McCain's "judgment and temperment" qualifications in the upcoming presidential debates. But I have an ominous sense of forboding that a strategic decision for "plenty of [unspoken] political reasons" may have been made already by the beltway Dems to deliberately downplay ending the occupation of Iraq as a 2008 campaign issue.
If so, history may tragically repeat by making this presidential election close enough to steal once more.
Bill from Saginaw
Sigh. I am painfully afraid that you are correct. Things just seem to continue to look worse. Good analysis, though.
"Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents."
Stop pulling punches, NK, it doesn't become you - the reason BO avoids NO at all costs is because he (meaning the Dem machine) is afraid the Rove-publicans will use footage of BO surrounded by hundreds of angry black Americans for their next "Obama is a black militant pagan" (a FOX nut actually said that) campaign ad, now that the Rev Wright attack has fizzled.
Nothing scares soft, white, brainwashed Rove-publicans like a "gang" of black people, unless they're playing on a pro court somewhere, or it's Earth, Wind and Fire...
What always amazes me about the Democrats is that one of the key reasons they lose elections is that they 'look weak.'
When they cower in the corner scared to death of the possibility that someone might attack them, they just continue to look weak. Which means they will continue to lose.
They just don't seem bright enough to figure out that if they stood up and fought. Then if they took a few hits from attack ads, but then continued to fight back, then they wouldn't look weak and they might win.
If the Dems spent more time figuring out how to attack the Republicans instead of being afraid of their own shadow and imagining ways they might be attacked, they'd be in much better shape.
Of course, the real problem is that the Dems tend to be in total agreement with the Republicans. So, its not that they are afraid of the Rovian-attack-ad. Its that their big donors will pull their money if they dared to challenge the Republicans.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
That sounds like rationalizing to me. Did Sen. Obama tel you that that was why he is ignoring NO? What about the rest of the DNC leadership? Also, I am white (not GOP--dead first!). Crowds of "angry black people" dont "scare" me. They make me want to know why they are so angry. When I find out, I am often angry also.
This may be true outside Louisiana, but less so in the city itself.
New Orleans people, all of them, have a long memory. In this they are unlike other Americans. Who stole the city from whom? The perceived answer to that question is based upon where and how one's ancestors lived, not on anything that has happened in the last 3 (or 30) years. People, all of them, are trying set things right now by resetting, if you see.
Even so, I see a lot of good happening in New Orleans. There is a will to make it work in new ways and in old ways that shows everywhere. Overall the residents seem to like one another despite their differences. Where that fails, a cultural habit of showing formal respect to others makes up for it.
New Orleans was a lawless and terrifying place to live in ways that other Americans may not appreciate. NOBODY wants to see that again. There is not agreement on how best to achieve it but there is agreement on the goal.
Obama and McCain are a pair of blips that don't register. It's the storms that register, and the local leadership. The only politicians getting any notice are Ray Nagin (who can do no right now, no matter what he does) and Bobby Jindal. The people of New Orleans rebuilt their own city the hard way all the times before and they expect to do so again. They want the federal government to close MRGO - and to pay for doing so - asap.
I can think of two other American locales in which there is no capacity for growth because there is no land onto which the city can spread: San Francisco and Manhattan. Neither welcomes people of limited means. Is New Orleans really so much worse? Go to nola.com and read the real estate offerings. Compare to offerings in other locations. New Orleans unwisely tried to get around the problem by spreading into marginal marshland after WWII. Nobody knows how to right the wrong now. In truth the children of New Orleans, like the children of Manhattan and San Francisco, will probably have to give up and go elsewhere unless they find a way to make a very good living in New Orleans.
None of this is to disagree with the author; money is to be made and the usual suspects are all fighting for their piece of it. If they don't prevail it will be the first time. Again, look at Manhattan. Where are the children of the people who built that city a hundred years ago?
Offshore drilling is already a fact in the Gulf of Mexico, a fact which isn't going change until the oil runs out. Refineries are everywhere. I'll bet not one person in a thousand in south Louisiana knows or cares anything about drilling in Alaska. That's another world.
mvh
People in Manhattan have been fighting to keep what is left of middle income and low income housing; it's one of the few places that has (still) some rent regulation. I lived in NOLA from 1965-1967,going to that city for my relative to work as a "community organizer" in the antipoverty program (sponsored by a mainstream local agency). I got there just in time for Hurricane Betsy, and the community organizing work was in the 9th Ward based on what the people wanted to work on. This included police brutality and the women in the area started a welfare rights mothers credit union.
At this time, I have a friend in Jefferson Parish. The long memories of white people include a patronizing view of what was termed "our blacks"... My memories of NOLA include living downwind from a pesticide factory when a rent increase drove us out of the French Quarter to near Tulane University. The food was good, though.
Manhatttan, NYC has its faults, but it is diverse. We also have police brutality. We even have some integrated housing:by income and colors/national background. Manhattan's problem is America's:real estate is "king". Community organizers are the heroes.
New Orleans isn't being ignored. It's the prototype for future cities and communities. It's already in the hands of the oligarchy. Read Jack London's IRON HEEL. That's what's in store for all of us.
Hoa binh
Whether we like it or not, I feel very strongly that Klein, once again, is right on the money! (no pun intended) Senator Obama has reached out, not one iota, to poor Americans, of any race. Still , if he loses the election, it will be blamed on hte "poor, uneducated, stupid, vote". Anywhere but the mirror, folks. Hurricane Gustav, which was not as bad as feared, was finally "handled well", as far as evacuation. (Message is, if youre going to have a natural disaster, have it during campaign season!!)But, the Red Cross is on tv begging for $$ for FEMA, which is a Federally Mandated organization, which we pay our tax dollars to, which is supposed to be responsible for this type of thing! They have $3 million and need $60 million--WHY? Because the people in power see no need to fund it, as long as the parties keep spouting the wonders of "faith based initiatives" and "'charity".This is, quite, simply, letting the govt off the hook, for a federally mandated function , that we, the people, have already paid them to take care of! Sen. Obama chould have, at leaast MENTIONED the poor (not a curse word, you know), as he was busy paying homage to what is left of the middle class! Do they really need another $1000--or cant we all just give it to states affected by the hurricanes? maybe we could use it to build afforeable housing there, out of the flood zones. So Clooney raised, wht $900,000 for Obama in Switzerland? Look, who does not love Clooney. But dont both candidates have ENOUGH $$$! Why not raise money for NO, or for food banks, now that the misery index is rising. THAT would win more votes than a slick campaign commercial--at least, I know it would around here!
Just curious, but does the Red Cross ad specifically say that any money contributed goes to FEMA?
I don't know. I almost never watch advertising on TV.
The reason I ask is that I believe the Red Cross does have a bit of a history of using disasters to advertise for contributions. Then they use the contributions to fund their organization and pay staff salaries. Ie, the money don't always go to the disaster they are using to advertise. 9/11 was a case in point I believe, there were all those Red Cross ads on TV, but they paid a relatively small percentage of the money raised to victims of 9-11.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not terribly surprised if the Red Cross is on TV asking for donations, even after the hurricane wasn't as bad as it was thought it might be.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
They are implying that that is where it would go. (I cannot afford anything, anyway)But, i was just trying to point out that, what the hell is a group working withing a fed. agency (FEMA) doing asking for $$--charity?? What happened to the tax$$ we already paid them to do stuff like this!Charity is just not a reliable substitute for public intervention, which we pay them to do, and can expect (LOL) in return when we need it. Its just something that needs to be done on a large scale. Depending on the "generosity of the Am people" (which is alot lower than most Ams think)is just not reliable and it lets govt off the hook. So much for McSame saying that th Convention would "put on their ASmerican hats" (LOL) and raise money--those rich ass basterds. But, if you watch the floor of thegOP convention, they DID put on some seriously laughable hats!! I liked Bernie Sanders comment at he DNC --"take off the cowboy hats. If I want to see a horse's ass I'll stay in DC!" Golden drops of truism...now I have to go have a beer..Sleepy. "Night, Nader boy (saw your name last night) Me too.
In addition to whether our "government cares," the bottom line in Florida is tourism. The coral reefs are already stressed to the point many are dying, and that means goodbye tropical fish. The Nature Channel and others have done skillful documentaries on what happens when even ONE staple is taken out of an ecosystem. Generally the whole thing collapses. We have a dead zone emanating out of the Gulf where New Orleans and the effluents that wash down the Miss. end up. It's an OUTRAGE to expand this through oil spills and disruptive operations.
What Ms. Klein did not mention, and of course media beholden to corporations would never utter, is that it will be YEARS before any of this oil actually enters the pipeline. Thus it's all environmental much and chaos until then, precious years when investments in far wiser energy technologies could and SHOULD be taking place.
Obama has sold out on EVERYthing that matters... at a time when unconscionable behavior is unthinkable. Maybe when people enter high office and have all those power lunches their egos get so big they lose sight of the most remote spiritual realities: like we're all in this LIVING experiment together, and when the bottom starts dropping out for some, it will inevitably such others along even if they think their elite positions are untouchable.
Thanks. I spent many years snorkeling and diving the Florida Keys and saurrounding Bimini, etc. I cannot afford to move down there (try selling a house in Ohio right now), although I had planned to. Over the years, I watched and smelled, (and tasted) as the reefs, the Gulf and all else quickly deteriorated into a big algaeal bloom mass! Huge portions of the sea floor are simply DEAD zones now. I havent been there in years , of course, but I am willing to bet that,if a candidate backs offshore driling, that Big Oil will take that as the "go ahead", and will continue lobbying for drilling -HERE AND NOW- until there is nowhere to swim, fish, dive, or play off the nation's Gulf Coast. It is sadder than I can describe.
We have a large dead zone off the Oregon coast as well. Our governor has said no to off shore drilling, but I'm sure his right to say no to it will be recinded at some point, or he'll be replaced with someone who says yes. I really pity our children, grandchildren, and those, if any, who'll come after them, for the world they'll be struggling to survive on.
I wish I could stop crying. I may be on a jag.
Obama is a band aid on a gaping wound. He will not save the patient.
Naomi is correct in her criticisms of the tepid and timerous tone of the Obama campaign to date. But keep the faith, because the current track from the National Hurricane Center for Hurricane Ike shows it entering the gulf by the mid-week, although as things now stand the west coast of Florida and maybe the panhandle are more likely targets than New Orleans.
Poet
(Who lives in Florida where these things
are a deadly serious matter.)
If our current government really cared, the Dutch would have been brought in to rebuild the levee system in NO. And we'd all have health care, and college education/trade schools, new bridges and roads, ect, ect. But the government is not working for us. So More of the same, no I'm voting for Obama. I wish there was a viable 3rd party. But after 8 years, and the internet, nothing? So its Obama, and I hope for change.
What more evidence do you need before you realize Obama is a phony candidate? The list of suspected evidence is growing in my mind.
So, you are voting for the people who've refused to do anything to help with this even though they've held a majority in Congress for the last two years. And you are voting for the candidate that refuses to even to talk about the issue.
You can 'hope' for change, but from the actions of the Democrats, its a pretty sure bet you won't get it.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com