Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans?

[Hemlock]

[quote=bargalunan]:
Meanwhile you're right : this example would be stronger if the two captions were written by only one news agency. (AP or AFP, that doesn't matter).

That is all I wanted to hear. I meant one will not "use" the word looter, not sue. It is a typo - I am sorry.

[wolf]

Seems like a private company took over disaster management for New Orleans.

I suppose they're fired?

[Trilby]

maybe it's a literary tick.

[Undertoad]

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, Bush isn't a racist. He's an Ivy League snob that has no use for poor people.
If your Daddy ain't rich, you obviously come from poor genes.

Yeah, yeah UT. Bush pays people big bucks for all those nice photo ops, and they're earning their pay. So fucking what? Where was Bush when the Republican party tore the funding for those levee's and pumps down to nothing? Where was he when their brothers and fathers and sons got sent off to Iraq? How come he has consistently cut funds for housing for the disabled and battered women trying to escape with their children away from an abusive environment? Yeah, Mr. Compassion George. Got any more fairy tales for us?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person as in "Meanwhile TW never said..."?

Does it bother those when it is not done the traditional way? Good. The message is still correct. Make them start thinking ... innovatively.

Meanwhile, this should sound familiar. "I don't post politically correct. I post bluntly." If that means upsetting English teachers by changing perspectives - then good. I have less respect for those who portrary things in terms of phallic symbols and innuendo rather than stating the point bluntly. Instead some people insist mixed perspectives violate English teacher grammar rules. Intolerance.

For reasons I can only speculate, UT replied with a pissing contest rather than answer a simple question. Maybe those mixed perspectives so bother him as to post accordingly? Ask him. Somehow he cannot even answer the simple question without attaching personal bias.

Rather amazing how one can ask a question right at the heart of racism and get a distorted and emotional reply with so much innuendo attached. Or does too much first and third person make people emotionally distraught? One thing we do know – I posted no phallic symbols. If I had intended to say “Fuck you”, I would have said it up front and bluntly – or maybe in 'third person' to only add insult. Such phrases don't provide logical value to the simple question:

Show me where George Jr did anything last week to dispell the rumors of racism.

Apparently the only answer is in a photo op (sometimes called acting) where the people are carefully screened - and not from New Orleans. It is an answer; apparently the only one that anyone can provide. A 'smoking gun' answer would have George Jr personally firing Michael Brown and personally taking charge until another could be found. That is but one example of what a real leader would have done.

Originally Posted by tw

Does it bother those when it is not done the traditional way? Good. The message is still correct. Make them start thinking ... innovatively.

Meanwhile, this should sound familiar. "I don't post politically correct. I post bluntly." If that means upsetting English teachers by changing perspectives - then good. I have less respect for those who portrary things in terms of phallic symbols and innuendo rather than stating the point bluntly. Instead some people insist mixed perspectives violate English teacher grammar rules. Intolerance.

Nah, I'll tolerate it, tw. Its just an unusual manner of posting and, like I said, it throws me sometimes. Thanks for the explanation.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

If I had intended to say “Fuck you”, I would have said it up front and bluntly – or maybe in 'third person' to only add insult.

This cracked me up. In third person, I think you'd have to say "TW will fuck you."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

This really is a 'barn door' administration. They are completely reactive to all threats, from terrorism to infrastructure.

You can't have it that way, nor try and have it both ways, RichLevy: were they completely reactive, they wouldn't have taken the proactive step of going to kill the terrs in their own back yards, but instead have forted up behind our borders.

Turning to the ever-odious TW: stop demanding that we prove a negative, you rounded and pink ass. That is what you allege will be what satisfies you, as here:

Simply provide an example that George Jr is not a racist.

We're wise to your dishonest little game. You got called on it back on page 2 of the thread, yet you still do it! Are you stupid, or simply evil? You deserve to have your head held under floodwaters -- nice stagnant ones full of corrosive and human waste. Your head will not emerge in especially worse shape from this treatment than the condition in which it entered, you damned ambulatory bad example. Do you live to make your ideas look bad? -- if so, you have succeeded superbly.

Oh, Urbane, you're back. We were so hoping you'd been visiting down in New Orleans. Oh, well. :p

[Undertoad]

A curious question for students of spin. Notice the only reason given to prove the president not a racist are the staged photo oppurtunities. Like it or not, the race cards are being played even by this White House.

When using the metaphor "play the race card" only the first player to play the card can be said to be "playing the card", or the metaphor fails. The first player to play the card was tw.

As usual, I have to say, I dislike being the one to defend W. But to look at the whole big picture and decide that race has anything to do with it is to take the very stupidest of possible criticisms. It's like criticizing Hitler because his mustache was silly.

We could take a timeline of Katrina and suggest what the possible choices and actions would be at each point on the line, and ask who should be making decisions and taking action. Instead we are on this moronic jackoff about race because we want to explore the darkest possible motive in W's heart. Why?

It's self-indulgent, unhelpful and, as Mike Moore found out, unproductive. Like the constant drum beat of "lies" wrt WMD, the public sees through such self-indulgent crapola as name-calling and not truly germane to the real discussions that make things work. (Please, no WMD sidebar, this is just an example.)

You talk about these things instead of having intelligent discussion.

To continue the discussion after the photos is just an attempt to continue to control the agenda and keep it on the self-indulgent crap. I'm not playing after this post, so you will have to play with yourself, t. Control all the agenda you like. Talk amongst yourself.

Lastly, somebody doesn't understand what the upset would be to the process, of setting Air Force One down in the middle of a lawless flooded sector of town so the Pres could get his feet wet pretending to care. Someone may not have heard that it was discussed and there was a rational decision made about that. It would interrupt everything else that is happening on the ground in that area, just to get the shots that tw wants. Frankly I would rather have him hugging people in the safe zone for a day. I guess I'm racist.

[Happy Monkey]

Salt Lake Tribune
Not long after some 1,000 firefighters sat down for eight hours of training, the whispering began: "What are we doing here?"
...
Many of the firefighters, assembled from Utah and throughout the United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, thought they were going to be deployed as emergency workers.
Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.
...
But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

Is that Hollywood enough for you?

[Troubleshooter]

Ok, I'm back, and it seems that the catastrophe in my back yard has sparked some tremendously high-brow discussion.

To simplify...

New Orleans is approximately 65% black, most of them are poor.

Poor people have reduced access to resources.

Reduced access to resources reduces your survivability in a catastrophe.

Blacks are over represented in the body count.

It's not rocket science, and it's not just the white man's fault.

I welcome any aid the Hollywoodites can provide, but money is only a short term panacea.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When using the metaphor "play the race card" only the first player to play the card can be said to be "playing the card", or the metaphor fails. The first player to play the card was tw.

Again, UT, you want a pissy fight because you cannot tell the difference between 1) accusations of racism based in emotion VERSES 2) the politics of spin using the race card. The first is what you are doing to promote a pissy fight. I don't know why. Others sometimes blame this type of reactions on not getting laid. The second is pure logic: how politicians could play the spin game to cast blame elsewhere - to even prosper politically. Based upon how the administration and FEMA reacted, the race card has to be played. The games of politics dictate it.

The first demonstrates that UT cannot separate his emotions from a logical discussion. The second is about what people like Karl Rove are experts at accomplishing. The second interpretation is how a UT would have posted without emotional outbursts and insults.

The question was simple.

Show me where George Jr did anything last week to dispell the rumors of racism.

The answer was simple. The only examples provided are staged press photo opportunities. However UT has made numerous assumptions to add more to that question and start a pissy fight.

The point was to step slowly towards discussing the game that Karl Rove, et al will play. Slowly because so many people will attach personal baggage; modify the question before answering it. UT does that repeatedly here. Somehow UT wants to turn this into a race war rather than point out how the spin game is being played. This 'reading only what you want to read' problem is why I slowly stepped towards the point. It demonstrates how some cannot just read a question without taking that question out of context.

Meanwhile one paragraph in the very first post said I did not believe the President was racist. That little paragraph put there to keep UT types from starting a pissy fight. The question was never about a racist president. The question was 100% about perception and how politics will be played. UT could not keep 'pissy' emotions out of a logical discussion. And that is a shame.

UT cannot see the difference between playing the race card - a political game - verses outright pissy accusations of promoting racism. His pictures demonstrate how a politician would 'play the race card' - to stay ahead of racist accusations. Especially since George Jr's poor PR performance on Friday left him exposed to accusations of racism. Somehow UT thinks those pictures prove everything we need to know. And so UT gets pissy when I suggest a bigger picture behind those pictures.

I am suggesting a logical response that spin doctors are performing. Somehow UT has that confused with outright accusations of racism. If that were true, then this paragraph (that he did not read) would not have been in the very first post

At no time did I say George Jr is racist. You would never know that from UT's repsonses. But show us one action this last week that can dispell rumors. George Jr's actions this past week are what a racist would have done.

There remains a big difference between what I have posted and what UT is accusing me of. He is reading his own biases into the original question and the following discussion. I am demonstrating why some people, such as UT, can be so taken by spin. Why those spin doctors are so successful. And what I suspect they are doing this minute.