|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2005 : 15:29:23
|
From factcheck.org:
Multiple investigations are likely into the response by federal, state, and local officials to the disastrous flooding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. New facts are still emerging, and we expect it will be months or years before a full picture can be properly assessed.
In response to numerous requests, we present here a brief timeline of events, as best as we can document them from public records and the best news reporting from the scene. We do not blame or excuse anyone, and leave it to others to judge what, if anything, could or should have been done differently. All times are converted to Central Daylight Time.
Full analysis can be read here: http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html
This is a great article. It included tons of stuff I hadn't read yet. Like this:
8:30 p.m. - An empty Amtrak train leaves New Orleans, with room for hundreds of potential evacuees. "We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm's way…The city declined," said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. The train left New Orleans no passengers on board.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 09/22/2005 15:31:42
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 00:43:01 [Permalink]
|
That train story has been discussed. I for one am skeptical given that many people had said all flights and buses were booked. Seems hard to believe Amtrak wouldn't have wanted to sell those seats even if they offered them to the Mayor originally.
Air America reported on the supposed 2,000 school buses gone unused that FOX news repeated over and over and the other anchors repeated. There was a very small number of buses in reality according to Media Matters investigators.
And even had those transportation options been available, the plan good or bad, right or wrong was to send folks who couldn't leave to the Superdome. That worked. It was the next 5 days with absolute incompetence at the federal level that made things so bad.
And as I have said and no one has yet answered, just where were those folks on that Amtrak supposed to have gone and stayed for several days had they left? Was the city paying?
I think in retrospect, the local officials were negligent in not seeing that the nursing homes were evacuated. But the majority of the outrage here should be at Bush's complete wrecking of the FEMA organization that Clinton had established.
And the second most outrage should be aimed at the town across the bridge's police chief that ordered his armed police not to let folks cross the bridge. Why couldn't they send in their buses? I hope someone sues that bastard.
And the third most outrage I have is at the staff of Tulane University hospital that evacuated themselves and the helicopter pilots that took them as the staff of the old Mercy Hospital stood by watching while bagging critically ill patients whose ventilators had had no power for several days prior. That news clip made me sick.
The timeline is excellent information, BTW. I just don't see the train as a very big part of the real story here. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/23/2005 00:46:23 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 11:27:59 [Permalink]
|
That train story has been discussed.
I don't have time to read every single discussion on skeptic friends. No one does. So there are going to be repeats, like the smoking conversation that happened over 3 months ago and again 2 weeks ago.
And as I have said and no one has yet answered, just where were those folks on that Amtrak supposed to have gone and stayed for several days had they left? Was the city paying?
Obviously the city would have had to make some calls to neighboring cities about temporary shelter and such. Part of the point is that the city should have had such networks set considering that everyone knew New Orleans might have exactly this disaster happen at some point.
I appreciate your analysis, and you make many very good points, and I also agree with you that the feds are more responsible for this type of major disaster, and they screwed up proportionately even more than the local government. And, indeed, Fox News is going to hype up the local screw-ups. If it makes you feel any better, less than 1% of the US population watches Fox News (or any cable television news coverage) and according to a recent poll, the majority who do watch Fox News do not take it to be honest coverage, but more watch it for entertainment or to compare with other sources. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 13:05:52 [Permalink]
|
How do you figure only 1% watches FOX? I find that hard to believe.
I would be one of those that watch it but know it is full of falsehoods.
I didn't mean anything negative about, "the train story has been discussed", only that I had commented in more depth and this comment was briefer.
As for the Mayor making calls to other cities for shelter, since the Superdome was determined to be the shelter that would be used, then unless the mayor expected the dome to overfill I don't see why he would Amtrak folks further away.
Like I said, it may have been a bad decision in retrospect, but that isn't the same thing as no decision or failing to act or total incompetence. And what about the actions the federal government would be expected to be taking the following day(s)? Whose fault is it if the Mayor was misled there?
As a skeptic I have to wonder why Amtrak wouldn't have sold those seats? I find that rather incredible, don't you?
There is just nothing the local officials did or didn't do that compares to the ineptitude and culpability of the Bush administration here. I reserve my judgment of the officials on the state level.I haven't been impressed with the actions taken on that level so far either.
I am concerned about the assumptions people here are making about just what authority and capability a mayor of a city actually has. Sounds good in an imaginary world but where is the evidence any mayor has all this supposed power? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 14:22:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
How do you figure only 1% watches FOX? I find that hard to believe.
I don't recall where I first read/heard that only about 2 million people use FOX News [sic] as their regular news source, so I did a little checking. Linked below is a page of information from Answers.com showing FOX has a viewership, on a good day, of around 3.3 million. That would reflect a little over 1% of the US population.quote:
Answers.com: FOX News...
The BBC reported that FOX News saw its profits double during the Iraq conflict, due in part to what the report called "patriotic" coverage of the war. By some reports, at the height of the conflict, they enjoyed as much as a 300% increase in viewership, averaging 3.3 million viewers daily ([1]).
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 23:22:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
How do you figure only 1% watches FOX? I find that hard to believe.
I don't recall where I first read/heard that only about 2 million people use FOX News [sic] as their regular news source, so I did a little checking. Linked below is a page of information from Answers.com showing FOX has a viewership, on a good day, of around 3.3 million. That would reflect a little over 1% of the US population.Answers.com: FOX News...
Great link. I especially liked a link from the link:
http://www.newshounds.us/
quote:
News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
The BBC reported that FOX News saw its profits double during the Iraq conflict, due in part to what the report called "patriotic" coverage of the war. By some reports, at the height of the conflict, they enjoyed as much as a 300% increase in viewership, averaging 3.3 million viewers daily ([1]).
Well they went on to say viewers increased to 7 million then fell back. Daily viewers doesn't exactly mean total viewers. And another issue is how many of the population are kids and don't count as viewers. And, finally, it matters what the share of total news consumers FOX has is, not the percentage of folks in the country that watch.
I don't think the majority are FOX believers. FOX has a very right leaning audience. But one can hardly say FOX has no significant influence on the basis that 3.3 million daily viewers are only 1% of the US population. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
