Are you going to switch from the philosophy department to the journalism department now? 
I have to say, with regards to the whole Gretna scenario, I have a certain degree of sympathy with their reaction/response. I'm not saying I think they did what was "right", just that I can understand the point of view even though there are uncomfortable (to say the least) undertones of racism and classism. I agree that repeatedly saying "they're not all criminals" says more than he's probably aware. It's kind of like "some of my best friends are black".
The thing is, there *are* a lot of criminals in New Orleans. Without addressing the sociological *reasons* for that, which are important and have needed addressing since before the hurricane was even a gust of wind, I think that the fact of New Orleans violent crime-ridden character are pretty well known.
Mayor Nagin hit it on the head when he said that the violence/looting/shooting/etc was largely from drug addicts who were now without the law to hold them back *and* without their drugs. (During the blackout by the way, a complete stranger asked me on the dark streets if I had an "extra hypodermic needle". I should add that he was white. Anyway, the point is, junkies have an additional set of problems during emergencies.)
Nagin's point was that there is a lot of drug addiction in New Orleans and the ugliest face of addiction rears its head when times get tough. The Gretna people were aware of this. Whether what they did was just or fair (leaning towards not), they saw shit going down and took a "rational self-interest" approach. That's not meant to be a defense on their behalf.
All that said, I think your letter was right on and it's cool that the man called you and that you did a bit of reporting.
There's more coherent things I should say, but I'm shutting up now.
Are you going to switch from the philosophy department to the journalism department now?
I have to say, with regards to the whole Gretna scenario, I have a certain degree of sympathy with their reaction/response. I'm not saying I think they did what was "right", just that I can understand the point of view even though there are uncomfortable (to say the least) undertones of racism and classism. I agree that repeatedly saying "they're not all criminals" says more than he's probably aware. It's kind of like "some of my best friends are black".
The thing is, there *are* a lot of criminals in New Orleans. Without addressing the sociological *reasons* for that, which are important and have needed addressing since before the hurricane was even a gust of wind, I think that the fact of New Orleans violent crime-ridden character are pretty well known.
Mayor Nagin hit it on the head when he said that the violence/looting/shooting/etc was largely from drug addicts who were now without the law to hold them back *and* without their drugs. (During the blackout by the way, a complete stranger asked me on the dark streets if I had an "extra hypodermic needle". I should add that he was white. Anyway, the point is, junkies have an additional set of problems during emergencies.)
Nagin's point was that there is a lot of drug addiction in New Orleans and the ugliest face of addiction rears its head when times get tough. The Gretna people were aware of this. Whether what they did was just or fair (leaning towards not), they saw shit going down and took a "rational self-interest" approach. That's not meant to be a defense on their behalf.
All that said, I think your letter was right on and it's cool that the man called you and that you did a bit of reporting.
There's more coherent things I should say, but I'm shutting up now.
P.S. Ok I lied about shutting up. I call all my professors "Doctor So-and-so" and I have always wondered if that is the right thing to call them. I'm from the south, too. Maybe it is a southern thing as people up here tend to call professors "Prof. So-and-so" or just First Name.
P.S. Ok I lied about shutting up. I call all my professors "Doctor So-and-so" and I have always wondered if that is the right thing to call them. I'm from the south, too. Maybe it is a southern thing as people up here tend to call professors "Prof. So-and-so" or just First Name.
"He thinks he did the right thing, because he protected his people. His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are."
This is exactly, exactly right. (And, you should probably make a macro for it, because it seems like this is the problem with almost every well-meaning person who falls down on the job of being a human being.)
Thanks for sharing your talk with the mayor.
"He thinks he did the right thing, because he protected his people. His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are."
This is exactly, exactly right. (And, you should probably make a macro for it, because it seems like this is the problem with almost every well-meaning person who falls down on the job of being a human being.)
Thanks for sharing your talk with the mayor.
Stroll,
I've never been able to decide whether I like students to call me "Rob" or "Dr. Loftis." But I am quite sure that people used my title far more often in the south.
So is it just southern politness, or is it some sort of awareness of hierarchy and authority? Can you fully distinguish the two in American culture?
Stroll,
I've never been able to decide whether I like students to call me "Rob" or "Dr. Loftis." But I am quite sure that people used my title far more often in the south.
So is it just southern politness, or is it some sort of awareness of hierarchy and authority? Can you fully distinguish the two in American culture?
As for the legitimate fear of crime angle: Yes, they had a reason to fear crime. As the mayor emphasized to me, a shopping mall near them had just been set on fire. My point was that in a crisis situation, you sometimes have to take a risk in the name of compassion.
As for the legitimate fear of crime angle: Yes, they had a reason to fear crime. As the mayor emphasized to me, a shopping mall near them had just been set on fire. My point was that in a crisis situation, you sometimes have to take a risk in the name of compassion.
Yes, your point was well taken. It really, really, really troubles me that the priority (in New Orleans, let alone Gretna) became "stop the looting" rather than "save people trapped".
As for using Dr. in the south, I think it may be a certain degree of southern politeness. I think my advisor once said, "you can call me First Name" but I am a little hard of hearing so I am not sure. Being unsure, I still call her Dr., though she may think that's wierd since she told me to call her something else. But if she *didn't* actually say that, then if I start calling her First Name, she may wonder why she's been downgraded. It's a conundrum.
Yes, your point was well taken. It really, really, really troubles me that the priority (in New Orleans, let alone Gretna) became "stop the looting" rather than "save people trapped".
As for using Dr. in the south, I think it may be a certain degree of southern politeness. I think my advisor once said, "you can call me First Name" but I am a little hard of hearing so I am not sure. Being unsure, I still call her Dr., though she may think that's wierd since she told me to call her something else. But if she *didn't* actually say that, then if I start calling her First Name, she may wonder why she's been downgraded. It's a conundrum.
Rob, I'm so impressed that you initiated a conversation and actually listened to someone with whom you obviously disagree. Thanks for sharing. Mr. Geeky and I admitted that our neighborhood might have done the same thing, but I don't know. It's an odd mix of people who I think are good at heart.
Rob, I'm so impressed that you initiated a conversation and actually listened to someone with whom you obviously disagree. Thanks for sharing. Mr. Geeky and I admitted that our neighborhood might have done the same thing, but I don't know. It's an odd mix of people who I think are good at heart.
Wow. Interesting glimpse into a whole other mindset.
Wow. Interesting glimpse into a whole other mindset.
Dr. Loftis:
This post is a very impressive piece of journalism. Sometimes the best thing to do is ask a question and just wait for a response...people will talk if you let them. I think Mayor Harris has a lot on his plate, and given the sequence of events, if my children and husband living 1/2 mile from a burning shopping mall, I'm not quite sure what I would have done.
Thanks for the details of your call, this has given me more to think about.
Your student-on-line,
Mona
Dr. Loftis:
This post is a very impressive piece of journalism. Sometimes the best thing to do is ask a question and just wait for a response...people will talk if you let them. I think Mayor Harris has a lot on his plate, and given the sequence of events, if my children and husband living 1/2 mile from a burning shopping mall, I'm not quite sure what I would have done.
Thanks for the details of your call, this has given me more to think about.
Your student-on-line,
Mona
Coming from the link you provided on the BitchPhD blog...
First, I will buy that he was afraid. Since I am not from the South, it is difficult to know what the mayor meant by the "they are not all criminals" comment. It is possible that he meant all blacks, or it is possible he meant all the poor refugees of all races. IMO, you should have asked him specifically what he meant by his comment since you bring it up here as an indicator of potential racism (unless I am reading too much into your comments).
Second, I went to school in New Mexico - not really the South. I referred to all my profs as Dr. Whatever as an undergrad. As a grad student, it would depend on the person. Some I called by their first name in all but the most formal situations - especially my advisors. But, for some profs, I always called them Dr. Whatever no matter the situation - grocery store, class, Department gathering, or wherever. And, if I was referring to a PhD holder, then I would typically use their title instead of their first name.
This behavior, in general, held up when I went to Delaware for PhD (which I did not finish). Further, when I interact with scientists at National Labs, I am more likely to omit the Dr. for a first name than use the Dr. honorific. When I taught high school, I insisted on being called Mr Deal rather than Steve. But, outside of school, I was comfortable with Steve from everyone. So, I think the correct usage will depend on context.
Coming from the link you provided on the BitchPhD blog...
First, I will buy that he was afraid. Since I am not from the South, it is difficult to know what the mayor meant by the "they are not all criminals" comment. It is possible that he meant all blacks, or it is possible he meant all the poor refugees of all races. IMO, you should have asked him specifically what he meant by his comment since you bring it up here as an indicator of potential racism (unless I am reading too much into your comments).
Second, I went to school in New Mexico - not really the South. I referred to all my profs as Dr. Whatever as an undergrad. As a grad student, it would depend on the person. Some I called by their first name in all but the most formal situations - especially my advisors. But, for some profs, I always called them Dr. Whatever no matter the situation - grocery store, class, Department gathering, or wherever. And, if I was referring to a PhD holder, then I would typically use their title instead of their first name.
This behavior, in general, held up when I went to Delaware for PhD (which I did not finish). Further, when I interact with scientists at National Labs, I am more likely to omit the Dr. for a first name than use the Dr. honorific. When I taught high school, I insisted on being called Mr Deal rather than Steve. But, outside of school, I was comfortable with Steve from everyone. So, I think the correct usage will depend on context.
Steve,
I didn't press him on what he meant by the comment because I didn't want to pick a fight or seem like I was making an accusation. While I think he made a terrible decision, I don't think that getting in a shouting match on the phone would have accomplished anything. In the end, also, it doesn't matter whether he meant Blacks, or poor people, or people from New Orleans, or refugees or whatever. Distrust kept him from helping people.
As for the other topic: I do not what this thread to become a discussion about what to call your professor. There are more important issues.
Steve,
I didn't press him on what he meant by the comment because I didn't want to pick a fight or seem like I was making an accusation. While I think he made a terrible decision, I don't think that getting in a shouting match on the phone would have accomplished anything. In the end, also, it doesn't matter whether he meant Blacks, or poor people, or people from New Orleans, or refugees or whatever. Distrust kept him from helping people.
As for the other topic: I do not what this thread to become a discussion about what to call your professor. There are more important issues.
It's very easy to second-guess other people's decisions from the sofa. So I won't. But one thing -- when you say 'His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are', I think you're missing the point. He's the mayor of the town; it's practically a definition of mayor that he should care about the citizens of his own town exclusively.
Which doesn't mean, of course, that he should always act selfishly for his town. The key factor is that he should act on behalf of his citizens, and make decisions on the basis of what they would think proper. And it sounds like he's done that, in fact; they've endorsed the conclusion he reached.
It's very easy to second-guess other people's decisions from the sofa. So I won't. But one thing -- when you say 'His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are', I think you're missing the point. He's the mayor of the town; it's practically a definition of mayor that he should care about the citizens of his own town exclusively.
Which doesn't mean, of course, that he should always act selfishly for his town. The key factor is that he should act on behalf of his citizens, and make decisions on the basis of what they would think proper. And it sounds like he's done that, in fact; they've endorsed the conclusion he reached.
What it sounds like is that both the Gretnans, and every other American around the country who defends them, have already given up on the idea that we live in a country.
That they have already given up on the idea that we live in a country - not that they were - *are* - responding to the "clear and present danger" - but that they have given up on the idea that there is a wider America out there, and that given a
This may be correct. It could be we've already gone past the point of any sort of national solidarity or effective strength, and are in the post-fall-of-roman-Empire state. I rather think the quick *civilian* response and *ongoing* civilian response from around the country (eg. Baltimore) contradindicates that, but what I find more interesting is the swiftness with which not just the possibly-understandably-swiftly-despairing Louisianans go for this, but the supposedly-patriotic-faith-in-America sorts, on both right and left, accept that we can't even do as much for our own people as Japanese in the face of flooding - or the Cubans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Sri Lankans...
(There's also, from what I'm hearing from people who are/were/know people down ther, a lot of reason to think that the mall fires (which have been contradictorily reported on, btw) were either a) the sort of accident you get from damaged sparking generators (I worked in an undermaintained shopping plaza that caught on fire in the back after a flooding rain, so yes, it does happen) or b) yes, suspicious - because the owners were losing money on the place hand-over-fist, and arson is a tried-and-true way of getting rid of non-working investment properties.
What it sounds like is that both the Gretnans, and every other American around the country who defends them, have already given up on the idea that we live in a country.
That they have already given up on the idea that we live in a country - not that they were - *are* - responding to the "clear and present danger" - but that they have given up on the idea that there is a wider America out there, and that given a
This may be correct. It could be we've already gone past the point of any sort of national solidarity or effective strength, and are in the post-fall-of-roman-Empire state. I rather think the quick *civilian* response and *ongoing* civilian response from around the country (eg. Baltimore) contradindicates that, but what I find more interesting is the swiftness with which not just the possibly-understandably-swiftly-despairing Louisianans go for this, but the supposedly-patriotic-faith-in-America sorts, on both right and left, accept that we can't even do as much for our own people as Japanese in the face of flooding - or the Cubans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Sri Lankans...
(There's also, from what I'm hearing from people who are/were/know people down ther, a lot of reason to think that the mall fires (which have been contradictorily reported on, btw) were either a) the sort of accident you get from damaged sparking generators (I worked in an undermaintained shopping plaza that caught on fire in the back after a flooding rain, so yes, it does happen) or b) yes, suspicious - because the owners were losing money on the place hand-over-fist, and arson is a tried-and-true way of getting rid of non-working investment properties.
The key factor is that he should act on behalf of his citizens, and make decisions on the basis of what they would think proper. And it sounds like he's done that, in fact; they've endorsed the conclusion he reached.
Which happen to be totally illegal.
They have as much right to block the free passage down the road through their town to people fleeing flood waters, Alison, as I have to hold a gun on you and keep you in your house while it burns until you catch fire, because I'm afraid you'll rob me if I let you cross my property.
(Not to mention as immoral. We would condemn those who refused to allow Rwandan refugees to cross the border as they fled psychotic neighbors with machetes, would we not, and rightfully? This is no different.)
The key factor is that he should act on behalf of his citizens, and make decisions on the basis of what they would think proper. And it sounds like he's done that, in fact; they've endorsed the conclusion he reached.
Which happen to be totally illegal.
They have as much right to block the free passage down the road through their town to people fleeing flood waters, Alison, as I have to hold a gun on you and keep you in your house while it burns until you catch fire, because I'm afraid you'll rob me if I let you cross my property.
(Not to mention as immoral. We would condemn those who refused to allow Rwandan refugees to cross the border as they fled psychotic neighbors with machetes, would we not, and rightfully? This is no different.)
Rob, it sounds like the mayor is in desperate denial about what actually happened (which he can't in any case know for certain unless he was at the bridge 24/7) - every eyewitness interviewed so far has said there were multiple gunshots, fired by multiple officers, and *not* black. That's Slonsky and Bradshaw, a white Boston woman who was with them (one of the very few whites) and Denise Moore, a black Army vet whose mother worked at Memorial Medical and couldn't leave- and who commented on my transcript of her interview from This American Life at my blog, and said that they took out her political statements.
Rob, it sounds like the mayor is in desperate denial about what actually happened (which he can't in any case know for certain unless he was at the bridge 24/7) - every eyewitness interviewed so far has said there were multiple gunshots, fired by multiple officers, and *not* black. That's Slonsky and Bradshaw, a white Boston woman who was with them (one of the very few whites) and Denise Moore, a black Army vet whose mother worked at Memorial Medical and couldn't leave- and who commented on my transcript of her interview from This American Life at my blog, and said that they took out her political statements.
It is phenomenal what people reveal and don't know that they are doing so. Your notes on this conversation really show the depth of biases and fears that this person had about people different than he was.
As for the whole "criminal" riff - where is it written that it is O.K. for us to let "criminals" die slow deaths merely because we're afraid they'll burn our shopping malls? Do we not have a moral obligation to protect the lives of all people? Are we not, as humans, fundamentally human because we have the ability to distinguish the relative values between people and property?
Kudos to you for engaging with this question, and for handling this conversation with grace.
It is phenomenal what people reveal and don't know that they are doing so. Your notes on this conversation really show the depth of biases and fears that this person had about people different than he was.
As for the whole "criminal" riff - where is it written that it is O.K. for us to let "criminals" die slow deaths merely because we're afraid they'll burn our shopping malls? Do we not have a moral obligation to protect the lives of all people? Are we not, as humans, fundamentally human because we have the ability to distinguish the relative values between people and property?
Kudos to you for engaging with this question, and for handling this conversation with grace.
I am most impressed by how civil your conversation seemed to be. Congratulations.
I am most impressed by how civil your conversation seemed to be. Congratulations.
I'm actually starting to think I should have been more forceful in the conversation. In both the letter and the conversation I was aiming for "respectful but firm" and I think I pulled that off better in the letter.
The problem is I am not very good at in person confrontation. I probably should have called him on the "and they're not all criminals" thing. I also have no idea why I said "There is no point in going over the past again and again, though." this is still the time for going over the past.
I'm actually starting to think I should have been more forceful in the conversation. In both the letter and the conversation I was aiming for "respectful but firm" and I think I pulled that off better in the letter.
The problem is I am not very good at in person confrontation. I probably should have called him on the "and they're not all criminals" thing. I also have no idea why I said "There is no point in going over the past again and again, though." this is still the time for going over the past.
I think my favourite bit is this: "The wrath of God struck New Orleans, and it spared us. We were hurt, but we did not see the wrath of God." It suggests that the people of New Orleans were morally judged by God and found wanting, but that Gretna was sufficiently righteous that they were not wiped out. This does not sound like a modern man -- this sounds like the headman of a village near Sodom or Gomorrah.
Back in Voltaire's day, there was a massive earthquake in Lisbon. One of its effects was to get at least some people beyond thinking in purely religious/judgemental terms, to thinking in more rational terms: "Could the whole city have really been sinful enough for God to eradicate it? Maybe this is not a judgement of God, but a natural disaster that affects the sinful and righteous alike." Note the absence of such rational terms in the mayor of Gretna's approach.
I was under the impression that the true catastrophe for New Orleans was caused by the incompetence and compassionlessness of Man, and there is not the least suggestion of that in what he says -- aside from when he mentions how long it took before aid showed up for his people.
I think my favourite bit is this: "The wrath of God struck New Orleans, and it spared us. We were hurt, but we did not see the wrath of God." It suggests that the people of New Orleans were morally judged by God and found wanting, but that Gretna was sufficiently righteous that they were not wiped out. This does not sound like a modern man -- this sounds like the headman of a village near Sodom or Gomorrah.
Back in Voltaire's day, there was a massive earthquake in Lisbon. One of its effects was to get at least some people beyond thinking in purely religious/judgemental terms, to thinking in more rational terms: "Could the whole city have really been sinful enough for God to eradicate it? Maybe this is not a judgement of God, but a natural disaster that affects the sinful and righteous alike." Note the absence of such rational terms in the mayor of Gretna's approach.
I was under the impression that the true catastrophe for New Orleans was caused by the incompetence and compassionlessness of Man, and there is not the least suggestion of that in what he says -- aside from when he mentions how long it took before aid showed up for his people.
To be fair, I couldn't tell whether he meant the wrath of god thing literally. That was something I should have pressed him on.
To be fair, I couldn't tell whether he meant the wrath of god thing literally. That was something I should have pressed him on.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the US and to the Republic for which it stands. What this sounds like is that both the Gretnans, and every other American around the country who defends them, have already given up on the idea that we are 'one people' who are in the same boat together. A previous commenter says the relief efforts is a counter-prevailing evidence, which is also true.
What this tells me is that in the coming WMD attacks on Americans cities, SOME suburban police will be ringing the cities to prevent people 'running for their lives' safe passage. In a nightmare of 'unintended consequences' this will mean that city dwellers will need to grab their guns before they try to escape. A horrific nightmare of civil war for everyone but the NRA.
Rob, your interview method did allow the mayor to state his own 'best case' as best as he could. Thanks. While he is charged to protect his city, his police were acting on PUBLIC highways that are certainly not his, and legal/civil charges would seem possible and likely.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the US and to the Republic for which it stands. What this sounds like is that both the Gretnans, and every other American around the country who defends them, have already given up on the idea that we are 'one people' who are in the same boat together. A previous commenter says the relief efforts is a counter-prevailing evidence, which is also true.
What this tells me is that in the coming WMD attacks on Americans cities, SOME suburban police will be ringing the cities to prevent people 'running for their lives' safe passage. In a nightmare of 'unintended consequences' this will mean that city dwellers will need to grab their guns before they try to escape. A horrific nightmare of civil war for everyone but the NRA.
Rob, your interview method did allow the mayor to state his own 'best case' as best as he could. Thanks. While he is charged to protect his city, his police were acting on PUBLIC highways that are certainly not his, and legal/civil charges would seem possible and likely.
The guy seems to be an insensitive bozo. He and his ilk are a big part of the reason I fled the state of Louisiana when I turned 18.
The guy seems to be an insensitive bozo. He and his ilk are a big part of the reason I fled the state of Louisiana when I turned 18.
The guy seems to be an insensitive bozo. He and his ilk are a big part of the reason I fled the state of Louisiana when I turned 18.
The guy seems to be an insensitive bozo. He and his ilk are a big part of the reason I fled the state of Louisiana when I turned 18.
The frequency of looting, crime, etc. after disasters is quite low. NOLA stands out as an aberration in this respect. However, the mayor's actions are typical: thinking people will panic, thinking looting is normal, etc. Either he or his disaster response team, or both, are unaware of the massive literature on disaster responses. Sad, and I think culpable.
see:
http://www.reason.com/links/
link...nks090705.shtml
More to the point, by keeping people in NOLA he contributed to the crime problem. Most people want to evacuate and get somewhere safe. Criminals stay behind to hit the unguarded. He could have escorted the "undesirables" through town, or put them up in public buildings under surveillance, and still helped, and kept his town safe.
My question for the bridge people is, why not surrender and spend the night in Gretna jail? Safe, warm, and fed. If they had all surrendered, or really been peaceful, they would have to use the local gym for a new jail. Methinks the shotgun blast was not simple machismo.
The frequency of looting, crime, etc. after disasters is quite low. NOLA stands out as an aberration in this respect. However, the mayor's actions are typical: thinking people will panic, thinking looting is normal, etc. Either he or his disaster response team, or both, are unaware of the massive literature on disaster responses. Sad, and I think culpable.
see:
http://www.reason.com/links/
link...nks090705.shtml
More to the point, by keeping people in NOLA he contributed to the crime problem. Most people want to evacuate and get somewhere safe. Criminals stay behind to hit the unguarded. He could have escorted the "undesirables" through town, or put them up in public buildings under surveillance, and still helped, and kept his town safe.
My question for the bridge people is, why not surrender and spend the night in Gretna jail? Safe, warm, and fed. If they had all surrendered, or really been peaceful, they would have to use the local gym for a new jail. Methinks the shotgun blast was not simple machismo.
I tend to agree with the person who said the Gretna authorities proved that every country and generation has its war criminals, even if they have no war in which to commit their crimes.
The Mayor has proven his commitment to his town, all right. But now he needs to re-examine his commitment to the state of Louisiana, the United States of America and the human race.
And I salute you as a living saint for speaking civilly to the man.
I tend to agree with the person who said the Gretna authorities proved that every country and generation has its war criminals, even if they have no war in which to commit their crimes.
The Mayor has proven his commitment to his town, all right. But now he needs to re-examine his commitment to the state of Louisiana, the United States of America and the human race.
And I salute you as a living saint for speaking civilly to the man.
Did anyone offer the survivors the option of taking shelter in the Gretna jail?
Did anyone offer the survivors the option of taking shelter in the Gretna jail?
"He thinks he did the right thing, because he protected his people. His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are."
To be precise, wasn't he pretty much protecting, not his people, but just their *stuff*? And to say that he was protecting it implies that it was in danger from the people on the bridge. Which is hardly clear at all.
It there any evidence that looting was any worse than during other large scale disasters? Particularly, large scale disasters for which no aid is provided for days on end, and for which officials actively make things worse?
"He thinks he did the right thing, because he protected his people. His problem is that he has too small a view of who his people are."
To be precise, wasn't he pretty much protecting, not his people, but just their *stuff*? And to say that he was protecting it implies that it was in danger from the people on the bridge. Which is hardly clear at all.
It there any evidence that looting was any worse than during other large scale disasters? Particularly, large scale disasters for which no aid is provided for days on end, and for which officials actively make things worse?
Found you through Honeyed Thyme. http://shunra.blogspot.com
You're bookmarked, babe.
Found you through Honeyed Thyme. http://shunra.blogspot.com
You're bookmarked, babe.
Freedom of movement (liberty) is a civil right. The City of Gretna may be the subject of much litigation in the future from those stopped at that bridge.
The Sheriff echoes Lynard Skynard - “We did what we could do,”
In Birmingham they love the governor, Now we all did what we could do
The Governor refers to George Wallace.
Freedom of movement (liberty) is a civil right. The City of Gretna may be the subject of much litigation in the future from those stopped at that bridge.
The Sheriff echoes Lynard Skynard - “We did what we could do,”
In Birmingham they love the governor, Now we all did what we could do
The Governor refers to George Wallace.
joejoejoe: that's why I titled the post the way I did.
joejoejoe: that's why I titled the post the way I did.
Your last paragraph is eloquent.
Here's one story from the Crescent City Bridge.
Otis had gone without dialysis for five days when their sons, Otis Jr., 35, and Orrin, 34, decided to push his wheelchair down the highway in search of help. They ended up walking miles.
They were near safety that Wednesday after the hurricane — most of the way across the Crescent City Bridge into Gretna, La. — when an armed officer told them to turn back because Gretna officials were concerned about looting.
By the time they made it out of New Orleans, hitching a ride on a truck, the younger men's feet were bloody and covered with rashes. Otis Sr. had fallen out of his wheelchair three times while they were walking and had open wounds on his head. He was nearly in a coma.
Your last paragraph is eloquent.
Here's one story from the Crescent City Bridge.
Otis had gone without dialysis for five days when their sons, Otis Jr., 35, and Orrin, 34, decided to push his wheelchair down the highway in search of help. They ended up walking miles.
They were near safety that Wednesday after the hurricane — most of the way across the Crescent City Bridge into Gretna, La. — when an armed officer told them to turn back because Gretna officials were concerned about looting.
By the time they made it out of New Orleans, hitching a ride on a truck, the younger men's feet were bloody and covered with rashes. Otis Sr. had fallen out of his wheelchair three times while they were walking and had open wounds on his head. He was nearly in a coma.
I also appreciate the civil conversation with Mayor Harris. I was born and raised in New Orleans, including the suburb of Gretna from age 9 to 18. My mom still lives in Terrytown, a sub-suburb of Gretna. She defends Harris, whereas I tend to take a disapproving view of his actions based on the variety of stories and angles I've heard.
I've been home several times since Katrina. I can't tell you how strange it is to see Oakwood (not Parkwood) mall in burned-out tatters. Jeeze, going to the mall was of the few mother-daughter bonding type thingies I could do with my dear old Republican Mom. Practically nothing is being done in the way of repairs. Oakwood mall sits there like an albatross with a Sears tumor on its side (the Sears store is partially re-opened) while developers wait to see if enough citizens will return to warrant rebuilding the mall (and the citizens won't return until the mall is rebuilt, so go figure); the really devastated areas are still really devastated (including homes of my family and friends) while the insurance co's, local, state and fed gov't argue about who should pay. Dude, I'm posting this on March 21, 2006, not September 21, 2005.
Grrrr.
I also appreciate the civil conversation with Mayor Harris. I was born and raised in New Orleans, including the suburb of Gretna from age 9 to 18. My mom still lives in Terrytown, a sub-suburb of Gretna. She defends Harris, whereas I tend to take a disapproving view of his actions based on the variety of stories and angles I've heard.
I've been home several times since Katrina. I can't tell you how strange it is to see Oakwood (not Parkwood) mall in burned-out tatters. Jeeze, going to the mall was of the few mother-daughter bonding type thingies I could do with my dear old Republican Mom. Practically nothing is being done in the way of repairs. Oakwood mall sits there like an albatross with a Sears tumor on its side (the Sears store is partially re-opened) while developers wait to see if enough citizens will return to warrant rebuilding the mall (and the citizens won't return until the mall is rebuilt, so go figure); the really devastated areas are still really devastated (including homes of my family and friends) while the insurance co's, local, state and fed gov't argue about who should pay. Dude, I'm posting this on March 21, 2006, not September 21, 2005.
Grrrr.
Tanya, I copied your comment to the front of the blog, in case people were interested.
Tanya, I copied your comment to the front of the blog, in case people were interested.
Commenting by HaloScan
