Re: OT: Following is the timeline not widely discussed in the news:

Tia Mary wrote: 
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

..... Seems to me there's a gracious plenty of blame to
go around.  Do you believe there was no federal culpability
here?  If so, you're just as gullible as any who claim that
the state and local governments were blameless.

I think what is "sticking in the craw" of a number of people is the *fact* that so many people spend so much time laying the blame directly at "BushBabys" feet but never seem to want to say much in the way of criticism of the local government. The President is blamed for just about every possible problem. 

	?!  Frankly, that's not my impression at all, and I've
seen, read, and heard rather a lot of news coverage over this.
I seem to have picked up quite a bit of criticism about *all*
levels of government, some justified and some not at each level.
If you believe criticism is only being directed at the federal
response, I just can't imagine what your sources are.

As for this BS about "facts" -- what in the world is wrong with you? Are you not reading what is written? BubbaNightstick posts that people being interviewed say they could have left but chose not to (for whatever reason). If that's what people say they did, then that's what they did! 

	Did I ever, *anywhere* say either that those people lied
or that no one stayed in NO who could have gotten out on their
own?  If I did, please let me know so that I can go back and correct
it.  If you have heard even a hundred people say they decided
not to evacuate even though they could have, all that you know
is that one hundred people chose to stay when they could have
gotten out.  There were tens of thousands of people there.
A hundred is a drop in the bucket and explains little about
the structure of the situation and what needed to be done
most urgently.  If most of the folks could have gotten out
and didn't, well, then there's no problem that needs solving,
even at the local level, aside from perhaps some more public
education on how dangerous hurricanes are in the hopes they'll
make better choices next time.  Would that be what you're
claiming?  That they could have gotten out?  I'm sure that
would be a relief to many in local government, who would then
be off the hook to come up with a better plan for evacuation.
No need for the government to kill themselves and spend a
fortune to save the lives of people who simply aren't interested
in evacuating, even though they have ample opportunity and
resources to do so.

This is NOT University and anyone can report what they have heard without research backing up their comments. 

	Um, where did I dispute that some folks stayed in
NO even though they could have left?  Anyone is welcome
to state the fact that some people chose to stay when they
could have left.  I don't dispute that, and never have.
However, anyone who wishes to go further and offer the
*opinion* that the existence of *some* of such folk
means that the claims that there were significant numbers
who *couldn't* get out are bogus, well, I don't think it
takes a PhD to see that that conclusion does not necessarily
follow from that fact.  Just because some chose to stay,
that does NOT mean that everyone who stayed chose to stay.
That's about as basic as common sense logic gets.  If you
want to make the argument that there was no problem with
the evacuation failing to get out large numbers of people
who couldn't get out themselves, by all means, do so.  But
you're going to have to pony up some real evidence for that
claim, and I have yet to see any.

Very few RCTN'ers are investigative reporters or "professional researchers". 

	And that is relevant....how?  You don't have to
be an investigative reporter or a professional researcher
to be a critical thinker.  A wee bit of thought and some
common sense will go a long way.  I don't think there is
anything I've posted that requires an investigative
reporter or a professional researcher to either say it
or to challenge it, if someone has some facts to back
them up.

	By all means, anyone who wishes to show me where
any facts I have presented are incorrect or where any
of my argumentation based on those facts is faulty, feel
free to do so.  I don't think *anybody's* opinions are
above debate.  I'm just not going to be impressed if
verifiable facts and strong argumentation are countered
with falsehoods or weak argumentation.

Best wishes,
Ericka
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 9 people killed in a random shooting rampage
    ... understand why you chose to deny the facts as you do. ... What I have a hard time with is the bizarre concept of people not having ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Common Sense Prevails In Georgia
    ... chose to bless us with the following ... Remembering that Poland was attacked by Germany on September the First, 1939 is less important than being able to take the facts involved and being able to peice together the reasons for Germany's attack. ... It's also more likely to be *engaging*, as there is little that is less interesting than rote memorization of facts. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Speed of trucks on the motorway these days
    ... >> What you chose to believe is up to you but it doesn't change the facts ... that you don't see the incidents which people complain about. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: OT: Following is the timeline not widely discussed in the news:
    ... A wee bit of thought and some common sense will go a long way. ... I don't think there is anything I've posted that requires an investigative reporter or a professional researcher to either say it or to challenge it, if someone has some facts to back them up. ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.needlework)
  • Re: Speed of trucks on the motorway these days
    ... In article, Depresion ... > What you chose to believe is up to you but it doesn't change the facts that all ... - Patrick Stewart, Extras. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)