Heh, that would be something to see, all right. Michael Savage inspiring hope. Ken Lay restoring order. Rush Limbaugh urging restraint (as he rifles the medical supplies). And of course, George W. Bush preaching compassion.

You didn't actually read Bill's article, did you John?

But your increasingly-widespread assumption that references to people who display hope, order, restraint, compassion or competent self-reliance couldn't possibly involve liberals was sociologically interesting, nonetheless.

Joe, does your tribe still include this guy?

It's a lovely concept, your Tribe, and it seems like everyone's concept of what the response to disaster, (that we have as a nation set up and funded), should be. Our disillusionment is all the worse.

That criminal elements took advantage of a chaotic situation is terribly sad, but not the fault of the mass of people who were victimized.

Thanks for this analysis. Reading it was as though you spoke from my heart. I am never as good with words as you are, I truly appreciate your analysis, your honesty, and be assured that many feel as much as you do. Thanks!

Someone... I don't really know if Rabbi Brody is my tribe in Whittle's sense. He was what Bill calls a sheepdog - one of the best - but his life has changed a great deal since those days. More about helping people and making peace (he does a lot of both, and is even highly respected by local Arab tribes) than protecting them.

I do know that he shares my religion - though not always my view of same - and that he's my friend. There are subjects we disagree about rather deeply, however (evolution, for example), and the post you cite would be another.

I don't pretend to know Hashem's mind like that, and Rabbi Brody shouldn't, either. It strikes me as an act of off-the-scale presumption, one that also verges very dangerously close to both hillul ha'shem and taking pleasure in the suffering of others.

Bottom line: that kind of stuff is idiotic and worse, whether uttered by Muslims post-tsunami or by my friend (still) Rabbi Brody.

Wow, Joe, what an idiotic essay you've brought to our attention.

I was born and raised in New Orleans - I knew many people from the Ninth Ward, the kind of folks who ended up in the Superdome. You and Whittle are simply deluding yourselves if you think that you're somehow substantially different than they are: that your friends and neighbors wouldn't have acted exactly the same when faced with a complete lack of food, water and security, or that you could have somehow magically screened out those individuals who would have "raped, murdered, and stolen."

You personally may have acted heroically, and Whittle too, for all I know. But it takes more than a few heroes to define the behavior of a mass of people.

Disasters do unearth the best and the worst in people, and in groups. I'm exceedingly sorry to see that what Katrina has unearthed at Winds of Change is a tendancy towards ignoring and excusing the blatantly obvious truths about the administration, about our readiness for emergencies, and about the country as a whole.

Chris: the blatantly obvious truths about the administration, about our readiness for emergencies, and about the country as a whole.

Forget the first two - tell me the blatantly obvious truth about my country, please.

Forget the first two - tell me the blatantly obvious truth about my country, please.

Ok, fair point. The outpouring of support and good will towards the displaced from the US as a whole has been phenomenal, and makes me proud to be an American. I was referring to the fact that the urban poor have been, and continue to be, spectacularly screwed over (and not just w/r/t Katrina) but you're right, that's not really on the same level as the first two points.

Does that work for you, Glen?

Who is screwing over the urban poor Chris?

Who is screwing over the urban poor Chris?

Answer me this first: do you disagree that the poor folks who stayed behind during Katrina were subsequently screwed over? Or are you taking the view that the poor are mostly to blame for their own situation?

I realize there are more than a few people on this board who'd love to try and kick me around on the basis of my earlier statement re: "the truth about this country"... which I've since backed down from. You can keep trying all you like, of course, but not engaging on the far more substantive critiques I made about Joe and Bill seems rather weak.

The leaders of New Orleans and Louisiana badly failed the poor of that city when they essentially shrugged their shoulders after Ivan and decided it wasn't worth trying to evacuate them OR to stock supplies in the Dome ahead of a major threat.

The power struggles, ego, butt-covering etc. since then made it worse.

As a nation they are being served now, via immediate food, shelter, contributions. In the mid-term, many of them need jobs or need job training; their kids need schooling and stability.

It is also true that there are self-perpetuating pathologies in many very poor communities which make things a lot worse than they needed to be. Drug use, casual violence, gang behavior are some of them.

And no, I don't think my tribe would easily descend into those particular behaviors - not because we are inherently superior but because it is a cultural and family values point of pride NOT to do so.

Of course, it is also a point of pride to be as independent as we can be in the face of circumstances we can't control - but controlling whatever we can, including our behaviors.

I say that as someone familiar with rural poverty who spent several years of her childhood eating 2 rather than 3 meals a day because that's what we could afford.

Chris,
Your statement sounded like you were talking about all urban poor, everywhere, were being screwed over.

The ones in New Orleans were screwed over by a poitical machine that they were forced to remain dependent on. They were used for votes and then abondoned when crunch time game.

This is a lesson in how people should ultimately be resonsible for their own welfare. Unfortunately, the only lessons that the poor have gotten for decades is that of dependancy. Call it political serfdom if you want. We'll probably disagree about who their lords are.

Chris: .. do you disagree that the poor folks who stayed behind during Katrina were subsequently screwed over? Or are you taking the view that the poor are mostly to blame for their own situation?

Presumably they were not screwed over by the people (many of whom are also poor) who have been tirelessly risking their lives to rescue them, and who are now taking them into their homes. And conflating their present plight with the idea that "the poor have it coming" is less than helpful.

Most of those poor people have lived for generations in welfare colonies, surrounded by the worst crime in the country, sending their poor kids to the worst schools in the country. Not a situation that inspires a great deal of trust. Whose fault is that?

If you have to pass out blame, how about some for the likes of Kanye West (a person who is hardly poor or disadvantaged) who tells hurricane victims that the Army is coming to shoot them? Do you think this is an encouraging thing for people who are desperately in need of help to hear?

And yet, Kanye West's sentiments are so thoroughly familiar and mundane that most stories about it hardly even noted his remarks about shooting poor people. They headlined it as "West rips Bush" (hooray) and moved on. West's kind of thinking is common as dirt. Whose fault is that?

A number of blogs (of a certain partisan persuasion) are gleefully spreading the rumor that the Army Corps of Engineers deliberately blew up the levees, either to save rich homes or just to kill more black people. This is what many of the children coming out of this disaster will grow up believing, for the rest of their lives. And of course, believing that George Bush deliberately let them suffer because he doesn't give a crap. Or because he wanted to destroy and disperse the Democratic stronghold of New Orleans.

Whose fault is that? Who benefits from that? How is this going to help those people rebuild their lives?

Glen-

Your post pretty much ignores everything I wrote preceeding it, and then proceeds to attack multiple straw men. In other words, it's a textbook example of the "ignoring and excusing" that I mentioned earlier. We can move beyond that, or just end things right here.

Lurker-

Again, I have firsthand experience with the people in question, and see little connection between your "political surfdom" and the reality of the people in New Orleans. That said, yes, let's just move our separate ways.

Chris: Your post pretty much ignores everything I wrote preceeding it, and then proceeds to attack multiple straw men.

Well, before any more valuable ammunition on straw men, maybe you should tell me what I'm supposed to be shooting at. Because I carefully read everything you wrote, and I still don't get it.

Just as you obviously don't get what Bill Whittle said. His point was not that he - or anyone else - is substantially different from the people of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans. I'm sure Bill would agree that the same type of phenomenon would be observed in any number of places. Some people instinctively help others, and some people instinctively victimize others whenever social restraints are removed.

Likewise some people instinctively take responsibility for themselves, while others don't. Often because they have been told all of their lives that they are helpless victims of a society that is out to get them at every level, ich makes them as incapable of accepting kindness as they are of giving it. Call that a straw man all you want.

Chris, I fail to see any connection between your comments about the urban poor ( which I'd argue with anyway but regardless ) and anything said in the original post.

If the urban poor choose to abandon the kinds of civilized behavior that Whittle and Katzman are refering to - and yes, it is a choice - then they forfeit my sympathy. And some theme about getting something back for their resentments will be rejected by me instantly.

I would second Robin's point about the urban poor. I read the essay a couple of days ago and have not reread it yet, but I don't recall Whittle using poverty as a defining factor in the description of sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Monetary worth was not stated as a deciding factor in tribe membership. I will apologize if I am wrong here.

Chris, I have trouble with the statement "that your friends and neighbors wouldn't have acted exactly the same when faced with a complete lack of food, water and security".
I believe that Whittle's point is that some people do things to find themselves in situations better than facing no food, water, security.
Your argument seems to rely on a complex question. The conclusion is inherent in your question. I can't answer the question you raise, that I find myself without food, water, and security, because I do things everyday to not find myself in the situation in which you would wish to place me. So how could I answer as to what I would do in that situation. This is akin to asking me if I have stopped beating my wife.

Blatantly obvious truths about stuff. Tough to argue with that. But I bet I would be wrong.

Glen-

You said:

Just as you obviously don't get what Bill Whittle said. His point was not that he - or anyone else - is substantially different from the people of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans. I'm sure Bill would agree that the same type of phenomenon would be observed in any number of places. Some people instinctively help others, and some people instinctively victimize others whenever social restraints are removed.

Bill said:

Absent, of course, was the fundamental truth of what he plainly does not have the eyes or the imagination to see, namely, that if the Superdome had been filled with white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself, it would not have been a refinery of horror, but rather a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion.

That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That's because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal.

Bill explicitly states that he and his friends would not have done what the people in the Superdome did (or, more accurately, whatever he thinks they did), because they are inherently better people: a different "Tribe" from the people in the Dome. Any attempt to claim otherwise is a lie.

The conclusion is inherent in your question. I can't answer the question you raise, that I find myself without food, water, and security, because I do things everyday to not find myself in the situation in which you would wish to place me. So how could I answer as to what I would do in that situation. This is akin to asking me if I have stopped beating my wife.

How exactly is this substantively different from saying, "The people in the Dome did not do the necessary things to avoid being in that situation, therefore their situation is their own fault?"

Actually, the "tribes" Bill was talking about had nothing to do with their geographic location (like the Superdome), but with their actions.

By BIll's definition, there were members of both tribes in there, as well as wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs.

Chris this is like watching you take a Rorschach test.

Actually, the "tribes" Bill was talking about had nothing to do with their geographic location (like the Superdome), but with their actions.

By BIll's definition, there were members of both tribes in there, as well as wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs.

Right. Because, as I said at the beginning, you can magically sort out who's who, keep all the bad people out, and make the Superdome "a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion."

But heck, even assuming you can, I call bullsh*t on Whittle's assertion that him x 10000 would have done better, plain and simple.

Chris this is like watching you take a Rorschach test.

Maybe. Likewise, Katrina is like watching the whole country take a Rorschach test. It certainly says something about a person if they think Kayne West is a bigger problem than George W. Bush...

Hilarious really.

"My Tribe doesn’t make excuses." Well, except for FEMA and the federal response.

"My Tribe does not believe that a single Man can cause, prevent or steer Hurricanes."

Well, the only tribe that does that watches Pat Robertson. Didn't he run for president once?

"my Tribe does not and has never made someone else responsible for their own safety, and that of their loved ones."

I'm sure his local police and fire departments will be glad to hear that one.

"And in Louisiana last week the governor cried and the mayor blamed everyone but himself, and half the country bought every single stinking Pink lie about global warming and missing National Guard units and blamed the sheepdogs while the wolves raped and pillaged and looted everything in sight."

Wow! Everything in sight was raped and looted! Incredible! Odd I didn't notice all the limps during my volunteer time at the Astrodome last weekend. Those folks heal up quickly.

And what's with the pink and grey crap? How on earth did he arrive at those colors.

Mr. Whittle obviously thinks he's a pretty tough dude. Macho to the core behind the keyboard at least.

When Whittle gathers up his "tribe" and places himself in the exact situation faced by those he denigrates I might consider his rant.

But frankly this is the silliest thing on WOC I've seen yet.

But it's powerful for sure. Thousands have latched on and claimed membership in this "tribe". Apparantly the requirement for membership is a bloated sense of self and a puffy chest. But hey, if it helps ya sleep at night...

Chris, you are not making any substantive claim whatsoever. You just want to spread the general odor of racism and class warfare. We've all smelled it before; it's nothing new to us.

The "blatantly obvious truths" that you cling to have absolutely nothing to do with Katrina. They are the same "blatantly obvious truths" that you believed six months ago. Excuse me for not sharing them.

I'll bite davebo

I bet that Whittle's local police and fire departments appreciate the tax dollars that Whittle willingly pays to generate their salaries. I bet they appreciate that he has fire alarms, and fire extinguisers in his house and perhaps an exit strategy if all else fails. I bet that they appreciate that he locks his doors when he leaves his home, not to steal, but to earn an honest living. They probably like that he does not mishandle combustable materials. The police probably appreciate that he doesn't drink and drive. I bet they appreciate that he wouldn't fire a weapon at them as they come to his assistence if an accident did occur at his house. I bet they appreciate that they do not have to treat him as they would other sheep or wolves. I bet that they appreciate that he has acted to help an accident victim prior to their arrival. And I bet that he would thank them if they needed to help him if he was in the accident.

Chris,

What if you and Whittle are both correct?

Here's how I see the dialogue, stripped down to its core:

Commenter Idiot: "I wish people with Bill's values, whom I hate, could have been herded into the Superdome Concentration Camp to experience the misery." [that left-wing compassion at work again...]

Bill Whittle: "If you got your wish and the place was full of people like me, there wouldn't have been a lot of misery. You don't get that, and you don't understand why not."

Chris: "But in reality, you can't fill a place that big with just one type of person. No matter where they come from geographically. What you saw there is what you get."

You and Bill can both be right - and Bill is still making an important point.

I'll add that it's almost certain that there WERE people from Bill's tribe in the Superdome. And in the flooded areas, too. I'm hearing the stories of neighbours coming by in boats, people pitching in, etc. They're there.

There just weren't enough of them. Worse, their non-governmental civic organization was too weak. Worst of all, there were NO people like that at the levels of government or civic coordination above them. Not until a 3-star General "John Wayne Dude" (Mayor's admiring words) showed up, began kicking butts, and got things moving.

Which is exactly why a piece like Bill's, celebrating the value and real achievements of people with the mindset he describes, is important. Even if a shining beacon of hope in a Superdome remains a fantasy (one begun by Bill's commenter, and which he elected for the purposes of argument to share), ratios matter. To leadership choices. To social cohesion. To do without those folks, and those virtues, is social suicide. In the event of a disaster or attack, it usually becomes actual suicide for many.

Having lots of people like Bill's "tribe" is an Unalloyed Good Thing.

As Bill notes, it's not a tribe defined by mainstream political affiliation, or social class. It's defined by choice. So having all kinds of people reading that and saying "that's the tribe I want to choose!" is also a good thing. Even if that isn't who they are YET.

Choice implies the capacity for positive change.

By pointing this stuff out, and giving it form, and celebrating, (without political, socio-economic, or racial exclusion) those who make the hard and costly choices to be part of this tribe, Bill Whittle has done something useful, important, and necessary.

I don't think any of it needs to be in disagreement with Chris' points here.

On the other hand... the Left, who doesn't ideologically believe in the phenomenon of choice at a social level, and spent its last 50 years waging a multi-front war on the very folks Bill defines as his tribe, can't be expected to be appreciative.

An amazing comment, Joe.
Combining your quote
"the Left, who doesn't ideologically believe in the phenomenon of choice at a social level, and spent its last 50 years waging a multi-front war on the very folks Bill defines as his tribe, can't be expected to be appreciative."

and the definition of the tribe given above.
"That's because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal."

If you honestly believe that the left has "spent its last 50 years waging a multi-front war" on "individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal" I am just incredulous.

If you believe this, how do you explain European nations governed by Social Democrats (Left in any definition) having rape, murder, and theft rates that are small fractions of rates in countries governed by the Right (like the US).?

Do you think the left parties in Europe and the US are composed of those who "rape, murder, and steal" and are at war with those who do not?
Wow!

Claiming some moral higher ground for your mythical "tribe" because you do not rape, murder, and steal just puts you on a mundane moral baseline with the vast majority of people of all political views, left or right, green or brown. Most people just do not need some silly theory to pat themselves on the back when they live according to basic moral precepts.

The whole "my tribe" concept is pompous and self-congratulatory, especially when someone sitting safe behind a keyboard congratulates himself for his presumptive actions in fantasy situation, as compared to the real-life struggles of flood victims fighting for their lives in city swamped in toxic muck.

Chris,
I and my friends - the rich ones, the middle-class ones, and the poor ones; the white ones, the black ones and the foreign-born ones. If we were taking refuge in the Superdome - would not have trashed the place. When the toilets ceased working, we would have organized field-expedient latrines instead of believing that the entire stadium was a toilet.

We would have organized ourselves such that we were actually running our shelter instead of allowing anarchy to reign.

All stuff I expect I would find hundreds of thousands of people doing in Louisiana ( outside of New Orleans ), Mississippi and Alabama this last week. I expect that there were even a lot of instances of this behavior in locales within New Orleans.

Tom, Bill Whittle's tribe requires more than that. People who do not rape, murder, or steal are just the beginning. And I stand by my comment. Bill Whittle could have titled his essay, like, "The Man," man, and it would have been totally groovy.

Or, to sum his essay up in just 3 words: We "The Man"!

Long live the spirit of "The Man."

Meanwhile, Marxist social theory is very clear: choices are societally and materially determined. Hence, Bill's concept of choosing one's tribe outside of social class is ideologically anathema. QED.

This continues to exert great influence of left-wing and even liberal political thought. Dr. Theodore Dalrymple is one of the most powerful speakers to this point, and his collection of experiences, observed over a long period, validate and correlate strongly with this contrast between Bill's approach and the Left's.

The crime front is of course related to issues of morality, responsibility, and choice - indeed, it could not be otherwise. Deterministic social beliefs continue to shape a great deal of left-wing policy.

RE: the "people who do not rape, murder or steal" bit... I recommend spending a bit of time in your average university sociology class. And listening more carefully as a not-inconsiderable swath of left-wing thinkers argue for the abolition of jails (lots of those were in my Criminology courses, in books and in person). One might even note the patterns re: support for allowing prisoners voting rights in the USA, and wonder a bit.

I recommend researching the term "defining deviency down," and then looking into James Q. Wilson's "Broken Windows Theory" of crime, applied successfully in New York (some guy name Guiliani, who did not make himself popular with the Left thereby - even though crime affects poor people disproportionately) and elsewhere (look up black police chief "Reuben Greenberg" for an eye opener).

After that, you might spend a moment or two contemplating why the rise of the American Right owes at least as much to the Left's record on crime as it does to economics or foreign policy. And of course, the same calls for "understanding" and "dialogue" and procedure we hear on behalf of terrorists (vs. "they're black hats, take them out and keep people safe") have been heard on behalf of less gradiose criminals for some time now. All that has changed is the scale.

Just for fun, you understand.

P.S. You might want check those recent European crime rates and trends out a bit more closely. Also just for fun.

Again, Liberals and Conservatives can both be "gray," can both be part of Bill Whittle's tribe.

Anyone who has ever watched Tim Russert for even a couple hours couldn't possibly doubt that. Especially if you've heard anything about his Dad "Big Red." HE was, like, "The Man" all right, in living, personified, firmly Democrat but very non-psychedelic colour.

It was once easier for leftists to be members of Bill's tribe as well, but since the 60s the toxic cocktail of boomeritis and left-wing ideology, plus the inconvenient collapse of Marxism, has changed the Left. What remains presents the weird spectacle of a belief system with its foundation ripped out and original rationalism abandoned, performing unnatural post-modernist acts and focusing on its hates rather its programs - all to frantically feed The Need to Believe lest any of this be noticed.

That this need rises rather than falls with the absence of anything coherent to act as its core remains one of the grand jests and defining ironies of our time.

Whittle tribe aren't all cops or firefighters. Some of them are... hairdressers:

"In the dark tunnels underneath the [Houston] Astrodome, volunteer barbers and stylists have set up a shop where Katrina's refugees can get a shave or have their hair done for free before they set out to rebuild their lives.

"What they are doing is priceless," said storm survivor Keith Anderson, a 41-year-old probation officer who waited in line for a shave and a haircut he hoped would help him find a new home and a job.

My tribe includes hairdressers!

Chris, Davebo,

Thanks for your thankless work here. I'm afraid these guys are too far gone, which for me at least, is incredibly scary - that some of the obvious failings of the Bush administration, of FEMA, of common decency, if they reflect poorly on the Bush administration, won't be mentioned.

On tribes, well, it's a great idealized philosophical category error - tribes are exactly NOT collections of individuals with similar and universal morals. That is simply incorrect. That's exactly what tribes are not. If you trace the historical route of ethics development, one of the things we have to thank the Catholic church for, at least in the West, is the allegiance to the "universal ideas", the universal ethos, proclaimed by God. In history, there was clearly self-interest in the Catholic church for this, but in my opinin, it served a good purpose.

And, speaking of tribes, what about when groups of people are purposely separated, and prevented from getting out of New Orleans?

This is what Shep Smith was talking about on Fox, that police and officials kept turning people away. What part of which tribe would those guys belong to?

On the greater issue, I'm at a complete loss in how to communicate to the people on here, in a way that will touch them morally.

You can clearly say there has been failures at the city, state, and federal levels, but will someone like Glen - partisan extraordinaire - admit the Bush administration mistakes?

It's completely mind-boggling, and scary. There are clear failures here, of communication between agencies, of mismanagement by installing FEMA officials who have absolutely no experience, of lies told by officials when questioned, of federal, state, and local agencies stripped to the bone of funding.

And these guys either don't care, and are purposely lying, or truly don't SEE.

And what I'll get for this comment is some snarky, cutting remark. IN THE FACE OF THIS.

How interesting it is JC, that so much of your "obvious failings" of the Bush administration are myths.

JC: will someone like Glen - partisan extraordinaire - admit the Bush administration mistakes?

The proper title is partisan par exemplar.

I certainly consider myself a superior partisan to the dismal and colorless (in every way possible) Nancy Pelosi, who responded to questions about state and local failings by accusing the CNN interviewer of working for the White House.

Back at the beginning of this thing, I commented that Bush was not the ideal man for every situation - this situation being perhaps a prime example. In other words, his virtues are not infinite.

That said, I'm not sure what mistakes you want me to admit to. He didn't go to New Orleans quick enough - so you could accuse him of staging photo ops and interfering with rescue efforts sooner?

He didn't send the National Guard (described in the article you linked to as racist, inept, and callous) quickly enough? If racism, ineptitude, and callousness made a late appearance in New Orleans, and it therefore took longer to fabricate stories of Guardsmen shooting and running over civilians, that is not clearly George Bush's fault.

The appointment of Brown perhaps was a mistake. I'd like to see Brown get a little more of a trial before we draw and quarter him. Still, Bush's appointments have been fairly good - as I said before, Bush is generally superior to Reagan and FDR in that regard, though he is much inferior to both in other respects.

So pick whatever person you would have liked to see in charge in Bush's place (keeping in mind that this is a republic and not a hereditary kingdom) but don't tell me that we wouldn't have a disaster on our hands all the same.

Gore, for example. Gore was vice president of the United States for eight years, during which time he extensively toured the country with FEMA. Did they ever visit New Orleans and look at those levees, maybe asking where all the billions of federal dollars were going?

Actually, I couldn't blame Al Gore a bit in this situation. Even if he could have seen the future, I doubt if anything sort of this tragedy would have untangled the bureaucratic rat's nest down there.

I certainly consider myself a superior partisan to the dismal and colorless (in every way possible) Nancy Pelosi, who responded to questions about state and local failings by accusing the CNN interviewer of working for the White House.

Dismall and colorless perhaps, but one cannot deny the cute upturned nose. Her preposterous response to a simple question is now being trumpted as some sort of triumph across the leftwing blogosphere. Perhaps any sort of lashing out at the press by a Democrat is seen as worthy- we having our own syndromes with the "MSM" that no doubt also reflect more on ourselves than Myra or Kyra or whoever her name is.

Silly of JC, though-- to expect any sort of candidness from the "partisan extraordinaire." I do not beleive Glenn has an unpartisan bone in his body, which is indeed rare for a soldier.

Hm. The "you don't agree with my criticisms of Bush so you think he's perfect" strawman gets beaten bloody again.

I'll admit I find increased skepticism of critiques from the Democrats and the Left, due to so many being flung out and found to be... lacking in veracity upon examination. Does that make me an icky partisan unwilling to see Bush's mistakes... or someone so tired of hearing the same old crap from partisans trying to drag an opponent down by any means necessary that he doesn't bother listening to those partisans anymore?

Oh, another thing: I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of the Warner Brothers cartoon.

"Mornin' Sam." "Mornin' Ralph."

;-)

This guy is definitely in the Tribe. The blame game, he says, is not our problem. Not yet:

"This blog is not concerned with the blame game being played at this time. We recognise that the failures and cock ups go right through the response system. We are not investigators. We are ex military and therefore know that the right time for investigation is :

1) When the event is under control and all persons reasonably removed to safety.

2) After the aftermath when reason, inspection and investigation can be performed dispassionately.

3) When improvements can be reasonably implemented in a timely and pragmatic fashion.

This blogs main concern was warning and after the event the aggregation of resources necessary for rehabilitation and reconstructions. This is not a political blog and we retain the right to object to all levels of government from a centrist point of view. We believe the greatest shame of America at the present time is the politicisation of a tragedy still unfolding and being dealt with. Having said that we recognise that large numbers have deployed to help the unwashed, traumatised shuddering masses of evacuees. We would encourage all people to assist on a bipartisan basis, politics don't feed the starving, talks cheap."

Way in - though not American. Good on ya, mate! Added this, too, as part of an earlier post:

"Of course there is mayhem now but thus it always is in levels of disaster like this. Of course there will have been cock ups, that's why it's called an emergency. We urge people outside of the USA to consider assistance in stead of blame, natural disasters are in fact natural."

Definitely part of the Tribe.

tribes are exactly NOT collections of individuals with similar and universal morals

Bill wrote a whole essay talking about what he was talking about. The working defintion of tribe in the context of his essay is what you should using too. You being deliberately obtuse by not getting this and trying to say he was talking about something else.

And yes the VRWC is supposed to be scary, even when it includes registered Democrtas like me. BOO!

The thing is you, davebo, Chris, and Tom V. were commenting ASAP after Katrina like a puppy proudly dragging in a dead rodent. "Look! See, I told you Bush was evil and incompetent! It's ALL his fault!"

Bush's faults are very visible. As our leader, it's obvious that he didn't get out in front this as quickly as he should have. Saying that he's responsible for bureacratic failure, local, state, and federal, is silly and partisan. You accuse the folks here of partisanship. All I've been saying is "look in the dame mirror".

There will shortly be investigations and commissions out the ying yang. So keep your powder dry for now. You'll look smarter.

Joe,
per your suggestion, most recent US vs Europe murder rates I could find 1998 -2000 from Nationmaster ...
22. Uruguay 0.04 per 1000 people
23. Bulgaria 0.04 per 1000 people
24. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
25. Armenia 0.04 per 1000 people
...
40. France 0.01 per 1000 people
41. Czech Republic 0.01 per 1000 people
42. Iceland 0.01 per 1000 people
43. Australia 0.01 per 1000 people
44. Canada 0.01 per 1000 people
45. Chile 0.01 per 1000 people
46. United Kingdom 0.01 per 1000 people
47. Italy 0.01 per 1000 people
48. Spain 0.01 per 1000 people
49. Germany 0.01 per 1000 people
50. Tunisia 0.01 per 1000 people
51. Netherlands 0.01 per 1000 people
52. New Zealand 0.01 per 1000 people
53. Denmark 0.01 per 1000 people
54. Norway 0.01 per 1000 people
55. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
56. Switzerland 0.00 per 1000 people

So clearly, those Lefties in the "rape and murder tribe" have murder rates around 75% lower than a country being administered by the supposedly "anti-rape and murder tribe".

Most recent US statistics from the FBI for 2003 actually give a murder and non-negligent manslaugter rate of 5.9 per 100,000

Somehow, your beliefs do not seem to correlate with the data.

Note that US incarceration rates per capita are about 5 to 8 time higher than Europe ("Land of the Free", not true percentage-wise, or for about 1 million citizens).

Funny thing about ideology. When an approach fails, hardened believers just want to try harder. So the GOP response to government failure at all levels in Katrina, has been to suggest further weakening of government and more reliance on private sector, "tribes", etc. rather than the obvious but ideologically taboo approach of fixing government.

Lurker-

And yes the VRWC is supposed to be scary, even when it includes registered Democrtas like me. BOO!

Based on the latest poll numbers, the vast right wing conspiracy is no longer all that vast. What's more, the vast, vast number of Democrats and Independants are strongly against Bush; it's only the die-hard Republicans that are still supporting the guy.

Call yourself a Democrat all you like, but you're clearly out of step with the majority of the party on this one. And since based on your past comments, you seem about as likely to vote for a Democrat in '08 as I am to vote for Bill Frist, you might want to drop the label entirely.

The thing is you, davebo, Chris, and Tom V. were commenting ASAP after Katrina like a puppy proudly dragging in a dead rodent. "Look! See, I told you Bush was evil and incompetent! It's ALL his fault!"

Er, I didn't post a damn thing on this board, or any other, about Katrina until the day before yesterday.

And yeah, I'd say Katrina is extremely strong evidence that Bush, at the very least, has not been doing the national security job that he was elected to do. "Incompetent" is debatable, but I wouldn't say "evil." And no, Katrina wasn't Bush's fault, but the terrible response afterwards was his responsibility - not just because of what he did during the crisis, but because it was his job to administer the DHS for years prior.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Bush's faults are very visible. As our leader, it's obvious that he didn't get out in front this as quickly as he should have. Saying that he's responsible for bureacratic failure, local, state, and federal, is silly and partisan. You accuse the folks here of partisanship. All I've been saying is "look in the dame mirror".

No, Bush is the man at the top, and 4 years after 9/11, if the DHS/FEMA/whoever isn't responding well in the aftermath of an emergency, it is his responsiblity. The fact that, by and large, it is just hard-core Republicans (or those, like yourself, who've been pushed into that camp in the past few years) does suggest that criticism of Bush is not partisan, but bending over backwards to defend the systemic failures of his administration is.

And now is absolutely the time to talk about this, rather than months from now when the investigations begin, when the horror's been forgotten about and people's attention has turned to something else. This site, and others like it, have done their level best to keep the fire of 9/11 stoked for years after the event: do you honestly expect people who are equally concerned about Katrina to do any less?

But hey, lurker, you tell me: does it seem like Winds of Change, and boards like it, are still on the winning side? Do you really feel like the administration you're championing is headed in the right direction, or does it increasingly seem to you, as it does to me, that y'all are increasingly trying to excuse and rationalize every critique, big and small, that comes your way? You're no longer leading, you're reacting, and that tends to be the death knell for any ideological movement. And you're welcome to prove me wrong, but based on past performance, I don't expect to be.

Chris: does it seem like Winds of Change, and boards like it, are still on the winning side?

The winning side of Hurricane Katrina? Is there a grand prize or something?

If you mean in general, then I can't speak for everybody, but my tribe measures victory in terms of centuries, not sound bytes. We are less concerned with the fortunes of trivial political parties than we are with the progress of civilization.

And though we march relentlessly from one triumph to another, we must remind ourselves (as Patton did) that all glory is fleeting.

BTW - The members of my tribe adhere in some form to this manifesto. Read it and remember that it's never too late to be on the winning team.

After all, Chris - what are you afraid of, anyway?

Running out of food and water, they walked to the bridge, growing in number to around 800 people as word spread of a safe way out:

As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.

We questioned why we couldn't cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little traffic on the 6-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City.

In an interview with UPI, Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson confirmed that his department shut down the bridge to pedestrians: "If we had opened the bridge, our city would have looked like New Orleans does now: looted, burned and pillaged."
THIS YOUR TRIBE?

Do you really feel like the administration you're championing

You are right in one respect, I'll probably get around to dropping that Democratic registration. It won't be to register Republican though. All this knee-jerk, unprincipled opposition, from whatever party, gets really, really old.

If either party wants my vote, they'll have to talk about issues and positions and facts. The Democrats are truly messed up, if Bush seems the better choice. Evidence suggests it will be worse for them next time.

Max,
The Gretna Police have a responsiblity to Gretna. No surprise they didn't want roving mobs running around their town without any destination or resources. Sounds bad don't it? How come the NOPD weren't there to help coordinate the evacuation?

The Louisiana National guard should have taken control by then anyway. First, they don't have a plan to get people out, and then they don't let food or water in. FUBAR.

tom... I'm too tired to recall the correct latin term for your argument using crime statistics that haven't changed in thirty years and has certainly waxed and waned under both republican and democrat administrations.

I'll just call it what it is: bullsh*t.

That has got to be the weakest argument I've seen yet.

Whittle went to great pains, extreme pains, to deny that there may possibly be even slight genetic differences between the vile barbarous miscreants who made the superdome a hell, and people like Whittle who go out of their way to help people in need. Whittle obviously hates racists who use race to explain bad behavior. That's fair. But Whittle enrages the idiots by blaming the badly behaved for their bad behavior. Apparently that is beyond the pale. If some people are bad, then everyone must be equally bad in the same way. Obvious, right? To idiots certainly.

Whittle made some obvious comments, that there are distinct differences between types of people. And some of the twit commenters here are too oblivious of the reality around them to understand. Par for the course. Wasting pearls on swine.

Great essay, stirring and inspirational, like all Bill's work. But this is just wrong.

That’s the other thing, too – the most important thing. My Tribe thinks that while you are born into a Tribe, you do not have to stay there. Good people can join bad Tribes, and bad people can choose good ones. My Tribe thinks you choose your Tribe. That, more than anything, is what makes my Tribe unique.

There are broad variations in tribes, both genetically and memetically. Choosing Bill's tribe is completely beyond the capacity of some tribesmen. So it is not a choice.

We can't do anything about the genetics, but we could about the memetics, if we could actually bring ourselves to admit that there is a difference. For example, the memetics attached to an individual at birth, could be reengineered by a good education or by including religion, both those meme complexes would increase compatibilty with Bill's tribe.

Glen-

If you mean in general, then I can't speak for everybody, but my tribe measures victory in terms of centuries, not sound bytes. We are less concerned with the fortunes of trivial political parties than we are with the progress of civilization.

Right, that's why you go out of your way to be evenhanded and support both Democrats and Republicans!

Or, y'know, not.

And nice way to basically singlehandedly assume credit for the progress all of civilization. Non-anti-idiotarians need not apply, I guess.

The members of my tribe adhere in some form to this manifesto. Read it and remember that it's never too late to be on the winning team.

After all, Chris - what are you afraid of, anyway?

Well, now that you mention it, I'm fairly terrified of blunt slogans and jingoistic screeds steamrollering over detail, nuance, and other aspects of rational thought.

Next question?

lurker-

I'm not championing Bush. I supported Clinton. Back then it was against the sufferers of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

And what does supporting Clinton in the 90's have to do with disqualifying you from championing Bush in the current decade?

You are right in one respect, I'll probably get around to dropping that Democratic registration. It won't be to register Republican though. All this knee-jerk, unprincipled opposition, from whatever party, gets really, really old.

Unprincipled? I support the principle of people in the US not dying because their President hasn't been doing his job. That kind of stuff never gets "really, really old."

If either party wants my vote, they'll have to talk about issues and positions and facts. The Democrats are truly messed up, if Bush seems the better choice. Evidence suggests it will be worse for them next time.

Yep. Because the party that effectively hasn't controlled any of the three major branches of government since the turn of the century definitely deserves to be the whipping boy for recent mistakes.

Way not to engage in knee-jerk, unprincipled opposition. High five!

Bill-

But Whittle enrages the idiots by blaming the badly behaved for their bad behavior. Apparently that is beyond the pale. If some people are bad, then everyone must be equally bad in the same way. Obvious, right? To idiots certainly.

What's obvious is that, whatever the inherent merits of his arguments (or lack thereof), Whittle's essay encourages guys like you to issue blustery blanket condemnations against people who've already been victimized enough.

Tell you what, read some of the firsthand accounts of people from the Dome, read some of the recent articles which describe how much of the "rampaging mob" reports were baseless rumors, and then tell me some more about the "badly behaved" people in the Dome.

Bait and switch?

In #27, Tom Volckhausen asks "how do you explain European nations governed by Social Democrats (Left in any definition) having rape, murder, and theft rates that are small fractions of rates in countries governed by the Right (like the US)"?

In #39, he triumphantly presents 1998-2000 murder rates for various countries. The chart does not prove what he thinks it proves. The alleged difference between countries ruled by Social Democrats and those (outside the U.S.) governed by the Right in the time period specified are invisible, perhaps because the numbers are so imprecise, but that's not the main problem. Nor does he notice that the "Right" was not ruling the U.S. in 1998-2000, unless you think Clinton was some kind of right-winger. (Of course, many people do, but they're idiots.)

The main problem: what about rape and theft? I'm not going to do T.V.'s homework for him, but I believe it is well-established that murder rates in the U.S. are indeed much higher than in most other western countries, but rates for rape, mugging, burglary, auto theft, and a dozen other violent crimes are in fact much lower in the U.S. than just about any other western country.

By the way, I've always wondered if those opposed disparities are related. Do "murder rates" actually count all homicides, even manslaughter and justifiable homicide? I think they do, though the last is not even a crime. Perhaps the U.S. has a lower crime rate for everything but murder because so many rapists, burglars, muggers, and auto thieves end up padding the "murder" rate when they are the "victims" (sneer quotes utterly appropriate here) of justifiable homicide by those they are trying to rape, rob, or otherwise attack?

Blanket condemnations against what people, Chris? You seem to be making plenty of blanket condemnations against "guys like me," but the only ones I am condemning are the rapists, looters, murderers, and violent gang members. I really should be ashamed of myself, I suppose, but curiously I'm not. Figure that.

Yes, you may believe that being a rapist, murderer, or looter entails a great deal of suffering, so that "guys like me" should never add to the suffering of those violent but suffering folks by condemning them, even a little. Interesting point, I suppose, if under the influence of certain chemicals, although I can't really think which ones would do the trick.

Bill

Oh, no! I said "guys like you"! Yes, that's certainly a horrible breach of etiquette that fully justifies you stating that I condone "rapists, murderers and looters", and that I'm under the influence of drugs, alchohol, etc.

Hate to break it to you, Bill, but I suspect folks like you (whoops, did it again) are going to be increasingly marginalized as the Bush administration falls apart. Yell at me all you want; won't change anything. And speaking of chemicals, I suggest you talk to your doctor about some kind of hypertension medication; otherwise you're likely to have a stroke if you keep spewing out the kind of bile seen above.

G'bye.

It's called an invisible language barrier.

The left-right dialogue problem, both playing itself out in this little corner of cyberspace and all across the nation is irreconcilable.

Neither side is having the same conversation.

Example:

Left: "I'm upset by seeing X(insert shocking nonrepresentative occurrence) and I want you to Admit you see it as crazybad too and own up that your party/leader/tribe/socialgrouping either did or would again make this mistake, proving you a rational person with the ability to evaluate facts. All I ever get from the right is partisan lies to save face."

Right: "I'm upset by seeing X(insert inaccurate out-of-poportion unwashed doe-eyed hippie stereotype spouting scary extremist belief) always criticize and conspiracy theorize every time anything goes wrong. They ruin the moralle of the nation and get in the way of the real work. Anything coming from a person who doesn't support my view must be either a partisan lie meant to undermine the leadership or the product of someone like crazy person X who would undermine free enterprise, free all the criminals and destroy profitability with environmental restrictions if given their way."

Neither side even knows who they're talking to nor has any member of either camp I've spoken with had an even remotely accurate view of why the 'other side' of their polarizing colorwheel-o-writepeopleoffishness believes/speaks/acts as they do.

Frankly, until people can have that preliminary conversation without it degrading into a nitpick festival of sniping at each other's platforms, no higher dialogue is even worth attempting. Nobody but each contributor's own side will hear them.