Katrina Exposes Poverty and Race relations

[Makalakumu]

Again, you go back and talk about how the levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm. When confronted with the fact that it is a local problem dealing with the lack of political will of local level officials to fund such projects (as it is a local issue...any federal funding is just a "bonus"), you shrug it off and make another claim about something else.

Lack of political will is BS. You talk to anyone and ask them if they want their homes flooded if strong storm comes by and what do you think they will say. The issue is a lack of power and a lack of money. The people who needed better levees don't have either. Local officials could not raise the money through their tax base to make major improvements like upgrading the levees to protect against even stronger storms. The corps couldn't get the federal government to budge on any money to do this project. This attempt to shift blame away from the federal level is pitiful.

Here's an informative source for ya'll...michaeledward posted it earlier.

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/r....asp?prj=lkpon1http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26628&page=1

FY 2005 BUDGET/EFFORT.The President’s budget for fiscal year 2005 was $3.9 million. Congress increased it to $5.5 million. This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts. Engineering design, and construction supervision and inspection efforts are also included. Seven contracts are being delayed due to lack funds. They include the floodgate at the Canadian National Railroad and the Gulf South Floodwall and Reach 2A and 2B levee enlargement, all in St. Charles Parish; Reach 1 and Reach 4 Levee Enlargements in Jefferson Parish; Pump Station No. 3 Fronting Protection, Robert E. Lee Bridge replacement and the New Orleans East Back Levee enlargement, all in Orleans Parish; and the Bienvenu to Dupre Levee Enlargement in St. Bernard Parish. The Pontchartrain Levee District is providing funds to construct the Gulf South Pipeline floodwall in St. Charles Parish. The East Jefferson Levee District is providing funds to construct the Reach 1 and Reach 4 levee enlargements in Jefferson Parish. Louis Armstrong International Airport is funding the Canadian National Railroad floodgate as part of the rehabilitation of the east-west runway.


FY 2006 BUDGET/EFFORT. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2005 is $3.0 million. This will be insufficient to fund new construction contracts. We could spend $20 million if the funds were provided. These funds are necessary to maintain the project schedule and to meet our contractual and local sponsor commitments.

IMPACTS OF BUDGET SHORTFALL.In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.

I'm sure you'll find some article that will make all sorts of excuses for this now...

Then after you've made some more claims, you go back to your original claim which is already pure bogus. I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand...the areas where the levees broke were recently upgraded and completed...you do understand what that means?

Oh yippie, more right wing brow beating. This is what Hannity and Limbaugh do when they start losing so they can at least sound tough for listeners...

That means at the local level, there was no political will to expand the levees beyond their category 3 capability. If you want to blame someone, blame the local authorities and policy makers (some of which just happen to be black...so where is the racism again?).

Have you actually listened to what the local officials have to say?

I'm sure you may drop away from arguing this point then re-introduce it as fact later on. It certainly is an effective arguing tactic against those that haven't followed your entire line of debate. But against those that have, it reveals how weak your arguments really are.

Right back at ya...

 

[KenpoEMT]

Oh, haha. Sorry, my safety has been off on these threads...

No problem. These debates can get a little heated.

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/r....asp?prj=lkpon1

I don't need an article to counter your part. All I need is common sense, logic and critical analysis.

Again, misunderstanding what your sources mean can cause you trouble. The main gist of that source is that funding was not available for new construction projects. In other words, the state of Louisiana has been so wasteful with the hundreds of millions of dollars they have received from the federal level (not even talking about local here) there was a concerted emphasis on forcing them to focus on existing projects (i.e. LEVEES). When they say there is not enough money for NEW projects, that is exactly what they mean. For NEW projects. You have spun this to make it sound like there wasn't enough money to fund the OLD projects. They received plenty of money, they just weren't using it for the right things. Again, lack of political will.

Oh yippie, more right wing brow beating. This is what Hannity and Limbaugh do when they start losing so they can at least sound tough for listeners...

As usual, you fail to actually address my argument and instead go off on something vague. How did that address my statement, which was the fact that the levees which broke were already recently upgraded and completed?

Have you actually listened to what the local officials have to say?

I have. All I've heard of is a frantic game of trying to blame every one but themselves. So tell me, what did they say?

Right back at ya...

Unfortunately, you can't use this statement unless I was actually doing this. I have not been. Nice try though.

 

[Rich Parsons]

New Orleans is mostly black. It has one of the highest rates of poverty for any American city. It's levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm. It's more complicated then geography. There are social issues involved...the soft racism of neglect.

What about Detroit?

 

[arnisador]

The events of N.O. reveal a deeper national problem with race. There are a couple kinds of racism, the hard racism of segregation and the soft racism of neglect.

I believe it was more likely denial--"It couldn't happen." Everyone considered N.O. a jewel of the U.S. It is hard for me to believe that soft racism lies behind its problems. It would have been very expensive to fix the levees etc.--and people would have said, Why bother? There'll never be a hurricane that strong...

...a tsunami that big...

...a madman flying planes into skyscrapers...

...an out-of-control fire in Chicago...
...

 

[Tgace]

exactly

 

[Marginal]

But really, it's still all their fault for building a city there.

 

[7starmantis]

I have. All I've heard of is a frantic game of trying to blame every one but themselves. So tell me, what did they say?

I heard them too and what I heard was an elected official saying he wasn't going to spend a "GD" dime on this rescue, he was going to make the federal government pay for it. I've heard local officials blaming everyone but themselves and being pretty disgusting on tape. If the local government can't or won’t do anything to help the situation except call our president any number of foul names, I don’t see what we are arguing about. If we want to play the blame game, is an African American governor calling a Caucasian president the f-bomb not racism? I mean if we are defining racism so liberally.

Don’t expect a clear answer from him. He started a new thread here to escape giving me and kind of answers on the other thread.


7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Don’t expect a clear answer from him. He started a new thread here to escape giving me and kind of answers on the other thread.

Get over yourself. Most of the time I'm just trying to figure out the "creative syntax" of your posts...


Here is what you did on the other thread. I made a claim. You disagreed, then you demanded that I provide evidence. I did. You said it wasn't good enough. Then you created a standard of evidence that was absolutely impossible to meet..."Find me a direct quote or direct evidence that shows that government officials were trying to drown black people..."


It was an utterly ridiculous standard. And then to travel further into the absurd, you claimed that since none of the justifications met the memo-to-the-office-style "don't build the levees higher because the negroes ain't worth it" standard, you claimed there was no justification. It just doesn't work that way, man.


I made a claim. I provided evidence for its cultural context. I provided evidence for its historical context. I provided evidence for its regional context. And I provided you with the opinions of multiple experts on this sort of thing. If that isn't good enough for you fine, but I want you to know that I have absolutely no reason to run anywhere in this argument.

 

[Makalakumu]

I believe it was more likely denial--"It couldn't happen." Everyone considered N.O. a jewel of the U.S. It is hard for me to believe that soft racism lies behind its problems. It would have been very expensive to fix the levees etc.--and people would have said, Why bother? There'll never be a hurricane that strong...

...a tsunami that big...

...a madman flying planes into skyscrapers...

...an out-of-control fire in Chicago...
...

I'm not so sure. I've read so many papers that have talked about this disaster that I think it was impossible to deny that it would ever happen.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't need an article to counter your part. All I need is common sense, logic and critical analysis.

A qualified source would legitimize your claim.

Again, misunderstanding what your sources mean can cause you trouble. The main gist of that source is that funding was not available for new construction projects.

On this we agree.

In other words, the state of Louisiana has been so wasteful with the hundreds of millions of dollars they have received from the federal level (not even talking about local here) there was a concerted emphasis on forcing them to focus on existing projects (i.e. LEVEES). When they say there is not enough money for NEW projects, that is exactly what they mean. For NEW projects.

Building a new levee system to protect against bigger storms was a huge, and most people would say, new project.

Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows...

A. Louisiana had plenty of money to control floods through the state.
B. Louisiana wasted that money.

I will be quickly changing my tune. I've not come across anything like that.

You have spun this to make it sound like there wasn't enough money to fund the OLD projects. They received plenty of money, they just weren't using it for the right things. Again, lack of political will.

What were they using it on? How did they waste it? How do you know they had enough money?

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

A qualified source would legitimize your claim.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm using your flawed analysis of the article against you.

Building a new levee system to protect against bigger storms was a huge, and most people would say, new project.

Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows... [note: so are you going to be held to this standard to? You haven't met it so far --Shorin Ryuu]

A. Louisiana had plenty of money to control floods through the state.
B. Louisiana wasted that money.

I will be quickly changing my tune. I've not come across anything like that.

What were they using it on? How did they waste it? How do you know they had enough money?

Well, here you go. These are FACTS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

[note: This is just one example of the new projects I was talking about...the ones which were trying to be discouraged --Shorin Ryuu]


In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in use by barges traveling between the Port of New Orleans and the Mississippi River.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

You have told me before that you knew about the information in this article. Why do I bring it up again? Because you're bringing up claims I shot down in another thread. Again.

The other article is below. It was being updated, which is why you never got a chance to see it. Just so you know, these are all FACTS. Read the whole article. I tried to highlight the good parts, but there is so much...

http://story.neworleanssun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/58efbe858884606b/id/7a0b0f3917b2751b/

In December of 1995, the Orleans Levee Board, the local government entity that oversees the levees and floodgates designed to protect New Orleans and the surrounding areas from rising waters, bragged in a supplement to the Times-Picayune newspaper about federal money received to protect the region from hurricanes.

"In the past four years, the Orleans Levee Board has built up its arsenal. The additional defenses are so critical that Levee Commissioners marched into Congress and brought back almost $60 million to help pay for protection," the pamphlet declared. "The most ambitious flood-fighting plan in generations was drafted. An unprecedented $140 million building campaign launched 41 projects."

The levee board promised Times-Picayune readers that the "few manageable gaps" in the walls protecting the city from Mother Nature's waters "will be sealed within four years (1999) completing our circle of protection."

But less than a year later, that same levee board was denied the authority to refinance its debts. Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle "repeatedly faulted the Levee Board for the way it awards contracts, spends money and ignores public bid laws," according to the Times-Picayune. The newspaper quoted Kyle as saying that the board was near bankruptcy and should not be allowed to refinance any bonds, or issue new ones, until it submitted an acceptable plan to achieve solvency.

(later on down)

By 1998, Louisiana's state government had a $2 billion construction budget, but less than one tenth of one percent of that -- $1.98 million -- was dedicated to levee improvements in the New Orleans area. State appropriators were able to find $22 million that year to renovate a new home for the Louisiana Supreme Court and $35 million for one phase of an expansion to the New Orleans convention center.

(more)

The following year, the state legislature did appropriate $49.5 million for levee improvements, but the proposed spending had to be allocated by the State Bond Commission before the projects could receive financing. The commission placed the levee improvements in the "Priority 5" category, among the projects least likely to receive full or immediate funding.

(more)

The Orleans Levee Board was also forced to defer $3.7 million in capital improvement projects in its 2001 budget after residents of the area rejected a proposed tax increase to fund its expanding operations. Long term deferments to nearly 60 projects, based on the revenue shortfall, totaled $47 million worth of work, including projects to shore up the floodwalls.

No new state money had been allocated to the area's hurricane protection projects as of October of 2002, leaving the available 65 percent federal matching funds for such construction untouched.

(more)
The newspaper reported that in 2000 and 2001, "the Bond Commission has approved or pledged millions of dollars for projects in Jefferson Parish, including construction of the Tournament Players Club golf course near Westwego, the relocation of Hickory Avenue in Jefferson (Parish) and historic district development in Westwego."

There is no record of such discretionary funding requests being reduced or withdrawn, but in October of 2003, nearby St. Charles Parish did receive a federal grant for $475,000 to build bike paths on top of its levees.

Earlier this year, the levee board did complete a $2.5 million restoration project. After months of delays, officials rolled away fencing to reveal the restored 1962 Mardi Gras fountain in a four-acre park featuring a new 600-foot plaza between famous Lakeshore Drive and the sea wall....Levee board officials defended more than $600,000 in cost overruns for the Mardi Gras fountain project, according to the Times-Picayune, "citing their responsibility to maintain the vast green space they have jurisdiction over along the lakefront."

In other words, you have a continuous and clear trend over the past ten years of Louisiana and New Orleans officials gaining large amounts of money and using them for practically anything BUT levee reinforcement (although they at least managed to complete the vertical concrete wall upgrade on the levees that broke). Remember how I brought up the lack of political will in the local and state government in the other thread? As I recall, you made some strange claim about me blaming it on Clinton (which I wasn't) and then tried to divert to something about the wetlands (which didn't apply). And then, strangely, you stopped posting in that thread. Just because you start posting the same claim in another thread doesn't mean that the FACTS that shot it down in the old thread don't apply.

 

[7starmantis]

Get over yourself. Most of the time I'm just trying to figure out the "creative syntax" of your posts...


Here is what you did on the other thread. I made a claim. You disagreed, then you demanded that I provide evidence. I did. You said it wasn't good enough. Then you created a standard of evidence that was absolutely impossible to meet..."Find me a direct quote or direct evidence that shows that government officials were trying to drown black people..."


It was an utterly ridiculous standard. And then to travel further into the absurd, you claimed that since none of the justifications met the memo-to-the-office-style "don't build the levees higher because the negroes ain't worth it" standard, you claimed there was no justification. It just doesn't work that way, man.


I made a claim. I provided evidence for its cultural context. I provided evidence for its historical context. I provided evidence for its regional context. And I provided you with the opinions of multiple experts on this sort of thing. If that isn't good enough for you fine, but I want you to know that I have absolutely no reason to run anywhere in this argument.

My bad, I didn't realize "surf the internet" was evidence. I stand corrected.
I asked for a logical outline of a claim you made, you answered with "read the newspaper and surf the internet". If you want people to believe you or even give you a voice you need to start backing up what you say. You did list interesting links to opinions, but still no facts. I demanded evidence that you couldn't give. Once you provide any sort of credible evidence I will post a public appology and express my sincere belief that you are correct. My bar of evidence was not high at all, simply a hard piece of fact. Anyone can answer, I haven't seen one piece of hard fact yet in this racism game people are starting to get into. Your so quick to ignore the suffering of everyone except the poor black of the area. That is true racism in my opinion.

I did not "inject" anything. I only uncovered what was, and has always been, there. Part of any solution, IMO, means dealing with some of these issues. You can't plan an evacuation and expect to leave all of the poor and sick behind. You can't build levees that will fail and hope that only the lowest, poorest and blackest neighborhoods are flooded. We have to stop spending huge amounts of money to protect those with the most influence and spend that money to protect everyone.

That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Again, show me some type of hard evidence that an evacuation was planned expecting to leave out all of the poor and sick. Please, and I beg you, show me some type of hard (or soft for that matter) evidence that levees were built to fail. Show me one small piece of evidence that money was spent in Louisiana to protect some and not all with levees.
You’re making claims that are impossible for you to prove or back up. You’re going to cry racism whether it’s true or not. Your not waiting for proof to start your crying foul. You’re talking about historical patterns, I seem to recall my race of people being exterminated to the point that we can't have any poor Comanche areas in America; there are only a handful left! So lets not get crazy with this, just show me modern day evidence of these few things you claim happened in N.O. and I'll post my apology.


7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows...

A. Louisiana had plenty of money to control floods through the state.
B. Louisiana wasted that money.

A newspaper article and an msn article hardly qualify for the above criteria.

I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 1.9 billion? How do you know that was enough money? And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted. Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.

The Corps takes care of a lot of things that have nothing to do with flood control. It doesn't surprise me at all to be shown that they had their fingers in many pies...or that their was a fair bit of mismanagement.

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

A newspaper article and an msn article hardly qualify for the above criteria.

But you can cite them all the time?

I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 1.9 billion? How do you know that was enough money? And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted. Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.

Just so you know, those aren't just guesses, assumptions or estimations. Those are actual facts. Tell me how they aren't. Simply saying they aren't facts doesn't take that away. I understand there may be some cognitive dissonance going on, but this is really starting to get ridiculous.

The Corps takes care of a lot of things that have nothing to do with flood control. It doesn't surprise me at all to be shown that they had their fingers in many pies...or that their was a fair bit of mismanagement.

If you notice, the second article isn't just talking about the Corps of Engineers...

Oh, and just for the tip of the iceberg, how about this?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/law/news/wdl20041129.html
(29 November 2004)

THREE STATE OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR
[font=Arial,Helvetica]OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL AUDIT[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Shreveport, Louisiana . . . A federal grand jury has returned two separate indictments charging three members of the State Military Department with offenses related to the obstruction of an audit of the use of federal funds for flood mitigation activities throughout Louisiana, United States Attorney Donald W. Washington announced today.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Two of the individuals charged, MICHAEL C. APPE, 51, of Mandeville, Louisiana, and MICHAEL L. BROWN, 61, of St. Francisville, Louisiana, are senior employees of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Both APPE and BROWN are charged with conspiracy to obstruct a federal audit; BROWN is additionally charged with making a false statement.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]The Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is designed to fund mitigation projects to prevent future flood losses or flood claims made upon the National Flood Insurance Program. BROWN was responsible for overall management the program in Louisiana; APPE was responsible for managing employees who perform fiscal transactions regarding these funds.[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica]The indictment alleges that during an audit of the program being conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Office of Inspector General, a State Military Department employee realized that $175,000 in expenditures of federal monies was improper in that the money was not used for purposes authorized by the federal program and would therefore have to be re-paid to the federal government. This employee notified APPE, who in turn directed the employee to provide false documents to the federal auditors.[/font]

 

[Makalakumu]

Where do the numbers come from? One would think that with all of the wasted money over the years, someone would have pulled together a professional report on it and published it somewhere?

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

Where do the numbers come from? One would think that with all of the wasted money over the years, someone would have pulled together a professional report on it and published it somewhere?

Oh...so now you start bashing investigative reporting when it doesn't concur with your argument? So now, unlike you, I have to cite specifically where each and every figure came from in my source? I know you like the whole double standard when it comes to journalism, but this truly is getting tiring...

Well, I assume you at least can figure out where the Department of Justice article and figures came from...And I assume you can at least figure out where the Corps of Engineers article and figures came from...

As far as the newspaper article, I dare you to find anything that challenges those figures. Everything he cites comes from Louisiana and New Orleans budgets.

 

[7starmantis]

I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 1.9 billion? How do you know that was enough money? And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted. Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.

Wow, a complete dodge of my questions and statements. Thats pretty good, you should be in politics. You pose a good question, how do we know it was enough money? By your own reasoning however, how do you know it was not enough money? This is where your bouncing back and forth on speculation and opinions. Facts will set this straight once and for all.....but it seems your hard pressed to find any.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

I asked for a logical outline of a claim you made, you answered with "read the newspaper and surf the internet".

All you need to do is pay attention to find some of this stuff. Read what has been written. Take a little more time to analyze what you are seeing. Hell, take a little time to look into the history...

If you want people to believe you or even give you a voice you need to start backing up what you say.

I did. I made a claim. I've pointed what anyone can plainly see by reading the newspaper or searching the net. Then, I provided historical context for my claim in order to show that this was nothing new. Further, I provided regional context for my claim in order to show that it isn't at all local. Finally, I pulled in the analysis of local experts, phds who live in New Orleans and who study things like this to talk about what they have directly seen. For some reason, this is not enough for you, I don't know why...

You did list interesting links to opinions, but still no facts.

There were plenty of direct observations given by experts in what I posted. If that is not a fact, I don't know what else is.

I demanded evidence that you couldn't give.

You demanded evidence for something known as hard racism. You want me to provide specific damning information about specific individuals who made it their sole purpose to discriminate against others. This kind of evidence may exist, but I haven't seen anything.

And, in any event, hard racism is not what I'm talking about. I have made a case for soft racism. This is the racism that people don't really think about. It is the racism of neglect, of low expectations, and no accountability. Its the type of racism that is behind the fact that the lowest lying and poorest neighborhoods through the south are mostly black. It is the type of racism that builds levees around white neighborhoods and leaves black ones wet. It is the type of racism keeps minorities poor and in the most dangerous areas. All of this stuff is documented in the media and it has all been posted before in one thread or another.

Once you provide any sort of credible evidence I will post a public appology and express my sincere belief that you are correct. My bar of evidence was not high at all, simply a hard piece of fact. Anyone can answer, I haven't seen one piece of hard fact yet in this racism game people are starting to get into.

I'm not attempting to prove hard racism. I've got a family and two kids and I don't have the time to dig through someones trash and look at people's memos. Soft racism is different and you can readily see it if you bother to look.

Your so quick to ignore the suffering of everyone except the poor black of the area. That is true racism in my opinion.

You don't need to make assumptions like this. I'm not ignoring anyone. However, I am focusing in on an issue. I think that Katrina exposed a fair bit of racism in the deep south and I've laid out a pretty good case for it.

Again, show me some type of hard evidence that an evacuation was planned expecting to leave out all of the poor and sick.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2322

Think about this article and correllate it with the historical, regional and local context of racism in the Deep South.

More about the "Hurricane Pam" exercise...

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051

Craig E. Colten, professor of geography and anthropology at Louisiana State University, says race played a role in the New Orleans' level of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4829446

Please, and I beg you, show me some type of hard (or soft for that matter) evidence that levees were built to fail.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0902_050902_katrina_levees.html

If you build a levee to withstand a catagory three hurricane, you know they will fail in a catagory four. Therefore, they were built, knowing they would fail...in essence, built to fail during a catagory four.

Show me one small piece of evidence that money was spent in Louisiana to protect some and not all with levees.

Two books, John McPhee's The Control of Nature and Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States make the claim.

Here is some more interesting reading...

http://hnn.us/articles/15163.html

Mr. Morris is a historian at the University of Texas at Arlington, and the author of books and articles on the history of the South. He is completing a book on the environmental and social history of the Lower Mississippi Valley, including New Orleans.

You’re making claims that are impossible for you to prove or back up.

I don't think I am. When it comes to soft racism, there is plenty to see and you don't have to try hard...

 

[Tgace]

In other words "soft racism" is something you cant "prove", you can find it in any situation involving minorities and trot it out to make political hay, you cant show it ever ends, and you can apply it to any situation you care too...

Sounds like

:bs:

To me.