Cozmo D

The man is inept. New Orleans and Louisiana are well known for electing corrupt and inept politicians and officials.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 OUR OPINIONS: Hurricane-force rumors During Hurricane Betsey, then-Mayor Vic Schiro famously said, "Don't believe any false rumors unless you hear them from me.'' Unfortunately, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some of the most lurid rumors of violence in the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center came from those in charge: Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Eddie Compass. And now it appears they were mostly false. Nearly a month after the storm, officials have come up with no hard evidence to back up stories of murder, rape and other violence that supposedly happened among those who took shelter in those places. No matter how convincing the eye witness accounts, the bodies that back up their stories aren't there. The toll, after careful inspection, is as follows: four dead in the Convention Center, one by violence: six dead in the Superdome, none by violence. While there were reports of 30 to 40 dead in the Convention Center and 10 to numerous in the Dome, the actual tally has to be given more credibility than unconfirmed reports by traumatized people. During the chaotic week that followed Hurricane Katrina, four confirmed murders took place in New Orleans, a number that's not at all surprising or even unusual for a city that expected to see as many as 200 homicides this year. Debunking widespread reports of rape, including rapes of children, is more difficult since people have scattered across the country, making it difficult to collect evidence or information. But police, military and rescue personnel who were on the scene say that most of what's been widely reported in the Dome and Convention Center simply didn't happen. "Don't get me wrong, bad things happened, but I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything,'' said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian efforts in the Superdome. According to Sgt. Lachney, 99 percent of the people sheltering in the Superdome --- and there were 30,000 of them --- were very well-behaved. Bad things certainly happened. That many people jammed together with inadequate food, water, medicine and toilet facilities and a growing sense of abandonment and desperation suffered enormously. But they shouldn't also be maligned as lawless or even, to use Mayor Nagin's unfortunate word, animalistic. Contrast Sgt. Lachney's comments with those of Superintendent Compass. During an interview with Oprah Winfrey, he said that babies were being raped. Mayor Nagin said that hundreds of armed gang members were killing and raping people inside the Dome. Thank God it didn't happen. Everyone in south Louisiana --- in the entire country --- should feel a tremendous sense of relief that New Orleans didn't descend into some kind of post-apocolyptic orgy of violence following Katrina. But that doesn't mean damage wasn't done. Rumors, widely reported as fact, can live on even after they are debunked, and the tales from the Dome and the Convention Center are more compelling than most urban myths. These frightening stories can continue to hurt us by discouraging people from returning to this region and by marring New Orleans' image with tourists. Rumors of violence may have hampered rescue efforts in some cases. We can't afford to allow them to hamper our recovery. It's bad enough that the Superdome will be associated with squalor and misery; far worse to have it associated with murder and mayhem. It's understandable that in the tense and fractured days after Katrina frightened people reported rumor as fact and soldiers, police and even elected officials believed what they heard and passed it on. In the hell that descended after Katrina, almost anything, no matter how horrific, seemed possible. But now that we know better, it's essential that people like Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Compass set the record straight, just as forcefully. That might mean saying, "I spoke too soon'' or even, "I exaggerated.'' The latter certainly seems to be true of Superintendent Compass' claim that he and other officers wrestled 30 weapons away from criminals by using the follow-the-muzzle flash technique. Last week, the superintendent insisted that such an incident had happened to Capt. Jeff Winn's 20-member SWAT team, but in a separate interview Capt. Winn said that his unit saw flashes and heard gunshots only once and recovered no weapons. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath has more than enough human drama, from heroism to depravity, without embellishment. The people of Louisiana need solid information and credible leaders as we move toward recovery. Katrina inflicted a lot of damage on the truth, and that's just one more mess we need to clean up. Link

PHATT!!!!!

:word:

I haven't said that you have a racist viewpoint nor have I tried to hint or allude to it. I am saying that you have been decidedly one sided on these matters. I posted a "first person statement" of which you said "not ONE" existed. Choosing to ignore the fact that it was indeed a first person statement, you said in response... As if everyone in New Orleans has only one shirt and has been wading in filth with that one shirt for days. You also tried to explain away the person's use of first person pronous by saying that he could have been repeating something a colleague related to him. You say that there are no "first person statements," you get one, and then you try to explain it away, along with others? And then you ask me if I'm just trying to win an argument? I wasn't trying to explain away anything, I was trying to point out other possibilities. As for the first person thing, it was not an important point, though I did try to show you where there was a POSSIBILITY that the example you cited was not first person. I will concede that point if you wish, it still means nothing towards the totality of the assessment. Earlier, you said... But in this account, the shooter's race wasn't even mentioned. There are no racial overtones in this person's story. We are only left with the notion that someone shot at innocent people. Now if he was white, maybe that would have changed your view on this story that this and other crimes were just rumors that were easy to believe because blacks were involved. If the person were white, you couldn't claim this. No, that is NOT the way that my mind works, though I'm starting to suspect that maybe it's the way that YOURS does. My reason for DOUBTING these stories has NOTHING to do with ANYBODY'S skin color, it has to do with an almost COMPLETE lack of collaborating EVIDENCE!!! I deal in FACTS!!! Now, you tell me, what are your reasons for BELIEVING them? Concerning race in the American psyche... Let me make myself crystal clear. Last year, during a riot on the night the Red Sox clinched the pennant, a college age student was shot in the eye with a pellet containing tear gas. The student died. No one else was shot. No one else was killed. The student was white. If the student had been black, the black community's perception would have been that racism or race played some part. You're absolutely right, and if the shooter had been black, the white community would've thought either the same thing, or that it had been a racially motivated robbery. So, what's your point? Edit: After re-reading this I realized that the shooter must have been a police officer, which changes the circumstances. So, you're saying that if it was the 1 black student amongst all of these white ones the black community would have suspected race played a part, which is correct. However, if it was one white student amongst mostly black ones, the white community would have thought that he was probably shot by mistake, or that the poor kid had fallen under the influence of these black kids, or that he deserved what he got for running with the black students in the first place. Officials called on Boston University to suspend students of the school who took part in the riot. The majority of students that took part in the riot were white. If the majority of students that had taken part in the riots were black, the black community would have looked upon the call for suspensions as harsh and prejudiced. You're absolutely right, and the white community would have complained that they weren't harsh enough, and there would have been calls for more security and an increase in weapons bought in the area. So, what's your point? A few years ago, the party hours at Harvard University were cut back. Residents in the community claimed that music was often too loud and that students were often loud, drunk, and disorderly late at night. Upon receiving word, the initial perception of the situation in the black community was that this had something to do with race... that was until they found out that all school organizations that threw parties were affected. And what was the initial perception in the white community? Link please. Race would have had nothing and had nothing to do with these situations whether whites or blacks were involved, but that's not the way the black community would perceive it. Or how the white community would perceive it either. In fact, switch the roles and the stories around any way you like and you will find different perceptions by the involved communities, and they will ALL be tainted by race! This is an AMERICAN problem, not a black one! What is my point? You are correct in saying that ideas of race and racism are imbedded in the American psyche and that racism can exist without racist. You arrogantly claimed that I couldn't "wrap my head around the concept" even though I previously agreed with the concept that this matter deals mainly with perception. Thank you for your kind words. But this is the point I made. While racism is so deeply imbedded in the American psyche that it can exist without racists, it can also exist without racism itself in any form whatsoever. Perceptions of racism can exist where there are no racists, where there is no racism or prejudice, conscious or subconscious, no alterior motives... They can exist when a situation has absolutely nothing to do with racism at all as in the examples above. All it takes is for whites and blacks to be involved and for blacks to be affected negatively. Oftentimes, all it takes if for whites and blacks to be involved, period. AGREED! In fact, whites need not be involved at all, nor do blacks need to be affected negatively. Anything that involves blacks in this country will trigger both racial and racist perceptions in almost ALL Americans, regardless of color. If a black man becomes a CEO, many blacks will think he "sold out" to get there, while many whites will suspect affirmative action. It taints every aspect of American life, from the old lady who crosses the street to avoid the young black men, to the reporter who sees a crowd of desperate, suffering and dying black people and thinks that they haven't gotten violent "YET", to the Mayor and Police Superintendent who hear rumors of rumors and decide to stop rescuing people and concentrate on stopping the "lawlessness", to the NATION who BELIEVED all of these horrible rumors, even though they watched this city 24/7 through a myriad of reporters and recorders and cameras... AND NEVER SAW OR HEARD ANY REAL EVIDENCE OF IT!!! So yes, perhaps you understand that racism is imbedded in the American psyche, but what you seem not to understand is that it effects ALL Americans! If you did then you would realize how it even now effects YOU! For here you are now, insisting on believing that these heinous crimes happened to the degree and scale that was reported, regardless of the gross absence of evidence, regardless of the words of the Police Superintendent, regardless of your own common sense. Even if this evidence was to somehow miraculously appear now it would not change the fact that you gave into your racist perceptions in the absence of that evidence, it would only make you feel vindicated in your prejudice. So yes, much of the media coverage of this tragedy was racist, much of the response to it was racist, and much of OUR reaction to the entire episode was racist, and it was all brought about not by any person or persons, but by OUR racist American perceptions. BTW...here's a little saying that I wrote a long time ago, and still try to live by. Hero and Cookies know it well. IT IS FAR, FAR BETTER TO OPEN YOUR EYES AND SAY "I DON'T KNOW", THAN TO CLOSE YOUR MIND AND SAY "I DON'T BELIEVE". So getting back to the reason that we are talking about violence and crime... does it stink enough that the govenor of Louisiana shouldn't have given her shoot to kill orders. This is where this whole debate about crime originated. We've gone far and wide, but we come back to the main question... I don't believe in shoot to kill orders when it comes down to dealing with problems in this country. The net result is usually dead Americans. The average peace officer or member of the military knows fully well when and how to kill anyway, and demonstrate their abilities often. "Shoot To Kill" orders are usually translated by those that are given them to mean "shoot now, ask questions later".

If the family is dead who told everybody how old the girl was? If the girl told everybody herself why didn't she tell them her name as well? And, if this girl really exists, HOW COME THERE IS NO SIGN OF HER BODY??? :shrug:

OK, I had no luck finding the original article even on the paper's website, but I did find this C&P of it posted by someone in their forum. Let's examine it. Now, though the story says that National Guardsmen had seen "between 30 and 40 more bodies in the Convention Center's freezer", I think that we can all agree that this is hardly a scientific count. Could be 20 bodies, or perhaps 50. I would bet that study into the causes of death to these people would be pretty minimal as well. Yet, even with all of this opportunity to over-exagerate the violent deaths, only TWO are mentioned. One, an old man who was reportedly a bludgeoning victim, and two, an unseen 7-year-old girl with her throat cut. Now, I guess that the family may have been on hand to tell everyone exactly how old this little girl with the cut throat was. However, it's funny that the most talked about victim of violence in this whole thing's age is known, but not her name? Where is her grief-stricken and outraged family? And what happened to her body, did somebody steal it out of the freezer? Could it be that the National Guardsman was just repeating what he was told? After all, everybody knew that a 7-year-old girl had been raped and had her throat cut, and that they threw her body in the freezer with the others. Again, New Orleans Police superintendent Edwin Compass said "We don't have any substantiated rapes." Is he lying? He's waiting for victims to come forward? That victim was already laying in that freezer, waiting to tell her story...what happened to her? Might I also refresh our memories that the paper that interviewed the Police superintendent also reported that "While many claim they happened, no witnesses, survivors or survivors' relatives have come forward. Nor has the source for the story of the murdered babies, or indeed their bodies, been found." Huh? Are they lying? I have no problem believing that the reported atrocities may have happened. I know all about the inhumanity of man. But, I have even less problems believing rumors may run so rampant as to be believed to be true by the masses, especially in times of turmoil and tragedy. And I have even less problems still believing that the media would sensationalize unsubstantiated rumors as tragic fact, even to the point of fabrication. It is MUCH more common than most may think. If we all open our minds and nostrils in this matter and take a deep objective breath, it's pretty easy to tell that it stinks!

Exactly! And you would think that the media wouldn't hesitate to jump all over any evidence of all of the murder and mayhem that they themselves were reporting. :shrug:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/in..._06.html#077479 This is a link to a story about ONE guy shooting at helicopters from his apartment in Algiers. He wasn't even in New Orleans. http://www.nola.com/t-p/ - Times-Picayune Archive This is a link to the newspaper, but not any story. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n..._nm/notebook_dc This is a link to a reporter's story about his personal experiences. The full extent of the violence that he reportedly witnesses is someone apparently throwing a bottle of milk. Oh yeah, it was full. I hope you notice the apparent paranoid tone of his writing. He obviously went there expecting the worse from the people, and even when he didn't find it he still painted them all negatively. Saying things like "the crowd was threatening but not yet violent" and blaming someone smashing the windows to his car and stealing his camera and laptop on "the crowd". I wouldn't leave my camera and laptop in my car in front of my house, and I live in one of the most high-rent areas of NYC. Yet, you will notice that he doesn't report ANY of the many bodies that he sees as having died by violent means. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/6/213759/1319. This is a link that I provided, that goes much further to prove my point than all of the links that you have provided so far put together prove yours. I would still like that link to the bodies in the freezer. I think I've made my point on these issues. I won't continue. I don't wish to get into semantics, so I'll leave it at that. My goal is neither to "win an argument" nor to belitte anyone. It is to discuss opinions, come to agreement when agreement is present and to discuss differences where there are differences. If my goal were to simply win an argument, I would have stopped posting on this thread out of exasperation 22 pages ago. By saying things like: you are obviously saying that I have a racial or racist viewpoint, which is belittling, insulting, and completely non-evident in anything and everything that I have written so far. It also again tells me that you have completely ignored every point that I have made on race within the American psyche. Before our eyes the evidence is bearing me out though, will you continue to ignore that as well?

I'm guessing that the person in the white shirt had to be wading in the water with that same shirt for the duration of the disaster huh. I'm guessing that he was in the open in the water with a white shirt shooting at people so that he in turn could be easily shot. On top of all of it, you've alread tried to cast doubt on his story saying maybe he's just repeating what was told to him inspite of the fact that he repeatedly used the pronouns "we" and "us" when speaking about the event signifying that he was involved. "We were coming in from a parking deck at Tulane Medical Center, and a guy in a white shirt started firing at us." "We got back to Charity Hospital with with food from Tulane and we said, 'OK the snipers are behind us." "We started loading patients [for transport] and 20 minutes later, shots rang out." Sad atttempt... and the shooter could have been white. Maybe that would have changed your view on the story. Could you supply some links please? You will notice that I always do. I am not interested in the argument, I am interested in the discussion and the truth. This is again degenerating into a pissing contest, which I frankly am not interested in at the moment. Also, you seem to be accusing me of some sort of prejudice or bias, which I deem to be insulting. I would love to see a link on this story about the bodies, as I have yet to find anything like it. As for the "we", when a person is part of a group it is quite common for them to refer to that group's experiences as "we", whether they were there or not. This does not make it necessarily first person. As for the white shirt, I highly doubt that anybody running around in a filthy city for 4 days without being able to wash would still be wearing a shirt easily definable as white from a distance. My "wading in filth" remark was more figurative than literal. As for my usage of first person, most of the people on the ground that you quoted were relaying things that they were told. Regardless, it's not my statements that are in question here, but what TRULY happened in New Orleans. You write better than I do, hell, you write better than my lawyers, but this is not a debate. If what you're after is to be voted the smartest person here, you can have my proxy. Look... if your aim is to win the argument, fine...you win. I'm not interested in it, nor am I interested in your continued attempt to belittle me through your words. If you have PROOF of this rampant, rampaging violence, murder and mayhem, then please post it. If all you wish to do is catch errors in my phrasing or verbiage, go ahead and enjoy yourself, by yourself.

Here in NYC (where Fat Joe and Big Pun are from) Puerto Ricans do not consider themselves apart from blacks for the most part. The N word is used widely by Hispanics here and no black who also uses the word regularly would think twice about it. It has also picked up greatly in usage among white youth here, and seems to be mostly overlooked by blacks and Hispanics as long as the usage is positive. Personally, I have always hated the word and frown on it's usage by the rappers I work with, regardless of race. They're gonna do them anyway though. I do admit though, that I come down hardest about it with Apathy, who's white, simply because his boys may understand, but a LOT of people won't. He never listens anyway.

Cool, a post off... here's another excerpt from this very article. The truth, whatever it may be, is clearly horrific enough, with just about every eyewitness account from New Orleans mentioning the palpable menace from crazed gangs of looters and ne'er-do-wells, especially after nightfall. Compass himself told reporters on Thursday that 88 of his cops were beaten back into a retreat by angry Convention Center refugees, forcing Mayor Ray Nagin to suspend rescue operations in favor of restoring a semblance of order. Another account. "We had three murders last night. We had a total of six rapes last night. We had the day before, I think, there were three or four murders. There were half-a-dozen rapes that night. We had one suicide last night. We had one military policeman shot." Dr. Burnell described the Superdome situation as "very unstable, very high tension, a very dangerous environment." While National Guardsmen were on hand for protection, he said that "every time there was an incident that broke out, they had to tend to that, which left us uncovered." Burnell said the task of treating people inside the stadium became impossible after they ran out of supplies. "We did not have oxygen, we did not have any medications to speak of," he said. OK, I think I see how the quote thing works now. I see that you insist on using accounts from early on. Where are all the rape and murder victims? Where are all of the weapons? Of the 88 cops that were "beaten" back by an angry mob, how many were shot? How many wounded? Or was this a verbal "beating" that they received? Of course the evacuees will come out reporting all of these horrific stories. When you are in the midst of that kind of turmoil, rumors like this are bound to be rampant, and all who are subject to this hell are just as bound to believe it, and to pass it on as gospel. They will even go as far as to claim to have witnessed these things themselves, or to interpret the horrors that they do see as something even more horrible. They have a name for it you know, it's called MASS HYSTERIA. I'm not saying that there were no crimes or violence, only that they were GROSSLY exaggerated. And to my knowledge, outside of some very sketchy, mostly second-hand witness accounts, NONE of these stories of rampant rape, murder and violence have been substantiated. NONE!

That's exactly what I expected you to say, except for the "not ONE is first person" point you made. You may want to edit out the "not ONE is first person" statement. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly driven back by an angry mob. "We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten," Compass said. "Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon." -------------------------- "Please don't send the National Guard," Raymond Cooper told CNN by telephone. "Send someone with a bullhorn outside the place that can talk to these people first." He described scenes of lawlessness and desperation, with people simply dragging corpses into corners. "They have quite a few people running around here with guns," he said. "You got these young teenage boys running around up here raping these girls." --------------------------- "We were coming in from a parking deck at Tulane Medical Center, and a guy in a white shirt started firing at us," Curiel said. "The National Guard [troops], wearing flak jackets, tried to get a bead on this guy... We got back to Charity Hospital with with food from Tulane and we said, 'OK the snipers are behind us, let's move on,' " Curiel said. "We started loading patients [for transport] and 20 minutes later, shots rang out." ---------------------------- A member of that family, Africa Brumfield, 32, confirmed the incident but declined to be quoted about it, saying her family did not wish to discuss it. But she spoke of general conditions here. "There is rapes going on here. Women cannot go to the bathroom without men. They are raping them and slitting their throats. They keep telling us the buses are coming but they never leave," she said through tears. I'm not sure whether you're simply playing devil's advocate, or whether you're genuinely trying to intimate that the violence and disorder in New Orleans wasn't really that bad; that the media was just sensationalizing the stories and people who were in the area suffering were making a lot of these things up... the few police officers who were left were simply spreading rumors... Are you saying that these numerous accounts from different sources can't be trusted? Seems like the govenor of Louisiana believed them enough to send in troops. Seems like the mayor of New Orleans believed them enough to remove police officers from search and rescue operations to focus on curtailing crime. A day after Nagin took 1,500 police officers off search-and-rescue duty to try to restore order in the streets, there were continued reports of looting, shootings, gunfire and carjackings. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...htm?POE=NEWISVA Unsubstantiated... rumors... They certainly seemed real to the people involved, not just the media. I don't believe that I've ever said on this forum or any other that because of the crimes, these people should have been left to suffer. Anyone who says something like this is nothing short of prejudice and lacks compassion. Also, we've already established that the govenment was excruciatingly slow in their response to this disaster. I don't think this is in question. There was so much disorder, it's appalling. We have not established that racism or the race of the people of New Orleans had anything to do with the slow response however. For the numerous "if these were white people assertions," no one knows how the response to this disaster would have unfolded. The mass incompetence demonstarted throughout this disaster goes far beyond race. Following the same "what if" logic, what if the mayor of New Orleans were white but his actions were exactly the same. Honestly, how would blacks respond to him. Would they think that race had something to do with his poor decision making prior to the storm? What if the majority of police officers in New Orleans had been white? Would the decision for them to put off search and rescue efforts to restore order have been questioned by civil rights leaders? Wouldn't race come into play? Lets be honest, as I said before, when blacks and whites are involved and blacks are affected negatively, race will always come into question, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. The cry will always be "well if whites were the ones affected." It's not just perception. It's perception fueled by bias, and it goes both ways. It's also easy to not want to believe that crimes are being committed. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the situation there. It doesn't change what the police officers have said, what those who are suffering have said and what the media has reported that they have said. It doesn't change the mayor's actions, nor the govenor's in putting some focus on reestablishing order. Now are all these people lying to you or do you just choose to ignore them? Here's an excerpt of the "Army Corps of Engineers" incident. Something tells me that if you could say that it didn't happen at all, you would. According to New Orleans Deputy Police Chief W. J. Riley, on September 4 police shot and killed five or six people walking on the Danziger Bridge. Initial reports said that the victims were Army Corps of Engineers contractors on their way to launch barges involved in the 17th Street Canal repair. Shortly afterwards, the initial report was retracted, and it was reported that the men shot by police were gunmen who had opened fire on the contractors. The Army Corps of Engineers also confirmed that its contractors were not killed by police, but gunmen who fired at them were killed. Original reports claim five killed, but later police confirm only two killed, two wounded and two arrested. And the conclusion that the objective mind should come to when all the facts and viable evidence is investigated is that racism didn't have anything to do with the disaster response and that the govenment is simply but severely incompetent. Incidentally, the "viable evidence within the situation" is that whites and blacks are involved and blacks were affected negatively, so racism must be somewhere in the equation. [sigh] "We don't have any substantiated rapes," New Orleans Police superintendent Edwin Compass said Monday, according to the Guardian. "We will investigate if the individuals come forward." The British paper further pointed out that, "While many claim they happened, no witnesses, survivors or survivors' relatives have come forward. Nor has the source for the story of the murdered babies, or indeed their bodies, been found. And while the floor of the convention center toilets were indeed covered in excrement, the Guardian found no corpses." Many observers have found the footage of looting and reports of crime to be, in the words of New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, ''one of the most dispiriting" aspect of the tragedy. Slate's William Saletan went so far as to call it ''a second-wave destructive force" that must be anticipated in future disaster planning. Yet Quarantelli and a half-dozen other experts on disaster aftermaths and crowd behavior contacted last week insisted that follow-up investigations will reveal that the impression of Hobbesian violence in New Orleans over the past two weeks was created in large part by rumor and amplified by sometimes credulous reporters. The scholars' suspicions are fueled by what they say is a well-documented history of misinformation during disasters--and a general human tendency to misread crowds, even violent ones, as more malevolent than they really are. TruthOrFiction.com has checked with New Orleans police. They say they've not been able to confirm the story of the babies with the throats cut or even any rapes from among those who took refuge in the Superdome. If those events did happen, nobody has come forward to report them or substantiate them. One rumor that spread through the refugees was that a 7-year-old-girl had been raped and killed, but there has not been any evidence found so far of that murder. Major news outlets also disseminated stories of widespread violence, including one of a child being raped, babies being killed and bodies piled on the floor of the New Orleans Superdome. As of last Tuesday, "The Guardian" newspaper reported that New Orleans police had been unable to confirm any such reports of violence in the Superdome. The preponderance of stories of violence and "looting" attributed to the predominantly black New Orleans residents makes me question not just the journalistic integrity of our major news outlets, but the racial consciousness of a nation that would allow such falsity to be projected by the news media. It turns out that the Convention Center was NOT overrun by armed gangs. It turns out that a 7 year old child was NOT raped and had her throat cut. Turns out that most of the rumor and innuendo about the Superdome and Convention Center descending into savagery was just that -- rumor and innuendo, apparently intended to demonize the victims of this national disaster, who were poor and black and you know that those big buck negros just wanna rape and kill 7 year old children, right? Give it a while, and bit by bit you'll see the national news organizations, who helped to perpetrate the rumors, start to admit their folly. Of course people were angry, you would have been too if you were in that situation. You will note that the same police chief later said that his own statements here were unsubstantiated. Perhaps, he had bad information? Hmmm... could be the scenes he was describing were more of desperation than lawlessness? What happened to all of the raped girls and gunshot victims? Where did all of the guns go? Rumors maybe? Hmmm... guy with a white shirt. Must have been the only white shirt in New Orleans, considering everybody there had been wading in filth for days. Strange that he could make out the guy in the white shirt but the National Guard couldn't get a bead on the guy. I wonder if this guy actually saw all of this himself, or if he's basically repeating something that was told to him by his colleagues. Hmmm... She didn't want to be quoted? I wonder why? What happened to all of the raped women with the slit throats? Maybe the thugs ate them? Damm... gotta be gunshot victims all over the place. Wonder what happened to them? Amazing all of the cars that were driving around the city at that point, just waiting to be carjacked. Yeah, well judging by the rather limited amount of information that has become available about this incident, I would not be at all surprised if the circumstances turn out to be quite different from what was reported. We'll see... OK, I see that you find it impossible to wrap your head around the concept that racism can exist without racists. I won't beat that dead horse with you any further. edit: I don't know what's the matter with the quote feature here. :shrug:

Exactly. Check every one of those stories. Not ONE is substantiated, not ONE is first person, not ONE points to any evidence. If ALL of them were true it would not be nearly enough reason to leave those people in desperate need of aid to suffer. In fact, if those people had been WHITE Americans, history tells us that any ONE of those things, even as rumors, would be reason for a desperate, all-out national effort to IMMEDIATELY RESCUE those people from their ordeal. BUT, these people were overwhelmingly black. So, it is easy to believe all of these horrible rumors about what was going on, despite the fact that even though there were plenty of cameras and recorders and reporters there throughout...NOT ONE STORY has been substantiated. Even the story about the killing of the "5 or 6" snipers who were firing on engineers on a bridge was downgraded to one man killed, and to my knowledge the fact that this man was a sniper has yet to be evidenced. Again...the immediate perception that the objective mind springs to is one of racism, and the viable evidence (or absence thereof) within the situation supports that perception.

I think the whole issue boils down to whether people truly think racism was the primary cause of the slow response, whether they believe that the government simply failed in doing what they were supposed to do, or whether it is a mixture of both. No, the Government often doesn't "think" when it comes to poor blacks, yet at the same time, all the "evidence" that you say points to this being the case here is again based on how someone chooses to perceive the situation. Is racism the enemy, or is it bureaucracy. Is it that the govenment neglected poor blacks, whether consciously or subconsciously, or was their slow response due to disorder and miscommunicaton. Or was it both. The problem is that we have evidence of govenment errors and we have evidence that these led to the neglect we saw in the first few days after the hurricane and the flooding. However, we see the neglect, we see black people suffering, and we say it must be racism. The situation isn't that black and white. I absolutely agree that bureaucracy played a major factor in the ordeal. I also agree that it isn't black & white, these kinds of things rarely are. That saying though, going from "black & white" to "shades of gray" does not exclude race, but rather definitely includes it, which has been my point from the beginning. Yes, what we are talking about for the most part here are perceptions, which is what I have also said from the very beginning. But, also as I said before, racism is imbedded in our psyches in this country, and thus, in our perceptions. This is now plain and evident to ALL (even our president) who have objectively observed this tragedy. I don't believe that racism was the primary cause of the slow response, though I know many do. As far as I'm concerned the main culprit here was good old fashioned American Incompetence, from the mayor to the President and all sorts of fools in-between. However, when you throw-in things like how the coverage was handled by the media, or rescue workers and bus drivers refusing to render aid, or the absolute avalanche of UNSUBSTANTIATED rumors of wide-spread violence and atrocities, it's plain to see that race and racism impacted the perceptions of many others besides blacks and Kanye West.

Heheheh... The quote my wife likes to use, "When a donkey flies, you don't ask 'how far". Agreed! It must be remembered that my original posts here were mostly C&Ps from other forums. Many of the people there were in fact alleging these very things, and ALL of them are white. As for the government's slow reaction being a result of racism, while that cannot be proven either true or false, it can be perceived as such and has been implied as such. I don't believe that the government was "thinking" along the lines of those statements either, but very often when poor black people are involved the Government doesn't "think" much at all. There seems to be plenty of evidence that this was the case in this tragedy, and that in and of itself is indeed racist.

Haha, that post almost looks like an olive branch... I must agree that many of the youth today do believe that they know it all, oftentimes being insufferable as they dogmatically persist in their beliefs, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not me (there's always more to learn), but if you have gleaned that from my post, it seems that I'll have to further clarify my points... I'll do that a little lower down. In keeping with the topic of "know it alls" for a second, I must point out that while young people in general do carry around this attitude, it's not an isolated epidemic. Unfortunately, young people who think they know everything often grow up to be older people who... think they know everything. Our elders often simply think they know everything because they are older. In truth, knowledge is passed down from parent to child, older to younger, generation to generation. This is how prosperous societies have always worked. However, the older among us are often so focused on imparting knowledge that they forget that there is always something new to learn, even from the very youth they are imparting knowledge to. Now that's not to group you with that lot Cozmo. I don't know you, so it would be overly presumptuous of me to characterize you as such. Indeed, you don't seem to be, and I look forward to our "learning from each other." However, I did feel the need to point out that the "know it all" epidemic is not isolated, if only to stand up for the youth a little. Now about that post... You said that you addressed everything I replied to in the very same post. I'm not sure you understood what I posted, so I'll pull out some examples... You said that Kanye was simply voicing his concern of black people being grouped together when troops were told to shoot to kill. I pointed out that it was more of an accusation, and you have to question whether he understood what the full situation was in NO, or whether he chose to ignore it and make his accusation anyway. From the statement he made, he didn't convey concern that innocents and criminals may be grouped together; rather, it seemed that he had already made up his mind as to why troops were going in with shoot to kill orders, or at the very least, made it sound that way. The whole issue of that statement seems to be one of perception, or more accurately, how he chose to perceive the situation. In the face of the shootings, the arson, the raping, and the looting, he chose to make it sound like troops would be entering the city to shoot black people indiscriminately rather than to simply restore order, scaring away those who would use the tragedy for their own personal gain. I listened to the govenor of Louisiana give the "shoot to kill" order. For all her tough talk of M16s, troops weren't going to go in to shoot people taking bread and water, and in hindsight, they haven't done that. They haven't grouped the innocent with the criminals. If he wanted to convey his concern, he should have worded his statement as such or not said anything on the issue at all. Instead, at the very least, he made it sound as if he were accusing the govenor of giving the orders because of discrimination. You made another statement to the effect... The entire situation in New Orleans was overtly (openly or obviously) racist. I answered you with a question. If the entire situation is openly racist, where does the mayor of New Orleans stand in the whole equation. He has a fair share of blame in all of this, but he's black. You said "...overtly, yet perceptively." When you used "overtly" did you mean "openly or obviously?" Is it that you just used the wrong word to express what you wanted to say? Did you want to say that it was not obvious, yet perceptible? I really am seeking to understand what you meant by that. Something that is overt is generally perceptible; I didn't understand the use of yet in that sentence. ← Sorry this took so long. Just back and finished recuperating from Chief's wedding. Talk about your anthropological studies! :rofl: Agreed, there are plenty of older "know it alls" about. We call them "fools". I learn from those around me every day. I have no doubt that there is plenty that I can learn from you and everyone else here. I have learned much from my 22 year old son, and plenty as well from my 15 year old, who has been Special Ed all of his life. I learned many years ago that one of the most humbling experiences a father can have... especially one who was a whiz at algebra in HS... is to sit down to help his child with their 6th grade math and realize that they can't make heads or tails out of it! A truth for you... one that few of us learn and most take half a lifetime to do it... the only thing that we can really know and understand is that we don't know or understand anything. :davidblaine: OK, first. I do not and will not try to comprehend exactly what was going through Kanye's mind when he made his statements. I doubt if even Kanye does. It was plain to see that his mind was jumbled and racing and most of what he said was barely coherent. I do not think that it was his responsibility to say what he did anymore than it was for him to address the violence and looting. I will also remind you that I did not think that he chose the proper forum in which to make these statements. However, I do APPLAUD his making them, as they were obviously straight from his heart. We need more like him in Hip-Hop. Many more. Ahhh.... I wrote OVERT instead of COVERT...WHOOPS!!! My bad!!! :sorry: Hopefully, if you overlook my gaff and exchange the words you can now see my point. As I said, racism is so deeply imbedded in our system and psyche in this nation that in many cases it now implements itself. It needs no racists or catalysts to set it off, it awaits in almost every situation to manifest itself, and Katrina has made that plainly and painfully evident. In fact, this very discussion is evident of this. The tragedy in NO was about the suffering of THOUSANDS, not the criminal activities of a handful. Yet, the racist perceptions of much of our nation, including many many blacks, somehow managed to morph them together as if they were one and the same. We seemed to believe that these crimes were committed by those who were suffering, instead of by criminals who were adding to their suffering. In fact, it seemed that the very blackness of many of the victims was at fault. Black people don't listen to warnings so they deserve to be stuck there. Black people shoot at rescue workers so they deserve to be left there. Black people loot whenever they get a chance so they deserve no provisions. You never hear about this sort of thing when white Americans run amuck. When some sports team wins a championship and white youth run the streets burning and looting you never hear any mention of race. You never see any editorials decrying the failure of whites to assimilate into American society. You never see white apologists on TV talking about how white people have got to get their act together. This sort of thing has been reserved exclusively for black Americans, and that my friend, is racist.

Haha, that post almost looks like an olive branch... I must agree that many of the youth today do believe that they know it all, oftentimes being insufferable as they dogmatically persist in their beliefs, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not me (there's always more to learn), but if you have gleaned that from my post, it seems that I'll have to further clarify my points... I'll do that a little lower down. In keeping with the topic of "know it alls" for a second, I must point out that while young people in general do carry around this attitude, it's not an isolated epidemic. Unfortunately, young people who think they know everything often grow up to be older people who... think they know everything. Our elders often simply think they know everything because they are older. In truth, knowledge is passed down from parent to child, older to younger, generation to generation. This is how prosperous societies have always worked. However, the older among us are often so focused on imparting knowledge that they forget that there is always something new to learn, even from the very youth they are imparting knowledge to. Now that's not to group you with that lot Cozmo. I don't know you, so it would be overly presumptuous of me to characterize you as such. Indeed, you don't seem to be, and I look forward to our "learning from each other." However, I did feel the need to point out that the "know it all" epidemic is not isolated, if only to stand up for the youth a little. Now about that post... You said that you addressed everything I replied to in the very same post. I'm not sure you understood what I posted, so I'll pull out some examples... You said that Kanye was simply voicing his concern of black people being grouped together when troops were told to shoot to kill. I pointed out that it was more of an accusation, and you have to question whether he understood what the full situation was in NO, or whether he chose to ignore it and make his accusation anyway. From the statement he made, he didn't convey concern that innocents and criminals may be grouped together; rather, it seemed that he had already made up his mind as to why troops were going in with shoot to kill orders, or at the very least, made it sound that way. The whole issue of that statement seems to be one of perception, or more accurately, how he chose to perceive the situation. In the face of the shootings, the arson, the raping, and the looting, he chose to make it sound like troops would be entering the city to shoot black people indiscriminately rather than to simply restore order, scaring away those who would use the tragedy for their own personal gain. I listened to the govenor of Louisiana give the "shoot to kill" order. For all her tough talk of M16s, troops weren't going to go in to shoot people taking bread and water, and in hindsight, they haven't done that. They haven't grouped the innocent with the criminals. If he wanted to convey his concern, he should have worded his statement as such or not said anything on the issue at all. Instead, at the very least, he made it sound as if he were accusing the govenor of giving the orders because of discrimination. You made another statement to the effect... The entire situation in New Orleans was overtly (openly or obviously) racist. I answered you with a question. If the entire situation is openly racist, where does the mayor of New Orleans stand in the whole equation. He has a fair share of blame in all of this, but he's black. You said "...overtly, yet perceptively." When you used "overtly" did you mean "openly or obviously?" Is it that you just used the wrong word to express what you wanted to say? Did you want to say that it was not obvious, yet perceptible? I really am seeking to understand what you meant by that. Something that is overt is generally perceptible; I didn't understand the use of yet in that sentence. ← OK, this looks good. Unfortunately I'm stuck in an airport on some crappy Wifi, so I won't read all of it now. Let me just say that yes, it was an olive branch, one that is always extended in my posts, regardless of how combative they may get. Way more than winning an argument, I am interested in being correct, for that a dialogue has to happen. I do like my fun as much as the next guy though. :1-say-yes: I'll hit this up when I get some daylight.

Only person i dissed in here is somebody who dissed me first. Please don't mistake me for Chief, he's a different kind of animal. :lol:

I think the Aborigines may have a few things to say about that. :1-say-yes:

I said I was done with you when I thought you were someone of intelligence who had his head stuck in the sand. Then I looked in your profile and realized that you were just someone of intelligence filled with the naiveté and ignorance of youth. You are highly intelligent and pretty well educated as well, of that there is no doubt. But you also suffer from that common youthful disease that we all at one time or another fall victim to, you think that you know it all. It was evident in our conversation when you answered my replies to your posts with the same exact points that I had replied to. This says that you refuse to consider my points, instead of asking me to further define them. I mistook that then for intentionally blind ignorance, often a permanent condition. Upon spying your age though I realized that it was in actuality youthful ignorance, which is usually quite temporary. So I figured that I would take this approach until you were ready to have a TWO-WAY conversation on the subject. In the meantime, I'll have some fun! :lolsign: You see, I already know all about highly intelligent 21 year-olds, since I was one myself 25 years ago, and having raised one myself (now 22) as well. So, when you're ready, we can learn from each other. ;-) Or, if you'd rather, we can continue this pissing contest. Just remember, I've had way more time to hone my pissing skills, young Jedi. :gettinjiggywitit:

Yeah, for once KRS has made a coherent, to the point and actually pretty factual statement. Perhaps it's maturity. David Banner was right on point as well.

Approaching? I'm already there kid! You stink at math too? Did you clean out the garage and take out the garbage like I told ya? Where's your daddy already, you're boring me! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: