Fear Exceeded Crime's Reality in New Orleans

Well, libs can stop denying that the criminal orgy after Katrina was mostly myth.

Even the New York Times has admitted it.

Here is just one of the myth busting quotes in the story:

"During six days when the Superdome was used as a shelter, the head of the New Orleans Police Department's sex crimes unit, Lt. David Benelli, said he and his officers lived inside the dome and ran down every rumor of rape or atrocity. In the end, they made two arrests for attempted sexual assault, and concluded that the other attacks had not happened."

There is also a searing indictment of police behavior (which I'm sure was Mike Brown's fault, also)

Anyway a three page story on the MSM (I include Fox this time) and its pathetic reporting accuracy on this story.

We're working on our core principles - will get back to you

I love the article in RealClearPolitics by Mort Kondracke. Here's a quote:

Both House and Senate Democrats, plus outside consultants and think tank operatives, say that the party should have a full-blown alternative agenda to take into the 2006 elections - but that it doesn't need one yet.

Kondracke goes on about how the Dems plan to make 2006 the 1994 for their party. The Dem's point out that the Contract with America wasn't unveiled until Sept. 27, 1994, so they have time to come up with an agenda.

For those who have forgotten, the Contract was this (see more info here and here):

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

And the House voted on all of it in 100 days (though, shockingly I'm sure to all of you, the Senate chickened out on some of it). Some of it, like the per child tax credit, seems like it has been around forever, doesn't it?

Anyway, these were not focus grouped issues that were cooked up at a retreat in Georgetown, many were related to core Republican principles. Gingrich called them "60% issues", meaning the stuff that a lot of Americans already agree with us on - note there is no abortion reference in there for example. To show the age of some of the issues, Reagan mentioned a lot of them in his 1985 State of the Union, almost ten years earlier. The idea that they were somehow cooked up over the summer in 1994 is wishful thinking.

Also, was the Contract the cause of the 1994 Republican landslide? I think it helped some, nationalized the elections in a way that had not been previously possible. House races were normally very local in flavor, but the Republicans managed to get people to vote for a national agenda when they voted for their local man or woman.

The big thing that the Dems forget about this is that the mid-nineties was the real moment of southern political reallignment. When I was a kid, the entire Texas executive branch (which are all elected seperately) except occasionally the governor and both houses of the legislature where Democratic. By the end of the nineties, Bush was the leader of an entirely Republican (except the attorney general) administration and both houses either were Republican or were very soon. This was reflected throughout the South as the Reagan Democrats finally decided to just call themselves Republicans or at least vote that way.

Do the dem's think they are all going to switch back?

They shouldn't hold their breath.

RMR

Will they EVER get over the 2000 election?

Interesting quote from The Washington Times:

"The fog of war and the gusts of a hurricane both cloud and obscure vital truths," said Matthew Felling of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "What we're seeing here is no different than the reports of museum looting right after U.S. troops entered Baghdad. It's not that different from election night 2000 when some journalists prematurely declared a winner. In all three cases, the public would have been served by a bit more patience and less feigned certainty."

Let's review:

1 - 200 hundred dead and raped babies at the Superdome - load of crap

2 - Iraqis stealing historical treasures from the Baghdad museum - load of crap

3 - George W. Bush got more votes than Al Gore in Florida in 2000 - repeatedly verified by numerous sources, including Florida press, the AP, and the New York Times.

The public would "benefit" from people actually moving past election night 2000. There's been a whole other presidential election since then, guys.

RMR

What more perspective do you need?

That's what Shephard Smith said famously to Sean Hannity during the height of the Katrina dust-up. Well, here's the problem with that:

Most of the stuff reported on the scene was absolute and total crap. You can read about it here and here. A "man on the scene" is nice and all that, but it doesn't represent anything close to a balanced view of a story, or, as Hannity rightly calledit, "perspective". Smith was complaining about folks on the bridge needing food and water, effectively blaming the Feds. Later reports revealed that the Red Cross was ready to go in but the Governor wouldn't let them, for fear of drawing more folks to the Dome and the convention center. Was Shep using his mental powers to see the frustrated Red Cross volunteers across town?

Nope, that's the problem - he only saw what his eyes can see. Haven't we all learned by now that eyewitness testimony is often the least accurate?

Please, read the links above (they are the New Orleans paper and the LA Times, hardly two conservative bastions) and read how badly the press reported this story in the heat of the event when we needed them to get it right the most.

RMR

You tell 'em, Michael Barone

Read this from Michael Barone. I couldn't have said it better. He gives a realistic picture of the world today, and it's a whole lot rosier than you will see on the MSM.

RMR

The Right Vote

You'll never believe I said this, but check out this great Washington Post Op-Ed about John Roberts. They appropriately shame Democrats for not voting for an obviously qualified conservative nominee.

Sometimes they get it right.

RMR

Who's tolerant?

I love this article on National Review Online. It's about a heavy metal guy who runs porns stores and supports Bush. Why?

“The commies have closed more porno stores from us than the Bible thumpers ever did,” he said authoritatively. “There are people on both sides that want to take away everyone’s fun, whether it’s for the kids or the environment or whatever. They’d have no porn stores and we’d all be riding horse-drawn buggies to work if it were up to them. Still, nobody believes me, but the Republican party really is the party of tolerance these days."

and

“I’d never start in on guys in my store wearing Kerry shirts or Howard Dean pins they way they start in on me for my Bush gear; for thinking different than them, basically,” Paone added. “I’d never stoop that low. Never. But liberals do it all the time.”

Interesting...having just done my time with the libs at an opera gig (with more to come), having to hear them go inanely on and on about crap they know absolutely nothing about and having to not say anything for fear of

a) never working there again

or

b) having the obligatory four hour "liberal intervention" to teach me the error of my ways

I am really down with this guy on the tolerance issue (not so much with the porn, though). It always cracks me up how all the free-spirited "tolerant" artsy types I work with are so monolithic in their thinking, and just follow the Dems in lock-step to the voting booth every time. God forbid I say anything Conservative or Christian (shockingly, this is equally bad alot of the time). These are really ok people, with good hearts and all that, and they can think what they want as far as I'm concerned, but why can't I have the same courtesy?

So, I ask, who's REALLY tolerant?

RMR

On the lighter side of things...

I ran across this on Drudge:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8CJ24E83.html

The Headline was "Headphone Use may Worsen Hearing Loss."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! You're kidding! Next thing you know they will be telling us that "donuts make you fat" or some other nonsense.

Must be a slow news day.

Tomorrow's Headline "Doctors discover diarhea makes you irritable and smell funny..."

NOW they've done it.

Well, friends, USA Today has unleashed the ire of Mrs. RightMakesRight. Below is the letter she fired off to them after reading this.

"Your story entitled "Compassionate Bush was absent right after Katrina" by Judy Keen and Richard Benedetto, is truly imaginative. I do not understand why reporters insist on giving us their opinion and not report news that actually happens. The article is listed as 'news analysis', when clearly it is opinion and at best, delusion. They cannot truly believe that readers care about when the President flew over the devastation that is now New Orleans. Or that he joked about the good times he had there. That is supposed to be seen as insensitive and not nostalgic? I lived on the North Shore of New Orleans for a few years and I can tell you everyone who has visited that city would talk about the wonderful times they had there. To say that it took the President too long to respond after the hurricane is not what Americans think, it is what the media wants Americans to think. Your reporters seem so desperate to criticize the President that they will grasp at anything they deem inappropriate and apparently will then take it out of context (something we see far too often when it comes to your paper and the President) and make it fit into their warped opinion of this administration. The reporting at USA Today is so blinded by a desperate need to disparage the President that they have forgotten how to report the actual news. I would hope that someday they will realize that their views are not shared by a majority of this nation and hard as they try they will not succeed in changing the truly remarkable impact this President is having on the world. His legacy will be one of courage, conscience, and leadership, regardless of the opinions of your reporters. A warning to you, you let them continue to falsely write "news analysis" and you will find yourself with a lack of readers. I am now one of them. "

Take that!

RMR

Check this out...

Great graphic. Bottom line: there is absolutely NO reason for the debacle at the dome and convention center - except for criminal negligence on the part of local elected officials.

On 'Law and Order' someone would be prosecuted for murder by 'reckless endangerment'.

David

A New LOW.....

For a demonstration of sheer gall - and incompetence of local LA government read this gem: Reporters Turn From Deference to Outrage - New York Times:

"Mr. Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice visited the region to make the same point, but their news conferences were clouded by an outburst by Aaron F. Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, who wept as he described, on 'Meet the Press,' the drowning of a friend's mother who was left stranded in the St. Bernard nursing home for four days. 'Nobody's coming to get us. The secretary has promised. Everybody's promised,' Mr. Broussard said. 'They've had press conferences. I'm sick of the press conferences. For God sakes, shut up and send us somebody.'"

I'm sorry Mr. Broussard, but why were people in a NURSING HOME not EVACUATED before a HURRICANE came in? The people running the home didn't evacuate? The St. Bernard Parish government didn't evacuate? (St Bernard Parish is to the south east of NO, and along with Plaquemines some of the lowest and most exposed 'land' in the entire area.) The State of Louisiana didn't send their National Guard to rescue people so criminally abandoned by those responsible for them? And YOU BLAME THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE!!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!

David

9/13 UPDATE: I just saw a report on a NO TV station that is on local cable here in Houston that a criminal investigation of the nursing home operators is underway.

9/19 UPDATE: By now everyone knows the nursing home operators have been indicted for the deaths at the home. It also turns out that Mr. Broussard's original story was mostly a figment of his imagination WuzzaDem: Bumped: Another Katrina Myth: Aaron Broussard's "Emotional" Appearance on MTP (Updated: MSNBC/NBC Correction(?)).

FEMA is not a first responder

Take a minute to read Craig Martelle: FEMA is not a first responder for still more clarification on how the N.O. mess up was a local one. It has a link to the New Orleans emergency management plan as well. FEMA is NOT the first line of defense for a disaster.

RMR

Some advice for Schumer on judicial nominees

A great Scalia quote from this article on Newsday.com:

"Speaking in California last week, according to The Associated Press, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made an excellent point: 'Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?'"

Gotta love that guy.

RMR

Poll: Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism

Check this out. It seems that alot of Americans agree with me - this was a local/state mess up more than a federal one. The positive/negative on this basically reflects what people think of Bush personally, rather than their views of his handling of the disaster - the numbers for this and his overall approval ratings are basically the same.

Which begs the question - will the press change their reporting to match the facts or keep saying that the public is outraged at the president?

RMR

On the storm

There is an old proverb in China about a woman and child living in a town that is plagued by lions attacking its people. When asked why she stayed, she replied "There is good government here". New Orleans is the opposite - people put up with the crappy government because it is otherwise such a really great place to live.

Friends, take a moment to read David Frum's Diary on National Review Online and peruse the compendium of rebuttal articles that he has placed within it. As a recent resident of the Gulf Coast (I lived near New Orleans while completing my doctoral degree), I have been saddened by the scenes of destruction and angered by the witless television coverage of it.

One salient fact - why are they only covering New Orleans now?

Well, of course, New Orleans is still bleeding and, if it bleeds it leads. But secondly, they are covering it because that is where the problems are the worst. I would love some news on Biloxi, Slidell, Mobile (another low-lying coastal city), etc. How is the recovery going there?

I suspect that alot of the news out of the rest of the region (an area the sized of Kansas) is good, they are cleaning up and moving on, etc. So what's with New Orleans? Well, you have to have lived there to appreciate how uniformly, top to bottom, side to side, absolutely corrupt and incompetant government in Louisiana, and particularly New Orleans is. We're talking about a state with relatively high sale tax on strong tourism AND an income tax that has schools so crappy that alot of regular middle class folks spend thousands of dollars a year sending their kids to private schools. The roads are terrible, New Orleans was the murder capital of the US the Friday before the storm hit, and political corruption is so rampant that it is welcomed like the weather, just shake your head knowingly and have a Hurricane to cool off.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE New Orleans. I spent as much time there as I could get away with - the food, the music, the culture, probably my favorite place that I have ever lived. But, any citizen there that doesn't recognize that the "laissez bon temps roulez" attitude when it comes to government exists is deluded. There is just no infrastructure there politically, it is all graft and corruption. That's why Houston exists as a city, New Orleans is better situated for the oil business, but you can't afford to do business there.

Sure, we all say that we knew the levees were going to break, it had been forcast for years, blah blah, and we blame the feds. Sorry, but we all know that local money and effort has to be committed to a project that size and cost first, and it never appeared - the problem was always in the future, where only the mature can prepare. Louisiana has no mature politicians.

Witness Ray Nagen, who I thought wasn't too bad until this past week, crying about there being no federal help, while N.O. cops and fireman were raiding the local walmart in the company of several thousand of their fellow citizens (check it out here ). What do you expect from a police force that turns a blind eye to public commission of crime on a daily basis (hello - MARDI GRAS). When asked in the same interview if the governor had declared martial law - as had happened in Mississippi and Alabama days before - the mayor replied "I think so...I don't know" and then went back to complaining about national guardsman not being deployed fast enough - troops that were under the governor's control. The levees broke on Tuesday, and there were national guard troops and regular troops on the ground from California, Indiana, and all over the country there on Friday morning. Personally, I don't know how it could have happened any faster.

Worst is the meandering political exploitation of the tragedy. I crack up when libs call the president a bumbling fool one minute and then accuse him of complex maniacal Macchiavellian evil the next. Yes, it took time to get the aid in there, but we have to recognize that the disaster wasn't in its current form until Tuesday, that we are talking about the largest disaster of it's kind ever reported (so we've never dealt with it before), and it's happening in the part of the US that has the infrastructure least capable of handling it.

Beyond that, the lax lawlessness of New Orleans was part of its charm before the storm, but it also has consequences. The initial rescue effort had to be stopped and then completely restructured. Why? Because those being rescued refused to cooperate, not all of them, but enough. Instead of coming together as a community and working together out of a crisis (like Manhattan did), they thought they would rather get a free DVD player - even though they wouldn't have the power to run it for three months. And that's not a racial comment, there were lots of white folks taking TV's out of the Walmart - I gua-RAN-tee.

Let's hope the Big Easy comes back, but this time with good governent. Maybe the silent majority of the good down there will finally kick the bums out. I'll believe when I see it.