You're Getting Warmer!

Matt Welch | September 27, 2005

The L.A. Times takes a swing today at the inaccurate New Orleans rumors story, making this important (though hardly exculpatory) point:

Some of the hesitation that journalists might have had about using the more sordid reports from the evacuation centers probably fell away when New Orleans' top officials seemed to confirm the accounts.

Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass appeared on "Oprah" a few days after trouble at the Superdome had peaked.

Compass told of "the little babies getting raped" at the Superdome. And Nagin made his claim about hooligans raping and killing.

Now the final missing link -- understanding that even elected officials exaggerate, spread rumors, and (horrors!) lie, and/or have incentives to do so. Speaking of depending on bureaucrats for info, the LAT story attributes Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals spokesman Bob Johannessen as saying a total of 4 of the state's 841 reported Katrina deaths were gunshot victims.

Comments

Phil Collins|9.27.05 @ 2:17PM|#

DIALOGUE FROM OUR LAST EPISODE HERE AT REASON:

Commenter 1: We're already hearing about people going so far as to attack the very support and rescue vehicles trying to save people. So tell me what YOU think the average looter's psychology is--will he make off with a bunch of stuff from Wal-Mart and then think "Well, I'm satisfied with what I've got so now I'll stop?" Or will he be emboldened to move on to bigger and better things, like attacking police stations and rescue vehicles?

Commenter 2: I think the thing about rescue vehicles and police stations being attacked is highly exaggerated. We will probably have a better idea of which one of us is correct about this particular issue in a couple days, I think. I know the paramedics are scared of the desparate people with guns, but get back to me when the paramedic body count reaches 1% or so of the total count.

I think attacks on rescue workers are being highly exaggerated for the same reason that the looting so preoccupies everyone -- it is a convenient excuse not to think about all those dead bodies and what might, possibly could have been done different to prevent their violent deaths.

UPDATE:

Looks like half a percent at best (I think the 841 is suspiciously low, tho). Commenter 2 was correct. The gang violence thing was way overrated on Sep 1 and was merely used as an excuse not to rescue people from drowning (dehydrating, etc).

|9.27.05 @ 2:19PM|#

"Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals spokesman Bob Johannessen as saying a total of 4 of the state's 841 reported Katrina deaths were gunshot victims."

But wait. There were supposed to be up to 10,000 dead people.

So that bumps it up to 48 gunshot victims.

Ergo, LA should get all the money she is asking for. Gold is non-corrosive, right? Why not build levees out of gold?

300 billion should do the trick.

|9.27.05 @ 2:21PM|#

a total of 4 of the state's 841 reported Katrina deaths were gunshot victims.

I don't have any statistics, but I'm willing to put money on 4 homicides being below the average number of homicides that city sees in the same time frame.

|9.27.05 @ 2:30PM|#

MNG,

Huh?

|9.27.05 @ 2:46PM|#

When Welch was writing his anti-rumor posts, there were a number of "I saw it happen with my own eyes, you BASTARD!" messages in the comments.

What's up with that?

|9.27.05 @ 2:50PM|#

joe:

Exactly.

Enjoy the zen.

|9.27.05 @ 3:04PM|#

Of course everyone knows that public officials lie, but normally it's in the direction of claiming that things are *better* than they are ("the crime rate in our city is not as bad as the media would lead you to think" etc.). That's why I think there was not enough skepticim of the horror stories they spread.

|9.27.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Government works to protect its own interests first?

I'm shocked. No, really.

THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSION
IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA

I'd be interested to know what the rest of you think about the article at the above link.

|9.27.05 @ 3:30PM|#

mediageek, my first thought is that "FEMA's resuce and relief operations didn't respond quickly enough" and "the military and FEMA stopped private sector aid from getting through" are not mutually-exclusive propositions. The writer seems to want to prove the latter in order to discredit the former, but in this case "B therefore not A" does not follow.

Shannon Love|9.27.05 @ 3:40PM|#

I think the behavior of the NOLA officials is a textbook case of "organizational panic." Organizational panic occurs when an institution operating under a fantasy model has that model destroyed by contact with reality.

Israel's defense forces suffered from this at the start of 1973 war when the Arabic states achieved strategic surprise. The Israeli had convinced themselves that surprise was impossible so when they were surprised they were temporally paralyzed.

It is now clear that the local officials in NOLA were in a complete state of denial about enormity of the threat posed to the city. They appear to have convinced themselves they could do nothing to control or improve the situation and to compensate they created a fantasy wherein the state and federal government would arrive nearly instantaneous in the disaster area to rescue everyone and fix everything. When their fantasy collided with reality they panicked.

Their need to get help, their state of panic and the collapse of their communication systems made them susceptible to wild rumors. They had no institutional mechanism left for sorting fact from fantasy and as individuals they were emotionally overwhelmed.

The media does not seem to have grasped the level of dysfunction at the time. Why should they? I can't think of any similar organizational failure in recent history. The media just assumed that the stories had been vetted in someway when in reality they were just rumors promulgated by hysterical public officials.

|9.27.05 @ 3:57PM|#

I saw the woman on TV who said "babies are being raped". She was an older woman who clearly was refering to anyone young as a baby. If, in fact, anyone was being raped, and were even 19 years old, this woman considered that "child" a "baby being raped". As soon I saw that the BBC was reporting on this woman's statement, I knew that it was going to be misinterpreted as actual "infants" being raped. (As I said, IF, infact anyone was raped).

|9.27.05 @ 4:00PM|#

According to CBS news, the New Orleans Chief of Police has just resigned.

New Orleans Police Chief Quits

Shannon Love|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

mediageek,

I think it is to early to evaluate how well FEMA responded to Katrina. At present we only have a grab bag of anecdotal media reports about failures. As the parent post of this thread demonstrates, the media has done a poor job of covering these events. There is no compelling reason to believe that media did a better job of covering FEMA's response over an area the size of Utah than they did in covering the Superdome.

The media has a built in biases for reporting events that seem unexpected or shocking. When you combine that with the fact that really no one in the media has the foggiest idea how the logistics of large scale disaster relief actually works, you have a recipe for bad reporting. Actions that seem nonsensical to an amateur observer might actually have a rational basis from the professionals perspective. They media really has no method of providing context for isolated reports in realtime.

We won't know how FEMA actually did until we get a very broad review conducted by people knowledgeable in the field. I'm guessing that they will give FEMA a "B-" at best but I have personal prejudices against institutions like FEMA.

|9.27.05 @ 5:10PM|#

The Howard Stern prank callers are the best at exposing the MSM lack of fact checking. The guy that got through to ABC during the OJ bronco standoff is the best example. Here he is talking like Kingfish saying he's a neighbor of OJ and that "OJ look mighty stressed indeedy, and Jennings was buying every word until the guy says Bababooy. The guy that told Wolf Blitzer during the first WTC attack that he was on the 30th floor and that the explosion was due to Stern filming Fartman was another classic. The media types act all holier than thou when they get pranked, but who is the bigger jackass, the guy making the call or the idiots that rushed them on the air for the sake of a scoop?

|9.27.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Shannon, I certainly agree that the media tends to hose objective news coverage due to general ignorance, miscommunication/misinformation that arises out of situations that are developing, and the scramble for ratings share.

But if we cannot judge the governmental response to Katrina because of these reporters bumbled through it, then how are we to do it?

Can we honestly expect the eventual hearings and review boards to be any less biased than the media?

drf|9.27.05 @ 5:14PM|#

Shannon/Gary:

"I think it is too early to evaluate how well FEMA responded to Katrina"

huh? so there was a premature dismissal of its leader? Seriously, just from exit plans, rescue strategies, timing of the event, lack of coordination between city, state, and federal people - there appears to be some collossal fuck up in there somewhere. and there's probably heaps of blame to go around.

but then again, WalMart probably had generators etc in stock :)

cheers,
drf

|9.27.05 @ 5:16PM|#

I watched Geraldo in front of the NO convention center - tears streaming down his grimacing face. He was pleading for the evacuees to be allowed to walk away from the convention center. While exhibiting great personal agony he described the ongoing tragedy within.

I suspect that Geraldo never even poked his head into the damn convention center. He committed the same sin as the MSM - he hyped up the unspeakable horrors in order to garner attention while displaying no interest at all in determining the facts of the situation.

It seems that everyone is following the example set by the Bush administration.

Larry A|9.27.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Joe: mediageek, my first thought is that "FEMA's resuce and relief operations didn't respond quickly enough" and "the military and FEMA stopped private sector aid from getting through" are not mutually-exclusive propositions. The writer seems to want to prove the latter in order to discredit the former, but in this case "B therefore not A" does not follow.

Instead of "B therefore not A" I would rather say that the article's author(s) are saying "A->B" in that FEMA quickly and predictably responded to prevent private aid from reaching what it regarded as its turf.

In agreement with your point, interdicting private aid did not mean they couldn't also be slow in providing government assistance.

|9.27.05 @ 5:40PM|#

Shannon Love,

Organizational failure happens all the time in the U.S. (and the world), just not on such a grand scale. You'd think that reporters would get used to it. That we don't hear about it is more of an indication of crappy reporting than anything else. My suggestion is that you peruse some NTSB reports; accident reports are filled with examples of organizational failure.

The media has a built in biases for reporting events that seem unexpected or shocking.

So now you do believe in ideology and memes. :)

mediageek,

But if we cannot judge the governmental response to Katrina because of these reporters bumbled through it, then how are we to do it?

Remember, according to Shannon Love, the media is supposed to just ignore any negative events so we're not discouraged and the terrorists don't win! :)

Crushinator,

Stating that the events in the Convention Center weren't as bad as they were hyped to be doesn't mean that things weren't bad there. Just the very idea of thousands of people stuck in a shelter that size that had been inundated with water, had no proper restroom facilities, etc. should give one pause.

drf,

Don't confuse me with a spook.

The Lonewacko Blog|9.27.05 @ 5:43PM|#

You believed the original reports, and now you believe the corrections?

Me, I tend to trust in all the various anecdotes coming from various survivors. They can't all be wrong or relying on legends.

See this. Is he overstating matters, or are the local officials who - just as an example - might want to make sure the tourists come back?

I eagerly await the input from the real reporters.

drf|9.27.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Pardon, M. Hak.

Apologies.
:)

|9.27.05 @ 5:47PM|#

drf-

I don't think Shannon is Gary. I used to wonder, but I no longer think so.

Shannon Love's posts always sound informed and profound when I first read them. And maybe they are. The problem is that many different people out there claim to have deep insights into the nature of organizations, and they present those insights in sophisticated language. But one runs into so many different analyses and opinions that I have to think that most of them are just taking their own observations and offering them as authoritative pronouncements.

Shannon, what do you base all of this on? What's your background? The first time I read a post by you I think that it sounds pretty authoritative. Then I read it again and it still seems plausible, but I'm no longer so sure.

If your insights concerning people and observations weren't offered out of the blue, if they actually had some context, or at least some illustrative example from the past (the news report that initiates the thread doesn't count, since the report is on a partially understood event in progress), maybe I could decide whether you really are an authority or just another one of us, only with better writing skills.

|9.27.05 @ 5:49PM|#

The Sky is green or whatever color I need it to be....

drf|9.27.05 @ 5:54PM|#

Fair enough, Thoreau.

Why do you GARCH-modelers hate america?

do you do any VAR modeling, btw?

|9.27.05 @ 5:55PM|#

GARCH? VAR?

I don't get it. I solve PDE's.

|9.27.05 @ 5:58PM|#

To elaborate, what gets me about Shannon's posts is that a lot is left implied: "Organizations always do such-and-such...decision-makers tend to almost always do this..." They do? Huh? The observation seems insightful and non-obvious, but because it's non-obvious and just asserted rather than discussed (or supported) it is also non-convincing.

|9.27.05 @ 5:59PM|#

thoreau,

Shannon and I have very different writing styles. Only your feverish conspiratorial mind would try to conjoin us.

Claiming that organizational failure is rare is a good indication she doesn't know what she's talking about.

|9.27.05 @ 6:00PM|#

thoreau,

Shannon has claimed on many occassions to be a biologist.

|9.27.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Thoreau,

Claiming that decision-makers make decisions not based on ideology is flat out silly if you understand what the term ideology really means.

drf|9.27.05 @ 6:10PM|#

General Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity and Vector Autoregressive models.

what's PDE?

cheers.
drf

|9.27.05 @ 6:53PM|#

drf-

Partial Differential Equation

Hakluyt-

Agreed. You and Shannon are not one and the same. When did she claim to be a biologist? It sounds vaguely familiar, I just can't place it. Time to search the archives.

Shannon-

You usually say that the topic of the thread is an example of some general insight concerning people and organizations. And your general insight sounds good, at first. And you write very authoritatively and hint at a background where you've encountered this extensively, and at a Very High and Important Level (not just the type of observations that anybody will make on the job). But I keep looking for explanation, analysis, or example, and there is usually little. Just assertion.

My appraisal of my own style on this forum is that when I'm not being sarcastic (I realize that my sarcasm is excessive) I'm analytical. My posts will generally read like "Of course, what about this other possibility? Well, if it were true, then such-and-such would follow..." Hakluyt, conversely, is full of citations and references. You mostly assert.

My biggest problems with asserted insights into people and organizations (especially on a Very High and Important Level) can best be explained with a story: In grad school they offered classes on management, marketing, and business for Ph.D. students, to try to make us more employable. Since we were all busy with our research, the workload was pretty light compared to the business students I knew as an undergrad (they were always working on some sort of presentation). Mostly we listened to people with a range of backgrounds offer their insights on people and organizations.

There were some common, general, and important observations: Communication is important, too much micromanagement will backfire in the long run, managers need a balance between discretion and accountability, etc. But implementing any of these ideas in the real world requires trade-offs and attention to details that vary from organization to organization. Yet a lot of people would go beyond those basic insights to offer their Grand Unified Theory of People and Organizations. And the thing is, depending on the situation you could find very different yet equally successful organizations and managers.

So when you offer (without analysis or background) your Grand Unified Theory, I'm left wondering whether you're really any more informed than the rest of us. Yeah, any successful person will observe a lot and learn a lot over a career. But there are a lot of successful people out there with a wide range of styles and recommendations. When one of them tries to generalize his or her own experience to completely different situations, that's dangerous.

So, what is it that sets you apart from the rest of us?

|9.27.05 @ 7:05PM|#

There is at least one thing, of course, that differentiates Shannon Love from me:

Shannon Love refuses to get sucked into the most acrimonious fights on this forum. Me? I succumb all too often.

I just found the part where Shannon references formal training as a biologist. But there are all of these hints at a bigger, even more important career than that. In-depth knowledge of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement businesses. Insights into the media. Expertise in terrorism and foreign relations. Exposure to Big and Important Decision-Makers (not just observing the immediate boss from a position one step lower on the ladder, something we all get to do).

Really, Shannon Love sounds like the perfect candidate for a high-level position in the Department of Homeland Security, if what she hints about herself is true.

Are you the real deal?

|9.27.05 @ 7:05PM|#

Thoreau,

You know, you could just make one "what's with the way you write?" post and let Shannon reply.

Just saying, it's kinda Hak-y.

|9.27.05 @ 7:09PM|#

Good point, Eric. Sorry.

(And I realize that this apology post just made things even worse.)

|9.27.05 @ 7:11PM|#

Man, I'm glad nothing about me provokes your, er, analytical side, Thoreau. ;)

|9.27.05 @ 7:13PM|#

(And I realize that this apology post just made things even worse.)

Nah, it's all good.

|9.27.05 @ 7:23PM|#

Eric, my analytical side is so sharp that it could bisect a hive employee!

|9.27.05 @ 8:01PM|#

I eagerly await thoreau's profile on me... and on Tom Crick/Ken Schultz.

It's not always a bad thing to engage acrimonious people.

Shannon Love sounds to me like someone who started out on a philosophy degree path in college, then changed to business administration/management or some sort of sociological degree. In other words, she strikes me as someone who tends to look at the bigger causal issues and works back from there as an analysis model.

I'd be amazed to find out she's a 19-year-old audo-didact who hasn't left her dorm room in over a year...

|9.27.05 @ 9:14PM|#

rob-

I only do profiles on people who are either especially perplexing (Shannon), especially obnoxious (Jean Bart), or especially weird (gaius marius). You're a normal, interesting commenter. So is Tom Crick.

Sorry.

Shannon Love|9.27.05 @ 11:05PM|#

thoreau,

"I just found the part where Shannon references formal training as a biologist. But there are all of these hints at a bigger, even more important career than that. In-depth knowledge of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement businesses. Insights into the media. Expertise in terrorism and foreign relations. Exposure to Big and Important Decision-Makers (not just observing the immediate boss from a position one step lower on the ladder, something we all get to do)."

Where the hell did you get all that? I am a person of no particular experience or knowledge. I was educated as a biologist but I spent my adult life working in the computer industry wearing many hats. Had the vagaries of life not intervened, I would most likely today be a left of center college professor wedged happily and obliviously up an ivory tower somewhere.

I have always had an intense interest in cognition with a special interest in how people make decisions and why different people make different decisions in the same circumstance or with the same data. I began to study organizational failures after the Challenger disaster. This in turn led me military history, (which is really a study of decision making.)

I do have fund of personal experiences but I have also made it a point to collect stories from people I met in business or elsewhere about how their organizations made this or that decision. I am a passionate amateur student of game theory in its many different forms but especially its applications to Darwinism.

I am a systemizer. I seek to determine the patterns in people's decision making process. For example, why is an individuals view on gay marriage a strong predictor of their position on the Iraq war or dozens of other issues? Clearly, people have unstated axioms or world views that control how they interpret many different seemingly unrelated events. Understanding these axioms gives one great insight into the why people make the decisions they do.

I never intend to make arguments from my personal authority. Such arguments are pointless in a forum such as this in any case. I suspect I sound authoritative to some because I seldom write in passive voice. Unless I link to something, my arguments or observations should stand on their own or not at all.

|9.27.05 @ 11:10PM|#

I was soooooo wrong!
I was soooooo wrong!
I was soooooo wrong!
I was soooooo wrong!

Many apologies.

PPnop|9.27.05 @ 11:36PM|#

PPnop|9.27.05 @ 11:37PM|#

Lebanon

|9.27.05 @ 11:39PM|#

Here's the part where I awkwardly try to explain myself:

You've said a lot of things like "People who say such-and-such obviously don't know how the intelligence business works..." or "I've always found that real world policymakers...." The way you've written those things implied (to me, anyway) some first-hand familiarity.

I have read a lot on certain subjects, but I try to avoid "you don't know how this business works" unless I have some first-hand knowledge of it (not necessarily a full career, but some kind of first-hand exposure). And I read every day about the decisions that people make and hear the ostensible accounts of how the decisions were made. But I am reluctant to conclude that I actually know how the decisions were made (my default position, though, is to assume the worst ;-)

You write with confidence and familiarity, even when trying to make Big Points. That's not a criticism, just an observation. I got confused by it. That's my fault, not yours.

|9.27.05 @ 11:42PM|#

That's it, I'm retiring from profiling and identit speculations!

And this time I really mean it!

|9.27.05 @ 11:45PM|#

Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend.

|9.28.05 @ 12:31AM|#

Right. And next you'll say you bisected me ac-ci-den-tal-ly...

|9.28.05 @ 3:13AM|#

What, a freak .. from a men-a-gerie?

|9.28.05 @ 7:44AM|#

I fully understand where Thoreau is coming from; Shannon is prone to making statements like "Organization X works like this," without stating how she knows that. Just a couple of days ago, for example, on the thread about the latest torture allegations coming from our military, she made many statements about how the military absolutely works in a certain way, and then when an actual member of the military informed her that she was wrong, she dropped the subject and abandoned the thread.

Which is the main difference between her and Jean Hak Gunnels--she'll drop the subject when proven wrong. Consider the following examples:

SHANNON: Organization X works like this.

SOMEONE ELSE: I have a lot of experience with Organization X, and I can assure you that you're wrong.

SHANNON: (no comment)

Compare that to the following:

JEAN HAK GUNNELS: Organization X works like this.

SOMEONE ELSE: I have a lot of experience with Organization X, and I can assure you that you're wrong.

JEAN HAK GUNNELS: No I'm not. I still know more about it than you do. Now let me take something you said out of context and pretend that proves you're a complete liar.

(Which reminds me, Hak--you never did explain how you came to know more than I do about the working conditions of strip-club dancers.)

|9.28.05 @ 10:17AM|#

This is totally off-topic but it's an example of my stupidity: My building just had a fire drill. But there's no alarm in my office, the sound has to pass through a few walls to get into my office, and even in the halls it doesn't sound very much like a fire alarm.

So I spent about 5 minutes at my desk writing down equations and wondering why the janitor was vacuuming, until somebody came and asked if we're supposed to evacuate.

Maybe if I had noticed one of the poorly distributed signs announcing a fire drill.

Anyway, next time the janitor comes around to vacuum I'll either spray him with the fire extinguisher or run away in a panic.

|9.28.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Thoreau--

How does that make you stupid? If anything, I'd say the alarm system is badly designed; a fire alarm that's easy to ignore can hardly be called "effective." They may as well send out e-mails, for all the good THAT does.

|9.28.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Jennifer, you're supposed to recommend that I read the fire safety manual before I embarass myself any further.

|9.28.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Actually, Thoreau, I'd suggest you find out why the guy in charge of your building's fire alarms wants you to get killed.

Shannon Love|9.28.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Jennifer,

You criticism of me would be valid had I stated that "Organization X doesn't work that way based on my personal knowledge." Instead I pointed out that public record showed that "Organization X doesn't work that way."

Specifically, I objected to your hollywood-esq description of how military abuses where uncovered. It is not, as you asserted, the pattern that a brave whistleblower, after being shunned by the powers that be, gives information to an intrepid reporter/activist who then publicizes the alleged crime. Only after widespread public outrage does the military investigate.

That is not pattern. The pattern is that (1) most cases of misconduct are discovered by the chain of command (2) in those cases not handled by the chain of command, it is reported to and investigated by somebody in the military itself (3) non-military actors only become involved after the military tells everybody what happened.

I aware of only one incident where a proven case of misconduct was reported in a public forum before the military announced it. In that case, an Iraqi blogger reported the death of his cousin which prompted an investigation. I feel confident in asserting that the major media and Human rights groups have to date not uncovered a single instance of misconduct before the U.S. Military did.

This is not dependent on my personal knowledge of events but by the easily available public record. If I am way off base a little googling would prove me wrong.

Just as with those who exaggerated events in New Orleans, this is a case of you letting your stereotypes dictate your perception of events without checking on what the actual facts are.

|9.28.05 @ 11:45AM|#

Shannon, if you re-read my post, you'll see I had you saying "Organization X works like this;" I didn't say you claimed personal knowledge. And on the thread in question, a military man posted to say that my version of things was more accurate than yours.

But there you go again: "That is not the pattern." How do you know this?

|9.28.05 @ 11:45AM|#

Jennifer-
Maybe the restuarant the Hak-a-Gunnels family owns in NOLA employs dancers of tables? So the discussion you two had last week was classic labor vs. management.

|9.28.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Herman--

If Hak had any actual firsthand knowledge of strippers, he'd've mentioned it as soon as I called him on it.

|9.28.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Therefore, Herman, I suggest you learn more abut the psychology of Hak before you embarrass yourself further.

|9.28.05 @ 11:54AM|#

By the way, Shannon, though I DID say that the low-ranking guys were the ones complaining, where did I say anything about their going to reporters and that whole Hollywood scenario? Argue with the Jennifer on the board, not the Jennifer in your head.

|9.28.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I should say one other thing: Hakluyt will no doubt show up to castigate me for my over-reaching attempt to analyze somebody.

In this case, it will be 100% deserved. Hakluyt, bring on your worst!

Shannon Love|9.28.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Jennifer,

You asserted that the military only investigated allegation of misconduct when forced to by outside actors. Perhaps accusing you of a Hollywood scenario is just me reading something into your statement and if so I apologize.

But my main point in that thread was that the military was doing a good job of investigating and punishing misconduct on its own initiative. It is doing such a good job that the military is the ONLY source of information on the misconduct in the vast majority of cases. You have presented no evidence that this is not the case.

|9.28.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Anyway, next time the janitor comes around to vacuum I'll either spray him with the fire extinguisher or run away in a panic.

*snerks*

|9.28.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Before the thread got jacked into the "which commenter is which" conversation, the usual suspects were trying to use the deflation of the rampaging mobs/looters/rapitst stories to discredit the stories about the suffering of the people trapped in the Convention Center.

Sorry, fellas. Newsies, from Geraldo to NPR, were reporting first-hand what they were seeing at the Convention Center. They actually saw the dead bodies, they saw the people dehydrated and without any supplies. This is completely different from the exaggerated crime stories, which were all reported second- or third-hand.

There's something sick going on in the mind of somebody who would seize on any excuse to minimize the suffering and death that actually did occur in New Orleans because of the failure of the relief efforts, and I can't help but notice that this line is being pushed by the most ardent defenders of George Bush and the Abu Ghraib criminals.

drf|9.28.05 @ 2:56PM|#

"There's something sick going on..."

in a nutshell. in a nutshell.

you see, it's okay. because if they weren't poor, they wouldn't have anything to hide. and cost-benefit analysis and blah blah blah blah.

sorry, joe, i can't even get the sarcasto-van out of the garage today. let me just agree with the sick goings on.

|9.28.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Sorry, fellas. Newsies, from Geraldo to NPR, were reporting first-hand what they were seeing at the Convention Center. They actually saw the dead bodies, they saw the people dehydrated and without any supplies. This is completely different from the exaggerated crime stories, which were all reported second- or third-hand.

I've reread the thread (minus the threadjack), but I'm not seeing where anyone's denied that the Convention Center inhabitants had a horrific time, or that some people died (though far fewer than we were lead to believe, barring a FEMA corpse-napping coverup). I do see one mention of doubt that Geraldo Riveras actually saw any of this first-hand... After, well, his entire career, why is it so wrong for anyone to be dubious about his work?

There's something sick going on in the mind of somebody who would seize on any excuse to minimize the suffering and death that actually did occur in New Orleans because of the failure of the relief efforts

I agree. But the reverse, seizing on any claim - or even fabricating a claim - to exaggerate the suffering and death that happened, is also rather sick. And like the phenomenon you talk about, it also has a political purpose and polical home.