Skip to comments.The 'Hard Bigotry' of Incompetence at the NY Times
Posted on 09/25/2005 8:22:05 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Today (25 September) the NY Times ran an editorial, The Hard Bigotry of No Expectations. It excoriates the Bush Administration for two principle failures, the bad response to Hurricane Katrina and the defective Iraq Constitution. Instead, the Times demonstrated that its entire staff is incompetent.
Regarding Katrina, the Times opines, Four years after 9/11, Katrina showed the world that performance standards for the Department of Homeland Security were so low that it was not required to create real plans to respond to real disasters.
The Times has dozens of its reporters and editors working on various aspects of hurricane coverage. Apparently, none of these crack journalists have yet discovered what the blogosphere has known for two weeks. There WAS an existing Evacuation Plan for Southern Louisiana. It was dated 1 January, 2000. It required (paragraph 5, page 13) the use of public buses for those citizens who do not have, or cannot afford private transportation.
How can any supposedly reputable newspaper claim that there was no real plan for evacuation, in the teeth of this fact to the contrary? There is only one answer. It has been made clear to the entire staff of the Times that facts to the contrary of its established political views will not be tolerated. This is hard bigotry.
Concerning the proposed Iraqi Constitution, which recent events show will be approved, the Times opines, Among other things, the constitution drafted under American supervision does not provide for the rights of women and minorities and enshrines one religion as the fundamental source of law.
As one of the nations leading champions of group rights, rather than individual rights, the Times must be aware that the Iraqi Constitution reserves one quarter of the seats in its new parliament for women. Having women in such a strong position is uniquely revolutionary for any dominantly Islamic country in history.
And, if one looks at the United States, women have NEVER reached that level in either the House or the Senate. Women are close to that level in the states, 22.6%, of the 7,382 state legislators in the United States.
Since it took this country lawyer approximately 15 seconds to Google the percentages of women in public office, surely at least one of the hundreds of journalists who work for the Times could have done the same.
Again, the Times is aggressively ignoring facts which undercut its intended political point. Again, this is hard bigotry. Isnt anyone at the Times the least bit ashamed of their shoddy work product?
John / Billybob
Mornin', CBB..Guess the 500+ who are being laid off by the Times are also incompetent..and did you see the article by the Times ombudsman...he flat out tears Keller apart for failing to correct the comments about Geraldo, and also for NOT making Krugman do a correction...It's here somewhere..i'll try to fid it for you
they could save paper and ink by just adjusting every story's headlines, and the first and only paragraph to be "It's Bush's Fault".
Well, that's what happens when you smoke crack.
Ah yes, biased journalism , if the NYT gave any perspective in their articles they might have to give just a little credit or respect to the conservatives or President Bush. Their DNA (democrat negative attitude) wont allow that, don't you know?
Then again, it might poison the fish!
I am sure neither of these people has ever run anything, and though they make many demands, they don't know what a good executive does or how he gets the results they want. Bush looks to me to have been team building in LA, getting the officials on the same page, and he did it himself.
I am very impatient with all these so-called journalists opining on Iraq without going there.
.....Katrina showed the world that performance standards for the Department of Homeland Security were so low that it was not required to create real plans to respond to real disasters.......
Your assertion about there really is a plan does not contradict what the Times said. The Times says that the feds were not required to have a plan.
You have to give them a break. They have made the mental jump from a republic of states to an all powerful parlimentary state where the feds control everything. The fact that actual events haven't kept up with the time table established in 1992 should not be held against them. The fact that there is Republican control should not have any effect on events had not the election been stolen.
If America were Europe, the Times would be right.
The plunging subscription rate of the NYT (and fellow travelers) is the price that they are paying.
Speaking of "price" they want people to pay $50/year to read Dowdies and Krugs on line..Really?
What's hilarious is listening to the media constantly repeat the slogan that "Texas and FEMA learned their lessons from the failures in Katrina." I laughed when they said this (in the form of a question) to one of the mayors, who responded by saying, "we just simply followed our original plans." In fact, even one of the SW Louisiana Police Chiefs pointed out how his town was more prepared than New Orleans.
That $50 will stop strokes and save brain cells.
The NYT is written for the sole purpose of echoing and enforcing the opinions of the people in just ten zip codes. One look at today's (Sunday) edition is enough to convince any objective person that they are totally out of touch with the majority of people in the country (as well as being out of touch with reality).
He was probably too kind to also point out that his police officers didn't quit or join the looters.
Good sentiments, but a paragon of the "straw man" argument.
Reading it at face value says to me that the NYT expected HS to have evacuation plans for major cities; the straw man is that the state of LA did, so NYT criticism of HS is invalid.
And the Iraq Constitution, as written, does indeed include Sharia law as the source. Straw man number two is to make a lot of noise about a certain number of seats reserved for women and simply ignore the Sharia part.
Any NO officers arrested yet for looting or auto theft? Nagin will point to more arrests made in Texas as evidence that he had better control.
Well...perhaps you forgot the most basic use...
You still read Dowd? Land's sakes, why?
Criminal Number 18F
Not in the least. But apparently their readership is (or lack of) and their (lack of) advertizers are, and why The Times is a billion $$ in debt.
Maybe once things settle down a bit someone can review the tapes of the officers who were looting "non-essentials."
In Iran, it is an absolute, and outside religious authorities can overrule any decision of the government. In Iraq, that is NOT an absolute, and no power is granted to any person or entity outside the government. There is a "take-back" clause in the Iranian Constitution, as there was in the Constitution of the USSR. There is no take-back clause in the Iraqi Constitution.
And there is no straw man in the other part, either. The 2000 Louisiana Evacuation Plan was developed because the FEMA law required that, and paid some/all of its costs. When HS was created, it inherited all of FEMA's law, regulations, personnel AND all 51 (including DC) existing state Plans.
Again, in 400 words I couldn't discuss that. But the truth is as I stated. And the Times was both incompetent and dishonest.
John / Billybob
I not buying what they're selling. Result: layoffs.
Four years after 9/11, Katrina showed the world that performance standards for the Department of Homeland Security were so low that it was not required to create real plans to respond to real disasters.
The New York Times has performance standards so low they have no plans to respond to real disasters, like the diminishing readership of their paper.
The New York Times is a sissy left wing rag.
I suspected this, thanks. "and paid some/all of its costs". It just had the feel of work done to comply with grant requirements and then put away.
I heard that something like 6 counties were practically uninhabitable in Mississippi...and the media is nowhere to be found because they just don't advance their biased agenda.
"We need an inquiry into the actions of media over the last 4 years, their bias, and utter contempt for the nation"
I agree. While the media may enjoy its protected status under freedom of the press, it has become obvious we no longer have a free-press. They are a completely bought-and-paid subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Worse, is that they've practically become their own political party, advancing an agenda over "public" airwaves...with privileges and protections we could never acquire without being in violation of some law or statute. This is what always made CFR a joke and most dangerous.
And all have "travel" expense reports that mirror
Asking whether the Old Grey lady has any shame is akin to asking if Communist apologists have any shame, if Communists have any shame?
"There is no truth, only that which advances the party". That worked until the Internet came along.
On their vouchers "hookers and drugs" are listed as "Witness/victim interview expenses."
Or "Witness Channeling Communications CHarges".
-It has been made clear to the entire staff of the Times...-
The entire staff is all of one mind? Who would've guessed?
"Highly Placed Source Channeling Charges"?
Don't tell us, it makes you feel like cussing
When I heard Gregory (the asswipe) rudely confronting President Bush during that exchange, the only thing I could think was that the PRESS are always in the way 10 times more than President Bush.
I wish so much that GWB had retorted to Gregory, "I will only be there for an hour. You and your useless news crews will be in the rescuers' way for weeks and months.
I get incensed when I read this kind of stuff. You are correct. They know the facts, but they refuse to publish them for purely political reasons.
On September 12th, I posted the following to the thread here on Free Republic: School-buses Showdown: Mayor Nagin v.s Russert:
" 'Conduct of an actual evacuation will be the responsibility of the mayor of New Orleans. The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas. Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific life-saving assistance. Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuation procedure as needed. Approximately 100,000 citizens of New Orleans do not have means of personal transportation.'
Anyone who's ever done any real large scale planning realizes that this "plan" was a joke, a sham. The tipoff is this line: Special arrangements will be made. You can't make special arrangements after the fact. The arrangements have to be made beforehand. Prior planning! Everything has to be planned out in as much detail as possible BEFORE the disaster happens. This "plan" has no details at all, and that is what caused hundreds of people to die. That one little paragraph begs dozens of questions.
Who, exactly, would drive the buses? Every bus in the city should have had a primary and two alternate drivers, assigned by name to a specific bus.
Where, exactly, would they go to pick up evacuees? Every bus, regardless of its normal use, should have an emergency packet inside it saying where to go to pick up passengers in case of an evacuation (ie, "Report to the Superdome.") There should also be maps, etc. in the packet.
Where would they fill their gas tanks prior to departure? The city should have pre-arranged with local gas stations for fueling.
How would they account for the people on each bus?
What about the sick and injured? Could some buses be designated as medical buses? If so, do they go to different locations where the evacuees can get medical help? Where?
How many people can each bus take, assuming two bags per person?
Where would they take the evacuees once the bus is loaded?
Would the buses shuttle back and forth from the pickup and dropoff points? If so, what arrangements could be made to backhaul supplies into the hurricane zone from the unaffected areas?
Where do the buses refuel along the way?
I've come up with these questions in five minutes, as I've written this post. Whoever wrote and approved this plan should be held criminally negligent in the deaths of many of the evacuees."
So, although you are technically correct in saying that New Orleans had a plan, what they actually had was just some eyewash.
In the case of the NY Times, it's more akin to dropping a hand grenade into a 10 gallon aquarium...
Oops, forgot to add: The lack of a real evacuation plan in New Orleans isn't Bush's fault. The fault lies 100% at the feet of Louisiana elected and appointed officials, Democrat and Republican alike, who chose not to expend the effort to create a real plan.
Bloody well said sir! Congrats on the links!!!
Here's your problem John. The NYT has already proven that it's not a reputable newspaper, so expecting them to behave in an honorable or professional manner is asking a bit too much of them. It's become a haven for the bottom of the J School barrel.