Tin foil hat time. I have been told all my life that communists don't really consider a large number of deaths to be consequential when it is a means to gain an end. At best human death is unfortunate but unavoidable to them. From the way things went down in NO, I'm wondering if Nagin and Blanco received their orders (from whatever central committee who is pulling their strings) to shut the people in and have them die. Then, they could go ahead with their blame game. The media would be focusing on the bodies and the culpability would have been minimized.
The deaths didn't occur as predicted and the scrutiny is beginning. /tinfoil with apologies for those who are reading this for a second time.
I stated as much in one posting as well. Now, with the research I have done, and the fact the Louisiana governor's office removed their 8/27 letter, replacing it with an 8/28 letter that says they requested a declaration for Orleans and surrounding parishes, I'm really suspicious!
Parts of your theory really are not too tinfoily.
You're probably vaguely remembering a quote of Stalin, which goes (something) like this:
"One death is a tragedy, millions of deaths are a statistic."
The point being that once the "numbers" start to rack up, the communists' dream of minimizing individuality in favor of the "class" or "group" takes over. When individual identity and worth (value) plummet, it is easier to get the collective to rely on external or governmental controls. Then, instead of individual thought and power, you have a small group of extremely powerful policy-makers controlling the lives and thoughts of the many.
I spent a lot of years in my life covering and supervising the coverage of local and state governments. I discovered there are an inordinate number of incompetent people serving in both elected and appointed positions of government.
People who can really make things happen usually are attracted to the business world. They start corporations and run them. They create products and services and build big businesses out of small ones. They combine ambition with a real desire to accomplish combined with great skills for accomplishment.
There are also people who can make things happen but can't handle ultimate responsibility. They can do great things while working for someone else, but can't take the pressure of being the top boss. They have the desire and ability to accomplish, but not the ambition to go out on their own. Every bit of success in my life came from finding, hiring, and retaining this type of person. I can imagine and create but not accomplish. So I have always had to hire people to accomplish my goals. That is why I studied ambition, drive, and accomplishment skills so carefully. That is also why the first 30 years of my life were pretty much devoted to abject failure. It was very difficult to face my own limitations.
Many people who make a career out of elective office do not have much in the way of accomplishment skills or even the desire to accomplish. Many have next to zero accomplishment skills. Like me, they have ambition but not the implementation skills to make it work. Those who face their shortcomings find people to implement their plans and ideas. But many, especially in government, will not acknowledge their own shortcomings. They only have great ambition for power and control. The really want to be in control, but do not possess the ability to accomplish.
Some that don't face their limitations achieve power but accomplish little. Bill Clinton is a prime example. Bill Clinton has huge ambition to be in control but not much of a desire or an ability to accomplish. One can only hope that bad things don't happen under their watch.
When the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans faced a situation requiring great accomplishments, they just couldn't do it and they did not delegate the task. Their actions were pretty much limited to wishing the problem would go away.
They have ambition but no skills or abilities to back it up. They failed to hire and/or delegate implementation to those that could perform the tasks required.
Effective leaders be they Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, or Bush 43, all have ambition as well as the desire and talent to accomplish. Reagan was one of our greatest presidents but he did not have great accomplishment skills. But he was very effective at delegating to others the accomplishment of his goals. His genius was finding and hiring people who had great accomplishment abilities. Reagan had a talent for picking people who could easily accomplish his goals. Reagan was severely criticized by the media for delegating.. and not being a detail man. What Reagan did was find people who were superb at accomplishing goals.. He then set the goals. Then got out of the way of those he put in charge. His people consistently fulfilled the assigned tasks... much to the surprise of the media.
Those that only have ambition and refuse to admit their short comings and compensate, usually do no harm. That is, unless a bad situation occurs on their watch. Had either the Mayor or the Governor had the skills required to accomplish major tasks.. the problem in New Orleans would have been averted. But neither did. Their ambition demanded they stay in absolute control, but their inability to accomplish saw to it the problem was not handled at all. It was a disaster.
----------------------------------------------------
I too tend to think there is some sort of power structure that is in control of a lot of our destiny. I was well into my adulthood when I discovered that in nearly all situations no one is in charge. That no one is calling the shots.
Or as my daughter, the lovely Ms. Pamela is won't to tell me.