[IP] The full text of The "city" of Louisiana (Keith Olbermann) A MUST READ djf
• September 5, 2005 | 8:58 p.m. ET
The "city" of Louisiana (Keith Olbermann)
SECAUCUS — Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it
all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: "Louisiana is a
city that is largely underwater..."
Well there's your problem right there.
If ever a slip-of-the-tongue defined a government's response to a
crisis, this was it.
The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their
insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that might’ve
saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government
that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear
itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's
Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming
identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of
the future tense in terms of relief they could’ve brought last Monday
and Tuesday — like the President, whose statements have looked like
they’re being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.
But no. The incompetence and the ludicrous prioritization will
forever be symbolized by one gaffe by of the head of what is
ironically called “The Department of Homeland Security”: “Louisiana
is a city…”
Politician after politician — Republican and Democrat alike — has
paraded before us, unwilling or unable to shut off the "I-Me" switch
in their heads, condescendingly telling us about how moved they were
or how devastated they were — congenitally incapable of telling the
difference between the destruction of a city and the opening of a
supermarket.
And as that sorry recital of self-absorption dragged on, I have
resisted editorial comment. The focus needed to be on the efforts to
save the stranded — even the internet's meager powers were correctly
devoted to telling the stories of the twin disasters, natural... and
government-made.
But now, at least, it is has stopped getting exponentially worse in
Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Louisiana (the state, not
the city). And, having given our leaders what we know now is the week
or so they need to get their act together, that period of editorial
silence I mentioned, should come to an end.
No one is suggesting that mayors or governors in the afflicted areas,
nor the federal government, should be able to stop hurricanes. Lord
knows, no one is suggesting that we should ever prioritize levee
improvement for a below-sea-level city, ahead of $454 million worth
of trophy bridges for the politicians of Alaska.
But, nationally, these are leaders who won re-election last year
largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping the
country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media
in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power
station in Iraq, and defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer.
Yet they couldn't even keep one school or power station from being
devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans — even though
the government had heard all the "chatter" from the scientists and
city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the
government couldn't quite discern... a group called The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror
government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration —
against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.
It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological
weapon called standing water.
Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, "we are not satisfied," with
the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder
which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's
the administration, although we still don't know where some of them
are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message
this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let
You Die'?
I don't know which 'we' Mr. Bush meant.
For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been — as we were
taught in Social Studies it should always be — whether or not I voted
for this President — he is still my President. I suspect anybody who
had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week.
I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are
wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which
will define his government — our government — "New Orleans."
For him, it is a shame — in all senses of the word. A few changes of
pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st
Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm
not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding
behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only
remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. "The
responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament
"for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in
fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."
In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage
itself — it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever
is in the White House.
As we emphasized to you here all last week, the realities of the
region are such that New Orleans is going to be largely uninhabitable
for a lot longer than anybody is yet willing to recognize. Lord knows
when the last body will be found, or the last artifact of the levee
break, dug up. Could be next March. Could be 2100. By then, in the
muck and toxic mire of New Orleans, they may even find our
government's credibility.
Somewhere, in the City of Louisiana.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/