Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Bush passes on the red beans

Congratulations Mr. Bush! I truly salute you for finally getting away from Jackson Square and St. Charles Avenue to see one of the most devastated areas of New Orleans. Trouble is, you're six months too late, and you still haven't said what New Orleanians need to hear right now.

We just came from a neighborhood where people are fixing to -- are in the process of cleaning up debris. We went there because the Mayor and the Governor thought it was important for me to see firsthand the devastation of the storm in certain neighborhoods and the progress that is being made for cleaning up the debris.

Someone needed to tell you this? You couldn't figure it out on your own?


"Oh yeah, I can still strut my stuff!"


"Sometimes being the president makes me feel like such a badass, I think I should pinch myself to make me wake up."


"Thanks for the red beans. I can't eat these just in case they're poisoned. If they're not, then you're the sucker for thinking I'll ever give you Cat 5 storm protection or restored coasts."

Laura's brilliant revelation
for the day:
Outside, Laura Bush peppered Gil Jamieson FEMA’s deputy director of Gulf Coast recovery, with questions. “Is this debris out of one house?” she asked, pointing to the pile. “It was just put out on the street? What about the homeowners who are gone?”

Uh ... Laura? They're gone. That's what happens when twelve feet of water sits in your house for weeks. If the residents weren't killed in the flooding, they've been forced to live somewhere else for the last six months while your jackass of a husband hopes they all disappear from the face of the earth.

Let's see, what did monkey boy have to say this time:
"We fully understand that if the people don't have confidence in the levee system, they're not going to want to come back," Bush said. "People aren't going to want to spend money or invest."

So, what's your problem with Cat 5 storm protection? Coastal restoration?

While monkey boy is shortchanging New Orleans of a commitment to its second and third most critical priorities (after housing), blaming Congress for his own failure to lead, he claims credit for the trickle of aid to help some people rebuild their homes, while others are left entirely out of the process.

The truth is that the $1.5 billion Bush is quibbling with Congress about to restore the levees to the same sorry state they were in before is nowhere near the roughly $30 billion needed to get Category 5 storm protection.

The truth is that $4.2 billion is nowhere near what's needed to afford ALL HOMEOWNERS, and ALL LANDLORDS, and ALL TENANTS, to FULL COMPENSATION for damages caused by federal criminal negligence.

The truth is that what New Orleans needs is a drop in the bucket compared to the waste of lives and treasure in Iraq. I haven't marked the fact in a post yet, but over the past few days, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq surpassed the 2300 mark, and the number injured surpassed 17,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent over $245 billion in Iraq.

Osama? Anyone?

The truth is that what "the good folks in this part of the world" need is the strongest statement possible by President Bush that:

1) The federal government will make sure every individual harmed by the failure of the federal levee system will be made whole. We don't need a trickle of a few billion dollars here, and a few billion there. We need the same tone of voice used by the Bush administration that it used when it lied to get us mired in a civil war in Iraq.

2) The thought of losing New Orleans is unfathomable. As such, the federal government will ensure that New Orleans never, ever, floods again, by creating a mission to the moon type project to protect the city from the worst storm imaginable with a state of the art storm protection system and massive coastal restoration.

What we don't need are speeches and press conferences and lies and a trickle of money that amounts to less than what is required.

In short, what we need is leadership -- in the White House.

I think the guy who got the blow job would have figured this out a long time ago.

16 Comments:

At 3/08/2006 11:19:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Clio said...

Actually, I think it was more than one blow job. But I agree with your point.

Seriously, great post. I can't believe we still have to make this point, but we do because the essential problem remains.

 
At 3/08/2006 11:51:00 PM, Anonymous ashley said...

fantastic post, Schroeder.

 
At 3/09/2006 06:01:00 AM, Blogger Mixter said...

I'm just glad chimpy had his sleeves rolled up so it looked like he was workin' hard, makin' progress.

Mixter

 
At 3/09/2006 06:04:00 AM, Blogger Marco said...

Blockade the port and shut down the oil leases! Great post.

 
At 3/09/2006 06:17:00 AM, Blogger Tara said...

Justifiably scathing and concise--especially the observations about Laura. How clueless and insensitive can she be??

 
At 3/09/2006 10:13:00 AM, Blogger Dambala said...

excellent post bro....btw, if you wanna see the true state of this city please check out the vid i just posted on Katrenema. We have to keep nailing this bastard to the wall as much as possible.

 
At 3/09/2006 10:43:00 AM, Blogger Tim said...

Great post! Keep on keepin' on!

 
At 3/09/2006 01:22:00 PM, Blogger Editor B said...

I wish I could agree with the chorus of "great posts" but here's the thing: While I agree with the general point, I think the stridency of your rhetoric is misguided. By calling the President "monkey boy" you pretty much guarantee that only people who share your antipathy for Bush will take you seriously.

Please don't misunderstand me. I despise Bush and his policies as much as anyone. I am only wishing to raise a question of effective rhetoric.

If your point is to vent and blow off some steam and preach to the choir, OK, nevermind. Ain't nothing wrong with that, and it certainly makes for more colorful reading. But I assume that your are interested in persuasion, in winning hearts and minds.

It's not just you. The Bush-bashing is endemic to the Left these days. But I'm not sure it's accomplishing anything but a shriller discourse.

 
At 3/09/2006 02:21:00 PM, Blogger Rob said...

The term "monkey boy" is unfair to monkeys. Monkeys are creative, intelligent, hard-working and adapt to their surroundings--traits that put them at a clear advantage to Mr. Bush. Schroeder's use of the term as an insult betrays his lack of appreciation for our svelte primate cousins. And yet, as readers are aware, Schroeder has expressed outrage at Ron Forman's use of monkey skulls for decor of his Audubon Playroom. The resolution to this seeming contradiction may lie in a view of monkeys as beloved pets, like dogs, which while often seen as inferior by humans are also seen as in need of care and protection.

I therefore contend that Mr. Bush should be placed in captivity, where he can be cared for and protected--such as his father did for him until he was installed in office in January 2000. The Audubon Zoo, for example, has large areas where animals may live and roam in an environment similar to that which they would inhabit in the wild. It was recently announced that the West Wing television show is being cancelled. Perhaps Mr. Bush could inhabit the set, as it is similar to the White House environs to which he is accustomed. The Secret Service could protect him and even provide him with food, clothing and the extensive flattery on which his ego depends.

 
At 3/09/2006 04:35:00 PM, Anonymous ashley said...

Mr. Editor boy,

I don't see it. The terms left, right, democrat, and republican mean little to nothing in New Orleans any more. It's either you're helping us, or you're a monkey boy.

Bush, Blanco? Monkey boys. Forman? Monkey boy.

 
At 3/09/2006 07:57:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Strident? Yes. But it's good to have someone like Schro-jo whipping up the back-benchers. I posted on my blog that we need TWO Cats--Cat 5 levees and Cat 5 houses!

Peace,
Tim

 
At 3/10/2006 04:54:00 AM, Blogger Schroeder said...

Thank you everyone for your comments. Things are a little difficult lately, so the posts have been a little light -- but more on that another time.

Editor b -- it's a good point you make, and I think all bloggers need to have a serious discussion about what the role of blogging should be. Maybe those who wish to be perceived as objective and moderate should be given a stamp of good housekeeping or something.

Let me tell you, I hesitate every single time I post a ranting soliloquy about the Bush administration, worrying about how the administration would respond if they were to read my rants (yeah, right) -- but I don't hesitate for long.

If there's one thing we should have learned about simian degenerate and his neocon pack, it's that there is no room for compromise or discussion, no room for dissent or for intellectual discourse. All who protest are playing into the hands of the evildoers.

The only thing the Bush administration responds to is vocal opposition -- and even then, the response is more secrecy, denial, and character assassination before policy modification.

I don't think it's my job as a blogger to be the voice of moderation. We already have the mainstream press doing that, and look where we are.

Let the mainstream press put the facts out there.

People may disagree, but I think blogs are playing a critical role at this point in history by keeping the press and government honest. It's the people's medium, and I'll continue to be just as vocal in expressing my views here as I would be in conversation. But here, my ideas carry much farther, and hopefully, people in Washington are hearing a cacophonous roar of dissent. They aren't royalty there -- they're public servants. And throughout American history, dissent -- not polite moderation -- has been the most powerful force for radical change when radical change was required.

This is the most radically dangerous administration in United States' history -- on almost any issue.

Someone posted somewhere else that impeachment is too good for these guys. I couldn't agree more.

 
At 3/10/2006 07:55:00 AM, Blogger Editor B said...

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply.

I guess I was a taken aback by the contrast between the voice I've heard on radio lo these many years and the voice here.

I realize now, upon reflection, that it's not the stridency of the rhetoric that concerns me, although that's exactly what I wrote. It is the name-calling. I think it is possible to make the very arguments you are making, just as strident, without descending into the proverbial gutter. I feel like an old fuddy duddy saying this, but I think we need to be civil.

Fanatical Bush-boosters will never listen to you in the first place. But there are many who sit on the fence, who are skeptical of Bush, who might be open to persuasion -- but who will be instantly alienated by name-calling.

I hope you will continue to be deeply critical of this president, his administration and its policies, and the apparent rise of fascism in our country.

But at the same time, I hope we all will try to make our case to as many who will listen. Internet dialog seems increasingly insular, with people only reading views they already agree. It seems sometimes that people are sounding off in an echo chamber. Shouldn't we strive to break those barriers, to reach those who disagree with us?

I guess what I'm envisioning is the next election, and someone similar to Bush getting elected, and all the Bush-bashers scratching their heads, wondering how their fellow Americans could be so wrong.

 
At 3/10/2006 08:16:00 AM, Blogger Schroeder said...

Great!

I'm not at all convinced that I'm right, so I'm reading your replies very carefully.

If you look at the reaction of Republicans on the hill over the last few months (but especially in the wake of the Dubai Ports deal), I'm not at all sure that rhetorically-feisty bloggers are "sounding off in an echo chamber." I suspect that there's been a long delay getting used to the fact that this president has been bad for the country -- and that two and three generations out, Americans will still be struggling with the consequences.

It may be that we're witnessing the end of the Reagan revolution of cheating the public out of the services it wants.

It may be that Americans in the mainstream are starting to realize the complete breakdown of the ability of the federal government to protect us or help us recover after a disaster, and that those of us who have been preaching to the choir are preaching to a larger choir.

And besides, quite frankly, I'm not interested in converting fanatical Bush boosters. They'll never change their minds if they haven't yet.

But there may be a few others in the middle whose minds can be converted after reading a radically different perspective.

I read The Nation, not for it's fact-checking and objectivity, but for it's rhetorical punch. It forces me to look at things in a different way than conventional media is doing. I don't have to agree all the time, but I value the alternative perspective.

I think that's what people expect when they go to a blog.

I don't think the majority of people go to blogs for voices of moderation. I think they go for lots of other reasons -- and among them, to know from a first-hand perspective how people are experiencing and feeling and interpreting the world around them.

Sure it's messy and opinionated and it might be a big turn off for some people, but what would be the point of doing something that the mainstream press is already doing?

 
At 3/11/2006 05:17:00 PM, Blogger Rob said...

Amen. And yes, impeachment is way too good for these folks (Mussolini's fate comes to mind). Unfortunately, that's the only practical option. Till then, as marco said, "Blockade the port and shut down the oil leases." Barring that, we have plenty of debris for building barricades.

 
At 3/12/2006 02:07:00 PM, Blogger Schroeder said...

Yeah Rob -- I also mentioned the piano wire treatment, but I thought that would definitely be over the top and catch the attention of the NSA.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home