Talk:Federal government begins employing strategies to repair New Orleans

Looks good to me, but some quotes and a pic would make it even better. StuRat 18:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

WIKINEWS, WHERE ARE YOU?
Where the hell are you? Every other media org is covering how incredibly late the Federal govt.'s response was to this disaster. But not a peep out of WIKINEWS. By now, EVEN Bush has admitted the response was inadequate. WIKINEWS seems to be very late in the game on things like this. I'm very dismayed in it's approach here with a headline that looked like it came striaght out of the onion or the classic '1984' novel.

I have to wonder if there is a lot of conservatives here who rabidly delete/edit factual news and headlines and hide behind a bullsh|t NPOV to promote their agenda here?


 * Didn't you see this article yesterday ?


 * Louisiana officials accused of blocking rescue volunteers


 * Hardly seems pro-government to me ! StuRat 20:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This person obviously does not understand the premise of Wikinews. If you think a news story ought to be getting more attention, don't whine about it -- write an article!  Cllewr 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would write an article, but I already know through experience here that it would be removed and/or drastically edited by conservative admins here. StuRat, I'm not referring directly to this article.  I'm referring to the fact that all the other media has covered Bush's late response (even Fox News) and yet there is NOT ONE article on WIKINEWS that directly reports on this.  If I honestly thought I could cover this and it wouldn't be removed from here immediately by conservative admins here, I would certainly do it.  I think it's very telling that there is no article about the late response and the Bush admin.'s pulling of funding for the levees -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 23:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would welcome such an article, but the facts would have to be straight. Such as, the funding was not pulled, it was reduced. The levee was improved quite recently. And, after the improvements, it failed. As to "late" response, I don't have any ability to compare it to any other disaster responses. How long b4 administration response to last summer's hurricanes? comparable or not? I think it isn't terrible to write measured, verifiable news articles, rather than the hyped and less-well-supported rhetoric of first-to-press. - Amgine/talk 23:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Amgine, thanks for the response. You are correct, the funding was reduced (drastically)... not "pulled" completely. That's what I meant by "pulled"... as in "pulled out money". I never would have suggested that as a headline anyway and is beside my points. Here's some informative articles that you may want to peruse:

• Why city's defenses were down

• No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

• Virtually everything that has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina struck was predicted by experts and in computer models, so emergency management specialists wonder why authorities were so unprepared. "The scenario of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was well anticipated, predicted and drilled around," said Clare Rubin, an emergency management consultant who also teaches at the Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management at George Washington University. Computer models developed at Louisiana State University and other institutions made detailed projections of what would happen if water flowed over the levees protecting the city or if they failed. In July 2004, more than 40 federal, state, local and volunteer organizations practiced this very scenario in a five-day simulation code-named "Hurricane Pam," where they had to deal with an imaginary storm that destroyed over half a million buildings in New Orleans and forced the evacuation of a million residents.

Amgine, if you can't find sources across the spectrum (INCLUDING BUSH'S OWN ADMISSION) that the response was too slow/inadequate. THEN YOU ARE NOT LOOKING. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're correct; I'm not looking. It's not my story. Looks like you have a reasonable start to an article there; why not continue on and build the article? - Amgine/talk 23:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said above... I think it would be a waste of my time because it would be deleted or edited into obscurity by hostile, biased conservative admins. This is based on my previous experience and observations at WIKINEWS.  Until things change here, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time working on articles only to see them toasted by biased agendas.  I think these guys are getting many others who would gladly contribute here to avoid spending time with WIKINEWS as well.  They also poison the readership against WIKINEWS and divert them elsewhere for news.  It's a shame, because there is so much potential for WIKINEWS to be a great (diverse) source of info.  Instead, it's pretty watered down overall because of out of control conservatives here (some of whom lie about their political agenda, I've noticed).  For now, I'm going to put my grievances with WIKINEWS forward and when I see changes (this article needs to be UNLOCKED, for example) then I will strongly consider (as will many others) contributing time and effort towards WIKINEWS.  Till then, many won't waste their time and readership will yawn and move on.  Thanks again for your reply. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 23:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe in hyperbole about as much as I believe in Star Wars. I mean, what would you do? What? You send out notice of mandatory evacuation for New Orleans. Some people can't make it out, that's a fact of life. Make a fluid and practicle argument for what's to be done with those people, "that can't make it out," or refuse to. -Edbrown05 00:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't excuse me while I do go on a rant. The liberal argument that this or that should be done is "not specific" nor "actionable". Same as the Democratic anti-war mongering. Yeah, you got a consevative bias going here at Wikinews cuz ya' ain't got a liberal leg to stand on. All the liberal bleeding hearts got is a "rant" and a "can't". Do something! -Edbrown05 01:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Republicans have usurped the Democratic middle ground, and Democrats are too stupid to understand or define the "New Democrat" of the Clinton presidency so the last election was was squandered to Dubya and I'm truly worried for the "lost souls" not in the mid-term elections... but the the next U.S. presidential election. -Edbrown05 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

title
The federal government is not currently "employing" strategies, they are exploring, researching, considering, or thinking about strategies. Big diffrence. - Nyarlathotep 21:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The manager of the Howard Johnson's hotel that I was staying in at Virginia Beach, Virginia, said that Friday, two bus loads of hurricane victims came into town. They were sent first to social services where they were processed for food stamp assistance, then to the unemployment office to seek job placement. The resort [Virginia Beach] was not a sell-out so far for this Labor Day weekend. -Edbrown05 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)