The WaPo's Manuel Roig-Franzia offers "New Orleans Mayor Apologizes for Remarks About God's Wrath".
Obviously, Nagin needed to apologize for the whole comment, including the racist component of New Orleans remaining a "chocolate" and "majority African-American" city. While that's missing from the headline, at least they split that whole comment between the first two paragraphs of the article. Then:
Nagin's remarks drew a furious reaction from white and black leaders, as well as residents, in New Orleans, prompting him to tell reporters Tuesday that the comments were "totally inappropriate." The dustup is the latest in a series of controversies over remarks made by the mayor, a former cable television executive elected in 2002 without experience in elected office.
Nagin was lambasted by Hispanic leaders last fall for asking a business group, during a speech, what he could do to prevent New Orleans from being "overrun by Mexican workers."
Not exactly. He made those comments at a townhall meeting, and not only did others there agree with him, he received a standing ovation at the end. The "leaders" in question are an assortment of far-left racial power groups, leaders for the most part only due to their undue influence on the Democratic Party.
Manuel Roig-Franzia of the WaPo has a three-screener called "In New Orleans, No Easy Work for Willing Latinos". The first screen is where the sucker punch lands on American workers, and the last two screens are just a long anecdote.
The article explains how those "Latinos" (actually, illegal aliens from Mexico) work in unsafe conditions and, when they get paid at all, are paid a sub-standard wage. They even describe a pregnant woman and her husband "slashing through the cough-inducing mold on walls in flooded Lakeview with only thin masks".
In the WaPo's magical world, all these problems would disappear if president Bush's "guest" worker scheme were enacted. In that world, illegal immigration would magically disappear and along with it low-wages and unsafe working conditions.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Until illegal immigration is greatly reduced, corrupt employers will be able to undercut legal workers by hiring illegal aliens, prefering them not just because of the lower wage rate but also because they can be abused. The only way to solve that is to stringently enforce the immigration laws.
And, those media outlets that excuse illegal immigration - such as the Washington Post - will still be there and will continue to excuse illegal immigration and all its abuses. The only way to solve that is to completely discredit those sources that don't support enforcing our laws.
The WaPo also does not disclose that many possible American workers have been moved out of the area or out of the state. Not only are they not available to work there, and not only would they be undercut by lower-priced labor if they arrived, but they are basically being paid not to work.
We've got American workers being paid not to work, and corrupt contractors being paid out of federal funds and employing illegal workers who will send a good chunk of their money out of the country. Can the reader envision a more un-American scam?
Note also that on their homepage this newspaper has a link to the article "Analysts: Crackdown Won't Halt ImmigrationAnalysts: Crackdown Won't Halt Immigration" in the same box as the link to the one about New Orleans. That article claims that immigration enforcement doesn't work - and in the very same article informs us that the immigration laws aren't being enforced.
Don't trust what you read in the Washington Post. Please send an email to ombudsman *at* washpost.com letting them know what you think.
UPDATE: I haven't been able to find more information on the article's author other than that here, which does little more than inform us that he is or was the WaPo's Miami Bureau chief.
Last week we had Bloomberg offering "Bush's Attention Wanders From Katrina as Reconstruction Lags". Then came Paul Krugman with "The Promiser in Chief". Apparently new talking points were released, since there are at least two other recent instances of this same line of thought.
For instance, here's Mike Allen of the Washington Post appearing on Meet the Press and intoning (nofollowpolicy):
I'm going to tell you something to amaze you; it amazed me yesterday. The last time the president was in the hurricane region was October 11, two months ago. The president stood in New Orleans and said it was going to be one of the largest reconstruction efforts in the history of the world. You go to the White house home page, there's Barney camp, there's Social Security, there's Renewing Iraq. Where's renewing New Orleans? A presidential advisor told me that issue has fallen so far off the radar screen, you can't find it.
And, of course, see the NYT's "Death of an American City" for yet another in this long series.
On Sep. 23, the Washington Post published this graphic from Richard Rhodes and Gwyneth Cravens. It lists the "similarities" and "differences" between the responses to Katrina and Chernobyl. If there was an article associated with this graphic, it's apparently not online. However, the text of the graphic is here, and two letters calling the WaPo to task are here.
One of the differences is that in Katrina there were "Roving gangs of armed criminals, random violence, derelict police officers". However, in the Sovietski Soyuz, there was an "Unarmed and cooperative population, minimal disorder."
Unfortunately, I already read "Caring Communists", otherwise I'd say the same things he does:
Unarmed and cooperative? Folks, the Soviet Union was a police state. That's what you get with a police state. The thugs don't have to rove the streets, they own them. They have all the guns. The roving gangs in the Soviet Union were called the KGB, They killed millions of people in prison camps. To call the Soviet people "unarmed and cooperative" in the face of Chernobyl would be funny if it weren't tragic.
Holy moley, the WaPo says in "Economy wobbles in wake of Katrina":
Consumer spending fell in August at the steepest rate since the Sept. 11 attacks as Hurricane Katrina slashed Americans' incomes, fanned inflation and caused $170 billion in losses from property damage, the government reported yesterday in its first tally of the storm's economic effects.
The report came one day after the Labor Department said 279,000 Americans had filed new claims for unemployment-insurance benefits because of Katrina, which slammed into the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, wrecking homes and businesses, driving up energy prices and forcing a mass evacuation.
With savings low, interest rates rising and consumer confidence plunging, analysts are widely forecasting U.S. economic growth to slow through the end of the year, as households and businesses trim nonenergy spending.
Action verbs highlighted because I felt like it.
According to the WaPo editorial "Louisiana's Looters", the Louisiana government's plan for a pork-stuffed "Pelican Commission" funded by $250 billion puts them in the really bad looters category. They aren't just the looters that grab a couple TV sets, they're the type that grab more than they could ever use. Further:
...The Louisiana delegation has apparently devoted little thought to the root causes of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. New Orleans was flooded not because the Army Corps of Engineers had insufficient money to build flood protections, but because its money was allocated by a system of political patronage. The smart response would be to insist that, in the future, no Corps money be wasted on unworthy projects, but the Louisiana bill instead creates a mechanism by which cost-benefit analysis can be avoided. Equally, Katrina was devastating because ill-conceived projects have drained coastal wetlands and caused their erosion, destroying a natural buffer between hurricanes and human settlements. The smart response would be to insist that future infrastructure projects be subject to careful environmental review. But the Louisiana delegation's bill would suspend the environmental review process...
...Congress should ignore the Louisiana bill and force itself to think seriously about the sort of reconstruction that makes sense. Katrina has exposed mistakes of policy: water-infrastructure programs that made flooding more likely, and levees and insurance schemes that encouraged human settlement in dangerous places. Now that Congress is getting ready to spend tens of billions on reconstruction, it must seize the opportunity to correct those past errors...
The WaPo editorial "Rethinking Flood Insurance" wants to make that mandatory, and stop subsidizing it. Of course, there would be a few loopholes:
In some areas that have acute shortages of safe land -- New Orleans being one -- this may inflict hardship on the poor. But the best way to address that is to offer means-tested subsidies in a few jurisdictions, not to offer subsidies to rich and poor alike all over the nation.
The little libertarian on my shoulder is jumping up and down and screaming Statists! over and over. He says that the federal government should make it absolutely clear that there will never be any kind of a bailout. Then, the much exalted market will do its work and building in flood-prone areas will be disincentivized.