> he hadn't been a judge very long. I know you will just
> think I have been brainwashed by my privileged
> position, but the judges I worked for word resign or
> die before they lied, and while they were all liberal
> (one a Republican), I don;'t think it's a political
> thing.
I doubt you're more "brainwashed" than I am or most anyone else here. Did you choose what judges you worked for? Perhaps you chose men of character?
> > How is it possible that he didn't know what every
> > Corps. of Engineers employee and every Dept of
> > Conservation in LA knew? How could he stand there
> > claiming the forecast wasn't accurate enough when it
> > was dead on perfect?
>
> You obviously know nothing at all about bureaucracies
> and even less about federal bureaucracies. A cabinet
> member's files are filled with paper he can never
> read. The stuff he gets is fiosltered through his
> aides, who can never read all the struff in their
> files either. Even if you know there is a problem
> there are competing demands on your time and
> resources. You put stuff off and hope you will get to
> it someday. Thats' hwo it happens,
I shuffled papers for several years for Uncle Sam so I have a decent idea about govt. bureaucracies. Anyone can know the damn weather forcast however. It doesn't take any special skill to watch the Weather Channel, local news, whatever to get that info. Saying the forcast was wrong when it wasn't is just plain stupid. If he didn't know the forecast that's one think. He is claiming he did and claiming it was wrong. We know it was an accurate forecast so he is either lying about knowing the forecast or lying about it being incorrect or both.
It is entirely probable that he never saw the specifics on plans for NO. His statement was that NO ONE anticipated it, not that he was not aware of such plans. There is a difference. I don't expect him to know every plan for every city across the country. That would be impossible.
> > If he isn't lying he is so far removed from reality
> > he should probably be institutionalized. I don't
> > claim to
> > know if he's either a liar or a dilusional
> > incompetent but he is certainly one or the other.
>
> Every bureaucracy in the world works exactly like
> this, the biggerf the worse, and the federad DHS is a
> biggie. In this case run by someone without the
> relevant experience. As I said, I think Ridge, a
> governor, would have done better. But if you think
> that Chertiff is isnsane or delusional, you simply
> don't understand organizatioinal bewhvauior. My
> personal exoerience with him and my knowledge of his
> background tells me he's no liar.
>
> A general rule: when faced with the alternative
> explanations of sheer fuckupery or active malice for
> any bad outcome, sheer fuckupery is the best bet 9 out
> of 10 times.
>
> jks
I don't think malice was overtly at work here. Fuckupery sums it alright. Benign neglect is another way to view it however. Not giving a shit about people and treating the evacuation as "every man for himself" may certainly be considered malicious by many people though. I do think he is delusional. Lots of high ranking people are. They lead insular lives which keep them from really knowing what's going on on the ground. I've had plenty of first-hand experience with people like that. I am also claiming this as my opinion, not stating it as fact however. I don't recall saying I thought he was insane. A person in his position is supposed to make it his business to do some specific things. He didn't. That makes him incompetent in his job as well. He may not think of himself as a recipient, because he knew the right people, of a "gift job" that he was not qualified for but he is exactly that. He may be a cracking good lawyer but that isn't a skill much needed as Homeland Security Secretary. I don't pretend to know anyone well enough to claim that they would never lie when the lives of thousands of people are gone and someone is trying to pin part of the blame, or at least some of the responsibility, on them. I simply can't know something like this. I'm not forming an opinion of him based on anything personal or my perceptions of his character. I'm looking at what he said and how that corresponds to the known facts.
John Thornton