Of course, (thanks, Ashley for posting this) this is what happened, at least in through the eyes of those of us here: http://hammhawk.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/says-it-all/

Worth checking out that link.

And when I did realize it, I felt terrible — because I, too, forget sometimes, and I’m actually more tuned into the situation that many folks around the country. For those of us “out here”, life has gone on. For those who are still struggling so hard, it has not.

They’re stalled; their lives were thrown akimbo, and they don’t have the luxury of forgetting about it unless they simply give up and walk away from their city.

So what could Bush have said? In a report to the nation on the state of our union? As in… the condition of our country? He could have at least acknowledged their struggle, and reminded us all that things are moving very slowly there.

Would that have changed anything? No, of course not, but if I can forget — even if only for a few days or a week at a time — then how far must this be, now, from the minds of those further removed?

Aren’t they part of our union? And isn’t their condition, in the aftermath of such devastation, relevant?

And don’t you think the folks there feel the silence keenly? Or worse — the insults, when they dare to mention that things are not okay?

There’s value in demonstrating one’s humanity, even if the best one can do is words.

You might have noticed gasoline around $3.50 a gallon at some point. People were realizing our importance then.

Also, the 250k people misplaced by the federal flood might like to know that the country still cared. To me, that would be a good reason to mention us in the SOTU. However, according to Mr. Bush, Burma is more relevant than the Gulf South.

Polimom-
Maybe it would be more clear if you pointed out the value of having Katrina mentioned again in the speech. What helpful things could he have said about it? What change would have come about because of it directly. I noticed that the fight against terrorism and Iraq were in the speech somewhere. How much better are those coming along since the speech?

UCACE is responsible for the levees but so are the people in and around NOLA. We have seen the enemy and it is us.

Unfortunately, as in Iraq, sectarian violence in the streets has combined with bumbling idiocy on the part of those elected to govern to cause many folks to feel that, in fact, the folks in NOLA are getting exactly what they deserve - and that they are deserving of this, not because they are poor or black, but because they are responsible for (re-)electing the clowns who are their leaders!

And, last but by no means least, I find it difficult impossible to believe that the citizens of NOLA are sitting on their lazy butts waiting for Uncle SugarDaddy from DC to come down and, with a wave of his magic wand, fix all that is broken. Certainly there has got to be some sort of on-going reconstruction effort. However, after a while, reporting such activities is not considered nearly as newsworthy as tabulating the latest count of the slaughter, or performing an in-depth analysis of the color and cut of the Speaker’s outfit for the SotU address.

~EdT.

The levees, as Ashley said, are both the original problem and part of the solution. No doubt I need to write a separate post on that, since it’s been forever since I did (although I posted about them many times a year ago).

However, none of this discussion helps me understand how it’s possible that the President of the United States stood in front of the American people and said nothing about the condition of a number of states in the union… or why it seems that only New Orleanians, liberals, and Polimom, seem to be bothered by this. Perhaps I’m generalizing too widely, but I waited to post this, because a) I’m not living in New Orleans any more and b) I’m not a liberal. I hoped for something that didn’t happen.

What I saw instead was that the objections that did come were greeted with hostility and derision from many quarters, and I was appalled.

Bush’s silence on the subject gives tacit approval to the rest of America to not worry about it. Out of sight, out of speech, out of mind. Whether there can or should be something different done does not equate to ignoring what we all know is a heartbreaking situation.

Yes, I have read your posts on the subject, and I may have been a bit unfair by insinuating that you were pointing your key-tapping finger at the Bush admin (R) rather than at the state/local admins(D). HOWEVER, that does NOT change the fact that it is the state which is in fact responsible under our Constitution, which is an agreement between the sovereign states and the Federal government. How exactly does the Federal govt ’step in’ in this instance without violating that basic concept? Remember, this is part of what got LA in so much trouble in the days preceding (and just following) Katrina - the Governor of LA made a deliberate decision NOT to call for Federal help.

I agree - this shouldn’t be a matter of just throwing money over the border and hoping they spend it right. And, Lord knows there seems to be enough hijinks going on with how the money is being spent, anyway. However, ultimately, the folks on the scene in TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL are the ones whose communities need to be rebuilt - and if we in the Houston area were facing this issue, I would still be of the same opinion - and if we are in fact a sovereign people, and not simply a bunch of thralls whose masters are out in DC, we need to step up to the plate.

Besides, maybe that way someone who knows how to build a levee could actually be brought in, as Ashley noted.

~EdT.

As the port of New Orleans is on the Mississippi river, it is the duty of the USACE to design, build, and maintain the levees: the flood protection for the port, and thus, New Orleans.

Also, you might want to see about how much seafood and power to the USA goes through this port, which you evidently do not mind letting go fallow.