Show's Over, Folks! The Jig Is Up

Sunday's Times-Picayune top story, the "Long, Hard Road Home" (Jan. 28, 2007) was nearly an epic tome by newspaper standards (or maybe I just read slower than usual). The writer did an excellent and exhaustive job combining disparate sources of information into one coherent piece. So, I don't want to downplay his work when I ask: HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE GOING TO LET THE STATE AND ICF FUCK US? (pardonnez mon francais).

Again we have the same list of state officials saying they have done all they can to prod ICF into acting more quickly, followed by another disgusting litany of ICF officials (especially that Michael Byrne) saying ICF had no idea they would need more staff. And his newest defense that he is just a poor public speaker? (The writer of the article did a nice job of letting the juxtaposition of Byrne's impeccable resume refute this sorry lame ass claim).

What I'd like to know is how long are we going to fall for this act? A June 30, 2006, ICF press release stated that the Road Home registry already "exceeded 90,000 applicants" and that they were expecting another 30,000 to apply. Another ICF press release from October 19, 2006, stated there were an estimated 123,000 eligible Road Home recipients.

Why is The Times-Picayune running around in circles with state officials and ICF when ICF's own website contains evidence that they are lying? Are things that bad for our esteemed institutions? Do we need a bake sale and a fish fry to raise money to buy internet access for Gov. Meemaw and the T-P so that they can say "BULLSHIT!" the next time ICF says they did not expect such a high demand of applicants? State officials like Suzie Elkins and Sam Jones should have called ICF on this a long time ago, which if you ask me, would have been much easier than trying to convince us they have done their jobs by sending strongly worded e-mails to ICF telling them to pick up the pace.

The only things I am left wondering are what do state officials have to gain by always stopping short of calling ICF to task and actually doing something to hold them accountable and when are we going to stop falling for this charade and tell our incompetent government leaders to take a hike?

A Kindler, Gentler Racism?

Governor Blanco made the following comment about Nagin and New Orleans' majority black government:

"Blanco has said Nagin's office has difficulty understanding the process through which federal aid flows and has urged Nagin staff to be more 'hands on.'"

Again, I think Nagin and company are doing a horrible job, so criticism is certainly warranted. The motivation behind this particular critique, however, I find questionable. Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that her conception does not flow from our society's tendency to question the intelligence and capability of black people, despite any evidence to the contrary. Because several factors likely led to this conceptualization of the problem, her view is, at best, only partly rooted in a stereotype that has been instilled in Americans of every race.

Note that she criticizes not the inefficiency of city government, but a core intrapersonal trait, their ability to understand something complicated.

I speak not only from personal experience but with the knowledge that multiple studies show that white people, even when they don't consciously believe or support such stereotypes, still subconsciously link black people to poverty, crime, and lower levels of achievement in psychological experiments. Even when they have documentation of a black person's socioeconomic standing or achievement, white people as a group (not all white people) still tend to underestimate that black person's social class and level of education, or undervalue that evidence. (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2002; other relevant studies )

It's the new racism. Twenty-first century prejudice. An almost kindler, gentler racism, subtle, unconscious, and even unintended and contrary to one's conscious and espoused beliefs. But it's still there and still every bit as wrong.

Thoughts on the $595 Million Question

Thanks to Alan for bringing this to folks' attention.

U.S. Homeland Security says we blew off a buttload of money because we didn't request it.

It's quite an incendiary move for the feds to call a press conference to discredit local government. I'll be the last one fighting to join Nagin's fan club, but this article mentioned some things that make me question DHS's statements. Of course, I could be wrong, but these are my thoughts:

1. I recall that as recently as November-ish the contractor FEMA had handling reimbursement requests had to go back and recalculate their figures because their reimbursement amounts were too low. (Wish I could find a link to that.) So, I wonder WHEN did New Orleans get 96% of the available $311 million?

2. The article states: "Once the proper documentation is submitted, the money is available for replacing city property..." Making money available for something and actually using it for that purpose are two different things. Of course the money was "available" because Congress had to approve its allocation before it could have been offered to us.

3. Then there's the part about the City not only missing out on "available" money but having to actually give money back (the $1.7 million in interest made off of $102 million dollars in federal money held by the City last year). Why is this even a point DHS would make if we were not supposed to have the $1.7million in the first place since you can't collect interest off of federal money? Clearly, that was not money set aside for recovery anyway. And please, $1.7million? What would that fix, like two Popeye's and a snowball stand?

All that said, the reimbursement process to a regular citizen like me has always seemed esoteric and shrouded in mystery, so the City's role in using and acquiring funds needs to be looked at -- like right away. And what the fuck is Nagin doing in NYC, again? Must be nice to get away from your problems.

Help -- Am I Imagining This?

Gov. Blanco wants to refund $192 million to homeowners in LA, all of whom paid a 15% surcharge on their insurance bills in order to help bail out the state Citizens' insurance plan or whatever they call it. The state is also trying to figure out how to keep the program solvent, seeing as how it's needed since the cold-hearted scum-of-the-earth, greedy, spineless big insurance companies have bailed out on us. Per Blanco and State Treasurer Kennedy, we need about $1 billion to keep the insurance program afloat until about 2016 or so. Kennedy said on Garland's show yesterday, if I heard correctly, that if we don't find the $1 billion dollars, homeowners will have to pay a 3.5% surcharge on their insurance next year, and the surcharge will go up 7% each year after that for the next 19 years.

Did anyone else hear this or is it just me? Because if it's true, why the hell would she use nearly $200 million from a projected surplus to refund us instead of using it towards the one billion dollars the State needs to keep the program afloat?

Surely, it has nothing to do with her being up for re-election next year. Can someone tell me I'm imagining this?