Friends, I've received several somewhat angry complaints about the report of demolition residue in New Orleans. Some don't like the fact that the source was a 'politically incorrect' website, some question the reliability of the report, and some see it as a distraction from more useful analysis. I appreciate people taking their time to express their views on this topic, and I do understand the concerns being expressed. I suppose this is a good opportunity for me to say something about my de facto posting policies for the email list. The name 'cyberjournal' is intended to mean 'online journal', in particular the online journal of my own thoughts and investigations. Some of the ideas expressed are still half-baked, and some of the explorations end up being down blind alleys. In the beginning, most of the early subscribers were from various activist groups, and I assumed they already had their own ideas about the world situation, politics, etc. So I've always assumed I'm writing for 'mature audiences', who can think for themselves. I expect critical responses, and have learned much from what readers have shared. One complaint went this way: GS: You're jumping to the paranoid conclusions from the very start of the catastrophe's aftermath, rather than seeing it as the accumulation of hardcore, free market, Leo Staussian economics. In fact, rather than blame the now post-Katrina debunked theory and practice of U.S. government/corporate social and economic policies, you leap to paranoid conclusions with only unsubstatiated rumors as your Virgil, leading you through nine levels of irrational, capitalistic, paranoid Hell. I don't mind this at all as a critique of my methods, but what puzzles me is the emotional weight being expressed. Why does anyone care so much about how I investigate things? Should I be flattered? GS goes on... An old adage in medicine: "When diagnosing a patient, seek horses, not zebras." Rather than direct true political wrath at known culprits, generating viable opposition against corporate/state alliance ( Mussolini's definition of fascism), you seek "zebras," the least likely suspects of current FailedState, USA. I suppose the key phrase in this complaint, revealing perhaps the emotional side, is "generating viable opposition". That is, by paying attention to 'zebras' (i.e., paranoid conclusions) I'm failing to mobilize the masses against known systemic culprits. The thing is, the masses haven't subscribed to the list. Why should I post things for them? And the viewpoint favored by GS is being promulgated all over the Internet, on lists which have much larger circulation, including the mainstream press. Why I do I need to duplicate that analysis? And why should I limit myself to that analysis? Besides, I've posted hundreds of articles, and my own essays, over the years that offer systemic critiques of capitalism and our other social systems. I assume you folks know my views in that regard, and that you have your own considered viewpoints as well. I suppose one thing I could do that might help is to put a notice at the top of postings, declaring what kind of posting they are. In some cases I do attempt 'real journalism', where I tie together 'reputable' data and offer a careful analysis. Such postings are intended to be forwarded on, as they often are. With something like the residue story, I could mark it 'unverified report'. These kind of postings are more 'between you and me', something I consider worth noting, but not really ready for prime time. --- As regards Katrina, I personally have no doubt that the episode is about a lot more than incompetence and neglect. The evidence at this point is overwhelming. FEMA held a major exercise, studying this very disaster - and then all assistance was withheld, and help even turned away, until it was too late to save the lives of most of the victims. In my opinion, this was an act of intentional genocide. FEMA was busy getting ready for this expected disaster, but their preparations involved setting up a system of detainment centers for the survivors, rather than planning for rescue operations. Other preparations were also apparently underway. Joseph Allbaugh, former head of FEMA, is now down in Louisiana, negotiating reconstruction contracts for his corporate clients such as Halliburton. It is also a looting exercise, stealing the property of poor blacks, and using funds intended for relief to line the pockets of Bush's cronies. Incompetence is the cover story. So is neglect, with the excuse being the expense of the Iraq war. The multi-faceted 'response' to Katrina was clearly planned in advance, and involves the introduction of important new programs, particularly as regards the massive confinement of innocent American citizens in prison-like conditions - as a 'disaster response'. We are seeing the unfolding of 'Operation Katrina' - with massive social implications. When such an operation comes along, as they frequently do these days, I think it is important to figure out what the objectives of the operation are. Keep in mind that all of us are the eventual targets of those objectives. In this case there seem to be quite a number of objectives, some localized to New Orleans, and some to do with the nation generally. As the objectives come into focus, based on actual post-incident developments, the scale and importance of the operation becomes clear. Once the importance becomes clear, then we must assume that the operation could not have been left to chance, apart perhaps from the exact date of the expected hurricane. Each mission-critical item must be assured of happening. It is not enough to plan on withholding assistance; it is necessary also to be prepared to turn volunteer assistance away. It is not enough to hope that an un-maintained levee might break; there must be a backup plan in case it doesn't. Anything else would be gross incompetence, and very unlikely in an operation of this scale. The issue of 'incompetence' plays an important role in the Matrix. Since the government typically lies about what its objectives are, it seldom accomplishes the public objectives. Hence most people, both on the left and the right, believe the government is basically incompetent. The quagmire in Iraq is a perfect example. Bush said he was bringing liberation and democracy, and most people, even savvy journalists who should know better, seem to be willing to believe that he has 'failed' in his mission and is incompetent. Very convenient. In fact the neocon's real objectives are clear: they want the oil and they want permanent military bases. As regards these well-documented objectives, we do not see incompetence: we see careful planning and successful execution - but little publicity. How many of you really believe Bush was trying to bring democracy and liberation to Iraq? And yet, even if you don't buy that, do you still feel yourself sometimes drawn into thinking in terms of 'incompetence in Iraq'? If you do, that's the power of the Matrix - it sneaks up on you. To speak - or even think - truth in the midst of the Matrix is like swimming against the tide, a constant drain on your energy, an ongoing need to justify yourself. Well meaning progressive journalists are forced to phrase their critiques within the assumptions of the Matrix, or else they would be ostracized from mainstream sources. On this list, after years of working out what the Matrix is about, I now try to speak from outside the Matrix, and avoid the quagmire of thinking and speaking in the Matrix's own terms. If elite troops are mounted on zebras, then it is zebras I will talk about. Some people find value in that and other people are disturbed by it. But it's what I do. I hope this clarifies things a bit. all the best, rkm http://cyberjournal.org