This is topic Broussard on Meet The Press in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/7141.html

Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Very emotional interview with someone (Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard) at ground zero who describes in detail the buffoonery of FEMA and also the personal tragedy in Louisiana:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Broussard.mov

[ September 04, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Could we have a synopsis svp?
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Here's excerpts from the transcript then:

quote:
RUSSERT: You just heard the director of homeland security’s explanation of what has happened this last week. What is your reaction?

BROUSSARD: We have been abandoned by our own country. Hurricane Katrina will go down in history as one of the worst storms ever to hit an American coast. But the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history. … Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we’ve got to start with some new leadership. It’s not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now.

[...]

Three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. This was a week ago. FEMA, we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. When we got there with our trucks, FEMA says don’t give you the fuel. Yesterday — yesterday — FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards and said no one is getting near these lines

[...]

I want to give you one last story and I’ll shut up and let you tell me whatever you want to tell me. The guy who runs this building I’m in, Emergency Management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us. The Secretary has promised. Everybody’s promised. They’ve had press conferences. I’m sick of the press conferences. For god’s sakes, just shut up and send us somebody.

You have to watch the video itself to really appreciate the emotion and perspective that Broussard is conveying.

Again, you can check out the video links at:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/04.html#a4783

[ September 04, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I'm not interested in the emotion, I'm interested in the facts. If it turns out that FEMA really did the things he's saying, that sounds like some people need to be held accountable.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
How can you not be interested in emotion?
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
Because emotion clouds judgment?

I saw that pathetic interview with Broussard, and that's just exactly what it was, pathetic.

Let's stay focused, wait for ALL the facts, and then place blame? It's always so much better than bawling like a baby...

Ed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
It's also what makes us human.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
No. What makes us human is our ability to reason.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
That's pretty absolute.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
The ability to reason does not exclude emotion, Canadian. Reason does, in fact, expect that BOTH logic and emotion be balanced. Broussards emotions were clearly not.

Ed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Ah. I just posted a new thread so as not to derail this one.
 
Posted by Ivan (Member # 1467) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:

I saw that pathetic interview with Broussard, and that's just exactly what it was, pathetic.

Let's stay focused, wait for ALL the facts, and then place blame? It's always so much better than bawling like a baby...

Ed.

What's pathetic is that this man has been reduced to this. But lets face it: this situation should never have become as dire as it did if things had gone correctly. I'll agree with you we don't know what got screwed up, but please, let's not start insulting the victims of the tragedy because some havn't been as able to handle it as well as others. And since it's obvious that someone (or someones) did screw up, this guy has a point: those responsible need to be removed from power.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
See my response in the new thread started by Canadian. But, in short, the man is no leader and his bawling like a baby proved it.

Ed.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I didn't think you were that callous, Ed.

I'm pretty sure that no one could have been prepared to endure what he did, and being titularly responsible for his parish, yet powerless to do enough, would push anyone to the breaking point.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Funean said:
quote:
I'm pretty sure that no one could have been prepared to endure what he did, and being titularly responsible for his parish, yet powerless to do enough, would push anyone to the breaking point.
No. It would push someone unqualified to control a disaster to the breaking point. If you're going to be emotional, and you're in control of disaster recovery, you have the responsibility as a leader to be emotional off camera, and outside the view of your subordinates. Self control is something that a leader should have.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Do we have any evidence that he broke down while actually working, or just while he was being asked to describe the events of the last few days?
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Funean -

Speaking with the press is part of his job. So is maintaining a level head. Breaking down on camera affects more than just his personal water level - it affects the men and women working with him, with FEMA, and a large portion of the population of the United States.

--Firedrake

[ September 05, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
And perhaps it helped get the lead out, FDR. People who elect presidents and congressmen, depite what you may believe, often do so because of how they feel about a certain candidate.

When you see a man have a moment like that on television, it brings home the seriousness of the situation.

How can this not be clear?
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I know what you're saying, FdR; I don't actually really disagree with you in principle, particularly if this situation weren't so godawful extreme. But even the cops are starting to commit suicide down there. Everyone I've seen interviewed seems to feel they've been abandoned in some kind of extreme, post-apocalyptic nightmare.

I think after 5 days of seeing bodies floating in the street, having your water shipments turned back, your communications not just down but *cut*, and your neighbors shooting at you from the balconies, anyone, no matter how highly placed, is entitled to a little breakdown when the perfectly coiffed newsanchor says, "How's it going down there, friend?"

If he's making things up because he's come unglued, that's a whole nother ball of wax, of course.

If he's accurately describing FEMA's role, and the various decisions made over and around him, there needs to be stringent accountability for those actions--even if he was bawling "like a baby" while he said so.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Funean said:
quote:
I know what you're saying, FdR; I don't actually really disagree with you in principle, particularly if this situation weren't so godawful extreme. But even the cops are starting to commit suicide down there. Everyone I've seen interviewed seems to feel they've been abandoned in some kind of extreme, post-apocalyptic nightmare.
It is when the situation is worst that a firm leader is needed the most. Breaking down on television didn't show empathy, it showed a lack of control.

Canadian said:
quote:
When you see a man have a moment like that on television, it brings home the seriousness of the situation.
You do have a point. None the less, let someone else do the weeping - let this guy (the guy that is in charge) be in control, and getting things done.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Canadian (From the other thread):
quote:
I went and digested that Broussard interview. The man broke down and you're saying he cried like a baby? That he didn't know WHY he was crying? Maybe he shat his pants and didn't like the feeling?

Get real. You know full well that he was not making political hay. He was overwhelmed by the tragedy and was able to be empathetic enough to understand the horror and sorrow of a woman waiting for help that never came.

Look again, Canadian. He accused the current administration of MURDER. He then backed it up by telling us a terrible story about how someone died because this administration failed to respond to the current disaster. He WAS making _political hay_ and he was WRONG to do it in the way he did.

And yet, legal definitions of Murder require that there be _intent;_ that Person A INTENDED to kill Person B. Can you make such a connection? Did the Bush Administration _intend_ to kill this woman by not responding in time? Did they intend to kill anyone with FEMA's poor performance?

I got only one response for ya if you answer "yes:" BS!


@ Funean:
quote:
I agree with canadian wrt Broussard. What was so obviously a sincere and unintended emotional reaction has its own untouchable dignity. Let's please not touch it, then.
Let's not forget that he accused people of murder in a manner that was anything but dignified...

quote:
I didn't think you were that callous, Ed.
There are two sides to every coin, Funean. Am I being callous to Broussard? Or am I being sympathetic to those he accused of committing murder? Which has the greater weight? An accusation supported by an Appeal to Emotion that does not come anywhere near the Prima Facie rules of evidence? Or the potential consequences levied against those if that Appeal were to be taken seriously.

I am completely sympathetic to the events Broussard describes as I found his story horrifying, but I am totally disgusted by the manner in which he attempted to use those same events: his actions were despicable.

quote:
I'm pretty sure that no one could have been prepared to endure what he did, and being titularly responsible for his parish, yet powerless to do enough, would push anyone to the breaking point.
Let's consider one of your own follow-up point in this thread, Fun:
quote:
I know what you're saying, FdR; I don't actually really disagree with you in principle, particularly if this situation weren't so godawful extreme. But even the cops are starting to commit suicide down there. Everyone I've seen interviewed seems to feel they've been abandoned in some kind of extreme, post-apocalyptic nightmare.
Are you familiar with the concept of morale? In military terms, morale describes how well your army is willing to fight IF they believe they can win. Morale isn't limited to the military, though... In disaster situations, if a leader does not offer a brave face, his followers will not be brave either, and a greater number of problems (including suicide) may result. For the record, I'm not blaming Broussard for the suicides you mention, merely pointing out one of the necessary roles and responsibilities of a leader.

Ed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I'm sure next time he'll be careful to say "manslaughter".
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I think the difference in the opinions with which we come away, Ed, is that I didn't think he was *using* the events and presenting an emotional display to cynically manipulate an audience, whereas you seem to suspect that he did. I certainly would have nothing but contempt for such an action. But my impression was that he was speaking straight from the heart and from a severe state of trauma. I don't think he was thinking straight, at all, at that point; certainly the accusation of murder is...extreme, shall we say.

As for behavior in leaders...I dunno. I think we've seen plenty of historical examples of leaders whose skills and spine and everything else were of unquestionable calibre who have broken down under similar dire situations. Again, I don't know if he collapsed emotionally during the past few days of the crisis, or just then in the studio.

For all we know, he had his Good Cry, pulled his britches back up, rolled his sleeves up, and got back to work.

I'm just kind of generally bemused by how condemnatory folks have been over the displays of emotion from people surviving the nightmare down there, regardless of their position or how well we, in our nice dry houses with their working computers, think they've handled it.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Funean:
quote:
I think the difference in the opinions with which we come away, Ed, is that I didn't think he was *using* the events and presenting an emotional display to cynically manipulate an audience, whereas you seem to suspect that he did.
Not quite, Funean. I believed him to be sincere, I also believe that he allowed his grief to overwhelm his judgment, and, I believe that he took advantage of that grief to push his agenda.

quote:
I'm just kind of generally bemused by how condemnatory folks have been over the displays of emotion from people surviving the nightmare down there, regardless of their position or how well we, in our nice dry houses with their working computers, think they've handled it.
I have no problem with his emotional display. I do have a problem with how he used it. I also agree with Firedrake that it was an innappropriate use of his feelings. Personally, if he sincerely believed his accusations, then anger would have been the appropriate response, not tears.

Tears are an expression of helplessness, we do not appoint leaders because they are helpless, we expect them to be exactly the opposite.


@ Canadian

In all seriousness, Canadian, it doesn't even rise to the level of manslaughter. That suggests recklessness where there is none.

Donald Rumsfeldt is speaking now, even as I type this. His explanation of why the Federal Government was late in responding was, simply, that the First Responders of a crisis are always expected to be state and local governement and, in this crisis, they were victims too. While, this does not absolve the government from condemnation over their poor response, it certainly does not suggest that the Feds were reckless.

So, once again, Broussard was wrong for acting as he did.

Ed.

Edited for clarity.

[ September 06, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
It must be nice to be so far away from this tragedy, and be able to condemn people for their reaction to losing not only their home, but their entire city, and watching whats left of it fall into the worst sort of anarchy.

It kinda makes me sick to see people doing that. Maybe they aren't handling the situation the way we'd like to think we would handle the situation if we were in it. But, have you ever been inside this sort of tragedy? If not, you have no way of knowing how you'd react, and no idea what these people are going through.

A lot of empathy is in order here, folks, and a lot less condemnation. If people inside lose their cool and start blaming people for this, thats their business. We don't have to BELIEVE them. But condemning them for it is entirely sickening, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
Posted by Godot (Member # 2099) on :
 
Here, here!
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Personally, I tend to cry when I'm really angry. I also cry when I'm sad, or when I'm in severe pain. I rarely cry because I'm helpless.

I concur with canadian and Everard, if that weren't already apparent. I guess there's nothing more to say, except that I hope nothing like this ever happens to anyone here.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Me too.

Thinking that crying is a sign of weakness is just so...eh.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Giuliani wept and screamed - privately. But he was a rock for the people of New York and indeed for all of America.

He didn't spend his time venting rage at the terrorists, or at the administration, or at airport security. He set an example for millions of people.

It is easy to pick which leader I'd want in a crisis. The one who projects calm and looks confidently to the future.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
<Sarcasm>

Bad Ed! Bad, BAD, ED!

How DARE you speak out against this SAINTED man and his "warranted" accusations against the current administration!

</Sarcasm>

Either this man's actions are justified or I'm callous and uncaring. Talk about false dichotomies...

[Roll Eyes]

Ed.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
No, Ed, he doesn't have to be sainted to be allowed to grieve (even in public), and his actions don't have to be unjustified for you to be callous and uncaring.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Ed, try reading my statement again. Now, not only are you bad Ed for being totally unempathetic, you are bad Ed for completely mis-representing what I said.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
Ed, try reading my statement again. Now, not only are you bad Ed for being totally unempathetic, you are bad Ed for completely mis-representing what I said.
I believe he might not have responded simply because The Drake responded to your post very well. I agree with The Drake. I also think that Broussard should have had a little bit more self-control than he did. I do not know how I would react, but I do know that I would be ashamed to have lost control in front of the public I was supposed to be protecting.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
So, because Drake responded "so well" (and I disagree he did, we'll get there in a second) its ok to say that I said something I didn't say at all? No, its not....

As far as what Drake says, I think its a little silly to presume that people should react the same way to 9/11 as to Katrina. They are totally different EMOTIONAL events. 9/11 was someone who hates us destroying 2 buildings and attacking another in a different city. Katrina was a natural disaster that pretty much obliterated an entire city. 9/11 the first responders were able to do their job, katrina they weren't. We had heroes for 9/11, immediately, and none for katrina. These all make the emotional reaction entirely different. How would Guiliani reacted if new york had been blown off the map? We don't know.

Its fine to say "I'd prefer my leader not break down in front of the public," its shameful to attack a man for crying when describing what happened to his city in these circumstances.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Actually Ev, it was coastal towns in Mississipi that was blown off the map. The Hurricane only indirectly hit NO. It was the subsequent humanitarian disaster, looting, breakdown of law and order and flooding that dominated the news so completely that the stories of Mississipi and other coastal towns that were directly devestated by the Hurricane winds have largely been ignored.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
Its fine to say "I'd prefer my leader not break down in front of the public," its shameful to attack a man for crying when describing what happened to his city in these circumstances.
He harmed the morale of everyone around him. As a leader, he should hold himself to a higher standard. He failed to do so.

Why is attacking him wrong?

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Actually Ev, it was coastal towns in Mississipi that was blown off the map. The Hurricane only indirectly hit NO. It was the subsequent humanitarian disaster, looting, breakdown of law and order and flooding that dominated the news so completely that the stories of Mississipi and other coastal towns that were directly devestated by the Hurricane winds have largely been ignored."

NO has pretty much been destroyed by that flooding, daruma. Its gone... it will take years to rebuild, from the flooding, looting, etc. Yes, the coastal towns of MS are also gone. I don't mean to imply they aren't.

"Why is attacking him wrong?"

Because it shows a serious lack of empathy. You haven't gone through what he's gone through, and yet you are criticizing him for having an emotional reaction. Attacking ANYONE for having an emotional reaction to a devastating event is shameful. We can't really control our emotions in extreme circumstances, and everyone reacts differently to them, and we don't know how we, ourselves, would react to that cirucmstance until we experience it.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Ev,

My gripe isn't whether rage is justified, it is whether the expression of that rage is helping or hurting the people you are charged with protecting.

If Giuliani had started screaming about Arab extremism, people would probably take their cue from him on how to act - and we might have seen more instances of violence against American muslims and the burning of mosques. Wouldn't matter much that he'd be perfectly justified in having that reaction, he obviously understood that it would not be helping the situation.

As a leader, you must concentrate on the consequences of everything that you say. I don't feel that Broussard did that. While we can have compassion for him becoming unhinged by events, there's no reason why we should consider blind rage a leadership quality.

There's no way that any two disasters are equal, even two hurricanes or two terrorist attacks would be sufficiently different. The tested mettle of the respective leaders is similar.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"There's no way that any two disasters are equal, even two hurricanes or two terrorist attacks would be sufficiently different. The tested mettle of the respective leaders is similar."

Sure, if the disasters are similar enough to warrant any sort of comparison. I think saying that 9/11 and Katrina test the mettle of leaders in anything remotely resembling the same way is dishonest, because the only thing similar about them is that people died.


"My gripe isn't whether rage is justified, it is whether the expression of that rage is helping or hurting the people you are charged with protecting."

And arguing about this is fine. I have no problems with that. What I have a problem with is the mocking way that Ed characterized the emotional reaction, and that sort of statement.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I agree that Giuliani's public reaction was preferrable to Broussard's (although if Jefferson Parish has suffered anything like NO, then Broussard has been hit far harder than Giuliani).

In any case, while Giuliani's way is indeed preferrable, I'd argue that I'd rather have the leader who breaks down crying than the one that can't get the dumb smirk off his face, or refrain from blithely picking out his absolutely most negligent and incompetent underling for public praise.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
RickyB said:
quote:
In any case, while Giuliani's way is indeed preferrable, I'd argue that I'd rather have the leader who breaks down crying than the one that can't get the dumb smirk off his face, or refrain from blithely picking out his absolutely most negligent and incompetent underling for public praise.
<chuckle> Not naming any names, right? [Smile]

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I agree that Giuliani's public reaction was preferrable to Broussard's (although if Jefferson Parish has suffered anything like NO, then Broussard has been hit far harder than Giuliani).

In any case, while Giuliani's way is indeed preferrable, I'd argue that I'd rather have the leader who breaks down crying than the one that can't get the dumb smirk off his face, or refrain from blithely picking out his absolutely most negligent and incompetent underling for public praise.

True. I can't believe Bush has singled out Norman Mineta for praise. [Wink] [Eek!]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Everard:
quote:
Because it shows a serious lack of empathy. You haven't gone through what he's gone through, and yet you are criticizing him for having an emotional reaction. Attacking ANYONE for having an emotional reaction to a devastating event is shameful. We can't really control our emotions in extreme circumstances, and everyone reacts differently to them, and we don't know how we, ourselves, would react to that cirucmstance until we experience it.
So, how about the people who are shooting at the rescue workers in New Orleans? Should we not attack them for their bad behavior? Is it shameful that we do so? Are we showing a serious lack of empathy to their pain? Or are we, as with Broussard, demanding that they use their heads and think their problems through?

Once again, a false dichotomy is being offered here. People who suffer great emotional trauma are STILL accountable for their actions. A man's pain is STILL not a "get out of jail free" card.

Ed.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Actions, yes, emotions, no, and you're holding him accuntable for his emotions.

You are still mis-characterizing what I'm saying, Ed.

"Once again, a false dichotomy is being offered here. People who suffer great emotional trauma are STILL accountable for their actions. A man's pain is STILL not a "get out of jail free" card."

The only bad logic going on here, Ed, is yours. Its called "straw man."

[ September 06, 2005, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Ed, sorry, comparing the fact that this man broke down in tears to commiting an act of attempted murder is disgusting.

Lincoln spent a good deal of his time weeping during the darkest days of the Civil War, at least according to his close friends and family. I wonder if he would have been able to keep it together in public had he been expected to do hours of face to face press coverage?
 
Posted by velcro (Member # 1216) on :
 
Ed,

In fits and starts, you make a valid point. Broussard did not show good leadership when his emotions caused him to accuse people of murder.

However, your condescending tone ("cry like a baby") overshadowed any attention that point should have gotten. And rather than cut the guy some slack, since his whole world is destroyed, on his watch, you nail him for being a "bad leader". Fine, add him to the 99.9% of the leaders in the world that would behave the same way under those conditions.

What if he cried like a baby to beg people to send money to help? What if he cried like a baby to express frustration at the insurgency in Iraq, thereby increasing support for the war there? Would he still be pathetic? Is it the emotion, or the cause?

If it is the emotion, then I disagree with the contempt. Crying is not shameful. If it is the cause, then you are entitled to your opinion, based on the fact that you don't agree with the cause. But don't call the guy pathetic when he did an inconceivably difficult job to the best of his ability, and you don't agree with his politics.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Velcro said:
quote:
If it is the emotion, then I disagree with the contempt. Crying is not shameful.
Yes, it is. Feeling emotion is fine. Demonstrating helplessness in a public setting when people are looking to you for leadership is not fine.

In another topic I separated anger from sadness for a reason. Anger stimulates action. Sadness does not. There is no cause not to feel sadness over the massive numbers of casualties caused by Katrina. However, some self control should be demonstrated by a leader in a public setting.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Yes, it is."


I feel contempt for your lack of humanity for expressing this position.

However sound your reasoning may be, however much I may respect your debating skills, that is outweighed by your complete lack of empathy and compassion as demonstrated by this statement. Without empathy and compassion, all the logic in the world is useless, because you won't reach conclusions that are humane. Untempered by humanity, logic and intellect are useless in any sphere where the discussion touches upon human life and livlihood. And that most CERTAINLY includes politics.

[ September 06, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Again, if you want to say the effect of breaking down is bad, thats one thing. If you want to express contempt for the man because he's human, it simply shows that you really don't have any empathy, and are worthy of the utmost contempt.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Contempt, no. Lack of admiration, yes. I think Ev and I are not too far off on this, which makes me a little afraid.

I also think that more than a little of this is cultural, even within the context of the United States. In the New England where I grew up, crying was most definitely shameful for men, and not even very acceptable for women.

Any emotion is something to be handled privately or not at all. But I've learned that not everyone is raised or chooses to live that way, so my comments remain tempered by that understanding. But how I "feel" about Broussard, nobody wants to hear that outburst.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
If you want to express contempt for the man because he's human, it simply shows that you really don't have any empathy, and are worthy of the utmost contempt.
I keep saying this. I have no problem with him breaking down - in private.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I have a SERIOUS problem with you thinking that everyone, even all leaders, are capable of not breaking down when talking about hte situation which is causing them extreme emotional trauma. Private, public, I don't care. I think your position is dispicable.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I continue to disagree. If you know you are going to break down or freak out, stay away from the press. Why do you think Bush never hold press conferences or open town hall meetings [Razz]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
How does he know he's going to break down? No one knows until they are in that situation. How do we know he didn't have good composure until he got in that situation? Its completely possible he was in an emotional state where he believed he wasn't going to break down, and then he got on the show, and started talking, and reacted to the situation of talking publicly about a massive tragedy that he was powerless to prevent... and broke down quickly.
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
I have a SERIOUS problem with you thinking that everyone, even all leaders, are capable of not breaking down when talking about hte situation which is causing them extreme emotional trauma. Private, public, I don't care. I think your position is dispicable.
If he cannot speak rationally on the topic, he should not be speaking publically. It is one thing for J.Q. Public to do so. It is another thing entirely to do so when you are being looked to for clear-headed leadership.

--Firedrake

[ September 06, 2005, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Everard said:
quote:
How does he know he's going to break down? No one knows until they are in that situation. How do we know he didn't have good composure until he got in that situation? Its completely possible he was in an emotional state where he believed he wasn't going to break down, and then he got on the show, and started talking, and reacted to the situation of talking publicly about a massive tragedy that he was powerless to prevent... and broke down quickly.
So his judgment was poor?

I'm not suggesting we draw and quarter the guy. I just do not feel that he should be held up as a good representation of leadership in New Orleans.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
And if that happened, he could have said, "I'm at a loss for words. My heart is breaking, and my people need help."
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
Watching someone burst into tears during a crisis would not make me feel protected at all.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Everard:
quote:
Actions, yes, emotions, no, and you're holding him accuntable for his emotions.
From my post, directly on top of your first post in this thread:
quote:
I have no problem with his emotional display. I do have a problem with how he used it. I also agree with Firedrake that it was an innappropriate use of his feelings. Personally, if he sincerely believed his accusations, then anger would have been the appropriate response, not tears.
Now, just what exactly AM I talking about when I say "I do have a problem with how he used it," and "if he sincerely believed his accusations." Am I talking about his emotions, his actions, or BOTH?

Now, Ev, scroll up, to the point where I explain to Funean just what the full extent of my disgust for his actions come from:
quote:
There are two sides to every coin, Funean. Am I being callous to Broussard? Or am I being sympathetic to those he accused of committing murder? Which has the greater weight? An accusation supported by an Appeal to Emotion that does not come anywhere near the Prima Facie rules of evidence? Or the potential consequences levied against those if that Appeal were to be taken seriously.
quote:
The only bad logic going on here, Ed, is yours. Its called "straw man."
And, yet... the question at hand, "Does one's pain justify poor behavior?" remains unanswered...


@ Jesse:
quote:
Ed, sorry, comparing the fact that this man broke down in tears to commiting an act of attempted murder is disgusting.
I was comparing poor behavior (unjustified accusations of murder) with poor behavior (shooting at rescue workers). True, Broussard's "poor behavior" does not rise to the level of attempted murder, but... accusing people falsely of murder is pretty disgusting anyway.


@ velcro:
quote:
However, your condescending tone ("cry like a baby") overshadowed any attention that point should have gotten.
It's called "fighting fire with fire." He made an Appeal to Emotion and I countered it with one. Like it or not, he did "cry like a baby," and I did find it disgusting. I did not, however, find some of the other instances of grown men crying during this disaster disgusting as none of them were pushing an agenda.

quote:
What if he cried like a baby to beg people to send money to help? What if he cried like a baby to express frustration at the insurgency in Iraq, thereby increasing support for the war there? Would he still be pathetic? Is it the emotion, or the cause?
What if he calmly stated that the Federal Government had let him down and then calmly asked for an explanation of their failure? I would have had a lot more respect for him if he had.


@ All

Finally, let me add, just as Firedrake did, I'm not calling for "Drawing & Quarting" either. I am voicing my disgust at his behavior. I have, as yet, to voice my disgust at some of the other men that I have seen crying from this disaster.

Ed.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I remember a similar breakdown after 9/11. Regrettably, I no longer remember the man's name. But he ran a financial firm of some kind, where a huge percentage of employees were lost to the tragedy. HE broke down on camera, but I respected him, because his words were about how the remaining employees were coming to work and muscling through the pain - not words of hate and resentment.

I didn't report for work on 9/12, and my boss called me into work. I resented it until I heard the testimonial of that man and his brave employees. I felt shamed that I considered not going to work.

That is leadership. If you want people to have empathy for you, your message must be one that invites empathy.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I can't believe you are even having this debate.

I hope to god none of you are ever in a position where your protected smugness is ever challenged. But if it does, I'll be the first to put a hand of comfort on your back as I wipe the snot from your nose.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Your post is not sufficient for me to even understand what your point is, canadian.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
He's being smug about his humanity, Drake.

Ed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Well, if you're going to be perceived as being smug about something...might as well be for being compassionate.

I luh you...
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII: <Sarcasm>

Bad Ed! Bad, BAD, ED!

How DARE you speak out against this SAINTED man and his "warranted" accusations against the current administration!

</Sarcasm>

Either this man's actions are justified or I'm callous and uncaring. Talk about false dichotomies...

[Roll Eyes]

Ed.

Now, who gets emotional?

Let's all agree that we should never make Ed a leader of so much as the mail room on the North pole, he'll be ever so paranoid about being used by emotional people that he'll never ever do anything for anybody.
Ed, I'm just curious: do you have any kind of relationships? And do you have a leadership type of job?

Just because you can distinguish a few debating techniques doesn't mean they always apply.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
I continue to disagree. If you know you are going to break down or freak out, stay away from the press. Why do you think Bush never hold press conferences or open town hall meetings [Razz]

Yes and he still sucks ==> bush, speaking about the devastation: "This type of situation is not gonna be resolved in one day"!!!!! The complexity and depth of the conclusions of that man!

I'd rather have Broussard anyday over bush, if only purely on those two media excerpts alone ....
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FIJC:
Watching someone burst into tears during a crisis would not make me feel protected at all.

Be honest, fijs,
would bursting into tears by anyone, at any point in time, in any situation, make you feel positive? I just ask since you gimme the impression of being the classic, stereotypical WASP. Sorry if i got that wrong ... [Smile] [Wink]

PS also, remember that bursting into tears by women is a great afrodisiac towards men ... [Wink] sorry if 2 naughty ...
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
Oh and to be purely 'logical' (in the harsh and Borg and Ed-sense of the word [Wink] ):
How do you know that Broussard was emotional when he made leadership decisions? You only saw him cry on camera. You simply lack data.
How do you know that emotions are really bad in when making decisions? Show me hard data. Aren't mericans the inventors of the concept of 'gut feeling'? How much logic and reason goes into that?

It almost seems to me (in my totally inconclusive armchair psychologist role, of course) that:
1. You reject anything about Broussard because he showed emotions, not because of the content of what he said.
2. you are so deeply shocked that he accused your beloved leader (bush) that you completely discard ANYthing he has to say.
Of course I have no way of proofing all of these motivations on your part, but seemed only fair since you seem to know this guy because of his 15 seconds of breaking down on camera, in public.

Everard, Velcro,
I like the way you worded your points, and I totally agree.

quote:
@ velcro:However, your condescending tone ("cry like a baby") overshadowed any attention that point should have gotten.
quote:
by Ed: It's called "fighting fire with fire." He made an Appeal to Emotion and I countered it with one. Like it or not, he did "cry like a baby," and I did find it disgusting.
Hence, you're equally disgusting. But since you're the one Appealing, it's OK?

Let's consider that:
1. you are quite alone in this 'cry like a baby' thing.
2. you are equally alone in believing that Broussard's murder accusation are false. I bet that most people aren't entirely disagreeing with this. And if it happened exactly the way he said, it IS murder.

quote:
ED: I did not, however, find some of the other instances of grown men crying during this disaster disgusting as none of them were pushing an agenda.
This one really takes the cake. Here it clearly shows that for you, everyone can cry, as long as they don't cry anti-bush. and if they cry pro-bush, you seem to like that a lot.
Whew! Talk about bad logic ... Ev, Fun, Can, help me out here: is this called self-gratifying 'logic'?

[ September 07, 2005, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: TS Elliot ]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
TS Elliot said:
quote:
How do you know that Broussard was emotional when he made leadership decisions? You only saw him cry on camera. You simply lack data.
How do you know that emotions are really bad in when making decisions? Show me hard data. Aren't mericans the inventors of the concept of 'gut feeling'? How much logic and reason goes into that?

It almost seems to me (in my totally inconclusive armchair psychologist role, of course) that:
1. You reject anything about Broussard because he showed emotions, not because of the content of what he said.
2. you are so deeply shocked that he accused your beloved leader (bush) that you completely discard ANYthing he has to say.

I do not have a problem with what he said. I (personally) believe that the response from FEMA has been better than it has appeared in the media, but it is immaterial to address this thread. My response to this thread has dealt mainly with the manner in which Broussard presented himself, and the repercussions of a public figure visibly not being in control, not the data which Broussard presented.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
The way you act in a public forum, like it or not, determines how you are viewed.

I would not want a rescue worker to start sobbing as he approached my flooded home.

I would not want a community leader to start sobbing and screaming when he tried to get help from me, or tried to tell me what to do.

Am I angry that he cried? Do I think it shameful? No. This is a horrific situation; he has every right to be emotional about it.

But we have every right to consider him a bad leader for the way he handled his emotions.

Emotional control is important in a leader; the leader's actions influence the community's, and the leader's emotional reaction, if large and public, tends to direct the emotional reaction of the community.

Someone on this thread (can't remember who, sorry...) said that we shouldn't criticize people for their emotions, only their actions. Very well, then; I am criticizing this leader for his actions. There are appropriate ways to handle emotional displays in public. Typically, this means toning down the emotional response, whatever it is, and this is incredibly important for a leader. I do not deny that he has every right to be angry and upset; I deny that he has the right to put on an emotional show in public, when he should be acting as a leader.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Wow! What a clear-cut political division over a few tears, but let's face it: with so many drops of God's tears, Broussard was only adding to them.

When Broussard warned that New Orleans wasn't ready, whom should he have alerted first? Here, in under 500 pages of lite reading, is the national response system:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml

Here is the timeline (note that Bush II declared a state of emergency at dawn on the 25th):

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/interactive/timeline.katrina.large/frameset.exclude.html

When the hurricane hits, more than 1,000,000 are w/o power in Florida.

On the 27th, Nagin is meeting with his lawyers so that he can respond to Blanco's query "What should we do?"

Finally, on the 28th, at 10:00 AM, Nagin orders mandatory evacuation of New Orleans.

On the 29th, at 7AM the hurricane, almost incidental to the bungled politics, hits.

On the 30th, New Orleans has no power, potable water running out, dwindling food supplies, widespread looting, fires -- and steadily rising waters from major levee breaches.

Refugees (this is not a denigrating term) arrive at city-designated centers to discover no food, no water, no medicine -- start blaming Bush II.

Broussard was one of those who let down Jefferson Parish. He managed EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT! If, as he claimed, "We have been abandoned by our own country," it was Broussard who let down his own parish.

Isn't ANYbody suspicious that those responsible for local emergencies in Louisiana immediately threw up their hands -- and blamed Washington?

This corrupt crybaby was just subpoened in yet another corruption probe, Operation Wrinkled Robe. Broussard and 24th District Judge Kernan "Skip" Hand were subpoenaed regarding political donations made by Bail Bonds Unlimited. One judge, caught on FBI video with hot cash from BBU, has already been convicted.

Let's not get teary eyed about cry babies.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Let's also not castigate human emotion, which to me, is the real discussion. I'm no Broussard apologist and never claimed to be. I just don't happen to think it is decent to spit in the face of sorrow.

Some people think his sorrow prompted him to spit in the face of the Bush Administration unfairly.

I don't care about that. Maybe it was unjust, maybe it wasn't. I've seen leaders cry and in no way has it lessened my esteem for them. Perhaps if this guy cared about his future, or cared about his position, he would have clamped up and excused himself, I don't know.

But I do know that to sit dry and comfy and deride a person for crying as every person has or will cry in their life, is bordering on the contemptable. Or maybe it just makes them uncomfortable to see a grown man cry...

Either way, it's pomposity at it's best.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
I don't understand what is pompous about saying, "This is how I believe a leader should behave, and I don't feel that Broussard behaved in this manner."

Is there something wrong with expressing your opinion that a leader should behave differently? Is it wrong because the leader had a legitimate reason to be upset? Even if you acknowledge that right, while maintaining you'd prefer a different, public, reaction?

I think calling this pompous is pretty out there.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
No, jav...saying that is just fine.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Jav-
If firedrake and ed had said that, this thread would be half its current length. But they didn't. And thats why this thread is a mess.

I'm not defending Broussard's accusations. I'm defending his right to be safe from people expressing contempt for him for having an extremely understandable emotional reaction. I also think people who believe that his emotions should have been controlable should try to imagine how they would react if, for example, their entire family was executed in front of their eyes, and then they answered questions in a public forum. I have a strong suspicion Ed, and Lady Starkiller, and Firedrake, would lose control of their emotions in those circumstances.

I DO think I'm a better human being then the people expressing contempt for his emotional reaction. If you want to say he shouldn't have gone on TV, fine, thats reasonable. Though, I don't think its reasonable to say he should have known how he would react. Its fine to say that the effects of his emotional breakdown are negative. Its fine to say that his accusations are dead wrong and came from grief. But to express contempt for showing that grief? Thats wrong. Very very wrong.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Ah, I guess that I felt that's what they were trying to say.
 
Posted by Lady Starkiller (Member # 2444) on :
 
quote:
If you want to say he shouldn't have gone on TV, fine, thats reasonable.
That's exactly what I said. He should not have broadcast his emotions in public in such a strong, uncontrolled manner. I never said he shouldn't cry, or feel sorrow or anger; indeed, it is a mark of his humanity that he did.

There is a time and a place for all things - including grief. When your grief exacerbates a situation, it is not being expressed in its proper time or place. That is the problem I have with this man - not that he's grieving.

quote:
I have a strong suspicion Ed, and Lady Starkiller, and Firedrake, would lose control of their emotions in those circumstances.
I cannot speak for the others, but I can for myself: I have just recently been required to testify at my father's trial, in which he is accused of the attempted murder of my brother. I broke down and cried after he was arrested; I was a nervous wreck before the trial; I also broke down completely afterwards. But during the trial, when I was required to answer questions in a fairly public forum, I reigned in all those emotions. Why? It was not the proper place for their expression.

Before I'm jumped on, I am by no means comparing my own family troubles with the disaster of Katrina. But to say that a public figure cannot control himself in a public forum is to say that he is not acting as befits his office. End of story.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Everard, it is not wrong to point a finger at a corrupt politician -- whether he's crying that he got caught or not. I have never disapproved of politicians who cry, only in this case I sincerely doubt what he says he's crying about.

It's like the guy whose bordello got swamped with filth, lamenting his loss of income.

If you choose to believe he's crying for fear of judgment day, fine; I prefer to believe that he's crying because judgment day has come and gone.

Where oh where can a neighborhood political boss find work in another city?
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Lady Starkiller said:
quote:
I cannot speak for the others, but I can for myself:
In that post, you can speak for me. [Smile]

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Starkiller, you did exactly the right thing. The truth needs no public drama.

There is a point in the losses of life when tears don't serve a function -- and don't come. There is some point in the experience of life, after losses of friends, relatives, dogs, and money (wasted labor), when emotions go numb or rational thought goes numb. It is the reasonable man who can put his emotions on hold to allow his rational mind act.

Too many of us vote emotionally, often out of loyalty to some ideal, and resultantly put emotional people into office when our best interests would be served by rational decision-makers.

I know there's somebody here who wants a doctor who can hold hands and do a biopsy at the same time. That's the kind of doctor all of us would like to have, but I don't want that kind of doctor for my kid when he's in trouble, I don't want that kind of vet for my dog when he's in trouble, and frankly that's not the kind of politician I would want for my people when they're in trouble.

Emotionally, who wants the truth? Rationally, we need the truth -- even if it is to hear that we have 24 h to revise our wills or that New Orleans is no longer a practical location for a city.

Times of trouble are no times for emotion. New Orleans is paying the price for not paying rational attention to the venue chosen for its bonae horae. When the bad times hit, it became dysfunctional.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I'm glad we're all safe and dry.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
The better to play armchair disaster.
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"Be honest, fijs,
would bursting into tears by anyone, at any point in time, in any situation, make you feel positive? I just ask since you gimme the impression of being the classic, stereotypical WASP. Sorry if i got that wrong ..."

I just don't think that bursting into tears during a crisis situation is appropriate. In these situations, people need strength, not tears or emotional outbursts. And there's no need to get all defensive about this assertion, because it's true. When people see such outrageous displays, they don't respect that and get laughed at by people who do actually possess that sort of strength and leadership capability. I mean, seriously, compare Broussard's response to that of someone like Lt. Gen. Russell Honore (USAF, O9); it's in a totally different league. [Roll Eyes]

[ September 07, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
What they really need is a leader who stays on vacation.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
What they really need is a leader who stays on vacation.

But we'll settle for a smartass kanuck sniping away from the sidelines instead... [Razz]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Javelin:
quote:
Is there something wrong with expressing your opinion that a leader should behave differently? Is it wrong because the leader had a legitimate reason to be upset? Even if you acknowledge that right, while maintaining you'd prefer a different, public, reaction?
Kudos, Jav. Yer on point, as always. [Smile]


@ Everard:
quote:
If firedrake and ed had said that, this thread would be half its current length. But they didn't. And thats why this thread is a mess.
So, Ev? When I say:
quote:
Now, just what exactly AM I talking about when I say "I do have a problem with HOW he used it," and "if he sincerely believed his accusations." Am I talking about his emotions, his actions, or BOTH?
Just what exactly does that mean to you?

Am I talking SOLELY about man breaking down and crying? Or am I condemning the behavior of a leader that I consider unbecoming and improper?


@ Lady Starkiller:
quote:
I cannot speak for the others, but I can for myself: I have just recently been required to testify at my father's trial, in which he is accused of the attempted murder of my brother. I broke down and cried after he was arrested; I was a nervous wreck before the trial; I also broke down completely afterwards. But during the trial, when I was required to answer questions in a fairly public forum, I reigned in all those emotions. Why? It was not the proper place for their expression.

You speak for me too, LS.

My life has not been short of emotional turmoil. But when it has occurred, I've always chosen reason the thing through before I unleashed my emotions. I have an ex-sister that betrayed her own children for love, who, once I understood all the facts, received my full and deserved wrath. I have a father who is responsible for killing my mother, who I've forgiven because I could just as easily have made the same mistake. Had I gone with my emotions in that instance -- the first words out of my mouth when the police told me who was at fault for the accident was "him and his G*******d temper!" -- my father would probably not be alive today either. His shame through that crisis was so great (still is [Frown] ) that, if not for my tempering my anger, he likely would have killed himself.

As I've said before, there's a time to use emotions and a time to put them away. My ex-sister deserved what she got, my father didn't. And the current administration deserves a hearing before anyone starts lambasting them with accusations of murder.


@ T.S. Elliot:
quote:
1. You reject anything about Broussard because he showed emotions, not because of the content of what he said.
2. you are so deeply shocked that he accused your beloved leader (bush) that you completely discard ANYthing he has to say.

Your logic is so flawed, it simply isn't worth my time responding too. But I will say two things.

1) Keep up. I have said over and over again that it is his actions that disgust me, "Crying like a baby" is simply representative of how he behaved in order to push his agenda.
2) If A < B, then one might infer that A = -5. However, there is an infinite chance that one is wrong, as A may equal 18312, -831, or, even 0. Just so, because I am disgusted with Broussard's attempt to push an agenda, does not, automatically mean I am a Bush supporter. I would be just as disgusted with Broussard if we were talking about the Clinton Administration, the Gore Administration, or even the [me shudders.] Pelosi Administration.

Ed.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
What they really need is a leader who stays on vacation.

But we'll settle for a smartass kanuck sniping away from the sidelines instead... [Razz]
What would you do without me? Take yourselves faaarrr too seriously, that's what.

There's not a lot of areas in which we do better at than Americans, but knowing how to laugh at ourselves is one of them.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

When people see such outrageous displays, they don't respect that and get laughed at by people who do actually possess that sort of strength and leadership capability.

Hm. Is it not possible to have that sort of strength and leadership capability without laughing at people who cry?
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

When people see such outrageous displays, they don't respect that and get laughed at by people who do actually possess that sort of strength and leadership capability.

Hm. Is it not possible to have that sort of strength and leadership capability without laughing at people who cry?
Seems likely.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
What they really need is a leader who stays on vacation.

But we'll settle for a smartass kanuck sniping away from the sidelines instead... [Razz]
And again people make fun of bush!!!! It's that hard to take for you, is it? Are you his illegal lovebaby, or what?
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FIJC:
When people see such outrageous displays, they don't respect that and get laughed at by people who do actually possess that sort of strength and leadership capability.

What is so suspect about this remark, is that she values laughing at other people (during a crisis, it seems) a good character trait of leaders. so here we have one reason she likes bush, he always smirks. He isn't nicknamed the smirkingmonkey for nothing.

Furthermore, don't you contempting people haven't got any feeling bone left in your body? Or what?

I repeat the words of others, but the MAN HAD A FRIKKIN' RIGHT to burst out in tears, on camera and all that.
Did you ever consider that it might be good for a leader to show that he's just human like the rest of his people? This would make him more sympathetic and thus more likely to be followed/obeyed. Leaders are ultimately judged on the quality of his decisions, not on whether they broke down in a extremely understandable situation.

I know what you mean with leaders not showing emotions and maybe weakness and all that, I don't necessarily disagree.
But apperantly you subscribe to the semi-god like model type of leader, who always holds it together? They tried that some 60 years ago in Germany, Japan and are still doing it in Northern Korea. Didn't really work out then.

And show me how crying made Broussard take bad decisions in immediate action.

[ September 09, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: TS Elliot ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I heard an interview on NPR where a refugee was talking about getting a job in her new city. She talked about the need to hold it together so she could get stuff done. I agree with her.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
TSE: They were crocodile tears.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
"No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile..."
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
RD: that's just your opinion.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Well, if they were crocodile tyears, then bully for him. He's a friggin' olitician, after all. A little mnethod acting doesn't hurt if a man is decided to use tears to get people's attention.

Give him an Oscar if they were phony. Apparently, assuming this was a performance and not genuine emotion, some folks felt it was bad scripting. Others, assuming it was genuine, feel it was lack of self-control.

Can't please everyone. You're either too damn phony or too dang sincere.

Not to mention the ****ty special effects. I mean, those alleged aerial photos of New Orleans under water; I've seen better photo shop hacks from high school kids.

Y'all astound me. I miss the good old days when we filled 15 pages in 2 days discussing the finer points of five guys getting a blowjob from one girl. I mean, at least then we KNEW we were being silly while pretending to be serious...
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ T.S. Elliot:
quote:
But apperantly you subscribe to the semi-god like model type of leader, who always holds it together? They tried that some 60 years ago in Germany, Japan and are still doing it in Northern Korea. Didn't really work out then.

Once again, you make an improper inference. The desire for a leader with proper decorum does not equate to a desire for a leader with an iron fist.

Ed.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
And again, Ed, you exaggarate and distort.
semi-god like leader is not equal to a iron-fist leader.

You want a leader who controls his emotions under all circumstances, it seems. This means close to superhuman, thus semi-godlike. Nothing improper about that.
At least, far less improper than your immeasurable cynism by callously stating that Broussard cried because of political gain. Just because you seem handicapped in an emotional way, doesn't mean that other people can feel utterly overwhelmed, and cry in the present situation.

Let's not forget that the man kept it together for most of the interview, but when he started to describe how one of his coworkers mother, repeatedly asked for help, but didn't get it and died because of that, he understandably cried (break down is too strong a word).
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
quote:
And again, Ed, you exaggarate and distort.
LMAO!!!

quote:
semi-god like leader is not equal to a iron-fist leader.
And yet, those leaders you refer to were considered iron fisted, so all you are arguing is semantics.

quote:
You want a leader who controls his emotions under all circumstances, it seems. This means close to superhuman, thus semi-godlike. Nothing improper about that.
The ability to control one's emotions is anything but "semi-godlike." History is full of examples where men chose to keep their emotions in check. So to is is literature. Controlling one's emotions is considered one of the more important points of ethics. We even have a system of justice that insists that we keep our emotions in check, hence the concept of Due Process.

AND, most important of all...

It is a highly desirable trait for all leaders. From the Center for Creative Leadership, here is an extract from a PDF on Leadership and Emotional Intelligence:
quote:
Putting People at Ease gets at the heart of making others relaxed and comfortable in your presence. From the perspective of direct reports, putting people at ease was related to impulse control, which is defined as the ability to resist or delay the impulse to act. This finding suggests that being able to behaviorally put people at ease has to do with controlling your own impulses with regard to anger or other emotions. Boss ratings of putting people at ease are related to happiness, suggesting that your disposition is related to how comfortable others are in your presence.
Broussard did anything but make people comfortable. As a leader, he offered his followers no hope and only despair. He is no leader.

quote:
At least, far less improper than your immeasurable cynism by callously stating that Broussard cried because of political gain. Just because you seem handicapped in an emotional way, doesn't mean that other people can feel utterly overwhelmed, and cry in the present situation.
You know, that's quite a handicap I have. One that is sought out as an important leadership skill and that I can find training for:
code:
    * Self-Management
o EMOTIONAL SELF-CONTROL - THE ABILITY TO CONTROL EMOTIONS THAT ARE INNAPPROPRIATE [Emphasis, mine]
o Transparency - Being honest and trustworthy, and having integrity
o Adaptability - The ability to be flexible in changing situations
o Achievement - The drive to meet inner standards of excellence
o Initiative - Being ready to act and seize opportunities
o Optimism - The ability to see the positive in events

quote:
Let's not forget that the man kept it together for most of the interview, but when he started to describe how one of his coworkers mother, repeatedly asked for help, but didn't get it and died because of that, he understandably cried (break down is too strong a word).
I haven't forgotten. Nor have I forgotten that he used it to support an argument of how someone should be "chainsawed" off the top for unproven crimes. Exactly the opposite kind of "impulse control" that the CCL says you need.

Ed.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
TSE:

Everything that I say is my opinion, not that I copyright it.

And my opinion is that Broussard's a crook, and shouldn't be crying over a postponed court appearance for graft and corruption.

Winston Churchill wasn't crying 65 years ago while the Nasties were bombing his home town. Roosevelt didn't burst into tears over Pearl Harbor. And no man in leadership appeals to national television over the head of the President for help because "thousands of us are dying every day! thousands!" That man was complicitous in catastrophic incompetence.

Nobody in LA politics so far, it seems, understands what "chain of command" means. Certainly the governor didn't. When you're offered federal troops with an insurrection on your hands, you knuckle under to the President. She wouldn't.

The mayor and the governor were concerned about "legal implications". I suspect that Broussard was too.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Richard, can you prove that Blanco refused the offer of thousands of federal troops? I'm asking because other claims, such as "she didn't sign a state of emergency order until after the storm hit" have been proven false, so maybe this too is a Rovian lie. Where's your data coming from?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I'm waiting. Anyone? How do we know this? I'm seriously asking. Could be true. Is it, though?
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
A follow up on this issue...

This morning, on Meet the Press, Broussard was confronted with the fact that the real people responsible for the death of the woman in question were the _owners of the nursing home_ where she resided. Those owners have been indicted for their failure to properly evacuate their wards.

This is exactly why one should keep their emotions in check and wait for all the facts rather than making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

Of course, Broussards performance in defending his accusations this morning was also less than stellar.

Ed.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
True, Ed. Broussard appears to have really made an ass of himself. The woman apparently died on Monday, August 29 - the night following Katrina's landfall day.

So having tended to side with those who wanted to give Broussard some kind of break for losing his cool, I'm afraid that's no longer an option. The man acted like a hysterical buffoon, totally unworthy of leadership.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1