I think the way New Orleans officials are emphasizing the safety of tourism while several local citizens died is gross. But I also understand where their fear comes from. After Katrina, New Orleans was completely abandoned by the government and by tourists for years. It made it that much harder, and took that much longer, to rebuild and repair the city. The trauma of being financially abandoned is really strong in that city, and it's for a reason imo.
Tourism brings about $10 billion a year to New Orleans, and accounts for around 75,000 jobs there. It's close to half the city's overall revenue -- an enormous percentage. A drop in tourism would be catastrophic for many New Orleans residents who work directly in hospitality -- and that's before you get to store owners, who are mostly mom-and-pop shops especially in the French Quarter.
After Katrina, there was the same intense focus on bringing back tourism above all, because so many people's livelihoods depend on it. This document below, hyping up tourism in NOLA, is from 2006.
But I can tell you that the first time I ever went to New Orleans (and fell in love with its soul instantly, harder than I'd fallen for any city except Paris) it was 2008, and the city was JUST getting back on its feet. I stayed at the Sheraton downtown for something like $89 a night. (Prices were usually more like $300 a night, and they're currently closer to $400 for the kind of room I had on an upper floor, overlooking the Mississippi).
In 2008 there were still water marks from the flooding on the buildings on Canal Street. Conferences (and festivals) were JUST again getting organized there. The houses in the Bywater and other parts of the city still were physically broken down and had Xs on them to mark how many dead were found inside. Three long years later. Because the city's economy was so devastated by the lack of money being spent there. The city was, in every way, still very much haunted and struggling.
By 2012, New Orleans was fully back on its feet and tourists from the rest of the South. But that was 7 long years later. Everything took longer because tourism had stayed soft for so many years after the disaster.
Now, a terrorist attack is obviously not the same as a major collapse of the city's infrastructure. But the attack today was right at the center of the French Quarter, the hub for all tourism in the city. Most tourists never leave the French Quarter. Especially Bourbon Street and the area around the St. Louis Cathedral, where the attack happened.
New Orleans has spent years portraying and marketing the Quarter as a kind of Disneyland, a place of soft edges that is totally cozy and safe. (Even as crime proliferated in other parts of the city during many years). So that's why the officials are being so desperate imo. Just something to keep in mind. New Orleans has never, at its core, stopped seeing itself as that city abandoned after Katrina.
I just want to editorialize here and say that choosing this route will backfire on them. They chose terrorism so they could increase the murder charge, but what that does is also bring up the ideology behind the shooting. And if they're going to try to defend healthcare insurance abuses on ideological grounds, they will absolutely create a far worse situation in public opinion than already exists.
If prosecutors are planning to defend the healthcare insurance system on ideological grounds...good luck
Leave aside how difficult it's going to be for them to maintain their credibility while redefining as a "state actor" a corrupt CEO accused of with insider trading and being investigated by the DOJ itself.
Prosecutors for the Manhattan District Attorney's are going to have to dismiss the powers of the DOJ which had identified Thompson as a target of investigation. The justice system is cannibalizing itself with this one.
I'm sorry but I am deeply skeptical that a guy who planned out an audacious killing to the second, wearing imperceptible clothing, was caught at a McDonald's with a manifesto and the same fake ID he used at a hostel. Come onnnn.
It's not that people don't make mistakes, it's that a guy who plans an audacious assassination with almost no evidence is not a guy who's going to carry around a manifesto with him
I'm going to believe that hostel guy was an accomplice and a decoy until there's convincing evidence otherwise
Because it revealed who she really is. Disrespectful, snotty, deeply unserious. It exposed her frivolity and her arrogance completely. A total lightweight, unprepared to deal with serious issues. Zero gravitas. Just ego.
People who are reflexively dismissive about accountability and apologies are deeply dangerous and unworthy of holding a high position. It tells you EVERYTHING about a person.
It was "I'M SPEAKING" that exposed her in an instant. Before that I thought there was a chance she could learn to lead. But after I saw that moment of pure snotty contempt from her towards her own voters, I realized that she is total trash. Even if she disagreed with the protesters there's a way to handle that with gravitas. Being a disrespectful snotty dipshit is a choice, and it was clear that she had made that choice many times before so it was easy for her. Absolutely no understanding of what's at stake.
Watching a video of a man who bought a $15,000 house in France (the cheapest house for sale in France) and he recorded 30 days of renovations, which involve demolishing the entire inside down to the studs. Maybe more than the studs, because he had for remove walls, ceilings, floors, and joists. I am not exaggerating when I say I started this with very low expectations and now I think it's the most compelling thing I've watched in months
Really starting to understand those older Italian men who gather outside construction sites every day just to watch the proceedings
They uncovered this incredible spiral staircase that had been completely walled up
I saw a TikTok from a young woman about how she paid $1000 to go to a yacht event in Monaco and people invited her to parties on some yachts "because I was dressed to impress...you can dress to show you bring value to the yacht."
And I don't know if anyone will tell her that cute dresses are not why young women are invited to yacht parties.
She's getting cooked in the comments -- but only because other young women don't think the dress is cute, not because anyone is pointing out the obvious fact that inviting young women with no money onto yachts is the equivalent of "ladies night" at a bar. The young women -- in any dress -- are there to bring the old men in.
I think this is what happens when young women are told that Old Money is an aesthetic you can buy through clothes, rather than a set of rigid and unspoken social codes that you instinctually understand.
It's also a result of the current nonsense that's been going around for years about "high-value women" or "high-value men" where "high-value" is a euphemism for how much money they have. There's no understanding that people are not their net worth.