What’s up with this?

James Carville is ordinarily a very outspoken advocate for the truth about the flood.

The two versions of his recent editorial (one to CNN, the other published in the TP) is very peculiar and is getting at lot of attention (see this neworleans.com article).  I sure don’t know whether Carville wrote two versions, or if the Times-Pic edited a letter he submitted; but it seems less plausible that Carville would have chosen to take out the passages from a letter to the local newspaper.

Curiouser and curiouser

The edits are… interesting.  These three (3) passages are deleted from the Times Picayune (TP) version of James Carville’s piece.


We felt the effects of this neglect for the past five years, after rebuilding a city which was 80 percent flooded due to shoddy construction of flood control systems and levees by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

and another:

In case anyone misses the point here, let me state it bluntly: There is nothing natural about the great engineering failure of 2005 in Orleans and Saint Bernard Parishes. There is nothing natural about the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico today. Both were the result of shoddy engineering on the part of private industry, which was in both cases supposed to be regulated and overseen by the federal government.

and a third:

Every penny that has been allocated to the hurricane recovery in Orleans and Saint Bernard is owed to us, and every penny in the future that will be allocated as a result of this current catastrophe is owed to us. We do not seek charity, but we do demand justice.

It’s not credible to me that Carville would cut those particular things for a different version to the Times-Pic.  But if he didn’t, then it’s too bad those parts didn’t make it past the TP’s editing staff.  Still, it’s better that the passages appeared in CNN and were left out of the TP than the other way around.

I wouldn’t call it “censorship,” since that really applies only to govt. action.  The Corps doesn’t govern the Times-Picayune — presumably.  The curious omissions in the TP version might be due to space constraints.  But if that were the case, are we expected to believe it’s mere coincidence that what got cut were each a reference to the truth about the flood?  Or, perhaps because local TP readers are so familiar with the truth that it doesn’t need to be pointed out anymore?  There are plenty of reasons for those omissions, but some of them aren’t so nice.