Another "right slanted view"....but worthy of debate:

[Qdrop]

An Objectivist Review

by Robert Tracinski | The Intellectual Activist


September 2, 2005

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out
how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because
it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there.
The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are
confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is
obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to
evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the
flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural
disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people
pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors,
nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do
is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are
suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not
expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but
about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by
federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane
Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel
has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen
over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane
Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be
confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in
an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other
emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying
that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what
we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They
work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize
to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We
are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather
than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this
a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light
had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve
as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and
large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a
description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives
and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police
and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas
National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

"'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she
said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know
how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary
and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article
shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an
armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid,
listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks
exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an
orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm
the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to
drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the
doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further
destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a
sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News
Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied
architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the
South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of
the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects,"
as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff
of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational
phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave
some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New
Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or
so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing
projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early
reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating
all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them
loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two
populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in
the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the
deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from
two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected,
over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness.
The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent
administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the
city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city,
despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted
by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of
handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not
to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some
are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example,
for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted
an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from
the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos
on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the
chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the
welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is
behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a
disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the
difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the
government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a
disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving
their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do
they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they
are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before.
Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a
way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and
encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that
has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
------------------

overall, this article paints with a very cynical and broad brush....

but it does bring up some intersting points as far the raping, looting, etc....

discuss...

[sam i am]

Sounds a lot like what valvano was saying previously...

I would err on the side of giving those who feel disenfranchised the maximum benefit of the doubt.

I remember the riots in LA after Rodney King.

Most of the rioting, looting, fighting, death, destruction, and burning were in neighborhoods where those who did the actions lived and worked every day.

We were huddled in the Valley expecting swarms of gangs to come over the hill and come after whites en masse. Instead, rage and anger were directed at those who were either caught in the crossfire (Reginald Denney) or who lived in the area (black and korean owned businesses).

So, what is the psychology behind trashing your own backyard to "get back" at the "man?"

What causes this kind of mentality in the US?

Who breeds such contempt for human life? Is it the education system? The welfare state? The Republicans? Black leaders? Lack of parenting?

The hard answers are out there, but who is willing to ask the questions?

[Qdrop]

So, what is the psychology behind trashing your own backyard to "get back" at the "man?"

What causes this kind of mentality in the US?

Who breeds such contempt for human life? Is it the education system? The welfare state? The Republicans? Black leaders? Lack of parenting?
it is very interesting..

The hard answers are out there, but who is willing to ask the questions? it's such a hot button....
and no one wants to be labeled a racist or classist....

[Schmeltz]

wards of the welfare state, people selected,
over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness.


How depressingly, predictably, libertarian. Poverty and ignorance are caused solely by laziness, huh? This event should only be interpreted on the basis of "values" and "morals" defined essentially in materialist terms? I halfway expected this guy to start trumpeting about the virtues of hurricanes that kill off the lazy black folks stealing our hard-earned dollars.

The problem - first and foremost - is poverty. Welfare programs as instituted in America might not be the best way to address poverty, but the fact remains that the problem is poverty. No amount of simplistic platitudes from ivory tower ideologues is going to change that.

[Qdrop]

How depressingly, predictably, libertarian. Poverty and ignorance are caused solely by laziness, huh? This event should only be interpreted on the basis of "values" and "morals" defined essentially in materialist terms? I halfway expected this guy to start trumpeting about the virtues of hurricanes that kill off the lazy black folks stealing our hard-earned dollars. yeah...i said it was pretty cynical and stereotypical...

there may be some truth to it.....but it's more about the poverty trap then personal laziness...

No amount of simplistic platitudes from ivory tower ideologues is going to change that. that sounds more like a jab at liberal institutional thinking.....

[Schmeltz]

You don't have to be a liberal to develop a complete insulation from reality. You'd hardly call the White House a liberal institution, now would you?

[Qdrop]

You don't have to be a liberal to develop a complete insulation from reality. agreed.

You'd hardly call the White House a liberal institution, now would you?

has it EVER been?

[D_Raay]

For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.

Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence. It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.

For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty line in the Katrina damage area - one-third of whom are elderly - are left exposed.

Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by unemployed, uneducated young men.

In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business. As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S.



These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate. Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point: The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over long-term community benefits.

Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call an "act of God."

Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that "floats all boats."

They were left floating all right.

[Qdrop]

the underlying question or debate is: how involved should the gov't be in our lives?
and what is the role of the gov't in your opinion?

[sam i am]

How involved? As little as possible. The more you rely on others, the more power you give them over the decisions you make in your life.

Take borrowing, for example. Even if you borrow from the epitome of virtuousness, you will be encumbered by your obligation to that person or entity.

We all "borrow" from the federal government whenever we accept it's benefits.

Now, this is not all bad. We all make "informed" decisions to give up our rights to absolute freedom by trading those rights for goods and services from others.

Family and friends are often those who demand the most in return. But, you also have the most accountability with them because they are close (in geographic location, usually & via emotional ties).

Local governments act much like family : you might see or read your local mayor's statements or even in person. Even your county commissioners are accessible via a short drive or e-mail or phone.

Moving up the ladder, you have more competition for the same amount of attention : state and national leaders have thousands or millions of people that they are accountable to. Therefore, they have to rely on those that are CLOSE to them (again, geographically, ideologically, spiritually, and financially) to avoid becoming overburdened and burnt-out on their responsibilities.

So, I am big believer in local and, to a lesser degree, state governments having much more power and financial responsibility than national or international governments, which, by their very nature, are going to be a LOT less concerned about my individual welfare due to their sheer number of constituents.

What's the opposite side of the argument have to say?

[D_Raay]

I think what separates us goes back to the very definition of the "left" and the "right".

The right is concerned with property ownership/rights, while the left is concerned with human rights/welfare. Where you are on that slide really is what makes the difference of opinion. For instance Q may be propped in the middle, while sam you are probably tilted over to the right.

My problem isn't so much that I am on the left, it is that our administration is trying to tilt it way too far to the right.

[sam i am]

I think what separates us goes back to the very definition of the "left" and the "right".

The right is concerned with property ownership/rights, while the left is concerned with human rights/welfare. Where you are on that slide really is what makes the difference of opinion. For instance Q may be propped in the middle, while sam you are probably tilted over to the right.

My problem isn't so much that I am on the left, it is that our administration is trying to tilt it way too far to the right.

So, D_Raay, are you saying that the role of government, to address Q's query, is to uphold human rights/welfare? To the detriment of anything else? Where do you draw the line?

I would venture to argue that those on the right not only hold property ownership/rights dearly, but, by extension, care about human rights/welfare as well. If you simply provide for a part of a human's needs, say food and water, they can still die from neglect or exposure without adequate shelter and clothing. And vice-versa.

What we on the right advocate is government assistance to be LIMITED to only those most in need (chronic mental or physical retardation patients for example) or TEMPORARILY needy (victims of natural disasters). These should be temporary interventions in peoples' lives.

When we rely most on family and friends, and only secondarily on government, we are MUCH more likely to lead productive, fulfilling lives. Think children....they are reliant on their parents, then they grow up and move out and start lives of their own. They cycle into being parents themselves or live out their lives solely caring for themselves and possibly a significant other. Do you really want some government entity intervening along the way? Telling you what to do each step?

Probably not.

[Funkaloyd]

Poverty's pretty damn permanent for a lot of people.

[Ali]

the underlying question or debate is: how involved should the gov't be in our lives?As involved as they need to be, no more no less.

The French govt are very involved in the lives of French people. It can be a bit irritating, sometimes, but when the chips are down, the government services are there and they are effective. Taxes are high and the cops can stop and search anyone, anywhere, but you get what you pay for - public transport is comfortable, reliable and cheap, unemployment is low, crime (therefore?) is low. Workers are not exploited (meaning that prices can be quite high, but hey). The state does take a lot of responsibility for things which people should be able to take care of themselves (education, insurance, etc.) and they do charge for it (up to 50% of your income gets taken by the Tax man), but one does feel secure in this country and this sense of security does come from the knowledge that you can always turn to the State for help and you will get it, within reasonable time and it will be good quality.

I guess not having a war to suck up public funds does help.

Having said all this, the French People are not afraid to tell their government and Big Business to go to Hell and are allowed to do this in the most effective manner possible: stikes. The moment the govermnent try to screw their people, or fuck up in some way, people down tools and go on the march. It 's a pretty good, if crude, regulatory system... a bit too good, I think, as people seem to put a lot more energy into striking than they do voting!

and what is the role of the gov't in your opinion?To protect and serve the PEOPLE (not the beaurocrats/politicians).

[D_Raay]

So, D_Raay, are you saying that the role of government, to address Q's query, is to uphold human rights/welfare? To the detriment of anything else? Where do you draw the line?

I would venture to argue that those on the right not only hold property ownership/rights dearly, but, by extension, care about human rights/welfare as well. If you simply provide for a part of a human's needs, say food and water, they can still die from neglect or exposure without adequate shelter and clothing. And vice-versa.

What we on the right advocate is government assistance to be LIMITED to only those most in need (chronic mental or physical retardation patients for example) or TEMPORARILY needy (victims of natural disasters). These should be temporary interventions in peoples' lives.

When we rely most on family and friends, and only secondarily on government, we are MUCH more likely to lead productive, fulfilling lives. Think children....they are reliant on their parents, then they grow up and move out and start lives of their own. They cycle into being parents themselves or live out their lives solely caring for themselves and possibly a significant other. Do you really want some government entity intervening along the way? Telling you what to do each step?

Probably not.

What I am trying to say is that THIS PARTICULAR ADMINISTATION is tilting it too far. We are seeing it with all these ridiculous notions that they hold seriously. Such as; intelligent design, permanent tax cuts, perpetual war, you get the idea right?

I would not complain if our government was more centrist, while I would continue to bandy about for more human rights, I would be much happier.

We sacrifice now for this admin. why not for a leftist one?
As Ali pointed out there are drawbacks to more leftist system it doesn't mean it doesn't have it's benefits. It's apples and oranges to some extent really, I just cannot abide by anything this admin. does or has done. They have never given me any reason to trust them.

What we really need is for you guys on the right to realize that we are not against you, we are against fascism and cronyism and everything else that goes along with the Bush administration.
We can live with alot of things that the right has to offer it just has to be genuous. It is not necessary to go after gays or to vilify the left even in the event they want to compromise. That's what Sisko would do simply because he is stupid. Frankly, I expect more from the right. We all can see what is wrong or right, partisanship shouldn't be an intellectual blockade.

[Qdrop]

As involved as they need to be, no more no less. well, of course.
but who draws the line?

Taxes are high and the cops can stop and search anyone, anywhere, see, i don't like that.

The state does take a lot of responsibility for things which people should be able to take care of themselves (education, insurance, etc.) and they do charge for it (up to 50% of your income gets taken by the Tax man), ugh.

but one does feel secure in this country and this sense of security does come from the knowledge that you can always turn to the State for help and you will get it, within reasonable time and it will be good quality. see, i don't see that as a good thing.
it sounds like a nanny state.
people shouldn't feel that if they fuck up, nanny gov't will take care of them and let them suck from her teet.
people should not feel entitled....people should not feel that they can afford to fuck up or underachive...cause they always got Nanny Gov't to fall back on.
people need to be personally responsible...to feel a dire need to be self sufficient....to be afraid of failure, and to push to avoid it.
safety nets, while sometimes beneficial, can be great hinderances as well.



Having said all this, the French People are not afraid to tell their government and Big Business to go to Hell and are allowed to do this in the most effective manner possible: stikes. The moment the govermnent try to screw their people, or fuck up in some way, people down tools and go on the march. It 's a pretty good, if crude, regulatory system... a bit too good, I think, as people seem to put a lot more energy into striking than they do voting! sounds good. wish our country-at-large would take a more active role.

To protect and serve the PEOPLE (not the beaurocrats/politicians). the perils of $$

[Ali]

people shouldn't feel that if they fuck up, nanny gov't will take care of them and let them suck from her teet.
people should not feel entitled....people should not feel that they can afford to fuck up or underachive...cause they always got Nanny Gov't to fall back on.
people need to be personally responsible...to feel a dire need to be self sufficient....to be afraid of failure, and to push to avoid it.
safety nets, while sometimes beneficial, can be great hinderances as well.
People are stupid, greedy and selfish. Like children, as samIam says. People fuck up and they need someone to take care of them, to run to when they need help.

The State ends up picking up the pieces, anyway, so they may as well stop these idiots from hurting themselves before it gets too messy.

I think that there's a very precise balance between state intervention and personal responsibility. I doubt any country's managed to find it.

[Documad]

So what is the article saying? If there had been no welfare for our poorest citizens, then what? They would have been living on a hill instead of in a bowl? They would have been empowered to protect their homes from 10 feet of water? How? The couple I know got 6 feet of water in their house and they were both employed.

Oh, and the guy stayed behind because his wife was out of town and the last five times his wife made him drive 6 plus hours to evacuate nothing happened. His house was fine after the hurricane this time too. It was the levee that destroyed his house. I guess that's welfare's fault too.

[Qdrop]

So what is the article saying? If there had been no welfare for our poorest citizens, then what? They would have been living on a hill instead of in a bowl? They would have been empowered to protect their homes from 10 feet of water? How? The couple I know got 6 feet of water in their house and they were both employed.

Oh, and the guy stayed behind because his wife was out of town and the last five times his wife made him drive 6 plus hours to evacuate nothing happened. His house was fine after the hurricane this time too. It was the levee that destroyed his house. I guess that's welfare's fault too.

^^ that all being true...

but the article was focusing more on the violent, aggressive actions of the survivors...and the reasons for such actions.

[Documad]

How many people were in New Orleans with the hurricane hit? How many of them raped and murdered their fellow citizens? How many of them helped their fellow citizens? Doesn't an end of the world type tragedy bring out the best and worst in people? The article is trying to put things together to sound logical but there is no logic there.

I also find it offensive to blame the victim of rape for rape. This adds an additional level of offense to that by arguing that they would have escaped their fate but for welfare.

Then there is the offensive proposition that all poor people are on welfare, and that everyone who didn't evacuate was either on welfare, a criminal, or both.

[Qdrop]

How many people were in New Orleans with the hurricane hit? How many of them raped and murdered their fellow citizens? How many of them helped their fellow citizens? Doesn't an end of the world type tragedy bring out the best and worst in people? and the question this guy is trying to answer is WHY does the worst come out in some people? what is the differance between those that step up, get on a boat and start saving people...and those that begin stealing TV's, shooting at rescuers, raping and robbing....?

you can't just say "well, people are just differant".
i mean, can you say it's purely genetic? does society and environment not play a role?
does a life on welfare, a family history of welfare....breed an "entitlement" mentality? which, in turn, leads to such brutish behavior when the "entitlement" isn't recieved?

I also find it offensive to blame the victim of rape for rape. This adds an additional level of offense to that by arguing that they would have escaped their fate but for welfare. were was that mentioned?

Then there is the offensive proposition that all poor people are on welfare, true, he did make that jump.
but come on...put down the PC shield for a sec.
you know as well as i, that no matter how you twist the statistics....the VAST majority of the poor in ANY area do recieve some form of welfare.

and that everyone who didn't evacuate was either on welfare, a criminal, or both. the statement he gave, which was quoted off of television was:
"75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects"

- it would stand to reason the most inhabitants of a housing project recieve welfare of some kind.
that is not racist. that is not classist.
that is basic social logic.

"... Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact:
early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. "


-that's a large part of the problem right there.


"...There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two
populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in
the housing projects, and vice versa."

-again, you can call that statement racist or classist...but would you dare bet against it?
would you?

it is illogical to simply dismiss any stereotype as basesless and inaccurate.
stereotypes are largely correct in some fashion, but are often pushed on the INDIVIDUAL rather then the GROUP (which is were the injustice takes place)... working in the field that you do, when someones says that most criminals come from a poor background...are they not correct?

but to meet someone who is poor, and to say "well, you're probably a criminal..so i won't hire you." would be an injustice.

[Ali]

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state.
What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is
behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a
disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the
difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the
government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a
disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.As far as I could tell, the "people with values" did as they were told and GTFO of the city.

The people who stayed behind consisted of people who either:

>wanted to leave, but didn't have access to the means to GTFO or didn't have anywhere to go

>didn't want to leave because they didn't think it would be so bad

>knew that there would be looting and wanted either to:

>>protect their property

or

>>profit from the chaos.

I think the profit motive has as much to do with the criminal behaviour as any amount of 'Welfare Mentality'.

[baltogrl71]

Each individual has a their own reason for how they got to the point in their life where they behave that way, you can't generalize. We generalize because it is easier to dehumanize these people than to truly try to understand them, did any of you worry about the social/economic status of NO before this, did any of us? My question is why is it such a welfare state when it is one of the biggest attractions in america? Why aren't there more jobs, you don't have to be very educated to work in the hospitality business, or fishing no degree needed there, and if there isn't enough work to make money why stay?

[Qdrop]

I think the profit motive has as much to do with the criminal behaviour as any amount of 'Welfare Mentality'.

so you think some of, or many of the looters were well-to-do, or middle class?

seriously....

and i know it's not that simple....nor was that what you were trying to say....but answer the question none-the-less....

[Qdrop]

My question is why is it such a welfare state when it is one of the biggest attractions in america? i don't understand this question.

Why aren't there more jobs, you don't have to be very educated to work in the hospitality business, or fishing no degree needed there, are you saying the reason for much of the poverty is lack of jobs? hence the large unemployment rate?

and if there isn't enough work to make money why stay?it cost alot of money to move. and you may have friends and family in the area.

[baltogrl71]

so you think some of, or many of the looters were well-to-do, or middle class?

seriously....

and i know it's not that simple....nor was that what you were trying to say....but answer the question none-the-less....

so poor people don't want to make a profit when they can?

[Qdrop]

so poor people don't want to make a profit when they can?
sure...that's not the question.

i was leaning toward the poor being MORE desparate...and thus more likely to commit such obvious illegal acts of theft.

the rich prefer to keep thier theivary hidden....with tax loopholes and stock scandals, etc.

[baltogrl71]

sure...that's not the question.

i was leaning toward the poor being MORE desparate...and thus more likely to commit such obvious illegal acts of theft.

the rich prefer to keep thier theivary hidden....with tax loopholes and stock scandals, etc.

oh, I agree.

[D_Raay]

i don't understand this question.

are you saying the reason for much of the poverty is lack of jobs? hence the large unemployment rate?

it cost alot of money to move. and you may have friends and family in the area.
She has a point. It's our current government , only without the fancy rhetoric mucking it up.

With millions of tourists and good time seekers coming in every year, you would think the wealth would be spread out a little more evenly.

Then again, at the risk of sounding UR, poor in New Orleans should take better advantage of this.

[baltogrl71]

yeah, isn't that what causes poverty most of the time.

I understand, but sometimes your friends and family are what keep you in that situation, or even cause it hence the cycle of welfare. And, if you realy want to move or better your life you can it is your choice in this country, no matter what anyone says.

[Qdrop]

yeah, isn't that what causes poverty most of the time.

I understand, but sometimes your friends and family are what keep you in that situation, or even cause it hence the cycle of welfare. And, if you realy want to move or better your life you can it is your choice in this country, no matter what anyone says.

i would tend to agree to a point...

be careful, though...with comments like that....the liberals on this board are bound to label you a republican Neohawk conservative!

[baltogrl71]

I'm sure, but to let them all know now I am far from that, actually I have been planning to start my own party it's called the comon sense party, I probably will not have too many followers in this country though. So far it is me and my two dogs, they agree with me completely.

[sam i am]

What we really need is for you guys on the right to realize that we are not against you, we are against fascism and cronyism and everything else that goes along with the Bush administration.

OK, D_Raay, here's the crucial point where we diverge.

As a student of history, I have read about and viewed (via TV, the internet, movies, etc.) what TRUE fascism and cronyism are like.

My opinion is that TRUE fascism was in evidence in the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and, to a lesser extent, Tojo and Mussolini. These were police state regimes where neighbors were organized and encouraged to spy for the state on their friends, relatives, and neighbors. As much as you hate Bush, and, by extension, the current political state of the US, that PARTICULAR type of paranoia is NOT occurring. You get a lesser extent of it in what Ali described previously, with the exception of the ability to strike, and more of an extent of it when you look at the regimes in North Korea and Cuba (Venezuela?) currently.

When you employ incendiary language like fascism, you evoke an emotional response in both those who agree with you and those who are inclined to the other side of the coin. It's like calling everyone Nazi's : a term so infused with darker implications that it can easily be employed to demonize those whom you oppose. It does NOT, however, make those monikers realistic nor apropos to the subject you are ascribing them to.

As for cronyism : when HASN'T cronyism been a part of life? Cronyism and nepotism are so entrenched in the human psyche that I'd wager it is a biological imperative. Of course we tend to gravitate towards, and give hand outs to and hands up to, those who agree with us and support us. Rarely is a quid pro quo NOT part of the arrangement of human interactions. That's why no one is friends with a brick wall. Get it?

I guess my only request from you, D_Raay, and those who agree with you, is that you seriously consider the phraseology you employ in order to advance your views, as they definitely undermine, in those of us who are inclined to be open-minded, the ability to fathom the depths you are willing to go to make yourself heard.

[Funkaloyd]

My opinion is that TRUE fascism was in evidence in the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and, to a lesser extent, Tojo and Mussolini. These were police state regimes where neighbors were organized and encouraged to spy for the state on their friends, relatives, and neighbors. As much as you hate Bush, and, by extension, the current political state of the US, that PARTICULAR type of paranoia is NOT occurring.
I don't see how your personal opinion on the definition of fascism is any more relevant than D_Raay's. How is it that the founder of fascism is any less a fascist than Stalin?

Regarding spying, remember this (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22Terrorism+Information+and+Prevention+S ystem%22&sourceid=mars&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)? Perhaps McCarthyism would be a better term for the political system that you describe.

[Documad]

The main problem with the article is that it sets the "criminals" and "wards of the welfare state" apart from the rest of the city, and then lumps them together throughout, making the wards of the welfare state guilty of anything they experienced, whether from the hurricane, the levees breaking, or from however many raped, killed and robbed them. I fail to see how they would have been better equipped to fight the hurricane, mend the levees, move to Texas for a few weeks, or anything else if they had not accepted government money in the past. Anyhow . . . .

An Objectivist Review
I think reporters should be objective rather than objectivist. Whatever.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle.
FEMA and Homeland Security are supposed to be the experts. Having seen various scenarios where power was lost in big cities without a natural disaster, I'd expect criminals to take advantage. Especially if the food, water and doctors didn't arrive right away.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The hurricane and slow government response hurt far more people than the criminals who took advantage of the hurricane and slow federal response.

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them? My wife, Sherri, figured it out first. What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects."
Yeah, Sherri's a real genius. She got divine inspiration in the form of a "whiff of the projects." That tells me a lot about the author and "Sherri".

Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects.
It's silly, I know, but in the midst of this disaster, who was keeping the stats? "A large number" were from the projects. Meaning what? 280,000 is a large number. So is 500. But it doesn't matter. It makes sense. Poor people live in projects and poor people are less likely to have cars and the means to stay in a hotel for a week, or any other sort of security net. As we've found out recently, the old and the sick in "nursing homes" were even more vulnerable than the people in the "projects."

Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose.
That doesn't outrage me. Jail isn't prison. People are in jail for a lot of different reasons, and usually they haven't been convicted. Moving a bunch of people who need to be locked up would be a tough proposition when cops are needed elsewhere. I'd let the guys who were awaiting trial on charges of driving without a license, check forging, drug possession, DWI, and property crimes walk out and concentrate on moving the ones being held for murder, rape, assault, etc.

There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.
I'm guessing that there is an overlap. But it doesn't mean that one causes the other. He's saying that the housing project causes the person to be charged with a crime. That's textbook faulty logic. If there was no housing project, where would the people living there live? Would none of them commit crimes?

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
So there are three types of people (1) innocent ones (2) criminals, and (3) wards of the welfare state. The wards of the welfare state are not innocent. What are they guilty of? I assume that some of the wards of the welfare state were the ones that were raped right?

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them.
So this is how the "wards of the welfare state" are guilty! They didn't respond appropriately to the hurricane and didn't do whatever it took to avoid being raped and robbed, and starved and abandoned. They should have "fought against" the hurricane!

But what about . . . welfare parasites? . . . Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
I submit that they were the victims of the crime and looting. They were the rape victims. But apparently that's because they accepted public housing.

[Documad]

I guess my only request from you, D_Raay, and those who agree with you, is that you seriously consider the phraseology you employ in order to advance your views, as they definitely undermine, in those of us who are inclined to be open-minded, the ability to fathom the depths you are willing to go to make yourself heard.
I agree that no one should be compared to Hitler, because it lessens what Hitler did.

Sam I am, because you are giving advice to the liberals on how to relate to you, I am sure that you would appreciate some advice on how to speak to me and others like me. You are probably not aware that you sometimes talk to us as if we were students or children. No one likes a lecture. Whenever someone talks down to me--whether in a negative manner (saying I don't understand plain English) or a positive manner (giving me a pat on the head)--it's insulting and I don't take it in. You seem to be doing more of the second lately.

btw, I know that I'm guilty of it too. :p

[D_Raay]

OK, D_Raay, here's the crucial point where we diverge.

As a student of history, I have read about and viewed (via TV, the internet, movies, etc.) what TRUE fascism and cronyism are like.

My opinion is that TRUE fascism was in evidence in the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and, to a lesser extent, Tojo and Mussolini. These were police state regimes where neighbors were organized and encouraged to spy for the state on their friends, relatives, and neighbors. As much as you hate Bush, and, by extension, the current political state of the US, that PARTICULAR type of paranoia is NOT occurring. You get a lesser extent of it in what Ali described previously, with the exception of the ability to strike, and more of an extent of it when you look at the regimes in North Korea and Cuba (Venezuela?) currently.

When you employ incendiary language like fascism, you evoke an emotional response in both those who agree with you and those who are inclined to the other side of the coin. It's like calling everyone Nazi's : a term so infused with darker implications that it can easily be employed to demonize those whom you oppose. It does NOT, however, make those monikers realistic nor apropos to the subject you are ascribing them to.

As for cronyism : when HASN'T cronyism been a part of life? Cronyism and nepotism are so entrenched in the human psyche that I'd wager it is a biological imperative. Of course we tend to gravitate towards, and give hand outs to and hands up to, those who agree with us and support us. Rarely is a quid pro quo NOT part of the arrangement of human interactions. That's why no one is friends with a brick wall. Get it?

I guess my only request from you, D_Raay, and those who agree with you, is that you seriously consider the phraseology you employ in order to advance your views, as they definitely undermine, in those of us who are inclined to be open-minded, the ability to fathom the depths you are willing to go to make yourself heard.

I apologize if you find my language incendiary. I believe we have a difference of opinion on what fascism actually means. To me it means a government run by and for big business.

If a legitimate business ran things the way you suggested regarding cronyism, they wouldn't be in business long. If you are qualified for a job and you happen to be in my circle of friends, then yes, maybe you call that cronyism. However, incredibly underqualified friends gaining positions they have no idea how to handle, well that's just plain dumb , and is the type of cronyism I was alluding to.

[Ali]

so you think some of, or many of the looters were well-to-do, or middle class?

seriously....

and i know it's not that simple....nor was that what you were trying to say....but answer the question none-the-less....Naw, they was all poor folk. Poorly-educated, low-skilled, low paid, unemployed, underemployed Welfare Parasites and criminals from the Projects; like your article says.

Rich folk don't need to loot. They own businesses and have well-paid jobs and live in the 'nice' part of town. They are well-insured. They have cars and credit cards. They all got the hell out as soon as they could. Went and stayed with friends in Jefferson Parish and other places where the would-be-looters weren't allowed...

But well-to-do and middle class people DO steal, murder and rape, when they get the chance. Don't they? Ken Lay (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/02/enron_insure.html), for instance. He stole WAY more than any looter and what he stole wasn't even insured. There are plenty of rapes commited by wealthy people (http://www.colorado.edu/journalism/boards/bylines/messages/7293.html), not to mention murder (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/29/1122144020682.html?from=top5&oneclick=true)

When some people get the chance to commit a crime with little chance of getting caught, especially when everybody else is doing it (mob mentality) they do it, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, they do it.

The fact that the poor have less to lose and more to gain by committing a crime doesn't make it a necessity that a poor person will commit a crime and a rich person wouldn't. What I mean by this is that poor people are not automatically going to commit a crime and rich people are not.

The fact that there are more poor people than rich people makes the statistical liklihood of a crime being committed by a poor person much higher, but if there were the same number of rich and poor people and if 'white collar' crime was as easy to detect and prosecute as 'blue collar' crime, then would the distribution be the same as it is now?

[Documad]

When some people get the chance to commit a crime with little chance of getting caught, especially when everybody else is doing it (mob mentality) they do it, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, they do it.

This is so true. You see it all the time with juvenile crime, for instance. Get some drunken guys together and they will do all kinds of stupid shit they wouldn't do separately.

[Qdrop]

Naw, they was all poor folk. Poorly-educated, low-skilled, low paid, unemployed, underemployed Welfare Parasites and criminals from the Projects; like your article says.

Rich folk don't need to loot. They own businesses and have well-paid jobs and live in the 'nice' part of town. They are well-insured. They have cars and credit cards. They all got the hell out as soon as they could. Went and stayed with friends in Jefferson Parish and other places where the would-be-looters weren't allowed...

But well-to-do and middle class people DO steal, murder and rape, when they get the chance. Don't they? Ken Lay (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/02/enron_insure.html), for instance. He stole WAY more than any looter and what he stole wasn't even insured. There are plenty of rapes commited by wealthy people (http://www.colorado.edu/journalism/boards/bylines/messages/7293.html), not to mention murder (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/29/1122144020682.html?from=top5&oneclick=true)

When some people get the chance to commit a crime with little chance of getting caught, especially when everybody else is doing it (mob mentality) they do it, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, they do it.

The fact that the poor have less to lose and more to gain by committing a crime doesn't make it a necessity that a poor person will commit a crime and a rich person wouldn't. What I mean by this is that poor people are not automatically going to commit a crime and rich people are not.

The fact that there are more poor people than rich people makes the statistical liklihood of a crime being committed by a poor person much higher, but if there were the same number of rich and poor people and if 'white collar' crime was as easy to detect and prosecute as 'blue collar' crime, then would the distribution be the same as it is now?


yeah, no shit.

i was leaning toward the poor being MORE desparate...and thus more likely to commit such obvious illegal acts of theft.

the rich prefer to keep thier theivary hidden....with tax loopholes and stock scandals, etc.
do you EVER bother reading through a thread first?

[Ali]

yeah, no shit.


do you EVER bother reading through a thread first?That's what made me think of it, dude, I was expanding on what you said.

Touchy today?

[Qdrop]

The main problem with the article is that it sets the "criminals" and "wards of the welfare state" apart from the rest of the city, and then lumps them together throughout, making the wards of the welfare state guilty of anything they experienced, whether from the hurricane, the levees breaking, or from however many raped, killed and robbed them. I fail to see how they would have been better equipped to fight the hurricane, mend the levees, move to Texas for a few weeks, or anything else if they had not accepted government money in the past. that's really not what it's talking about.
you're missing the point, again.

you are rewriting the article in your mind....and then setting up an argument against it...mostly because you have other points you want to make, and want to use this article to do that.
that's called a strawman.

the point that the author is making (which i only partially agree with) is that being on welfare creates an entitlement syndrome...which he feels contributed to the violence and crime.



It's silly, I know, but in the midst of this disaster, who was keeping the stats? "A large number" were from the projects. Meaning what? 280,000 is a large number. So is 500. But it doesn't matter. It makes sense. Poor people live in projects and poor people are less likely to have cars and the means to stay in a hotel for a week, or any other sort of security net. right, and the author is saying that THAT..AND...his proposed entitlement syndrome...are what illicited such a violent and criminal response from many of the "left behinds".


I'm guessing that there is an overlap. But it doesn't mean that one causes the other. He's saying that the housing project causes the person to be charged with a crime. That's textbook faulty logic. If there was no housing project, where would the people living there live? Would none of them commit crimes? i don't think he's saying that.
you are correct that that WOULD be faulty logic....but i don't think that is what he is saying.
there is not a direct corrolation (or causation) between housing projects and crime.....but rather a common denominator between the two.


So this is how the "wards of the welfare state" are guilty! They didn't respond appropriately to the hurricane i think that is what he's saying, yes.

and didn't do whatever it took to avoid being raped and robbed, and starved and abandoned. They should have "fought against" the hurricane! he talking firstly about those that DID the raping, robbing , etc and why they did that.....and then talking about those that he felt were complaning about thier situation and expecting help and aid, rather then shut up and "rolling thier sleeves up" and helping themselves and other around them- due to thier entitlement syndrome that he feels welfare causes.

[sam i am]

I agree that no one should be compared to Hitler, because it lessens what Hitler did.

Sam I am, because you are giving advice to the liberals on how to relate to you, I am sure that you would appreciate some advice on how to speak to me and others like me. You are probably not aware that you sometimes talk to us as if we were students or children. No one likes a lecture. Whenever someone talks down to me--whether in a negative manner (saying I don't understand plain English) or a positive manner (giving me a pat on the head)--it's insulting and I don't take it in. You seem to be doing more of the second lately.

btw, I know that I'm guilty of it too. :p

Got it. I wish we could express tone more appropriately on these boards, but the very nature of message boards disallows such a convention.

If, EVER, I have seemed over condescending or like I am speaking to you all as if you were children, I truly do apologize.

As for speaking to you as if you are students, well, I consider that a compliment, actually. I am a student as well, never feeling as if I have all of the answers, but rather that I trying to learn about opposing or dissenting points of view in order to sharpen or clarify my own points of view. I may be, but I'm not sure, one of the few who actually reads through all of the links and previous posts prior to posting. I also happen to have a History degree from a University and am proud of the knowledge I have. I enjoy imparting what I have to offer to buttress my points and rebut those points that do not jibe with what I have learned over my life.

I again apologize if this is off-putting or unlikable.

Finally, I appreciate your stances, Documad, on not overdoing the hype of language and reverting to Hitlerian comparisons. I have endeavored, on this time through the message boards, to be more amicable and less touchy in order to enjoy the forays into our political discussions. I will continue to endeavor to do better so that we can have an open political dialogue henceforward.

And......BTW......this includes Ali as well. My sincere apologies, Ali, if we got off on the wrong foot previously : I will be better at taking things not personally. Hope you're willing to do the same and give me a second chance.

Call me on it if you see me going too far off the deep end again, ok all?

[sam i am]

I apologize if you find my language incendiary. I believe we have a difference of opinion on what fascism actually means. To me it means a government run by and for big business.

If a legitimate business ran things the way you suggested regarding cronyism, they wouldn't be in business long. If you are qualified for a job and you happen to be in my circle of friends, then yes, maybe you call that cronyism. However, incredibly underqualified friends gaining positions they have no idea how to handle, well that's just plain dumb , and is the type of cronyism I was alluding to.

D_Raay : apology accepted. It's one of those things that I can be guilty of on occasion as well, but I'm no sisko.

Dictionary definition of fascism : A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship (one of the key differences between our system of government and what was present in Italy in the 20's-40's) of the extreme right (we still have Democrats who are permitted :rolleyes: to vote), typically through the merging of state and business leadership (if we had Bill Gates running things or the Walton family, you'd have a good argument on that point), together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism (even Bush isn't advocating the return of "American" lands in Canada or Mexico that were conquered during previous wars).

As much as I agree with you on the stupidity inherent in cronyism for underqualified friends or family, it happens ALL the time throughout the world. It's actually worse in most other countries because they rarely have the same adherence to meritocracy that we do in the USA.

[Documad]

that's really not what it's talking about.
you're missing the point, again.

you are rewriting the article in your mind....and then setting up an argument against it...mostly because you have other points you want to make, and want to use this article to do that.
that's called a strawman.
I'll stick with what I said because I'm pretty confident of my ability to read and understand the English language.

The article was poorly constructed, full of offensive, coded language, and not remotely clever. If you want to make a point about welfare, the hurricane is a poor excuse to do it.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about the rapes. How many people committed rape in the week after the hurricane? How many rapes occur in N.O. in a normal week? I'm betting a lot.

And how many women are raped every time an army invades a country? Is that the fault of welfare too?

People suck.