Bush laughing off New Orleans

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I've looked for it, but I can't find the poem that was written a while back and posted. I think either DFP or Mr Biggs wrote it called 'Nero 2.0'.

Here's a chain of events from one of many perspectives (section quoted here due to length):

Mr biggs or DFP????!!!! That was me!!!
Just because I'm a jerk, it doesn't mean I'm not creative,,,,
PM me for a copy....

That aside....

What went on in New Orleans was terrible. I wouldn't wish it on anybody or anywhere (except perhaps a certain ranch in Crawford)... What he tried to craft was a vision of rebirth, and instead came up looking stupid and arrogant... as usual.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Frankly I think what's coming out here has the flavor of political correctness.

Darn it, guys, he's caught us. No foolin' Inq, nosirree.

Yes, you're right: the thousands of dead and homeless hung around for the sole purpose of proving our PC point. They refused to budge lest they be judged "well-off" and/or "capable." EVERYONE knows the underclass are a bunch of fakers who really could pull themselves up by their bootstraps during a hurricane-induced levy break flood if they tried just a teensy bit harder.

We're trying to be too considerate, and I'm glad Inq set the record straight.

[Inquartata]

Nice straw men you build.

No, I'm not criticizing the poor for being poor. I'm criticizing YOU, for being willing to turn a blind eye to the concepts of self-help and responsibility wherever the poor are concerned.

The poor are, to paraphrase Fitzgerald, only "different" than you or me in that they have less money. There are the same percentages of smart and stupid, selfless and selfish, honest and dishonest, shortsighted and farsighted as in any other segment of the population. That means, whether you care to hear it or not, that the same percentage of them, faced with a given situation, are going to make bad choices and do idiotic things as in any other segment of the population. And when they do, their poverty is not a magic wand to absolve them of the consequences of those decisions. Except, apparently, in the eyes of apologists such as yourself.

I have no doubt that many of the people we have seen in on the news had the chance to get out and chose not to take it. Just as many of the people that the search-and-rescue helo crews found in the last few days have CHOSEN not to be pulled off their rooftops. Call it stupidity, fear of the unknown, foolhardiness, lack of the ability to look ahead, or what have you---they are still on those rooftops because they turned down the chance to get away. This after a week of hellish conditions. But of course, those same people BEFORE the hellish conditions were just helpless to take chances to get away. It couldn't have been a choice, no, no...that was different.

Remember those scenes of the lines of traffic headed out of the city before the storm hit? All they had to do was trudge out to the highways and I suspect that SOMEONE would have given them a lift. Truck, bus, car, whatever. You know, all of those caring, altruistic liberals in the lines of cars at least would have taken as many as they could carry, I'm sure! Even lacking access to cars of their own, or of acquaintances. But you're right, poverty can only equal helplessness. Right. Even walking isn't possible for those of "limited means".

Just keep on wringing your hands, and imagining that only pure victims bereft of any degree of choice whatsoever remained behind. And that I am sure will improve the outcomes the next time something like this happens.

Oh, look---I can sneer as well as you can...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No, I'm not criticizing the poor for being poor. I'm criticizing YOU, for being willing to turn a blind eye to the concepts of self-help and responsibility wherever the poor are concerned.

There is plenty of blame to spread around on all levels. First, it has to be established that they had the opportunity and sufficient transportation to leave. Have you ever taken your 70 year old grandma and 3 kids on a road trip at the same time? What did you pack? OK, now how about on a trip you didn't budget for that may last indefinitely?

There still may be no excuse not to obey a mandatory evacuation, but what was provided for said evacuation? There were tourists stranded in hotels and at the airport when the airport closed flights, what provisions were made to remove them from the situation?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The poor are, to paraphrase Fitzgerald, only "different" than you or me in that they have less money. ...

I have no doubt that many of the people we have seen in on the news had the chance to get out and chose not to take it. ...

I suspect ...

Just keep on wringing your hands, and imagining that only pure victims bereft of any degree of choice whatsoever remained behind.

Firstly, F.Scott had a comfortable life and only believed he had it tough. Any observations he had about being poor are based on questionable bias and appeal mainly to people who believe life provides opportunity equally to everyone.

Secondly, no one here is putting the poor on a pedastal or suggesting they can't be held accountable for their actions. Only the well-off argue points of "accountability" when the underclass are in need. You first raised the issue here. You said it was impossible to believe none of those people had access to resources to leave in time. Other people trying to do good are stepping up to help, to ask why such a tragedy (levy break, limited emergency response) could occur -- regardless of the misleading courtroom points of "accountability" -- while you hide behind a facade of "We wouldn't have to help if they had helped themselves already."

Thirdly, your statements easily switch perspective between vague modifiers of "some" and "many" to the unstated but implied "all." For example, the guy who doesn't want to leave a roof is somehow representative of all people who stayed behind? Balderdash. That would be as wrongheaded as me believing all people of comfortable wealth are conservative dunderheads based on the one guy I see posting silly troll bait on this message board. ... The examples you choose to help you sleep at night do not negate to the people who do, truly, need and seek help but who were unable able to at that moment and in that environment. It may be that certain "undeserving" individuals benefit from aid, but it is a selfish person who uses that as an excuse to withhold compassion from everyone else.

My life and background is a private matter, so I'm not going to lay it bare for examination among strangers like yourself. But I will say I've experienced poverty firsthand. I still live immediately next door to it. Come on down from the Ivory Tower sometime and get your hands dirty amongst the common folk; it'll broaden your perspective.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nice straw men you build.

No, I'm not criticizing the poor for being poor. I'm criticizing YOU, for being willing to turn a blind eye to the concepts of self-help and responsibility wherever the poor are concerned.

The poor are, to paraphrase Fitzgerald, only "different" than you or me in that they have less money. There are the same percentages of smart and stupid, selfless and selfish, honest and dishonest, shortsighted and farsighted as in any other segment of the population. That means, whether you care to hear it or not, that the same percentage of them, faced with a given situation, are going to make bad choices and do idiotic things as in any other segment of the population. And when they do, their poverty is not a magic wand to absolve them of the consequences of those decisions. Except, apparently, in the eyes of apologists such as yourself.

I have no doubt that many of the people we have seen in on the news had the chance to get out and chose not to take it. Just as many of the people that the search-and-rescue helo crews found in the last few days have CHOSEN not to be pulled off their rooftops. Call it stupidity, fear of the unknown, foolhardiness, lack of the ability to look ahead, or what have you---they are still on those rooftops because they turned down the chance to get away. This after a week of hellish conditions. But of course, those same people BEFORE the hellish conditions were just helpless to take chances to get away. It couldn't have been a choice, no, no...that was different.

Remember those scenes of the lines of traffic headed out of the city before the storm hit? All they had to do was trudge out to the highways and I suspect that SOMEONE would have given them a lift. Truck, bus, car, whatever. You know, all of those caring, altruistic liberals in the lines of cars at least would have taken as many as they could carry, I'm sure! Even lacking access to cars of their own, or of acquaintances. But you're right, poverty can only equal helplessness. Right. Even walking isn't possible for those of "limited means".

Just keep on wringing your hands, and imagining that only pure victims bereft of any degree of choice whatsoever remained behind. And that I am sure will improve the outcomes the next time something like this happens.

Oh, look---I can sneer as well as you can...

It must be hard going through life believeing only what you see and discounting everybody else's experience as impossible because that has never happened to you.

You really are a small ignornat little man if the deaths of 10,000 people only makes you think, "gee they really didn't WANT to get out".

There will come a day when you need the compassion of strangers and I hope they respond to you in the manner you've done so here. You need that lesson very badly.

[esskreemr]

Oh yeah, thanks to the Bush Admin and the repubs, these people better start declaring bankruptcy before Oct 17th when the 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005' goes into effect.

[Mr Epee]

Courtesy of David Letterman:

Top 10 Signs you have a bad job:

2. Your name is George W. Bush (Oh wait, that's a a sign that you are DOING a bad job)

[ThatReallyHurt]

Forgive me - I know shockingly little of American politics, but this struck me as funny (in a sense, not a sense):

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation..._20050906.html

President Bush wants to lead the investigation into the delays getting aid out. Isn't he someone that people have been complaining about, and if that's the case, should he be the one leading the investigation?

This is amusing:

"What I intend to do is lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong," Bush said. "We still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure we can respond properly if there is a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack or another major storm."

I like how he brings up the spectre of WMD again...

[esskreemr]

Wouldn't you want to lead the investigation if you were at the top of the food-chain being investigated?

TRH, this is just another way to roll the **** further down the hill. I'm sure some low-level patsy will be fired within a few months. Probably at the state level.

Bush and his cabinet will be exonerated for: 1) Appointing a failed horse manager with no natural disaster management experience to head FEMA (twice), 2) Cutting budgets for the Lousiana levees, 3) Failing to act (once again) to red flags raised by FEMA and the Army Corp of Engineers, 4) Placing FEMA under the USDHS which promptly sucked all its funds away, 5) Engaging us in a war and then sending up to 35% of Louisiana's Nat'l Guard and its heavy equipment overseas to Iraq.

In most other countries, the entire cabinet would most likely have resigned in shame. Fortunately, in this country, we have a system much like that of a limited liability corporation so we can place the blame of the levees breaking squarely where it belongs; on the heads of the poor who didn't evacuate.

We need to call this what it is, Bush Foreseen Tragedy #2.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

There is plenty of blame to spread around on all levels.

You are absolutely right, and I am not even looking to place the greater part of it on the shoulders of those who remained behind. It just galls me that we are expected to swallow the notion that ALL who remained behind did so because their "limited circumstances" forced them to do so; that somehow all one has to say is "they are poor" and all responsibility for even an attempt at self-preservation falls from them and lands on society, or the government.

First, it has to be established that they had the opportunity and sufficient transportation to leave.

True. And again, I do not dispute that there were some who simply had no option but to cling grimly to their rooftops. But---30,000 of them?! Did NONE of them have any choice? Really?

My boss's family comes from Mississippi, and he lived for some years in NO. This morning as we were discussing the situation he said to me "I've been poor, I've had no car before. I would have been out there walking away if I had to. You've got to do something to help yourself".

Have you ever taken your 70 year old grandma and 3 kids on a road trip at the same time? What did you pack? OK, now how about on a trip you didn't budget for that may last indefinitely?

I have no kids, and all of my grandparents are long deceased. But I take your point.

There still may be no excuse not to obey a mandatory evacuation, but what was provided for said evacuation? There were tourists stranded in hotels and at the airport when the airport closed flights, what provisions were made to remove them from the situation?

I don't know. My boss also says that the levels of corruption and incompetence in NO officialdom are monumental, so it doesn't surprise me that little was done. But then, I'd lay odds that most of the people living in NO know about the corruption and incompetence, too, and at least suspected that they'd be thrown on their own resources for evacuation.

This morning I was watching Katie Couric interview a family in NO. They had made a voluntary decision to defy the evacuation order and stay in their house no matter what, and were still planning on doing so. They were obviously not wealthy, but they had a generator and so presumably had the resources to get out of town had they wished, and the lady of the house was a nurse and said that because she made a decent living she "could afford to be out of work for awhile". This family's gamble had not proved fatal, but the husband told of finding a friend and neighbor floating drowned in the flooded streets.

My original point was not that no one was trapped by the vicissitudes of their lives, but that I had trouble believing that NONE of them were able to escape, that NONE of them had access to vehicles of their own or relatives or friends, that NONE of them bore any iota of responsibility for making an effort to save themselves and their families. I was looking askance at the popular generalization that "all these poor people were unable to leave because of their straightened financial circumstances".

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My original point was not that no one was trapped by the vicissitudes of their lives, but that I had trouble believing that NONE of them were able to escape, that NONE of them had access to vehicles of their own or relatives or friends, that NONE of them bore any iota of responsibility for making an effort to save themselves and their families. I was looking askance at the popular generalization that "all these poor people were unable to leave because of their straightened financial circumstances".

But there ya go, in that last sentence: A generalization does not mean "all." You seemed to infer it as such -- and sometimes the original speaker is stupid enough to believe his own generalization as the whole truth even as the words tumble over his lips -- but generalizations are only general.

Yes, we can agree that there are some ne'er-do-well folks who made bad decisions to be stranded in New Orleans, and yes, we might even declare them to be "undeserving" of our sympathy in some sense. But generally speaking, people living at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder have core problems the rest of us don't (otherwise they wouldn't be there now, would they?). And it does a disservice to the nature of humanity to discount their needs in time of crisis for any reason.

What ticks ME off (and this is not directed at you) is seeing officials already trying to distract the public by announcing elaborate plans to hunt down those who are responsible for related failures. A beautiful ploy, that: Protect yourself by leading the mob.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

Firstly, F.Scott had a comfortable life and only believed he had it tough. Any observations he had about being poor are based on questionable bias and appeal mainly to people who believe life provides opportunity equally to everyone.

I was not forwarding him as an authority on poverty. I was paraphrasing a famous bon mot of his about the rich. Fitzgerald, the story goes, remarked that "The rich are very different from you and me". Hemingway retorted "Yes, they have more money". Which was to say, they are not intrinsically different; they are not a different species; they are as human and as fraught with human failings and strengths and frailties and peccadilloes as all other human beings. And so too, I maintain, are the poor. Their circumstances may be more spartan, but they are as likely to be good or bad, wise or foolish, clever or dull, prudent or profligate, honest or dishonest, as the people of any other wealth stratum. That being so, one ought not get a pass on wrong behavior or idiotic decisions merely because of ones penury.

I know that many of us have internalized the Christian principles: The meek shall inherit the earth, the poor are noble and must be helped and served, and all that. And I know that it's a tacit expectation that those who are not poor may never criticize the decisions or practices of the poor, just as whites are discouraged from criticizing those of minorities. I just don't think that's a very fruitful attitude, widely promoted though it may be...

Secondly, no one here is putting the poor on a pedastal or suggesting they can't be held accountable for their actions.

No? Then on what grounds was my dubiety---"I still have trouble believing that none of those people of "limited circumstances" had a car, or a neighbor with a car, or a relative/friend/acquaintance with car. A good number of them made a bad decision"---objectionable?

( Note, I did not assert that I doubted that ANY of the people who stayed in the city really could not get out. )

Only the well-off argue points of "accountability" when the underclass are in need.

"Only"? How many poor people do you know? I've had conversations with lots of people who either were poor or had been raised in poor households who are as critical of the laziness and sense of entitlement and fungible morality of some of their fellows as anyone...

You said it was impossible to believe none of those people had access to resources to leave in time.

Exactly. And this is controversial to you---why?

Other people trying to do good are stepping up to help, to ask why such a tragedy (levy break, limited emergency response) could occur -- regardless of the misleading courtroom points of "accountability" -- while you hide behind a facade of "We wouldn't have to help if they had helped themselves already."

Not "hiding" in any sense of the word. I'm standing right out here in the open and saying it.

And I'll say again: many of those rescues we have seen probably would not have been necessary but for the bad decisions and squandered opportunities of the people who ended up needing them. They should be available to those who are truly overcome by circumstances beyond their control, not to bail out those who simply chose not to try to get themselves out of harms way. There are IMO certain to be many of the latter amongst the tens of thousands who did not leave the city.

Thirdly, your statements easily switch perspective between vague modifiers of "some" and "many" to the unstated but implied "all."

The day is not here when you get to tell me what I "really mean". Put your mindreading turban away, Karnak.

For example, the guy who doesn't want to leave a roof is somehow representative of all people who stayed behind?

He is representative of---himself. One example of a voluntarily stranded moron effectively refutes the blanket statement that "those people couldn't leave because they were too poor", though, doesn't it?

people of comfortable wealth are conservative dunderheads based on the one guy I see posting silly troll bait on this message board...

Karnak sees all, Karnak knows all...but Karnak can't make his argument without ad hominem insults...

The examples you choose to help you sleep at night

I sleep fine, and without any need to pat myself on the back for my great compassion and pity for my fellow man. Sorry that you are affronted by those who feel no need to beat their breasts to prove their humanity to the crowd.

do not negate to the people who do, truly, need and seek help but who were unable able to [i]at that moment and in that environment.

Conceded, and there doubtless were many. What is your basis for swallowing the simplifications being bruited about in the medai about how NONE of those who stayed could have escaped on their own, merely because they were poor? Do you really believe that there were NONE who as I said might have escaped but didn't, out of choice? Or that if these exist we must all be silent and pretend that they did nothing wrong simply because they are in "limited circumstances"? That poverty effectively places one above being held to account for ones own mistakes and bad choices?

It may be that certain "undeserving" individuals benefit from aid, but it is a selfish person who uses that as an excuse to withhold compassion from everyone else.

And I suppose you can find where I said that?

My life and background is a private matter, so I'm not going to lay it bare for examination among strangers like yourself.

Likewise. Oh, but I forgot, you already know all you need to know about me. I'm that rich conservative dunderhead from the ivory tower...which you know by close acquaintance with me...yes?

I will say I've experienced poverty firsthand. I still live immediately next door to it. Come on down from the Ivory Tower sometime and get your hands dirty amongst the common folk; it'll broaden your perspective.

Gosh, sir, I'll run right out and do that---because I'm so impressed with your general worldview and wisdom and moral superiority thus far that I'm sure you must be right...

[Have At You]

As long as blame IS being spread around, how about pointing fingers at the people in charge of the fiasco: Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

Mr. Nagrin had as much warning as any, and did zilch to prepare his city. After the disaster struck, his contribution has been pretty much limited to screaming at President Bush in hopes of drawing attention away from the city's acute failure of planning.

As mayor, Mr. Nagin just accepted that New Orleans was a lawless city and he never cracked down on crime the way Rudy Giuliani had in New York. After several years of slowing down, the city's eye-popping murder rate actually reversed and began growing again during his tenure. No wonder career criminals were primed to take over the streets as soon as the evacuation began. And can anyone imagine hundreds of Giuliani's New York cops quitting at the first sign of crisis, with some reportedly even joining in the looting?

Gov. Blanco had been no godsend either. Though the days before the storm hit are still murky, there have been reports that she waved off federal requests to start the evacuation earlier and enforce it more actively. She also blocked unified command of the troops in the city by refusing to sign over control of the state's National Guard units to the Pentagon. Instead, she asked James Lee Witt, Bill Clinton's former FEMA director, to run the relief efforts.

No disaster was more widely and accurately forecast than this one. That the city and state had basically accepted for years that New Orleans would be inundated with many thousands of residents still trapped inside will certainly be the crucial matter for inquests to come.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Drifter

It must be hard going through life believeing only what you see and discounting everybody else's experience as impossible because that has never happened to you.

You really are a small ignornat little man if the deaths of 10,000 people only makes you think, "gee they really didn't WANT to get out".

There will come a day when you need the compassion of strangers and I hope they respond to you in the manner you've done so here. You need that lesson very badly.

Not even worth wasting an argument upon.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Oh yeah, thanks to the Bush Admin and the repubs, these people better start declaring bankruptcy before Oct 17th when the 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005' goes into effect.

Ah, so it's perfect