![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 31. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by KaraS on September 11, 2005, at 20:34:56
I just read this poll on CNN.com. I'm just wondering how many more days would the people in the Superdome have had to go without food, water or sanitation before those other 48% changed their minds. How many more thousands of people would have had to die for the rest of the 48% to think things weren't handled well? Or maybe the question should be ... how many white people needed to die?
Posted by crazy teresa on September 11, 2005, at 23:10:53
In reply to Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by KaraS on September 11, 2005, at 20:34:56
> I just read this poll on CNN.com. I'm just wondering how many more days would the people in the Superdome have had to go without food, water or sanitation before those other 48% changed their minds. How many more thousands of people would have had to die for the rest of the 48% to think things weren't handled well? Or maybe the question should be ... how many white people needed to die?
>
>
>I don't agree with your last sentence.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:23:36
In reply to Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by KaraS on September 11, 2005, at 20:34:56
I was wondering, and I hope that this doesn't come out too strong, but do you think if American society were more egalitarian, and socially aware, and was less about the individual making it, the rescue efforts would have been different, or at least people's reaction, as in they wouldn't have looted so much etc? There would have been more of a collective effort to help each other, rather than steal, rape, kill each other etc. Like if people had faith in the welfare state then they wouldn't perhaps have had to have such an extreme reaction to it? Some of the tales inside the dome are very horrific. I just don't understand why everyone wasn't like 'we're in this together, lets help everyone as much as we can'.
I don't know its just a thought.
For example, in the 1960s venice flooded really badly and all the young people of Italy travelled to Venice to volunteer to help people get out and save precious works of art etc.
There seems to be a very big divide between the rich and the poor in America and everything's fine if you're rich, but very bad if you're not. I was shocked to discover (I think this is right) that 30% of people lived in poverty in New Orleans. Thats alot of people if the statistic is true. Don't people feel bad about it in America? Do people feel socially responsible to help the poor ones out in any way? Or do they think its the individual's fault, they need to work harder to bring themselves out of poverty etc? Are the rich people in America willing to pay taxes to help the people below the poverty line?
How do you think the Katrina situation would have been handled in Canada/Europe??
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:39:58
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:23:36
Sorry, the example I used was from Florence, not Venice. There's not much detail on it on the web, but I found this quote:
'During the catastrophic floods of November 4, 1966, when the Arno River rose with extreme rapidity to 5.2 meters above its normal level, many precious works of art were damaged or destroyed. The people of Florence pitched in selflessly, aided by countless helpers from all over the country, to save whatever could be saved.'
They were called the 'Angles of Mud' and there is statue etc in their honour.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:46:49
In reply to Re: Correction to last post, posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:39:58
See
http://www.reidsguides.com/essays/e_it_melandri.html
for an article about the Florence disaster. You need to click on 'more' at the bottom to get to the bit about the 'mud angels'.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 12, 2005, at 14:51:46
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:23:36
I think you pose an intersting question and one which I would like to address.
I believe the difference in reactions in Europe and Canada would be tied to the difference between socialism (big government) and capitalism.
America was founded on individualism, founded on the freedom to pray how you want, speak how you want, and succeed or fail how you want. There is no safety net from cradle to grave. As Americans are viewed as individuals, everyone is responsible for him or herself with little help from Big Government. Like it or not, this is how America works.
I am neither rich nor poor and I do very well. You mentioned that you had to be rich in America to do well. This is untrue. I am middle class, sometimes work 2 jobs. There are many of us out there. Of course I am not denying there are poor in this country. However, the majority of the poor in the US have televisions, microwaves, and even cars.
There is no sense in America that the governemnt MUST take care of all the needs and finances and social ills of everyone in the country. The country was founded on less government intrusion, more personal responsibility.
Americans have donated over $700 million to Katrina relief. As a nation, we tend to band together privately without having to depend on big government.
You mention, rape, killing, etc. That is life in America. You get thousands of scared, hungry, desperate people together and no doubt atrocities will happen. Violence is a fact of life here. We are able to legally carry arms.
Also, the media has been having a field day discussing all of the bad things, playing up the racial divide, etc. The American and international media have been loving every minute of this, yet another reason to hate this country. I notice not much of the good stories have gotten much air time.
So, in answer to your question, I believe in Canada/Europe, big government may have gotten involved from the get go. But who's to say how great of a job they would do? In the US, it was up to the Governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, and ALabama to get thier ducks in a row as far as evacuations and post storm clean up is concerned. I have heard no horror stories from Mississippi or Alabama. It seems their local officials were prepared. The National Guard is only called in when the Governor calls, this is not a Presidential call.
So perhaps it would have been handled better in Europe. But life in America is messy. People are responsible for themselves. I wouldn't have it any other way. This is the main reason why I think Europeans are so shocked by what they see.
Anyway, this is one American's perspective to your question. I'm sure there are many who disagree with me, but thought it would be nice to get a few different perspectives.
Honestly, I don't want to start any confrontations over this. I am not touting capitalism over socialism in any way. But, I think many non-Americans have a hard time understanding us and I'm just trying to clarify. Our governemnt and lifestyle may seem atrocious to you, while parts of socialism and big governemnt I find abhorrent. So there are pluses and minuses to both systems.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 22:00:33
In reply to Katrina - one American's perspective » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 12, 2005, at 14:51:46
> America was founded on individualism, founded on the freedom to pray how you want, speak how you want, and succeed or fail how you want. There is no safety net from cradle to grave. As Americans are viewed as individuals, everyone is responsible for him or herself with little help from Big Government. Like it or not, this is how America works.
:-(
I feel really sad in response to that.
I mean...IF people had equal opportunities from birth (equal opportunities to get love and care and clothes and food and education and to live in a nice environment)
THEN I think individualism would probably work out okay.But the fact is that we have no choice whatsoever who we will be born to. Whether we will be loved. Whether we will be told we can be whatever we want to be, or whether we will be told we are a good for nothing loser. We don't choose whether we will be born to a family that teaches us a world view where we can succeed or that teaches us a world view where other people don't give a damn about us and we should screw other people over for everything we can get.
And so to give people 'equal opportunities' in an individualist society doesn't do anything to remidy or alleviate the injustices and inequalities that exist simply because we do not choose who we will be born to and we do not choose what environmental influences we will have and most especially not in our formative years.
There is an analogy that someone uses (can't remember who)
THE SHACKLED RUNNER...
The people are lined up at the starting line...
One person has shackles...
On with life...
(Clearly the person with shackles isn't doing so well...)And in an individualist society then I guess thats just tough and the shackled runner just has to look after themself as best they can.
But maybe the society has some kind of obligation to remove the shackles...
Is it then a fair race?
You can't rewind time...
It isn't fair.
Life isn't fair.
And I think individualism is a way of the rich getting richer...
And the poor (and indeed all people who have been shackled by discrimination etc)
To be left to fend for themselves...I feel sad :-(
Yes... That is how america works...
But the question remains:
does america work?it is rich...
it has great cities
great universities
great artists and film stars and musiciansbut then...
it has tenements
homeless people
violent crimesthe best...
and the worst...and for some people...
they have been taught...
that screwing other people over is the only way...
and so if we leave them to fend for themselves they will screw you over if they get the chance...and yeah, you have the freedom to keep most of what you earn
but what you get
what you getwell... you do not get freedom from other people screwing you over.
because individualism has spoken:
make your own way and we don't give a damn!
we don't give a damn.
i take that to be the sad message of individualism
but i'm a fan of social responsibility
maybe ones view on this depends rather significantly on where one is placed in the world.
if you have money you want to keep that money
if you feel you have worked your way up in life then you believe everybody can do this
and you think those who haven't managed to are slackers and undeservingif you don't have money
then you start to wonder why other people are so entitled
(you may start to take what you can find)
if you try and work your way up and you can't
then you start to wonder why other people could
(you may start to take what you can find)individualism is loved by the rich
by those who benefit from it themselvesits no good for the shackled
its no good for those who can't work their way upI feel sad :-(
that side of america scares the sh*t out of me.
and for what it is worth...
i feel so very privaledged and lucky
so lucky indeed
to live in a society that has more of a notion of social responsibility.as an example...
when the settlers came...
and the schooling system got set up...
maori were caned for speaking maori at school.
they were told they would never get anywhere in life speaking maori and it was a worthless and vulgar language.
and those children grew up and had children.
and they didn't teach their children to speak maori because they believed that maori was a worthless and vulgar language and that their kids would never get anywhere in life if they spoke maori.and then what happened...
the maori language almost became extinct.
and then what happened...
the government started throwing money into add campaigns, courses, workshops, tv programmes
to try and remove those shackles.to try and turn it around.
instead of being ashamed of ones ethnicity
(like an awful lot of urbanised maori were)
the idea was to show them that they had a heritage a culture that was valued.social responsibility.
we can't rewind time...
we can't take back the facts that we took huge chunks of land in exchange for muskits
we can't take back the facts that people were caned at school for speaking maori
we can't take back the facts that maori people were told they were worthless and good for nothing and second class citizens
we can't take back the facts that they were invited to church to have the doors barred and the church set on firebut we can acknowledge them
acknowledge the shackles
and take steps to turn that around.is it so very suprising that a lot of maori have problems with drug addiction and crime etc etc
when we have shackled them so?
told them they were worthless and good for nothing.
messages that current children are still receiving.social responsibility
i'm grateful for it
without it...
i'd be stealing from you
mugging you
beating you
yup
i would
i managed to turn my life around
but the reasons for that weren't in my control anymore than who my parents were wasn't something that was in my control
and i most certainly do not condemn those who never made it out
and those who never tried to
because they believe there is no way they could ever succeedbut i hope that things get better...
but that isn't going to happen if we leave people to fend for themselves.
that isn't going to remove the shackles.and thats not their fault
it is not.
Posted by Dinah on September 12, 2005, at 22:34:03
In reply to Katrina - one American's perspective » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 12, 2005, at 14:51:46
To be fair to local leaders (I'm reserving judgement on state leaders), there wasn't any communication to do the asking the federal government was bound by law to wait for. The tales of bureaucrats telling them that they needed to do things that were just impossible to do are now legendary.
There needs to be something done to allow the process to be bypassed when the phones, satellite phones, cell phones, faxes, etc. are down.
But I wouldn't change from the form of government we have for anything.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 13, 2005, at 7:10:01
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on September 12, 2005, at 22:34:03
Thanks for your all your posts, very insightful.
I have to agree with Alexandra.
I guess people outside of America are little shocked by the how the system works over there.
When I visited the US, I was vey shocked to see ALOT of people begging in the street - and this was near Harvard, Cambridge MA - a place I thought must be pretty nice. I was most shocked to see people begging for money for operations (and then they would have a messed up eye) - I guess I had taken for granted that I am totally used to having free healthcare for all.
And to be honest, I don't pay much tax. About £100 a month is deducted from my salary.
Considering that this has enabled me to attend an Ivy league university for free, free orthodontic (train tracks) when I was a kid, benefits when I was out of work, great holiday entitlements blah blah. I don't consider it really a large price, do you?
In America, from my understanding, you would have to pay alone £100 upwards for health insurance. Plus things weren't really any cheaper (except for gas/petrol and Gap clothes!!).
To me, I think that society should take care of the sick, elderly, poor, 'disadvantaged' and that there should be a level playing field at birth. I like Alexandra's analogy of being in a race, one with shackles and the other without. I can't comprehend living in a society like America.
Perhaps we should look at it in terms of 'quality of life'.
Have a look at
http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml?idContent=1173105
Very interesting.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 13, 2005, at 7:56:46
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » Miss Honeychurch, posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 22:00:33
Well, America is heading toward Socialism every day. Soon all will be equal and everything will be totally fair and ambition will be frowned upon as that may make you stand out and (gasp!) be more successful monetarily than your neighbor.
Oprah Winfrey was born into poverty and is now one of the most powerful women in the world. She was "shackled" at her birth, but look where she is today. I do not buy the notion that we are born into a station in life and are helpless to get out. The class system is not as relevant in America as it is in other parts of the world. I'm not saying that people who are born into poverty have an easy time of making it out. On the contrary. But it is done every day, by personal determination.
I am not rich. Far from it in fact. But, I embrace individualism. The less help I receive from the government, and the more I rely upon myself, the better. Self-relaince is a big thing here, although I believe slowly slipping away as more and more people want bigger and bigger government.
But, I must warn all of you that I am a Libertarian, and represent a very small percentage of the population. I don't believe in income taxes, social security, etc. So I probably am considered somewhat on the fringe from the American mainstream!
Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 19:16:51
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » alexandra_k, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 13, 2005, at 7:56:46
> Soon all will be equal and everything will be totally fair
I don't think that is possible.
Some people are born inheriting diseases.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with disabilities.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with higher intelligence than others.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with inheritance that means they never have to work.
Thats not fair.Is it really possible to create a level playing field in the first place?
No.
So life is not fair.
But what are we going to do about it?????1) Nothing.
2) Something.Personally... I have to rule out 1 on compassionate grounds. (I'll get back to that).
With respect to 2... Some injustices can be remidied. The injustices that mean that one kid gets health care (in virtue of who their parents are) while another goes without (in virtue of who their parents are).
Do you really want to say that the kid just has to accept its lot in life?
That if you have parents with health insurance then you are entitled to health care
That if you have parents without health insurance then you are not entitled to health care?> and ambition will be frowned upon as that may make you stand out and (gasp!) be more successful monetarily than your neighbor.
Sorry but that doesn't follow. Do you really think that countries who invest more in social welfare end up with citizens who are less ambitious than they would be if they were left to fend for themselves? I'm not saying to level the playing field completely so everybody gets the same money every week to live off. I'm saying that everybody gets a minimum amount which is enough to ensure their basic needs (food shelter healthcare education) are met. If you work then you are better off. We have three tax brackets. The lowest one basically covers people on welfare or very low paying jobs. The middle one (which is slightly higher) covers middle income peoples. The highest one covers the biggest earners. The biggest earners still have more money in the hand than the middle income earners. And the middle income earners still have more money in the hand than the low earners. There is thus still an incentive to work and there is a reward for that. (And thats just talking about the $$$ and to say nothing of the personal satisfaction one can get from being a productive and contributing member of society)
> Oprah Winfrey was born into poverty and is now one of the most powerful women in the world.
And the message is supposed to be what? If Oprah can do it everybody in america can do it? Do you really believe that is true. Yeah there are (what I would consider to be 'token') people who have made their way up. A combination of hard work and luck. But luck has such a huge part to play in america and that is what is frightening to me. I'm sure its a very nice place to live if you strike it lucky, but it concerns me greatly that many people do not.
I do think it is a problem... That you get people like Tiger Woods who become icons for 'see black people can make it in the world'. But how many black people in america would feel at home (or even be able to join) the local country club? I never said it was impossible to make it out - I just feel immense compassion for some peoples struggle. And I don't blame them that they cannot. I think they need a little help.
>I do not buy the notion that we are born into a station in life and are helpless to get out.
Never said we were 'helpless' to get out. My point was that it is that much harder. I'm sure that a person with one hand might be able to win 'Surviver' but don't you think it is much more likely that a person with two hands will have more of an advantage?
Applying to schools in the US...
What struck me were questions like these:
'how many close family members have also attended this institution'
The odds are stacked to preserve the status quo.>The class system is not as relevant in America as it is in other parts of the world.
Yeah. America didn't like the british class system much. Mostly because americans weren't born as highly. In other words: americans were down on their luck in britan so they decided to create their own system...
and it was a system based on personal wealth.
you see... the upper class in britan were indeed the upper class but it was also true that they were running out of money...and some people managed to make some money in america... which enabled them to buy themselves into aristocratic english families.
they brought their way up in the world.
but i think a system that focuses on personal wealth is every bit as unjust as a system that focuses on the class you are born into. and there is also the point that those two things start to amount to the same when you factor in inheritance.
yeah there is some movement. and that is focused on. it is focused on because it presents the american ideal in a favourable light. it serves to preserve the status quo. it serves to make the wealthy people in america feel a little bit better about themselves because clearly they deserve what they have obtained via hard work. and clearly anybody who works as hard as they did would achieve comperable financial status. but thats simply not true. just look at the stats to find out how drug abuse, levels of education, crime etc are best predicted by what the kids parents were up to...
> I am not rich. Far from it in fact. But, I embrace individualism. The less help I receive from the government, and the more I rely upon myself, the better.
If you are able to fend for yourself - yes.
If you are unable to fend for yourself - no.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 19:17:51
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » alexandra_k, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 13, 2005, at 7:56:46
> America was founded on individualism, founded on the freedom to pray how you want, speak how you want, and succeed or fail how you want.
Sorry... Do you really think some people just want to fail in life?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 20:13:22
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 19:17:51
for me...
it is about compassion.
i will never know what it is like to be another human being.
i will never know what it is like to be them.
i will never know that their struggle is like.
but the point that i got to experience life in this body is arbitrary - it could have been otherwise.
the fact that i got this body as opposed to yours as opposed to oprah's as opposed to some black kids living in harlem is a matter of dumb luck.
some people are born to wealth and some are not
some people are born to families who care about them and some are not
some people are born and are nurtured and encouraged in school and encouraged to become a productive member of society and some are not
and those things have a considerable influence on what it is that those kids turn out to be
and yeah some people beat the odds
but the odds are the way they are because we have noticed a pattern...
people tend to perpeptuate the cycle unless there is interventionand imagine yourself...
imagine that you are some black kid in harlem with parents who are addicted to drugs and get by via crime. parents who don't give a sh*t about you. and you aren't so smart and because you are hungry and hurting and people keep telling you how stupid you are you probably aren't going to go so well in school. imagine that you find yourself a job long long hours. you are treated like sh*t being yelled at and you are still struggling to make ends meet. no prospects for improvement.do you want a little help or do you think it is fair for people to let you fend for yourself and to ultimately condemn you as you turn to drugs and crime to get through the day in a more palatable way.
i don't want to live in a world where people blame the victim. where people don't think they should help. its about compassion.
and it could have been me.
thats what i think...
it could have been me.
Posted by Declan on September 15, 2005, at 21:16:26
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » alexandra_k, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 13, 2005, at 7:56:46
Posted by KaraS on September 16, 2005, at 1:44:32
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by Meri-Tuuli on September 12, 2005, at 5:23:36
I don't have the energy right now to get into the big questions about the various forms of government but I would like to address responses to my original question.
If some of you here don't believe that the slow response in New Orleans didn't have to do with skin color, then would you agree that it had anything to do with class and status? I do agree that a lot of the problem was bureaucracy and a lack of leadership but still I can't imagine rich Republican campaign contributors ever being locked down in a Superdome for days without food, water or sanitation. They'd be on their cell phones with their political connections and their lawyers and things would have started to change quickly. If those type of people were involved here then Bush would have cancelled his fund raising meetings in San Diego and flown in to New Orleans immediately and personally gotten involved in getting them out of there.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2005, at 18:28:06
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by KaraS on September 16, 2005, at 1:44:32
i think its about poverty.
it just happens that many poor people are black.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2005, at 21:03:22
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 20:13:22
bit of a tangent...
but i just wanted to say that over here if you are unemployed then you are entitled to an unemployment benefit (dole) for however long you remain unemployed.
so you might imagine that people would just get themselves unemployed and bludge off the system.
but actually... the reverse has been the case:
http://labour.org.nz/policy/jobs_and_economy/policyachievements/number1again/index.html
hmm.
Posted by KaraS on September 16, 2005, at 21:12:51
In reply to Re: poverty, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2005, at 18:28:06
> i think its about poverty.
> it just happens that many poor people are black.
>
>
That may be it but we'll never know for sure.
Posted by gromit on September 18, 2005, at 1:27:04
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled well, posted by KaraS on September 16, 2005, at 1:44:32
> If some of you here don't believe that the slow response in New Orleans didn't have to do with skin color, then would you agree that it had anything to do with class and status?
My first reaction when this happened was these are poor people, not necessarily black people. You can be black, red, or even green and have clout if you are successful. If you're dirt poor it doesn't matter what color your skin is.
The areas of Mississippi and Alabama (stirring the pot, solid red states) that were hit hard were no wealthier or less black though and there hasn't been any uproar about those places. Even other parts of Louisiana haven't had this sort of trouble. I think it's something else but have no idea exactly what. It's not that I don't believe racism exists it's just that there seems to be this push to find it where it doesn't really exist. Geez, how many negatives was that?
> I do agree that a lot of the problem was bureaucracy and a lack of leadership but still I can't imagine rich Republican campaign contributors ever being locked down in a Superdome for days without food, water or sanitation. They'd be on their cell phones with their political connections and their lawyers and things would have started to change quickly.
Absolutely. There would have been more of a response, but maybe you would just have the three stooges there days earlier.
> If those type of people were involved here then Bush would have cancelled his fund raising meetings in San Diego and flown in to New Orleans immediately and personally gotten involved in getting them out of there.
Arggghhh. If you *knew* somebody was going to come up to you and punch you in the face what would you do? Would you go about your business or would you start thinking about what you could do? After you've done nothing and gotten decked do you wait a day or so to start thinking what to do about it?
I can't believe the title of the original post, 48% think it was handled well? I wonder what percentage of them rely on Fox (Faux) News are their primary new source? What would that percentage be in the New Orleans area?
Oh well, I've read that 20% of Americans polled believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Rick
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 19, 2005, at 13:12:25
In reply to America is headed toward socialism everyday?? (nm) » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Declan on September 15, 2005, at 21:16:26
Just my opinion. As I mentioned, I'm a bit more radical than your average American. I'm sure the majority of the population would disagree with me.
Posted by Declan on September 22, 2005, at 15:32:45
In reply to Re: America is headed toward socialism everyday?? » Declan, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 19, 2005, at 13:12:25
By socialism do you mean government spending? (Obviously not on defence contracts) These days noone seems to mean the old definition, you know nationalisation of the means of production distribution and exchange. (Hard to imagine eh?) Very 50s, I have difficulty remembering it.
Or government regulation? You're not in small business are you?
Declan
Posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2005, at 15:38:56
In reply to Re: America is headed toward socialism everyday?? » Declan, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 19, 2005, at 13:12:25
Hey.
I'm sorry if I gave you a bit of a hard time before.
I don't know much about libertarianism...
But I am getting a bit interested in different ideologies...
If you would like to talk more about what you do believe (about the role of government etc) I'd be interested in what you have to say.Have a nice day :-)
Posted by Declan on September 22, 2005, at 20:13:06
In reply to Re: America is headed toward socialism everyday?? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2005, at 15:38:56
Oh is this libertarianism. We don't have much of that in Australia. There are some things about it I like. The Life Extension Foundation for example. Now I don't feel quite so defensive. Some things about US politics are very different to here. Except I too am always expecting to come across the antichrist.
Declan
Posted by KaraS on September 26, 2005, at 14:42:35
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled we, posted by gromit on September 18, 2005, at 1:27:04
> > If some of you here don't believe that the slow response in New Orleans didn't have to do with skin color, then would you agree that it had anything to do with class and status?
>
> My first reaction when this happened was these are poor people, not necessarily black people. You can be black, red, or even green and have clout if you are successful. If you're dirt poor it doesn't matter what color your skin is.
>
> The areas of Mississippi and Alabama (stirring the pot, solid red states) that were hit hard were no wealthier or less black though and there hasn't been any uproar about those places. Even other parts of Louisiana haven't had this sort of trouble. I think it's something else but have no idea exactly what. It's not that I don't believe racism exists it's just that there seems to be this push to find it where it doesn't really exist. Geez, how many negatives was that?
>
> > I do agree that a lot of the problem was bureaucracy and a lack of leadership but still I can't imagine rich Republican campaign contributors ever being locked down in a Superdome for days without food, water or sanitation. They'd be on their cell phones with their political connections and their lawyers and things would have started to change quickly.
>
> Absolutely. There would have been more of a response, but maybe you would just have the three stooges there days earlier.
>
> > If those type of people were involved here then Bush would have cancelled his fund raising meetings in San Diego and flown in to New Orleans immediately and personally gotten involved in getting them out of there.
>
> Arggghhh. If you *knew* somebody was going to come up to you and punch you in the face what would you do? Would you go about your business or would you start thinking about what you could do? After you've done nothing and gotten decked do you wait a day or so to start thinking what to do about it?
>
> I can't believe the title of the original post, 48% think it was handled well? I wonder what percentage of them rely on Fox (Faux) News are their primary new source? What would that percentage be in the New Orleans area?
>
> Oh well, I've read that 20% of Americans polled believe the sun revolves around the earth.
>
>
> Rick
I'm not certain racism wasn't a factor but I'm not certain that it definitely was either. Just a nagging feeling about it but I think that class level and poverty are definitely involved.I only partially agree that if the population involved were wealthy white people who included some major contributors to Bush or the Republican party that we would have seen the Three Stooges there 3 days earlier. I think we would still have seen plenty of disorganization but I also think that we wouldn't have seen some of the bureaucratic hold-ups of supplies that we saw this time. I believe that the high level connections would have gotten personally involved earlier to move those supplies in and break through the bureaucracy. These poor people in New Orleans had no powerful advocates on the outside working on their behalf.
After I started this thread I realized that not necessarily 48% of the people polled were approving the way things were handled because a sizeable percentage could have had no opinion. Still, it's not a very good commentary on the results.
20% of Americans thinking that the sun revolves around the earth is very scary. It's even scarier that many of them vote.
Posted by Declan on September 26, 2005, at 19:46:35
In reply to Re: Poll - 52% think Katrina relief not handled we, posted by gromit on September 18, 2005, at 1:27:04
Rick, where did you read that? I'd really like to hear someone argue it. Well, maybe it wouldn't be as much fun as I hope. What's that thing, from memory
'man, dressed in a little brief authority, his glassy essence like an angry ape performs such tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep'
or something.
This is like Creature Comforts. (only not so charming) Ever seen it? All the animals debate (in the voices of the British public) things like did life come from the land or the sea. Or that cats are better than dogs.
All really silly stuff.
Declan
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.