In 1927, a major unnamed hurricane struck the city of New Orleans. It was actually more powerful than Katrina. The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles.
The interesting difference is the response the government gave in 1927 to those hurricane refugees, compared to the refugees of Katrina, err- I meant "survivors" ---(sorry Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).How much aid did the government dispense at that time? Zero, nada, not one dime. And you know how much aid the army offered? The only aid from the army came in the form of loaning the city of New Orleans tents and camp stoves. Ironically, later, the army sued the city for reimbursement. So what was the big difference here?
It was the attitude! the people had towards the government at that time, compared to the attitude that Katrina's victims have. The 1927 "survivors" expected nothing from the government. 80 years ago, people understood that the government was there to "protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, Americans expect the government to "provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a major difference. And now, a week later, when the government failed on all three levels of local, state, and federal to provide for their needs, Americans were sorely disappointed.
Reverend Jackson and reverend Sharpton spend their opportunities arguing about semantics."They shouldn't be called refugees, they should be called survivors" Unfortunately, they missed the boat. It was a perfect opportunity to deliver a very basic message to their people.
Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.
Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.
Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. Its free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. Its unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most of the "survivors".
A couple of other points should be brought to light. G. W. has asked the congress for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting isn't it? one million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)
And finally, they haven't hardly begun the task of picking up dead bodies, and already the finger pointing has started. The congressional hearings and probes will go forever. Millions will be spent on a wasted diatribe of a bipartisan "witch hunting expedition"- all of which will be nonsense. If you're a democrat, you are going to blame the president. If you are a republican, you are going to blame the mayor and the governor. This is another case in point of how the government will once again fail its people, they could have spent the millions educating the poor and misplaced citizens of New Orleans so that they could go out and get a new and better life, instead of wasting it on useless blame investigations.
jon_the_fisherman from TENNESSEE says Amen brother rag
Your preaching hit the nail on the head.
PJzaBruin from CALIFORNIA says Overall, Arselicker, that was one of your most lucid and coherent posts ever.
Congratulations.
"Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. Its free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you
depend on the government and be disappointed. Its unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most of the 'survivors'."
I couldn't agree more. It's a point I try to make daily with my poor, inner-city students. Education gives you opportunities and choices, so you can work with your head instead of relying on your hands and the strength of your back.
"A couple of other points should be brought to light. G. W. has asked the congress for 50 billion dollars worth of aid for the "survivors" and clean up of the city. Interesting isn't it? one million people displaced and out of work in that city, sitting all day in shelters, waiting for the next handout. Of course, the thought never occurred to
anyone that just maybe, "hey, we should give all these folks jobs filling sand bags to plug the levees and clearing trees." (Wonder how many of them would want government aid if they had to work for it?)"
Again, I think your are (mostly) right on here. That's similar to the CCC and WPA plans that Roosevelt used to employ the out-of-work during the Great Depression. And I have not doubt that just as happened then, MOST of the poor would rather be gainfully employed than just sit idly.
I don't understand what your issue is in wanting to label the evacuees as "refugees" rather than "survivors." Personally, I prefer the term "evacuees," because that accurately describes their plight -- they were evacuated to avoid the death and destruction of the storm and floods.
I guess wanting to label them in the most negative light is just a reflection of your wannabe Christian values.
Picky™ (24.225.85.164) from FLORIDA says Good points Ragpicker, if we could take the katrina survivors and transport them back to 1927
they would all be dead within 2 weeks. They would have plenty of water and food but after two weeks of constant bitzhing for a handout, the 1927 residents would lose-it and cave their heads in with a hoe.
Gstream15 from FLORIDA says PJ, twice today I have to agree with you
except for one small item in your last post. These people are seeking refuge from the storm, They have been evacuated, and now most have found some form of refuge. The only ones trying to put this in a bad light are the 2 "reverends".
PJzaBruin from CALIFORNIA says I don't know, Gstream
but when I think of refugees, I think of people seeking refuge from violence, war, and civil unrest. Maybe it's just me.
When I think of evacuees, I think of people who have moved (or been moved) out of harm's way -- from fires, floods, and the like. Again, maybe it's just me. But it seems to me that this is how the words have been employed for the last couple of decades, regardless of their definitions.
Picky™ (24.225.85.164) from FLORIDA says evacuee or refugee, you got to feel for these people, they lost everything
except access to air overnight. And then the trauma of being cattle-car'd into Houston. But that's another story.
jon_the_fisherman from TENNESSEE says I feel sorry for
the ones who worked hard for everything they had and lost ti all. I do not feel sorry for the arsewipes that draw a happy pappy check every month and had nothing before they got the chance to steal from the hardworking people who left their belongings behind.
reeelmadnezzz (24.170.154.228) from FLORIDA says and I see your great state leading the country in
education, jobs, child welfare, least amount of poverty, and all the other things that provide for the common people. Maybe you ought to check your state rating, I know ours in Florida, but we have some idjit as governor.
jon_the_fisherman from TENNESSEE says reel, you are truly pathetic
are you on the happy pappy program. If you are then get a job. I never said anything about Tennessee number one in education, but we do have our share of worthless degenerates drawing a check for being drug addicts or drunks who are just too lazy to get a job. WE have room for improvement in both of our states.
Just Wondering (136.1.1.101) from ILLINOIS says Katrina's Victims
To jon the fisherman: How are you able to tell the difference between the ones who worked hard and now have no jobs and no homes and have lost everything and the ones who were "drawing a happy pappy check" and have lost everything?--especially from the news coverage we got.
"The scope of damage was much more severe because this particular hurricane actually hit the city. Katrina missed it by 25 miles."
I think its unanimously agreed that this hurricane was so deadly because it hit where it did, causing the levees to break and flood the city.
And you really think comparing 2005 to 1927 is an adequate comparison? The world hasn't changed to the point of making this ridiculous? Let us think for a second about how connected the country has become, not to mention the world. In 1927, the federal government would have had no way of knowing the extent of the impact of a hurricane that hit Louisiana until weeks after the fact - the way in which information circulated was fundamentally different. The same can be said about the ways in which aid is transmitted to victims - things went slower, and priorities were different. Not to mention the fact that the government in 1927 was at the worst depth of the Great Depression.
And let's look at your facts:
quote:
"Fact, if you are poor and uneducated in America, this is what happens.
Fact, if you depend on the government, you will be sorely disappointed.
Fact, if you are poor in America, there is no reason for you to be uneducated. It's free! 12 grades. And if you really apply yourself, there is enough grants and assistance out there for higher education, which will raise you above the poverty level. And no longer will you depend on the government and be disappointed. It's unfortunate that this lesson will be missed by most "survivors"."
Tell me where there is a fact in any of these statements. If you're poor and uneducated, you deserve to have everything that you own and know washed away in a flood? If you're poor and depend on the government, you deserve to be disappointed? If you're poor and uneducated, its your fault for not taking advantage of a public education system?
This is just absurd logic, and is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of federalism. One of the largest problems with the federal system is that wealth is unevenly distributed - a fact which is self-reinforcing. Explain to me how an education system that is funded primarily through state finances is going to get better in a state where there isn't any money to begin with. Lets not forget the fact that localities within states have the same problem - local taxes often supply the bread and butter of the education system. Ever have a referendum passed in your county that was to support the local school system?
The fact is, the money available for schooling in Louisiana is absurdly less than, say, Northern Virginia, New York, or any other affluent state in this country. You think public schools in Montana are on par with public schools in Northern Virginia?
I don't disagree with your point about using the money in investigations for educating and aiding the victims of the storm. But I think an investigation is still vital for the sake of knowing how to fix it. We've sunk billions of dollars into increasing our safety and capability to respond to disaster. A few hundred thousand more isn't going to change much (note that the 9/11 Commission was only allocated $600,000 to do their work...compared to the $64 million spent on Clinton's impeachment).
This is a reactionary argument that doesn't answer any difficult questions, but points fingers itself. "It is their fault for not being education, it is their fault for being poor, it is their fault." What about looking at the bigger causes here? But that's hard, so let's not do it.
