The real story behind Katarina
September 4, 2005 1:30 AM Subscribe
The real disaster in New Orleans. David Aaronovitch of the London Times observes, "It isn’t the failure to act in New Orleans that is the story here, it’s the sheer, uninsured, uncared for, self-disenfranchised scale of the poverty that lies revealed. It looks like a scene from the Third World because that’s the truth. It’s a quiet disaster that ’s been going on for years." The truth is the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans has a poverty level of 36.4 percent. A quarter of households have an annual income of less than $10,000, while half live on less than $20,000. Over half of the population in the ward is categorized as “not in the labor force,” mainly because they have ceased looking for work. The truth is that even on a normal day, New Orleans is a sad city. "Sure, tourists think New Orleans is fun: you can drink and hop from strip club to strip club all night on Bourbon Street, and gamble all your money away at Harrah’s. But the city’s decline over the past three decades has left it impoverished and lacking the resources to build its economy from within. New Orleans can’t take care of itself even when it is not 80 percent underwater." The National Review is already blaming it - predictably - on the breakdown of the family. Conservatives in America are already dismissing the problem, as they have for years. But to those outside the United States, the scale of poverty in the world's richest country comes as a shock.
I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've seen some conservative bloggers try and shift the blame. But as an American ex-pat, I've had the pleasure of living in societies where people aren't turned against eachother for the sake of wealth creation. I can only hope that philosophy finds its way to the USA, someday.
posted by newscouch at 2:17 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by newscouch at 2:17 AM on September 4, 2005
But to those outside the United States, the scale of poverty in the world's richest country comes as a shock.
Huh? It's been pretty obvious for years to everyone but the american public that the US is going downhill.
Not trolling, honestly. Just trying to provide a non-US centric viewpoint.
posted by spazzm at 2:36 AM on September 4, 2005
Huh? It's been pretty obvious for years to everyone but the american public that the US is going downhill.
Not trolling, honestly. Just trying to provide a non-US centric viewpoint.
posted by spazzm at 2:36 AM on September 4, 2005
The percentage of this country living in poverty increases each year. The middle class is disappearing..
and, it isn't just in New Orleans, it's Detroit, D.C., L.A..... every large city and a significant section of the rural areas...
We have been and still are in huge trouble....and this event may be the economic hit that brings it all to a head...
And, now it's all about blame instead of fixing it.
Things look bad, very, very, bad.
and....good post...thanks.
posted by HuronBob at 2:48 AM on September 4, 2005
and, it isn't just in New Orleans, it's Detroit, D.C., L.A..... every large city and a significant section of the rural areas...
We have been and still are in huge trouble....and this event may be the economic hit that brings it all to a head...
And, now it's all about blame instead of fixing it.
Things look bad, very, very, bad.
and....good post...thanks.
posted by HuronBob at 2:48 AM on September 4, 2005
Spazzam, my own point of view is of an American who has lived outside the country for well over a decade. Most Americans know the poverty is there, but we are so accustomed to it we don't see it as unusual. Or like "compassionate conservatives" we blame it on individual behaviour, wash our hands to any responsibility for it, and turn a blind eye. I agree with you: many Americans see the poverty in our own country, but most of us don't really see it.
Speaking with friends and colleagues in Sweden, Germany, Spain, and the UK, many of them remarked to me during the last week, "I had no idea of the level of poverty." Many had been to New Orleans as tourists and never left the streets of Vieux Carré. They were really shocked. That's what motivated my post.
posted by three blind mice at 3:00 AM on September 4, 2005
Speaking with friends and colleagues in Sweden, Germany, Spain, and the UK, many of them remarked to me during the last week, "I had no idea of the level of poverty." Many had been to New Orleans as tourists and never left the streets of Vieux Carré. They were really shocked. That's what motivated my post.
posted by three blind mice at 3:00 AM on September 4, 2005
> If anything, I'm saying perhaps that the hurricane aftermath created in an instant a microcosm of the conditions of the ghetto. Economic disinvestment. Public protection absent. Collective efficacy smashed. I think this is a lesson from which we can learn a lot. I hope that insight is more clear now. -- uh, me
Somehow my earlier comment this evening seemed even more appropriate here.
posted by dhartung at 3:04 AM on September 4, 2005
Somehow my earlier comment this evening seemed even more appropriate here.
posted by dhartung at 3:04 AM on September 4, 2005
"I had no idea of the level of poverty."
Exactly: from Western Europe, all of a sudden the US looks like a third world country.
Also, looking at the footage of NO, I thought: some 'rogue nations' are going to get ideas watching this. It looks like the US is so overextended in the Middle East, that it can't even help itself in a time of dire need. The fact that the self proclaimed "richest, most powerful country in the world" lacks the resources to evacuate a city of 500,000 is shocking - and dangerous.
posted by NekulturnY at 3:13 AM on September 4, 2005
Exactly: from Western Europe, all of a sudden the US looks like a third world country.
Also, looking at the footage of NO, I thought: some 'rogue nations' are going to get ideas watching this. It looks like the US is so overextended in the Middle East, that it can't even help itself in a time of dire need. The fact that the self proclaimed "richest, most powerful country in the world" lacks the resources to evacuate a city of 500,000 is shocking - and dangerous.
posted by NekulturnY at 3:13 AM on September 4, 2005
three blind mice: Your post is good, I'm just trying to point out that it might be difficult for an american to get a real impression of what non-americans think of the current state in the USA. There's several reasons for this, the principal one is that people are too polite to come straight up to you and say or "I hear your country is full of poor people" - Europeans are very conscious about criticizing someone else's country (wars have started that way, you know).
You mention Sweden, and I can understand that a lot of swedes (and germans) find it hard to believe that this level of powerty exists in the world's richest country. Still, the impression a lot of non-americans are left with today is that the US is going the way of all empires, that this is the inevitable order of things and that the only thing to be done about it is find a new order of things.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that this is the impression I get of public opinion towards USA among a small segment of the US allies.
posted by spazzm at 3:17 AM on September 4, 2005
You mention Sweden, and I can understand that a lot of swedes (and germans) find it hard to believe that this level of powerty exists in the world's richest country. Still, the impression a lot of non-americans are left with today is that the US is going the way of all empires, that this is the inevitable order of things and that the only thing to be done about it is find a new order of things.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that this is the impression I get of public opinion towards USA among a small segment of the US allies.
posted by spazzm at 3:17 AM on September 4, 2005
me: this is the inevitable order of things and that the only thing to be done about it is find a new order of things.
Um, poor choice of words. What I was trying to say was:
"...and that the only thing to be done about is to find a new power structure."
Sorry.
posted by spazzm at 3:20 AM on September 4, 2005
Um, poor choice of words. What I was trying to say was:
"...and that the only thing to be done about is to find a new power structure."
Sorry.
posted by spazzm at 3:20 AM on September 4, 2005
The fact that the self proclaimed "richest, most powerful country in the world" lacks the resources to evacuate a city of 500,000 is shocking - and dangerous.
Yep. The emperor doesn't look so intimidating when standing in front of the world buck ass naked. What impact that has on national* security, who knows? But certainly it cannot be positive.
*Americans of my generation (1960s) say "national" and don't know what the word "homeland" means.
posted by three blind mice at 3:22 AM on September 4, 2005
Yep. The emperor doesn't look so intimidating when standing in front of the world buck ass naked. What impact that has on national* security, who knows? But certainly it cannot be positive.
*Americans of my generation (1960s) say "national" and don't know what the word "homeland" means.
posted by three blind mice at 3:22 AM on September 4, 2005
The fact that the self proclaimed "richest, most powerful country in the world" lacks the resources to evacuate a city of 500,000 is shocking - and dangerous.
I don't think there's any doubt that the US is the richest, most powerful country in the world. By any measure - GDP, or whatever, it plainly just is. No 'self proclaimation' needed.
I also don't think there was any lack of resources to evacuate the Gulf Coast. The US is a country of remarkable abundance.
I think the failure to deal with Katrina lies at the doors of the ruling elite. GWB and his cohorts just don't give a fuck.
posted by the cuban at 3:24 AM on September 4, 2005
I don't think there's any doubt that the US is the richest, most powerful country in the world. By any measure - GDP, or whatever, it plainly just is. No 'self proclaimation' needed.
I also don't think there was any lack of resources to evacuate the Gulf Coast. The US is a country of remarkable abundance.
I think the failure to deal with Katrina lies at the doors of the ruling elite. GWB and his cohorts just don't give a fuck.
posted by the cuban at 3:24 AM on September 4, 2005
Poverty reduction would've saved thousands of lives in New Orleans. Many of the people wanted to leave but simply couldn't afford to. If they could leave, they'd be alive and the American government wouldn't look like the callous ochlocracy it is.
I was one of those drinking tourists having fun in NO a few years ago and even I could tell poverty was a serious problem there. Not just because pretty much anywhere in the world that chases tourist dollars does so because they simply don't have any other choice, but because it was so apparent. Talking to a few people who lived there, just keeping my eyes open. It was obvious.
posted by raaka at 3:24 AM on September 4, 2005
I was one of those drinking tourists having fun in NO a few years ago and even I could tell poverty was a serious problem there. Not just because pretty much anywhere in the world that chases tourist dollars does so because they simply don't have any other choice, but because it was so apparent. Talking to a few people who lived there, just keeping my eyes open. It was obvious.
posted by raaka at 3:24 AM on September 4, 2005
The thing about you Americans that scares and disgusts the sane world most is, you don't have any functional social safety net. Instead, you have your jails and your army. Government policy controls wealth disparity, and Bush policy is to make that gap wider and the impact of poverty harsher. So, when disaster strikes, this is what happens. You chose this mess, or rather, you permitted the ParisParamii among you to choose it for you. The threat to the American way of life isn't the perhaps a couple of hundred Islamist militants who have the means to damage the US. It's the forty million small monsters who swallow the big lie about how social conscience is unnecessary, and vote Republican.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:25 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:25 AM on September 4, 2005
the cuban: I don't think there's any doubt that the US is the richest, most powerful country in the world. By any measure - GDP, or whatever, it plainly just is. No 'self proclaimation' needed.
Trade balance?
posted by spazzm at 3:31 AM on September 4, 2005
Trade balance?
posted by spazzm at 3:31 AM on September 4, 2005
Um...the poverty in the US isn't quite as bad as has been shown. That's poverty with a heavy dose of natural disaster. I like in a poor American city - we don't have garbage or even oily water filling our streets.
As someone who has lived in poor areas in Canada and the U.S. (as well as lived in Europe for a period), I can tell you that
a) many people are very aware of poverty in the U.S. (not just educated, but anyone who pays any attention to the U.S. and its news) and
b) it's not so different from poverty in the rest of the first world.
Maybe there is less political will for social programs, even the most basic (like health care). And the GINI (a measure of inequality) is definitely higher in the US than in many other first world nations - for perspective, Sweden has a GINI of about 25, Canada is about 30, UK is about 35 and the US about 40. The highest GINI indexes in the world are in the 60s.
But the essential experience of poverty isn't so different. Certainly, between Canada and the US, the houses are similar, the food, the expectations. I feel like there are greater differences between rural and urban poverty than between the two countries. The biggest differences right now are probably: lack of health care in the US and welfare cutting off after five years.
My point is that American poverty isn't unique - American exceptionalism (a long standing national tradition) doesn't play here either. It isn't that the US is either the richest country in the world, or the poorest (first world) country.
It's that the whole first world just doesn't really want to know about poverty that's in its own backyard. Or across the tracks. Or in the inner city or at the end of the busline, in rust belts or sun belts.
We don't even understand it. We know how to define poverty when it comes to us as a starving Ethiopian child, and we know what to do: feed them. But we don't know how to deal with poverty that is worrying whether you'll have money at the end of the month, choosing to forgo medications to pay rent or buy groceries, not thinking about going to college because the debt is unimaginable - tuitions that are higher than the yearly incomes of anyone you know. Are they even poor? Not compared to the poor in the developing world. The people of New Orleans weren't starving before the hurricane.
What makes poverty? Adam Smith says (somewhere), something like "lacking that which is required to be decent". Not the most scientific, but it seems sensible. In some places that's food. In the first world, that's a house or apartment, often also a car, money to cushion you at the end of the month, electricity and running water, even luxurys like televisions - we send emergency information by television, after all.
posted by jb at 3:46 AM on September 4, 2005
As someone who has lived in poor areas in Canada and the U.S. (as well as lived in Europe for a period), I can tell you that
a) many people are very aware of poverty in the U.S. (not just educated, but anyone who pays any attention to the U.S. and its news) and
b) it's not so different from poverty in the rest of the first world.
Maybe there is less political will for social programs, even the most basic (like health care). And the GINI (a measure of inequality) is definitely higher in the US than in many other first world nations - for perspective, Sweden has a GINI of about 25, Canada is about 30, UK is about 35 and the US about 40. The highest GINI indexes in the world are in the 60s.
But the essential experience of poverty isn't so different. Certainly, between Canada and the US, the houses are similar, the food, the expectations. I feel like there are greater differences between rural and urban poverty than between the two countries. The biggest differences right now are probably: lack of health care in the US and welfare cutting off after five years.
My point is that American poverty isn't unique - American exceptionalism (a long standing national tradition) doesn't play here either. It isn't that the US is either the richest country in the world, or the poorest (first world) country.
It's that the whole first world just doesn't really want to know about poverty that's in its own backyard. Or across the tracks. Or in the inner city or at the end of the busline, in rust belts or sun belts.
We don't even understand it. We know how to define poverty when it comes to us as a starving Ethiopian child, and we know what to do: feed them. But we don't know how to deal with poverty that is worrying whether you'll have money at the end of the month, choosing to forgo medications to pay rent or buy groceries, not thinking about going to college because the debt is unimaginable - tuitions that are higher than the yearly incomes of anyone you know. Are they even poor? Not compared to the poor in the developing world. The people of New Orleans weren't starving before the hurricane.
What makes poverty? Adam Smith says (somewhere), something like "lacking that which is required to be decent". Not the most scientific, but it seems sensible. In some places that's food. In the first world, that's a house or apartment, often also a car, money to cushion you at the end of the month, electricity and running water, even luxurys like televisions - we send emergency information by television, after all.
posted by jb at 3:46 AM on September 4, 2005
Maybe it's a Canadian thing, though - being aware of American poverty. We get all of your news, and C.0.P.S. too.
posted by jb at 3:48 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by jb at 3:48 AM on September 4, 2005
okay - I realised that the high tuition thing is U.S. specific - but debt aversion is affecting many Canadians as well, as our tuition and costs of living climb. Our medical school tuition in Ontario is now at American rates.
posted by jb at 3:51 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by jb at 3:51 AM on September 4, 2005
I don't believe that informed people everywhere haven't been aware... I think that this comes as a convenient time to address it, because ordinarily a typical response would be "mind you're own business; if we're handling things so badly, then why are we the most powerful country in the world... blah, blah".
That argument will sound mighty feeble in the context of this disaster and its implications, though, and it seems that, for once, the U.S. may just have to suck it up and say "we were wrong".
posted by taz at 4:02 AM on September 4, 2005
That argument will sound mighty feeble in the context of this disaster and its implications, though, and it seems that, for once, the U.S. may just have to suck it up and say "we were wrong".
posted by taz at 4:02 AM on September 4, 2005
We need to start making stuff -- wealth -- again, not just consume crap from China.
We need to find more efficient energy sources, why the hell are we burning natural gas to power air conditioners... HELLO! ... when it's sunny out PV oughtta be cranking the coolers ... and I was shocked to find this week that natural gas has a running cost equivalent to ~$1.60/gallon ... why the hell are we burning so much oil still?
Free market fundamentalists just don't grok it -- the market is great at finding local maxima, but to get to bigger & better stuff it takes government intervention god help us.
Bleeding-heart liberals need to grok that just cutting people checks every month is more a cause than a solution to social problems.
We need to start putting people to work on national infrastructure, and begin developing our human capital.
More teachers, doctors, nurses; less telephone sanitizers and insurance processors. Less time spent on the road (thanks to more investment in transportation) and more time with the family.
Higher taxes to pay for all this.
People need to understand what wealth really is; how to make it, save it, and capitalize it.
'course, we've got Casey Jones drivin' the train right now, and 2009 is so very far away.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:08 AM on September 4, 2005
We need to find more efficient energy sources, why the hell are we burning natural gas to power air conditioners... HELLO! ... when it's sunny out PV oughtta be cranking the coolers ... and I was shocked to find this week that natural gas has a running cost equivalent to ~$1.60/gallon ... why the hell are we burning so much oil still?
Free market fundamentalists just don't grok it -- the market is great at finding local maxima, but to get to bigger & better stuff it takes government intervention god help us.
Bleeding-heart liberals need to grok that just cutting people checks every month is more a cause than a solution to social problems.
We need to start putting people to work on national infrastructure, and begin developing our human capital.
More teachers, doctors, nurses; less telephone sanitizers and insurance processors. Less time spent on the road (thanks to more investment in transportation) and more time with the family.
Higher taxes to pay for all this.
People need to understand what wealth really is; how to make it, save it, and capitalize it.
'course, we've got Casey Jones drivin' the train right now, and 2009 is so very far away.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:08 AM on September 4, 2005
I find it interesting that GWB is so often invoked as the cause of all the current US problems. Yes, he's not necessary a nice man or a good leader, but I don't see that the Clinton administration did much different.
The American society has long believed (cf Alexis DeTocqueville's Democracy in America, 1835) that people are responsible for themselves, and this provides a cultural excuse for not caring about the poor.
This is a gross generalization, and as most of the Americans I've met are kind and compassionate, I'm certainly not painting all Americans like this. But this is a long-term trend, and a democratic country gets the leaders it votes for.
posted by quiet at 4:21 AM on September 4, 2005
The American society has long believed (cf Alexis DeTocqueville's Democracy in America, 1835) that people are responsible for themselves, and this provides a cultural excuse for not caring about the poor.
This is a gross generalization, and as most of the Americans I've met are kind and compassionate, I'm certainly not painting all Americans like this. But this is a long-term trend, and a democratic country gets the leaders it votes for.
posted by quiet at 4:21 AM on September 4, 2005
Heywood partly has it. But the issue isn't just about whether you do or don't have poverty. Every society will have poverty, even after doing all of those (worthy) things. The immediate issue is about the safety mechanisms that society chooses to put in place for those who are poor. The more fundamental issue is the incompatibility between America's core values and the values a civilised society needs to provide those mechanisms.
American society is a facade. Like Main Street USA Disney, it only appears to be real, and only under certain conditions. The mistake that is being perpetrated right now is the portrayal of Katrina as America under unrepresentative conditions. It is precisely the opposite. Katrina is a peep behind the facade at the real deal.
And I wonder if the implication if this is dawning on anyone?Imagine, denizens of the World's Most Powerful Country, what would be happening right now if the bad guys let off something radioactive simultaneously in Los Angeles and New York. Your ability to control others militarily, while not in dispute, would be irrelevant right now. Katrina suggests that your ability to control yourself socially is in dispute, and that would be highly relevant.
Perhaps, to use taz's word, this might be a "convenient" time to think about that ...
posted by RichLyon at 5:14 AM on September 4, 2005
American society is a facade. Like Main Street USA Disney, it only appears to be real, and only under certain conditions. The mistake that is being perpetrated right now is the portrayal of Katrina as America under unrepresentative conditions. It is precisely the opposite. Katrina is a peep behind the facade at the real deal.
And I wonder if the implication if this is dawning on anyone?Imagine, denizens of the World's Most Powerful Country, what would be happening right now if the bad guys let off something radioactive simultaneously in Los Angeles and New York. Your ability to control others militarily, while not in dispute, would be irrelevant right now. Katrina suggests that your ability to control yourself socially is in dispute, and that would be highly relevant.
Perhaps, to use taz's word, this might be a "convenient" time to think about that ...
posted by RichLyon at 5:14 AM on September 4, 2005
The poverty rate is much higher in New Orleans than an many other parts of the country. On the National Revi: it is clear from watching TV how many women (black) there were that were drifint about without men, with very younhg chioldren and many of themk and with young girls already mothers==the breakdown of the family. However, these things alwaysw have historical roots, for which we have the history of slavery to begin with. For insights on the black extended family, read the outstanding book--a memoir about a white mother married to a black man and raising some 8 kids: The Color of Water.
Also worth noting: we love our gun culture till it turns on us. Then those who buy, steal, have easyacces toguns are very bad people.
posted by Postroad at 5:20 AM on September 4, 2005
Also worth noting: we love our gun culture till it turns on us. Then those who buy, steal, have easyacces toguns are very bad people.
posted by Postroad at 5:20 AM on September 4, 2005
I find it interesting that GWB is so often invoked as the cause of all the current US problems.
He's just making it vastly worse. With an active agenda at increasing the inequality. But I agree that it is an American mind-set problem. Americans believe that it is right to just to look out for numero uno. As my wife put it so sucinctly, "The Gospel of Me". If USians don't get off their collective asses and start making things better because better is just the right thing to do, then it won't go anywhere. I am amazed that what we have passing for the moral basis of our country is about as unfriendly to compassion and helping as you can get. There is no moral compass and those that preach the moral high ground are more likely to be the problem than not. Opiate, masses, you know the drill. As long as our government, society and our faiths allow us to treat our neighbors like a piece of shit, it's going to keep happening. Why clean up your act when your local minister or your local official is telling you that behaving badly and immorally is not a problem? It's like the behavior of a bunch of 12 year old boys who start vandalizing a house. Each act of destruction encourages and validates the others to do the same. It feeds.
The only thing that is going to save the US in the long run is that people feel accountable for bad behavior - even when no one is looking. PP, paleocon, and dios seem to me to have down pat the behavior that is rampant across the nation. It is so removed from compassion that it is almost a caricature (not to necessarily call them out, but the latest discussions show what I mean pretty well). They are not accountable for there actions in real life, so why stop? There is no down side as far as they - and most other Americans - are concerned. Screw the poor and uneducated. I made it by myself - so should they! But what if you invested in the future of everyone equally. Think it might be worth the gamble? I do.
posted by qwip at 5:27 AM on September 4, 2005
He's just making it vastly worse. With an active agenda at increasing the inequality. But I agree that it is an American mind-set problem. Americans believe that it is right to just to look out for numero uno. As my wife put it so sucinctly, "The Gospel of Me". If USians don't get off their collective asses and start making things better because better is just the right thing to do, then it won't go anywhere. I am amazed that what we have passing for the moral basis of our country is about as unfriendly to compassion and helping as you can get. There is no moral compass and those that preach the moral high ground are more likely to be the problem than not. Opiate, masses, you know the drill. As long as our government, society and our faiths allow us to treat our neighbors like a piece of shit, it's going to keep happening. Why clean up your act when your local minister or your local official is telling you that behaving badly and immorally is not a problem? It's like the behavior of a bunch of 12 year old boys who start vandalizing a house. Each act of destruction encourages and validates the others to do the same. It feeds.
The only thing that is going to save the US in the long run is that people feel accountable for bad behavior - even when no one is looking. PP, paleocon, and dios seem to me to have down pat the behavior that is rampant across the nation. It is so removed from compassion that it is almost a caricature (not to necessarily call them out, but the latest discussions show what I mean pretty well). They are not accountable for there actions in real life, so why stop? There is no down side as far as they - and most other Americans - are concerned. Screw the poor and uneducated. I made it by myself - so should they! But what if you invested in the future of everyone equally. Think it might be worth the gamble? I do.
posted by qwip at 5:27 AM on September 4, 2005
America has been a country of extremes for generations. More of everything, wealth and poverty, and the possibility that any given individual might, by extreme measures, end up belonging to the former group somehow always justifies the size, depth, permanence, and general resigned neglect of the latter.
What's new lately is the status of the middle class as a valid aspiration, which does seem to be under attack. One is expected to always strive for the top, to be number one. Americans love number one, a winner, and distain the rest. You don't win silver, you lose gold. The outsourcing of middle class employment to other countries is thought dollar-smart and ethically neutral. Other than providing personal services to the wealthy, no one is supposed to simply work for a living anymore, that's what people in other countries do for American dollars, everyone in America is supposed to be an 'investor', a business owner, a manager, or at least a world-class entertainer, movie star, athlete. The very term 'middle class morals' has become a term of sneering derision.
posted by scheptech at 5:34 AM on September 4, 2005
What's new lately is the status of the middle class as a valid aspiration, which does seem to be under attack. One is expected to always strive for the top, to be number one. Americans love number one, a winner, and distain the rest. You don't win silver, you lose gold. The outsourcing of middle class employment to other countries is thought dollar-smart and ethically neutral. Other than providing personal services to the wealthy, no one is supposed to simply work for a living anymore, that's what people in other countries do for American dollars, everyone in America is supposed to be an 'investor', a business owner, a manager, or at least a world-class entertainer, movie star, athlete. The very term 'middle class morals' has become a term of sneering derision.
posted by scheptech at 5:34 AM on September 4, 2005
America is a very large and diverse place. It is the scale of Europe. Europe has some poverty striken countries.
You can't understand New Orleans without understanding American history, and New Orleans history.
Hey, how about Muslim ghettos in Europe?
posted by stbalbach at 5:37 AM on September 4, 2005
You can't understand New Orleans without understanding American history, and New Orleans history.
Hey, how about Muslim ghettos in Europe?
posted by stbalbach at 5:37 AM on September 4, 2005
This is true; I think that it's highly unlikely that there are countries that don't hide a private shame... But the U.S. is the country that boasts of it's moral and governmental superiority, and takes it upon itself to invade and otherwise manipulate other nations, which puts it into the hotseat when a disgrace like this one reveals what's behind the curtain.
posted by taz at 5:51 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by taz at 5:51 AM on September 4, 2005
Federal disaster declarations blanketed 90,000 square miles (233,000 km²) of the United States, an area almost as large as the United Kingdom.
posted by stbalbach at 5:58 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by stbalbach at 5:58 AM on September 4, 2005
Europe has some poverty striken countries.
But they aren't the even close to being the richest nations in the world. Just because other countries have poverty shouldn't be an excuse for any developed "prospering" democracy to accept it within their own borders. Poverty does not have to be a fact of life. The problem is that if you have obscene wealth there's going to be obscene poverty.
Who in life needs Billions to have a good lifestyle. The American Dream is rotten to the core. It's all about gain at the expense of others. What happened to social responsibility, looking out for your neighbours?
posted by twistedonion at 6:00 AM on September 4, 2005
But they aren't the even close to being the richest nations in the world. Just because other countries have poverty shouldn't be an excuse for any developed "prospering" democracy to accept it within their own borders. Poverty does not have to be a fact of life. The problem is that if you have obscene wealth there's going to be obscene poverty.
Who in life needs Billions to have a good lifestyle. The American Dream is rotten to the core. It's all about gain at the expense of others. What happened to social responsibility, looking out for your neighbours?
posted by twistedonion at 6:00 AM on September 4, 2005
The other thing that's sickening is the Republicans "moral" stand - it's horribly hypocritical. "Don't you dare abort that child", "we don't care if you can't afford bring it up or not", "help you out? this is America lady, live the dream, you are free, be thankful"
It's like they believe in the sanctity of life, but not the responsibility to protect it. Once you are born, you are on your own. No child left behiond my ass.
posted by twistedonion at 6:05 AM on September 4, 2005
It's like they believe in the sanctity of life, but not the responsibility to protect it. Once you are born, you are on your own. No child left behiond my ass.
posted by twistedonion at 6:05 AM on September 4, 2005
The real story behind Katrina ? The complexity of the problem(s) send a shiver down my spine.
Mostly because, if you want to bridge over troubled waters you can try to build one by dividing the task into manageable works, by hiring a painter to paint, a concrete expert to mix the concrete, a steel engineer to prepare the steel and a lot of workforce.
Then the problems of the system "bridge" as a whole are completely different from the problem the steel engineer is used to handle, the concrete expert as well and so on.
Similarly the "problem" system of NO has a complex background :
* some talk about racial issues
* some other about people becoming lazy due to subsidied poverty
* others point out private companies , quick on their feet when it's time to get praise and profit ..are nowhere to be found when trouble and costs are on the horizon.
* Other see the moral and psycologial parts of the problem and other the political ones, the subterfuges of claiming nothing is deeply wrong..the trick of keeping the reporters away or conveniently scare them into giving up for their own interest, the insufficient education letting people believe spindoctors.
To seek a one point problem solution, a magical mistery leader or a big powerful company, I think these are immense delusions. It's a job for a excellent government.
posted by elpapacito at 6:09 AM on September 4, 2005
Mostly because, if you want to bridge over troubled waters you can try to build one by dividing the task into manageable works, by hiring a painter to paint, a concrete expert to mix the concrete, a steel engineer to prepare the steel and a lot of workforce.
Then the problems of the system "bridge" as a whole are completely different from the problem the steel engineer is used to handle, the concrete expert as well and so on.
Similarly the "problem" system of NO has a complex background :
* some talk about racial issues
* some other about people becoming lazy due to subsidied poverty
* others point out private companies , quick on their feet when it's time to get praise and profit ..are nowhere to be found when trouble and costs are on the horizon.
* Other see the moral and psycologial parts of the problem and other the political ones, the subterfuges of claiming nothing is deeply wrong..the trick of keeping the reporters away or conveniently scare them into giving up for their own interest, the insufficient education letting people believe spindoctors.
To seek a one point problem solution, a magical mistery leader or a big powerful company, I think these are immense delusions. It's a job for a excellent government.
posted by elpapacito at 6:09 AM on September 4, 2005
twistedonion, Louisiana is not a rich state. The USA is a large and diverse place. Its as large and diverse as Europe, and also in some ways as de-centralized as Europe, American states have a lot of power on some issues, not unlike independent countries. Europe is rich. The "United States" (plural) of America are rich. Some more than others. They all have poverty. If this happened in elsewhere in the USA (and it has) we would not be having this conversation.
posted by stbalbach at 6:32 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by stbalbach at 6:32 AM on September 4, 2005
elpapacito: Excellent government is necessary. I think the debate is about whether it is sufficient. Unfortunately, "excellent" government requires excellent finances, and your society is hell bent on marginalising your government and giving back any resources it might have in the form of tax cuts. Also, unless you mean it is the role of an "excellent" government to bring about a change in moral norms that twistedoinion names, your society lacks the social fabric that would allow an "excellent" government to be successful even if it tried.
posted by RichLyon at 6:44 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by RichLyon at 6:44 AM on September 4, 2005
I find it interesting that GWB is so often invoked as the cause of all the current US problems.
GWB didn't invent poverty. It has always been with us. But it's true that it's his political machine, the party structure he represents, that is actively seeking to reduce the federal government to skeletal levels and to farm out the job of creating a 'social safety net' to privately funded and 'faith-based' organizations, in order to allow business to increase its profits. W supporters might take issue with that statement, but if you do, take it to the White House, because W will say the same. This is the philosophy that his machine has been pushing into legislation for the last 5 years.
Where was the federal government during this crisis? They were taking the role Bush sees for them in the future. Waiting for the problem to be solved on a local and state level, calling on not-for-profit charities to take care of people, and committing effort only as a last resort.
posted by Miko at 7:24 AM on September 4, 2005
GWB didn't invent poverty. It has always been with us. But it's true that it's his political machine, the party structure he represents, that is actively seeking to reduce the federal government to skeletal levels and to farm out the job of creating a 'social safety net' to privately funded and 'faith-based' organizations, in order to allow business to increase its profits. W supporters might take issue with that statement, but if you do, take it to the White House, because W will say the same. This is the philosophy that his machine has been pushing into legislation for the last 5 years.
Where was the federal government during this crisis? They were taking the role Bush sees for them in the future. Waiting for the problem to be solved on a local and state level, calling on not-for-profit charities to take care of people, and committing effort only as a last resort.
posted by Miko at 7:24 AM on September 4, 2005
Our cherished Horatio Alger myth serves us poorly. We have absolutely no working class consciousness or solidarity- the entire concept has been reduced to the level of a marketing buzzword. Deep down, everyone here in the US is pretty sure that he or she will be a millionaire in five years (exactly how it will happen for each of us is something we're not so sure of) , so no one really gives a damn about the fate of the working class.
posted by squalor at 7:25 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by squalor at 7:25 AM on September 4, 2005
many of you have hit it on the nose. This is a poverty issue, and poverty in america is getting worse. As another poster mentioned, this is not a NO issue--it is happening all across the country. Poverty doesn't distinguish by skin color--if you're poor, you're poor.
Now there are almost 1,000,000 people without a home that had a home last week, and without a job that had a job last week. Sure, temporary jobs will be created with rebuilding efforts, but many of the people displaced will NOT be going back--that leaves hundreds of thousands of people who need work--and most of the jobs that this country has available are minimum wage--povery level jobs.
For example, the news just said that 250,000 people from the gulf are in Houston, TX. How will we ensure that those folks not only have their basic needs met, but will not be doomed to a life of poverty?
So the question is where do we go from here? Some would like to cast poevery as a problem for those in poverty. Wrong! It's everyone's problem, and it affects every single american. America has a HUGE job ahead of it, and it CAN't afford to "turn the other cheek" on this issue.
End of Sermon.
posted by barrista at 7:37 AM on September 4, 2005
Now there are almost 1,000,000 people without a home that had a home last week, and without a job that had a job last week. Sure, temporary jobs will be created with rebuilding efforts, but many of the people displaced will NOT be going back--that leaves hundreds of thousands of people who need work--and most of the jobs that this country has available are minimum wage--povery level jobs.
For example, the news just said that 250,000 people from the gulf are in Houston, TX. How will we ensure that those folks not only have their basic needs met, but will not be doomed to a life of poverty?
So the question is where do we go from here? Some would like to cast poevery as a problem for those in poverty. Wrong! It's everyone's problem, and it affects every single american. America has a HUGE job ahead of it, and it CAN't afford to "turn the other cheek" on this issue.
End of Sermon.
posted by barrista at 7:37 AM on September 4, 2005
stbalbach that is such a flawed argument I really don't know where to begin, the flaws are so obvious I don't need to shine any light on them, which is good because I'm not exactly the most elloquent person in the world.
This is your country. Louisiana as a part of your country. The rather difficult truth for those of us in the world that admire the US despite its more obvious flaws is that this natural disaster has washed away a veneer that shames your country. We listen to your politicians proclaim it to be the greatest nation on earth, the richest nation on earth. And then this happens, the truth is laid bair, America's dirty little secret. The results of turbo capitalism home to roost. This is the worst disaster to hit America in I don't know how long, I should be feeling solidarity for you, not shame.
You know what upsets me also? My country models itself on your country. The way of life, the culture, the economics, what you do, we follow. If we don't like it or speak out against it, you're branded "Anti-American". And for the last decade in particular, the underclass in this country has been growing and growing, much like it has in your country, and us middle class folk dismiss it, blame it on the "chavs". And one day we will probably be shamed just like your country is right now. I hope that when that day comes, I don't just try and brush it aside, saying "yeah, but poverty exists in other countries too".
This feels like kicking you when you're down, and part of me feels like I shouldn't post this. But then I guess if there's room on this site for Americans to suggest that we leave the folks in New Orleans to just die (how patriotic), then I guess there's room for my opinion too.
posted by chill at 7:53 AM on September 4, 2005
This is your country. Louisiana as a part of your country. The rather difficult truth for those of us in the world that admire the US despite its more obvious flaws is that this natural disaster has washed away a veneer that shames your country. We listen to your politicians proclaim it to be the greatest nation on earth, the richest nation on earth. And then this happens, the truth is laid bair, America's dirty little secret. The results of turbo capitalism home to roost. This is the worst disaster to hit America in I don't know how long, I should be feeling solidarity for you, not shame.
You know what upsets me also? My country models itself on your country. The way of life, the culture, the economics, what you do, we follow. If we don't like it or speak out against it, you're branded "Anti-American". And for the last decade in particular, the underclass in this country has been growing and growing, much like it has in your country, and us middle class folk dismiss it, blame it on the "chavs". And one day we will probably be shamed just like your country is right now. I hope that when that day comes, I don't just try and brush it aside, saying "yeah, but poverty exists in other countries too".
This feels like kicking you when you're down, and part of me feels like I shouldn't post this. But then I guess if there's room on this site for Americans to suggest that we leave the folks in New Orleans to just die (how patriotic), then I guess there's room for my opinion too.
posted by chill at 7:53 AM on September 4, 2005
When I was planning to move to New Orleans a few months back (praise God I didn't), I was shocked at the cost of housing -- it was so so so cheap. Now I understand more than ever why.
posted by nospecialfx at 7:58 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by nospecialfx at 7:58 AM on September 4, 2005
As to Aaronovitch's whole "OMG! America's inner cities have been third world for years! OMG!" and the whole converse that Europe would never, ever have urban poverty like pre-hurricane NO's:
B.S.
Let's face the facts: Western Europe has just as many poor people in their cities as we do.
London? Take a walk starting at Brick Lane, continue onto Bethnal Green and end at Bow. Housing projects, burned out cars and total unemployment. Hey! Just like America!
Paris? Any of the suburban cities outside of the arrondisements(sp). St. Denis, for instance: 15%+ unemployment rate, a massive heroin problem, massive amounts of French kids with North African roots playing at being gangsta.
Germany? Eastern Germany on the whole has massive, massive unemployment. Whole ex-marxist factory towns where THERE ARE NO DAMN JOBS. Magdeburg and Dresden are drowning in unemployment and, as my travelling buddy put it, look like "Newark and Camden, only with white people."
So, nope. The EU's got urban poverty too. The Times of London needs to remember it's not just America.
posted by huskerdont at 8:00 AM on September 4, 2005
B.S.
Let's face the facts: Western Europe has just as many poor people in their cities as we do.
London? Take a walk starting at Brick Lane, continue onto Bethnal Green and end at Bow. Housing projects, burned out cars and total unemployment. Hey! Just like America!
Paris? Any of the suburban cities outside of the arrondisements(sp). St. Denis, for instance: 15%+ unemployment rate, a massive heroin problem, massive amounts of French kids with North African roots playing at being gangsta.
Germany? Eastern Germany on the whole has massive, massive unemployment. Whole ex-marxist factory towns where THERE ARE NO DAMN JOBS. Magdeburg and Dresden are drowning in unemployment and, as my travelling buddy put it, look like "Newark and Camden, only with white people."
So, nope. The EU's got urban poverty too. The Times of London needs to remember it's not just America.
posted by huskerdont at 8:00 AM on September 4, 2005
nospecialfx: indeed .. andwho buys cheap cheap cheap housing because they can't afford more not even if they worked for two lifes ?
posted by elpapacito at 8:01 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by elpapacito at 8:01 AM on September 4, 2005
I find it interesting that more than one poster has tried to distance NOLA from the rest of the country. It is 'like Europe' in that there are poor 'countries' too. It makes GWB and his talk of helping the people in "this part of the world" make a little more sense. Is making it the fault of 'others' the American way?
posted by leftoverboy at 8:02 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by leftoverboy at 8:02 AM on September 4, 2005
So, nope. The EU's got urban poverty too. The Times of London needs to remember it's not just America.
Indeed they do, but it's also useful to remember that being losers in a loser community may make one feel better, but that doesn't change the reality.
posted by elpapacito at 8:02 AM on September 4, 2005
Indeed they do, but it's also useful to remember that being losers in a loser community may make one feel better, but that doesn't change the reality.
posted by elpapacito at 8:02 AM on September 4, 2005
quiet: I find it interesting that GWB is so often invoked as the cause of all the current US problems. Yes, he's not necessary a nice man or a good leader, but I don't see that the Clinton administration did much different.
Lets see.... Clinton got BJ's, GWB blows things up.
Where, the fuck, exactly ARE THOSE weapons of mass destruction?
Are Americans really this blind?
If you impeach for a sexual act, should you lynch for crimes against humanity?
posted by jkaczor at 8:20 AM on September 4, 2005
Lets see.... Clinton got BJ's, GWB blows things up.
Where, the fuck, exactly ARE THOSE weapons of mass destruction?
Are Americans really this blind?
If you impeach for a sexual act, should you lynch for crimes against humanity?
posted by jkaczor at 8:20 AM on September 4, 2005
From this recent article on CNN
Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.
"That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight," Chertoff said.
WTF ? When a memo will surface about this, what will they say next, they didn't read the memo ?! Get lost, go dig mud ! this is not 9/11 bullshit repeating championship.
posted by elpapacito at 8:23 AM on September 4, 2005
Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.
"That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight," Chertoff said.
WTF ? When a memo will surface about this, what will they say next, they didn't read the memo ?! Get lost, go dig mud ! this is not 9/11 bullshit repeating championship.
posted by elpapacito at 8:23 AM on September 4, 2005
The threat to the American way of life isn't the perhaps a couple of hundred Islamist militants who have the means to damage the US. It's the forty million small monsters who swallow the big lie about how social conscience is unnecessary, and vote Republican.
Well, it all depends on your goals. The U.S. has this ludicrous American Dream where through guile, luck, inheritance and cronyism, you achieve this wonderful power over your fellow man. To attain that goal, a certain kind of system has to be set up, one that is in direct conflict with social harmony. Everyone can't be #1.
You can either empower the individual, or empower the group. The United States choses the individual, Europe choses the group. The ultimate expression of the triumph of the individual is one person owning everything, and everybody else working for that guy (fascism). The ultimate expression of the triumph of the group is everyone owning nothing, and everyone working for everyone else (communism).
Neither is terribly effective in the long run. Communism ignores the will to power inside man. For some reason--let's blame Darwin--humans have this desire to come out on top. Deny them the ability to advance through their own efforts, and they lose motivation.
The problem is that self-interest only gets you so far. The individual only has so much ability to achieve their goals, and must rely on the power of groups. Sadly, conservatives (particularly fiscal ones) in this country have forgotten about the power of the group. If your company is the #1 retailer in the country, but you've put all your competitors out of a job and thus they don't have the cash to be buying lots of stuff, that's an individual gain but a total net loss. This country is all about total net losses.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:29 AM on September 4, 2005
Well, it all depends on your goals. The U.S. has this ludicrous American Dream where through guile, luck, inheritance and cronyism, you achieve this wonderful power over your fellow man. To attain that goal, a certain kind of system has to be set up, one that is in direct conflict with social harmony. Everyone can't be #1.
You can either empower the individual, or empower the group. The United States choses the individual, Europe choses the group. The ultimate expression of the triumph of the individual is one person owning everything, and everybody else working for that guy (fascism). The ultimate expression of the triumph of the group is everyone owning nothing, and everyone working for everyone else (communism).
Neither is terribly effective in the long run. Communism ignores the will to power inside man. For some reason--let's blame Darwin--humans have this desire to come out on top. Deny them the ability to advance through their own efforts, and they lose motivation.
The problem is that self-interest only gets you so far. The individual only has so much ability to achieve their goals, and must rely on the power of groups. Sadly, conservatives (particularly fiscal ones) in this country have forgotten about the power of the group. If your company is the #1 retailer in the country, but you've put all your competitors out of a job and thus they don't have the cash to be buying lots of stuff, that's an individual gain but a total net loss. This country is all about total net losses.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:29 AM on September 4, 2005
The "scale of poverty in the world's richest country" only surprises people who haven't read "Das Kapital".
posted by signal at 8:35 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by signal at 8:35 AM on September 4, 2005
Capitalism kills people.
It does so gradually, almost imperceptibly, as a rule. Just a gradual reduction in the security and incomes of the poor, dropping slowly, month after month, only a few percent a year. While the rich grow steadily richer, slowly, just a few percent a year.
Usually it's not as visible as it is today. Not as newsworthy. No story there, folks, move along.
The "real disaster" is not the 5,000 or 10,000 poor people who have just died in New Orleans, so much as the 30,000 or 40,000 people who die EVERY DAY from poverty - mostly in Africa, but some everywhere else too.
30,000 today, 30,000 yesterday, 30,000 tomorrow. Mostly children, starving or dying of easily preventable diseases.
No hurricane required, just capitalism. Thirty thousand per day. Eight million a year. Every year, a Holocaust.
That mass death is caused by poverty, and the poverty is caused by efficient, smooth-running capitalism - a process designed to shift wealth at ever-increasing speeds from the poor to the rich.
If this disaster wakes up a few American voters to that basic reality, then 10,000 deaths could be a very small price to pay for the lives that can be saved in future.
posted by cleardawn at 8:47 AM on September 4, 2005
It does so gradually, almost imperceptibly, as a rule. Just a gradual reduction in the security and incomes of the poor, dropping slowly, month after month, only a few percent a year. While the rich grow steadily richer, slowly, just a few percent a year.
Usually it's not as visible as it is today. Not as newsworthy. No story there, folks, move along.
The "real disaster" is not the 5,000 or 10,000 poor people who have just died in New Orleans, so much as the 30,000 or 40,000 people who die EVERY DAY from poverty - mostly in Africa, but some everywhere else too.
30,000 today, 30,000 yesterday, 30,000 tomorrow. Mostly children, starving or dying of easily preventable diseases.
No hurricane required, just capitalism. Thirty thousand per day. Eight million a year. Every year, a Holocaust.
That mass death is caused by poverty, and the poverty is caused by efficient, smooth-running capitalism - a process designed to shift wealth at ever-increasing speeds from the poor to the rich.
If this disaster wakes up a few American voters to that basic reality, then 10,000 deaths could be a very small price to pay for the lives that can be saved in future.
posted by cleardawn at 8:47 AM on September 4, 2005
I was listening to NPR yesterday where a woman was saying that she had taken in a bunch of refugees and sheltered them in her house. (I think it was Dallas, but I'm not really sure.) She said that she went to the refugee center to talk to the Red Cross about getting food for these extra 14 people and the Red Cross said that they wouldn't feed anyone who wasn't staying at the refugee center because of the chance of fraud.
This got me thinking. Are they afraid that they might just be feeding a run of the mill homeless person who was hungry because he had no home, no job, no prospects for reasons other than a natural disaster? Horrors!
What does that say about this country? Compassion doesn't enter into the equation for a lot of people. We are a very wealthy country but we want to spend our money on other priorities than the poor here. The problem goes waaaaay beyond just one natural disaster.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:50 AM on September 4, 2005
This got me thinking. Are they afraid that they might just be feeding a run of the mill homeless person who was hungry because he had no home, no job, no prospects for reasons other than a natural disaster? Horrors!
What does that say about this country? Compassion doesn't enter into the equation for a lot of people. We are a very wealthy country but we want to spend our money on other priorities than the poor here. The problem goes waaaaay beyond just one natural disaster.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:50 AM on September 4, 2005
On (not) previewing, cleardawn, I agree with everything you said right up til your last paragraph. 10,000 deaths is never a small price.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:52 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:52 AM on September 4, 2005
If you impeach for a sexual act, should you lynch for crimes against humanity?
You know, folks in other nations don't like it when we lump we and your views all together. You're preaching to the converted here (mostly).
I'm so tired of getting attacked by people outside the U.S. for having W in office when, during the past two election cycles, I exhausted myself, typed my fingers off in letters to the ed., walked from door to door collecting votes, and banged my head against a wall arguing with boneheads about why this guy shouldn't have be elected. I've been an activist even since then, too. Those in this country who agree with you are doing everything we damn well can. The people who are supporting W these days are NOT the same people who impeached Clinton -- get it? Our nation is in the grip of a bizarre cultural spasm. Our media is controlled by giant corporations whose vested interest is to keep things the way they are -- we have a hard time even engaging in national debate over the facts, because we can't agree on what the facts are anymore. We're trying to extricate oursleves. Please, help us do it, rather than attacking us for a situation most of us didn't create.
posted by Miko at 8:53 AM on September 4, 2005
You know, folks in other nations don't like it when we lump we and your views all together. You're preaching to the converted here (mostly).
I'm so tired of getting attacked by people outside the U.S. for having W in office when, during the past two election cycles, I exhausted myself, typed my fingers off in letters to the ed., walked from door to door collecting votes, and banged my head against a wall arguing with boneheads about why this guy shouldn't have be elected. I've been an activist even since then, too. Those in this country who agree with you are doing everything we damn well can. The people who are supporting W these days are NOT the same people who impeached Clinton -- get it? Our nation is in the grip of a bizarre cultural spasm. Our media is controlled by giant corporations whose vested interest is to keep things the way they are -- we have a hard time even engaging in national debate over the facts, because we can't agree on what the facts are anymore. We're trying to extricate oursleves. Please, help us do it, rather than attacking us for a situation most of us didn't create.
posted by Miko at 8:53 AM on September 4, 2005
The people who are supporting W these days are NOT the same people who impeached Clinton
Interesting take on it, Miko. I don't know if I agree with you, because it seems to me that this country is so polarized that hard core Republicans seem to think that anything Clinton = bad and anything Bush = good. (A lot of Democrats are the same in an inverse sort of way.)
What do you think the difference is between the W supporters and the Clinton detractors?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:00 AM on September 4, 2005
Interesting take on it, Miko. I don't know if I agree with you, because it seems to me that this country is so polarized that hard core Republicans seem to think that anything Clinton = bad and anything Bush = good. (A lot of Democrats are the same in an inverse sort of way.)
What do you think the difference is between the W supporters and the Clinton detractors?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:00 AM on September 4, 2005
(If that sounded snarky, I'm sorry. I really am curious about what your take is on the two different groups.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:01 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:01 AM on September 4, 2005
We listen to your politicians proclaim it to be the greatest nation on earth, the richest nation on earth. And then this happens, the truth is laid bair, America's dirty little secret. The results of turbo capitalism home to roost. This is the worst disaster to hit America in I don't know how long, I should be feeling solidarity for you, not shame.
Chill hits it.
One of the consequences of this debacle is how horrifyingly apparent the fundamental disconnect between America's proclamations of moral, economic, and philosophical superiority and the truth on the ground, as broadcast all over the planet, really is. Any semblance of "soft power" which we might still have left (and who among us, save the most rabid and ideologically blind, would not acknowledge we have pissed a good measure of that away in recent years) is now effectively gone. Bloated corpses floating through the streets, babies dying of dehydration and shock, dead folks left to lie in gutters or deposited like trash in some hospital corridor, poor folks literally begging on national television for aid and succor... What reasonable person, be he a denizen of the European middle class or a barber in Tehran, will continue to give us the benefit of the doubt as we seek to "export" our "system" globally?
It almost makes me weep to think that for many across the globe we've gone from "America: the land of opportunity and freedom" to "America: the land where they leave their poor and infirm to die like dogs on the street" in such a short, short time.
posted by Chrischris at 9:07 AM on September 4, 2005
Chill hits it.
One of the consequences of this debacle is how horrifyingly apparent the fundamental disconnect between America's proclamations of moral, economic, and philosophical superiority and the truth on the ground, as broadcast all over the planet, really is. Any semblance of "soft power" which we might still have left (and who among us, save the most rabid and ideologically blind, would not acknowledge we have pissed a good measure of that away in recent years) is now effectively gone. Bloated corpses floating through the streets, babies dying of dehydration and shock, dead folks left to lie in gutters or deposited like trash in some hospital corridor, poor folks literally begging on national television for aid and succor... What reasonable person, be he a denizen of the European middle class or a barber in Tehran, will continue to give us the benefit of the doubt as we seek to "export" our "system" globally?
It almost makes me weep to think that for many across the globe we've gone from "America: the land of opportunity and freedom" to "America: the land where they leave their poor and infirm to die like dogs on the street" in such a short, short time.
posted by Chrischris at 9:07 AM on September 4, 2005
> We are a very wealthy country but we want to spend our money on other priorities than the poor here.
$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?"
posted by dand at 9:10 AM on September 4, 2005
$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?"
posted by dand at 9:10 AM on September 4, 2005
I think squalor made a good point -- a real question is why does the American public go along with this stuff. Why don't people demand a social safety net? Corporations may in fact run things for the most part through campaign contributions and influence peddling, but we still get to vote. So why do so many people vote for these people who care nothing about them?
And the answer, or part of the answer is, the vast majority of the working poor and lower middle class really do believe at some level that they belong or soon will belong to the same socioeconomic set as the ruling class. That's the whole lie of the "American Dream" and the "self made man." Which is just never going to happen. It may have been true at one point, but with the requisite number of exceptions for a country for 270MM+ people, a poor person is not going to end up a millionaire.
If this truth were ever to really set in for those living paycheck to paycheck or barely making it through the month, we would have an entirely different set of leaders and goals. But it hasn't and I don't necessarily think it will. Because that is a hard road, changing the course of a huge nation. And our leaders have so far proven ruthlessly efficient at keeping the bulk of the American public just satisfied enough to not ask any real tough questions, and to marginalize those who do. It's something of a brilliant set up. Too bad the results are so horrific.
posted by zaack at 9:17 AM on September 4, 2005
And the answer, or part of the answer is, the vast majority of the working poor and lower middle class really do believe at some level that they belong or soon will belong to the same socioeconomic set as the ruling class. That's the whole lie of the "American Dream" and the "self made man." Which is just never going to happen. It may have been true at one point, but with the requisite number of exceptions for a country for 270MM+ people, a poor person is not going to end up a millionaire.
If this truth were ever to really set in for those living paycheck to paycheck or barely making it through the month, we would have an entirely different set of leaders and goals. But it hasn't and I don't necessarily think it will. Because that is a hard road, changing the course of a huge nation. And our leaders have so far proven ruthlessly efficient at keeping the bulk of the American public just satisfied enough to not ask any real tough questions, and to marginalize those who do. It's something of a brilliant set up. Too bad the results are so horrific.
posted by zaack at 9:17 AM on September 4, 2005
Thanks for your efforts.
However, those of us outside do have the right to have opinions about a nation that affects the rest of the world with it's political, fiscal policies, actions and rhetoric.
And, I fully understand that we are preaching to the choir - thats why we keep coming back to MetaFilter - sanity amongst the craziness.
Remember this though - collectively, you are under intense scrutiny as the richest and most powerful nation in the world.
The long-term effects of the handling of Katrina are going to be very powerful. The fallacy of Homeland security has been exposed very bluntly. Now, we will see if this blatant racism will motivate an overall change - how will you handle your refugee's long-term?
Remember - you have an army overseas, and I would hesitate to guess that there are a significant portion of people who are black, or have family in the Gulf area - it wouldn't be the first time in history that returning soldiers took political matters into their own hands...
posted by jkaczor at 9:19 AM on September 4, 2005
Take that $9 trillion plus the billions we have pissed away in Iraq for Halliburton gimmes plus the corporate welfare we give away every year plus the tax cuts for the wealthy and then we could buy our way out of poverty. I'd rather see us spend the money on health care and free secondary education and welfare than golden parachutes.
And that article is typical Cato Institute b.s.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:20 AM on September 4, 2005
And that article is typical Cato Institute b.s.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:20 AM on September 4, 2005
I really don't see how National Review is wrong. If you've ever been to NOLA for longer than a week you'd know these masses just didn't become poor when Katrina hit.
One of the highest crime, drug abuse, and welfare rates in the nation. These people were slowly dying before Katrina ever formed. The Govmt. subsidies were destroying their pride and keeping them in mental an physical ghetto. It's been almost 50 fucking years, the New Deal failed.
posted by TetrisKid at 9:26 AM on September 4, 2005
One of the highest crime, drug abuse, and welfare rates in the nation. These people were slowly dying before Katrina ever formed. The Govmt. subsidies were destroying their pride and keeping them in mental an physical ghetto. It's been almost 50 fucking years, the New Deal failed.
posted by TetrisKid at 9:26 AM on September 4, 2005
huskerdon't: The EU's got urban poverty too. The Times of London needs to remember it's not just America.The issue isn't about which society has got poverty and which hasn't. The issue is about which society takes care of those in poverty, and which doesn't.
posted by RichLyon at 9:30 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by RichLyon at 9:30 AM on September 4, 2005
It's the forty million small monsters who swallow the big lie about how social conscience is unnecessary, and vote Republican.
Speaking as a Republican, I'd like to point out that today's version of the party has absolutely-fucking-squat to do with what true Republicanism is about. The Bush Hegemony and the Religious Right have screwed up the principles of a compassionate ideal that urges each person to take care of themselves but to count on help when it's much needed. Republicanism doesn't reward those who, while still able to work, purposefully sit on their asses with their hands out.
Also, Republicans are supposed to demand smaller government. Can't say that about the Bush Hegemony, can we.
Sign me as one angry anti-Bush Republican. He isn't worthy of the affiliation.
posted by caporal at 9:31 AM on September 4, 2005
Speaking as a Republican, I'd like to point out that today's version of the party has absolutely-fucking-squat to do with what true Republicanism is about. The Bush Hegemony and the Religious Right have screwed up the principles of a compassionate ideal that urges each person to take care of themselves but to count on help when it's much needed. Republicanism doesn't reward those who, while still able to work, purposefully sit on their asses with their hands out.
Also, Republicans are supposed to demand smaller government. Can't say that about the Bush Hegemony, can we.
Sign me as one angry anti-Bush Republican. He isn't worthy of the affiliation.
posted by caporal at 9:31 AM on September 4, 2005
It almost makes me weep to think that for many across the globe we've gone from "America: the land of opportunity and freedom" to "America: the land where they leave their poor and infirm to die like dogs on the street" in such a short, short time.
Do you really think that pre-Katrina many people saw America as 'the land of opportunity and freedom' ?
posted by the cuban at 9:32 AM on September 4, 2005
Do you really think that pre-Katrina many people saw America as 'the land of opportunity and freedom' ?
posted by the cuban at 9:32 AM on September 4, 2005
caporal: Why aren't there more Republicans, like you, speaking up?
This has been bothering me for years now. Although I don't identify myself as conservative, I sympathize with the POV and agree on certain issues. It's disgusted me how true conservatives have stayed mum as their party has been stolen from them.
Why the silence? Why stay in the party?
posted by brundlefly at 9:41 AM on September 4, 2005
This has been bothering me for years now. Although I don't identify myself as conservative, I sympathize with the POV and agree on certain issues. It's disgusted me how true conservatives have stayed mum as their party has been stolen from them.
Why the silence? Why stay in the party?
posted by brundlefly at 9:41 AM on September 4, 2005
I've been struck while reading coverage of NOLA by how much New Orleans is the American dream now. Libertarian gangs are running the city. The weak are being left to die. It is all the logical end result of the kinds of policies and politicians we USians have been voting for.
Yep, capitalism and libertarianism at their purest.
posted by QIbHom at 9:48 AM on September 4, 2005
Yep, capitalism and libertarianism at their purest.
posted by QIbHom at 9:48 AM on September 4, 2005
Why the silence? Why stay in the party?
For some, it's the intimidation I expect. Or embarassment. I stay because I refuse to let the religious fundie freaks remain in control of my party. And I've been screaming at my representatives since 2001. I intend to continue my activism.
I do have an observation. The Ultra-Conservatives (I prefer the term to 'Neo Cons') really do hate the Left and will continue to openly fight them, but they know they have a greater enemy: the moderate Right, of which I am a member. It is their intention to destroy the right-wing moderate element in the party. After all, the moderates are the ones who can really break Ultra-Con power from within.
Their hatred for us right-wing moderates surpasses their enmity for the Left. I speak from experience. :-(
posted by caporal at 9:50 AM on September 4, 2005
For some, it's the intimidation I expect. Or embarassment. I stay because I refuse to let the religious fundie freaks remain in control of my party. And I've been screaming at my representatives since 2001. I intend to continue my activism.
I do have an observation. The Ultra-Conservatives (I prefer the term to 'Neo Cons') really do hate the Left and will continue to openly fight them, but they know they have a greater enemy: the moderate Right, of which I am a member. It is their intention to destroy the right-wing moderate element in the party. After all, the moderates are the ones who can really break Ultra-Con power from within.
Their hatred for us right-wing moderates surpasses their enmity for the Left. I speak from experience. :-(
posted by caporal at 9:50 AM on September 4, 2005
typical Cato Institute b.s.
Er, just wanted to note that on some issues - the idiocy of invading Iraq, e.g. - the Cato Institute has been right on the money. Their stuff is worth sorting through, I mean, and shouldn't be dismissed so cavalierly. That's all.
posted by mediareport at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2005
Er, just wanted to note that on some issues - the idiocy of invading Iraq, e.g. - the Cato Institute has been right on the money. Their stuff is worth sorting through, I mean, and shouldn't be dismissed so cavalierly. That's all.
posted by mediareport at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2005
It's been almost 50 fucking years, the New Deal failed.
says the man who drives on publicly built-roads, relies on publicly funded police and fire infrastructure to protect his propery and life, attends (or has the chance to attend) educational and/or entertaining events hosted at and often funded by public monies--all the direct fruits of "the New Deal" he so casually dismisses.
You know, my grandfather's family was left destitute by the collapse of the agricultural markets in the 30's; he took a job with the CCC and spent three years planting trees and building roads (you know those things you use everyday to get to work). He made enough money to keep his family (his parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews) from losing the farm (the only tangible thing of real worth they owned). I'm fucking right here, right now, typing on this fucking computer because of the The New Deal. And I'd be willing to wager that many of us here are alive and perhaps even semi-secure in our living precisely because the government stepped in with "the New Deal" at a time when the "invisible hand" had utterly collapsed for millions and millions of Americans.
You want to argue about "the Great Society" initiatives--fine. But your ignorant assault on one of the most successful government interventions in the history of nation-states is so perverse and (dare I say it) ignorant of reality as to be almost laughable.
On preview: no, the cuban I honestly can't say that I expect most global citizens to have that view, but I can say that I had hoped that some (perhaps a still respectable minority) would still give us the benefit of the doubt. Now, that already small numberwill inexorably dwindle.
posted by Chrischris at 9:57 AM on September 4, 2005
says the man who drives on publicly built-roads, relies on publicly funded police and fire infrastructure to protect his propery and life, attends (or has the chance to attend) educational and/or entertaining events hosted at and often funded by public monies--all the direct fruits of "the New Deal" he so casually dismisses.
You know, my grandfather's family was left destitute by the collapse of the agricultural markets in the 30's; he took a job with the CCC and spent three years planting trees and building roads (you know those things you use everyday to get to work). He made enough money to keep his family (his parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews) from losing the farm (the only tangible thing of real worth they owned). I'm fucking right here, right now, typing on this fucking computer because of the The New Deal. And I'd be willing to wager that many of us here are alive and perhaps even semi-secure in our living precisely because the government stepped in with "the New Deal" at a time when the "invisible hand" had utterly collapsed for millions and millions of Americans.
You want to argue about "the Great Society" initiatives--fine. But your ignorant assault on one of the most successful government interventions in the history of nation-states is so perverse and (dare I say it) ignorant of reality as to be almost laughable.
On preview: no, the cuban I honestly can't say that I expect most global citizens to have that view, but I can say that I had hoped that some (perhaps a still respectable minority) would still give us the benefit of the doubt. Now, that already small numberwill inexorably dwindle.
posted by Chrischris at 9:57 AM on September 4, 2005
-- we have a hard time even engaging in national debate over the facts, because we can't agree on what the facts are anymore.
Yes - there's a whole lot of reasons, here's just a couple.
1 - relativism: many these days truly believe there is no absolute reality, you know - the "what's true for me" thing - this runs very deep
2 - profit-driven market-oriented media: various media tailor reality to whatever demographic they figure they're serving, everyone can just pick and chose whose news they like which tends, of course, to just reinforce what they already believe
3 - the rise of the professional spin-meister, talking head, speech-writer, pundit, corporate spokes-person, media representative - all these folks spend a lot of time and effort learning how to present 'facts' in whatever way most effectively advances whatever agenda they're being paid to advance, and not so much time in learning some actual facts themselves
posted by scheptech at 10:05 AM on September 4, 2005
Yes - there's a whole lot of reasons, here's just a couple.
1 - relativism: many these days truly believe there is no absolute reality, you know - the "what's true for me" thing - this runs very deep
2 - profit-driven market-oriented media: various media tailor reality to whatever demographic they figure they're serving, everyone can just pick and chose whose news they like which tends, of course, to just reinforce what they already believe
3 - the rise of the professional spin-meister, talking head, speech-writer, pundit, corporate spokes-person, media representative - all these folks spend a lot of time and effort learning how to present 'facts' in whatever way most effectively advances whatever agenda they're being paid to advance, and not so much time in learning some actual facts themselves
posted by scheptech at 10:05 AM on September 4, 2005
One of the consequences of this debacle is how horrifyingly apparent the fundamental disconnect between America's proclamations of moral, economic, and philosophical superiority and the truth on the ground, as broadcast all over the planet, really is.
Is this surprising? From "the world's largest mattress blowout sale" next to "the world's largest bible outlet warehouses" to the pictures of early western towns with their Main Street buildings made up of a huge facade with a little shed in the back, this disconnect, this schizophrenia, if you will, has always been endemic here.
posted by c13 at 10:15 AM on September 4, 2005
Is this surprising? From "the world's largest mattress blowout sale" next to "the world's largest bible outlet warehouses" to the pictures of early western towns with their Main Street buildings made up of a huge facade with a little shed in the back, this disconnect, this schizophrenia, if you will, has always been endemic here.
posted by c13 at 10:15 AM on September 4, 2005
This is a country founded by religious nuts, profiteers, criminals, and racists. We're just 'staying the course.' Right or wrong, ya gotta stay the course, right? I mean, that's what the Boss says....
posted by umberto at 10:58 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by umberto at 10:58 AM on September 4, 2005
It's not just Europeans who are shocked; many of those I know up here in NY are amazed at what they're seeing in New Orleans. Not me, I'm from the south, and sadly, not shocked by the extreme poverty, especially among African Americans. But for everyone else, it's like Katrina revealed a rotteness at the core that no one really believed was there. Because when we see or think about poverty in the U.S. it's generally of small communities or individuals--not millions of people. Until we see the suffering on TV, maybe we just can't believe in it. We don't want to believe in such misery, so we avoid it until we can't anymore. That's why journalism that rips back the mask is so needed and why things get so much worse when it doesn't exist.
posted by emjaybee at 11:12 AM on September 4, 2005
posted by emjaybee at 11:12 AM on September 4, 2005
I think squalor made a good point -- a real question is why does the American public go along with this stuff. Why don't people demand a social safety net? Corporations may in fact run things for the most part through campaign contributions and influence peddling, but we still get to vote. So why do so many people vote for these people who care nothing about them?
And it's not merely that people are caught in our own particular dysfunctional instantiation of the 'American Dream.' The rotten underside of that truth is that the people who live paycheck to paycheck and mortgage their future for a better car and a larger television are doing so because we're told such efforts will bring us closer to the American Dream, that the American Dream is something you can find in a box or a bottle or a thinner set of thighs. You can wander the airways until you go blue in the face looking for the media to tell you any small and wholesome truth around which any person could build a life worth living instead of a hill of colorful plastic wrapping. The disconnect between Americans and America, America and the rest of the world, anyone you care to mention is directly informed by the encouragement to invest our lives in the short-term, the trivial, the transitory and insignificant.
TetrisKid, the New Deal wasn't a failure. But I think the American Dream that America used to work for and the American Dream we're working toward now are significantly different. And now when we see this glorious failure of America to take care of America and worry that in two weeks it'll all be back to neat in the minds of the masses, I fear it is worse than any one unimaginable natural disaster. Millions of Americans find thinking troublesome and objectionable and don't want to deprive themselves of any momentary comfort in favor of achieving a single common goal and they're going to vote for whatever voice rumbles loudest in the throat of the socially informed Everyman masses.
posted by rebirtha at 11:52 AM on September 4, 2005
And it's not merely that people are caught in our own particular dysfunctional instantiation of the 'American Dream.' The rotten underside of that truth is that the people who live paycheck to paycheck and mortgage their future for a better car and a larger television are doing so because we're told such efforts will bring us closer to the American Dream, that the American Dream is something you can find in a box or a bottle or a thinner set of thighs. You can wander the airways until you go blue in the face looking for the media to tell you any small and wholesome truth around which any person could build a life worth living instead of a hill of colorful plastic wrapping. The disconnect between Americans and America, America and the rest of the world, anyone you care to mention is directly informed by the encouragement to invest our lives in the short-term, the trivial, the transitory and insignificant.
TetrisKid, the New Deal wasn't a failure. But I think the American Dream that America used to work for and the American Dream we're working toward now are significantly different. And now when we see this glorious failure of America to take care of America and worry that in two weeks it'll all be back to neat in the minds of the masses, I fear it is worse than any one unimaginable natural disaster. Millions of Americans find thinking troublesome and objectionable and don't want to deprive themselves of any momentary comfort in favor of achieving a single common goal and they're going to vote for whatever voice rumbles loudest in the throat of the socially informed Everyman masses.
posted by rebirtha at 11:52 AM on September 4, 2005
But your ignorant assault on one of the most successful government interventions in the history of nation-states is so perverse and (dare I say it) ignorant of reality as to be almost laughable.
Chrischris-- before you accuse others of ignorance, I'd suggest boning up on Flynn, Powell, and von Mises (pdf). You present as fact that which is certainly hotly contested.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:55 AM on September 4, 2005
Chrischris-- before you accuse others of ignorance, I'd suggest boning up on Flynn, Powell, and von Mises (pdf). You present as fact that which is certainly hotly contested.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:55 AM on September 4, 2005
leftcoastbob, and others --
What do you think the difference is between the W supporters and the Clinton detractors?
Oops. I made a bad mistake. I re-rewrote that sentence a couple of times and lost track of my negatives.
I agree with you that people who support W now largely ARE the same ones who wanted to impeach Clinton, and believe everything Clinton='bad'.
What I was trying to say is that you'll find few people who both wanted to impeach Clinton and now oppose W. I was just trying to make the point to those in other countries that we do have a polarized country, and that many, many people here have engaged in a long struggle against the very things the international community finds appalling. For the most part, that group has not been effective in this climate. But I want credit for trying -- I don't want anyone to think this country is monolithically united in support of the present administration--, and I want help in succeeding.
posted by Miko at 12:28 PM on September 4, 2005
What do you think the difference is between the W supporters and the Clinton detractors?
Oops. I made a bad mistake. I re-rewrote that sentence a couple of times and lost track of my negatives.
I agree with you that people who support W now largely ARE the same ones who wanted to impeach Clinton, and believe everything Clinton='bad'.
What I was trying to say is that you'll find few people who both wanted to impeach Clinton and now oppose W. I was just trying to make the point to those in other countries that we do have a polarized country, and that many, many people here have engaged in a long struggle against the very things the international community finds appalling. For the most part, that group has not been effective in this climate. But I want credit for trying -- I don't want anyone to think this country is monolithically united in support of the present administration--, and I want help in succeeding.
posted by Miko at 12:28 PM on September 4, 2005
1 - relativism: many these days truly believe there is no absolute reality, you know - the "what's true for me" thing - this runs very deep
It's tragic that the relativism is also selective. It ends up being employed as "What's true for me is true, and what's true for you is wrong."
Relativism in itself can sometimes be a useful tool when trying to understand things cross-culturally. When using to recognize that some of our values are arbitrary, and a result of culture. But it has been employed in such a way that the application of reason to reality is no longer allowed. We no longer look to empirical evidence to see whether there is an observable truth, or at least a preponderance of evidence for truth. It's all part of the death of Enlightenment thinking.
posted by Miko at 12:32 PM on September 4, 2005
It's tragic that the relativism is also selective. It ends up being employed as "What's true for me is true, and what's true for you is wrong."
Relativism in itself can sometimes be a useful tool when trying to understand things cross-culturally. When using to recognize that some of our values are arbitrary, and a result of culture. But it has been employed in such a way that the application of reason to reality is no longer allowed. We no longer look to empirical evidence to see whether there is an observable truth, or at least a preponderance of evidence for truth. It's all part of the death of Enlightenment thinking.
posted by Miko at 12:32 PM on September 4, 2005
I agree 200% with the proposition of this post. Actually, make that 300%. What I don't agree with is that blame for ill-preparedness for this disaster can be put at the door of Washington or President Bush except in a very terciary/tertiary way. And by the way, why does virtually every place were gambling/gaming is legalized not rise an inch more out of poverty?
I hope the Governor of LA, and actually, Mississippi are thrown out of office ASAP (that cool, honest Mayor should stay, however).
posted by ParisParamus at 2:07 PM on September 4, 2005
I hope the Governor of LA, and actually, Mississippi are thrown out of office ASAP (that cool, honest Mayor should stay, however).
posted by ParisParamus at 2:07 PM on September 4, 2005
Also, there are Conservatives who are selfish dicks, and others who are not. Just mindlessly spending more money is not the answer.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on September 4, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on September 4, 2005
"And by the way, why does virtually every place were gambling/gaming is legalized not rise an inch more out of poverty?"
That is a great question... but not really for this thread or discussion. I'd guess it has to do with who owns the casinos, and how much tax they pay to the local area.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:12 PM on September 4, 2005
That is a great question... but not really for this thread or discussion. I'd guess it has to do with who owns the casinos, and how much tax they pay to the local area.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:12 PM on September 4, 2005
What I don't agree with is that blame for ill-preparedness for this disaster can be put at the door of Washington or President Bush except in a very terciary/tertiary way.
The mission/mandate of the Department of Homeland Security -- as defined by George W. Bush:
posted by ericb at 7:26 PM on September 4, 2005
The mission/mandate of the Department of Homeland Security -- as defined by George W. Bush:
"In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility...for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.The "buck stops in a fundamental, primary way" with George W. Bush and his administration! There's no place to pass the buck!
posted by ericb at 7:26 PM on September 4, 2005
I'm just wondering, PP, this DHS mission statement has been linked a dozen times today and yesterday, at least since you satarted that whole terciary thing. And you, along with some others, keep bringing up the locals, and how it was their responsibility, and how the feds could not do anything until approved by the local governments and some such. So what exactly is it? Are the links not working? Can you not understand what it means? Do you believe that the links are to some fake DHS site? Or is there some other reason you're being obtuse?
posted by c13 at 7:51 PM on September 4, 2005
posted by c13 at 7:51 PM on September 4, 2005
A little late, but great post.
posted by ValveAnnex at 9:39 PM on September 4, 2005
posted by ValveAnnex at 9:39 PM on September 4, 2005
Not obtuse. It is the current talking points for what to say to the press. PP is simply on message.
posted by dopeypanda at 9:40 PM on September 4, 2005
posted by dopeypanda at 9:40 PM on September 4, 2005
This has been a really interesting discussion and I tried unsuccessfully a couple of times to type out something. I suppose the gist of it is: it seems to me that there is a (generalizing) great dislike for more government involvement in the lives of the citizens. Of course all western countries have poverty but I think they have a more positive outlook towards and wider safety net provided by their governements (again it's a generalization) --vs-- USA.
Why do Americans hate 'government' so? [and I don't mean GWB - I mean the institution] ParisParamus or caporal, I'd like to hear a conservative viewpoint on that actually. In Oz our conservative political party is about 200 miles to the left of the Democrats and I'd venture to guess that UK is somewhat similar.
posted by peacay at 9:55 PM on September 4, 2005
Why do Americans hate 'government' so? [and I don't mean GWB - I mean the institution] ParisParamus or caporal, I'd like to hear a conservative viewpoint on that actually. In Oz our conservative political party is about 200 miles to the left of the Democrats and I'd venture to guess that UK is somewhat similar.
posted by peacay at 9:55 PM on September 4, 2005
Why do Americans hate 'government' so?
Two points - first, it's not all of us. I, for one, would like to see more of a Western socialist democratic state like yours. The Democratic party seeks an expanded social safety net.
Second - I would not do a good job at all explaining why so many Americans seem to hate government. There are a lot of historical roots to it. There have been two strains running through our culture for a long time -- one of rugged individualism and another of cooperative humanitarianism. At times, the second strain has dominated - I think particularly of the reform movements of the1800s, and the 1930s-40s expansion of government functions with the New Deal and the world wars, and the Civil Rights movement and the Great Society. At other times, the individualism has taken over. The Gilded Age, the Reagan years, and the present era are dominated by a fundamental belief in individualism.
Many historians argue that these two strains operate in a cyclical fashion [PDF]. People who remember the excesses and overreaches of humanitarian eras pull things back in and revert to individualism. People who grow up in individualistic eras eventually rebel against the associated loss of support and the human costs, and bring about change.
That being said, the jury is very much out on whether this is a normal, natural part of a long-established American cycle, or whether we have reached a point in implementing individualistic policies from which we cannot easily recover. With one party and one philosophy in control of all three branches of our government, at least for the time being, many of us are concerned about whether these policies can ever be undone. Our checks and balances, meant to keep the differing points of view roughly on an even keel, are very weak at the moment due to lack of diverse views in positions of power. Our main recourse to change is through elections, and the reliability of our election process is in question. In addition, we have long depended on the media to be the fourth estate, a set of institutions designed to observe, report and comment on government activities as citizen advocates. But most of our mass media is no longer truly independent, but owned by extremely large corporations with multiple ties to the group now in power and a profit motive to keep things just as they are.
Anyway, I hope some better historian comes along and gives a more specific explanation than mine. Just to fend off any trolling, I'll say that this is my point of view, and I am a liberal American patriot who hews the tradition of Enlightenment thinking. One thing I'm coming to realize, though, is that America is not in a struggle of liberalism vs. conservatism. I haven't heard from a real conservative in a long time (except maybe here on MeFi.) The factions that are struggling are individualism vs. communitarianism - plain and simple.
posted by Miko at 7:50 AM on September 5, 2005
Two points - first, it's not all of us. I, for one, would like to see more of a Western socialist democratic state like yours. The Democratic party seeks an expanded social safety net.
Second - I would not do a good job at all explaining why so many Americans seem to hate government. There are a lot of historical roots to it. There have been two strains running through our culture for a long time -- one of rugged individualism and another of cooperative humanitarianism. At times, the second strain has dominated - I think particularly of the reform movements of the1800s, and the 1930s-40s expansion of government functions with the New Deal and the world wars, and the Civil Rights movement and the Great Society. At other times, the individualism has taken over. The Gilded Age, the Reagan years, and the present era are dominated by a fundamental belief in individualism.
Many historians argue that these two strains operate in a cyclical fashion [PDF]. People who remember the excesses and overreaches of humanitarian eras pull things back in and revert to individualism. People who grow up in individualistic eras eventually rebel against the associated loss of support and the human costs, and bring about change.
That being said, the jury is very much out on whether this is a normal, natural part of a long-established American cycle, or whether we have reached a point in implementing individualistic policies from which we cannot easily recover. With one party and one philosophy in control of all three branches of our government, at least for the time being, many of us are concerned about whether these policies can ever be undone. Our checks and balances, meant to keep the differing points of view roughly on an even keel, are very weak at the moment due to lack of diverse views in positions of power. Our main recourse to change is through elections, and the reliability of our election process is in question. In addition, we have long depended on the media to be the fourth estate, a set of institutions designed to observe, report and comment on government activities as citizen advocates. But most of our mass media is no longer truly independent, but owned by extremely large corporations with multiple ties to the group now in power and a profit motive to keep things just as they are.
Anyway, I hope some better historian comes along and gives a more specific explanation than mine. Just to fend off any trolling, I'll say that this is my point of view, and I am a liberal American patriot who hews the tradition of Enlightenment thinking. One thing I'm coming to realize, though, is that America is not in a struggle of liberalism vs. conservatism. I haven't heard from a real conservative in a long time (except maybe here on MeFi.) The factions that are struggling are individualism vs. communitarianism - plain and simple.
posted by Miko at 7:50 AM on September 5, 2005
Thanks Miko. Don't be thinking your work went unread. It's always difficult despite the ubiquitousness of TV shows, to pick up a sense of a society's general attitude. I guess I had envisioned a kind of indoctrination of people into capitalism so to speak as they grow up in the States. The responsibility for the communitarianism you refer to I'd always suspected most would rather be undertaken by private agencies rather than government. In Oz I sense it's quite the opposite. We tend to be more reflexively reliant and (arguably---individual of course) more accepting of government as an answer to some social questions rather than being begrudged or often disparaged as I 'feel' about America, whether Dems or Republicans. That's just my naive assessment as it were.
posted by peacay at 10:20 PM on September 5, 2005
posted by peacay at 10:20 PM on September 5, 2005
« Older Apple muralist | Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nthdegx at 1:35 AM on September 4, 2005