Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Platformus Santorum: Blame the Victim
September 7, 2005 8:53 AM   Subscribe

Rick Santorum isn't afraid to kick people even when it's not popular to do so. Yesterday he showed off his future Presidential nature once again by calling for tougher penalties for people who won't evacuate when told to by the government (no clarification if there's a distinction for can't). Given the evidence that race and economic class were primary indicators of whether or not people were able to be evacuated from New Orleans before the disaster--is he being dense, insensitive or just playing to his traditional values base?
posted by illovich (145 comments total)

 
Never ends, does it? Someone needs to call these people on the blame-the-victim bullshit and put it to rest.
posted by brundlefly at 8:57 AM on September 7, 2005


Partially discussed yesterday - here.
posted by ericb at 8:57 AM on September 7, 2005


Santorum, indeed.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 8:58 AM on September 7, 2005


right-wing douchebag engages in right-wing douchebaggery.

*yawn*

This seems like a natural part of the "blame anybody but the federal government" meme that's been going strong for a few days now.
posted by mosch at 9:00 AM on September 7, 2005


Oh, it just occured to me... How would this be playing to his "traditional values" base? Don't get me wrong, I'm just curious. If there's some way this can be twisted to appeal to the Bible-thumpers, I'm sure Santorum would do it.

Oh, and by the way: Rick Santorum? He's a dick. Just letting everyone know. In case you didn't already. I'm sure you did, though.
posted by brundlefly at 9:01 AM on September 7, 2005


Conservatives, pay bloody close attention! THIS is how much the present-day Republican party cares about private property!
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:03 AM on September 7, 2005


brundlefly writes "Oh, it just occured to me... How would this be playing to his 'traditional values' base? Don't get me wrong, I'm just curious. If there's some way this can be twisted to appeal to the Bible-thumpers, I'm sure Santorum would do it."

There's plenty of conservative idiots who think that "God helps those who help themselves," is from the Bible.
posted by OmieWise at 9:08 AM on September 7, 2005


*There are*
posted by OmieWise at 9:09 AM on September 7, 2005


I wonder if anyone's discussed with Santorum the difference between people who didn't have any way to get out vs. people who were offered the opportunity to evacuate and refused it.

I think how people were affected, and the options available to them, have a lot more to do with how much money they had than how much melanin. Life in America is a shit sandwich: The more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.
posted by alumshubby at 9:11 AM on September 7, 2005


Life in America is a shit sandwich: The more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.

Yep. Only in America do poor people have it worse than rich peope.
posted by billysumday at 9:15 AM on September 7, 2005


billysumday, if you're implying something about America vs. elsewhere, fine, but we're discussing Americans in the aftermath of an event that happened in America. I know it's not easy for you, but try not to be quite so much of an asshat, OK?
posted by alumshubby at 9:19 AM on September 7, 2005


People who couldn't get out before is one thing. People who are refusing to leave now (and there are a number of those) is quite another. Do I sympathize with those who don't want to abandon what little they have? Yes. Do I think the need to completely remove the population of the city takes precedence now? Youbetcha.
posted by parliboy at 9:20 AM on September 7, 2005


I think Santorum's pretty much given up on beating Casey at this point and is positioning himself for a presidential run as the "values" candidate at some point, maybe as soon as 2008.

What "values" might be exhibited by such a crass statement, you ask? Why, the same thing he says in his "It Takes a Family" book - decisions have consequences, or in this case, decisions should have more severe consequences.

Funny, though, how the conservatives who repeat this mantra ad infinitum somehow think it doesn't apply when the decisions involve appointing a political hack to head FEMA...
posted by kgasmart at 9:37 AM on September 7, 2005


mosch: It won't take long for "blame everyone but the federal government" to turn into "blame only the federal government" but not specific officials and not for lack of preparedness; rather, for the hubristic notion that "the" federal government can get anything right. So many of these states' righters and conservatives are just waiting to use hearings and other venues to demonstrate that the federal government failed not because of leadership, but becaue the federal government cannot be trusted to do anything at all (besides fight wars), and that more powers (though not necessarily the funds to fulfill the mandate) ought to be delegated to the state and local levels.
posted by onshi at 9:37 AM on September 7, 2005


Santorum says "I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings." Who does he mean would be put at risk besides these people themselves?
posted by keatsandyeats at 9:41 AM on September 7, 2005


Its all those sinners' fault the hurricane hit 'em in the first place and now they won't leave even though power's coming back and the water level's going down and they (the gooberment agents) say they have to leave?

Why won't people just trust in their gooberment to care for them?

Maybe its got something to do with the fact that the same gooberment ignored their deadly situation for, oh, three or four days, while they posed for the camera and wondered what to do? Nah, that couldn't be it.

Maybe Santorum should suggest they start shooting people who won't leave? That'll show people how tough he is!
posted by fenriq at 9:41 AM on September 7, 2005


I don't understand Santorum, really. It's like he's trying to commit political suicide. I can't see him getting reelected in '06, about the best he can do in the 08 presidential race is sabotage the republican ticket.

Do republicans really think someone like Frist or Santorum really has a chance at getting elected in this country? I hope they do, and nominate of those two clowns. (Condi, Juliani or McCain could carry the ticket, IMO)
posted by delmoi at 9:42 AM on September 7, 2005


How would this be playing to his "traditional values" base?

Well, brundlefly, ignoring the fact that racism and bigotry are the "traditional values" of the religious right, there is also a feeling amongst evangelical christians that amoral, witchcraft practicing negros are the reason Jesus, in his mercy, punished New Orleans by sending Hurricane Katrina. These are, of course, the same people who are now refusing to leave the city. Agains this backdrop, the government becomes the proxy army of God evicting evil from the city.

Onward Christian soldiers.
posted by three blind mice at 9:43 AM on September 7, 2005


I like this guy. He has principles.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:44 AM on September 7, 2005


What principles? The principle that you can be forced from your home at gunpoint?!

Tell me a couple of the principles you think Santorum has.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:47 AM on September 7, 2005


I like this guy. He has principles.

Pity that principles and intelligence are mutually exclusive amongst Republicans.

Of course a Republican with intelligence would not be a Republican.
posted by three blind mice at 9:48 AM on September 7, 2005


I like this guy. He has principles.

So did Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hitler, etc.
posted by delmoi at 9:49 AM on September 7, 2005


How about we use the Federal Good Smaritan laws against these fuckers instead?
posted by destro at 9:50 AM on September 7, 2005


Maybe Santorum should suggest they start shooting people the insurgents who won't leave?
posted by three blind mice at 9:50 AM on September 7, 2005


A message to sonofsamiam, three blind mice, and delmoi:

Read my lips:
DO. NOT. FEED. THE. PARIS.

PP long ago gave up any pretense of trying to debate rationally. He exists solely to aggravate the left-wing of Mefi with his obnoxious contrarian attitude. Just ignore and move on.
posted by papakwanz at 9:52 AM on September 7, 2005


delmoi, you totally got stuck in that sticky Goodwin trap.
posted by three blind mice at 9:52 AM on September 7, 2005


No, I want to hear exactly what principles he thinks are being exemplified here.

PP? Don't punk out on me.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:55 AM on September 7, 2005


He exists solely to aggravate the left-wing of Mefi with his obnoxious contrarian attitude.

C'mon papakwanz. PP adds color to the blue. Not being associated with the left-wing of Mefi (which would be very left on the absolute scale of wing) I prefer to use his posts to poke fun at Republicans. Yeah, I know, shooting fish in a barrel, pulling the wings off flies, but it's still good clean fun.
posted by three blind mice at 9:56 AM on September 7, 2005


Did anybody consider the fact that PP may have been joking? Knowing full well that people are just looking to jump on other people and overreact? Because it just looks like straight sarcasm from where I'm sitting.
posted by billysumday at 9:56 AM on September 7, 2005


papakwanz, actually, it should be: flag, ignore and move on. Trolls only exist because they get a rise out of people. If they fail to get a rise, they go away to bother other people.
posted by fenriq at 9:58 AM on September 7, 2005


Ok then. Is this thread about a) mandatory evacuation b) Rick Santorum or c) Christianity and the evils thereof? Took 16 posts to travel from a to c...

a) yes, obviously there will be folks unwilling to move - yes, they oughta move for their own well being and for the saftety of those attempting to rescue / move them; the point here is conditions will be worsening for them, not improving - the main dangers at this point would seem to be guns, arson, and disease

b) whatever, he's a politician - see this proves democrats are smarter than republicans, for the most part they're keeping the mouths shut about this - unless you're directly involved in the 'operation' or whatever we're calling it there's little percentage is saying anything about it at this point

c) Christianity = hatred and abuse of poor folk?
posted by scheptech at 10:00 AM on September 7, 2005


Maybe Santorum is hoping to get all the abandoned dogs when the people of N.O. are forced to leave?
We all know how he likes dogs.
Man-on-dog goes well with principles and being liked by PeePee.
posted by nofundy at 10:00 AM on September 7, 2005


Whoa, whoa Santorum is a douche bag?
posted by geoff. at 10:02 AM on September 7, 2005


Santorum has the lowest approval rate for a senator in the country .... a 08/05 'NET APPROVAL' (approval minus disapproval) rating of -4.

No wonder PP likes him.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:03 AM on September 7, 2005


Christianity = hatred and abuse of poor folk?

Evangelical christians, scheptech, despite all the Jesus talk, are totally enamored by the Old Testament God of wrath and justice. All that love thy neighbor and forgiveness stuff just results in high taxes and sounds suspiciously like LIBERALISM. Plus, praying for locusts and plagues to descend on the nonbelievers is way cheaper than keeping them in jail.
posted by three blind mice at 10:10 AM on September 7, 2005


I like this guy. He has principles.

Damn, dude. Do you ever say anything that doesn't toe the GOP line? Are you actually a real person, or a bot?
posted by psmealey at 10:18 AM on September 7, 2005


Jesus freaks everywhere and not a Christian to be found.

Bob Casey, Jr. may be kind of a PA Democratic Machine pinhead, but man am I looking forward for pulling the lever for him...
posted by Vetinari at 10:22 AM on September 7, 2005


Damn, dude. Do you ever say anything that doesn't toe the GOP line? Are you actually a real person, or a bot?

Now's not the time to play the blame game.


posted by kgasmart at 10:24 AM on September 7, 2005


keatsandyeats - the people that are refusing to leave are endangering the lives of the rescue workers in addition to their own.

i know that there were people that were unable to get out. what i truly don't understand are the people that now refuse to leave. officials keep "asking" them to leave. officials are bringing in clergy to "coax" them out.

at this point, leaving is *not* optional and if you have to arrest the ones refusing to leave to get them out, then do it.

they are living in a chemical and biological soup with no food or water. they are putting themselves in danger, they are putting the search and rescue workers in danger, and the city itself in danger. the fires in the garden district were caused by candles being used by people that wouldn't leave.

they now have the means to leave, a safe place to go where they will have food, water, medical help and money.

are the next few months or even a year going to be good for them? no. is it better than dying of disease or starvation or worse? yes.
posted by centrs at 10:24 AM on September 7, 2005


Unbelievable. I cannot believe the Republicans are so willingly giving up their right to stay on their own property. You should be ashamed. You are abandoning every last conservative principle for the sake of the party.

(To say nothing of the numerous reports that victims were actively prevented from leaving by authorities.)
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:29 AM on September 7, 2005


I think the people who stayed - that had the means of evacuating - are responsible for people dying as much as anyone else. They've sucked away resources from those who had no other means and made a difficult situation even more difficult. I think these people have committed a crime more serious than welfare fraud.
posted by b_thinky at 10:30 AM on September 7, 2005


Do you not see that if THEY can be forced into camps at gunpoint, so can you?!
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:32 AM on September 7, 2005


You are abandoning every last conservative principle for the sake of the party.

The only conservative principle worth holding onto, it seems, is unwavering loyalty to the party. Everything else (practical thinking, fiscal conservatism, ideological integrity, rule of low, individual liberty, limited government, etc.) is up for grabs.
posted by psmealey at 10:35 AM on September 7, 2005


What centrs said.

I don't know who Santorum is, other than seeing him promote some family bs on the daily show, but I have a hard time believing he's suggesting punishing anyone unable to leave (sick, elderly, etc).* The people refusing to leave at this point are causing problems for rescue workers - who definitely don't need more problems.

*If that is in fact what he's saying, well, f him.
posted by jikel_morten at 10:37 AM on September 7, 2005


All that love thy neighbor and forgiveness stuff just results in high taxes and sounds suspiciously like LIBERALISM.

It is liberalism, exactly.

Plus, praying for locusts and plagues to descend on the nonbelievers is way cheaper than keeping them in jail.

So in the South, there are Christian communities actively involved in praying for the deaths of their neighbours who would otherwise cost them tax money? Man, that does sound seriously upside down. Frightening even. Apparently these are not Christians from the same group as those mentioned above attempting to "coax" people into leaving or the same ones that collected money from me to help support 'em.

Do you not see that if THEY can be forced into camps at gunpoint, so can you?!


What's the alternative though? Get them to sign waivers of governmental responsibility and let them die slow horrible deaths? That doesn't sound especially Christian either. Or any other major religion for that matter.
posted by scheptech at 10:38 AM on September 7, 2005


I think these people have committed a crime more serious than welfare fraud.

Care to name that particular transgression of law for us? And why the choice of welfare fraud to comapre against? Can you tell me?
posted by nofundy at 10:41 AM on September 7, 2005


This issue is all about shooting the messenger.

Two words: Love Canal
posted by mischief at 10:44 AM on September 7, 2005


ParisParamus writes "I like this guy. He has principles."



"Shoot 'em in the back, quick, while they're not looking!"

Seriously, what is the "principle" behind shooting people who've been basically knee-deep in shit-water for the past week? Not that I'm surprised at your admiration, I'm just wondering which principle you're talking about.
posted by clevershark at 10:46 AM on September 7, 2005


Some areas reportedly still had water gas service up until it was SWITCHED OFF in an attempt to force them from the area.

What's the alternative though?

The alternative is to pretend that an American citizen still has the slightest bit of autonomy and the accompanying responsibility.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:48 AM on September 7, 2005


"still had water gas service up until it was SWITCHED OFF in an attempt to force them from the area"

Are you sure that's the reason they were 'switched off'?
posted by mischief at 10:55 AM on September 7, 2005


that an American citizen still has the slightest bit of autonomy

There's a point there but it borders on being a bit of red tape itself, a (albeit important) legalistic issue in the face of an immediately life-taking physical one. We're being told that this has allegedly been part of the reason for the slow response, the federal / state responsibility issues weren't suffciently clear for action to be immediately taken. All agree they should have been clear and whatever legal concerns may have existed should not have hampered life-saving efforts in any case.
posted by scheptech at 11:06 AM on September 7, 2005


No, I'm not sure. "reportedly". That was takenfrom the survivors' account called "People of the Dome." I've seen it mentioned in another article that I can't track down right now, too.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:06 AM on September 7, 2005


Maybe they switched off the gas because they saw all the gas fires raging through the city?
posted by billysumday at 11:07 AM on September 7, 2005


Then, son, you may want to consider that the reason those services were switched off was because of all the system breaches when homes that they serviced were destroyed.
posted by mischief at 11:11 AM on September 7, 2005


scheptech: I understand that there are extenuating circumstances. Nevertheless, "extenuating circumstances" are more often than not the justification for misdeeds on the part of authorities.

Any unconstitutional actions on the part of the authorities can be excused with "extenuating circumstances."

Any abrogation of duty or negligence can be excused with "red tape."

What we don't see is anyone taking responsibility for the consequences of their screwed-up policies and priorities.

mischief: That was my original opinion. Reading multiple accounts of survivors describing other odd behavior have made me change that opinion, and perhaps it will change again with further investigation.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:15 AM on September 7, 2005


People who couldn't get out before is one thing. People who are refusing to leave now (and there are a number of those) is quite another. Do I sympathize with those who don't want to abandon what little they have? Yes. Do I think the need to completely remove the population of the city takes precedence now? Youbetcha.

That sentiment should be examined very carefully. Looking at the history of the Katrina disaster, we can immediately see some very intriguing facts:

1) The levees should not have broken. Engineers have been asking for money to strengthen them for years, but the people of New Orleans have been neglected due to other, more pressing concerns (namely, invading Iraq).

2) Essentially no effort was made to evacuate the poor before the storm hit. It was entirely a laissez-faire evacuation. This is a shared failure of the Federal, state and local governments.

3) The Federal Response. Whether or not you believe the government has done a good job (in which case you are wrong), or a bad job, it seems obvious that, to a victim of this storm, the government seemed to abandon the city. It's now beginning to appear that something far more sinister was going on (although not at all new) in that the administration appears to have wagered large numbers of lives in a political move that was calculated from the beginning.

4) Whereas ordinarily, thanks to the Consitituion, a citizen of the United States is able to move freely from one state to another, within cities, etc., those that have been forced to evacuate have been required to stay in "camps" guarded by armed sodiers. One hardly has to wonder whether this would be the case had, say, Beverly Hills been hit by such a storm.

Thus, the history of this storm has been one that has left an awful taste of abandonment in many New Orleans residents' mouths, not to mention the rest of the country. After losing their homes, jobs, friends, a resident finds that cooperating with the evacuation order essentially means agreeing to go to prison. On top of that, it is hard to believe somebody when they tell you "This is better for you," when they have seemed to have been trying to kill you for the past week and a half (or at the very least have shown minimal concern).

Anger towards those who choose to stay is also interesting when considering the criticisms of people comparing this scenario with that of Ivan in Cuba last year. The point was raised that Cuba's evacuation was possible because the Cuban government has total control and its citizens don't enjoy the same freedoms that we do. The point is nonsense. People are being forced to evacuate. Whether such force occured before or after the hurricane matters little. And, whether one cooperates with the order or refuses and ends up in a traditional jail, imprisonment and lack of personal freedom is the outcome either way.

Finally, I have not heard anyone talking about how the criticisms of "these people" for "refusing to leave" (I'm referreing here to before the storm) reflects some very deep classist and/or racist beliefs about the poor and Black being "stupid" or "ignorant." Framing the conversation in terms of those that "couldn't leave" and those that "wouldn't leave" also inevitably results in discussion about how to punish the victims of an incompetent (or malicious) government. Of course we are free to speculate upon the reasons a person might have for having stayed. I find such an exercise pointless, however. My thought is that people should be asking how we can help all of the victims, regardless of their personal situation, who is responsible for the severe government failures and how are they responsible, and what other factors, hopefully changeable, led to this disaster.
posted by dsword at 11:22 AM on September 7, 2005


I've only been a member here for a short time but I've gotten this much figured out: 9 time out of 10, PP drops his little bombshell and then disappears. My belief is that when Mom does the laundry he has to get off the computer in the basement so the circuit breaker won't go out.
posted by Ber at 11:27 AM on September 7, 2005


Ber writes "9 time out of 10, PP drops his little bombshell and then disappears."

Considering the "bombshells", it's no surprise he should cut and run instead of sticking aroud and having to explain himself. But I'm sure he'll soon write up a lovely self-serving, attention-whoring MeTa about how he's going to change and not do it again.
posted by clevershark at 11:31 AM on September 7, 2005


Which is easier to believe? a) Survivors who weren't present at the decision to switch systems off, or b) inability to maintain pressure due to broken pipes.

Everyone keeps spewing about how the 'infrastructure has broken'. Well, the physical infrastructure is just as compromised as the political one. Rebuilding New Orleans will involve much more than replacing residences. I can easily imagine that that rebuilding process will involve completely replacing the water, gas, sewage and storm drain systems.
posted by mischief at 11:31 AM on September 7, 2005


Well, maybe my credulometer is off. It's had a hard week.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:33 AM on September 7, 2005


I never realized this site was such a haven for liberal hate mongers. I thought you guys invented moveon.org for that.
posted by fijidan at 11:48 AM on September 7, 2005


Maybe you can explain to these liberal hate mongers just how the Bush administration is upholding the ideals of conservatives.

This conservative is dying to hear it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:49 AM on September 7, 2005


Santorum thinks we should do more to pressure those who can leave, to leave. Because they are making the situation far worse.

In MeFi-ese, this translates to 'kicking people'.

You guys are funny!
posted by dhoyt at 11:52 AM on September 7, 2005


And by 'funny', I mean 'smug knee-jerk hyperpartisan opportunist twits with no critical thinking skills and no ability to ever offer alternatives or look at both sides of an issue'.
posted by dhoyt at 11:54 AM on September 7, 2005


And by 'funny', I mean wank wank wank

You forgot to mention that this is no time for finger-pointing.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:59 AM on September 7, 2005


Of course. Any criticism of republicans is partisan. Well analyzed, good rhetorician.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:00 PM on September 7, 2005


I never realized this site was such a haven for liberal hate mongers.

There are a few recovering republicans and libertarians lurking about as well fijidan.

I thought you guys invented moveon.org for that.

That would be the Democratic Underground. It's not nearly as partisan and hate filled as the Free Republic, but Liberals just can't do hate like the Republicans can.
posted by three blind mice at 12:06 PM on September 7, 2005


Santorum thinks we should do more to pressure those who can leave, to leave. Because they are making the situation far worse.

In MeFi-ese, this translates to 'kicking people'


Well, yeah. In Santorum's words:
There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving

"Tougher penalties" on those who don't have the means to escape in the first place? Sounds like kicking people to me.
posted by brundlefly at 12:13 PM on September 7, 2005


They have the means now.
posted by mischief at 12:38 PM on September 7, 2005


Well, yeah. In Santorum's words:
There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving

"Tougher penalties" on those who don't have the means to escape in the first place? Sounds like kicking people to me.
posted by brundlefly at 3:13 PM EST on September 7 [!]


There's a difference between 'deciding to' and 'not having the means to'.
posted by jikel_morten at 12:38 PM on September 7, 2005


Tougher penalties" on those who don't have the means to escape in the first place?

Have you not gotten wind of the tons of stories of volunteers urging people to get in the boat with them and get the fuck out of Dodge, and the people refusing? Saying they're staying where they are? Firing guns at the volunteers? Tipping over their boats?

My two cousins (EMTs) left from Lafayette to NoLa after Day #2 to go and help. Their experience was a baffling one. There was a surprising number who absolutely had the means to leave, and who had plenty of notice, and who had been given mandatory evacuation notice by the government, and yet still did not leave. And yea, right now they are making the situation worse. In a hail of stange resentment and punches thrown, my cousins had to turn back to Lafayette after Day #5, unable to help those who wouldn't help themselves.

Old folks, sick folks and those too poor to afford evacuation? They have valid excuses. Duh.

Santorum isn't right about much, but his comments here are valid.

And what jikel said.
posted by dhoyt at 12:40 PM on September 7, 2005


Well, I tell you what. If I had seen half the things the survivors are reporting, I wouldn't get in a boat with the federalis for the Cajun/Creole Diaspora either.

I posted something similar on another site, but I think most of these folks realize that they'll *never* be coming back. N.O. will end up "gentrified". Disnified, if you will. I'll place my wager that after the clean up, the folks that were there before, won't be able to afford to go back.

They're gonna Vegas up the place. Clean and sterile for the tourists, baby. Push the "uncomfortable" part back into the swamps a bit so the white folks don't have to see it.

But the port is geopolitically one of the most important places in the U.S. It's the terminus of the Mississippi River, and without the barge traffic on Ol Miss, the country shuts down. The vast majority of our agriculture depends on the Miss river, the northern industrial cities depend on the barges that bring metals and whatnot upstream...New Orleans is vital to the survival of the country, it'll be rebuilt.

But, it won't be the same. It'll never be the same. There's too much money, and this is the perfect opportunity to "clean it up".

If I thought I was on the Black equivalent of the Trail of Tears...they'd have to come after me with guns too.
posted by dejah420 at 12:46 PM on September 7, 2005


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9156612/

they are rescuing those willing to go first and then will take the others forcibly. the water pollution is so bad now that the risk of disease has escalated from drinking the water to contact with skin.
posted by centrs at 12:50 PM on September 7, 2005


I'm stunned.

Are there any Christians on this board who are outraged at how the religious right has managed to define Christian values as contempt for the poor, greed, scorn for social spending, militarism, putting the Ten Commandments in public places, hatred of homosexuals and opposition to abortion?

It seems to me that any reading of the New Testament would give nearly the opposite impression. Does anyone in the religious right consider what Jesus said to do above all else? To love your neighbour as yourself? What about the parable of The Good Samaritan? Perhaps I've been around too many liberal churches and theology scholars, but I was under the impression that Christ cared about the downtrodden, the marginalised and the disenfranchised. Where in this supposedly Christian political movement is the Christian behaviour? I have yet to see it.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:52 PM on September 7, 2005


Of course the right is circling the wagons for damage control. How bad does it have to get until people wake up. This presidency is a disaster which has cost us dearly in so many ways.
posted by MetaJohn at 12:52 PM on September 7, 2005


Exactly Dejah! They will rebuild without a doubt. It will take time, but NOLA will be a new enclave for the rich. No poor need apply.
posted by MetaJohn at 12:55 PM on September 7, 2005


If I thought I was on the Black equivalent of the Trail of Tears...they'd have to come after me with guns too.

Saying that concepts like gentrification or the Trail of Tears were going through the minds of those refusing rescue is pure projection.

According to my cousins, the sentiments they heard were no more illuminating than, "This is my house and I ain't leaving".

Sad, but some will truly have to be pried out of those homes and then out of the city. And with the support of their peers and with millions in donations & aid, they'll have to start over again elsewhere. Let's hope they have the strength to get through it. It's not unusual to have conflicted feelings toward those who refused aid, though, especially when it's by choice and with mandatory evacuation requested at the state level.
posted by dhoyt at 12:58 PM on September 7, 2005


Are there any Christians on this board who are outraged at how the religious right has managed to define Christian values as contempt for the poor, greed, scorn for social spending, militarism, putting the Ten Commandments in public places, hatred of homosexuals and opposition to abortion?

The Mrs. was watching the news the other day and reported seeing a white southern holy-roller type minister fuming with rage and naming Bush as being at fault for the screw ups that led to unneccessary loss of life and suffering. Plenty of people in the path of Katrina probably were of the Christian persuasion. Shit like this may finally have them losing patience with the Santorums of the world.
posted by jonmc at 1:00 PM on September 7, 2005


Have you not gotten wind of the tons of stories of volunteers urging people to get in the boat with them and get the fuck out of Dodge, and the people refusing? Saying they're staying where they are? Firing guns at the volunteers? Tipping over their boats?

Santorum is clearly talking about "riding out" the storm, saying that staying put means you have to be rescued later, thus endangering rescue personel.

How does someone refusing to be rescued AFTER the storm endanger anyone besides themselves? As far as tipping over boats and firing at volunteers, those things are already illegal. That's not what Santorum is talking about.
posted by brundlefly at 1:04 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt, how would you feel if some cops showed up at your door and told you to leave your home to the looters, because another part of the city (not yours) was flooded?

Particularly if the new accomodation they were offering was a privacy-free cot in a stadium hundreds of miles away, shared with ten thousand other people including most of the long-term-homeless, drug addicted, and mentally ill folks from your city?

No doubt you - like Santorum - would be eager to jump on that cattle truck.

Or is it just a solution you'd recommend for others, not yourself?
posted by cleardawn at 1:04 PM on September 7, 2005


So... do homeowners still own the flooded land? Will they realistically be given an option to return? Or will we see the land confiscated for the public good ala Kelo?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:07 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt, how would you feel if some cops showed up at your door and told you to leave your home to the looters, because another part of the city (not yours) was flooded?

That's not what happened in any of the situations I'm referring to.

It's more like volunteers urging the dude floating down the street on a car tire, saying, "We're here to help, the city is dangerous & polluted, you can't stay, there is mandatory evacuation and no immediate solution to the flooding!" and the dude saying, "I ain't leaving my city/house/car tire". This happened. And it wasn't an isolated incident by any stretch.

How does someone refusing to be rescued AFTER the storm endanger anyone besides themselves?

They're creating a very dangerous environment for those left with the task of clearing out the city. We are supposed to still try and rescue those people instead of leaving them behind, correct?
posted by dhoyt at 1:12 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt, how would you feel if some cops showed up at your door and told you to leave your home to the looters, because another part of the city (not yours) was flooded?

Is this the case? People on dry land are being asked to leave? Of course that would absolutely be terribly, impossibly difficult to do. I thought Santorum was referring to the people living in their flooded homes, refusing evac orders. It would be much harder to leave a home that is still structually sound simply because you are told to do so.
posted by jikel_morten at 1:13 PM on September 7, 2005


I'll try to find where I read it sonofsamian, but I have read of concern over many of the legal documents in the city possibly being lost.
posted by R. Mutt at 1:14 PM on September 7, 2005


Care to name that particular transgression of law for us? And why the choice of welfare fraud to comapre against? Can you tell me?

Actually, I meant crime in more of a moral sense. I'm not sure if ignoring a mandatory evacuation carries with it any penalties. And if we're seperating those with the means to leave and those without, it'd be difficult to prove. Lots of people could come up with "valid" excuses after the fact.

Welfare fraud is when someone (not in need) steals a resource from someone who is in need. In this case, those not in need that decided to stay sucked up resources (supplies, attention of rescuers) necessary for those who legitimately needed them. Of course, by the time the fraudsters decided to stay, they needed the supplies too, but they brought that need upon themselves.

It would be interesting to see how many people actually stayed behind by choice. If it was X percent of the stranded, they made it X percent worse.
posted by b_thinky at 1:16 PM on September 7, 2005


Are there any Christians on this board who are outraged...

Some of us used to be outraged but have gotten beyond it; instead we pray for our ostensible brothers and sisters in Christ who have forgotten what Christ's ministry, death and resurrection were all about because they're all about being on an Old Testament patriarch-style power trip. They're why a lot of people on this board make fun of *all* Christians: A relative minority -- but a notorious and noisy one -- has made all of us look bad.
posted by alumshubby at 1:17 PM on September 7, 2005


If it was X percent of the stranded, they made it X percent worse.

Absolute and utter bollocks. You're saying for every person who stayed in their home on purpose, they are responsible for the death of one person.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:21 PM on September 7, 2005


By the way, this is the Same Rick Santorum who wants to dramatically reduce the role played by the National Weather Service. This, to let commercial companies handle the delivery of weather.

From a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story:

"Some have criticized the legislation as a giveaway primarily intended to help Pennsylvania-based AccuWeather, whose employees have contributed to Santorum's campaign fund."

It all kind fits nice and neatly together for him, doesn't it.
posted by Jazznoisehere at 1:24 PM on September 7, 2005


I thought Santorum was referring to the people living in their flooded homes, refusing evac orders. It would be much harder to leave a home that is still structually sound simply because you are told to do so.

Here's the quote from the article:
But he's also criticizing the ones who chose to ride out the storm. "I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.

Again. He is talking about people who did not evacuate prior to the storm. People who, for the most part, clearly did not have the means to escape. He wants to prosecute these people. At least that seems to be the context from the article. Does anyone know where he was originally quoted on this?
posted by brundlefly at 1:25 PM on September 7, 2005


Are there any Christians on this board who are outraged ...

Yes. Shocked and appalled, long since. Or maybe that should be shocked and awed.


Where in this supposedly Christian political movement is the Christian behaviour?


You got it. It's an upsidedown world.
posted by scheptech at 1:28 PM on September 7, 2005


I can easily see how someone who felt abandoned before the storm and for the last week would not really want to put themselves in the hands of those same assholes and sent to a thinly disguised prison camp (what crime have these people committed that they need to be held by armed guards?).

Between assholes like Santorum and Barbara Bush declaring that losing everything they had was a good thing for them, this is shaping up to be a banner week for Republican Douchebaggery.

What are they going to do to hit the trifecta?
posted by fenriq at 1:29 PM on September 7, 2005


People who, for the most part, clearly did not have the means to escape.

You're projecting, and we're going around in circles.

Nowhere does Santorum say we need to punish those who couldn't leave, but those who chose not to. And as reports have shown, there were plenty.
posted by dhoyt at 1:29 PM on September 7, 2005


How are you going to identify them, dhoyt? What punishment do you think is appropriate?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:31 PM on September 7, 2005


They're why a lot of people on this board make fun of *all* Christians: A relative minority -- but a notorious and noisy one -- has made all of us look bad.
--------------------------------------------------
Well said alumshubby, you have my sympathies. I used to be one of those to jump on the bandwagon but I've learned to differentiate now.

Let's hope those who identify as Bush supporters someday learn to take off the rose-colored glasses before they have to face God's wrath in ways they never could have imagined. If they don't pay for their sins here on this earth, there is certainly an afterlife where they will be judged and found wanting for their skewed (screwed?) moral compass.
posted by mk1gti at 1:31 PM on September 7, 2005


"It would be much harder to leave a home that is still structually sound simply because you are told to do so."

so your home is structurally sound. so what? you have no place to buy food. no plumbing. no electricity. no job. your city is polluted beyond belief. you are starting fires in the few viable buildings left because you are relying on candles for light...

i've seen footage of people on their second floor balconies, ankle deep in water, sitting in lawn chairs and drenched with sweat - no food and water...and they won't leave. instead they expect that the rescue workers will keep coming by in dangerous conditions to bring them food and water.

they have no access to news coverage. they don't know how bad it is.
posted by centrs at 1:34 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt: The vast majority simply did not have the means. There are, of course, certain people who stayed by choice. How would we sort those out? Will there be audits of every single person who stayed? "Sorry, sir. You had too much money to stay. I'm afraid I'll have to take you down to the station?"

It's a foolish idea, and it'll never happen.
posted by brundlefly at 1:40 PM on September 7, 2005



Here's the quote from the article:
But he's also criticizing the ones who chose to ride out the storm. "I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.

Again. He is talking about people who did not evacuate prior to the storm. People who, for the most part, clearly did not have the means to escape. He wants to prosecute these people. At least that seems to be the context from the article. Does anyone know where he was originally quoted on this?
posted by brundlefly at 4:25 PM EST on September 7 [!]


Again, I say that not having the means is vastly different than choosing to ride out the storm. Those who chose, by definition, have options. Those unable to leave, obviously do not.
posted by jikel_morten at 1:44 PM on September 7, 2005


centrs, point taken. I'm just saying that if your home is dry, it would be harder to leave than those living in their attics.
posted by jikel_morten at 1:45 PM on September 7, 2005


Let's hope those who identify as Bush supporters someday learn to take off the rose-colored glasses before they have to face God's wrath in ways they never could have imagined.

I don't do revenge fantasies, myself. That kind of power trip is for fundies. I simply pray for them to think about... y'know, WWJD. And I don't mean the temple-clearing thing; I'm thinking more in terms of the cast-the-first-stone example.

Anyway, we're into major derail territory here.
posted by alumshubby at 1:45 PM on September 7, 2005


How are you going to identify them, dhoyt?

How would we sort those out?


I'm not a lawmaker and I'm not agreeing with Santorum's idea we should find new ways to prosecute the people in question. It'd be impossible.

Everything I have said has been to simply clarify that there is understandable frustration with those who stayed when they could've evacuated, and that is the segment Santorum appears to be addressing.

And again, what jikel said.
posted by dhoyt at 1:46 PM on September 7, 2005


how about you help evacuate them instead of arresting them???

there may be some that refused to leave, but i'm sure most had little choice in the matter since there was no place set up for them to go and no way to get there.

Or does every solution by the Republicans involve jailing and shooting people. Looting for food? Don't give them food, have them shot.
posted by destro at 1:55 PM on September 7, 2005


how about you help evacuate them instead of arresting them???

I think that's the preferred option -- BUT -- what do you do about the people who don't want to be evacuated?
posted by alumshubby at 1:57 PM on September 7, 2005


how about you help evacuate them instead of arresting them???

They are helping, and some are refusing.
posted by jikel_morten at 1:58 PM on September 7, 2005


I have to wonder, since all the people working to clean up new orleans don't have to leave, why they just don't give the currently unemployed non-movers some of the jobs they are outsourcing to people from the rest of the country. Heck, Make people who stay work on cleanup.
posted by nomisxid at 2:00 PM on September 7, 2005


Recent evacuation surveys show that two thirds of nonevacuees with the means to evacuate chose not to leave because they felt safe in their homes. Other nonevacuees with means relied on a cultural tradition of not leaving or were discouraged by negative experiences with past evacuations.
posted by Floydd at 2:03 PM on September 7, 2005


Part of the problem at work is the "crying wolf" phenomenon. There have been evacuations called for in NOLA many times over the years. So, on Sunday, when a mandatory evac was called, some people just thought it was another instance of overreaction and media frenzification.

I heard the police in NOLA interviewed this morning and they said most people who resist leaving don't know what the full extent of the hurricane has been. Once they are told, if they aren't mentally ill, they leave. Perhaps a fellow floating in a tire who does not want to be rescued is a little off-balance, not criminal?
posted by Cassford at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2005


I will say something I don't usually say....I was wrong. Last week I said that those in the city chose not to accept the evacuation and I have had my eyes opened how poor planning hindered by inadequate budgeting doomed thousands.

Although Federal response was tepid, the city and state bear their own responsibilities. how could you not plan for this? If you live in LA, you plan for Earthquakes, if you live in Belgium, you plan for German invasion, in Tokyo for Gojiro, how can an entire metro area not have any idea what to do when the most glaringly obvious disaster possible strikes?
posted by Megafly at 2:11 PM on September 7, 2005


Damn! First time I've done that.
Here's what I was linking:
(From Natural Hazards Observer)
What if Ivan Had Hit New Orleans?
posted by Floydd at 2:17 PM on September 7, 2005


" No, I want to hear exactly what principles he thinks are being exemplified here."

Love that cartoon, supra!


I think the principle that might be worth looking into is making it a crime to not leave a place like NO once asked to. This is in sharp contrast to not leaving because you are unable to leave. Why? Because public resources are thrown at the former group to the detriment of the latter. Of course, enforcing such a law might be difficult, but it make sense to make it clear that hanging around a danger zone is irresponsible. Seems fair to me.



Criminal negligence/impeachment of NO's mayor and/la LA's governor also seem appropriate.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:27 PM on September 7, 2005


yeah, those who had a choice and decided to stick it out made the problem worse overall; i think they should get as much punishment as any emergency response executive who underestimated this problem and withheld vital aid during a growing crisis, which is to say: no punishment at all. if those who are supposed to be disaster experts did not take this problem as seriously as they should have, why should we expect the residents to have done so?

i would agree that those left behind now should be forcibly evacuated, to the point of arrest, as the cost (human and monetary) of providing them some kind of safety net is too high; realistically, they do not have the means to feed and support themselves in the middle of a disaster area.

i'm curious as well as to what resettlement will look like. how many residents of the poorer areas actually owned homes or property? is it likely that those property owners merely sell out en masse to more wealthy developers, particularly if they cannot pay to rebuild? how far would rebuilders/planners go to create low-income areas? it would seem to me that a low percentage of those who have lost everything will ever be able to return.
posted by troybob at 2:28 PM on September 7, 2005


I simply pray for them to think about... y'know, WWJD.

Their basic problem seems to be forgetting that Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Worth noting, he was abandoned to crucifixion when the majority of those around him realized he was not going to be a political leader and free them, literally, from the Romans. When asked about paying taxes he said to pay the government what it was owed and give to God what He is owed thereby drawing a distinction again between worldly and spirtual matters. Etc.

And yes, the guy floating in the tire surely represents a certain small percentage of holdouts, folks who aren't exactly competent to know what's going to happen if they keep swimming around in a toilet. Isn't this why blanket strategies have to be adopted sometimes? How do they have time to figure out who's in what category of holdout?
posted by scheptech at 2:32 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt writes "Nowhere does Santorum say we need to punish those who couldn't leave, but those who chose not to."

So, did Santorum come up with some metric by which people can be said to have "chosen not to" evacuate, as opposed to those who can be determined to have been unable to do so?
posted by clevershark at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2005


I have to wonder, since all the people working to clean up new orleans don't have to leave, why they just don't give the currently unemployed non-movers some of the jobs they are outsourcing to people from the rest of the country. Heck, Make people who stay work on cleanup.

Too FDR, too New-Deal-ish. Current administration doesn't want to make those associations.
posted by gimonca at 2:37 PM on September 7, 2005


Look: No one can blame the rescuers if some people genuinely don't want to leave. That is NOT the same thse other two propositions:

1) It is OK to force people to leave their property with no guarantee they will still own it if they comply
2) It is OK to not provide any means for evacuation after it has been ordered

A lot of people seem to be conflating these three things.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:39 PM on September 7, 2005


The main reason I've heard for not being evacuated is that people have no guarantees of anything beyond the evacuation. So they get driven fifty miles outside of town and deposited in a camp with 20,000 other evacuees, then what?

And, its not like the government's had much of a track record with honesty. And then there's the whole, where you last week argument too.
posted by fenriq at 2:46 PM on September 7, 2005


Criminal negligence/impeachment of NO's mayor and/la LA's governor also seem appropriate.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:27 PM PST on September 7


If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29

posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:00 PM on September 7, 2005


Well, what do you expect for a man who came out of a well-fucked asshole?
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:01 PM on September 7, 2005




"That's my style. I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
posted by clevershark at 3:08 PM on September 7, 2005


it is not as if those who physically remain on site have any more guarantees of keeping their home/land/property than the thousands who have been evacuated. there is no way for rescue workers to legitimately disavow those who might choose to remain, and thus their presence unnecessarily prolongs the exposure of rescue/public safety officials to life-threatening conditions.
posted by troybob at 3:15 PM on September 7, 2005




"Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1972, but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever."
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:27 PM on September 7, 2005


GODDAMN IT...how do you people defend this shit??? People are dying in the streets and you care about prosecuting the wet, starving, homeless folks that have nothing. What the fuck is wrong with you?


When you post a link that goes to metafilter.com/null, does that mean you screwed up the link, or that you want to show people that you did research, when you actually didn't?

So...does anybody have a link that says most people were able to leave but could not? I find that claim highly bullshit.

Some friends that were stuck in LA during Ivan, and had a car, spent 18 hours sitting in traffic to get out of the city. What if you didn't have a car? You should abandon everything you own and start walking down a highway, possibly have your property taken from you, have things looted, with NO PLACE FOR YOU TO GO. Maybe Santorum can start getting food to these people instead of throwing them in jail.
posted by destro at 3:31 PM on September 7, 2005



If the government people come around and tell you to go with them, against your will, and leave your property, and they are not placing you under arrest, and have no charges against you, and if your default answer is "no" that isn't gentrification, it isn't trail of tears, it isn't crack smoking, it's not partisan left or right, and it's not in or out, it is simply an "American Attitude."

Hell no, we won't go, this is our land, and we are staying it, etc. There's a bunch more issues, obviously, but Santorum's just doing the in and out, up and down, moral and immoral wank.

sonofsamiam, that's what the conservative ideals have been replaced with, because, although the traditional conservative values you're hinting at might be well founded, they don't have the political power of "we're in, you're out, stfu, you damn dirty criminal"
posted by nervousfritz at 3:32 PM on September 7, 2005


Too FDR, too New-Deal-ish. Current administration doesn't want to make those associations.

Actually, part of the reason Bush was so slow to respond is because he interrupted his vacation to compare himself to FDR. But I get your point.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:35 PM on September 7, 2005


destro, you talkin' to me? 'Cuz, I fixed that link fifteen minutes later and made no editorial comment regarding the front page post. I'm just as pissed off about the situation as you seem to be, since this behavior was expected and should have been planned for.
Read the article and back the fuck off.
posted by Floydd at 3:46 PM on September 7, 2005


dhoyt, how would you feel if some cops showed up at your door and told you to leave your home to the looters, because another part of the city (not yours) was flooded?

That's not what happened in any of the situations I'm referring to.


I'm wondering who are these people we are talking about forcing to evacuate? People who are surrounded by water? People holed-up in their homes with plenty of food and water and not necessarily surrounded by water? Anybody whose power/gas/electricity/phone is cut off? Anybody whose home technically falls within city limits?

Because there have been numerous reports of French Quarter residents planning on staying "until the power comes back on." They have their barbecues, their chemical potties, their spray bottles of bleach water.

Plus all this discussion of "Those Who Chose Not To Evacuate" clues me in that many of you do not live in Hurricane Alley. As has been pointed out above, there is overkill. There are too many calls for evacuation and people become enured. People choose not to evacuate because of their pets, because they think their house is strong enough, because they have been through this drill for 20 years and so far the worst they have experienced is some windows being blown out and fighting the insane traffic during an evacuation is a major pain in the ass.

If this had happened in an affluent city in Florida, there would have been just as many who chose to stay behind.

PS: Around here we refer to him as Rick "The Senator You Love To Hate" Santorum
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:54 PM on September 7, 2005


If this had happened in an affluent city in Florida, there would have been just as many who chose to stay behind.

Any thinking person would be 100% certain Sen Santorum is referring to those who chose to stay, not those who did not have the means to live. So the contrast of NO (poor area) vs a rich community in FL is irrelevant.

Yes, if the hurricane hit in FL or anywhere else, rich or poor, many people would have ignored warnings to stay behind. I would probably be one of them. But rich or poor, black or white, if you ignore warnings to evacuate and end up fucked as a result of your decision, you don't have the right to complain to the gov't about being fucked. You put yourself in that situation, and the gov't is not responsible for bailing you out.
posted by b_thinky at 4:18 PM on September 7, 2005


"If I thought I was on the Black equivalent of the Trail of Tears...they'd have to come after me with guns too"

Excuse me, but WTF? To assume that the only ones who didn't leave were black and poor, my so-called good Samaritans, is utterly offensive and inherently racist. By embracing your romantic concepts of the noble savage ghettos, the majority of you have spewed more hatred and filth than I can fathom.

And the evil Republicans are the "douchebags"? Jesus Christ, look at some of the things you’ve written. Rick Santorum, on a bad day where only 1/4 of his brain was working and he was *trying* his hardest to be offensive, could not even come close…

*Shakes Head*
posted by ten-fifteen at 4:24 PM on September 7, 2005


Actually, part of the reason Bush was so slow to respond is because he interrupted his vacation to compare himself to FDR. But I get your point.

Actually, there may be a valid comparison in there somewhere. Stephen Ambrose's essay "Just Dumb Luck" in Americans at War blames Roosevelt for indecision and inaction before Germany declared war on the US.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:37 PM on September 7, 2005


You put yourself in that situation, and the gov't is not responsible for bailing you out.

Then you agree that they cannot force you to leave your property? You agree that someone who chooses to stay still possesses the rights and responsibilities of an American citizen?
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:09 PM on September 7, 2005


i would say that as an american citizen you have a responsibility to not put others in danger needlessly, to not burn down the remainder of a major american city, and to protect your life and not become another casualty of the storm.

who the fuck cares anymore? let them die. if their house is more important to them than their lives and their families, let them stay.
posted by centrs at 5:31 PM on September 7, 2005


Conservatives, pay bloody close attention! THIS is how much the present-day Republican party cares about private property!

Yeah, I don't get the outrage over Keno v. New London compared to forcing people from their homes at gunpoint. But then again, I guess I don't understand a lot of American beliefs.

I couldn't watch the video. What sort of punishment does Santorum propose? It sounds absolutely batshit insane, but once again, nothing new for Santorum.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:34 PM on September 7, 2005


i would say that as an american citizen you have a responsibility to not put others in danger needlessly, to not burn down the remainder of a major american city, and to protect your life and not become another casualty of the storm.

I would say go back to elementary school for Intro to American Civics. Seriously.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:36 PM on September 7, 2005


Excuse me, but WTF? To assume that the only ones who didn't leave were black and poor, my so-called good Samaritans, is utterly offensive and inherently racist. By embracing your romantic concepts of the noble savage ghettos, the majority of you have spewed more hatred and filth than I can fathom. ten-fifteen at 6:24 PM


67 percent of New Orleans residents are black, and more than 50% of that Black demographic lived significantly below the poverty line. Of the counties in Mississippi that got hit and haven't had much help, the census reports that those counties were 62% - 87% Black.

Story, after story, after story talks about how the Black population has been the hardest hit and the least served. Don't accuse me of racism; you don't know me, you don't know my skin color, and to assume that I'm one of the "Evil Whities out to belittle the Black Man" is absurd. What, only white folks have internet access and can type in coherent sentences? You made up the "Nobel Ghetto Savage" bullshit.

You can read what you want to in it baby, but what I see is massive scale racism. You go out and find me fifty thousand white folks that are still living in sports stadiums. That would be 10% of the total evacuees on the move. Cause, I been doing a lot a work with the evacuees, and I can tell you from first hand experience, it's the Black families who have taken the brunt of this storm.

There are more than 500,000 people on the move after Katrina. The vast majority of them are Black. It is being considered, by some, as the largest Black Diaspora since Reformation. Calling the MeFi crowd racist when you can't be bothered to do a little research is what's offensive.
posted by dejah420 at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2005


There are more than 500,000 people on the move after Katrina. The vast majority of them are Black. It is being considered, by some, as the largest Black Diaspora since Reformation.

Off topic, but I've been wondering... these folks are out of a barely-functional city with a nonfunctional school system. They're trying to restart their lives in cities stressed with the overload, but with more opportunities, better education, the whole bit. How many will be able to use this to make their lives 'better'? And what does 'better' mean in this case, anyway?

No, I'm not trying to justify the horror of Katrina. I'm not ignoring the government's responsibility to these people. I'm not ignoring our responsibility - my responsibility - to these people. I'm just rooting for the underdog, hoping that they can make the best of what they've got, whatever that may be.
posted by suckerpunch at 8:18 PM on September 7, 2005


Exactly Dejah! They will rebuild without a doubt. It will take time, but NOLA will be a new enclave for the rich. No poor need apply.
posted by MetaJohn at 12:55 PM PST on September 7 [!]


But the rich NEED the poor. Without the poor, who will stock the shelves, grow the food, and do many of the services the rich need?

I await the day when an underclass-er refuses to exchange goods for FRN of a upper class and a lawsuit results. The resulting equal opportunity laws for the rich will be a hoot.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:07 PM on September 7, 2005


I can't believe how wrong you all are, and how right I am, about everything.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:24 PM on September 7, 2005


it's simple logic that those who reside below sea level without hurricane insurance get what they deserve
posted by bud_fles at 10:28 PM on September 7, 2005


what? more harsh penalties from Santorum?
Because that was the main focus of this thread.
posted by Iax at 12:51 AM on September 8, 2005


You can read what you want to in it baby, but what I see is massive scale racism. You go out and find me fifty thousand white folks that are still living in sports stadiums. That would be 10% of the total evacuees on the move. Cause, I been doing a lot a work with the evacuees, and I can tell you from first hand experience, it's the Black families who have taken the brunt of this storm.

posted by dejah420 at 10:45 PM EST on September 7 [!]

Where'd you get that 10% number? Also, how have you seen racism occur to produce less whites in the sports stadiums? Thanks. (not snarking, honestly wondering)
posted by jikel_morten at 7:27 AM on September 8, 2005


sorry about that floydd. i missed your correction. :(
posted by destro at 8:22 AM on September 8, 2005


Where'd you get that 10% number?

Just basic math. The various news medias that I linked above and others have linked in comments put the total evacuee population at 500,000 people.

Therefore, 10 percent of 500,000 would be 50,000 people. My point was that of the people *I've* seen at the stadium and around the Dallas metroplex that we're finding shelter, food, clothes, etc. for, less than 10% have been white.

ten-fifteen was accusing me of racism because I said that that the majority of evacuees were Black, and that this was akin to the Native American Trail of Tears as far as relocating vast swaths of population was concerned. Apparently, according to him/her, noticing that most of the people who were displaced and under served by the federal government are people of color, is racist.

I was challenging him/her to find me 50,000 white people (10%) that were still in stadiums waiting for help. I make the challenge, because I think it cannot be done. My belief of course, is predicated on what *I've* personally witnessed when it comes to helping the evacuees.

If the question is "why 10%?", it's because it's easy for everyone to figure out 10% of a bigger number. :) It's just a random number that I picked that was low enough to make a point, which is that the vast majority of evacuees are people of color, and still high enough that even 10% of this tragedy; i.e. 50,000 people, is stunningly huge.
posted by dejah420 at 9:34 AM on September 8, 2005


But the rich NEED the poor. Without the poor, who will stock the shelves, grow the food, and do many of the services the rich need? - rough ashlar


Ah, a distinction, if I may. The rich need the "working" poor. The rich would just as soon not see the rest, the dispossessed, the hungry, the fringes of our society, the poverty level that exists at minimum wage, the hungry children, the starving elders. The rich would just as soon sweep that away, if they could.
posted by dejah420 at 9:43 AM on September 8, 2005


who the fuck cares anymore? let them die.

That seems so out of character. Especially since you say "when i'm not traveling, home is important to me. i enjoy decorating and fixing up my home. my whole life i've wanted a beautiful peaceful home with all of my favorite things and people in it in one place."

Imagine you made it through the hurricane, but you had no electricity and had no idea the extent of the damage across the city and someone you don't know came and told you they were going to "rescue" you from your home and bring you to "we're not sure where for "we're not sure how long." Oh, and you cannot bring mystic, blossom and bijoux with you.

You are better than that.
posted by Cassford at 1:45 PM on September 8, 2005


So, speaking of the rich gentrifying New Orleans, The Wall Street Journal posted an article that I think is relevant to the discussion.

Old-line families plot the future

Quote: The power elite of New Orleans -- whether they are still in the city or have moved temporarily to enclaves such as Destin, Fla., and Vail, Colo. -- insist the remade city won't simply restore the old order. New Orleans before the flood was burdened by a teeming underclass, substandard schools and a high crime rate. The city has few corporate headquarters.

The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."


This, from the people who have had city services turned back on for them, who are using a park as a helicopter pad and who have all flown in armed security guards to patrol their gated (and dry) communities.
posted by dejah420 at 2:18 PM on September 8, 2005


So, who is that cartoon guy, supra? Great graphic!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:45 PM on September 8, 2005


« Older Mad Meg...  |  Marvel to finance up to ten ne... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments