Good Bye New Orleans, I Hardly Knew Thee

welsh said:
Kharn- HDI- Human Development Index measures many things. And on that the numbers are a bit fudged. At a per capita income of around $2,900 Cuba is ranked below India. At $4,000 (a generous estimate) they are about at Guatemala.

The HDI numbers are fudged, but they make for a better judgement than just GDP per capita. Cuba's actual quality of life is incomparable to that of India or Guatemala, such comparisons work only on a GDP per capita basis and while such a comparison might make sense for two flowering capitalist countries, it doesn't make sense to compare a communist countries to other countries based on GDP per capita.

welsh said:
As for integration- for immigrants in the US it has been fairly easy. Muslims are still among the most affluent ethnic groups in the US. The racial issue between whites and blacks- which I think is more a class issue than a racial issue-is terrible. And New Orleans has been an example of the problem of poverty and race in the US for a long time.

It's a class issue that just happens to have seperation lines that almost completely follow race?

Tchyeah.

I read an interesting thesis on the same subject, though, about so-called black rednecks and the facts that imported Africans generally do better than descendants of African Americans. Should dig it up.
 
Apart from Sri Lanka and Cuba, I heard in the local news that even Iran, Afghanistan and ALBANIA donated financial aid to the people of New Orleans (Iran donated 100,000 and Albania 300,000 dollars!), but I can't find confirmation on any of the major networks' sites.
 
The Overseer said:
The cops portrayed on the news didn't all have cop uniforms. Sure, they had the guns and armor, but most had white T-shirts, blue jeans and sunglasses. Same thing with the contractors really, and those guys are nutcases. I could've thought they were organized looters and mercenaries, especially with the extreme situation.


Contractors do not mean mercenaries, Overseer. If I recall, contractor means "A person hired for a job". They were engineers, not ex-Special Forces.
 
I read an interesting thesis on the same subject, though, about so-called black rednecks and the facts that imported Africans generally do better than descendants of African Americans. Should dig it up.

Definition of statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures. :?
 
@ Kharn- Race and Class don't exactly follow each other even in New Orleans. There were poor white folks looting shops down there as well, just as there well wealthy Blacks who got out of town as early as Friday night.

But yes, class issues in the US often have an ethnic dimensions. For example, last year I had a student from Wyoming, and they didn't have many black folks up there- their under-class were primarily hispanics.

(Few hispanics in New Orleans).

These are large populations, that often live in neighborhoods that have either been segregated by law or by choice, and which begin to replicate themselves over time. Whereas many immigrant communities (such as Muslims, most Asians, and yes- foreign born blacks) are often able to break out of immigrant ghettos within one or two generations, blacks have generally stagnant in a lower class- and New Orleans is a good example of that problem.

But that becomes the problem. In the US people see it as a black-white thing. Where its not blacks it might be Hispanics, or even Indians, or finally "white trash".

Truth is that poor white communities usually have the same social problems that poor blacks do- crime, education, even (to a lesser extent) opportunities. The problem for Americans is that we don't see it as the problem of the poor, but as a racial problem and if that color is not my color- fuck'em. But that's just blindness of another form.
 
Sorry to derail but;

Micheal Jackson will be coming back to America to write a song for the NO flood victims...
The world is now a better place.

And in other news FEMA has forbidden photo journalists access to New Orleans.
 
Working on a Chain, ... Gang

Working on a Chain, ... Gang



Got this e-mail from a friend.
A parent of three that can wear the low rise.
Hard bodied. Can show ' a whale tail' better than the stock teen - twenties that sport trout luring piercing-s in their baby fat tummies. [Well it's got me hooked.]
A friend that out side of property taxes and school levees, ... , rarely gets political.

Thought it interesting 'fallout' from ""The Bailing Of New Orleans"" that the 'best intentions' of the confidant of Rove and the defended by Rush, the good intentions of the Son of "Read my Lips" are falling flat.

Some axiom to some parable about good intentions paving paths, but I don't wish to wander too far from this thread. Want to share this:


Chain Construct To Be Shared:
Subject:
From a friend in Austin...pass it on
We think in a good faith demonstration of REAL family values, the Bush
family should open up the Crawford Ranch for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
There's
plenty of room. It's relatively close. and it shows a willingness to do
more than a symbolic kissing of babies. We'd like to see this spread
around the web as a grass roots movement until it's heard at the Ranch. So
spread the word....




I am surprised by the source and wonder if when all the blame is passed around that Prez will get his share, and a tragic chorus of dubious 'sympathetic' reverberating frequencies.
There are idiot politicals, in a rainbow of colors, flavors, and persuasions, over playing this, so the sh't slinging may even out, but I am surprised by the source. A middle class, fashionably 'assed', mom of three.
This may be, or is, resonating deep into the public mind.

Blue dresses, and '"what is "is"' are collateral condensates of the Clinton Era.
""The Bailing Of New Orleans"" will have it's contribution to the Bush - 2 legacy.



4too
 
Heres an interesting view on this entire mess...

It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.


But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency—indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

"'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.'"

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"—the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels—gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of those who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then told me that early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails—so they just let many of them loose. [Update: I have been searching for news reports on this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]

There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep—on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters—not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them—this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

The welfare state—and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages—is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Robert Tracinski is Editor and Publisher of The Intellectual Activist.

Take it or leave it, it IS is rather interesting...
 
What the hell. Blaming government income support for criminal acts and a lack of initiative. That sounds like offensive and simplistic bullshit to me. I obviously don't know much about America or the detail of its systems, but I would assume that any mismanagement problems are due to inept decision making and poor organisation, not 'the psychological consequences of the welfare state'. My first general impression in regards to that issue was not that these terrible events exposed the flaws of a welfare state, of which America is not a good example, but more the mindset of one that is not. The disaster has highlighted what can go wrong when one allows huge social injustice to go unchecked, with an everyman-for-himself attitude. If the disadvantaged had no support, things would likely have been even worse. Most people don't chose to be poor or uneducated. Throwing people on to the street, especially when they are stupid, isn't going to do anyone any good or improve their reaction to a crisis. A basic idea of welfare is helping the less fortunate even though it might not be advantageous to yourself. This mess would never have happened in Australia because although we are closer to a welfare state we are more civilised than America. We respond quickly to disasters and individuals do show initiative and help each other, even if they happen to be on welfare. The government would not practically abandon people. We do not have a large underclass, only 5% unemployment, more even distribution of wealth, a powerful volunteer spirit and our culture has much less of a violent element. It could be argued that America shamefully abandoned the poor in New Orleans because of the psychological consequences associated with opposition to the welfare state. But to be fair that is also simplistic rubbish, although it makes much more sense than the converse.
 
Interesting, huh?

Funny though that Cuba managed to avoid a catastrophy and evacuate 1.5 million people without harm. And Cuba is *more* of a welfare state than the US.

Interesting or not, the man isn't offering any alternatives. I suggest he visits countries that lack welfare state means, he'll find the poor and the criminals still live on the outskirts of the city, but rather in squalor, and he'll find many of them don't need a disaster to become savage

In other words; what a bunch of bs.
 
There's a big diffirence between Cuba and New Orleans. Cuba goes through this drill every year, New Orleans has basically avoided the big one for every year of it's history. Cuba is a totalitarian state run by a jackass Dictator willing to do whatever it takes to avoid disaster, the people of New Orleans have weak rulers who are privy to the every whim of their populace, for good or ill.
 
John it seems to me unfair to blame the leaders of "New Orleans" other areas were destroyed as well. Most Americans have no clue those other places existed but New Orleans! Yeah I know that state. As Bradylama's link illustrates so very well.

You state that Fidel will do what ever it takes to avoid disaster. Then why is it up to the leaders of New Orleans to do so? Should it not be up to our leaders up top as well? Or should it be a bit of both? Either way it would seem the horse’s mouth said jack shit when the time came. There have been many terrible disasters in America that were reacted too in a hell of allot less time then it took for this mess to unfold.
 
The economist weighs in on this-

Hurricane Katrina
The shaming of America
Sep 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Hurricane Katrina has exposed both personal and structural weaknesses in America's government

EVEN America's many enemies around the world tend to accord it respect. It might be arrogant, overbearing and insensitive—but, by God, it can get things done.

Since Hurricane Katrina, the world's view of America has changed. The disaster has exposed some shocking truths about the place: the bitterness of its sharp racial divide, the abandonment of the dispossessed, the weakness of critical infrastructure. But the most astonishing and most shaming revelation has been of its government's failure to bring succour to its people at their time of greatest need.

The finger-pointing is already under way, with the federal government blaming local government and local government blaming the feds. But if America is to avoid future catastrophes it needs to do more than bicker. It needs to learn the right lessons from this fortnight's debacle.

Blame for the shame
Natural disasters on this scale inevitably bring chaos and suffering. Katrina wreaked havoc over an area the size of Britain. And even the best-laid hurricane plans cannot deal with the quirks of human nature. People who live in areas prone to hurricanes tend to become blasé about storm warnings. This insouciance is native to New Orleans, where a lethal local cocktail is called The Hurricane. But none of that excuses government's failure.

Local government must shoulder some of the blame. The authorities in Louisiana have a reputation for confusion, inefficiency and worse. Different authorities are responsible for different levees, for example, and several close associates of the former mayor were recently indicted for corruption. Local incompetence exacerbated the disaster: in Orleans Parish, for instance, where 60,000 households do not own a car, hundreds of city buses which might have shipped out stranded people were left to be swamped by the rising waters.

Still, Washington is mostly at fault. The responsibility for mobilising the response to a disaster lies squarely with the federal government. And the responsibility for galvanising the federal government lies squarely with the president.

The administration's initial response recalled Donald Rumsfeld's reaction to the anarchy in Iraq: stuff happens. George Bush was listless and confused. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, remained on holiday in Wyoming. Condoleezza Rice, the highest ranking black in the country, saw a Broadway show, “Spamalot”, while New Orleans's poor looked out at the floodwaters. Mr Bush then added disingenuity to leaden-footedness, declaring that nobody had anticipated the breaching of the levees—even though people have been worrying about the possibility for years and an official report published in 2001 warned of impending disaster.

Mr Bush's personal weakness is shaming; but the structural failures in government that Katrina has revealed are perhaps more worrying. After September 11th Mr Bush poured billions into creating the Department of Homeland Security, but the department has flunked its first big test. It is a bureaucratic monstrosity that includes organisations as different as the Coast Guard and the immigration authorities and spends most of its energies in perpetual reorganisation. The department's focus on fighting terrorism has also distracted attention from coping with natural disasters, reducing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from a cabinet-level agency into a neglected stepchild. The best illustration of this is its boss: Michael Brown spent nine years at the Arabian Horse Association, before finally being eased out and joining FEMA as general counsel, brought in by its previous head, his college room-mate.

The second structural problem is Washington's addiction to pork-barrel spending. The anti-war left is keen to blame the Iraq war for depleting government's resources. The real problem, however, is not a lack of resources—Mr Bush has increased discretionary spending faster than any president since Lyndon Johnson—but the way they are allocated. The funding for New Orleans's levees, which has fallen by nearly half over the past four years, started dropping in 2001—before the Iraq war, but after Bob Livingston, a Louisiana congressman and erstwhile chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, left politics under a cloud. The recent transport bill contains some $24 billion-worth of pure pork—including $231m for a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. Although this sort of thing is endemic in Washington, it has got far worse since the Republicans took over both the White House and Congress.

Out of the depths
The polls suggest that the majority of people don't hold Mr Bush personally responsible for the bungling. Things are slowly improving on the ground. The federal government is pouring resources into the region, and ordinary Americans are opening their wallets to charities and their homes to refugees. But if Mr Bush is to rise to this occasion he needs to do more than take charge. He needs to make sure that America is better prepared for future calamities. This means rejigging his second-term agenda: downplaying favourite issues like Social Security reform and fixing the flaws in America's government that Katrina has exposed.

The most urgent task is to address the mess that is the Department of Homeland Security. He should upgrade FEMA and re-examine the wisdom of bundling disaster relief with terrorism prevention. He needs to confront the corrupt legislative culture in Washington: the job of the president is to look to the national interest rather than to reward his friends. If he managed to persuade Congress to regurgitate the pork in the transport bill, that would go a long way towards paying for rebuilding the levees. And he needs to start wielding his red pencil and exercising his right to veto bad legislation.

If Mr Bush addresses America's failings with the same vigour that he addressed Islamic terrorism in the wake of September 11th, he has a chance of reinvigorating his presidency and restoring respect in his country; if he doesn't, he will go the way of his father, limping wounded into retirement.
 
Throwing people on to the street, especially when they are stupid, isn't going to do anyone any good or improve their reaction to a crisis.

"Throwing people onto the street" has nothing to do with the eradication of the welfare state, though that may be the result for many. The demolishing of Projects, with or without the welfare state can only serve to better the urban environment, since the very purpose of a project, to pack as many impoverished welfare-recipients together as possible is just asking for a cesspool of violence and crime.

Of course, ya'll know how I feel about government control, but it's still clear to me of the author's bias. If the first reaction to the reason for why people would rape each other and shoot at rescuers is to blame the "welfare state" (as opposed to dope fiends and thugs with wrap sheets a mile long) you have one blinding sense of agenda. This author, quite frankly, disgusts me, because he draws too much attention to his personal crusade.

While welfare may be a contributing factor, "the welfare state" is only a minor part in an overall soup of calamity that combined to create this dilemma, and it's problems lie mostly in its structure (e.g. the aforementioned projects) as opposed to it's goal as a social service. Even if you eliminate welfare, the primary goal for politicians is still to win votes, ensuring that the levee system would have never been built anyways.

Also, quiet:
http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/042005828.htm
he U.S Labor Department revealed that the rate of unemployment in the country had hit a four-year low of 4.9 percent as 169,000 jobs were added in August.

Of course, those were immediately pre-Katrina figures, which the article mentions. It may jump to as much as 6-7%.

Also, is there any word more banal than civilised? =/

Funny though that Cuba managed to avoid a catastrophy and evacuate 1.5 million people without harm. And Cuba is *more* of a welfare state than the US.

How many people were concentrated in the evacuated areas? How simple was it for people to leave their homes and move to high ground or shelters?

Cuba was able to accomplish it's monumental feat because the government couldn't help but to plan long-term. Totalitarian governments must plan for long-term contingencies, because they have no accountability in the short-term. Of course, they also face the risk of dissent and rebellion, but keeping the general public docile is a relatively simple matter (particularly with a welfare state ;) ).

Not saying, of course, that we shouldn't emulate Cuba's disaster preparedness, but let's keep some perspective.
 
ohh and then the patsy resigns. I hope the American public does not take Mr. Browns resignation as an answer to their questions of response time and aid given by the federal government.
 
He should upgrade FEMA and re-examine the wisdom of bundling disaster relief with terrorism prevention.
I just had the weirdest thought. What if federal government's response was *intentionally* slow and inadequate so they could get public support for further broadening FEMA authorities. Remember, that agency is already granted near-absolute power in areas struck by environmental disasters and "drug crises" (whatever the hell that is). What if Bush and his administration have merely been setting stage for a reform that would give FEMA even more powers and, perhaps more importantly, opportunities to exercise those powers more quickly and decisively... perhaps to the point where they are no longer obliged to relinquish them?

Hmmm... something to ponder.
 
Deus Ex alert!

They don't have to make FEMA more powerfull, they already have the Department of Homeland Security which can do pretty much whatever the fuck it likes.
 
Back
Top