Kanye on Katrina Matt 08 Sep 2005

78 comments Latest by sloan

An extremely nervous Kanye West goes off script (WMV) — “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” — during NBC’s Katrina telethon as a shellshocked Mike Myers looks on.

78 comments so far (Jump to latest)

that guy 08 Sep 05

It’s a good thing you guys linked to this, otherwise I wouldn’t have seen this.

Darrel 08 Sep 05

More alarming:

FEMA hates Mac people.

Nollind Whachell 08 Sep 05

Ya I almost forgot about seeing this days ago. :)

He’s “nervous”? More like distraught, frustrated, and angered at feeling so helpless to do anything (which is why he said he wanted to donate as much as he could).

Hell even Mike Myers, the one actually being stone faced and nervous, even looked like he sympathized with Kanye somewhat with his side glances at him.

Nat Geo 08 Sep 05

JB: That is incredibly creepy. That was published last year?

Raymond Brigleb 08 Sep 05

Yes, thanks for posting this.

Like the notorious Jon Stewart interview of last year, any time someone goes off the “script” on live television, it’s a memorable event. But it’s also a scary thing for one’s career, no?

It would be nice if Kayne West had another forum for his opinion, but I seriously doubt if another, similar chance to speak his mind would have ever arisen. He most certainly didn’t come across as a “thug,” he came across scared and human and honest, and that’s what people relate to. And care about.

jb 08 Sep 05

Nat Geo: Yes… Published October 2004

It is creepy, and I believe it speaks to the absurd statements Bush made regarding the compromise of the levy system.
And I’m sure that the Federal gov’t probably has a bit more access to the studies than an author at National Geographic.

Art Wells 08 Sep 05

The greatest eloquence sounds stammered.

Greb 08 Sep 05

jb - be fair. Lot’s of people didn’t think the levies were going to break. Lot’s of people made the wrong decisions days before, during and after the hurricane. My uncle, a Gulf shrimp boat captain heeded the state’s warning and left his home on the tiny island of Grand Isle and drove. This is a man who has sat out dozens of tropical storms and hurricanes in his BOAT.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not defending Bush, I don’t care for him much as a politician, but the Federal government isn’t all to blame. Lot’s of people knew what could happen. There were plans in place, but no one followed them.

Josh 08 Sep 05

This is just emotion speaking. If people sat down and looked at the *all* the facts objectively, they would easily see what a bunch of crap all this “Bush hates Blacks” stuff is. It’s really outrageous and speaks extremely ill of our county that these unbelievable claims have been given airtime in the first place.

noodlebrain 08 Sep 05

And I�m sure that the Federal gov�t probably has a bit more access to the studies than an author at National Geographic.

The Bush administration has been trying to discredit and even remove public access to the recent national assessment of the potential effects of climate change on the United States. Here’s an excerpt from the report on the Southeast:

The US experienced 42 weather-related disasters over the past 20 years that resulted in damages/costs in excess of $1 billion each; 23 of these disasters occurred in Southeast states, resulting in total damages/costs of about $85 billion. Most of the property damages were associated with floods and hurricanes. Low-lying Gulf and South Atlantic coastal counties are particularly vulnerable to storm surge. Between 1978 and 1998, 56% of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force and 74% of total NFIP claim payments occurred in southeastern coastal counties (Heinz Center, 1999).

Also this:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) commissioned a study on the true costs and mitigation of coastal hazards in 1996. The report of this study calls for a strategic shift in hazard mitigation and focuses on model state programs developed in Florida and others parts of the country to foster more disaster-resilient communities. Recommendations include improvements in disaster cost accounting and risk assessment, insurance/mitigation policy linkages,integrated approaches to coastal management/development, and community-based mitigation planning (Heinz Center, 1999). Changes in climate and sealevel rise should be an integral consideration as Southeast coastal communities develop strategies for hazard preparedness and mitigation.

Full report available in PDF here

Chris S 08 Sep 05

Kanye’s comments were pure emotional nonsense.

There are huge communities of people in my own state of Alabama as well as Mississippi up to 200 miles inland who are wiped out. Black folks. White folks. Everyone. They are also the last to receive federal help since everything has pretty much gone to NO until very recently.

If impatience justifies nonsense then we need to say that Ray Nagin hates his own citizens since he was in a better position than anyone to evacuate his city in the days prior to the disaster. He didn’t do that, didn’t lay in supplies, didn’t seem to have a plan other than to cry for the feds to come and save his citizens.

Fact of the matter is, many if not most of the people who ended up at the Superdome would not have left the city in advance of the storm if they had a chauffered limo 300 miles inland.

But all the people who are spouting emotional and politically-expedient rhetoric are, in the long run, going to hurt themselves more than anyone else.

The way I see it, most everyone who wanted to leave was out of that city within 5-6 days of the storm hitting. That’s pretty damn good considering the logistics involved.

This kind of disaster rescue in that kind of topography is almost unprecedented and (aside from the fact that I don’t think it’s the federal government’s job to save us) I don’t see how it could have been pulled off any faster.

harry 08 Sep 05

There was another NBC Katrina-thon and they let Kanye West on camera again?! I can’t believe. This same thing happened like weeks ago. You’d think they would’ve learned.

Lisa 08 Sep 05

Bush hates black people?
His appointed Secretary of State is a black woman.

Isn’t Kanye West the guy who threw a fit at the American Music Awards because he didn’t get a trophy?

As for the levees, I grew up down there. I know how corrupt the local government is and I would not be surprised if a story broke about the feds (no matter which administration — Clinton, Bush, etc.) giving money to upgrade the levees and the money ended up in someone’s pocket.

Darrel 08 Sep 05

jb - be fair. Lot�s of people didn�t think the levies were going to break.

Be fair. A lot of people were either stupid, ignorant, or just didn’t give a damn.

The data was there. Everyone that cared knew that the levies would never survive a Cat 4 or above direct hit.

The Fed isn’t to BLAME for what happened. The Bush admin has a lot of explaining to do, though, with all the money spent on this ‘homeland security’ and we can’t rally up rescue for something we had days of warning for.

And the Fed, in general (independant of a specific administration) and, probably, the population in general has a lot to think about in regards to our mainly reactive social support system in this country rather than a proactive one. We finally have a nice example of how spending money up front on better systems can probably save us over the long haul.

And, finally, maybe we’ll push better city planning a bit farther forward.

they would easily see what a bunch of crap all this �Bush hates Blacks� stuff is.

Well a) Kanye didn’t say that and b) most people don’t take out of context and changed news bites as verbatim news. Well, except those that watch Fox.

Kanye probably didn’t use the right words, but I think the sentiment that we have some serious poverty issues in this country rings loud and clear.

8500 08 Sep 05

“I don�t think it�s the federal government�s job to save us”

I’m not a lover of big government but I believe this is exactly the type of event that requires federal assistant. It is too large a tragedy for a single state to handle, especially when it’s largest city is destroyed.

Darrel 08 Sep 05

I don�t think it�s the federal government�s job to save us

No, that’s the National Guard. Oh. Wait. The Feds sent them somewhere, didn’t they?

Lisa 08 Sep 05

No, that�s the National Guard. Oh. Wait. The Feds sent them somewhere, didn�t they?

Actually, Gov. Blanco has responsiblity for sending out the LA National Guard.

Darrel 08 Sep 05

Actually, Gov. Blanco has responsiblity for sending out the LA National Guard.

As does the Commander in Chief.

Dsiv 08 Sep 05

I don�t think it�s the federal government�s job to save us

I pay a sizeable chunk of my salary to the federal government, and really I have little choice in that matter. Some portion of that is allocated to disaster prevention/recovery. I therefore have every right to expect the government to demonstrate that they are using that money effectively. It has everything to do with me expecting my money to be used effectively and nothing to do with me expecting the government to be my caretaker.

As to whether or not the funds are being used effectively, there are any number of answers. Perhaps funds are limited and this is the best we can do. Perhaps the funds are being misused. Perhaps funds are being unwisely expended on other endeavors, thereby lessening our ability to respond to these types of disasters. One way or another these questions are worth asking.

JohnO 08 Sep 05

I don’t see how the failings of the Federal government falls soley on Bush.

These reports you’re citing are from 1996, 1999. That is nearly a decade ago. Nothing has been done since then, by *anyone* of either party.

Darrel 08 Sep 05

I don�t see how the failings of the Federal government falls soley on Bush.

There’s two issues. The fact that we didn’t PREVENT this from happening and the fact that once it happend, we weren’t too good at the rescue.

The former is definitely not Bush’s fault alone. We’ve known about NOLA’s predicament for decades.

Ted said it well.

jb 08 Sep 05

Greb - My comment regarding the absurdity of Bush’s statement wasn’t really addressing any fault of the Federal Government on their response before, during or after the storm. I’m sure there will be plenty of justifiable finger-pointing for years to come, and will include state and local governments as well.
It’s just that when a President speaks, I assume that he’s been prepped to the hilt by every manner of advisor. So to say that the levies giving way was a big surprise - well, he’s either lying, grossly misinformed, or thinks the American people are all idiots.
I would have rather he said, “Sorry, we failed miserably. I’ll make it right.”
“My dog ate it,” just doesn’t fly.

Matt 08 Sep 05

Mayor - Did not mobilize buses to evacuate the city.

Governor - Did not effectively use the National Guard and available Federal resources to react.

President - Did not react fast enough when the above two did not produce results.

There is enough blame for everybody to go around regardless of political party. One thing is for certain, the bureaucracy of any government does not make a compelling case for me to put all my faith for personal survival in their hands. If I lived under sea level along the coast, I would sure as hell have a plan for my family. Those that are too poor or lack the health to do the same would be the reason I donate to the Red Cross and would offer any assistance I could, providing my family’s safety is accounted for.

Dan Boland 08 Sep 05

He didn�t do that, didn�t lay in supplies, didn�t seem to have a plan other than to cry for the feds to come and save his citizens.

President Bush declared a federal state of emergency in Louisiana and Mississippi on August 28th, the day before the hurricane hit. So Ray Nagin’s “cry for the feds” was certainly justifiable, since Bush essentially put the onus of managing the emergency on the shoulders of the federal government.

Alex Cabrera 08 Sep 05

I think it was a great idea to voice his political concerns during a telethon for disaster victims. It’s always a good idea to potentially alienate people who were going to send money. Good move, Kanye.

Anonymous Coward 08 Sep 05

It�s always a good idea to potentially alienate people who were going to send money. Good move, Kanye

It’s not nice to hear that there are people out there that base their decision on whether or not to donate to a tragedy based on some TV personalities political view.

To be honest, those folks weren’t going to give in the first place.

Nollind Whachell 08 Sep 05

Wow, amazing to hear so many people say that being emotional is a bad thing. If you want unemotional sterile talk, go talk about business. We’re talking about people dying here. If you can’t get emotional about that then I think you’ve been ingesting fatally high doses of Mr. Bush too much.

sean 08 Sep 05

Lisa,

Your wish is my command - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html.

The title of the article says it all “Money Flowed to Questionable Projects”.

As for those saying Bush didn’t act fast enough, you have to remeber that the federal government cannot go in and do anything until the state allows it to (refer to our constitution ). The feds were asking for control of the situation before the hurricane hit, and the governor wouldn’t allow it. Just like the governor wouldn’t allow the red cross to help out either (http://www.radioblogger.com/#000967)

Mike 08 Sep 05

Green hotheads exploit hurricane tragedy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printFumento20050908.shtml

… the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which believes global warming is both real and man-made, stated in its last assessment (2001) that �Changes in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by [variations within and between decades], with no significant trends over the twentieth century evident.�

So, too, states the Tropical Meteorological Project at Colorado State University. In a paper issued AFTER Katrina hit it noted hurricane activity since 1995 has �been similar� to that �of the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s when many more major hurricanes struck the U.S. East Coast and Florida.� These are the people, chiefly professor of atmospheric science William Gray, who issue the annual hurricane forecasts each May.

Drew 08 Sep 05

I don’t think the Red Cross or the government have ever had a lack of emergency donations/funds

They just don’t always seem to use it very effectively …

Lisa 08 Sep 05

JF—

Just happen to be looking at this on my test pc and you have comments rolling off of the “comment area” to the right.

Just thought you’d like to know

Lisa 08 Sep 05

Sean

Thanks for the link!
The post, I find, is a great source for news.

Matt 08 Sep 05

“so many people say that being emotional is a bad thing”

Well, I should say it IS when it comes to exercising the millions, billions or trillions of dollars in resources at these leaders�s disposal. I want people who have the responsibility for disasters to be cold and sterile in making triage decisions rather than risking all to save the immediate person/people who will satisfy my emotional feelings. Emotional reactions do not make for courageous leadership.

Nollind Whachell 08 Sep 05

Matt, that’s where I agree with you but also disagree with you. I want those people who have the responsibility for disasters to get emotional inside knowing full what’s at stake and realizing that every life is precious but also be intelligent enough on the outside to make the right triage decisions that help the most amount of people. From what I’ve seen of the current government operations you aren’t getting either of those. Instead you are getting someone totally unemotional and disconnected from the situation who is also a complete and utter idiot at making decisions. That my friend is even more deadly and dangerous.

Charlie Triplett 08 Sep 05

Do you remember taking those tests in school where you read a statement and then answer questions about the validity of that statement?

The strange thing is that people hear such generalized statements, things we learned in school that you don’t automatically believe because there aren’t supporting facts, and immortalize it, make it a mottto with which to go up against the barracades.

From this statement of Kanye West a group of affluent college girls are making shirts at my company with the quote blazened as large as possible on the front, the back reading “I CONCUR!”

As a designer, I had to choke down some pride to generate the design for them. I don’t like propogating lies.

sloan 08 Sep 05

Governor declared a state of emergency and gave Bush the power to act as needed on the 28th. The point of FEMA is to use professional planning and “experts” to plan before and after the response. Local authorities can only get money if it is related to terrorism. Hell, colleges have found the only way to get funding is to tie their programs in some loose way to terrorism to get funds. Local authorities do not have the money or resources to plan as is needed. That’s why FEMA exists. That is FEMA’s job.

The problem is that the head of Homeland Security, the head of FEMA, and the next 2 top heads of FEMA have NO EXPERIENCE. Again and again this administration has failed to act on real information. If bad things happen ONCE, you can let it go. But here are the facts:
-Warned that terrorists were trying to use planes as weapons, not take hostages - Did nothing, didn’t alert the FAA, no extra security precautions were taken
-Warned that Osama Bin Laden wanted to make a large strike in the US - Did nothing, the terrorism task force headed by Cheney NEVER even met
-Told that intel on Saddam’s WMD programs were falsified and inaccurrate - Tells the US that there is no doubt that Saddam as WMDs
-Given full powers to do what is necessary in NO before hurricane struck - Stays on vacation and the head of FEMA does nothing until city devolves into a horror story.

The man was playing guitar in California while people were dying on the Gulf Coast. There is a pattern here, one way or another, that says something.

“Fact of the matter is, many if not most of the people who ended up at the Superdome would not have left the city in advance of the storm if they had a chauffered limo 300 miles inland… The way I see it, most everyone who wanted to leave was out of that city within 5-6 days of the storm hitting.”
Fact? What fact? Chauffered limo? What kind of bigotted nonsense is this? Without money or transport how the hell is a population with a HUGE poverty level going to evacuate? You’re an idiot.

Nollind Whachell 09 Sep 05

Charlie, I understand where you are coming from. But if you feel strongly about not propagating lies then make sure you don’t go work for the government either then. It works both ways. If anything, the local people who are there on the ground experiencing the horrors are the ones who know the truth of what is going on there (and hell there are still people being rescued off rooftops as we speak). Yet why is no one believing them? Why is it that the local people who are providing factual reports as to what went on are being disbelieved or ignored altogether? I mean really, who or what do you believe anymore when everyone gets taken out of the picture as a reliable source of the events. I guess the only thing you can do is go down there and see it for yourself.

sloan, I agree with you but here’s the sad part. I know that people died unnecessarily and could have been saved with a better response but there are many people who don’t agree. They believe that the government did everything they could which is just unbelievable. I mean if you don’t analyze and realize your mistakes then you will never learn from them. Right now there are still plenty of people saying that no mistakes were made and that nothing was done wrong. Until this fantasy dissipates, those people who died are pretty much forgotten and old news. If anything, I hope people do start taking responsibility for their mistakes though so that at least something can be learned from this so that those people’s deaths weren’t in complete vain. You can’t bring back their lives but hopefully you can ensure that it never happens again to that degree. But as I said, that would require accepting that a mistake was made.

I don’t know. I’m just sick of all this “never again” crap talk when horrorific things happen in the world. Ya whatever. “Never again” till the next time it happens you mean. Why does no one learn? There are a crapload of atrocities going on in the world today and no one gives a hoot, unless it directly affects the financial loss of a large corporation that is. Lives are worthless, money is everything. Great world we live in.

C 09 Sep 05

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutley insane. WTF people! The “federal government” didn’t start helping people for 5 FUCKING DAYS.

The Federal Government droped the fucking ball plain and simple and people are dying or dead becuase of it.

Kayane has every right to be angry. Most of America is angry with the exception of a few right-wing, racist, selfish fucks who are making this country into a shitty place to live. So I say (Fuck all you mother fuckers) there is a special place in hell reserved just for you!


C+ 09 Sep 05

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutley insane. WTF people! The �state government� didn�t start helping people for 4 F-ING DAYS.

The State Government droped the f-ing ball plain and simple and people are dying or dead becuase of it.

C++ 09 Sep 05

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutley insane. WTF people! The �city government� didn�t start helping people for 4 F-ING DAYS.

The City Government droped the f-ing ball plain and simple and people are dying or dead becuase of it.

C# 09 Sep 05

Right all the City and State had to do was ask! Right!

LifeHut 09 Sep 05

I listen to the Savage Nation quite a bit (talk radio) and he brought up an excellent point.

We spend money in the US on plenty of stupid shit as well as infrastructures that range in the Billions that rarely get used or warrant such a cost.

The netherlands have supposidly put a levee system in place that puts others to shame. Apparently, their system can completely control flood waters in a manner of letting water in or out. They can raise their ‘shield’ to a height of 60 feet! If water get’s IN the city, they can open the levees to let the water out.

We need to fly some of those enginners over here to the US and have them work with us. We spend money on stupid shit when we could spend it on important infrastructure updates.

Darrel 09 Sep 05

Lifehut:

The problem is that the US is a very short-termed thinker. We’re rather buy SUVs than invest in levees. Buy iPods rather than invest in health care. New swimming pools rather than invest in our education system.

There was a person from the netherlands on NPR the other day pretty much stating that we are just completely asinine for not properly protecting one of our major ports. The interviewer asked ‘but wouldn’t doing that cost a lot of money’? And so it goes…

Darrel 09 Sep 05

Darrel:

The problem is not how consumers spend their money. It’s how the goverments (at ALL levels) spend their money. We’re dumping countless billions into Africa for reasons that aren’t entirely clear; we’re financing welfare and education for an overpopulation of people that are in America illegally. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

The problem isn’t how consumers spend their money. (For the record, I think an SUV is overkill too.) However, the government has money, they just need to be wiser with it.

JD 09 Sep 05

The above post was by me, not by darrel.

-sorry

Darrel 09 Sep 05

The problem is not how consumers spend their money. It�s how the goverments (at ALL levels) spend their money.

Well, it’s both. The government is us. We could vote for people that don’t mind spending money on infrastructure investments, but lately we’ve been voting for people that prefer tax cuts and spending money on wars instead.

We�re dumping countless billions into Africa for reasons that aren�t entirely clear; we�re financing welfare and education for an overpopulation of people that are in America illegally.

And we’re dumping countless billions into a war. And financing corporate welfare for CEOs that hide income illegally. ;o)

I think we’re both in agreement that the government could spend money wiser. Alas, people complain about spending money on a war and others complain about spending money on schools.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

What we’re seeing is the logical consequences of the welfare state and the statist mindset that supports taking from those who “have” and giving to those who “haven’t.”

That helps no one, neither the “have’s” nor the “have not’s”.

All it does is institutionalizes dependency and gives political fodder to liberals and conservatives alike who cultivate and harvest the mindset that the purpose of government is to “provide and protect.”

sloan 09 Sep 05

The whole point of community, cities, and nations is general welfare. Why the hell else do I pay taxes and live according to laws if it isn’t in return for providing and protecting?

Why we have such a huge disparity of wealth and such a large poverty stricken populace that is black has a hell of a lot to do with slavery. Then add on top of that there is a huge unequal distribution of resources across income groups and you have a better “picture” of what is going on. We “benefit” from a minimum wage that puts people below the poverty line, because it means we get cheaper stuff to buy.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

Do the math, sloan.

Lisa 09 Sep 05

Why we have such a huge disparity of wealth and such a large poverty stricken populace that is black has a hell of a lot to do with slavery

I would love to read an explanation on this.

sloan 09 Sep 05

“Do the math, sloan.”
$5.15 / hr * 40 hr / wk * 52 wk / yr = $10,712

You work 2 jobs doing 80 hr / wk = $21,424

Or is there some other math you are referring to?

sloan 09 Sep 05

“I would love to read an explanation on this.”
Read some history books. I’m sure you’ll find a few.

Darrel 09 Sep 05

What we�re seeing is the logical consequences of the welfare state

Uh, no.

Do the math, sloan.

How about just looking at some real world examples? Canada? Italy? Most of norther Europe? They actually invest to prevent things like this from happening in the first place.

Ah what am I doing? You can’t debate with the ‘welfare for the poor is EVIL’ crowd.

I would love to read an explanation on this.

NOLA has quite the history. It’s a good read.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

“Why the hell else do I pay taxes and live according to laws if it isn�t in return for providing and protecting?”

Try taking the government to court because they didn’t provide sustenance or personal protection for you as an individual, and see how far you get.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

“They actually invest to prevent things like this from happening in the first place”

Really?? It seems like geography is on their side, what with not being on the receiving end of hurricanes and all.

Last time I checked, I wasn’t a “crowd,” just one lone thinker in a sea of muddled thought and emotion. Any two parties can debate so long as the focus is on ideas, logic, and reason.

If welfare is so great, how has it helped these people who spend their lives at the poverty level and perpetual vicitims of circumstance? Have they not been given enough?

How much more money are you willing to work your 40, 50, 60 hour weeks for, then turn over to someone else to spend on food, smokes, whatever?

How much more should we all be providing through taxes (and, by extension, how much less will we have to simply give as we choose?).

Everyone has excoriated the government for being a bureaucratic, inefficient bungler in this case. I’ve been saying that for years.

The American people, as motivated individuals, are doing and will do far more for these folks than the government could ever dream of. We just won’t prop them up for the rest of their lives to eak out some meager existence because it’s easier.

sloan 09 Sep 05

First, you should do some introspection when you refer to human beings as “these people” and “victims of circumstance”.

Is someone saying welfare is great? No. It is a mess. It doesn’t do what it is supposed to. My friend is a single mother who worked to get off welfare only to loose her healthcare benefits and daycare benefits for her child. So working harder actually makes her life worse, but she refuses to accept welfare again and so has had to stop going to school.

“We just won’t prop them up for the rest of their lives…”
I don’t know anyone that supports that. But that is what happens because we as a nation haven’t made it an issue. We point at those that abuse the system to say that the whole idea of welfare is faulty. We paint with wide, large strokes to try and hide the reality… we don’t do what is necessary.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

Well, sloan, I could refer to them as “these little snugglebunnies o’ mine,” but that would be silly.

Last I checked, they ARE people and they ARE victims of circumstance.

The idea that everyone on welfare needs it is just as faulty as the idea that everyone on welfare is lazy and chooses to be poor.

My contention is simply that for those who do need it, there are better ways than robbing hard-working taxpayers to redistribute wealth in exchange for votes, which is how it works.

And for those who don’t need it or are scamming the rest of us, tough.

Darrel 09 Sep 05

Really?? It seems like geography is on their side

Darrel 09 Sep 05

Really?? It seems like geography is on their side

Look at the Netherlands, then.

If welfare is so great

No one said it’s great. It’s also not the problem that you seem to be making it.

how has it helped these people who spend their lives at the poverty level

Social welfare helps a lot of people get by. It helps some get out. Alas, it’s a very inefficient system (due to it being a constant target) and a lot of people get some help, but never truly enough to get out of the hole.

and perpetual vicitims of circumstance? Have they not been given enough?

Not sure what you mean by that.

How much more money are you willing to work your 40, 50, 60 hour weeks for, then turn over to someone else to spend on food, smokes, whatever?

I’m willing to support a system that supports everyone.

Do you honestly think social welfare is what’s taking the biggest chunk out of your paycheck?

And the concept of welfare is also very much a ‘plan ahead or pay later’ issue. And americans don’t like that. If you don’t help that single mom and her 3 kids now, odds are you’ll be paying a lot more later…be it medical bills, incarceration, what have you.

The American people, as motivated individuals, are doing and will do far more for these folks than the government could ever dream of.

But that’s not true.

It is true that when a big disaster hits, we all jump in to help, but for most of the time, a lot of people are happy in their obliviousness to the social problems in this country.

The idea that everyone on welfare needs it is just as faulty as the idea that everyone on welfare is lazy and chooses to be poor.

I think we’re in agreement on that.

My contention is simply that for those who do need it, there are better ways than robbing hard-working taxpayers to redistribute wealth in exchange for votes, which is how it works.

You have your welfares mixed up. Social welfare won’t gain you many votes. It’s corporate welfare that gets you into office.

I do agree welfare, in it’s current state, isn’t doing a whole lot other than maintaining the status quo.

What would be MUCH better would be higher minimum wages, living wage laws, repeal of things like NAFTA, stronger unions, national healthcare, free early childhood education, free daycare, better schools, better city planning, etc.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

“What would be MUCH better would be higher minimum wages, living wage laws, repeal of things like NAFTA, stronger unions, national healthcare, free early childhood education, free daycare, better schools, better city planning, etc.”

You’ve got to be kidding! Most of that stuff (NAFTA and better schools excepted) would be realized only over the dead bodies of those of us who all you good little statists would need to pay for it.

If you want better schools, then get the government out of them. Ditto city planning.

Otherwise, that’s a nice little communist utopia you got cooking there. We’d have a shooting war before most of that stuff would be implemented.


greb 09 Sep 05

Ok, now is a good time for him to stop talking…

Darrel 11 Sep 05

If you want better schools, then get the government out of them. Ditto city planning.

Uh…real world facts tend to completely contradict that statement (charter schools, suburbs, etc.)

Chris S 12 Sep 05

Er…Show me the math/facts/data/lies/damn lies/statistics, Darrell.

Depends upon what you mean by “better,” and given your support for statist policy, I’m sure there’s no way we’d see eye to eye on that one.

All I have are my own experiences with public and private schools, and I can tell you that in my experience, my kids have done much better in a private schools that lacks the funds for a lot of “extras” but in terms of holding the students to high academic standards does better than the public schools I attended.

There is simply no way individual freedom, private property, and personal responsibility can coexist with government-enforced material equality (or even plenty) for all. It’s a sham.

Life isn’t fair. That’s why God created (and created us with) free will. That’s why we used our reason, will, and weaponry to put the kibosh on dictatorships, whether their origins be royal or social. What you’re suggesting is simply replacing the tyranny of an individual (da king, da commie dictator, whoever) with the tyranny of the majority (which ends up investing their power, interestingly enough, in the dictator). Go figure!

But no matter how you slice it, it comes up wrong.

Darrel 12 Sep 05

All I have are my own experiences with public and private schools

Oh, you are talking about PRIVATE schools. That’s different. Again, though, you aren’t making a logical conncetion between cause and effect. The reason private schools do so well isn’t because government is not involved, but rather because private schools are properly funded, they can be selective, they tend to be exclusive (rather than inclusive), etc. A nation of private schools would simply be rich vs. poor. That’s the reason we developed the public school system in the first place.

The charter school model is the clearest proof that government isn’t the cause of whatever you think makes schools bad. It’s a school with the exact same funding as a public school, but without the intervention. Charter schools, in terms of popularity, have been a great success. In terms of education, what little studies have been done seem to show they are about even, or actually a little worse than the public schools.

There’s room for all kinds of schools, of course, but to blanketedly state ‘public schools suck because of government’ carries no weight what so ever.

There is simply no way individual freedom, private property, and personal responsibility can coexist with government-enforced material equality

Show me some examples of pure non-government, un-regulated capitalistic societies that offer the least bit of social equality. Or are you simply proposing that a caste system is the better model?

What you�re suggesting is simply replacing the tyranny of an individual (da king, da commie dictator, whoever) with the tyranny of the majority

I’m no fan of majority rules, but that’d be better than our current system of ‘rich majority’ rules. But, of course, I’m not proposing a majority rules solution, either.

Do I think government is perfect? Far from it. Is the solution to get rid of it? I don’t think so.

Chris S 12 Sep 05

First off, working end to beginning, I’ve never proposed “getting rid of government.” What I propose is actually enforcing the Constitutional restraints placed upon the federal government’s power to control or take ownership of an individual’s life. Big difference.

As far as “pure non-government, un-regulated capitalistic societies…”, you’re missing the point.

I never said (or meant to imply) that “social equality” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is any kind of ideal whatsoever. Freedom and liberty are the ideal. All men are created equal…but all men do not die equal, and, again, no “system” (formal or informal) can make it so.

What you’re proposing is simply a worse form of oligarchy/dictatorship than you’re suggestion currently exists under the “rich majority rules”, which is an emotional and empirically-bankrupt statement. Do the uber-rich seemingly have advantages I don’t? Of course. Do I have advantages the uber-poor don’t? Of course. So what? That’s life, and life ain’t fair, and no mandate, set of laws, or society will ever make it so.

Even if that were an ideal worth pursuing (which it’s not), there is actually no way to make it happen. It’s warm and fuzzy to think so, but it’s not consistent with reality.

Finally, the reason private schools do so well is precisely because “the government” is minimally involved. Because of that minimal involvement, private schools can actually enforce (and typically surpass) the government’s own standards, whereas the typical liberal nonsense that government schools are forced to abide by (in order to receive their kickbacks from the feds) prevent government schools from coming close to enforcing (much less surpassing) those standards.

And one of the great things about private schools is that if some of them DO drop the ball in terms of education, discipline, etc., I don’t have to pay for it anyway, whereas I have no choice BUT to pay for public edumacation.

And the reason we have public schools to begin with was because our Enlightenment-era forefathers and their direct descendants knew that an informed, intelligent citizenry capable of critical thought, empirical and logical reasoning, and moral courage was the only sure way to realize the ideals expressed in the writings of Locke, the Declaration, and the Constitution.

And that ain’t what’s happening in our public schools, as a whole.

Darrel 12 Sep 05

Freedom and liberty are the ideal.

True. But there are many definitions of that. ;o)

Anyways, ‘life ain’t fair’ is an argument against pretty much anything. It’s not much of a rebuttal.

Finally, the reason private schools do so well is precisely because �the government� is minimally involved.

No. But we’re not getting anywhere with that, so I’ll just leave it…

Chris S 12 Sep 05

Yeah, as usual, we’ll just have to leave the table agreeing to disagree.

Always enjoy the mental exercise, though…

Darrel 12 Sep 05

Oh, me too.

Cheers!

cj 12 Sep 05

Two points:
1. What have the democrats done to help the folks in LA over the past 40 years? They’ve had a monopoly on ideas and money, yet the poverty rate is staggering. The N.O. city planners surely new the demographics of their own city. There are two tragedies here: the devastating hurricane, and the devastating bill of goods sold to the citizens of LA under the guise of liberalism.

2. The Corps of Eng (USACOE) wouldn’t have been able to re-inforce the levees under Bush’s admin if he’d have ordered it on his first day in office. The COE is a bureaucratic nightmare (I’ve watched it firsthand). If Bush ordered this in 2001, we’d still be in the public comment period on their feasibility study TODAY!

Unfortunately, humans are not very inclined to do something until disaster strikes. I’m sure if we had spent quadrillions of dollars on levees in N.O. some people would have been complaining about it because it was overkill since that Cat 5 hadn’t hit yet.

Another interesting sidenote….FEMA regulations stipulate that if an area is flooded, any rebuilding must be done at a minimum of 1 ft. above sea level. When (not if) N.O. is rebuilt, will those regs be loosened or followed? Also, how would you compensate for the rate of land subsidence into the Gulf? Fighting with nature will always fail at some point in time.

Darrel 13 Sep 05

1. What have the democrats done to help the folks in LA over the past 40 years?

Not sure. The levee project has been underunded for years upon years, though.

The Corps of Eng (USACOE) wouldn�t have been able to re-inforce the levees under Bush�s admin if he�d have ordered it on his first day in office.

If you say so.

But what do either of those have to do with FEMA falling down?

Also, how would you compensate for the rate of land subsidence into the Gulf? Fighting with nature will always fail at some point in time.

The Bayou and coastal waters have long been ignored. It’s simply an environmental issue. Fighting with nature is what caused the problem to begin with. ;o)

As for rebuilding NO, I agree. Building below see level isn’t the best idea. Might as well raise things now while we have the chance before construction begins.

Darrel 13 Sep 05

…though, of course, raising the poor, demolished neighborhoods above sea level will then put the richer, less damaged neighborhoods below sea level which may not fair to well politically. ;o)

sloan 13 Sep 05

The country has screwed NO for years, never funding it as needed, it is both a Dem or Rep fault but more we as a nation. What is true though is that ALL work on the levees stopped with the Bush administration so that they weren’t even keeping up with the rate of the ground sinking.

The focus on rebuilding and fighting in Iraq is precisely why Bush the first didn’t overthrow Saddam, he didn’t think it was worth the cost. Nation building is an intense exercise and with that kind of focus, things fall through the cracks at home. And in this case, it was a huge fucking crack that flooded a city.