Another Terrible Rumor

[jmarie]

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 609 adults taken September 5-6 shows:

America just ain't buying it! :D

Blame Game -- 13% said George W. Bush is "most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"; 18% said "federal agencies"; 25% said "state and local officials"; 38% said "no one is to blame"; 6% had no opinion. -- 29% said that "top officials in the federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired"; 63% said they should not; 8% had no opinion.

MORE

Government Performance -- 10% said George W. Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 25% said "good"; 21% said "neither good nor bad"; 18% said "bad"; 24% said "terrible"; 2% had no opinion. -- 8% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 27% said "good"; 20% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 22% said "terrible"; 3% had no opinion. -- 7% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 30% said "good"; 23% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 15% said "terrible"; 5% had no opinion.

[jmarie]

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 609 adults taken September 5-6 shows:

America just ain't buying it! :D

Blame Game -- 13% said George W. Bush is "most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"; 18% said "federal agencies"; 25% said "state and local officials"; 38% said "no one is to blame"; 6% had no opinion. -- 29% said that "top officials in the federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired"; 63% said they should not; 8% had no opinion.

MORE

Government Performance -- 10% said George W. Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 25% said "good"; 21% said "neither good nor bad"; 18% said "bad"; 24% said "terrible"; 2% had no opinion. -- 8% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 27% said "good"; 20% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 22% said "terrible"; 3% had no opinion. -- 7% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 30% said "good"; 23% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 15% said "terrible"; 5% had no opinion.

And the really strange thing about this poll, is that it was a CNN poll, not a FOX News poll!

[Beth]

Joyce, please don't stir this pot. Not like this.

My earlier post apparently disappeared with the thread it was on, but enough ladies and gents. There is plenty to discuss, but I don't think you talk to your friends this in-your-face way (this is not limited to Joyce, folks). I think the folks who have been contributing to this BB for the last 2-3-4- and 5 years deserve more respect from one another.

I'm not going to engage in the politics or name-calling. I have read a lot that I think is right, and a lot I think is wrong. But I still think we all deserve respect.

[beacooker]

I'm not sure how the people who were asked the questions interpreted the questions, but I am hopping mad about how the federal government responded to the disaster, but if you asked me who I thought was most responsible for the problems in New Orleans, I don't think I would have answered Bush or the federal government, either. I don't think they caused the problems, they just let the problems continue and get worse, without seeming (to me) to care.

Government Performance -- 10% said George W. Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 25% said "good"; 21% said "neither good nor bad"; 18% said "bad"; 24% said "terrible"; 2% had no opinion.

And this to me says that 35% of people were happy with Bush's reaction, 21% were indifferent, and 42% were unhappy with it. Hardly numbers to brag about.

[jmarie]

edited to end post.

[blazedog]

Here is the entire poll posted by CNN -- not the edited version

Poll: Most Americans believe New Orleans will never recover
Still, 63 percent of respondents say city should rebuild

(CNN) -- A majority of Americans believe the city of New Orleans will never completely recover from the effects of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting flooding, according to results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-six percent of 609 adults polled by telephone September 5-6 said they believe the hurricane devastated the city beyond repair. And 93 percent of poll respondents said they believe Katrina is the worst natural disaster to strike the United States in their lifetime.

But a majority of respondents -- 63 percent -- said they believe the city should rebuild. And 66 percent said they believe all New Orleans residents should evacuate the city.

Opinions varied widely, however, on the response of federal, state and local officials regarding Katrina. Forty-two percent of respondents characterized President Bush's response to the disaster as "bad" or "terrible," while 35 percent said it was "good" or "great."

Federal government agencies' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 42 percent, and "good" or "great" by 35 percent. State and local officials' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 35 percent and "good" or "great" by 37 percent.

Respondents also disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane -- 13 percent said Bush, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials and 38 percent said no one is to blame. And 63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result.

In recent days, 62 percent said they believe progress made in dealing with the situation is satisfactory.

However, a resounding 79 percent said they believe gas companies are taking advantage of the situation and charging unfair prices to consumers as a result of the hurricane.

For poll results based on the total sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. For results based on the 268 respondents who say the city of New Orleans will completely recover from the effects of Katrina, the maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 6 percentage points.

[pattyp.]

You have to know where the buck stops................. :rolleyes:

[Goin' Coastal]

I personally think it is counter productive to assign blame, but here is a different viewpoint. I am not familiar with the source, but I found it to be thought provoking.

>
>
>
> An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the
> Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
>
> An Objectivist Review
>
>
>
>
>
> by Robert Tracinski | The Intellectual Activist
>
> September 2, 2005
>
>
>
>
>
> It has taken 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 has also taken me four long days to figure out
> what is 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 the past four days. 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 National Guard
> troops, 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 drive away, frightened for
> their lives? What causes people to attack the
> doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?
>
> 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 last 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 the
> 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from
> the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland
> then gave me an additional, crucial fact: 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.
> 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
> apparent incompetence of the city government, which
> failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city,
> despite the knowledge that this might be necessary.
> But 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005
>

[jmarie]

I agree....very thought provoking. I think that one article said what a lot of us are beginning to feel.

My husband and I were discussing the other day, being poor....what is the difference between peing poor and not...what are the catalysts to being poor. We could only answer that from our prospective, being landlords and comparing what we have come to know to the why's of the standards of being poor.

We have made a group of people dependant on the government for their help. We basically pay some people to be poor and believe it or not, they like it that way...a lot of them, but not all. I know I am going to get in trouble for that last statement, but I can only compare it. We have able bodied, able minded people who do nothing. They get addicted to drugs, alcohol and then they are elligible to receive a check. A woman and a man can have so many children and receivea check.

Some, like this man we are helping now, just do not have the intelligence...this guy is really pitiful...He would love to be productive but he can't even remember when his birthday is. We are making sure he gets his SSI, or whatever it is called. We are taking himto all of his appointments.

We have others who would qaulify but they won't even get up out of bed to go to their meetings, after a hard night partying, and so they lose their asistance.

Being poor, sometimes is a choice some people willingly make. I have seen it more times in our dealings with people than not. Some people will do anything to keep from working.
That's my perspective.
Joyce
Joyce

[honeygirl1971]

I find the self-published TIA editorial really offensive, and Joyce's post somewhat offensive as well. Both really oversimplify the complex problem of poverty and the TIA article in particular really contributes, in my opinion, to the kind of attitude that aggravated this recent tragedy. And neither, you will notice, offer one single solution for any part of the problem other than simply letting the poor rot in the hell they are trapped in. Wonderful.

[LonghornGal]

I find the self-published TIA editorial really offensive, and Joyce's post somewhat offensive as well. Both really oversimplify the complex problem of poverty and the TIA article in particular really contributes, in my opinion, to the kind of attitude that aggravated this recent tragedy. And neither, you will notice, offer one single solution for any part of the problem other than simply letting the poor rot in the hell they are trapped in. Wonderful.

I would love to hear your ideas. Please share.

Personally, I prefer to help children and those who are helping themselves. I feel like it gets us all further as a society.

[Goin' Coastal]

Even out of a tragedy this severe, good will come. It is amazing to hear of the generousity of individuals and groups that are opening their homes and other shelters to these unfortunate victims and helping them get back on their feet, including helping them with employment as well as housing. I'd like to think 5 years down the road, many of these evacuees will be better off. People aren't just saying "Oh well - not my problem". There is a huge amount of one on one help, and I think it is bound to pay off in the long run as people caring for one another goes a long way.

[blazedog]

> 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.

> Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005
>

Why am I SO not surprised that the usual suspects would agree on the opnions expressed in an article which found poor people to suffer from a brutish, uncivilized mentality -- With that kind of thinking that these are the "others" one can rationalize turning one's back on the real and complex issues of poverty -- and poverty is INCREASING in this country steadily since Bush's adminnistration has taken office.

The issue of breaking the chain of poverty in the US is complex but can't be accomplished without funding programs that work -- such as Head Start which study after study has shown to be highly effective -- requires tax dollars though.

The US has the HIGHEST rates of teen pregnancy of any civilized Western country -- Why -- Perhaps because the conservative right won't allow adequate sex education including instruction on birth control among teenagers.

As to what one can do personally -- the needs are so enormous that it really depends on where one's abilities and interests lead one -- Big Brother/Big Sister programs for those who want a one on one involvement; literacy programs -- these come in all types of ways -- some of them involve dogs -- yes dogs as there are a few in which the elementary age children read to your dog as this has been found to be an effective way for children to overcome their inhibitions since dogs are non-judgmental. Get involved with a nursing home/senior resident.

In LA, there is a website that puts people in touch with one day projects -- i.e. for people with a busy lifestyle, it's often hard to make a consistent commitment of time -- This way you sign up for projects on the weekend that appeal.

[honeygirl1971]

blazedog, those are GREAT suggestions, and SO much more helpful than those who just pass judgment on those less fortunate than themselves.

Longhorn Girl, there are SO many things the government could do to help the poor, and most of them have to do with infrastructure. Inexpensive or subsidized child care for working mothers, better public transportation so the poor can actually afford to go to and from work, vocational training and re-education so those who lose jobs due to a changing economy can find jobs in other sectors, and like blazedog mentioned, HeadStart. And on and on. It's been shown time and again that a lot of people on welfare CAN'T AFFORD to go off welfare and work, because they can't make ends meet once they factor in transportation, child care, etc. But solving these sorts of problems takes time, energy, creativity, and money, and the Bush administration has made it VERY clear that they are not interested in real solutions to the problem. But one thing is VERY clear, and that is that passing moral judgment on the poor and blaming them for the tragedy in N.O. does not help at all.

[Dahlia]

... a lot of people on welfare CAN'T AFFORD to go off welfare and work, because they can't make ends meet once they factor in transportation, child care, etc.

I hear that, a lot, about how the poor is somehow STUCK in that situation by a society that just doesn't care ...

My father was an immigrant who came to this country with his two little girls, the clothes on our back, and pretty much nothing else. We lived in a trailer park and were living on welfare and food stamps for a while. While we girls attended schools, he busted his butt at his job as a single father. At first, the low paying jobs were within walking distance. Then, as he moved onto better jobs, he moved on to taking the bus, then a beat up used car which he maintained himself… Then, my mother followed us to the states and my father was able to pursue a higher education. Within 4-5 years, he got us off welfare, moved us into a better home and neighborhood, and got himself a higher education degree. Today, he and my mother would be considered higher middleclass. Their daughters, by learning from my father’s example of hard work and determination, are all upper to uppermiddle class.

My father saw America as a land of opportunity, and has proven to me as well as to my sisters that this is true. If America can offer this opportunity to an immigrant who came here with very little English and not much else, I believe that this opportunity is available to almost everyone.

[Grace]

Amen. This is the land of opportunity and the reason millions try to get in here from other countries every year.

There are some people who just don't believe that there are people who don't want to work or won't work. They DO exist. I know several of them myself. I have tried to find them jobs and given them ideas about how to get a job (where to look, who to call, etc.), and they just argue with me that I'm wrong and continue to stay home and sit on their butts (except when the government check comes in the mail - they get up off their butt to go cash it) :rolleyes:

[blazedog]

I'm not sure what form of government benefits these people are collecting since, AFDC was phased out several years ago in the form you are describing -- After several years you MUST work even if it is at government work -- i.e. street cleaning etc. If you are disabled (hard to prove) you can collect a government check but I really know of no current government program that enables somone to simply collect a check unless there are proven extenuating circumstances.

And I have no illusions about poverty or conditions of poverty. However, it has been proven that certain types of programs which do cost money actually WORK over the long term. So as a pragmatic person, I would rather invest NOW in medical care, schools, birth control and sex education programs, social service programs, work education programs, Head Start etc. rather than invest inevitably later in prisons and police forces and have to deal with the increasing gulf between the poor in American and the smug haves.

The history of poverty in American and all the opportunities that were squandered historically are so complicated especially when historically there was de jure discrimination until very recently and continuing de facto discrimination in terms of school funding, basic resources -- i.e. sewers and other services that don't extend to certain parts of towns. etc.

[Grace]

Well, you're wrong (again). You can get at least one, and sometimes several extensions to your automatic 6 month unemployment benefits, and there are plenty of doctors out there who will write disability letters for people who really are capable of working (at least at some level). I don't know a single person who was ever on unemployment that was forced to work, ever (doing street cleaning or anything else). And I've known LOTS of people on unemployment.

As far as sex education and such solving problems, you and I will always just fundamentally disagree on such topics. I didn't have sex ed in school and didn't become pregnant because I was petrified of my family and what people in my church and neighborhood would think (and I WASN'T RICH - WE WERE POOR - my Mom was eligible for food stamps). I just didn't have sex. Period. To say that that's unrealistic, and young people cannot exert any self control is an insult to their intelligence and capabilities and sells them short. I think just about every human (except perhaps those who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill and truly don't know what they are doing) CAN exert all kinds of self control if they are taught what's right and what's wrong and held accountable.

Just like people are fundamentally able to control themselves and not steal all the time (in general). The majority of the population doesn't walk around stealing everything they have the opportunity to steal. They were taught right from wrong, and for most people, no matter how big the urge to have something, they will exert the self-control needed not to reach out and take what doesn't belong to them.

But I'm beating my head against the wall trying to convince you of anything, and ultimately, I don't care what you believe or don't believe, so it's not worth the effort to explain my views, so you continue on. I'm done with this topic. <yawn>

[blazedog]

[QUOTE=Grace]Well, you're wrong (again). You can get at least one, and sometimes several extensions to your automatic 6 month unemployment benefits, and there are plenty of doctors out there who will write disability letters for people who really are capable of working (at least at some level). I don't know a single person who was ever on unemployment that was forced to work, ever (doing street cleaning or anything else). And I've known LOTS of people on unemployment.

QUOTE]

There are very limited circumstances in which benefits are extended and it is depended on the unemployment levels in each state. In California there is no extension of benefits. However, I hadn't realized your judgment extended to those people who had lost a job as those aren't typically thought of as being part of the culture of poverty.

I never indicated that people collecting unemployment insurance were required to work -- that's why it's called insurance.

And ho hum as to the fraudulent doctors -- Spend some money for investigators and get rid of those few who are abusing the system.

God help you if you ever require any kind of safety net.

[Escher]

God help you if you ever require any kind of safety net.

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal...I am willing to forgo my access to the so called "safety net" and in turn, you stop collecting the taxes from me under threat of jail.

Sound like a deal?

[LonghornGal]

Why am I SO not surprised that the usual suspects would agree on the opnions expressed in an article which found poor people to suffer from a brutish, uncivilized mentality

<edit>

As to what one can do personally -- the needs are so enormous that it really depends on where one's abilities and interests lead one -- Big Brother/Big Sister programs for those who want a one on one involvement; literacy programs -- these come in all types of ways -- some of them involve dogs -- yes dogs as there are a few in which the elementary age children read to your dog as this has been found to be an effective way for children to overcome their inhibitions since dogs are non-judgmental. Get involved with a nursing home/senior resident.

In LA, there is a website that puts people in touch with one day projects -- i.e. for people with a busy lifestyle, it's often hard to make a consistent commitment of time -- This way you sign up for projects on the weekend that appeal.


Ooooh! Am I a usual suspect? Or a "smug have"? How exciting as I didn't know I was either. :D I prefer to think of myself as the plucky gal who battles with whether to fix the house, pay down the mortgage, or go to the dentist with any spare cash I have. But wait, I guess having that dilemma is a privelege and I should feel grateful instead of stressed.

Please note that when I said children and those who are trying to help themselves, I inadvertently forgot to mention the mentally ill. And I said nothing about socio-economic status or background at all.

Good ideas. I'd never heard of a dog reading program, but it's true, my dog would just sit there and gaze intently at the kiddo with the book.

Honey Gal, all the things you mentioned are definitely in line with my help-yourself-and-we'll-help-out approach. It's those who DON'T want to help themselves that make me irritated when I see 35% of my paycheck getting taken before I even have a shot at it.

Oh well, back to being smug. Is it smug when I volunteer helping others 12 hours a week? Oh wait, it's smug to point it out though, isn't it. And I guess "usual suspects" don't do anything to help others as they prefer to turn their backs on the complex issues that perpeutate poverty.

But maybe I'm not a "usual suspect" at all. Maybe I'm a dyed in the wool future Hillary voter. So unless you know for sure, please don't stereotype me just because I can agree with a variety of viewpoints.

Thanks!
Kristin

[beacooker]

Personally, I find poverty to be a fascinating (but sad) subject, and I'm sorry that people are being attacked. I assume that most of us are good, smart, responsible, and kind people, even though we may disagree about how to deal with poverty.

Grace, Kristin, etc - I can understand not wanting to pay money to people who are cabable of working but just don't do it. But as honeygirl said:

there are SO many things the government could do to help the poor, and most of them have to do with infrastructure. Inexpensive or subsidized child care for working mothers, better public transportation so the poor can actually afford to go to and from work, vocational training and re-education so those who lose jobs due to a changing economy can find jobs in other sectors, and like blazedog mentioned, HeadStart.

To me, those things will help mainly the working poor and their children. Do you support measures like that?

[cminmd]

Really? If you hired a general contracter to remodel your kitchen and when you came back water was spurting out all over, adhesive was stuck to the wall, big gouges had been made in your floor when they moved the appliances and the cabinets had been ordered in the wrong size your first move wouldn't be to assign blame? Did he measure for the cabinets or did you? Whose responsibility was it to move the appliances? Had you told him the floor was to be replaced so he thought it didnt matter what happened to it? Playing the "Blame Game" is how you would figure out responsibility and hold people accountable for their actions. Funny how Republicans are all for responsibility and accountability in others (like NCLB) but shrink away from inspection themselves.
Do I think the President is solely responsible for the damage? NO, but it is insulting to exempt him from blame. I hold him responsible for removing James Lee Witt who had done a spectacular job as the head of FEMA and replacing him with his Campaign Manager who had no experience in disaster relief. I hold him responsible for lowering FEMA from a cabinet level post down to a small subsection of Homeland Security where there was no focus on natural disasters- just terrorism. I hold him responsible for his decision to replace Joe Allbaugh with the even more ineffective Michael Brown who also had no experience with disaster relief and had been forced to resign from his last job organizing judging at Arabian Horse shows for the past 11 years.
Being president isnt just about the cool limo, hot plane and free housing- your decisions have real world consequences and when you make bad decisions you have to stand up and take responsibility for them. Not whine like a little punk about "the Blame Game". Boo hoo

[zwieback]

Has anyone else heard about Michael Brown and his bio/resumes?? Apparently, they've REALLY been doctored. On one bio, it said he was an assistant city manager. Turns out, he was an assistant TO THE city manager. Another states he was an "oustanding political science professor" but, turns out he was actually a student. Supposedly, he was the head of some electrical contractors organization but, it actually turned out that he was just in charge of a regional chapter - and only for a couple of months! That's just too many typos on a bio/resume.

I'm sorry I don't have the exacts of this. I saw it on CNN and ABC's morning shows today and I guess there's an article about it in Time magazine.

I just took a look and here's a CNN link regarding this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/katrina.brown.reut/index.html

Sometimes, you need to fill a position with someone who has the necessary qualifications. Unless, being the college roommate of your presidential campaign manager is enough qualification. :rolleyes:

[blazedog]

Has anyone else heard about Michael Brown and his bio/resumes?? Apparently, they've REALLY been doctored. On one bio, it said he was an assistant city manager. Turns out, he was an assistant TO THE city manager. Another states he was an "oustanding political science professor" but, turns out he was actually a student. Supposedly, he was the head of some electrical contractors organization but, it actually turned out that he was just in charge of a regional chapter - and only for a couple of months! That's just too many typos on a bio/resume.

Sometimes, you need to fill a position with someone who has the necessary qualifications. Unless, being the college roommate of your presidential campaign manager is enough qualification. :rolleyes:

Evidently this lack of qualifications extended down the line as many of the top positions at FEMA were filled by PR type people whose experience had been advance men in Bush's campaign.

And assessing responsibility is serious and necessary if nothing else but to avoid unnecessary death and suffering in the future. Interesting that the apologists for the current administration are attempting to semantically trivialize this assessment by calling it the "blame game" :rolleyes:

Here's the article from today's LA Times.

Top FEMA Jobs: No Experience Required

Director Brown wasn't the agency's only senior official appointed under Bush with little or no background in dealing with natural disasters.
By Ken Silverstein
Times Staff Writer

September 9, 2005

WASHINGTON — In the days since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael D. Brown has come under withering attack, with critics charging that his lack of prior experience in dealing with natural disasters contributed to his agency's poor performance.

But Brown is just one of at least five senior FEMA officials appointed under President Bush whose backgrounds showed few qualifications in disaster relief.

As the administration struggles to counter negative national perceptions about its response, Vice President Dick Cheney defended the administration's FEMA appointees in remarks to reporters Thursday.

"You've got to have people at the top who respond to and are selected by presidents, and you pick the best people you can to do the jobs that need to be done," Cheney said while touring the stricken Gulf Coast. "We've also got some great career professionals, an absolute and vital part of the operation — couldn't do it without them."

But Democrats in Congress have attacked Brown and other top FEMA appointees.

"FEMA is an important agency and needs to be run by professionals, not political cronies," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

More than a year before the hurricane hit New Orleans, the head of a labor union representing FEMA workers sent a letter to members of Congress charging that "emergency managers at FEMA have been supplanted on the job by politically connected contractors and by novice employees with little background or knowledge" of disaster management.

"As … professionalism diminishes, FEMA is gradually losing its ability to function and to help disaster victims," the letter said.

People appointed to run domestic government agencies frequently have political connections. But for many top positions, some relevant background is required as well.

Paul Light, a professor of organizational studies at New York University who has testified before Congress on FEMA's role in the Department of Homeland Security, said that for years, FEMA was a dumping ground for the politically connected.

But during the Clinton years, Light said, FEMA Director James Lee Witt "built a serious hierarchy around expertise. Somewhere along the line, FEMA has returned to being a destination of last resort for political appointees."

Brown, a career attorney who was active in Republican Party politics, was hired to be FEMA's general counsel by Joe Allbaugh, an old friend and the agency's first director under Bush. Before FEMA, Brown had worked for nearly a decade at the International Arabian Horse Assn. His responsibilities included supervising horse show judges.

Allbaugh — a longtime aide to Bush who had managed his 2000 campaign — resigned as FEMA director in 2003 and opened a consulting firm that helped companies win contracts in Iraq. Brown, who had risen to become Allbaugh's top deputy, took charge.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a strong critic of Brown's even before Katrina, wants him removed.

"When you're dealing with responding to a natural disaster, it's hard to do your job when you have no experience or background," said Lale Mamaux, Wexler's spokeswoman.

Brown is not the only official who came to the agency with scant disaster management background. His acting deputy director, Patrick James Rhode, began his professional career as an "anchor/reporter with network-affiliated television stations in Alabama and Arkansas," according to his resume on FEMA's website.

Rhode later did public relations work for several state agencies in Texas before becoming deputy director of national advance operations for Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Before moving to FEMA in 2003, Rhode served as a special assistant to the president and White House liaison with the Commerce Department. He donated $2,000 to Bush's 2004 campaign.

Daniel Craig, director of FEMA's Recovery Division since October 2003, "is responsible for planning and executing the federal government's recovery efforts following major disasters," according to the FEMA website.

Before coming to FEMA — he became a regional director based in Boston in 2001 — he worked for the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he "was responsible for Chamber-related legislative, political, and media initiatives in New England and the Atlantic coast," the website says. Craig previously worked as a lobbyist for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn., and before that as a campaign advisor, political fundraiser and research analyst.

Both Allbaugh and Brown were Oklahoma natives involved in that state's Republican politics. FEMA's acting deputy chief of staff, Brooks Altshuler, also hails from Oklahoma. And like Rhode, Altshuler was an advance man for Bush.

Altshuler was a minor donor to the GOP in 2004, giving $250 to the Bush campaign and another $250 to the Republican National Committee. His father, Geoffrey, has donated $750 to Rep. Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.) and in 2002 hosted a fundraiser for Oklahoma Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe at his home, according to campaign records and Inhofe's website.

Scott R. Morris, who held Altshuler's job until May and now is a FEMA official in Florida, had been a GOP activist as far back as the 1996 presidential campaign of former Sen. Bob Dole, when he handled grass-roots activities and media strategies.

He later served as "a media strategist for the George W. Bush for President primary campaign and the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign," according to his resume. Morris donated $2,250 to Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Morris' private sector career includes a stint as "marketing director for the world's leading provider of e-business applications software in California," his resume states.

Natalie Rule, a FEMA spokeswoman, said Brown had received "on-the-job training" in dealing with more than 200 presidentially declared disasters since coming to the agency. Brown gained important background as assistant city manager for Edmond, Okla., and as chairman of the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority, where he handled issues such as contingency planning and police negotiations, Rule said.

Rule said other top FEMA appointees whose qualifications have been challenged also brought skills to the table. For example, both Rhode and Altshuler had logistics backgrounds from their work on Bush's advance team.

In June 2004, Local 4060 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents FEMA workers, wrote to members of Congress to warn about alleged cronyism at the agency. The letter said the practice initially "took place mainly at the senior levels of FEMA, but it has now entered into the mid-level and working-level" of FEMA.

"The ability of FEMA to manage emergencies and disasters is being seriously eroded," the letter said.

[ttubbs]

You have to know where the buck stops................. :rolleyes:


----------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY:
----------------------------------------------
The Mathematics of Choice
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor

SUMMARY: Our decisions, whether in hurricanes or in daily
life, play out in the lives of others.

Poor individual decisions, when taken in the aggregate,
have a measurable impact on the culture at large.

There's a life lesson being lived out before our eyes on
the Gulf Coast.

While Katrina was still a raging Category 5 hurricane in
the Gulf of Mexico bearing down on New Orleans, Mayor Ray
Nagin declared a state of emergency and ordered a
mandatory evacuation of the city. You may remember the
helicopter shots of the lines of cars on the interstate
headed out of town.

Then the storm hit.

You may have privately wondered: If there was a mandatory
evacuation, why -- as the winds topped 140 mph, the levees
broke and the city flooded -- were so many people still
there?

News reports have focused on those who could not leave for
health reasons or lack of transportation -- but a great
many others have clearly indicated they made a conscious
choice to stay put.

That means they heard the hurricane warnings, they heard
the mandatory evacuation order, they had the means to
leave -- but chose not to. You've heard them on the news:
"I didn't think it would be this bad." "The hurricanes in
the past weren't as bad as they said they would be." "I
waited too late and by then the highways were already
jammed."

You've seen their once perfectly functional cars floating
in the flood waters, a rainbow of gasoline and oil
streaming away from them.

For the sake of argument, let's say the number of people
remaining in the city when the storm hit was 100,000. (It
will be up to researchers to arrive at a more accurate
number later.)

Also, for the sake of argument, let's say 40 percent of
those who remained had the means to leave, but chose to
stay. It's a plausible percentage and possibly on the low
side.

When considering those who had no choice but to stay, how
different would their outcomes have been if there had not
been 40,000 additional people in the city in need of
rescue, shelter, medical attention, water and food? How
many would still be alive if there had been fewer people
absorbing the available resources?

Even if it's only 30 or 20 or even 10 percent, the point
remains: How many people who really had no choice were
denied the care they needed because of those who made the
wrong choice?

Let me be perfectly clear, I am not placing blame on those
who individually made poor decisions. Each human life is
worthy of rescue and care.

But there is an important life lesson here: Poor
individual decisions, when taken in the aggregate, have a
measurable impact on the culture at large.

Those who argue the other side of issues dear to us often
make statements like these:

"How does my choosing to have an abortion affect you three
states away?"

"How does my marrying my same-sex partner impact your
marriage?"

They are either unaware of or are hoping that we are
unaware of the principle that poor individual decisions,
when taken in the aggregate, have a measurable impact on
the culture at large.

They are hoping those listening will hear the question and
in their heads simply think, "Well, not much."

But it's not about one abortion; it's about more than 40
million since 1973, people who simply are not here because
they were not allowed to be born, plus the millions of men
and women who have carried private grief for a lifetime
because of their decision.

It's not about one gay marriage, it's about government
conferring upon tens of thousands of people -- for decades
to come -- the status of marriage, even though it simply
does not fit the arrangement. It's about changes to laws
in every state, changes in textbooks, changes to what our
kids are taught in public school.

Poor individual decisions, when taken in the aggregate,
have a measurable impact on the culture at large.

You may already be thinking about the corollary: Good
individual decisions, when taken in the aggregate, also
have a measurable impact on the culture at large.

How much impact can one student at your local high school
who chooses abstinence really have? But when millions of
students, over decades, make that decision, we see a
measurable drop in abortion, out-of-wedlock births,
sexually transmitted diseases, depression and broken
marriages.

And consider that while one person making a contribution
to the relief efforts on the Gulf Coast may not have a
measurable impact, when millions of people give, thousands
of families -- even those who may have made poor decisions
-- will have a chance to come out of the storm and have a
better life.

We would all do well to heed the words of the Apostle Paul
in Ephesians 5:15, "Be very careful, then, how you live --
not as unwise but as wise..."

TAKE ACTION: You may contribute to relief groups assisting
victims of Hurricane Katrina through our Web site:

https://www.family.org/hurricanekatrina/givenow.cfm

"Copyright (c) 2005, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
International copyright secured. This article appeared in CitizenLink Daily
Update published (date), a policy and culture information service of Focus
on the Family. For more information, see http://www.citizenlink.org."

[ttubbs]

You have to know where the buck stops................. :rolleyes:

Here's one from the NYTimes that does a good job of passing political blame all around. It’s oddly even handed for the times.
NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5090&en=aa642b8c89c27c01&ex=1283918400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1126238795-dGCl9WlaN8lbkCHBy9hw2w&pagewanted=print)

[bobmark226]

Just yesterday I listened to Lou Dobbs chastising moveon.org for using images of this disaster to promote their own agenda.

I am happy to see that ttubbs and his "family forum" piece are doing the same.

Nothing like using misfortune to get the word out, is there?

Pathetic, really pathetic, and as Dobbs said, "Shame on you!"

Bob

[ttubbs]

Choices have consequences, and that’s what I get from the article. Just like he says, now that they’ve gotten themselves into this mess, we should do what we can to help them out, but, at the same time, let’s not overlook why many are in this situation.

His examples of how good/bad choices have the same impact on other issues are just that, examples. He writes for a pro-family group, so it’s shouldn’t be a surprise that his writing is slated in a pro-family way. Replace his example with choosing to drive 50 MPH over the speed limit, and the principle still applies.

He’s pointing out that you need to start with the individual and work your way up the chain in assessing blame. Many here and all over the news want to start and stop with the federal government. I think Principal Snyder said is best when he said:

That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

[blazedog]

Choices have consequences, and that’s what I get from the article. Just like he says, now that they’ve gotten themselves into this mess, we should do what we can to help them out, but, at the same time, let’s not overlook why many are in this situation.

His examples of how good/bad choices have the same impact on other issues are just that, examples. He writes for a pro-family group, so it’s shouldn’t be a surprise that his writing is slated in a pro-family way. Replace his example with choosing to drive 50 MPH over the speed limit, and the principle still applies.

He’s pointing out that you need to start with the individual and work your way up the chain in assessing blame. Many here and all over the news want to start and stop with the federal government. I think Principal Snyder said is best when he said:

This is a completely disingenous defense to posting a mean spirited piece in which anything other than a two parent heterosexual Ozzie & Harriet home is painted as a WRONG moral decision with dire repercussions for society.

I am not even going to address the simple minded palaver dealing with teenage sexuality. Because of this kind of simple mindedness which ignores issues of teenage sexuality the US has the highest teenage birth rate of any Western democracy and stopping teenage pregnancy is one of the surest means of breaking cycles of poverty.

[bobmark226]

Just like he says, now that they’ve gotten themselves into this mess.....

Let's add mean-spirited to "pathetic" and "shameful."

Bob

[ttubbs]

Just like he says, now that they’ve gotten themselves into this mess.....

Let's add mean-spirited to "pathetic" and "shameful."

Bob

Right! Because 100% of those that stayed, did so because ‘The Man’ made them.

[LonghornGal]

Grace, Kristin, etc - I can understand not wanting to pay money to people who are cabable of working but just don't do it. But as honeygirl said <snip>

To me, those things will help mainly the working poor and their children. Do you support measures like that?

Yep. Help those who are trying to help themselves, and those who aren't capable of helping themselves. But if you are capable and choose not to do anything to improve yourself and your family's situation, then no way!

My earlier statement asserted that there was a time and a place for assigning responsibility in this disaster. My POV was that last Friday, there was too much urgent need to waste time, energy, and resources on that exercise and the resulting defensiveness. Now that the urgency of life-or-death and extreme lack of resources has been alleviated we can afford to expend energy on finding root causes and attmpting to address them for the future. (Austin has actually requested that citizens STOP making donations so they can catch up with the volume)

Seeking out root causes is not a blame game; if you don't have a good idea of what the problem is, it's real hard to fix it. Works for cars, works for human interaction. The symptoms sometimes seem completely unrelated to the actual cause. Fixing the symptoms does not prevent future problems.

As discussed in this thread and others, the possible root causes can raise many complicated issues. In manufacturing, we used something called the "5 whys" to get us to delve beyond symptoms into the root cause. Example:

1) Why is the machine breaking down? (list all reasons) The shaft broke.
2) Why did the shaft break? (list all reasons) It's worn
3) why is it worn? (list all reasons) The bearing is out of alignment
4) Why is the bearing out of alignment? (list all reasons) The frame is bent
5) Why is the frame bent? (list all reasons) It's been hit by a forklift arm

You end up with a root cause "tree". Then you go eliminate root causes with data and then address the remaining root causes. People really want to stop at about 2 or 3 why's - they're in a hurry to "solve" things and move on. It takes group discipline to get to 5 whys.

So to fix the problem at 1 why, you'd replace the shaft and it'd break again. by getting to 5 whys, you'd replace the shaft, bearing, straighten the frame, and maybe put up a guard to prevent it from being hit. Or go with more whys to find out why the forktruck got too close. Then you prevent recurring issues.

My point being that lots of this discussion is maybe only getting to 2 or 3 "whys" and to really solve the problems we're going to find many many root causes contributing to the overall result. And if we don't take the time to get to that 5th level, we're only treating a symptom, and not solving the problem.

--Kristin