Your point is well taken Gekko. The ideals set down on paper are goals and guidelines to strive for and work with, but the manipulators of words seldom do so with the same goals in mind. They guard the palace but it’s not supposed to be from us. The subject here is separating the rhetoric of the politician from the objective they were put in place for. That seems to take an ax and a shovel in most cases.

As much as it pains me to agree with HER, ^^^^ :rolleyes2 that sums up what this whole thing is concerning: the difference in the BS of politics and the realities of life. Katrina laid open the deep rooted status that permeates ALL levels of the systems and it is OUR responsibility to demand more competence.

Lilith,

This criticism may be generalized as “What is a citizen” or “What is a human”. This is an example of what I was referring to as an internal crisis.

If the changing notion of what constitutes a human or a citizen could not be integrated into the structure of the ideals of democracy; if democracy could not move beyond the concept that a citizen had to be a free male real estate owner, then democracy would take a place in the Museum of Antiqued Ideas. That has not happened.

The philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration and the rather more practical foundation of the Constitution were not broken when the definitions of human and citizen changed. Ref Constitutional Amendments, 13, 15, 19, 26

As I recall, there was much bruhahah about the issues at the time.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! See, you get it!

Steph,

I will agree with you and all who call for a more efficient and effective local, state and federal bureaucracy. It is difficult to think why anyone would wish otherwise.

To extrapolate from the observed problems surrounding Hurricane Katrina and conclude that “…the basic function of government is to keep the rich and/or powerful in their positions of wealth & power…” is an intellectual leap too great for someone with my many limitations. Even those with whom I share only a few opinions seem also to demur at such challenging claims (see above).

I also feel that there is a higher probability of real, lifesaving change available through the ballot box than by raising one’s voice to ever higher decibels. The game of politics has always been the goal of politicians; that is their profession. I believe that on this item there is a general consensus. How to refocus their attention to substantive issues seems to be immediate. LixyChick’s proposal that the electorate examine the candidates “before the election…not after the disaster” seems particularly useful to this end. I note concurrence with satisfaction.

The only other useful tool that comes to mind in regards to improving these services is the Court system. The various and sundry government agencies are often bound by law to perform certain duties. The occasional court order can help them remember forgotten commitments. Not being overly active (other than at the ballot box) in matters environmental, I am skating on thin ice here, but I am under the impression the “environmental movement” has found the Federal Bench a useful tool in compelling the EPA to execute Congress’s will, even in the face of Administration resistance. Perhaps gekkogecko may be able to shine additional light on the subject.

Oh come now. Surely you don't expect us to believe that you believe you're limited intellectually ?

See Dick Cheney's gains in wealth from his position of power re: contracts in Iraq & Katrina & gekko's glib post doesn't seem as wacky as you purport it to be, old chap.

Perhaps it’s time that a bluntly stated FACT is not dimensioned by bombastic blitherings from the elitist level.

PantyFanatic,

Please don't be discourteous.

Steph,

Since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, silence has implied assent. As you have limited your comments to the Vice Presidents’ purported financial gains in business he is implied as manipulating, and my lamentable smarts, I conclude that we agree upon the rest. A notable achievement; I am pleased.

If acceptance of preposterous claims is the sine qua non of intellectual ability, I regret that I will be sidelined from discussing matters of substance; relegated to the minor role of pointing out that the Emperor is indeed in need of apparel.

While it may be true that Vice President Cheney is manipulating various and sundry events to his financial gain, I have yet to see any evidence to support the assertion. In addition, I believe that it is common practice for those filling cabinet level positions and higher to place their portfolios into what are referred to as “blind trusts” during the term of their office, over which they relinquish control. Has this not happened in this case? It would likely force his resignation if the claim were true.

I’ve gotten it for too long. A way to demand a change is what I’m looking for. We know the ballet box is a tool of THEIR domain. It’s not a means of getting through to them.

I wish ALL the profits and security that came solely from holding elected office were as visible. Maybe more attention would be paid to what is happening.

Sorry I have to say this...
 

Ok everyone, here is something I have been thinking since this whole thing started... Why are we so focused on finger pointing?

I Agree with Lilith, Originally Posted by Lilith
"....Not sure where the blame falls or frankly if I even give a shit. I just know that no one can help us recover from this better than us. The American people."

And Rabbit, you said everything I was thinking when I started reading this.

I was Soo Turned off when this hurricane turned into a racial issue that I stopped watching. I am so sick of that even being an issue. I have friends and family that went down and tried to help out, and guess what their helicoptors were shot at. Why isn't/wasn't the media showing that there are people trying to help? Sorry but my oppinion is there are ignorant people all around and there has been and always will be, cause the simple fact remains that everyone can't be educated the same or have the same opportunities. There are people that are rich, there are people that are poor. It is a fact of life.

The ones that succeed are the ones that work hard and put their mind to something and get it done. You can only be successful if you want to be, and truely try. And there are all kinds of different levels of sucess, it is in the eyes of the beholder. You are happy when you make yourself happy.

And here is when I will step up on my soap box. I am sick and tired of hearing how bad our goverment is, and how they don't help. They don't have to help. Be happy about where you live. Be thankful for the privleges you have! There are few that are as lucky as us. Yes there is corruption, there is in every government somewhere. But what I would like to say is that the government doesn't have to help.... they could turn a deaf ear. Besides this... we are the ones that elect them into the position, you wanna get someone better, elect someone better.

I am just happy that I don't live somewhere where I have to hide my face to walk down the street. That I can drive my car whereever I want. That I can have the same job as any man, (Mind you there are still limitations but this has VASTLY improved.) I can own property as a woman. I can vote. I make decisions about what I want to do with my money.

God Bless the USA. There are things I want to change about this country, but I have to say we are the most privledged in the world and more people need to realize that.

Americans will help the victims it's what we do.

Okay... *steps off* well I think this just might be my most contraversal thread I have every written to....

Nope...not gonna open my mouth!!

/me leaves to go work on cleaning the childs room some more.

You have to realize, Kaelynn, not everyone has had such an easy life (and I'm not saying your life is easy but you are in college which is an honour -- not everyone is able to go).

To say that all you have to do is put your mind to it and you can get things done, you can be happy . . . it's not reality quite frankly. Many people in New Orleans had no access to vehicles. Many Americans live paycheque to paycheque and it's impossible to budget for such emergencies.

And you mentioned that the government didn't have to help. Why is that? The people who were stranded pay the same taxes as everyone else. Why are they paying taxes? If you were on a roof for five days, would you think differently?

I would ask myself why the fuck am I on this roof and what am I going to do to get myself off...

The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown,
stands down following criticism of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

No car, no money, no boat . . . now what?

Guess I am swimming to dry land...

Now why didn't everyone else do that? It's the answer!

Please don't get me wrong, I am sensitive to the fact that not everyone had the means or way to get out. I honestly understand that, but if there is a hurricane coming don't you think you would walk, run, hitch a ride, or do SOMETHING to get out?

I can't stand the thought that 30 people drowned in a nursing home... now there is a true case where you couldn't do anything... and it is damned pathetic family didn't take care of them, or someone BEFOREHAND!!!

What does everyone expect us to do after??? People have to realize it takes time to get help somewhere... asembling, then clearing roads and getting there takes time... And it doesn't help when people shoot at the help that is coming in Helicopter

Kaelynn,

If one might describe Hurricane Katrina as a disaster, and if one might describe a disaster as an event causing widespread destruction and distress, then there will be victims. It has been my experience that when people want to be angry for some reason, they often pick someone (else) to blame for the misfortune at hand.

Can the various disaster relief agencies be improved? Probably. Will they be improved? Only if useful pressure is applied to those who can effect the change. I suspect that most of us agree with LixyChick & Lilith that the solution must originate with us. I think that the polls and the courts are our best bets; some have suggested other techniques (in jest I hope).

As and when there are no more disasters, there will be no more victims or survivors. Until then, there will always be hard choices about how to spend a finite amount of money on an infinite number of demands. I suspect that even were we able to call upon the wisdom of Solon, someone would remain dissatisfied.

That show and the one following when Hacker became Prime Minister is one of the best satires on government....it is still on reruns in Canada.

Ahahaha, my dog, Solon, wouldn't have helped too much, I fear. :D

I hear you, Kaelynn. The sad fact remains a lot of people who were stranded in NO don't watch the news, don't read the papers and really had no way out. You have to understand poverty -- some people have been living below the poverty line for generations and, for better or worse, rely on government aid.

Sometimes I am pissed at seeing people in my 'hood buy crack with their welfare cheques and then go to the food bank as soon as the money's gone but we protect them, again for better or worse. I would not want to see them stranded on a roof top for five days while the leader of my country was playing guitar at some white collar fundraiser.

jseal,

I am not dissatisfied per se. Officials knew it was coming, the FEMA budget was cut, money is being poured into Iraq and officials didn't acknowledge the slowness of events until it was too late, IMHO.

Please check out Salon's "Reporters Gone Wild" video: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/20...d/index_np.html

(You can get a free pass to watch it without registering -- you just have to watch a 10-second flash video).

It shows the media finally stepping up to question officials & shows the denial heard from many politicians immediately after the disaster.

Steph,

Good. Keeping the issue exposed will also help. We are always electing someone here, so the longer the issue remains current, the greater the likelihood of substantive change.

True. But it might not be wise to ask Solon the Lab for help. Sorry, couldn't let that one go. It's rare that someone knows Solon the lawmaker, rarer still that I can use it in a joke, pathetic it may be.

Steph,

Please don't tell me that you have a cat named Croesus! :eek:

:rofl:

I do want a cat . . . I think I have his name! :thumb:

My own response to the callous
 

Be careful, my own little rant.

Meritocracy - the belief that one's success is determined by the strength of their merits (i.e. success is only a matter of how hard you try).

An example to think about in reading the above statement.

In Los Angeles in the 1950s, all the jobs were in downtown and so were the homes of the richest people in LA. At the time, lobbyists from car , oil, and tire companies were upset, that in the early 1950s, the nation as a whole, but specifically LA with its thriving red car trolley system, were turning to cheaper and less industry friendly forms of public transportation. So, in response, these lobbyists pressured officials in LA (and to a lesser extent in places like Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago) to abandon funding for public transportation (specifically LA's red car), but instead invest in highways...highways, which as the only means of access to the central parts of LA which carried all the jobs, would force anyone who didn't live near these said desired areas(the poor) to buy cars, tires, and of course, oil (gas). This trend continued for 20 to 30 years until the late 70's and mid-80s when large cities, because of population density, the oil scare, and traffic cocerns reinvested in public transportation.

Some questions to think about:
- Who do politicians listen to, the rich or the poor? Do most politicians come from wealth or poverty, and in any case, where do they get their constituency from (campaign funding)?

- If you have no money and have become reliant on public transportation, can you afford a car (tires, gas, etc., remember cars were much less affordable back then too)? Were the rich whose homes were located in these areas happy about the poor having such easy access?

- Even if you are educated, if you have no means of getting to a job every day, could you get the job or keep it? Do you think the nepotism-centered rich wanted to help these potential competitors for said lucrative jobs?

Now think of the result in present day.

Next, you're somewhat limited but most people would say all you have to do is educate yourself and opportunities come your way. Ok, let's look at the educational system in the US.

In California, like many other states, a public school district's funding is based on the taxes paid by those who live in that district (i.e. a school will get more money if the school is located in a rich area, and less money if located in a poor area). Think about what more money means to a school versus less.

More Money:
1) New and up to date books (better classes and more prepared for college courses)
2) Educational resources (such as computers) and better facilities (installs a feeling of hope and enjoyment in an educational environment).
3) More teachers who are also better paid, thus smaller class sizes (more personal attention and a more innovative/motivated level of instruction).
4) Overall environment of success (College is not an option, it is a requirement. This is simply due to available resources, good teachers telling you have to go, and peer pressure).

Less Money:
1) Out of date text books (likely no AP classes and therefore, no AP tests...even the advance classes might not compare to other schools).
2) Worse facilities (contributes to apathy and depression of current circumstances they might find themselves in) and lack of educational resources (these kids, unlike the ones above, probably don't have computers at home and the ones at school are either out of date or non-existent).
3) Less teachers who are also underpaid and larger class sizes (teachers with less experience tend to initially go to the worse schools because they are less in demand), thus less personal attention (fits right into NO Child Left Behind, because it is easier to teach someone to pass a test than it is to teach someone life skills and how to learn, i.e. a worse education with the only goal being to superficially boost graduation rates).
4) Overall environment of failure (generally, because of the limited resources, many child do not see the value of high school, but see it simply as a way to prolong childhood knowing there is nothing better for them once the graduate or simply a waste of time when the jobs they might look for would be illegal as a way of making quick money to afford the things MTV tells them they have to have. Many aren't aware college is an option, or even if aware of it, don't think there was any way they could get in or even how to do so).

What four-year universities look for:
- High GPA (likely above a 4.0, which can only be achieved through AP classes which many poor high schools do not have)
- Extra curricular activities (many times these are afforded by the school itself, a poor school would not offer as many...even if they did, many kids in poorer areas must work to help their families, meaning no time for such activities)
- High SAT scores: The SAT combines applied knowledge with analytical thinking, which can only be taught....when you are taught only to pass a test (such as in No Child Left Behind), you don't learn the knowledge nor how to do proper inner analysis. NCLB often does not apply in wealthier schools simply because their graduation rates and pass rates have always been good.
- The school itself: Many do not realize colleges have set up a ranking system for school districts and often grades candidates based on the competition at their high school. For example, if you go to a good school where more is demanded of you, a college might see a 3.5 GPA as a relative 4.0. However, if you go to a bad school, a college might see a 4.0 GPA as a relative 3.0 compared to the better schools.

The above is simply one scenario of millions, so think about it and figure it out for yourself what implications only this one scenario has on meritocracy, class struggle, and the position many of those in Katrina found themselves in.

Ooh, calihotguy!!! I love your rant!

I will reread it but I'll just mention the richest 'hood in Toronto. My boyfriend works there as a chef and has takes the bus there (after a bus/subway transfer). The richies of Rosedale petitioned to have that bus route removed not too long ago and thankfully lost.

Actually, in a way I would have liked to have seen the route removed and observed the ivory towered Rosedalians clean their own houses and cook their own freaking meals. Their houses would have been dirty & their stomachs empty but goddammit, they wouldn't have to listen to that bus every once in a while!!!

And, I will add that my po' 'hood has all the old, crappy buses. Guess which 'hood has the best ones?

A more direct response to the original thread
 

It’s hard to understand how different life is when you are standing at the top of a mountain versus being buried under it. It is not a case of someone having it tough and so they could get over it as many of us do. I am stating a circumstance that goes far beyond having it tough; it is about trying to outthink a system that was invented to protect the powers of those who created it, inherently crushing any who attempt to gain power (the poor) from those who posses it (the rich).

This is a government not elected by the people, but elected and determined by the rich, whom naturally are listened and placated to by such officials being their primary constituency. Applying this to the context of Katrina and other government failures, it is obvious these situations are not about race. They are about class. Race is simply a more visible scapegoat than economic class because being a minority and being poor is often synonymous (mostly due to US history and its legacies, not because of current discrimination policies or racist implications).

The innate definition of a government is to represent, protect, and support its people, especially for the limited amount of people who find themselves with an inability or a limited ability to do so for themselves. To the extent and the lengths a government fulfills it's duties, in a democracy, is limited by how we choose our representatives, how we elect them, and how we vote on ballot measures.

For these problems, I INDIRECTLY assign a large portion of blame to our government and those whom financially support it. I do so primarily because of the loop holes in campaign financing (thus allowing political and corporate corruption and domination) and the obvious conflict of interest of the American media in not fairly representing the interests of its audience.

However, I DIRECTLY blame those who elected our government; those who do not educate themselves, ask questions, and simply listen to what their told or allow themselves to be complacent with the obvious choices. To an even greater extent, I also blame the 50% of the population who never represent themselves in deciding their own fate by taking the 5 minutes necessary to cast a ballot once every four years...not a lot to ask just so your own interests can be served.

Yes, I am a liberal...although a moderate one.

Very true!

(((osuche)))

Please be careful!

I too was sickened to find opportunistic bystanders waiving their flags of cause and criticism while Rome was still burning. I hold them in equal esteem as the ones shooting at the rescuers.
A chance to affect our individual status is what made America the land of opportunity. You are right that it was the ones that recognized this chance and worked to do it that succeeded. As has been mentioned in this thread, it was more selective as to whom that was, but thankfully has been greatly widened. Many more complex aspects than race and gender still need to be dealt with.
The only thing I cannot agree with is our government not having the PRIMARY duty of responding to the needs of its’ people. To me, that is a governments ONLY duty, the ONLY reason for its’ existence and the ONLY reason we vest it with authority over us and pay the means for it to provide and protect us where it is not practical or possible for the individual to do alone. A government has NO OTHER reason to exist. Anything else is oppression! It not recognizing this single basic fact is my present concern. When the people that are entrusted to do this, view it as being about the people in office, is when it ceases do the job.
My prospective is not about which politician is elected. You are going to have a politician regardless. Politicians are NOT the people that DO anything! We need to ask them to stop playing politics long enough to get people that ARE capable of doing a job, into the positions of responsibility, rather than as rewards for to political activity.
You are right that it Americans that will help Americans and it is Americans that will do it with or with it’s government. And it will be Americans that will make it’s governments at ALL levels, ones that are “OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people”.

/me enjoys the view of SDLSs’ walkaway. :lust:

We already know you get all the good stuff. :(

You have Red Green. :rolleyes2

Speaking of people shooting at 'copters, did anyone hear why that was going on? I know no reason would ever be good enough but I was wondering about the mentality. Were they afraid they'd be forcibly removed from their homes?

Steph my first thought was how many mentally ill have been off meds since the flood and are now living in delusionary worlds?

BigBear57,

Interesting! I'd never have thought of that. Plausible.

Good point, BigBear! You'd think that would have been my first thought living in this 'hood! I saw a big guy in an involved conversation with an imaginary person yesterday.

"How many cops do you think it would take to subdue him?", my friend pondered.

She's lyin'! Harvey & I were nowhere near steph's 'hood yesterday...