New Orleans Aftermath and analysis

Some observations

Published on September 3, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

I've been working massive hours these past two weeks so I haven't had much time to pay attention to the Katrina situation. From what little I've seen, it's incredibly tragic and my thoughts definitely go to the families and friends of those who are involved in that terrible situation.

It's also amazing to see how the situation brings the best and worst out of people. I've read a lot of articles on the subject this evening and I'm just amazed at the vitriol and emotion involved on it.

I thought I'd chime my 2 cents.

There was an article called "Why are all the looters black?". I'm not sure what the point of it is. Okay, the looters featured on television have more pigment in their epidermis than I do. On average, the men and women seen looting on television are genetically a mixture of around 75% African ("African-Americans" have, on average, quite a bit of European genes in them). So, okay, what's the point? Is the argument that that genetic mixture is more prone to stealing? It is a commentary on culture? It doesn't really say. What's the point? It seems to me that those who are economically not capable of leaving are probably more likely to be of that genetic type because several hundred years ago Europeans decided to have slaves that were visually easier to identify and collaborated with African tribes who were willing to collaborate with them to sell them slaves. In turn, having only been released from slavery only a bit over a century ago -- but still very restricted in rights and being at a severe disadvantage due to not having an intact family structure have tended to be poorer. Thus, if it's mostly poor people left in devastated areas and most poor people are genetically predisposed to having more pigment (i.e. "being black") then yea, they're going to be the ones looting.

I could just as easily say "Why are so many of the looters male?" or "Why is so much of the violence there being done by men?"

On a similar vein, there's "Why are so many corporate criminals, white?" I'd argue that it's pretty much the same as above but in reverse. Most wealthy people are white, therefore most criminals who are wealthy will tend to be white as well.

Then there are numerous posts making the rather absurd argument that somehow this whole mess is the result of the Federal government. Please. First, not to be unsympathetic but for better or worse, the people who didn't evacuate when they were told to evacuate bear some of the burden. This didn't sneak up on us, we knew for days that a category 5 hurricane was going to hit the area. Second, the mayor of New Orleans sucks. The city busses should have been evacuating people before the storm hit. Third, the governor of Louisiana sucks. Why didn't they have their act together? Why wasn't the national guard activated in full before it hit? There have been plenty of studies that said that a good hurricane hit would wipe out New Orleans because of its levies. They had days to prepare. It's not the federal government's job to wipe the asses of the state and local authorities. Blaming Bush (or Clinton or whoever) is asinine. It's as bad as blaming the weather on them (which would be funny except there are people out there who blame them for the weather).

This situation isn't quite like the Tsunami and I doubt it'll get anywhere near the outpouring of support it did. For one thing, there was plenty of warning about this one. I did watch the coverage just hours before it hit and there were people on Bourbon street having a "Hurricane party". Come on. The other issue is how out of control the situation is. Regardless of how much pigment the looters have, images of people looting, shooting at police, raping, etc. do nothing to instill sympathy.

The violence and mayhem going on in what is left of New Orleans also helps drive home (to me) how biased the reporting in Iraq has been. Look how quickly Americans can turn on each other in time of crisis and when there is a vacuum or order. Is it really any shock that there's violence in Iraq? It really demonstrates how pathetic the "insurgency" in Iraq must be. They should send over some New Orleans looters and gang members to Baghdad to teach the "insurgency" how to conduct a proper uprising.

Comments (Page 3)

Professor Tournesol

on Sep 03, 2005

you talk about 'the Government' as if it is separate from society. There seems to be a pervasive mistrust of government in the US but you keep voting untrustworthy governments into power. Brad I know we have had this debate on the stardock.politics newsgroup but it really seems like you have the government that you (plural) deserve (so do we unfortunately).

Professor Tournesol

on Sep 04, 2005

Reply By: Draginol Posted: Saturday, September 03, 2005
Eugenics theory used to be accepted by the "mainstream" scientific community...

Eugenics was accepted by a small part of the scientific community. For instance see:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html

Quoting......
The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for "good" and "generation" or "origin" and was first used to refer to the "science" of heredity and good breeding in about 1883.

Within 20 years, the word was widely used by scientists who had rediscovered the work of Gregor Mendel. Mendel had meticulously recorded the results of cross-breeding pea plants, and found a very regular statistical pattern for features like height and color. This introduced the concept of genes, opening the field of genetics to a tumultuous century of research. One path of genetic research branched off into the shadows of social theory, and in the first quarter of the twentieth century became immensely popular as eugenics. It was presented as a mathematical science that could be used to predict the traits and behaviors of humans, and in a perfect world, to control human breeding so that people with the best genes would reproduce and thus improve the species. It was an optimistic school of thought with a profound faith in the powers of Science.

The trappings of science, anyway. Even in its day, many people saw that eugenics was a dubious discipline, riddled with inconsistencies. But it was championed by a very prominent and respected biologist, Charles Davenport, and its conclusions told many people what they wanted to hear: that certain "racial stock" was superior to others in such traits as intelligence, hard work, cleanliness, and so on. In this view of human behavior, the work of Sigmund Freud was disregarded, while the ideas of behaviorism were just gaining ground.

Local eugenics societies and groups sprang up around the United States after World War I, with names like the Race Betterment Foundation. The war had given many Americans a greater fear of foreigners, and immigration to the United States was still increasing. In 1923, organizers founded the American Eugenics Society, and it quickly grew to 29 chapters around the country. At fairs and exhibitions, eugenicists spread the word and hosted "fitter family" and "better baby" competitions to award blue ribbons to the finest human stock -- not unlike the awards for prize bull and biggest pumpkin. Not only did eugenicists promote better breeding, they wanted to prevent poor breeding or the risk of it. That meant keeping people with undesireable traits in their heritage (including alcoholism, pauperism, or epilepsy) separate from others or, where law allowed, preventing them from reproducing.

These vocal groups advocated laws to attain their aims, and in 1924, the Immigration Act was passed by majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. It set up strict quotas limiting immigrants from countries believed by eugenicists to have "inferior" stock, particularly Southern Europe and Asia. President Coolidge, who signed the bill into law, had stated when he was vice president, "America should be kept American. . . . Biological laws show that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races." for a good overview, see: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ This was not accepted science and cannot be compared to the scientific evidence for global warming. Incidentally there is little debate about the evidence for global warming, only about the aetiology.

Draginol

on Sep 04, 2005

Yes, you made my point: Global warming is fashionable today just as Eugenics was fashionable at a time. That doesn't make it good science.

When I say government I am referring to institutions created ostensibly to "help" but have few outside pressures on them to make sure they are effective. In private industry, companies that aren't good at what they do get outcompeted by those who are good at it. Government agencies, by constrast, have no competition.

There is no real mechanism for governments (state, local, federal, etc.) to be efficient and effective. Hence, don't too much faith in them.

Dusk411

on Sep 04, 2005

Island Dog:

And if he arrived the next day you would be complaining that he's taking attention away from the victims

Not true. I admit I don't like Bush. However, on Sept. 11 I did manage some respect for him that day. And this is from a bleeding heart liberal (which I say proudly.)

But to give context to what I said: Actually, I just would've liked for him to be there on Day 2. I expected better leadership. Since he wasn't there earlier, I got the impression that he didn't care. And I'm not in Louisiana. How do you think the people in the Superdome and Convention Center felt?

On the fourth day, it just seemed like damage control. As though it were an afterthought. The adminstration sent a cler message though: if you're poor, you're on your own.

Republicans can discredit Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 but there is a ring of truth in it regarding his disdain for the poor, specifically in this quote.

Bush: What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base.

And from another Bush quote recently from CNN:
"We got a lot of rebuilding to do.... the good news is and it's hard for some to see it now but out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic gulf coast... out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- the guy lost his entire house -- there's going to be fantastic house. I look forward to sitting on the porch. Out of New Orleans is going to come that great city again."

Again, the focus is on Trent Lott, a rich white guy whom the people in New Orleans could not relate to? Trent Lott has the money to rebuild his house all over again. Is this supposed to be comforting and reassuring? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Why couldn't Bush take the opportunity to focus on the lower section, the section that is mostly underwater. What about those people?

I'm not quibbling with the rebuilding part, though. It's the only thing I can agree with.

Independent1

on Sep 04, 2005

The mechanism for governmment to be efficient and effective is called the voting booth.

Dusk411

on Sep 04, 2005

Sorry to double post, but I wanted to address one last thing. I didn't notice it until after I posted.

And of course, blaming the federal government = compassion. Not putting all the blame on the federal government - "insensitive, cold and unfeeling".

I just would like the federal government to take some responsibility for it and not automatically shift blame solely to the state and local levels. Accountability is another issue here.

As I stated in my above post, I haven't seen compassion from the federal government in this instance. I've read that the local and state were overextended and were begging for help. That, for me, is not compassion.

But from my persceptive, reading (parts of your) post was like listening to Mary Laudrier: thanking the politicians and eliminating the human suffering from the equation, specifically around the "making the rather absurd argument that somehow this whole mess is the result of the Federal government...." It's where I got irked.

I admit to being harsh. However, after reading countless articles with politicians spouting nothing but rhetoric, I felt that part of the article was more of the same: blame the people who didn't have the means to get out, blame the mayor, blame the state, but the Federal government is fine and dandy. That's the spin I was indicating as cold, unfeeling, and insensitive.

pal

on Sep 04, 2005

I'll admit my center bias right now. So if you want to accuse me rightests, I admitted it first!

I find it so odd, that people, especially on the right, just spout the line that they are given. It seems to me that the people who are backed in the corner have to find what the administration is saying, and then puppet it back to validate their decision for a wrong choice in 2000 and 2004. It's especially 'funny' (not haha funny) to see righties just blame liberals and calling them stupid names (like you 'liberal') that they can't come up with their own original opinion. Maybe that would involve too much thought, or they couldn't come up with an argument that might make sense to fend off what seems like common sense and vision for our future.

It's distrubing to see what happened at Katrina, and it's even more distrubing to see the Bush Administration's lack of sympathy for these people. They even voted for him! Maybe it's not a race or class thing, but really its a more of a common sense thing. When people are crying on TV and Radio pleading for help, why do you have to blame him? Maybe you righties are the same when your 6 month old child cries for milk, and you refuse to give it to him, perhaps blaming his lack of preparation to get milk before he needed some.

Bush as a president is in pain. Sure he got re-elected, but his approval are Nixon during Watergate levels now, Iraq instead of a becon of hope of democracy is a muddled mess, and the Republican Congress are sweating because what happened in Ohio. You might think to re-energize himself as being the president that helps us with crisees and have a happy-go-lucky rally around the flag effect that 9/11 brought but he's just sitting on his thumbs, and sending his media (read Fox, Washington Times, etc.) to blame those liberals being terrorists.

I think if you righties thought about it long and hard you would come up with some critical thinking skills, and have enough sense to realize why liberals don't see eye to eye with the president. It may be a shock to you, but the president has been majorly wrong before (read Iraq-Afganistan connection). I don't mind the conversation of ideas, and political debate, but enough is enough, if a guy is begging for aid, why do we have to sit on our butt while the best Bush can get out of New Orleans is a Photo-Op. Bush had a Gold Mine but he missed it, and now we'll enter a new wave of Liberals are to blame because of .....(whatever his PR team decides to blame Liberals on, it really won't make sense but hell). Time for the righties to sit back, take a sigh, and admit their mistake and fast enough so that people's lives can be saved, and that people can resume their normal lives they had before!

Draginol

on Sep 04, 2005

The mechanism for governmment to be efficient and effective is called the voting booth.

Yes, which happens every 2 to 4 years. Private industry is tested on an almost daily basis. Plus, it is incredibly difficult to tell whether a government is being efficient or not, we have to rely on the media which has its own agenda.

Private industry, by contrast, has the ultimate test -- if it isn't putting out a good product, then it will go out of business. The government is too big, too slow, and too inefficient and throwing out "the rascals" doesn't really change much. It's the same thing one gets with a corporate monopoly.

Draginol

on Sep 04, 2005

I'll admit my center bias right now.

Like most far-left liberals, you may think you're a centrist but you're not.

Like I said, it's pretty sad to see people trying to blame the federal government for the hurricane disaster. The recovery is, I think, going pretty well considering the immense devastation and the fact that the state of Louisiana and more spectacularly the mayor of NO blew it.

I ask: Was it Bush (or maybe Karl Rove) using Jedi mind powers to force the mayor of New Orleans not to call the evacuation order until the very last second even though people were actively screaming for the mayor to call for a required evacuation days prior? Was it Bush or Karl Rove that forced the mayor of New Orleans not to use busses (like they do elsewhere) to bus out those who don't have the resources to move?

I can tell you this, I wouldn't be blaming the federal government regardless of who was President. I don't think many of the left wingers here could say the same thing.

Professor Tournesol

on Sep 05, 2005

Like most far-left liberals, you may think you're a centrist but you're not.

Funny isn't it how everyone thinks that they are the beacon of common sense and hold neutral views whilst all those around them are then defined as right or left!

I ask: Was it Bush (or maybe Karl Rove) using Jedi mind powers to force the mayor of New Orleans not to call the evacuation order until the very last second even though people were actively screaming for the mayor to call for a required evacuation days prior? Was it Bush or Karl Rove that forced the mayor of New Orleans not to use busses (like they do elsewhere) to bus out those who don't have the resources to move?

so the mayor of new orleans is wrong too!

pal

on Sep 05, 2005

I state again, I'm a centrist. I know what I belive in, and know a lot about politics. If you can assume what political stance I have based upon a blurb on a blob, I would say that you really don't know politics very well at all. I would bet money if you sat down with all the issues, and thought about them you might find yourself being centrist too! I have talked nothing about economics, church and state, and what government's role in our life should be, etc. etc. and you have already assumed my political stance more then you think I know what it is. I know what it is and it's centrist.

That again, you are falling for the trap that I asked people to avoid. Let's blame the liberals, and support Bush and his errors. It is an error after a major disaster to not do anything for 4 days now? The recovery is dismal with people still not living in santiary conditions, and this is in my favorite country in the world. The USA! People are suffering from dysentary! Where else in the industrialized nations is suffering from diseases we eradicated in the 19th century. The country's armed forces are fighting another battle, and we desperately need new recruits.

Why do people blame the government? Because the government has so much influence in our lives, that's why Neo-Conservatives found out the best way to influence people to their way of thinking not to mention spending untold millions (billions?) of dollars influencing elections!. That is why the government has gained power every generation since the 1930s. I think I'm making myself clear here. But if you want to dismiss me as 'way far off into leftfield' I have already won the debate! It is kinda like if you are debating a hippie and all he does is call you 'a suit' without hearing your points. You have won! You have the the information, and all he has is a name he calls you.

The president has so much power, he could lift a finger, call a few people, or even have his staff do it and poof he has a press confrence, millions in aid, and being the commander in chief to order to go and make order of the mess. No Jedi Powers needed!

If you can, debate my points, rather then my (assigned by you) political stance! It makes it far more intellectual, and hey! Both of us might learn something from each other! Have fun!

Professor Tournesol

on Sep 05, 2005

You said:
Yes, you made my point: Global warming is fashionable today just as Eugenics was fashionable at a time. That doesn't make it good science.

I say:
I'm sorry but continually equating the views of the majority of the scientific community on global warming to those of a few on eugenics is disengenuous. This is a debate for another thread but have you read the links I posted on this?

you talk about 'the Government' as if it is separate from society. There seems to be a pervasive mistrust of government in the US but you keep voting untrustworthy governments into power. Brad I know we have had this debate on the stardock.politics newsgroup but it really seems like you have the government that you (plural) deserve (so do we unfortunately).

You said:
When I say government I am referring to institutions created ostensibly to "help" but have few outside pressures on them to make sure they are effective. In private industry, companies that aren't good at what they do get outcompeted by those who are good at it. Government agencies, by constrast, have no competition.

well I have no knowledge at all of how government agencies are organised in the US. In Australia they are more accountable than private enterprise. Look at how open and transparent corporate process are(n't) and you really shudder. If a government department wants to hide it's conduct here it justifies it as 'commercial-in-confidence'! What scrutiny does the market provide outside financial scrutiny? look at how hard it is to get info about private industry conduct in Iraq over tendering compared to public institution accountability.

There is no real mechanism for governments (state, local, federal, etc.) to be efficient and effective. Hence, don't too much faith in them.

If it is the case in the US then get out and vote to make it more accountable.

Professor Tournesol

on Sep 05, 2005

you said:
Again, the focus is on Trent Lott, a rich white guy whom the people in New Orleans could not relate to? Trent Lott has the money to rebuild his house all over again. Is this supposed to be comforting and reassuring? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Why couldn't Bush take the opportunity to focus on the lower section, the section that is mostly underwater. What about those people?

I say:
there are 2 United States of America - there's the empowered connected enfranchised middle and upper class USA, then there's the rest. Those 'rest' only become visible in situations like this. They're the ones who live in the tiny towns you never visit because they can't afford to leave, or the ones who live in the parts of town you have to visit with a gun because they can't afford to leave there either. They have the dignity of labour but at a pay rate that condemns them to tread economic water. They don't appear on Bush's radar. welcome to the third world Mr Bush:-(

Dee m

on Sep 05, 2005

The reason why the Federal Government has to be relied upon in a crisis like this is because the state and local government
are also victims of the same Hurricane and therefore not able handle the situation. Part of the problem here is that there is a
lack of understanding as to what it means to have a catastrophe of this nature. A catastrophic event like this, by its own definition,
means that it is beyond the capacity of the government to respond. Therefore, given such a definition, you have to expect that
the state and local "first responders" would be overwhelmed and need outside assistance. Police, firemen and National Guardsmen
are people too and in a situation like this, they are just as succeptable to succumbing to the disaster as everyone else.

On top of that, the local and state officials do not have all of the resources they need to handle such an emergency. Why? Because
most planning and equipment budgets are not based on the worst case scenario or catastrophic event as it occured in Lousiana.
Most times, they plan for the normal scenario, where a storm comes through, leaving most major infrastructure intact so they can
get in and assess and take care of the damages. That means that local and state goverments have the people available, roads
are passable and they can get in and do what it takes. In a situation like this, where you have the worst case scenario, the local
and state government's capability to respond was damaged or destroyed along with everything else. Along with that, major
infrastructure was devastated. State and local agencies, in this case, would not have the special equipment needed to do the job.
They would need boats, helicopters, and planes for search rescue and evacuation. State and local governments dont have that
kind of stuff in most cases. This is why it is the Federal government who had to respond in such a situation.

I know one thing, that there are going to be tons of lawsuits as a result of this. Why failure to protect citizens from a levee collapse,
failure to provide adequate transportation during the evacuation, failure to provide food and water... and so on. On top of that,
I would be suing for the cops searching my bags on my way to be evacuated. Why are they searching the bags of the victims?
Do they think that the victims are terrorists? These people have nothing but the clothes on their backs and whatever they could
grab out of their homes, but you expect them to be toting a bomb? And if there is a gun, what if it is for PROTECTION, since
the police and other officials let things let RUMORS get out of control and start a PANIC? Why are they entering peoples houses
searching for victims with guns drawn? Is someone under arrest? Do they have probable cause? Another lawsuit waiting to
happen. Boy this is some crazy stuff.... A national crisis like this is no place to start droppping our civil rights and liberties.

But hey, maybe this is why so much effort is being made to blow all the so called violence and lawlessness out of proportion......

Ordinary guy

on Sep 05, 2005

Since the rivals at TGTSoft were from New Orleans... I bet you guys are having a party

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!