![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 18:17:09
In reply to Re: please be supportive » Declan » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on November 3, 2005, at 9:30:28
I'll admit it didn't occur to me that people on the boards may have served or lost the lives of people they cared about to start with...
But when I did realise...
I should have been a lot more sentitive.
Sorry.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2005, at 18:43:30
In reply to Re: ?? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 17:48:01
Alexandra, it's true that they warned that certain hurricanes would do this. But that wasn't this hurricane, not for the majority of the city. This hurricane was within the force levels the walls were designed to hold. At the very least for the 17th Street Canal and the London Avenue canals that have most raised my ire. The Industrial Canal and MR GO are different.
And yes, this is just one news source (though all the local news is about the same), but with all due politeness, I've got to say that I trust the local news to know what's going on in the local area more than I trust the international news who probably don't know the difference between Gentilly and Bywater. And the locals are far far more familiar with the background of the agencies involved than any national, never mind international, news source can be. Why, I saw a picture of the "devastation" showed on the national news that was actually a camp built in the middle of the Bonnet Carre Spillway that is *supposed* to be surrounded by water.
And as far as National Guard numbers, since there were enough when they were sent, I assume there were enough the days earlier when they *should* have been sent. They didn't bring them back from Iraq in that time frame.
And yes, Auntie Mel is correct that New Orleans proper is largely black. But the greater metropolitan area is not. And the greater metropolitan area needs the flood protection, not New Orleans. The entire area is all being thrown to the wolves, not just New Orleans proper.
And as a New Orleanian, as much as I'd like to blame the feds for everything, I just can't. Local officials have earned their reputations honestly, so to speak. Not all of the current ones, certainly. But enough of the ones over the years to have contributed mightily to this problem.
I just don't know how much the rest of the country understands the unique challenges of New Orleans. And I don't really feel up to explaining them. Not under the circumstances of this board, anyway. If anyone's genuinely interested in what's really going on, babblemail me and I'll tell you. But not this way. Not under these circumstances.
I'm not even going to check this board for replies.
I'm bowing out with whatever tattered grace I have left.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2005, at 18:58:57
In reply to Re: ?? » Dinah, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 17:25:23
I think I partly answered you in my post to Alexandra.
But if you want to say that the President's priorities are not for preserving the environment, not even if preserving the environment is actually cheaper than the consequences of not preserving the environment, I'll agree completely. And if you were to say that policies that would prefer to make huge payoffs in the face of a disaster rather than huge, but less huge, outlays to prevent a disaster, then I'd have to agree completely.
And anything most anyone could say about Brown wouldn't surprise or offend me in the least. That email about dinner in Baton Rouge really astonished me. Not much could surprise me after that.
I think there is some difference between most other areas and New Orleans, though. I *think* we're the only major metropolitan area under sea level. I think you'd have to go to the Netherlands for comparisons.
What I don't agree about is that events would have been one whit different had troops not been sent to Iraq. Or that this is the result of racism or classism. I'm relatively certain any city would get the same treatment.
Sigh. I must be out of my mind to even consider staying here, no matter how much my son likes his school.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 19:23:12
In reply to Re: ??, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2005, at 18:43:30
> Alexandra, it's true that they warned that certain hurricanes would do this. But that wasn't this hurricane, not for the majority of the city. This hurricane was within the force levels the walls were designed to hold. At the very least for the 17th Street Canal and the London Avenue canals that have most raised my ire. The Industrial Canal and MR GO are different.
Okay. But I still want to say... I heard that the engineers told congress (or whoever) that a fairly standard hurricane in New Orleans would have fairly much the effects that it had UNLESS they did something about that pronto and that congress was going to do something about that pronto but then a state of war was declaired and thus nothing was done.
Is that false?
> And yes, this is just one news source (though all the local news is about the same), but with all due politeness, I've got to say that I trust the local news to know what's going on in the local area more than I trust the international news who probably don't know the difference between Gentilly and Bywater.
Sure. I understand that. News sources are selective in what they present. There is the simple fact that they have to be because there is just too much going on for them to present everything. I'm sure you have much more of an idea of the local situation and I'm sure that the local news is also going to present a fairer representation.
> And the locals are far far more familiar with the background of the agencies involved than any national, never mind international, news source can be. Why, I saw a picture of the "devastation" showed on the national news that was actually a camp built in the middle of the Bonnet Carre Spillway that is *supposed* to be surrounded by water.
Yeah. Not quite 'made in a hollywood basement' but close...
> And as far as National Guard numbers, since there were enough when they were sent, I assume there were enough the days earlier when they *should* have been sent. They didn't bring them back from Iraq in that time frame.Though I suppose we could haggle over whether there were 'enough' in the sense of IF there were more THEN how much faster would appropriate aid have been dispensed?
> And yes, Auntie Mel is correct that New Orleans proper is largely black. But the greater metropolitan area is not. And the greater metropolitan area needs the flood protection, not New Orleans. The entire area is all being thrown to the wolves, not just New Orleans proper.
Okay.
> And as a New Orleanian, as much as I'd like to blame the feds for everything, I just can't.I'm not saying to 'blame them for everything'. I'm just saying that I think they should be doing more than they are. The government should be about helping and protecting its citizens. I'm not sure they are doing everything they should be doing there. And yet... Your tax money funds them.
> Local officials have earned their reputations honestly, so to speak. Not all of the current ones, certainly. But enough of the ones over the years to have contributed mightily to this problem.
Sure.
> I just don't know how much the rest of the country understands the unique challenges of New Orleans. And I don't really feel up to explaining them. Not under the circumstances of this board, anyway. If anyone's genuinely interested in what's really going on, babblemail me and I'll tell you. But not this way. Not under these circumstances.
> I'm not even going to check this board for replies.??
> I'm bowing out with whatever tattered grace I have left.
??
I'd be interested...
But I don't really want to get into a babblemail discussion over it.
(I've gotten a warning thus far and I probably should be kept in check ;-)
It is interesting to me to hear other peoples pov.
Posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 19:34:46
In reply to Re: ?? » zeugma, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2005, at 18:58:57
Dinah, you may be 'thin skinned' as you described yourself once, but you are a truly strong individual. I know how New York was traumatized by 9/11, but your entire city was flooded.
From everything I have read the local authorities did not distinguish themselves, unlike the NYPD and New York Port Authority, many of whom willingly died to save others.
I can't evaluate Governor Blanco or the mayor ( I forget his name), unlike the prominent members of the Federal Government their every word is not analyzed in depth here. I did read about police officers committing suicide, and officers now being persecuted for desertion. It's easier to understand the suicide than desertion.
I relied on local news sources (New York Times) for my information on the events as they were happening. Whether the Guard was present or not it was not deployed properly. And I posted a while ago about two leutenants who went out of their way to save lives with their helicopters because they saw none of our vaunted military doing anything to help. In return one was given command of a kennel for dogs of Army officers made homeless by the flooding. They were both reprimanded for ignoring what the military thought were proper priorities. Now I know that if I had been dangling from a beam on top of the World Trade center, and a military helicopter making some kind of routine flight (it is astonishing how the military responded to the disaster! astonishing!) plucked me to safety, i would be grateful. I wouldn't care if the pilot didn't get the Medal of Honor. Serving in a dog kennel is noble service compared to other activities the military is currently engaged in IMO.
No good deed goes unpunished around here, it seems.
But I hear even Trent Lott is distancing himself from the President. I suppose when it's your own house that is blown down it doesn't sit so well, no matter how many houses you'd let smoke elsewhere.
I think with hurricane Katrina, we officially became a Third World country.
-z
Posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 20:02:51
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:47:01
Why were the mortality rates so high in the better off neighborhoods? Why couldn't those people get out?>>
They didn't have cars.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 4:05:59
In reply to Re: ?? » zeugma, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2005, at 18:58:57
About this:
> I heard that engineers predicted that this was going to happen if money wasn't spent on upgrading pronto. That that was presented to congress? And it was going to happen, congress (or whoever) were in fairly much unanomous support of it. But in a state of national emergency (war basically) the president is allowed to over-ride congress. And that by declaring war on Iraq... He was allowed to over-ride congress and that that is why teh engineers were in Iraq instead of being in New Orleans designing improvements to teh dam. Because good engineers are a scarce resource, Dinah. And they were in Iraq and not in New Orleans.
That is one story. And I'm sure it is an unfairly simplified one at that. And probably fairly inaccurate.
I don't know whats going on.
Thats what bothers me.
Because there are so many stories out there.
So many different takes.
I don't know what to believe.And so I have a tendancy to cling to what may very well be prejudices. And I cling to them mostly because if that isn't true then I just don't know what to believe.
But that just leads to needless arguing...
So.
In one of the links you gave me it was saying about how it seems that most people are saying they aren't going to stay in New Orleans anymore. And about how they aren't going to try and rebuild the whole city.
I think you said you had been there for a long time. I've been pretty much where I am now all my life. I can't imagine how I'd feel if that happened.
I'm sorry
Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
In reply to Re: ?? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 16:02:25
A lot to answer, from several posts. Let's see if I can kludge together something coherent.
---------------------------------------------------
"Not at all. The Kiwi is a New Zealand bird. While it may well have the support of the people and the government, it would continue to be a New Zealand bird even if we hunted it into extinction."
Big difference - we were originally talking about man made things.
-----------------------------------------
> "Because... The cycle has to stop somewhere. "> But we also know that appeasement doesn't work. And if you would like some verification of that I'll give you the email addresses of some of my friends in Poland.
Sorry, I'm not too sure what 'appeasement' means. Doesn't work to do what?
----
It doesn't work to stop the cycle. It only prolongs it. Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia come to mind.
---------------------------------------------------
> because I am horrified by a leader who will use chemical gas on his own people, and by many other things that this particular leader did. The rape, the murder, the torture....
Yeah. And I'm sure there was a lot of information out there on this particular leader (mostly American in origin). People do worse. There are people doing worse in other parts of the world. Is the american government planning on taking them all on? Or just those whose countries have oil?
------------------
Well, I'm hard pressed to know what could be worse, but I personally thought we waited too long to help out Bosnia and I personally think that we maybe *should* get more involved in those situations.
But I'm a liberal.
-------------------------------------------------
> Well, yes I do disagree. If not for NASA then I would probably not have gone into the sciences. I wouldn't have known to follow dreams. And before you say 'that was then' my youngest went to Space Camp twice - and she became fired up about sciences herself.
Yeah. And that is a terrific thing. I hear you. But... What I was thinking... Was that money could probably be better spent on... Oh... On equal access to healthcare for all; equal access to education; equal access to 'basic' needs like food and shelter and so on. I bet those kinds of things... Would inspire far more americans to make something of their lives...
------------------
Maybe - but, human nature being what it is, people tend to appreciate things less if they are free. Or maybe that's a bad way to put it. People tend to get comfortable when they have a lot. Necessity is the mother of invention? No progress without pain? Any more trite cliches?
Marxism was a wonderful ideal, as is Lennon's "Imagine" but as long as humans are involved it just aint gonna happen. Sad. I wish it weren't true.
--------------------------------------------------
"I'm talking about countries as abstract entities
Where their laws and policies define what the nature of that country is when we consider that country as an abstract entity."I think that is backwards. It's the nature of the country that defines the laws and policies.
Our history is one of second sons, religeous outcasts, refugees - those with adversity that want to work their tails off to make a better life for themselves. People didn't come here because their life back home was a bed of roses.
Those who came over here (willingly) had their fill of government interference and frankly didn't want any more. And with governemt help comes government strings.
Now, I don't mean that folks should be made to go hungry or have good oppertunities. But the majority of the people here just don't think it's the government's job to make able bodied healthy people *comfortable* - that they should feel enough discomfort that they *do* become self sufficient.
Is healthcare equal? No - but it's available. Is it equal elsewhere? Not that I've seen. In the UK for instance, there is national health, but those with money or good insurance get better care.
Is education equal? No - but it's available. Even the poorest school districts have good enough schools for those who really want to study and get ahead. Yes, there are better schools for those with money - but I'd bet that is true worldwide, too.
Food and shelter? available.
==============================================
On the levee system
" But I heard...
That the engineers had been saying that the walls needed reinforcing or precisely this was going to happen. I dunno what its called... But congress or whatever were going to spend this money on doing that... And then Bush declares 'state of war!' and diverts the resources to Iraq.
You need engineers in Iraq you see...
Is that right?????"
Well, yes and no. Each bit - 'engineers warning' 'Bush declares state of war' etc are correct. But together they aren't the true picture.
Appropriations of the money had nothing to do with Iraq.
The number of engineers in Iraq are a minuscule part of the total number of engineers.
Warnings were there, and a feasibility study on beefing up the levees was ongoing at the time of Katrina.
------------------------------------------------
"I'm wary of potential scapegoating...
Blaming New Orleans for the tragedy is one way for the government to say they are justified in leaving them to deal with the situation with less government support. Blame someone on the local level and try and use that to absolve the government from responsibility to its citizens..."Don't be too wary of scapegoating.
Forgive me, Dinah, if I'm a bit too indelicate here.....
New Orleans is largely below sea level. Years ago (1940s) a levee system was started around it to protect it from the Mississippi river. Before the levee system the river would occasionally flood (which btw added silt, helping keep the city at a higher elevation.)
The levee system wasn't designed for a Katrina type storm at the time. As the city subsided the system was added to and modified.
People in the meantime have warned that a major flood could be catastrophic.
BUT if the building of the levees had been done properly in the first place - it would have protected the city far more than it did.
Now comes the indelicate part.
Lousiana has been joked about for years - about corrupt politicians, Huey Long and his cronies among the worse (though as corrupt as Huey was he *did* get a lot done)
It is looking like corruption might have played a part in the failing of the levee system, though I'm not familiar with the dates of these particular additions to the system. Parts of it, under the direction of some local people, were built correctly. Other parts were not.
Which parts failed possibly has a *lot* more to do with which politicians were in charge of those particular spots at those particular times than the economic class of the people they were supposed to protect.
At least I think that's what Dinah was alluding to when she was talking about failures at the local level.
-------------------------------------------------
"There was a comment... Something about america being stronger after this... I have heard comments... About how very much that sounded like the country is better off after some elimination of the 'unsuccessful' went on..."
"And for those who were in poverty to start with... What are they going to do?"
At the risk of sounding like Barbara Bush the truth is that the less you had to start with the less you lost. The truly poor will probably continue on as before.
And the wealthy will continue on much as before.
It's those in the middle, as usual, who have the toughest time of it.
But things are being done, if not by the feds.
Habitat for Humanity is building hundreds of houses, for example.
I predict New Orleans will rebuild. The rest of the country wouldn't have it otherwise - the locals aren't the only ones who love the city, it's wonderful history and architecture, the parties, the people, the food......
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 22:58:17
In reply to Re: ??, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
> A lot to answer, from several posts. Let's see if I can kludge together something coherent.
lol. you did a good job. there is rather a lot there...
> Big difference - we were originally talking about man made things.oh okay. waikato is a new zealand beer because it originated from new zealand. american news is news that comes from america. new zealand news is news that comes from new zealand. new zealand creationist literature would be creationist literature that came from new zealand. american creationist literature is what the schools in new zealand were inundated with. in the sense that the literature was sent from america. that is all i was trying to say with that comment. i didn't mean to imply that the majority of americans endorse it or anything like that because i believe... that it would actually be fairer to say that the majority (or at least 40% surely) do not.
> Sorry, I'm not too sure what 'appeasement' means. Doesn't work to do what?> It doesn't work to stop the cycle.
Sorry, what doesn't?
(I don't know what 'appeasement' means)
I've never heard the word before.
> > because I am horrified by a leader who will use chemical gas on his own people, and by many other things that this particular leader did. The rape, the murder, the torture....
sorry... what particular leader? is that what the war is supposed to be about?> Well, I'm hard pressed to know what could be worse, but I personally thought we waited too long to help out Bosnia and I personally think that we maybe *should* get more involved in those situations.
even without being invited? i mean... if someone asks for assistance then that is one thing... but to give it and get upset when people aren't grateful is quite another...
> But I'm a liberal.hmm. i thought i was a liberal. i thought pacifism was rather liberal... i don't know what these terms mean really...
> Maybe - but, human nature being what it is, people tend to appreciate things less if they are free. Or maybe that's a bad way to put it.
yes. i'm thinking needs here, not luxuries. needs. i think people appreciate their needs being met a great deal and are really very frustrated when those needs are not met. that our appreciation / frustration is similar in virtue of us being human beings with certain needs (for a state of health, for shelter, for food etc)
> People tend to get comfortable when they have a lot.
i'm not talking 'a lot' i'm not talking luxury items i'm talking about basic needs like food and healthcare and education and shelter...
>Necessity is the mother of invention?
>No progress without pain? Any more trite cliches?do you really believe this?
> Marxism was a wonderful ideal, as is Lennon's "Imagine" but as long as humans are involved it just aint gonna happen. Sad. I wish it weren't true.marxism... not sure what thats about... i don't know much about politics. i just think... all people have basic needs. and i think that people should do what they can to ensure that people have those basic needs met. if that means taking from the rich to give to the poor than so be it.
why would anyone choose to not have their basic needs met?
wouldn't that in itself indicate a state of sickness?i think we might disagree on this point...
but...i don't think people prefer handouts
over being provided some way of obtaining what they need for themselves.
or if they do...
then that in itself indicates a state of sickness...help and compassion...
> "I'm talking about countries as abstract entities
> Where their laws and policies define what the nature of that country is when we consider that country as an abstract entity."
> I think that is backwards. It's the nature of the country that defines the laws and policies.yeah okay. i don't really mind :-)
> Our history is one of second sons, religeous outcasts, refugees - those with adversity that want to work their tails off to make a better life for themselves. People didn't come here because their life back home was a bed of roses.yeah. same here. well... fairly much. the maori came first. they came in canoes and navigated by the sun and moon and stars. there were lots of maori tribes and they were at war with each other. they thrived pretty well over here. then... people came from england and france. the english tried to get the treaty up off the ground because they didn't want to lose the country to the french.
then what happened... the english sold land to people in england. they were sold 1/4 acre sections, or fertile farming land or whatever. the people who came tended to be the poorer people who dreamed of getting out of the slums in london to their 1/4 acre section or farm or whatever.
only problem was... they weren't told they would have to clear the land first. and new zealand bush (forest) is very dense and very hard work to clear. and so those people (or pioneers) slogged their guts out to make a living off their land.
only other problem was... the land they were sold was maori land. so not only did they have to work to clear the land... they had to fight the maori to keep the land as well. maori would come in raids to fight to get the immigrants off their land. and there were the new zealand wars... thats what those are about. and land claims are still going on today.
> Those who came over here (willingly) had their fill of government interference and frankly didn't want any more.yeah. australia is a little like that... more so than us i suppose. because convicts were sent there. convicts from england. the thought was that criminality was inherited and so they would ship the criminals off to prisons over the other side of the earth. so they did that... any wonder australians are proud to be free and a little sceptical of good old 'mother england'? of course they found more criminals would arise soon as they could ship them off. because of the society. because if you have to steal to eat... well... you have to steal.
> And with governemt help comes government strings.
what sort of government strings?
ours comes with... a three tiered tax system. where the top bracket is something like 33% (of every dollar earned over... $50,000 or something like that).not sure that people worry about what strings come with assistance with respect to their basic needs... i mean... i'd beg or steal food if i needed it. if i feel a 'sense of endebtedness' to the government or whatever for giving me enough money to purchase basic food items... well... small price to pay i would have thought.
> Now, I don't mean that folks should be made to go hungry or have good oppertunities. But the majority of the people here just don't think it's the government's job to make able bodied healthy people *comfortable* - that they should feel enough discomfort that they *do* become self sufficient.ouch. so the thought is that everybody who *chooses* can support their basic needs.
(think about the children of the adults here too...)
and thus if someone is unable to do this...
or if they resort to crime...
that is of their own making.
and rather than thinking that something must be not right for them to have that attitude (if it is indeed true that they do)
the thought is just leave them be
but what about their children?
and is it really hard to see why some people don't have much of a chance
when they go to school hungry
when their parents tell them there is no point trying because there is no hopei just think people need...
a little help.
> Is healthcare equal? No - but it's available. Is it equal elsewhere? Not that I've seen. In the UK for instance, there is national health, but those with money or good insurance get better care.(about to be logged off)....
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 23:36:41
In reply to Re: ??, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
> Now, I don't mean that folks should be made to go hungry
okay. but if (for whatever reason) you don't have a job... then aren't you either relying on handouts from other people or... having to resort to other ways of getting food and other necessities?
i mean... 6 months unemployment benefit entitlement.... what are you supposed to do once that is up if you cannot get a job and have no savings?
or what if you a female.
what if you get raped.
you aren't allowed an abortion in the US...
so you have to have the kid.
how do you look after that kid?
what if your family won't / can't fund that?
what are you supposed to do?
or what if you are sick but don't have health insurance for whatever reason?
what are you supposed to do?and even if some people just are lazy (which i don't believe) even if people could work but they don't because they would prefer to go hungry. even if we should just let them starve... then what about their kids? should we just leave them be too? and when their kids grow up doing the same thing leave them too? and then their kids? so you see it is a cycle.
and if you interveane with the children in mind then the real effects... will come through when those children grow up and have children of their own. with each generation.... they have a better chance. they have more opportunities. more hope. but intervention is required... otherwise... it just continues...
>Is healthcare equal? No - but it's available.
is it available to all (regardless of $)
is it free for children to go to a doctor?
is it free for children to have prescriptions filled?
why not?
does this mean that some children do not get access to doctor and medicine because their parents can't afford it? doesn't matter WHY their parents can't afford it from the perspective of the sick child...> Is it equal elsewhere? Not that I've seen. In the UK for instance, there is national health, but those with money or good insurance get better care.
Sure. Here... Healthcare isn't too bad. The issue is more around waiting lists (might be a couple years for a hip replacement) than about receiving treatment. Free doctors for children. Under... 16 I think. But the age may be a little lower than that... And there are emergency grants that you can apply to. For social welfare. If I needed to go to the doctor and I couldn't afford to go then I'd go along and fill in a form and I'd be given the money to go and do that. And I wouldn't have to pay it back in most instances. Though... I personally don't need to do this because I can see a doctor for free in virtue of being a student. My prescriptions cost me $3.00 each (unless I go with a non-subsidised version). Thats because I have a community services card. If you earn under... Something like $30,000 then you get one of those. Typically... $15 doctors visits and $3 prescriptions. Specialist treatment is available from the hospital. Waiting lists come into play there.
But private... Well there are private hospitals too. With their flashy atmospheres etc. Nice if you can afford it I suppose.
But basic care... I guess the issue is in defining 'basic'. I've recently been told I don't quality for mental health treatment. Not severe enough for treatment in the public system. SO... No, the system isn't perfect. But thats what the higher taxes funds. Social services like those.
> Is education equal? No - but it's available.
yeah.
> Even the poorest school districts have good enough schools for those who really want to study and get ahead.
yeah. but if you are persistently told you are stupid (by your parents lets say) and you go to school hungry are you likely to really want to study? are you likely to believe it will make a difference? are you likely to believe you are capable of getting ahead? some people manage to come to this. but they tend to be the exceptions. in general... the best predictor of how well you are going to do in the educational system is how well your parents did.
and some kids can read before they go to school.
other kids... don't have any books at home and have never seen their parents or their friends open a book.
don't you think that has a significant impact?
dont' you think the latter... need a little more help?>Yes, there are better schools for those with money - but I'd bet that is true worldwide, too.
yes. though... it depends what you mean by 'better'. oh yes it does indeed. you are much more likely to do better in school if you are reasonably happy in your homelife, recieving adequate nutrition, are encouraged in your schooling by your family and peers etc. the more expensive schools have more of that going on because the parents pay more and are typically more involved and more supportive. the public schools... well... there is more of a variety.
> Food and shelter? available.
after using up your 6 month dole entitlement?
after having a kid?> Appropriations of the money had nothing to do with Iraq.
yeah. sorry 'bout that.
> The number of engineers in Iraq are a minuscule part of the total number of engineers.
i'll take your word for that.
>> "I'm wary of potential scapegoating...
Blaming New Orleans for the tragedy is one way for the government to say they are justified in leaving them to deal with the situation with less government support. Blame someone on the local level and try and use that to absolve the government from responsibility to its citizens..."> Don't be too wary of scapegoating.
?
thanks for the stuff on new orleans.
>>"There was a comment... Something about america being stronger after this... I have heard comments... About how very much that sounded like the country is better off after some elimination of the 'unsuccessful' went on..."
>>"And for those who were in poverty to start with... What are they going to do?"
>At the risk of sounding like Barbara Bush the truth is that the less you had to start with the less you lost. The truly poor will probably continue on as before.
ouch. the more you have the more you can afford to lose. if you have one can of spagetti then you cannot afford to lose it. if you have a trillion cans then a loss of a million or two is hardly going to touch the sides.
> It's those in the middle, as usual, who have the toughest time of it.
middle and low i'll grant you that.
>I predict New Orleans will rebuild. The rest of the country wouldn't have it otherwise - the locals aren't the only ones who love the city, it's wonderful history and architecture, the parties, the people, the food......
i hope so.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 23:54:15
In reply to Re: ??, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
because i guess you are from the middle
and know lots of people from the middle
and so you see yourselves as working jolly hard for what you haveand i accept that.
fully.but (from around the age of 7)
i was from the low
and i knew lots of people from the low
and so i could see people with not much hope who didn't believe there was much point in trying because they wouldn't succeed.there was intervention.
and it helped.
we would have been far worse off without it
far worse offi don't know what i would have done
i don't know where i'd bei imagine those standardised tests...
would have ruled out university as an option for mei'm thinking drugs and crime
because it was a close call...
it was a close call for me over here...
but over here...
well...
i have received government assistance
thats what has supported me everyday since i was 7.i remember living on...
$130 per week.
i'm serious.
thats $100 board (+ food / power etc)
$20 cigarettes
$10 bus to school
toiletries were an issue for a while there...
but my choice because i prioritised tobaccoi lived like that for three years and thats how i got myself through high school.
without it...
drugs and crime...
i couldn't work a 9-5 day
maybe...
maybe it is about choosing not to...
i don't know
but i couldn't do it...maybe i should have been left...
maybe i am just lazy...
i don't know.but i guess where we are in the world...
influences our beliefs greatly(a get a little more than that now i should say - but not much. welfare isn't about luxuries. its about basic needs.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2005, at 17:16:13
In reply to Re: ?? » Dinah, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 17:25:23
> I suppose my point was that the war is not in the interests of the United States (in particular)... What's the problem with that?
>
> DeclanThe problem is that there may be people here who support the war...
--
> But our current leaders indict themselves quite well.
>
> Most public officials pretend sadness over departing subordinates who have lost favor with the public and so have to go. Better off whithout the fool who made me look bad, they think. But I believe Bush was quite sincere in his estimation of brown's competence and compassion.
>
> zeugmaAnd our current leaders, too.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2005, at 17:24:15
In reply to Re: ?? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 17:48:01
> personally - I don't think that is fair. Thats what frightens me about american individualism. That attitude. I don't think that is acceptable.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, could you please rephrase that?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 20:41:10
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2005, at 17:24:15
> So at this point, I'd say that anyone who comes back to New Orleans or who stays here does so without national help and without much care from the government... I think it just has to do with the fact that they just don't care.
So at this stage anyway, the government has said that they won't be rebuilding the majority of the city. I can see how one might be led to conclude that the government doesn't care about what is best for the people in New Orleans.
I feel sad in response to that too.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:02:19
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 20:41:10
> So at this stage anyway, the government has said that they won't be rebuilding the majority of the city. I can see how one might be led to conclude that the government doesn't care about what is best for the people in New Orleans.
> I feel sad in response to that too.And... This is the message that I take from american individualism. american individualism is (to the best of my knowledge) the view that each person is free to make their own way, to make what they will of their lives. without government interfearance. and also... without government assistance.
and that seems to me to be what is happening here. people are being left to make their own way. without government interfearance. and also... without government assistance.
i mean... that is not quite right. aid was sent. but i mean in terms of rebuilding the city. rebuilding houses. the wealthy people will probably leave. i'm not sure what the poor are going to do. i imagine it would be in their best interests to have their rented properties rebuilt. but it seems... they are less interested in rebuilding properties for the poor and are more interested in rebuilding properties for wealthier people (thats what it said in the link) and that these properties will be rented at 'market rates'
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:07:57
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:02:19
and so the message that i take from american individualism is that...
the government doesn't care.
and i feel sad in response.
am i doing alright here???
i'm sorry...
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:17:06
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:07:57
is it the 'american individualism' bit that is problematic???
i thought... that was a view that most people in america endorsed. really. that that was a fair statement of the (abstractly considered) american 'party line' (if that makes sense)
that...
people should just be left to make their own way
survival of the fittest if you like
and that elimination of the unsuccessful...
was just a consequence of that:
you are free to make your own way
philosophy.i thought...
most people in the us were fairly happy with that
fairly proud of that
not unanimously, of course
but generally speakingit is just that everybody is not equally placed to start with...
and people do not have equal opportunities in virtue of that...
and thus a consequence of that is that ones financial position is not an accurate reflection of how hard one has worked for things.maybe i best... just shut up.
sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:12:25
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 21:17:06
Yeah. I'm just going from bad to worse here.
The comment that I was asked to rephrase...
I meant that comment to be in support of what Dinah was saying. I can see how people say that the government doesn't care.But maybe it isn't so much that the government 'doesn't care' it is more that the government doesn't think that it has a duty to rebuild.
I mean... I don't see how the cost can be an issue. You would think that if the government can afford to spend money on funding a war... But then that doesn't follow. I guess that doesn't follow.
It is about priorities I guess.
And the government doesn't think it is its job, or the government doesn't prioritise that.
Are people suprised?
Yes. Auntiemel thinks they will end up rebuilding...
Hmm.
Sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:30:06
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2005, at 17:24:15
> > personally - I don't think that is fair.
That doesn't seem fair to me?
> >Thats what frightens me about american individualism. That attitude. I don't think that is acceptable.
I don't accept american individualism (for all the reasons i went on to talk about - people not being equally placed in the world to start with etc)
??
Posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 22:44:16
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:12:25
Alexandra,
How did the meditating go? Hope all's well.
You've been working hard on this rephrasing without any feedback so I thought I'd give you my perspective.
You wrote, "personally - I don't think that is fair. Thats what frightens me about american individualism. That attitude. I don't think that is acceptable."
There may be nothing wrong with saying "american individualism" if there's no negative judgement attached. The rub may be in suggesting that it isn't "fair" or "acceptable" and "frightening".
I think when we talk in terms of national "traits" we find ourselves on thin ice. One nationality may be known for thriftiness, another for arrogance, yet another for being too emotional. Come to think of it, most national traits are negative, and best left unrepeated, lest we insult people of that particular national persuasion.
Perhaps, I'm missing something. Babblespeak isn't my native tongue.
Verne
Posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 22:45:48
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 22:44:16
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:56:40
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 22:44:16
> How did the meditating go? Hope all's well.
Hey there :-)
I'm glad you are still talking to me :-)
I forgot to do the meditating. And I promised too. Crap. I shall have a go tonight. Are you going to have a go too???
> You've been working hard on this rephrasing without any feedback so I thought I'd give you my perspective.Thanks. Yeah I really have been trying.. Really. But I'm not doing such a good job :-( I can tell that. I think... Maybe I should have just said 'sorry' and left it at the first post. But I wanted to try and rephrase it properly... I'm sorry.
> You wrote, "personally - I don't think that is fair. Thats what frightens me about american individualism. That attitude. I don't think that is acceptable."Yeah. Though I was trying not to repeat it ;-)
> There may be nothing wrong with saying "american individualism" if there's no negative judgement attached. The rub may be in suggesting that it isn't "fair" or "acceptable" and "frightening".Yeah. I don't think there is anything overtly negative or anything in 'american individualism'. It is just if you really unpack what that is about... That you end up with something that I am opposed to. Because I don't think it is fair. And I don't accept it because of that. And I do feel frightened by the unpacked view. I do. But I should have sympathy that other people don't necesarily unpack the view in the way that I have. And they don't necessarily endorse the way that I have unpacked it....
> I think when we talk in terms of national "traits" we find ourselves on thin ice. One nationality may be known for thriftiness, another for arrogance, yet another for being too emotional. Come to think of it, most national traits are negative, and best left unrepeated, lest we insult people of that particular national persuasion.I guess I wasn't thinking so much of national traits so much as a political ideal that most people in the nation embrace. But perhaps that does blur into national traits like you say... But I don't know. I'm not really trying to say anything about the particular people and their beliefs. I'm not really trying to say that if you did a survey then this is the finding you would expect. Maybe the problem is that I"m not so sure what I'm saying. I think... I take yourpoint. I agree. I suoldn't have started talking about 'amercian individualism' in the first place.
I'm sorry.
> Perhaps, I'm missing something. Babblespeak isn't my native tongue.Thanks for trying to help me out.
Take care.
Posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 23:20:25
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah » verne, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:56:40
to apologize on my account. You never did anything all that objectionable. I, on the other hand, threw a hissy fit over nothing. I should be sorry.
Too late to meditate but I hope to start tomorrow (Sure that's what they all say)
Verne
Posted by gardenergirl on November 7, 2005, at 1:19:24
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah, posted by verne on November 6, 2005, at 22:44:16
I think your analysis is spot on.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2005, at 1:27:25
In reply to Re: Sorry Dinah » verne, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 22:56:40
> > There may be nothing wrong with saying "american individualism" if there's no negative judgement attached. The rub may be in suggesting that it isn't "fair" or "acceptable" and "frightening".
>
> Yeah. I don't think there is anything overtly negative or anything in 'american individualism'. It is just if you really unpack what that is about... That you end up with something that I am opposed to. Because I don't think it is fair.Sorry, but saying you don't think it's fair may lead others to feel negatively judged, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.