Liberalism VS. the Katrina Disaster and the USA

drunk_medic

7Ms are for Cressidas
Apr 1, 2005
574
0
0
Woodstock, GA
Failure of an idea
... and a people

In his 1935 State of the Union Address, FDR spoke to a nation mired in the Depression, but still marinated in conservative values:

"Continued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.

And we did, until the war pulled us out of the Depression and a postwar boom made us, in John K. Galbraith's phrase, "The Affluent Society." By the 1960s, America, the richest country on earth, was growing ever more prosperous. But with the 1964 landslide of LBJ, liberalism triumphed and began its great experiment.

Behind the Great Society was a great idea: to lift America's poor out of poverty, government should now take care of all their basic needs. By giving the poor welfare, subsidized food, public housing and free medical care, government will end poverty in America.

At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters who left their posts to look after their families, engaged in running gun battles all day long to stay alive and protect people.

It was the character and conduct of its people that makes the New Orleans disaster unique. After a hurricane, people's needs are simple: food, water, shelter, medical attention. But they can be hard to meet. People buried in rubble or hiding in attics of flooded homes are tough to get to. But, even with the incompetence of the mayor and governor, and the torpor of federal officials, this was possible.

Coast Guard helicopters were operating Tuesday. There were roads open into the city for SUVs, buses and trucks. While New Orleans was flooded, the water was stagnant. People walked through to the convention center and Superdome. The flimsiest boat could navigate.

Even if government dithered for days – what else is new – this does not explain the failure of the people themselves.

Between 1865 and 1940, the South – having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty – was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people, black and white.

In 1940, hundreds of British fishermen and yachtsmen sailed back and forth daily under fire across a turbulent 23-mile Channel to rescue 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk. How do we explain to the world that a tenth that number of Americans could not be reached in four days from across a stagnant pond?

The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.

Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.

Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives as Katrina has thus far.

We are the descendants of men and women who braved the North Atlantic in wooden boats to build a country in a strange land. Our ancestors traveled thousands of miles in covered wagons, fighting off Indians far braver than those cowards preying on New Orleans' poor.

Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were. And what are all our Lords Temporal now howling for? Though government failed at every level, they want more government.

FDR was right. A "spiritual disintegration" has overtaken us. Government-as-first provider, the big idea of the Great Society, has proven to be "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
38
The Farm
Thats welfare for you, I think its the biggest waste of government money around, Tennessee is a very good example, Tenn Care, I knew of a Girls mother who worked in one of the Tenn Care offices and said that they had people that were from cali. that were taking the benifits of Tenn Care.
The Katrina thing shows that people get to dependent on hand outs, and when they dont come, they get pissed, it was pretty much free in the first place, how could you get mad?
and as for the men/kids of this society, its getting bad and when everyone thinks their the shit, thats a problem. My mom says this alot, "the children of this society, start off riding in the wagon and not pulling it". Now these children have grown up feeling that its the governments turn to pull the wagon. This is a problem that started after WWII and is starting to take its tole now, starting in the 90s. Katrina is show the true colors of how people will react to dire situations, on this large of a scale.
 

CTsupra

Supramania Contributor
i agree with what was said above. i also have no more words for what's going on in fucking new orleans. i'm sick of hearing about it, and i'm sick of hearing all the commercials and celebrities exploiting it all.

why don't they send their own money. i'm pretty sure if every sports player, celebrity, whoever sent just one games $80,000 pay check, or 1 million dollars (what is that? chump change to them?) everyone will be eating a nice hot meal. where's the stupid christians children fund? why don't those assholes send money?

don't even get me started about those $2000 debit cards. wtf, i want one.
 

lagged

1991 1JZ
Mar 30, 2005
2,616
0
0
38
new rochelle
it costs money to save those people. those in charge wont make much money REALLY going out to save those people.

no body incharge, no body making the money (believe me.....its more money than bill gates makes, + the power of control over the entire fucking world..)

cares about those people. FEMA turned away voluteers that came to PHYSICALLY help those people. what they DIDNT turn away was the CA$H donations.
 

Greg55_99

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
55
0
0
MA
I guess I'll be blunt. I'm reading this material you've put up and I'm wondering why. Is this supposed to put the blame for starving and dehydrated people in the Superdome on welfare? Does it imply that Black American citizens in NO are lazy layabouts that only expect the government to help them because they refuse to help themselves? Seems like it to me.

What a load of horse manure....

What I really see is an attempt by the author to put the blame on ANYBODY but the failed leadership of the President and those he appointed to handle just such a disaster. Maybe you've forgotten, but my memory serves me fairly well on the sequence of Katrina events. I clearly remember Bush, Chertoff and Brown saying everything was under control in NO was being handled... when in fact... it wasn't. I have no recollection of the mayor ever saying anything was under control.

But, let's dig a bit further. It seems to imply that white people in a natural disaster do not riot, loot or go totally batshit.... while Black people (victims of the welfare state) do.

Uh huh.... Here's a quote from Col Charles Morris, district commander of Pacific Heights just after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906:

"I ordered the destruction of intoxicating liquor "Wherever it could be found", or in words to that effect; it being, in my judgement, an imperative necessity to do so in order to safeguard the lives of homeless and defenseless men, women, and children.

Rioting and drunkenness by a turbulent element were already rife at places where liquor was procurable, and it was only through prompt and energetic action that such disorders were quelled in their incipiency. As a district commander I was expected and required to preserve order in my district; to do so I was compelled to remove every discovered cause that would logically result in disorder. The police had vanished from the streets. It was a physical impossibility, with the number of soldiers available, to prevent access to liquor by those that would undoubtedly have stolen it. The liquor could not be sold; it could not be given away; it could not be removed to a military reservation or to any place where it would be beyond the reach of the lawless element; its existence was an unfair temptation to the soldiers, and a distinct menace to good discipline. For these reasons, it was destroyed. "

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/liquor.html

But WAIT.. there's more. Apparently in 1906, they had their program together moreso than they did in 2005.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/06pd1.html

But of course, when troops are "Johnny on the spot" as they were in 1906 as they SHOULD have been in 2005... nothing happens. From the memoirs of Brig Gen Frederick Funston - 1906

"Through all this terrible disaster, the conduct of the people had been admirable. There was very little panic and no serious disorder. San Francisco had its class of people, no doubt, who would have taken advantage of any opportunity to plunder the banks and rich jewelry and other stores of the city, but the presence of the square-jawed silent men with magazine rifles, fixed bayonets, and with belts full of cartridges restrained them. There was no necessity for the regular troops to shoot anybody and there is no well-authenticated case of a single person having been killed by regular troops."

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/cosmo.html

So... don't piss down my leg and tell me it's rainin'....

Greg
 

drunk_medic

7Ms are for Cressidas
Apr 1, 2005
574
0
0
Woodstock, GA
You are looking at a portrait of a society of people who were scared of guns and violence. We've been de-sensitized so far in this future. People have no fear or respect anymore. To me, what you typed just says that people had respect for authority back then, and do not now - and it's true. A simple example - Back then, an unruly child in the schoolhouse would be whooped by the teacher. These days, if a kid mouths off in school, they get a referral to the principal or detention, which is another chance for them to show their resent and disrespect of another set of authority figures - and they most certainly will.
Part of the problem is that people have been raised to believe that their opinion truly does matter, and that they are special and deserve special treatment. They do not have to earn it - it's there for the giving, because they are just that damn special. OH! And did I mention that people care about you? If they don't, you can disrespect them in any way you see fit. When you violate THEIR rights as a special individual, you won't have to worry about a long prison sentence, either - you will be out in 1/4 of your sentenced time, if it even takes that long.
Lack of repercussions. A series of slaps on the wrist. Our society has gone soft.

You can piss up a flagpole if you want, but don't tell ME it's raining.
 

SP 7M

Use your GUY instinct
Apr 6, 2005
274
0
0
42
Oceanside (for now), CA
www.myspace.com
Greg-Did you even read DM's first post? It seems to me as if you started at D34's post and continued with the posts after it.

If you don't like what certain people say, then direct your reply toward them. Stop beating around the bush and be straighforward already.

Greg-"But of course, when troops are "Johnny on the spot" as they were in 1906 as they SHOULD have been in 2005... nothing happens."

Excuse me?!

After DM wrote such a well-written post educatedly discussing how liberalism has been tearing our country apart for the last four decades (which is none less than a fact), you went on to discuss alcohol abuse in the early 1900's. What, if anything, are you trying to get at? Then you went on posting more links, as you have in the past. Can you just do us all a favor and type something to get some kind of point across-preferably yours.

If you're a liberal, say it.

Drunk_Medic-Very insightful writeup you've done there. I'd have to agree with everything you said. We are very much on the same track politically, which I appreciate.

Socialism (if you don't know what it is, do some research), which is basically what liberals want, is not the answer. Socialism has never been the answer-for anybody. The millions of people that were murdered by their own government under Stalin and Mao are a very real testament to that. Socialism is a repeat-failure as a form of goverment. There is no argument for it beyond that.

That's all for now...
 

Greg55_99

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
55
0
0
MA
SP 7M said:
Greg-Did you even read DM's first post? It seems to me as if you started at D34's post and continued with the posts after it.

If you don't like what certain people say, then direct your reply toward them. Stop beating around the bush and be straighforward already.

Yep, I damn sure did read it. If you've read my response, you'll notice I refered to the writer as "the author" as I'm unsure whether DM wrote this himself, or pasted this from some editorial someplace. Either way DM, if there's some causal relationship between starving and dying people in NO and Liberalism.... I aint see'in it.... The article is very "Ann Coulterish" in tone.

Greg-"But of course, when troops are "Johnny on the spot" as they were in 1906 as they SHOULD have been in 2005... nothing happens."

Excuse me?!

After DM wrote such a well-written post educatedly discussing how liberalism has been tearing our country apart for the last four decades (which is none less than a fact), you went on to discuss alcohol abuse in the early 1900's. What, if anything, are you trying to get at? Then you went on posting more links, as you have in the past. Can you just do us all a favor and type something to get some kind of point across-preferably yours.

Once again, that's not a FACT... that's an OPINION. In fact, IF you had gone to the link and read the ENTIRE document, you'd discover it had NOTHING to do with alcoholism. It pertained to how the US Army handled rioters and looters just after the 1906 earthquake. But..., once again, you did not.

If you're a liberal, say it.

Boy, there you go with those labels again.

Socialism (if you don't know what it is, do some research), which is basically what liberals want, is not the answer. Socialism has never been the answer-for anybody. The millions of people that were murdered by their own government under Stalin and Mao are a very real testament to that. Socialism is a repeat-failure as a form of goverment. There is no argument for it beyond that.

Well Joe McCarthy, you're still alive and well I see. You wonder why I post links to the things I discuss. That's because I prefer to back up my opinions with FACTS. I'm as passionate about what I believe as I'm sure you are.... but I like to use FACTS as a basis for my arguments. If I tell you that NO did NOT have 2000 school buses as was reported, I'll post a link to back that up as a FACT. If you tell me that Liberals are ruining the country, that's an OPINION. YOUR opinion at that. MY opinion is that the Bush administration screwed up (as well as the mayor and governor) in the aftermath of Katrina. And that's becoming more of a FACT every day.

Greg
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
38
The Farm
drunk_medic said:
Back then, an unruly child in the schoolhouse would be whooped by the teacher. These days, if a kid mouths off in school, they get a referral to the principal or detention, which is another chance for them to show their resent and disrespect of another set of authority figures - and they most certainly will.

damn straight and it starts with the kids here in the schools, show them that they authorities can't do anything and you got a reciepe for disaster.
My mom is a sub for some of the local schools, in dickson, and she says that she has kids that are the most disrespectful little fucks out there, and i beilieve her, because when i was going to school we had the same thing, kids had no respect for authority. I'm sure it started in the 80's and now those kids are grown up and they dont have repsect on a larger scale for authority(government).
I totally think its 50/50 with the fact being that if you want a kid to grow up understanding where he stands in life, it needs to be parents/school, and when one or both are out of the picture, the child is going to cause problems when he gets older. i know this may not be in all of the cases but it is quite often, not only in big cities but here in small towns as well.
 

Greg55_99

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
55
0
0
MA
I find it interesting how things can be taken out of context to prove this point or that. The Author of the article (Pat Buchanan) quoted several lines from FDR's 1935 State of the Union address. The actual and complete text of the line is thus:

"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers."

His speech is less about welfare and much much more about putting people to work on government projects paid for by taxpayer money and just how he was going to do it. Here's another gem from that 1935 speech:

"The security legislation which I shall propose to the Congress will, I am confident, be of assistance to local effort in the care of this type of cases. Local responsibility can and will be resumed, for, after all, common sense tells us that the wealth necessary for this task existed and still exists in the local community, and the dictates of sound administration require that this responsibility be in the first instance a local one. There are, however, an additional three and one half million employable people who are on relief. With them the problem is different and the responsibility is different. This group was the victim of a nation-wide depression caused by conditions which were not local but national. The Federal Government is the only governmental agency with sufficient power and credit to meet this situation. We have assumed this task and we shall not shrink from it in the future. It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three and one half million employable people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment"

A very noble plan. Anyway, before I leave.... here's one more GOOD line from that speech. Take a gut check SP 7M.

"Thus, the American people do not stand alone in the world in their desire for change. We seek it through tested liberal traditions, through processes which retain all of the deep essentials of that republican form of representative government first given to a troubled world by the United States."

Oh NO... he didn't use the "L" word and the "R" word in the same senctence.... :)

Read the whole thing and form your OWN opinion if you like.

http://www.janda.org/politxts/State of Union Addresses/1934-1945 Roosevelt/FDR35.html

Greg
 
Last edited: