Seeing as how True Red was getting a bit miffed about the drifting into political territory in the MF Central Katrina thread (cause that's pretty much the biggest thing worth discussing now), here's the official topic.
Alrighty then...discuss.
(Link to original topic is here if you want background info on the current discussion points.)
Thank you. 🙂
However, I have to disagree with Katrina being the biggest thing at the moment (unless you mean at the board--then if you discount the SPA and Sonic-related forums I can agree). While it's better than the usual garbage that's given spotlight (i.e. celebrity trials) in the general media, there are more important things going on. The open spot for the Supreme Court is one. Elections in many parts of the country are other issues that really are much more important. Paying attention to the reshuffling of committees in Congress and potential legislation are also important. The current attempt at reforms going on in the UN is also newsworthy.
Quote:
But she didn't specify what kind of assistance she needed. Plus, she told Bush to wait 24 hours so she could determine what assistance she would need.
Two different instances again.
1) This is what she specified on August 27th:
Quote:
August 27, 2005
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.Through:
Regional Director
FEMA Region VI
800 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76209Dear Mr. President:
Under the provisions of Section 501 (a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR 206.35, I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing. The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan and the remainder of the state to support the State Special Needs and Sheltering Plan.
Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.
Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of emergency assistance needed under the Stafford Act, and emergency assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure A.
The following information is furnished on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this emergency:
Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby.
Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby.
Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters.
Louisiana State Police (LSP): Providing support for the phased evacuation of the coastal areas.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Supporting the evacuation of the affected population and preparing for Search and Rescue Missions.Mr. President
Page Two
August 27, 2005Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD): Coordinating traffic flow and management of the evacuations routes with local officials and the State of Mississippi.
The following information is furnished on efforts and resources of other Federal agencies, which have been or will be used in responding to this incident:
FEMA ERT-A Team en-route.I certify that for this emergency, the State and local governments will assume all applicable non-Federal share of costs required by the Stafford Act.
I request Direct Federal assistance for work and services to save lives and protect property.
(a) List any reasons State and local government cannot perform or contract for performance, (if applicable).
(b) Specify the type of assistance requested.
In accordance with 44 CFR 206.208, the State of Louisiana agrees that it will, with respect to Direct Federal assistance:
1. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easement, and rights-of-ways necessary to accomplish the approved work.
2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the requested work, and shall indemnify the Federal Government against any claims arising from such work;
3. Provide reimbursement to FEMA for the non-Federal share of the cost of such work in accordance with the provisions of the FEMA-State Agreement; and
4. Assist the performing Federal agency in all support and local jurisdictional matters.
In addition, I anticipate the need for debris removal, which poses an immediate threat to lives, public health, and safety.
Pursuant to Sections 502 and 407 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5192 & 5173, the State agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United States of America for any claims arising from the removal of debris or wreckage for this disaster. The State agrees that debris removal from public and private property will not occur until the landowner signs an unconditional authorization for the removal of debris.
I have designated Mr. Art Jones as the State Coordinating Officer for this request. He will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in damage assessments and may provide further information or justification on my behalf.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
Governor
EnclosureENCLOSURE A TO EMERGENCY REQUEST
Estimated requirements for other Federal agency programs:
Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters. Costs estimated to range from $250,000-$500,000 to support (6) Shelter generator operations.
Louisiana State Police (LSP): Costs to support evacuations - $300,000 for a non-direct landfall.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Costs to support evacuations - $200,000 for a non-direct landfall.
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD): Costs to support evacuations - $2,000,000 for a non-direct landfall.Totals: $ 9,000,000
Estimated Requirements for assistance under the Stafford Act:
Coordination: $0
Technical and advisory assistance: $0
Debris removal: $0
Emergency protective measures: $ 9,000,000
Individuals and Households Program (IHP): $0
Distribution of emergency supplies: $0
Other (specify): $0Totals: $ 9,000,000
Grand Total: $ 9,000,000
The whole 24 hours thing refers to what happened AFTER Katrina had hit and was when the LA state and local officials met Bush directly. Again, the two situations were different.
Other stuff can be discussed later. ;p
Quote:
However, I have to disagree with Katrina being the biggest thing at the moment (unless you mean at the board--then if you discount the SPA and Sonic-related forums I can agree). While it's better than the usual garbage that's given spotlight (i.e. celebrity trials) in the general media, there are more important things going on. The open spot for the Supreme Court is one. Elections in many parts of the country are other issues that really are much more important. Paying attention to the reshuffling of committees in Congress and potential legislation are also important. The current attempt at reforms going on in the UN is also newsworthy.
I was talking about the aftermath of Katrina; the politics surrounding it are the biggest thing about it right now.
(will comment on the other stuff after sleeping)
Last-moment edit: What's your source for that request TR?
Last-second edit of an edit: N/M. Found the source.
Once again I repeat myself to educate yourself on NIMS.
Katrina was not such a terrible disaster in a humanitarian sense except in NO. Other areas that were devestated did not experience the human chaos, simply because their local emergency response was adequate until more aid could arrive. This is how NIMS works.
NO became an issue because the city couldn't follow it's own plan. Most of it's police/EMS personnel evacuated instead of sticking around to service a supposedly empty city. This is clearly an issue in hindsight, police and firefighters can just up and walk off the job whereas soldiers cannot.
The LA National Guard should have been mobilized to assist in evacuation operations. The National Guard can be, and should be, mobilized by the governor. This is clear in hindsight.
One of the things that really chaps my hide is all the flack that FEMA is getting. FEMA's job is to assess and coordinate, not assume command and dictate. The National Incident Management System places the LOCAL officials as Incident Command. This means that the NO Emergency Management team did not do their job effectively.
What it boils down to is the City of NO failed, and the Federal response was not quick enough to cover up for that failure. Truth be told having the biggest humanitarian disaster so deep into the heart of destruction didn't make it easy to get help in.
Remember that it is easy to get in small teams, but it is difficult to get in 10,000 soldiers, heavy equipment, truckloads of food and medicine. It is a logistical nightmare. I believe that given the circumstances the Federal Response was adequate for every area of the the disaster except NO.
After a SNAFU like this, people expect heads to roll, and the former FEMA director was the first casualty. Unfortunately it is purely symbolic. Changing the head of FEMA isn't going to fix a failure at the local/state level.
So the lesson learned is, act like California and activate the NG immediately after the incident (or before if you know it's coming), USE the emergency plan that you have at the local level, hold out long enough for federal aid to arrive.
Of course if you are familiar with NIMS, then this lesson has already been learned.
Jimro
Quote:
Most of it's police/EMS personnel evacuated instead of sticking around to service a supposedly empty city. This is clearly an issue in hindsight, police and firefighters can just up and walk off the job whereas soldiers cannot.
You're the first person I recall seeing that's actually admitted this. I was wondering if I was the only one who knew about this. If the people who're supposed to being doing the work on the ground leave, you're basically helpless to do much.
Quote:
The LA National Guard should have been mobilized to assist in evacuation operations. The National Guard can be, and should be, mobilized by the governor. This is clear in hindsight.
I don't have the time to look it up now, but part of the issue was the placement of National Guard equipment moreso than anything else. I remember clearly that New Orleans basically gave the all clear immediately after the hurricane since the levees hadn't broken. The problem was when the levees broke, it flooded out some of the places where things had been stored that could've been used--whether it's the infamous buses or the not so widely reported equipment--in immediate operations.
Quote:
One of the things that really chaps my hide is all the flack that FEMA is getting.
I don't see how it's really all that bad. There should be a change in terms of federal response/preparedness for major catastrophes as far as I'm concerned and this creates an opportunity for debate that wouldn't exist otherwise. We all know it takes a disaster to get most people's attention. ;p
(curses inability to sleep)
Quote:
You're the first person I recall seeing that's actually admitted this. I was wondering if I was the only one who knew about this. If the people who're supposed to being doing the work on the ground leave, you're basically helpless to do much.
Huh. I thought the policemen had been mentioned earlier in the MF Central thread.
Oh well. That's a big point; when one sees policemen doing the looting (as has been reported; a good number of NO policemen are actually former criminals), the sense of established law tends to be a bit meaningless in the eyes of those who were still in New Orleans at the time.
Police I remember being mentioned, but not the EMS and other first responders (along with bus drivers ironically) that left either before Katrina or right after it hit in the middle of the chaos.
TrueRed,
I don't see how it's really all that bad. There should be a change in terms of federal response/preparedness for major catastrophes as far as I'm concerned and this creates an opportunity for debate that wouldn't exist otherwise. We all know it takes a disaster to get most people's attention. ;p
There hasn't been a need for change before because the Local/State plans have been adequate in the past.
I am part of a hospital that has a mobil surgical unit containerized, just waiting to go at a moments notice. We get the call and 72 hours later we are practicing medicine in the affected area. There are 5 such units covering the 5 FEMA areas of the continental united states.
The reserve military forces have been reorganized to assist FEMA in homeland security missions, but we still have a response time between 48 and 72 hours. The military reserve is different from the National Guard. The military reserve can only be activated by the Federal Govt.
The Incident Commander must tell FEMA what they need, then FEMA activates federal assets to fill that need. That activation process takes time.
NO, and LA, did not have a clear idea of the assets that they needed, as your above post clearly shows, so FEMA was left with the the assessing mission to figure out what was needed, this is NOT FEMA's job. The Incident Commander is in charge, FEMA assists the incident commander as per the National Incident Management System, NIMS.
NIMS works, and it has worked since the 70's. There is no need to change a working system at the Federal level because the local response was inadequate.
LA had/has all the organic assets that it needs to set up an Incident Command Center to begin incident management. They did not do so in an effective manner. Even NG units have access to military satellite phones, mobil switchboards and tacsat equipment.
There was NOTHING for FEMA to come in and assist. Having a mayor and governor screaming for assistance is fine for political points with the masses, but until they start communicating meaningful data to FEMA, FEMA doesn't know to activate a hospital, engineer company, or infantry division.
Posse Commitatus does not allow the Feds to just take charge, the state MUST request federal aid. The reality of the situation is that there is a working system in place, it has proved itself in the past, is better equipped and trained than it has ever been before, at the Federal level.
But Federal response is dictated by the Local Incident Commander as required by US Law.
If you want Federal Response to change, repeal Posse Commitatus of 1887. If you see a change that would help us within the existing legal framework, please offer it.
Jimro
I like it when people already post stuff for me. ^_^
Quote:
If you want Federal Response to change, repeal Posse Commitatus of 1887.
Bingo. Though I don't think it needs to be totally repealed, but it should be adjusted to fit the situations that can occur in this day in age that can/will require assistance that can only be achieved by the federal government's resources.
Besides, though it isn't talked about as much, it's not like Mississippi is being helped much by FEMA either at the moment. In fact, some are making the case that the screaming by Louisiana helped it out to some degree. Some hard hit areas have yet to be serviced at all in Mississippi by anyone other than people doing volunteer work throughout this country and it's been over 2 weeks since Katrina. There's some local/state incompetence all over the place, but there's plenty of federal issues as well.
If federal aid isn't requested, why do people wonder when it doesn't show up?
Two weeks without power is par for the course for a hurricane even of this magnitude. Fixing stuff takes time and coordination. I'd expect another two weeks for the affected rural areas.
Jimro
CBC:
It appears that Hurricane Katrina could do what years of litigation and rulings by various trade panels could not -- force the U.S. government to reduce its import duties on Canadian lumber.
The rebuilding effort on the Gulf Coast could prompt the American Treasury Department to reduce the 27 per cent duties imposed on much -needed Canadian softwood.
"The government has the authority to adjust the tariffs in an emergency situation, but no determination has been made yet," said U.S. Treasury Department spokesperson Tony Fratto.
Fratto said the administration will not act until it has more information about the prices of building products in the wake of Katrina.
"Obviously, if there are severe price spikes and severe shortages, we would want to take a look at whether a government response" was needed, Fratto added.
Those fees have been at the heart of the longstanding U.S.-Canada trade dispute. The American lumber industry says those tariffs have been necessary because it feels Canada provides unfair subsidies on its lumber.
Beside Canadian wood, the U.S. Treasury could also reduce the 54.9 per cent duties imposed on cement imported from Mexico.
Life is funny sometimes.
Bleh. The tarrifs were a horrendous idea to begin with; in this age of free trade, tarrifs are what one would call a fossil. As things stand, the lumber industry in America will only lose in the long run over this, with the vice-versa being true for Canada.
EDIT: But then again, Canada did impose subsidies on the softwood...
I don't endorse free trade, I endorse fair trade.
I'm glad that Canadian's are happy about selling their lumber cheaper.
Jimro
Much to Bush's consternation, uttering the words "I take responsibility" did not miraculously make everything better. Eventually it became apparent that he would need to do more to help the victims of the hurricane, and to improve his flagging approval ratings. So on Thursday he held a televised address to the nation in which he promised "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." Some in the president's own party estimated that Bush's reconstruction proposals would cost more than the war in Iraq, hundreds of billions of dollars.
There once was a time when a massive increase in spending such as this would cause some killjoy, green-eyeshade, bean-counter types to ask, sheepishly, "um, how, exactly, are you going to pay for that?" As you well know, that time is long past. Cough, cough. The United States is now so ridiculously far beyond the point where government revenues no longer cover its expenses, that it is laughable to even bother worrying about it. In 2004, the federal budget deficit was a record $412 billion. Throw in the money for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, and the deficit might as well be "a hundred billion gajillion" because actual numbers no longer matter. It's all just a massive pile of IOUs to foreign creditors, which will be foisted upon future generations of Americans.
So, what the hell, how about if they just go ahead and pass another massive tax cut? Now would be the perfect time! In fact, they should just get rid of taxes altogether. Instead, they'll keep on spending more and more, and they'll keep borrowing more money from foreign banks. And when those foreign banks ask them to pay the interest (or, God forbid, the principal) on their loans, they'll just take out more loans from more banks. It'll be the world's greatest pyramid scheme! If they're lucky, they will all be dead before anyone figures out that someone has to actually pay for all this borrowing.
You speak many words yet say little.
Deficit spending can be fixed, Reagan did it, Clinton did it.
If the US economy tanks due to Govt. debt, I'm sure that China and the EU will have no problem taking over. Currently China and the EU have more consumer power than the US anyways.
If the US defaults on it's loans, we'll just ask to have them forgiven, because then we'd be the "poor impoverished" country in need of assistance. I'm sure Canada would vote for debt reduction at the next G8 summit.
Deficit spending is a big deal, and it cannot continue indeffinately. The consequences in would be massive devaluation of the dollar, even beyond the current strength of the Euro and Yen, to basically the Lira level...
So yes, we need to fix it, and soon. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, ranting in your usual manner. You are nothing if not predictable.
Jimro
My point was mainly about the sheer idiocy in wanting to rebuild New Orleans. I got a bit carried away there, but I'm glad you enjoyed it.
That's one thing about President Bush I can agree with you on Cycle; a fiscal conservative he ain't.
If they were to rebuild New Orleans, they should rebuild it further northward so it would be at sea level (AT THE VERY LEAST).
One promising thing from the speech though is the creation of the enterprise zones, complete with tax incentives for businesses. That should be helpful for getting jobs back.
Oh well. If Bush starts cutting pork from the federal budget, then this rebuilding plan might rest a little more easily on people's minds (even though that's what insurance companies are there for).
Little bit of trivia: Did you know that federal spending decreased during every year of Calvin Coolidge's presidency?
When one major party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches, they become big spenders.
Fiscal responsibility is easy when the two parties have to hammer out compromises for the budget. Reagan had a Democrat majority in Congress, as did Bush, Clinton and the democrats enjoyed control until the 1994 "Republican Revolution", GWBush has had a Republican majority for the entirety of his administration.
Jimro
Quote:
If federal aid isn't requested, why do people wonder when it doesn't show up?
I'd be referring to the people in Mississippi (mainly in rural areas) mentioned either on Fox News or MSNBC that actually were in contact with FEMA 2-3 days after Katrina, requested stuff, and then hadn't receieved anything from FEMA in terms of trailers, tents, etc. and/or appropriate food and water. I wouldn't be talking about electricity or running water, which are things most people know not to expect anytime soon.
As for your comment about both branches being controlled by one party being horrendous on the government spending, that's a possibility. It definitely seems that way with the current setup.
When one major party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches, they become big spenders.
Sounds like an excuse to me. The Republicans are supposed to be conservative, n'est-ce pas? Or perhaps the conservative model of government doesn't exist anymore, as evidenced by the last two Republican administrations, and the Canadian Mulroney government of the 80s.
"Oh, see, we control both branches of government now, so we just can't control ourselves. We're gonna spend aaaallll your money, and it's not our fault: it's yours for electing a so-called 'conservative' party which, by definition, is supposed to be frugal and strategic with government spending. So long, suckaz!"
Quote:
Or perhaps the conservative model of government doesn't exist anymore, as evidenced by the last two Republican administrations, and the Canadian Mulroney government of the 80s.
It's just hiding. If the Republicans don't realize what dangerous ground they're treading (and soon), they're going to upset a lot of people.
As things are currently going, it won't be long before people start voting for a conservative 3rd party, like the Constitution Party.
When one major party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches, they become big spenders.
Sounds like an excuse to me. The Republicans are supposed to be conservative, n'est-ce pas? Or perhaps the conservative model of government doesn't exist anymore, as evidenced by the last two Republican administrations, and the Canadian Mulroney government of the 80s.
Actually "conservative" and "liberal" have to do with interpretation of law. Is the the law to be conservatively interpreted in a historical sense, or liberally interpretted against history.
Fiscally conservative has nothing to do with party affiliation, since no party has "more spending all around" on their ticket. Democrats cripple the military and increase spending on social programs. Republicans freeze spending on social programs (or try to consolidate them) and stimulate business by increasing military contracts.
Both models work fiscally, but not in the same situations. Clinton enjoyed an era of military downsizing while increasing troop deployment by 300%. This is "robbing Peter to pay Paul", the diverted funds were put to other uses, most of which were quite worthy of funding. As such GWBush had to massively increase funding of the military to have the ability to do anything other than precision bomb Chinese embassies.
However, Bush has been following the Reagan model, spend as you need to get the job done. If he continues to follow the Reagan model, they will pass a balanced budget next year and set a plan to pay off the deficit by 2016. The only fix for this is spend less or tax more.
On a side note, the military is not just the fighting arm of the US, it is a social program in and of itself. The GI Bill has put more Americans through college, myself included, than any other education program. However the current military does not have the numbers of the WWII military, so the impact on the economy is not as great as that of the WWII generation on the 1950's and 60's.
Jimro
If he continues to follow the Reagan model, they will pass a balanced budget next year and set a plan to pay off the deficit by 2016.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Not as coherent or connected as I wanted, but I have 2 papers to finish writing among other assignments and I also like to fulfill my promises, so it was this or nothing. 😉 For those who don't know, the inspiration for the subject title is shameful stealing of John Edwards' theme in his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nod in 2004. ;p
I don't think anyone would deny that there's a huge disparity among what people in the U.S. earn or have in terms of money, assets, etc. and it's more than obvious that people see things very differently in part as a result of it. Two other things that tends to cause people to see things differently are race and ethnicity. I put the "Two" in quotes in the topic title because there are more than "Two Americas" in reality. Many of them exist (checking out local Asian American shows concerning their discrimination/racism/etc. issues I find very enlightening at times). But using those horrible generalizations that many hate due to individuals being different, I'm going to start the ball rolling a little in both the class and race/ethnicity (focusing on the minority group I know best, Blacks, in this sense) issues.
The dictionary is one of the greatest wonders of the world. Of course, there are many different dictionaries and the dictionaries don't always agree. However, in terms of starting the discussion on the class stuff starting with the welfare state, I decided to just check mine (Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition to be exact) to see if it had a definition of the term. To my pleasure it did.
Quote:
welfare state a state in which the welfare of its citizens, with regard to employment, medical care, social security, etc., is considered the responsibility of the government
That fits perfectly and explains why I feel it's inaccurate to refer to the U.S. (or any part of it) as a welfare state. As I said in response in another topic as a quickie response, I don't consider the mere existence of something to mean something to be so. A person can sound or act like a duck, but that doesn't make a person a duck. By extension, as the U.S. government (federal, state, or local) does not consider it to be its responsibility to provide any of those services to its citizens (other than a security force: police/military), it fails to be a welfare state. The government, if you fit certain criteria, does provide medical care, social security, and some other options, but the prevailing idea is that each individual is responsible for their own well-being. The government would be much more proactive in informing people about the services that the people don't take advantage of that the people could get if it felt the responsibility fell on the government along with the fact that there would be more universal services provided. The capitalistic nature of the U.S. economy is reflected in the government's operations and how it handles even the types of welfare it provides and how it provides them. The only reason the government even contains a military/police is that without this type of welfare service, we'd all be one step closer to living in anarchy. ;p Most don't even consider police/military to be welfare services, but considering security does affect the well-being of the citizens, those are welfare services too as far as I'm concerned. That also extends into why the government provides some of the things it does: it keeps the number of truly desperate people down. The more desperate people become, the less likely people are to follow anything that resembles order.
But, even disagreeing on what constitutes a welfare state and what doesn't, that isn't really the problem in terms of class. In fact, one of the biggest problems is in terms of what people mean by "welfare state." Many times people who use the term are implying or outright stating that the people who depend on some assistance either like or prefer living with assistance to being completely self-reliant. This usually comes from the "haves" towards the "have-nots" from focusing on lazy poor people they've seen/heard about, while ignoring the millions of others that are hard-working but can't get out of it. It's very easy to become poor no matter what class level you start. However, it is much harder to become even middle class (and forget rich) unless you start out that way. Otherwise, people that start out with close to nothing need some "hand-outs," to be given a chance, etc., or they wouldn't have a shot in the real world where money talks almost more than anything. Talking about investing money is nice when the option isn't invest or starve. Some point to education being the great equalizer, but beyond high school (which doesn't get you much in the way of jobs anymore), education isn't free, which can be a problem. Depending on the circumstances, even attempting to get an education over getting a job can be a problem prior to getting out of high school. Going to public school, I knew of situations that arose causing kids to drop out to support families. I see it more now teaching in a public school than I did when I went to high school a decade ago.
On the other side of the spectrum, one of the biggest problems is usually a sense of jealousy and anger that grows among the "have-nots" towards the "haves," particularly when people end up doing nothing but get a lot of stuff due to being "born rich" or lucky, whereas they work hard and have nearly nothing. This gets exacerbated in many ways due to the general "more and bigger is better" undercurrent to society. That helps feed it, as well as the attention certain people get over those that do any good deeds.
In case it's not obvious, perceptions, particularly the negative stereotypes, that prevail in the minds of people hurt a lot. Beyond that, it's actually a case of finding what works, what doesn't, and whether or not people are willing to try to make it work on all sides. Due to the way I was raised and the wonderful Spider-Man line of "With great power comes great responsibility," I've always felt it's more on those with the power and the money to assist those without it than it is on those without the power/money to figure out a way to obtain it. That's a philosophical outlook that isn't universally shared and also causes a problem because who is in charge of the government affects what programs are funded, which aren't and even how the programs are operated. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter, but I don't like the fact that the amount of people who were considered to be in poverty based on the national figure has been increasing. Of course, I feel that number is actually higher since people who live in places such as NY are undercounted by the national cut-off figure due to the higher costs of living versus the national average. ;p
Bush's recent comments (which I will not attempt to quote since I didn't see his speech but only read reports about it as I was in class when he gave it--gotta love getting a Masters degree ;p) about not ignoring the history of discrimination has had on the situation in terms of many people who are currently poor or in poverty in the U.S. were very interesting. It's something many in minority communities have been screaming for decades and is usually one of the main reasons why many are loathed to abandon affirmative action anytime soon. The history is also why many took the usage of the word "refugees" to be "racist." Going back to my lovely dictionary again, here's what it gives as a definition, which gives just one part of the whole source of this particular word issue.
Quote:
refugee a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or of political or religious persecution
Now if you ignore the part about war or persecution as being part of the definition for refugee, then you won't see a problem with calling anyone a refugee in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. If you take into account the circumstances to qualify to be a refugee, then it starts to be different. Going back to Bush's recent comments, I also found it interesting that he basically used the U.N.'s terminology for people who must relocate but stay within their own country's borders due to a natural disaster: "internally displaced citizens" (the U.N. terminology is technically "internally displaced people" if I recall correctly).
However, that alone isn't why some people screamed "racism." Not even the widely known articles/news reports where a picture of Black people taking food from a store were called looters whereas in the same exact articles/news reports a picture of White people taking food from a store were said to have found some food for survival is the reason the refugee comments struck the nerve in many people. It all starts with history.
I think this analogy explains the issue on all sides to a degree. You're married and one day your spouse cheats on you. You find out about it. Think about how you would take it. Everyone's different, but most don't take cheating in a relationship very well. Using the situations where both parties attempt to repair and continue the relationship, the trust factor is usually gone and takes a very long time to fix. Any little thing by your spouse could set off alarms during the time it takes to establish trust. Trust is the hardest thing to gain, but the easiest thing to lose.
Now, think about the history of just about any minority group in this country. If I continue using Blacks, let's just say it's 200+ years of slavery in the colonies/country, followed by a brief period of semi-equality (by 1860s-1870s standards), followed by the rise of the KKK/Jim Crow/etc., followed by the culmination of liberalism in the 1950s-1970s that forced equality into the U.S. All those years would be equivalent to the act of your spouse cheating on you. Your spouse could have just cheated on you for one night, but it'll take much longer than one night for the trust to come back. In terms of race relations, we're in the equivalent stage where you are trying to trust your spouse again.
It's the lack of trust that causes people to see things the way they do. The fact that many people who did suffer under at least the KKK/Jim Crow/etc. aspect of the last major legal abuse of minorities are still alive is also a factor. Then there's the separation factor that still currently exists which feeds into stereotypes. My home of Long Island was cited as the fourth most segregated suburb in the U.S. this year even though NY is considered by many outside of it to be a "liberal" state (as a side-note, I do sometimes think this country does a disservice in teaching history most of the time by ignoring the fact that it wasn't just the South that had tons of racism issues in terms of emphasis). We've also had cited practices that have for years attempted to keep Black people out of public parks and house-buying steering to keep certain types of people out of certain neighborhoods this year too.
The general belief is that racism is dead on the White-side of the aisle. The constant hearing that the Black-side sees a problem for seemingly no reason causes resentment (ala the problems your spouse may have when being "good" but considered "bad" by you due to you not having full confidence yet). At times this manifests itself with for example trying to figure out whether or not a minority got the job/promotion/etc. because the person is a minority or on merit and deciding it was probably the former, not the latter when it actually was on merit (among many examples that could be cited). It also causes people to just think that they're being faulted for others "sins" and not their own.
Rarely are hundreds of years of trust issues undone in a few decades. It's even rarer when people don't talk other than to either say "there exists a problem, fool" or "there isn't a problem, idiot" and nothing else. That's why I actually found one of the more heartening unreported stories of Hurricane Katrina were the comments made by some Black people from New Orleans saying that they never knew White people could be kind or that White people aren't as bad as they thought. Some might say that's crazy, but if you've never experienced it (due to the segregation that exists throughout this country for various reasons, including class), it isn't all that far-fetched. I've always subscribed to the belief that if you can't even talk about something, that there is some form of a problem. Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Independents, Greens, Libertarians, etc. may disagree on many issues. But even as poisoned some feel politics has become lately, people talk more on those issues than people do with the deep-rooted historical racial/ethnic issues, which I personally believe would be the easiest of all to "solve" if it were discussed openly and honestly.
Anyway, the rambling post touching on some things I remember seeing posted in a few places is done. If it makes no sense, I'll clear it up whenever I get the time later. ;p
Quote:
The general belief is that racism is dead on the White-side of the aisle. The constant hearing that the Black-side sees a problem for seemingly no reason causes resentmen
This is something that I see a lot of when reading Internet reports and blogs (not to mention interviews and debates on TV); racism always comes from Whites. At least, that's what everyone says.
Nowadays, it's gotten to the point where Whites are the target of racism, but you rarely ever hear about it. >.>
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Prejudice goes every which way, regardless of class, race, age, sex and nationality. White people kvetch about Asians "taking their jobs", while those same Asians forbid their kids to socialize with people who aren't of the same heritage. CNN calls white thieves "foragers" and black thieves "looters" (seriously, I saw it happen on several occasions). Muslim extremists celebrate the death and tragedy of Westerners, while right-wing Westerners celebrate the death and tragedy of Muslims. Some men treat women like chattel, while some women treat men like retards. Americans think French people are effeminate pussies and the French think Americans are loud, fat and stupid. Mexicans steal from hapless tourists, tourists avoid Mexicans like the plague because they think they're all thieves. Christians call homosexuals sinners, homosexuals call Christians stupid. Just the other day, I was on the skytrain when an old gent wearing a turban got on. Some lady took one look at him, leaped up and left the train, but stayed on the platform (obviously waiting for the next one).
To think any one group is the primary target of all the world's prejudice is laughable. Sure, maybe people who practice Falun Gong might be an identifiable target of prejudice in China, but then, I've seen shrill white people in Canada haranguing Chinese people for their horrible treatment of Falun Gong.
True Red,
The crux of your position was contained in one paragraph.
It's very easy to become poor no matter what class level you start. True
However, it is much harder to become even middle class (and forget rich) unless you start out that way. Otherwise, people that start out with close to nothing need some "hand-outs," to be given a chance, etc., or they wouldn't have a shot in the real world where money talks almost more than anything. Not true, read "The Millionaire Next Door" and "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". The most successful people I know are tradesmen; contractors, machinists, masons, and plumbers, who learned a skill instead of going to college.
Talking about investing money is nice when the option isn't invest or starve. Some point to education being the great equalizer, but beyond high school (which doesn't get you much in the way of jobs anymore), education isn't free, which can be a problem. Education is highly subsidized, if someone is poor and motivated, they can get through school. They can also learn a skill through an apprenticeship program; plumber, machinist, mason, electrician, carpenter, roofer, etc. If they make poor choices they will suffer the consequences of poor choices. Having babies while in high school is a poor choice. When education is free to citizens, like in Georgia (as long as they maintain a C average), you can't make the poor go to school.
You are totally ignoring the differences in culture between blacks, whites, asians, and mexicans. My success in life, and my fathers success, doesn't have anything to do with being white, it has to do with working hard. I come from a culture that taught hard work as a virtue, most asians come from the same culture. Every hispanic I know works like a crazy man and is proud to provide for his family. From the black culture of America success in school is seen as "acting white", and is discouraged. Black leaders have been urging blacks to abandon the "crawdad" behavior of tearing down successful blacks, like crawdads in a bucket pull down the crawdad with the most likely chance of getting out instead of lifting it up.
I realize that these are sweeping generalizations, there are poor lazy white folks, I've met them. There are hard working black folks, I've met them too. But we cannot talk about culture without making sweeping generalizations, so I hope that ya'll will forgive me. There is an exception to every rule, including this one.
Racism is rampant in the US, but very seldomly at an institutional level. Racism will always exist at the personal level no matter what, people have free will. Recognizing that it exists does absolutely nothing to to fix the problem, because change must come from within. But things are better now than they were a generation ago, and will continue to get better. Everyone has hope for the future.
But there will always be poor people who expect other people to take care of them. There will always be Democrats that don't believe in personal responsibility and push for more social progams. But the truth of the matter is that you can provide a horse a water trough, but can't force it to drink.
We can't force people to be successful. As a teach you must surely know that you can't even force students to learn.
Jimro
Quote:
The most successful people I know are tradesmen; contractors, machinists, masons, and plumbers, who learned a skill instead of going to college.
That's true, if that option is given and desired. I do know people at times look down on those who try to go for a trade instead of school. You have to be a lawyer, doctor, businessman, etc. to be considered "successful." No one wants to be a "plumber" or a "mechanic." That attitude toward trades I'm sure varies from place to place. It's one of the reasons why I didn't really disagree with Louis Farrakhan on saying that Black leaders shouldn't have been upset with Vicente Fox for saying illegal Mexican immigrants take jobs that Black people don't want since if most people are honest, they know it's true.
Quote:
If they make poor choices they will suffer the consequences of poor choices. Having babies while in high school is a poor choice.
True. Of course, some of those supporting family issues come from a parent becoming too sick to work and needing income from another person. That's what happened to a high school friend of mine during our senior year. When his mom got sick, he dropped out to earn money so that there would be food on the table (among other money issues) for his younger sisters. Things like that happen, too.
Quote:
You are totally ignoring the differences in culture between blacks, whites, asians, and mexicans.
I think I had written more than enough by that point. ^_~
Quote:
As a teach you must surely know that you can't even force students to learn.
True.
The most successful people I know are tradesmen; contractors, machinists, masons, and plumbers, who learned a skill instead of going to college.
That's because there's a general shortage of tradespeople. If everyone learned skilled trades, then there'd be a lot of tradespeople out of work.
Thank you for that astute observation. If everyone had a business degree there'd be a lot of business people out of work as well.
Now if everyone had a Law degree....
Jimro
