"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
My references to welfare cases did not disparage the entire group nor did
I refer to them as one nor do I think that the majority are social
leeches. I referred to a subset of from whom I would expect the observed
behavior.

If that was your intent, then your sentiment was indeed less extreme than
your original phrasing (asking rhetorically, "what should you expect" from
welfare recipients?) suggested.

But even if you merely meant to suggest that receiving welfare payments
caused an elevated level of violence in a *minute fraction* of recipients in
N.O., your assertion is still unfairly issued without any
foundation--indeed, without even any *attempt* to provide a foundation. You
have not even shown that there *is* a higher level of violence in N.O. than
in other dire emergencies in the world in which civil authority collapsed
(in the absence of any history of welfare support)--let alone showing that
welfare support is the *cause* of the supposedly higher level of violence in
N.O.

For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a
speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's
partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O.
seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our
alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway
organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of
widespread disasters. (Or do you attribute the rise of the Mafia to welfare
payments, too?)

--Gary