Hurricane relief

"john smith" wrote in message
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you
learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way
*opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural
disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are
trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have
socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others. It
isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting off
alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards of
the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives.

From this mornings newspaper...
(Read the parts about 20% saying they would stay in their homes during any
storm.)

Sure. I might have been one of them. Although probably not in New Orleans.
Maybe you too. But I would wouldn't be looting stores or whining about the
government's failure to protect me from my own stupidity. I'd be responding
the way I would expect myself to in an emergency. To the best of my
abilities. And, assuming I survived, rethinking my strategy for next time.

A sizable percentage of the people who remained look forward to capitalizing
on this sort of thing.

The government is not my nanny.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you
learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way
*opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural
disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are
trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have
socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others.

"Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory
violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence?
If you have none, then how *dare* you characterize the behavior of a tiny
minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the
*essence* of pernicious sterotyping.

It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting
off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards
of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives.

What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and
intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing but
derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present supporting
evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as established fact, both
in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in fact, morally and
intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal responsibility" advocate to
hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking any personal responsibility
for his unfounded public accusations against his favorite scapegoats.

--Gary

"gregg" wrote:

Get a grip, Matt. CNN/Fox/NBC would *love* some white folks on a
rooftop. Most of their audience is white, and people love to watch
stories about people like themselves; it's money in the bank for tv
news.

Actually I think you are wrong. What the media want is the biggest
viewership. They'll do anything to get that. Fomenting a notion of
racism
is a great way to get an audience.

So you, as well, believe that the tv networks conspired to conceal the
presence of stranded white victims?

Matt Whiting wrote:

Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet
shown on a roof waiting.

I haven't watched TV in years. I've been getting my visual input from the AP
feed. That seems to be more balanced than what you describe.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Gary, although you are correct and your arguments very well stated,
I'm sure you realize that you will not change the minds of those whose
view of reality is clouded by their racism. Still, I think it is
important to not let such fools have the only word here. I am pleased
that you have entered the fray. The level of disconnect from reality
of a handful of posters here is astounding. They see a hundred
looters and can not dissociate them from the 50+ thousand law abiding
residents who have done exactly as instructed through five days of
incredible hardship.


"Gary Drescher" wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you
learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way
*opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural
disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are
trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have
socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others.

"Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory
violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence?
If you have none, then how *dare* you characterize the behavior of a tiny
minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the
*essence* of pernicious sterotyping.

It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting
off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards
of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives.

What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and
intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing but
derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present supporting
evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as established fact, both
in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in fact, morally and
intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal responsibility" advocate to
hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking any personal responsibility
for his unfounded public accusations against his favorite scapegoats.

--Gary

Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is
why you mainly see black people on the roofs.

The video you speak of is pooled video from a photo journalist in a
helicopter flying around taking pictures of people being plucked from
rooftops. If that video shows mostly blacks being plucked from the
rooftops it is because most of the people being plucked from the
rooftops are black, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Furthermore, I've seen a significant number of white people being
plucked from the rooftops so your conspiracy theory is nothing but
more of your inane racist bull****.

If you
really believe that what you are seeing on TV from the areas devastated
by Katrina is representative, then I feel very sorry for you as you have
been duped to the highest degree.

The fellow who killfiled you earlier today was correct, you are a
bigoted idiot! In truth, the TV news coverage has been quite balanced
in showing the devastation and the recovery efforts in the city of New
Orleans and points west such as Waveland, Gulfport, and Biloxi. The
reason you see lots of people being plucked from the rooftops in New
Orleans is because news agencies naturally seek dramatic visuals.
Despite a proclivity for showing dramatic visuals, the coverage has
been quite balanced and complete.

If one good thing has emerged from this thread, it is the emergence of
previously quite posters who have effectively refuted a handful of
newsgroup idiots, such as you, whose bigotry clouds their reason.

Gary, it is refreshing to see normally quite posters, such a you,
intelligently rebutting a handful of demonstrably narrow-minded and
bigoted talking heads.


"Gary Drescher" wrote:

Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against
evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be
persuaded.

I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the
public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not
surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and
elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of
the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some
unusually unguarded commentary.

I do hope and expect, though, that as the inhumane victim-blaming cruelty of
the right-wing agenda makes itself more boldly visible, their "let them eat
cake" sentiment toward compatriots in a dire emergency will prove
sufficiently shocking and revolting to most people to create a political
turning point.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you
learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way
*opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural
disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are
trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have
socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others.

"Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the
predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is
your evidence?

Evidence? Please. It's a veritable war zone. Res ipsa loquitor.

If you have none, then how *dare* you

Inherent bravery. I'm touched you noticed...

characterize the behavior of a tiny
minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the
*essence* of pernicious sterotyping.

It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting
off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards
of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives.

What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and
intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing
but derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present
supporting evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as
established fact, both in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in
fact, morally and intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal
responsibility" advocate to hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking
any personal responsibility for his unfounded public accusations against
his favorite scapegoats.

Comment:

Make up your mind. Maybe I'm not so daring after all. And, I post from an
ISP. I'm not anonymous. But I do understand that you feel that something
should be done about people like me. My opinions are worth exactly what you
pay. But they're usually correct. The "derogatory stereotypes" are a
figment you defend. To opine that many victims are not masters of their
demise or that the social conditions which are making relief efforts a
secondary concern are mostly the fault of a government that doesn't care
enough is stupid.

moo

The rules of engagement are hard to enforce,
when the illusion of conflict meets the illusion of force.

G. Downey

Gary Drescher wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_1sSe.4062$aG.3295@trndny01...
Blanche wrote:

You are insensitive and arrogant.

and probably too stupid to listen to you. Thanks for trying.

Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against
evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be
persuaded.

I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the
public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not
surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and
elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of
the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some
unusually unguarded commentary.

I do hope and expect, though, that as the inhumane victim-blaming cruelty of
the right-wing agenda makes itself more boldly visible, their "let them eat
cake" sentiment toward compatriots in a dire emergency will prove
sufficiently shocking and revolting to most people to create a political
turning point.


Personally, I find it just as offensive to suggest a secret 'agenda' by
a "compassionate conservative" conspiracy as it is to suggest an
opposite 'agenda' by a "liberal media." There are conservative racists,
and there are liberal racists. I don't like and don't agree with either
kind. I don't think you can assume that someone who is a "conservative"
on some issues is a racist, any more than you can assume that someone
who is a "liberal" on some issues is not. Most people are far more
complex than that.

While I see much of the media being intent on stirring up controversy
in order to increase viewership, I do not think that it is entirely
because of liberal bias. Rather, playing the race card is worth big
money, and the news media love getting people to kill each other for
fun and profit (the fun and profit of the news media, of course). In
this regard, CNN Asia has been downright evenhanded compared to BBC
World, which has been sickening. To be honest, the most balanced
reporting around here has been coming from the communist Chinese....

I really don't get the bit about the media showing only black people on
rooftops. Even BBC has been showing people of all types on rooftops,
getting rescued, looting, etc.

I also don't get the media complaints of the slowness of the response.
The first camera crews on the scene showed Coast Guard helicopters
rescuing people, National Guardsmen, police, and fire crews in the
center of New Orleans, etc. Obviously all of these emergency workers
managed to get there before the news media did.

If I was sitting in a pool of filthy water without food, fresh water,
or medical aid, no contact with the outside world and dead bodies
floating around me, completely unaware of conditions in the rest of the
city and the rescue efforts being made there, and some reporter came up
and said no one was coming to help and then turned on the camera and
asked me if I was satisfied with the speed of relief, I probably would
give the reporter just the answer he was looking for. Surprise,
surprise.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:IQNSe.7577$aG.5517@trndny01...
Matt Whiting wrote:

Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet
shown on a roof waiting.

I haven't watched TV in years. I've been getting my visual input from the
AP feed. That seems to be more balanced than what you describe.

*Groan.* I know so few people who don't watch TV. I watch it a bit when I
travel. But I yanked my cable on 9/12/1. I don't know that it's gotten
more juvenile. Maybe it's just weaning. But I read the CNN website. And,
the odd time I see the TV version, I note that it expands the bit of content
on the website into an hour of tawdry emotion laden wanking.

lm