Posted on 09/03/2005 6:35:03 AM PDT by Texas Jack
Well written, Texas Jack.
The press has been very very tactful about not mentioning the fact that most of these evacuees are not out of jobs because of the flood. Only that they need help in getting access to their checks. I am wondering if moving to Texas with perhaps stricter guidelines on long term welfare....will someday wean some of them off the dole? On the other hand, this may just create a large, new, federally entitled class of folks who are entitled to a lifetime of "disability" checks for "trauma".
"After all, you don't even have to go to the mail box to get your "gubment check." They can direct deposit it right into your account."
Not only can they deposit it directly....that's what the government wants them to do.
Great article. It's all true which makes it so sad!
If I'm not mistaken, those in the Dome were not allowed to leave (to prevent looting).
Which would undermine your entire argument, if true.
Right on the money. Good post.
You may recall the Mississippi flooding MidWest a few years ago. Did we see there anything remotely resembling the violence of NO? Did KMarts get looted of... TV sets? Makes perfect sense: your cousin may not be alive, your neighbors' body is floating in the muddy waters, and your thoughts are... how to get your hands on the wide-screen you always wanted.
You point about the requirement that one must view another as a member of another tribe to rape and murder under these circumstances is an astute observation as well.
Thank you for your post.
Able bodied welfare recipients are too lazy to walk 10 miles. I walk 10 miles or more almost every day through a combination of walking to and from work, for exercise, and because I enjoy walking.
Yep.........Bush's fault.
Jeez!
"Invariably, the film maker includes scenes of displaced civilians and the suffering they endured."
Your Doug Stephan "disliker" reporting in...
believe it or not, on this Saturday morning talk radio program, he (or the person he was talking with) brought up how MANY camera shots of looters and evacuees were BLACK!!! There HAS to be some sort of Bush (or Rove) manipulation there; an obvious racial slur toward blacks and how the Bush administration is trying to hurt blacks.
I am not nearly as good as governsleast is at reporting on the Today Show...so take my words with a grain of salt. Don't quote or misquote me...just know that apparently this line of "defense" by liberals is going to be used as another shot against President Bush.
I grow more disgusted by the day.
Several years ago, we went to Yellowstone. The rangers handed out pamphlets stressing that we should not feed the bears. When tourists fed the bears, the bears became dependent on tourist handouts; worse, they became belligerent and aggressive to tourists who did not provide handouts. Not only were the bears unable to find their own food, but the food provided by tourists did not meet their nutritional needs and they were becoming unhealthy. Now that there is a strict policy enforcing the non-feeding of the bears, the bears are not dependent, and mostly stay away from the tourists.
I've often thought that the bears in Yellowstone are the perfect analogy for people on welfare. If we stop giving them handouts and force them to provide for themselves, they'll be happier and healthier and everyone will benefit.
"If I'm not mistaken, those in the Dome were not allowed to leave (to prevent looting)."
Please cite your sources for those in the dome "not being allowed to leave". SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE WEBSITES.
Good Post TJ.
Most of Des Moines, Iowa was underwater for several weeks in the 93 flood. There were no riots. No looting. No shootings.
"I am wondering if moving to Texas with perhaps stricter guidelines on long term welfare."
I can't say how the long term welfare business will go. But I can say that concealed carry is alive and well here in Texas, and the kind of looting nonsense that went on in New Orleans ain't happening here!
***The ever-stupid right will come to the defense of Bush **
Yes: and the ever stupid left will condemn Bush for a Hurricane. A hurricane for Kee rysts sake something no man can control.
I dont say Bush did everything right, but he is doing what he can. If Bush hadnt ordered an evacuation it probably never would have been ordered.
There plenty of blame to go around, most of it falls on the Mayor and his city planners some goes to the Governor. Bush may deserve a little , However for the left to go off about Bush and attacking him in the manner they onl;y helps lose them waht little credibility they have left,
They went there to begin with because of the situation he describes.They could have walked out then.
Nearly EVERY public official going back DECADES bears some responsibility for this and the OTHER disasters headed our way -- Bush 1 and 2 included, to wit:
I wrote his after Andrew, whose path was eerily similar to that of Katrina. That should tell ANY sane person that THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND PROBABLY IN LESS THAN 12 YEARS GIVEN THE MORE AGGRESSIVE HURRICANES IN THIS CYCLE.
Simply change some of the names.
If they rebuild NOLA on the present site – and DON’T get folks OFF THOSE BEACHES ALONG THE ENTIRE HURRICANE-PRONE U.S. COAST -- keep this for the NEXT catastrophe. Insanity is defined as doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. Whom God would destroy, He first makes insane. Has this nation lost its mind? Look to NOLA – BUILT 8 FEET BELOW THE SURROUNDING WATERWAYS – for the answer for that.
WHAT GEORGE SHOULD HAVE SAID
by Dick Bachert
On the evening of September 1st, 1992, President George Bush went on national TV to announce that the already empty federal coffers would pour forth uncounted billions of dollars to totally rebuild the Florida and Louisiana communities destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. A vast majority of Americans seem to agree with this action, providing yet more evidence (as if more were needed) that we have come very, very far from the philosophy of self-reliance articulated by one Colonel Davey Crockett. (See "Not Yours to Give" available from FEE at www.fee.org)
Instead of attempting to purchase his reelection with plundered resources, this is what George Bush should have said.
"My fellow Americans:
As you all know, a devastating hurricane has struck the southern tip of Florida and Louisiana. Our hearts and prayers go out to all who have lost so much.
“There is now a great cry for the federal government to "do something".
“And we shall.
“I have dispatched otherwise idle military resources -- men and women involved in our national defense who will profit from what will amount to a real-life field exercise -- to the area to render whatever aid the local authorities deem appropriate to restore basic communications and public safety infrastructure. But, beyond that, we can do little else. Before you brand me a heartless monster, allow me to explain:
"The area involved has been regularly struck by many such storms since long before we have inhabited this continent. There is reason to believe that this pattern will continue. All who have vacationed or visited there will agree that it is a beautiful area and by driving a short distance, residents there can avail themselves of the ocean waters and sandy beaches of that coastal setting. I, too, understand the attraction. That's why I spend as much time as possible
in Kennebunkport. That's the upside of living in such an area.
"The downside is that the area is regularly struck by these terrible storms. Which is why responsible and intelligent residents of the area insure their property against the inevitable resultant damage.
"That the largest private insurers have determined that certain of these areas are so likely to be struck by storms such as Andrew as to make them "actuarially unsound" risks is a matter for the insurers and the property owners. Government will only, through the lawfully established court system, do its best to see to it that any contracts between these private parties are honored.
"If a prospective property owner is unable to secure private insurance against these calamitous eventualities, he or she had better reevaluate his or her position. If a prospective owner cannot bear the financial loss which would flow from the destruction of an uninsured home in one of these high risk areas, he or she is well advised to purchase in an area where such insurance is available. It is not, nor can it ever be, the government's place to levy a compulsory tax on citizens who do not live in these high risk beach areas to subsidize the folly of those who choose to do so! It would be criminal to force citizens who themselves already pay hundreds of dollars each year to protect their homes from
normal hazards such as fire and the occasional tornado to also pay for the beach front lifestyle of others! To increase their taxes so that some of their less responsible fellows may enjoy the benefits of living in these normally
beautiful -- but statistically periodically dangerous -- surroundings is unconscionable.
"As much as our hearts go out to those who have lost so much, I must remind them that just as it has happened in the past, it will happen again. If you chose to remain there, you do so at your peril. This is an election year and the temptation is great for me to obligate the already strapped taxpayers of the entire nation to pay for the rebuilding of these damaged areas.
"Though it may cost me another term as President, I must, because of the dangerous precedent it would set, resist it. To do otherwise would be the grossest unfairness to, say, a citizen in Kansas whose roof might be blown off during a tornado. Would that citizen not have the right to ask the federal government to do the same for him? Multiply that by the numbers of isolated, individual-but equally calamitous disasters each year and you will come to see that the treasury of even the richest nation on earth (which, thanks to decades of such nonsense, we no longer are) would soon collapse under the load.
"On a technical level, I would also remind you that expert analysis of the destruction of these homes quickly disclosed that it was government and the building codes -- rather the false security of their enforcement -- which led to the loss of nearly 85,000 dwellings. You who now look to government to solve your problem ought to consider that it was the failure of the government mandated building code enforcement that reduced your home to a pile of rubble. Your reliance upon government enforcement of these codes and their assiduous observance has proven to be an error.
"In that connection, I would point out that engineers who surveyed the damage discovered a number of structures which survived. It was found that these buildings had been built under an older, ostensibly less stringent code and/or were constructed using a number of proven, but more costly, techniques designed to improve survival.
"If you do plan to rebuild in one of these uninsurable sections, please, in order to minimize the destruction the next time another killer storm comes ashore, employ these construction techniques.
"Let me now turn to what we must now do to help those in such desperate need at this moment.
"I submit that we should continue and intensify what we've been doing thus far: The volunteer activities many of you have undertaken as individuals, small businesses and large corporations are doing exactly what I envisioned when I
launched my "Thousand Points of Light" campaign. What we need now are millions of such points. And, if the response continues to swell as in the past few days, we'll get there.
"Let me also remind you that the first folks into the area with meaningful relief were not government people. As we have seen, these huge bureaucracies possess equally huge levels of static inertia. They lack the flexibility and
sensitivity to function efficiently. People helping people is the highest embodiment of the faith our forefathers brought to these shores over 300 years ago.
"America was -- and, I fervently believe, still is – a nation of people who understand this basic concept. It is time we remembered that government's role is to only do for citizens those few constitutionally limited things we cannot
individually do for ourselves. I'd remind you what George Washington said about government: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force! And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"It is also time for us all to remember that we must take individual responsibility for ourselves. We must remember, for example, that we cannot construct our homes in places where the forces of nature periodically rage against us without adequate preparation for those periodic rampages.
"To be more specific, if we must build in those areas, we must take personal responsibility for the soundness of construction and/or insure against the certain eventuality that these natural assaults will occur. The days when
individuals can look to a government to force the rest of us to underwrite the folly of the few are gone! I urge those of you now digging out from the destruction in Florida and Louisiana to remember that as you consider your future. I pledge that if you grant me another term in office, I shall devote my next 4 years to bringing government back under the United States Constitution in order to ensure that it does only those few things we cannot do for ourselves and does them as efficiently and effectively as possible.
"Let me again urge us to continue the enormous volunteer efforts we have already begun until this tragedy is behind us.
"Thank you and good night!"
Here in the midwest, we have lots of tornados. Looting is extremely rare. Of course most store owners get back to their businesses and arm themselves and will shoot looters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.