Re: before katrina

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:k6SdnX1R-oxP7mbZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2eidney4hbmEg2bZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jerry Okamura wrote:



"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:9bednfHGk-SZNGTZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Rita wrote:




On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 04:56:27 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:





"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.61.0609010624230.27474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:





"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.61.0608310654420.12929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No. They can enforce the order [to evacuate] at a local level. The police should have come in afterwards and picked up the deadheads.

Well, yes, they "can" enforce the order, but the fact is they do not enforce the order. So, what significance is it to say that they "can" enforce the order at the local level? Besides, I thought you just said in another part of this thread that was a federal responsibility....care to explain what I see as an inconsistency in the two statements?

The Feds need to pick up the stragglers. The police needs to take out the refuseniks. Isn't that clear?

If the "police" takes out the refuseniks, are there going to be any "stragglers"? And "if" there are any stragglers, which federal agency should pick up the "stragglers"?

Jerry, it's up to the police to tell the difference. Obviously, you can't.





No government was prepared to remove everyone from the city. These folks discuss that: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/5/S2/S396 The scene at the Superdome was planned as I read the above.

And that is the basic problem, i.e. no one is prepared to even have plans to remove everyone from the city. The Superdome is not my idea of evacuating a city.

The feds took too long to respond to evacuate the dome.

The "fed"? Who put them there in the first place.

Bad planning, but the best under the circumstances. The feds didn't respond here. That's the problem.





The real problem is that when the Mayor gives the mandatory order that late, then it is difficult for other agencies to act. But if they are prepared, then the evacuation can still happen. Many left prior to the order. The stragglers could still have been moved if the feds were prepared.

Okay, then "if" the Mayor gave the mandatory evacuation order too late, then it was his fault and not the fault of the federal government that people had "difficulty" getting out of Dodge and "other" agencies to act, which includes the federal goverment agencies? Again, which federal agency do you propose "should have" forced these people out of New Orleans?

Not necessarily. People still did evacuate without the order. Again the feds move the stragglers, the cops remove the refuseniks.





Come on, you cannot be serious. We have all seen where state government has issue so-called "mandatory evacuation orders" where some choose to ignore those orders. But I would agre with the statement that "if" they give a mandatory order to late, then obviously not everyone is going to be able to get out of Dodge. You keep blaming the feds, what about all those school buses we all saw on TV, up to the hub caps in water, still sitting in the parking areas? Are you saying that was a federal responsibility?

No the mayor gave the mandatory order. Those who could walk to the dome did so. Those that could not, soon found themselves in the next couple days dead or isolated on their roofs. The feds were the only ones who could bring in busses to move the people in the dome-- and Brownie took his own sweet time in doing so.

Staying the the city is not evacuating....why do you have such a difficult time understanding that basic concept.

No. Walking to the Dome is in the plan for those who can walk but can't drive. What's so difficult about that concept?


And there were those who couldn't walk to the Dome, elderly,
infirm, people with very young children who later were rescued
(or not) from their homes where they had taken to the top
floor or to the roof. Do you remember the searches of homes
where those with dead bodies were marked with the number
of dead and those with none were marked "clear"?

The fact is that most middle class people with the transportation
and the financial means got out. Some had neither of these.

It was a disaster of major scale and local resources failed. I don't
see that as being unusual given the circumstances. Outside help
took too long to arrive -- that is a fact and disputing it is just
plain silly. I think many of us put ourselves in the place of those
who were stranded, and we thought "there but for the grace of
God go I."

Even Bush says the government reponse failed the people. What
more does Jerry want?

Shields and Brooks on the Lerher Report last night had an interesting discussion about what might have been the major failure of Katrina. David Brooks, normally an apologist for the Bush administration, noted that Katrina presented an opportunity to launch a major new initiative to reduce poverty, a major reason for the scope of the disaster, IMV. Now, a year later, there is no evidence of any new ideas on this.

Here is the text of what he said:

DAVID BROOKS: He had to do it. [referring to the reason for Bush's visit to the region] He spent $120 billion, or at least committed $120 billion. They want to talk about it. I think to me the biggest disappointment, not primarily to blame the president -- I blame the Congress -- was that this was a moment for an experiment, a whole series of social experiments, because the slate was wiped clean, so let's see what we can do to try to create anti-poverty programs. And that has been totally undone, not done.

There's been some aid that will be specific to New Orleans and to the region, but as far as trying to re-imagine what you can do about poverty, that never happened.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sb_09-01.html


Don't you think if there was a solution to the perceived problem, that there would not be a problem at all? It is a problem, it seems to me, because we have not been abot to figure out how to solve the problem.

I think that it is more an issue of being open to ideas to solve the problem rather than blaming the victim. I watched "The Poverty Trap" on CNN last evening and the programs that were described are good examples of how poverty can be addressed, not by large socialistic programs, but by paying close attention to the people who are affected, what their motivations are, what they are capable of, and how relatively small amounts of money can achieve impressive results. It looks like the show will be repeated on CNN this week. I suggest that you watch it with an open mind.


Will try to catch the program, but I have argued for a long time the "solution" is quite simple. Somehow convince people to at least get a high school education, and I am willing to bet that alone will go a long way to improving the income earning potential of a whole lot of people. I think the statistics are pretty clear on that point. The lowest wage earners in this country are those who have not completed high school.

How do you propose to "convince" them?


First and foremost by telling parents/caregivers that their role is critically important and repeating that message over and over again. Then to "help" them to know what they should be doing. Finally, to promote policies that "help" them achieve that goal. One more thought, it would "help" if the parents knew better what the consequences are of not getting a good education.


I wonder about cause and effect. Are people in poverty because they are not educated or are they not educated because they are poor? I suspect that both are true to some extent. For me, I grew up in the poverty produced by the great depression and it motivated me to *not* be poor. I was fortunate that my parents valued education and saw it as the path out of poverty. I also had the advantage of being white and of not growing up in urban blight. My parents might have been poor, but they were not discouraged.

I fear that the roots of poverty go much deeper than your proposed publicity program would solve. It wouldn't hurt, but I also think that it would not put a dent in the deep discouragement that results from the experience of generations of being poor. There is a good book on the experience of a woman who attempted to work at jobs that the poor might fill. It described the miserable conditions and discrimination at that level. I came away from it with the strong feeling that there needs to be something more than the "welfare to work" approach that presently leaves out two groups, those who are helplessly not able to work at the bottom, but more importantly, those who are now working in order to survive, but who see no path to a better life.

Finally, I think that we see a symptom of the problem in the many ways that hopeless people attempt to aspire to the shortcuts. Look at the increasing popularity of reality shows, highly paid sports figures, the various lotteries. The odds of winning in any of these is very small, but people are attracted to them because they have lost faith in any other way to get ahead. There has to be an obvious path and I think that you need to have that path established before you will convince anyone that education is all they need.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?"
    ... Education will NOT ... Incidentally, one can't eliminate poverty. ... were there no illegal immigration and the legal immigration ... poverty, and in the case of retraining, keeping them from falling into ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: As usual, U.S. at the bottom in social equity
    ... Social injustice in the OECD by poverty and lack of education ... The differences in the prevention of poverty and access to educational ... countries provide for equal achievement opportunities, ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: As usual, U.S. at the bottom in social equity
    ... Social injustice in the OECD by poverty and lack of education ... The differences in the prevention of poverty and access to educational ... countries provide for equal achievement opportunities, ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: When the Levees Broke
    ... The question then is how to deal with poverty, ... When manufacturing was the mainstay of our economy, there were plenty of jobs that people at all levels of intelligence could fill. ... That is no longer the case, in part because of public policy favoring the finance, insurance and real estate sectors over manufacturing. ... That is not altogether obvious to a lot of people who don't see a better future for themselves despite efforts to gain a better education. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • As usual, U.S. at the bottom in social equity
    ... Social injustice in the OECD by poverty and lack of education ... The differences in the prevention of poverty and access to educational opportunities are immense in the OECD. ... Best of all the northern European countries provide for equal achievement opportunities, while many continental European and Anglo-Saxon welfare states considerable pent-up demand. ...
    (rec.boats)