Bravo! Rush has been hitting on this point all week -- They way Dems want this country run is exampled in New Orleans -- and if it worked so dang well, why are there any deaths? Because socialims, dependency on the government DOES NOT WORK!!!

I recall a story I saw on Fox of two young boys in MS who instead of sitting there taking hand outs, got up and went and helped the military hand out the water, ice, and MREs. They both said, "this is our community, we have to help." What an example they are to the lady who sat and demanded to be waited on.

Paul, I know are in the thick of it there with little time for levity but I wonder what the Dem talking points would have been had this very same federal response to Katrina occurred with one of their own in the White House? Maybe after they created their own scapegoat it still would have been.....more government.

You are 100% correct. I just watched New Orleans Mayor Nagin on Meet the Press. The sound you hear in the background is that of tap dancing. He couldn't bring himself to take any responsibility for anything bad that happened. Just blamed everyone else.

This attitude of victimization and blaming others for your problems is, unfortunately, typical of many people who have grown up being fed this idea by their "leaders". They are doomed to remaining a permanent sub-class in this society. This is what the democrats want.

Disgusting.

This reminds me of one "victim" at the Astrodome. The "victims" REFUSED to wait patiently in line for to recieve their "fee money", resulting in the need for a lock-down. This "victim" began shouting at, not speaking to, the FoxNews reporter, that the people of Houston and Texas were not treating them (the "victims") right. Of course, this "victim" ignored the fact that the "money" being provided did not come from Texas officials and that the lock-down was the result of unruly behavior of those "victims" who REFUSED to abide by the established rules as well as others who attempted to illegally obtain funds by fraudently claiming to be "victims".

This "victim" was in it's early 20s, and was no doubt a "welfare queen" and had probably never word a day in it's life.
******

I lived in the Houston area in the early 70's and had a very good Negro maid. She was always on time, worked deligently and was quick to respond to any requests for additional duties or time. She never complained about the work and was often sought as a maid by others due to her attitude and work ethic. She was never treated as a second class citizen and never acted like one. She had a job and performed her duties to the best of her abilities. Needless to say, when I departed the area, she received an outstanding letter of reference.

One day she related the story of how she tried to get a neigbor to come with her and she could ensure that the woman would find work that day. Her neighbor replied, "Why should I work? The government sends me a check and I don't have to do anything."

Paul, we already know the problem. What is the solution?

Paul: You are always articulate, but especially when you rant. Thank you.

Don't mean to be a nitpicker but government is spelled with an N. You did it twice so it sticks out.

A very good post otherwise!

That should read "I choose to be a nitpicker at this time, but not identified as always being one. So ..."

Sorry, one of my pet peeves. This chick at work starts off by saying, "I don't mean to be rude, but ..." And then she is rude. As if saying she doesn't mean to be makes it okay. And if she didn't mean to, why did she identify it as such before she even started?

Nitpick all you want. But you did mean to nitpick, just as much as I chose to nitick your comment. Nothing personal.

and effected is spelled with an "a" "LOL" Hey I know...you get on a roll and the words just flow, we get the message and a good one it is.

It's just easier being a victim than a doer.

Best tribute on the Net to Katrina victims and to 9/11. Well said Paul.

Paul, as usual, you are right on the money. Feel free to rant as much as you want! Your words are dead-on accurate.

Yep, rant or not, you are correct.

You evil bastard!

Yep, that about sums it up.

This is also why people who look at the government response to Katrina and say "imagine if this were a dirty bomb" are way off base. With Katrina, anyone who wasn't dependant on the government was able to evacuate, leaving only those who couldn't fend for themselves. If a dirty bomb were to go off, there would be no warning to evacuate the responsible members of society. The result is that there would be organization on the local level. Individual citizens would be helping each other out and it would not descend into chaos as it did in NOLA. Look at what happened with the blackout in the North East. Wide spread looting didn't break out and you didn't have the people who were caught in the subways sitting on their hands waiting for the government to come get them. Even with the widescale break down of infrastructure the character of the American people was enough to maintain control and pull people through. The same would happen with a terrorist attack. Katrina should not be seen as a test of our government's domestic response to a large scale attack.

I think saying that the poor just need to read Ayn Rand and pull themselves up by the bootstraps oversimplifies the problem just as much as the idea that everyone in poverty is the helpless victim of an uncaring society.

The truth is somewhere in between- neither the liberal or the conservative paradigm explains every case. Referring to a "welfare state" slants the debate in a different direction than the phrase "social safety net" would.

Kudos to Paul-wish I could express my thoughts all well.

If there is any good news here, it is that the tragedy has emboldened the left to break cover and show their true nature. Archivists take note...this leftist fodder will be useful in the future!

Hi andrew,

I agree that the truth is somewhere in between, but diagnosing somebody as a victim of society doesn't help at all and 20 or 30 years of affirmative action show that that doesn't help much either.

Nobody in California's history was more oppressed than the Asians, especially Chinese, and now, despite being the targets of reverse discrimination for college admissions, etc., they're the most affluent people in California.

For black Americans it might be a little different since there was a conscience effort to strip them of their identity, but recognizing that doesn't solve the problem. In terms of what we can do to help them I don't think there's anything we can do. They have to find their identity and then help themselves. Maybe the difference between the black situation and the Chinese situation is that politicians and the media never meddled with the Chinese as they found their own identity.

Another thing going on in California is that we get something like 80 cents on the dollar of our federal tax money back, yet we could split off from the U.S. and still contend for the fifth largest economy in the world (we jockey positions every year with Brazil). How do we sustain ourselves despite our federal tax dollars paying subsidies for other states to compete with us (i.e. Vermont dairy subsidies)? Slave labor. Why aren't liberals jumping up and down trying to make things better for Mexican immigrants? Because everyone knows slave labor is necessary to support an economy like California's. They have big giant machines that harvest corn and cotton, but no such machines to pick strawberries or avocados, so what else can we do? Admittedly, their situation is a lot better than real slaves in the south two centuries ago. But if you take the Amtrak from Oakland to Sacramento there are people living in conditions similar to those in the Astrodome (albeit in shacks rather than cots) right now and they've been there for decades.

They have big giant machines that harvest corn and cotton, but no such machines to pick strawberries or avocados, so what else can we do?

Build a machine that picks strawberries or avocados perhaps? There used to be no machines capable of picking grapes or oranges, which was the arguement for hiring illegal immigrants, but as it became apparent that cheap labor wasn't cheap enough, these things magically started appearing.

Lest we get off topic, I wasn't trying to argue for immigration, I was trying to show that oppression in America is complex, and not always black and white.

For example, patronization can be oppressive.

I think saying that the poor just need to read Ayn Rand and pull themselves up by the bootstraps oversimplifies the problem

Telling they can't and that's there need to even try overcomplicates the problem. A large percentage of them can, they are just unwilling, and if they did so would free up money to educate and help those who are unable. Some people will always be poor no matter how much assistance they get, not because they have to be but because they choose to be, maybe not directly but due to making bad choices. They are lost until they change that, and they won't ever change until they are forced to. Our current system encourages them not to and sets an example for future generations to do the same.

Dems Answer to Katrina?

"With the catastrophic failure of state and local government in Louisiana in response to Hurricane Katrina, we -- the Democrat Party -- concede that Socialism has now failed everywhere it has been tried."

Why don't they just call it Hurricane Bush and be done with it? Some of the gloating in the wake of Katrina has been stomach-churning as it was predictable. The glee with which a terrible natural disaster has been seized as yet another stick with which to bash Bush has been odious.

No one would argue that the relief efforts in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane were not chaotic, slow and unimpressive.

But the blame for that can be laid primarily with the corrupt, shambolic local government in Louisiana as much as with the federal authorities. There was a monumental screw-up when it came to evacuating the area, especially the failure to bus out the poor, black residents of the inner city ghettos. For three days, the powers-that-be seemed to freeze like rabbits in the headlights. The sheer scale of the devastation overwhelmed them.

There have been comparisons with the tsunami in South East Asia. But there are vital differences. A tsunami is a giant flash flood. The waters rise and subside in minutes. A hurricane can hang around for days, dumping billions of gallons of water in one place. One of the storms which laid waste to the east coast of Florida last year took 36 hours to pass.

I managed to get out of Florida on one of the last planes before they closed the airport because of Hurricane Frances. Friends who stayed on said it took up to 72 hours for relief efforts to kick in to full swing.

One of the problems is that when a hurricane approaches the sensible thing to do is move all rescue vehicles, helicopters, heavy equipment, buses, planes and boats as far out of the path of the storm as possible. The downside is that while the vital plant and machinery is undamaged, it takes time to get them back to where they are needed.

All those sneering at the tardy response to Katrina would have been the first to point an accusing finger if all the rescue planes, cranes and automobiles had been left in place in New Orleans and been turned in to scrap matal by the devastating power of the storm.

That would have been George Bush's fault, too, no doubt.

Inevitably, Bush-haters have managed to drag the war in Iraq into it. If only US troops hadn't been in Baghdad they could have been in New Orleans more quickly, they claim. Not true. The Iraq war had zero impact on the relief effort.

The state of Louisiana had 7,000 National Guardsmen to deploy as soon as the roads became passable. What took so long is a question the governor of Louisiana has to answer.

None of this is intended to detract from the awfulness of the situation in New Orleans, nor the hell on earth endured by those trapped in the city as Katrina did her worst.

It's merely an attempt to put in to perspective the pig-ignorant jubilation of some British commentators who can see no further than their own perverse hatred of America, and Bush in particular - even at a time of harrowing human tragedy.

They are certain they know what went wrong and who is to blame, even though they've never had to suffer anything more spectacular than Michael Fish's (UK weather man) 1987 hurricane, which blew down a few trees and crushed a couple of Citroen 2CVs in Hampstead (England).

Bush may not have covered himself in glory last week but this is a time for prayer, for support, for aid, for donations for the unfortunate people of New Orleans. It shouldn't be an excuse for a ghoulish exhibition of pathetic political point scoring.

Thank's for letting me post.

My family got out safe and sound.

Good. There were 100s of tourists who couldn't get out. Were they also victims of the welfare state?

Because socialims, dependency on the government DOES NOT WORK!!!

Socialism works fine in Europe. ALL of Western Europe has better medical care and better educational systems than the U.S.

Some of the gloating in the wake of Katrina

I haven't come across any examples of gloating. Could you give a few links?

If only US troops hadn't been in Baghdad they could have been in New Orleans more quickly, they claim. Not true. The Iraq war had zero impact on the relief effort.

You are mistaken:

Officials: Guard deployment hurt response By ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press Writer
Sep 9, 1:26 PM EDT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_NATIONAL_GUARD?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.
Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck.
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., whose waterfront home here was washed away in the storm, told reporters that the absence of the deployed Mississippi Guard units made it harder for local officials to coordinate their initial response.
"What you lost was a lot of local knowledge," Taylor said, as well as equipment that could have been used in recovery operations.
"The best equipment went with them, for obvious reasons," especially communications equipment, he added.

Steve J.

Socialism works fine in Europe. ALL of Western Europe has better medical care and better educational systems than the U.S.

Care to talk about employment and economic growth? Or are you the only person who hasn't noticed that the socialists in Germany seem to headed for a serious pounding by the more free-market party next week?

As for healthcare, it is obvious you know next to nothing about European healthcare. Have you ever experienced the UK NHS first hand? I didn't think so. Ever heard of six month waiting lists for treatment? No?

It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Martin -

A couple of facts.
Life Expectancy, Male
United States
74.4

United Kingdom
75.7
Norway
76.2
Italy
76.7
Canada
77.1
Switzerland
77.4
Sweden
77.6

Care to talk about employment

Sure but let's talk about different Presidents. Now, Bush said his tax cuts would create 5-6 million new jobs, right? Let's see what the numbers are:

TOTAL PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
(IN THOUSANDS)

BUSH 2
JAN 2001 111560
JUL 2005 112004

NET == +444

In comparison, let's look at a President we all agree wasn't very good at economics:

CARTER
JAN 1977 65636
DEC 1980 74563
NET == + 8927

Care to talk about employment and economic growth?

The poverty rate has grown for the last 4 years.

>Good. There were 100s of tourists who couldn't get out. Were they also victims of the welfare state?

Not at all - they were the part of the other 15%... They truly were victims. --- Well the people victimized by the welfare state for decades were victims too but that was of a failed poltical ideology.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO COMPLAINING ABOUT MY SPELLING

Blame it on Kevin, he made some changes to the site that broke my spell checker... see don't blame me... I'm a victim.