State of the Union

[shinerbock]

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

[MzJ25]

Bye!

[jon1856]

A view from the Op-ed sections around the country:
http://cagle.com/news/StateoftheUnion07/

[StarFish106]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

I really didn't see where anyone asked you to come over here in the first place. So you go do that.

So what because it's over the nation is supposed to move on and forget the people that live(d)/trying to live down there? I would feel some kind of way too if in the president's SOTU address our last major disaster didn't even rate a blip on his radar. I am sorry but there is a part of the US that looks like a war zone but we should be sending major $$ for this foolishness overseas instead of trying to help rebuild? Um no, don't think so. Since you want to support him so much there is a local recruiting center that is just waiting for you to sign up. Have at it.

To SummerChild and OOhSoFLy ...Exactly!!

[Little32]

Originally Posted by StarFish106

I really didn't see where anyone asked you to come over here in the first place. So you go do that.

So what because it's over the nation is supposed to move on and forget the people that live(d)/trying to live down there? I would feel some kind of way too if in the president's SOTU address our last major disaster didn't even rate a blip on his radar. I am sorry but there is a part of the US that looks like a war zone but we should be sending major $$ for this foolishness overseas instead of trying to help rebuild? Um no, don't think so. Since you want to support him so much there is a local recruiting center that is just waiting for you to sign up. Have at it.

To SummerChild and OOhSoFLy ...Exactly!!

I love the people who, when their ideas are challenged, take the stance that those that challenge them are so uninformed that their challenges are unworthy of engaging. Please. The fact of the matter is that for every op-ed, "war is good business," "conservatism is sound political policy" article that anyone could find, there are equally valid, well-researched articles that advocate for more liberal policies and political approaches. So don't feed me that uninformed line of bull.

If you, shinerbock, don't have enough confidence in your ideas to debate them when they are challenged, then yeah, you, shinerbock, should go somewhere where everyone will agree with you.

Also, I do love the bolded portion.

[shinerbock]

I would absolutely love to debate the Katrina situation with you. Would you like to? However, if I'm gonna get into a debate, I'd appreciate it if people would reference better sources than Kanye West. I just don't like getting into arguments where valid points are overshadowed by regurgitated rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, a common type argument on Bill Maher or something...

Conservative guest: "Well the Democrats on the SIC had equal access to the large majority of what our agencies used in making its reports regarding Iraq. We had the same information from British, Israeli agencies. We had defected nuclear scientists who described in detail the workings of Iraq's weapons programs."
(silence from audience)

Liberal guest: "Bush lied, people died!"
(roaring applause, shouts of "ohhhhh" and "you told him!")

If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on Katrina and the federal government's responsibility and role in relief, I'd be happy to.

[Little32]

Similarly, your response ignored the very pertinent question about the disparity between the resources that we are spending in say Iraq--in the billions on a daily basis--to rebuild their infrastructure, and the monies that the federal government has put into New Orleans as the result of Hurricane Katrina. Also, implicit in that criticism, is a question about the disparity in terms of the distribution of the funding that has been committed both on the federal and local level and which communities are benefiting from that funding. You focused instead on the brief mention of Kanye and had a knee-jerk response to that.

Additionally, I find very problematic that one solution that you offered to the situation in NO is to go to Mardi Gras and spend money. The idea that the solution to these major catastrophes that hit this nation is for Americans to consume at greater rates is, in a word, disturbing. I found the idea equally problematic when George Dubya, after the World Trade Center attack, suggested that the most appropriate and useful response of the American public is to spend money. Of course, that is an ideological debate.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I would absolutely love to debate the Katrina situation with you. Would you like to? However, if I'm gonna get into a debate, I'd appreciate it if people would reference better sources than Kanye West. I just don't like getting into arguments where valid points are overshadowed by regurgitated rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, a common type argument on Bill Maher or something...

Conservative guest: "Well the Democrats on the SIC had equal access to the large majority of what our agencies used in making its reports regarding Iraq. We had the same information from British, Israeli agencies. We had defected nuclear scientists who described in detail the workings of Iraq's weapons programs."
(silence from audience)

Liberal guest: "Bush lied, people died!"
(roaring applause, shouts of "ohhhhh" and "you told him!")

If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on Katrina and the federal government's responsibility and role in relief, I'd be happy to.

[shinerbock]

That response was to get back into the argument. I was attempting to address any of your concerns.

On the disparity between Iraq and New Orleans;

Obviously the war in Iraq began prior to the destruction in New Orleans. The federal government has allocated 12 billion to Louisiana alone, so I have a tough time believing that the federal government is ignoring the problem. Now, how the money is being used and the speed at which it is allocated is information I'm not privy to, and i doubt many on this board are. Wars cost incredible amounts of money. If you have a problem with the Iraq war and how much it is costing, I think that is a legitimate concern, despite my disagreement with your position. However, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. We're in Iraq, right or wrong, and we have to spend money on it. Should we have instead pulled out following Katrina and diverted the funding? I think rational people already know the answer to that.

Other issues:

Many question why the city hasn't fully been rebuilt. Having been back to New Orleans on several occasions since the storm, there is obviously a lot of rebuilding left to take place. However, progress is obvious as well. Its not as simple as saying "Alright, tomorrow we're going to start on everything." First, it isn't the federal government's responsibility to go in and start rebuilding everything that was damaged. Not only is it not their responsibility, it isn't their role to take. Much of the low income housing that was destroyed are issues for the city and state, who will have to decide how to go about rebuilding, if they are to rebuild. Also, many of the people in NO obviously haven't returned, making it especially difficult to figure out what to do. Should the federal government just start rebuilding people's homes for them? What about issues with insurance payouts? People who try to make the solution to this problem seem simple are far removed from the situation.

My personal problem is the sense of entitlement people have regarding this situation. I have a problem that people living in government housing are demanding that their houses be rebuilt. It confuses me that people point to the faster cleanup from other hurricanes, but also fail to mention that much of that relief was the result of first party insurance claims. Obviously FEMA could have been better, but so could Nagin and Louisiana. The citizens of New Orleans should not depend on the government for their complete safety. At some point you must take responsibility for yourself, your family, and your property, as so many others in Mississippi and LA did do. Of my three friends who had their homes completely destroyed (2 in NO, one on Bay St. Louis), all have received insurance pay outs and have either rebuilt or bought property elsewhere. They are equally tired of hearing people complain about the governments inaction. I believe the city at some point will approach its original stature. Until then, I think people need to take personal responsibility and have some measure of patience with the process. Questioning the government is fine (especially when it is the city or state government, seeing as they'll make most of the decisions), but when you begin demanding compassion and charity, people begin to have a problem with it. It may be that we just have completely different views on what the government should do. However, I'm one who believes it is not the government's responsibility to look after my affairs.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think rational people already know the answer to that.

There you go constructing a rational/irrational, informed/uninformed dichotomy again. A distinction which automatically attributes more value to the opinions of the "rational" and the "informed" (i.e. people who think like you). Those kinds of dichotomies just are not useful in any situation where resolution is the goal.

How can we even begin to discuss an issue when your very language makes it clear that you don't recognize value in what I have to say because it might different from what you believe. Never once, have I said that you were irrational or uninformed. I recognize your right to believe what and how you believe, and I recognize that your beliefs are grounded in what you hold to be sound logic.

Honestly, I don't want to debate with you. I really think that the Katrina issue has been rehashed ad nauseam on this board and one more debate isn't going to change anyone's mind, especially if those engaged in the debate believe so firmly in the rightness and "rationality" of their stance.

[neosoul]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

"you guys" ...? wow.... dude it's a message board...

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

Ummm. Why don't you go somewhere else. After all, you are imposing on OUR message board.

Thanks!

[Wonderful1908]

Why???? I mean this is why I don't go visit the "other" boards!

[Honeykiss1974]

Shinerbock, I'm glad that your friends were satisfied with their insurance payouts, but believe you me there are PLENTY more that are not, hence the lawsuits against many insurers (and Statefarm having to finally be forced to pay what they should have in the first place instead of trying to shuck people with the "flood damage" bit - but I digress).

Every income and skill evel is needed in NO, not just those that are well off. I can TOTALLY understand that before you can just start bulldozing private property, you do need to track down the owner and etc. (although about 2 years ago, our Congress did pass some very LOOSE eminient domain laws so there are some options there) but in regards to public housing their is no one to check with but....themselves.

However, I wonder is the economic base there because it doesn't do anyone a bit of good to come back to some nice new housing but no place to work (as before) - although I know that my company is back and up and running in NO and have jobs available but there is no one there to fill these types of positions.

Hope this makes sense 'cause I am typing with one contact lens!