State of the Union

[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.

[shinerbock]

Little, I really think you pulled out a rather small piece of what I wrote and made it into something its not. I didn't intend to make it a dichotomy of people who see things like I do and everybody else. I figured most people would agree that pulling out of Iraq and diverting all the money to Katrina immediately after the storm would spell disaster. If you think we should have done that, I find that very interesting and would love to hear more. However, I imagine you concur with me at least on that point.

Honey, there very well may be plenty of issues with insurance pay outs. I know that comes with just about any major storm. To be fair to the insurance companies, I think the devastation is going to be hard to sort through, and given the amount of claims may take a while to sort out. I don't really know much about how bad the problems are with that, so it could be an issue to be addressed (although I wouldn't know where to start addressing it).

Pinkies, while I tend to dislike you, I apologize for writing on your thread. I usually just look at new posts, and often miss where the thread was originally posted.

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Little, I really think you pulled out a rather small piece of what I wrote and made it into something its not. I didn't intend to make it a dichotomy of people who see things like I do and everybody else. I figured most people would agree that pulling out of Iraq and diverting all the money to Katrina immediately after the storm would spell disaster. If you think we should have done that, I find that very interesting and would love to hear more. However, I imagine you concur with me at least on that point.

Honey, there very well may be plenty of issues with insurance pay outs. I know that comes with just about any major storm. To be fair to the insurance companies, I think the devastation is going to be hard to sort through, and given the amount of claims may take a while to sort out. I don't really know much about how bad the problems are with that, so it could be an issue to be addressed (although I wouldn't know where to start addressing it).

Pinkies, while I tend to dislike you, I apologize for writing on your thread. I usually just look at new posts, and often miss where the thread was originally posted.

Hey, I'm an AKA. I'm used to being "disliked". Seriously, it's apparent that you're a Dubya fan. He can't read either. Toodles

[shinerbock]

Are AKA's generally disliked or something? Must be an inside deal. I can read pretty well, and I imagine W can as well. You know, HBS and all.