# Katrina Exposes Poverty and Race relations



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

This debate has been raging deep in another thread.  I thought a thread of its own would bring more traffic...

See this article...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9163091/


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Please read the following...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2124688/

Or you can listen to NPR's story on Day to Day here...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4829960

Here is a little historical evidence on the issue of race and floods...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/..._headlines.html


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

If I were a emergency worker in New Orleans wading through filth, finding bodies, getting shot at and working inhuman hours to help people, Id be offended at the implication that I didnt care about black people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If I were a emergency worker in New Orleans wading through filth, finding bodies, getting shot at and working inhuman hours to help people, Id be offended at the implication that I didnt care about black people.


I don't think its that deliberate.  This is a larger social problem.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 10, 2005)

You get looting like this everywhere. It's nothing special about N.O. or its residents.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Sep 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If I were a emergency worker in New Orleans wading through filth, finding bodies, getting shot at and working inhuman hours to help people, Id be offended at the implication that I didnt care about black people.


I haven't really heard of anyone (anyone credible) accusing those involved with Search and Rescue of being racist. In fact, I believe that many rescuers will have long term ill health and psychological effects as the result of their service. They are heroes in every sense of the word.

I HAVE heard some very credible people asking if many in the nation, the government included (parts), did not hold, consciously or subconsciously, the largely black population of New Orleans at the same value that they would have for largely caucasian community of similiar size.

Thats a hard question, and one that we as a people must ask ourselves. The level of public outrage that, IMO, prompted a more vigorous response from the Federal Government on the weekend after the levee broke (as opposed to the day after it broke), should have come sooner and been far greater.

I know that opportunists of all political sides and persuasions are going to come out of the woodwork to jump on this issue - but that should not deter the rest of us from taking a good hard look ourselves.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If I were a emergency worker in New Orleans wading through filth, finding bodies, getting shot at and working inhuman hours to help people, Id be offended at the implication that I didnt care about black people.




Maybe if I say something enough times it will be true also.

Or Maybe I should just quote some others, and if I do it enough, then everyone will believe that it is true.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> You get looting like this everywhere. It's nothing special about N.O. or its residents.




Maybe if I say something enough times it will be true also.

Or Maybe I should just quote some others, and if I do it enough, then everyone will believe that it is true.



And I agree that it is not Unique to New Orleans.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I haven't really heard of anyone (anyone credible) accusing those involved with Search and Rescue of being racist. In fact, I believe that many rescuers will have long term ill health and psychological effects as the result of their service. They are heroes in every sense of the word.
> 
> I HAVE heard some very credible people asking if many in the nation, the government included (parts), did not hold, consciously or subconsciously, the largely black population of New Orleans at the same value that they would have for largely caucasian community of similiar size.
> 
> ...





Maybe if I say something enough times it will be true also.

Or Maybe I should just quote some others, and if I do it enough, then everyone will believe that it is true.


Long Term health effects for helping out people, like the long term health effects for breathing concrete in the Twin Tower event. 

Maybe becuase it was New York the issue with the Twin Towers was anti - semetic, and not an issue terrorism.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Sep 10, 2005)

sry for the double post, its in the bottom.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Maybe if I say something enough times it will be true also.
> 
> Or Maybe I should just quote some others, and if I do it enough, then everyone will believe that it is true.


Rich

No one is trying to say that the people down there trying to help are racist. What is being said is that the historical context matches what happened. The events of N.O. reveal a deeper national problem with race.  There are a couple kinds of racism, the hard racism of segregation and the soft racism of neglect.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, its an interesting article I happen to disagree with it.  I do however, think that recovery efforts could have been issued faster, but that is not only the federal level's responsibility, local and state governments should have also done a better job.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Katrina did not hit all folks equally because the majority of New Orleans residents happen to be African American. That said, unless Katrina herself is a racist, which I am pretty sure that by now that option has probably been explored by some journalist somewhere, the devastation itself was going to be harder on blacks than whites. Yes overall, blacks probably did get hit harder, but please it was not as a result of race so much as it was as a result of where the natural disaster happenned to hit the hardest. As for the recovery efforts, I still would not say race is a factor, yes the administration did cut funds that should have gone into protecting the city from a category 4 hurricane. But the local government and the state government had to know about this as well, had an evacuation plan and never went through with it. Before Katrina made land fall it was a category 4 hurricane reaching speeds of 165 mph. I dont see this as much a racial issue, but more as a result of the government failing at all levels on this. Yeah everybody wants to blame Bush, and I am not a fan of Bush but I like my share of b/s close to my nose where I can smell it, what the hell steps did the local and state government take to protect those people, sticking them in a stadium that could not resist that wind velocity?


New Orleans is mostly black.  It has one of the highest rates of poverty for any American city.  It's levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm.  It's more complicated then geography.  There are social issues involved...the soft racism of neglect.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> New Orleans is mostly black. It has one of the highest rates of poverty for any American city. It's levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm. It's more complicated then geography. There are social issues involved...the soft racism of neglect.


Again, you go back and talk about how the levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm. When confronted with the fact that it is a local problem dealing with the lack of political will of local level officials to fund such projects (as it is a local issue...any federal funding is just a "bonus"), you shrug it off and make another claim about something else. Then after you've made some more claims, you go back to your original claim which is already pure bogus. I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand...the areas where the levees broke were recently upgraded and completed...you do understand what that means? That means at the local level, there was no political will to expand the levees beyond their category 3 capability. If you want to blame someone, blame the local authorities and policy makers (some of which just happen to be black...so where is the racism again?).

I'm sure you may drop away from arguing this point then re-introduce it as fact later on. It certainly is an effective arguing tactic against those that haven't followed your entire line of debate. But against those that have, it reveals how weak your arguments really are.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

If anybody neglected the black population of New Orleans it was the city and state governments. How the federal governemnt gets the blame now is beyond me.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ...How the federal governemnt gets the blame now is beyond me.


Republicans are in power, remember?


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Republicans are in power, remember?


That statement only applies if you don't understand federalism and don't understand how the local and state officials have been the ones bungling things.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

Oh Yeah...thats right.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 10, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> That statement only applies if you don't understand federalism and don't understand how the local and state officials have been the ones bungling things.


It was an attempt to make Tgace chuckle.  I understand the situation.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

Oh, haha.  Sorry, my safety has been off on these threads...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> Again, you go back and talk about how the levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm. When confronted with the fact that it is a local problem dealing with the lack of political will of local level officials to fund such projects (as it is a local issue...any federal funding is just a "bonus"), you shrug it off and make another claim about something else.


Lack of political will is BS.  You talk to anyone and ask them if they want their homes flooded if strong storm comes by and what do you think they will say.  *The issue is a lack of power and a lack of money*.  The people who needed better levees don't have either.  Local officials could not raise the money through their tax base to make major improvements like upgrading the levees to protect against even stronger storms.  The corps couldn't get the federal government to budge on any money to do this project.  This attempt to shift blame away from the federal level is pitiful.

Here's an informative source for ya'll...michaeledward posted it earlier.

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/r....asp?prj=lkpon1http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26628&page=1



> *FY 2005 BUDGET/EFFORT.*The Presidents budget for fiscal year 2005 was $3.9 million. Congress increased it to $5.5 million. *This was insufficient* to fund new construction contracts. Engineering design, and construction supervision and inspection efforts are also included. *Seven contracts are being delayed due to lack funds.* They include the floodgate at the Canadian National Railroad and the Gulf South Floodwall and Reach 2A and 2B levee enlargement, all in St. Charles Parish; Reach 1 and Reach 4 Levee Enlargements in Jefferson Parish; Pump Station No. 3 Fronting Protection, Robert E. Lee Bridge replacement and the New Orleans East Back Levee enlargement, all in Orleans Parish; and the Bienvenu to Dupre Levee Enlargement in St. Bernard Parish. The Pontchartrain Levee District is providing funds to construct the Gulf South Pipeline floodwall in St. Charles Parish. The East Jefferson Levee District is providing funds to construct the Reach 1 and Reach 4 levee enlargements in Jefferson Parish. Louis Armstrong International Airport is funding the Canadian National Railroad floodgate as part of the rehabilitation of the east-west runway.
> 
> 
> *FY 2006 BUDGET/EFFORT.* The Presidents budget for fiscal year 2005 is $3.0 million. *This will be insufficient* to fund new construction contracts. We could spend $20 million if the funds were provided. These *funds are necessary* to maintain the project schedule and to meet our contractual and local sponsor commitments.
> ...


I'm sure you'll find some article that will make all sorts of excuses for this now... 



> Then after you've made some more claims, you go back to your original claim which is already pure bogus. I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand...the areas where the levees broke were recently upgraded and completed...you do understand what that means?


Oh yippie, more right wing brow beating.  This is what Hannity and Limbaugh do when they start losing so they can at least sound tough for listeners... 



> That means at the local level, there was no political will to expand the levees beyond their category 3 capability. If you want to blame someone, blame the local authorities and policy makers (some of which just happen to be black...so where is the racism again?).


Have you actually listened to what the local officials have to say?



> I'm sure you may drop away from arguing this point then re-introduce it as fact later on. It certainly is an effective arguing tactic against those that haven't followed your entire line of debate. But against those that have, it reveals how weak your arguments really are.


Right back at ya...


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 10, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> Oh, haha. Sorry, my safety has been off on these threads...


No problem.  These debates can get a little heated.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/r....asp?prj=lkpon1


I don't need an article to counter your part. All I need is common sense, logic and critical analysis.

Again, misunderstanding what your sources mean can cause you trouble. The main gist of that source is that funding was not available for new construction projects. In other words, the state of Louisiana has been so wasteful with the hundreds of millions of dollars they have received from the federal level (not even talking about local here) there was a concerted emphasis on forcing them to focus on existing projects (i.e. LEVEES). When they say there is not enough money for NEW projects, that is exactly what they mean. For NEW projects. You have spun this to make it sound like there wasn't enough money to fund the OLD projects. They received plenty of money, they just weren't using it for the right things. Again, lack of political will.



> Oh yippie, more right wing brow beating. This is what Hannity and Limbaugh do when they start losing so they can at least sound tough for listeners...


As usual, you fail to actually address my argument and instead go off on something vague. How did that address my statement, which was the fact that the levees which broke were already recently upgraded and completed?



> Have you actually listened to what the local officials have to say?


I have. All I've heard of is a frantic game of trying to blame every one but themselves. So tell me, what did they say?



> Right back at ya...


Unfortunately, you can't use this statement unless I was actually doing this. I have not been. Nice try though.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> New Orleans is mostly black.  It has one of the highest rates of poverty for any American city.  It's levees were neglected and could not protect against a strong storm.  It's more complicated then geography.  There are social issues involved...the soft racism of neglect.



What about Detroit?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The events of N.O. reveal a deeper national problem with race. There are a couple kinds of racism, the hard racism of segregation and the soft racism of neglect.


 I believe it was more likely denial--"It couldn't happen." Everyone considered N.O. a jewel of the U.S. It is hard for me to believe that soft racism lies behind its problems. It would have been very expensive to fix the levees etc.--and people would have said, Why bother? There'll never be a hurricane that strong...

  ...a tsunami that big...

  ...a madman flying planes into skyscrapers...

  ...an out-of-control fire in Chicago...
  ...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

exactly


----------



## Marginal (Sep 10, 2005)

But really, it's still all their fault for building a city there.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 10, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> I have. All I've heard of is a frantic game of trying to blame every one but themselves. So tell me, what did they say?


 I heard them too and what I heard was an elected official saying he wasn't going to spend a "GD" dime on this rescue, he was going to make the federal government pay for it. I've heard local officials blaming everyone but themselves and being pretty disgusting on tape. If the local government can't or wont do anything to help the situation except call our president any number of foul names, I dont see what we are arguing about. If we want to play the blame game, is an African American governor calling a Caucasian president the f-bomb not racism? I mean if we are defining racism so liberally.

  Dont expect a clear answer from him. He started a new thread here to escape giving me and kind of answers on the other thread.


   7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Dont expect a clear answer from him. He started a new thread here to escape giving me and kind of answers on the other thread.


Get over yourself. Most of the time I'm just trying to figure out the "creative syntax" of your posts...


Here is what you did on the other thread. I made a claim. You disagreed, then you demanded that I provide evidence. I did. You said it wasn't good enough. Then you created a standard of evidence that was absolutely impossible to meet..."Find me a direct quote or direct evidence that shows that government officials were trying to drown black people..."


It was an utterly ridiculous standard. And then to travel further into the absurd, you claimed that since none of the justifications met the _memo-to-the-office-style "don't build the levees higher because the negroes ain't worth it"_ standard, you claimed there was no justification. It just doesn't work that way, man.


I made a claim. I provided evidence for its cultural context. I provided evidence for its historical context. I provided evidence for its regional context. And I provided you with the opinions of multiple experts on this sort of thing. If that isn't good enough for you fine, but I want you to know that I have absolutely no reason to run anywhere in this argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I believe it was more likely denial--"It couldn't happen." Everyone considered N.O. a jewel of the U.S. It is hard for me to believe that soft racism lies behind its problems. It would have been very expensive to fix the levees etc.--and people would have said, Why bother? There'll never be a hurricane that strong...
> 
> ...a tsunami that big...
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure.  I've read so many papers that have talked about this disaster that I think it was impossible to deny that it would ever happen.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> I don't need an article to counter your part. All I need is common sense, logic and critical analysis.


A qualified source would legitimize your claim.



> Again, misunderstanding what your sources mean can cause you trouble. The main gist of that source is that funding was not available for new construction projects.


On this we agree. 



> In other words, the state of Louisiana has been so wasteful with the hundreds of millions of dollars they have received from the federal level (not even talking about local here) there was a concerted emphasis on forcing them to focus on existing projects (i.e. LEVEES). When they say there is not enough money for NEW projects, that is exactly what they mean. For NEW projects.


Building a new levee system to protect against bigger storms was a huge, and most people would say, new project.  

Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows...

A.  Louisiana had plenty of money to control floods through the state.
B.  Louisiana wasted that money.

I will be quickly changing my tune.  I've not come across anything like that.



> You have spun this to make it sound like there wasn't enough money to fund the OLD projects. They received plenty of money, they just weren't using it for the right things. Again, lack of political will.


What were they using it on?  How did they waste it?  How do you know they had enough money?


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A qualified source would legitimize your claim.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm using your flawed analysis of the article against you.



> Building a new levee system to protect against bigger storms was a huge, and most people would say, new project.
> 
> Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows... [note: so are you going to be held to this standard to? You haven't met it so far --Shorin Ryuu]
> 
> ...


Well, here you go. These are FACTS.



> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html
> 
> Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a *$748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control.* The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.
> 
> ...


You have told me before that you knew about the information in this article. Why do I bring it up again? Because you're bringing up claims I shot down in another thread. Again.

The other article is below. It was being updated, which is why you never got a chance to see it. Just so you know, these are all FACTS. Read the whole article. I tried to highlight the good parts, but there is so much...



> http://story.neworleanssun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/58efbe858884606b/id/7a0b0f3917b2751b/
> 
> In December of 1995, the Orleans Levee Board, the local government entity that oversees the levees and floodgates designed to protect New Orleans and the surrounding areas from rising waters, bragged in a supplement to the Times-Picayune newspaper about federal money received to protect the region from hurricanes.
> 
> ...





In other words, you have a continuous and clear trend _over the past ten years_ of Louisiana and New Orleans officials gaining large amounts of money and using them for practically anything BUT levee reinforcement (although they at least managed to complete the vertical concrete wall upgrade on the levees that broke). Remember how I brought up the lack of political will in the local and state government in the other thread? As I recall, you made some strange claim about me blaming it on Clinton (which I wasn't) and then tried to divert to something about the wetlands (which didn't apply). And then, strangely, you stopped posting in that thread. Just because you start posting the same claim in another thread doesn't mean that the FACTS that shot it down in the old thread don't apply.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Get over yourself. Most of the time I'm just trying to figure out the "creative syntax" of your posts...
> 
> 
> Here is what you did on the other thread. I made a claim. You disagreed, then you demanded that I provide evidence. I did. You said it wasn't good enough. Then you created a standard of evidence that was absolutely impossible to meet..."Find me a direct quote or direct evidence that shows that government officials were trying to drown black people..."
> ...


  My bad, I didn't realize "surf the internet" was evidence. I stand corrected. 
 I asked for a logical outline of a claim you made, you answered with "read the newspaper and surf the internet". If you want people to believe you or even give you a voice you need to start backing up what you say. You did list interesting links to opinions, but still no facts. I demanded evidence that you couldn't give. Once you provide any sort of credible evidence I will post a public appology and express my sincere belief that you are correct. My bar of evidence was not high at all, simply a hard piece of fact. Anyone can answer, I haven't seen one piece of hard fact yet in this racism game people are starting to get into. Your so quick to ignore the suffering of everyone except the poor black of the area. That is true racism in my opinion.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I did not "inject" anything. I only uncovered what was, and has always been, there. Part of any solution, IMO, means dealing with some of these issues. You can't plan an evacuation and expect to leave all of the poor and sick behind. You can't build levees that will fail and hope that only the lowest, poorest and blackest neighborhoods are flooded. We have to stop spending huge amounts of money to protect those with the most influence and spend that money to protect everyone.


 That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Again, show me some type of hard evidence that an evacuation was planned expecting to leave out all of the poor and sick. Please, and I beg you, show me some type of hard (or soft for that matter) evidence that levees were built to fail. Show me one small piece of evidence that money was spent in Louisiana to protect some and not all with levees. 
 Youre making claims that are impossible for you to prove or back up. Youre going to cry racism whether its true or not. Your not waiting for proof to start your crying foul. Youre talking about historical patterns, I seem to recall my race of people being exterminated to the point that we can't have any poor Comanche areas in America; there are only a handful left! So lets not get crazy with this, just show me modern day evidence of these few things you claim happened in N.O. and I'll post my apology.


   7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, if you can find a relatively unbiased source by a highly qualified expert that shows...
> 
> A. Louisiana had plenty of money to control floods through the state.
> B. Louisiana wasted that money.


A newspaper article and an msn article hardly qualify for the above criteria.  

I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control.  1.9 billion?  How do you know that was enough money?  And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted.  Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.

The Corps takes care of a lot of things that have nothing to do with flood control.  It doesn't surprise me at all to be shown that they had their fingers in many pies...or that their was a fair bit of mismanagement.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A newspaper article and an msn article hardly qualify for the above criteria.


But you can cite them all the time?



> I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 1.9 billion? How do you know that was enough money? And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted. Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.


Just so you know, those aren't just guesses, assumptions or estimations. Those are actual facts. *Tell me how they aren't.* Simply saying they aren't facts doesn't take that away. I understand there may be some cognitive dissonance going on, but this is really starting to get ridiculous. 



> The Corps takes care of a lot of things that have nothing to do with flood control. It doesn't surprise me at all to be shown that they had their fingers in many pies...or that their was a fair bit of mismanagement.


If you notice, the second article isn't just talking about the Corps of Engineers...

Oh, and just for the tip of the iceberg, how about this?



> http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/law/news/wdl20041129.html
> (29 November 2004)
> 
> *THREE STATE OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR*
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Where do the numbers come from?  One would think that with all of the wasted money over the years, someone would have pulled together a professional report on it and published it somewhere?


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Where do the numbers come from? One would think that with all of the wasted money over the years, someone would have pulled together a professional report on it and published it somewhere?


Oh...so now you start bashing investigative reporting when it doesn't concur with your argument?  So now, unlike you, I have to cite specifically where each and every figure came from in my source?  I know you like the whole double standard when it comes to journalism, but this truly is getting tiring...

Well, I assume you at least can figure out where the Department of Justice article and figures came from...And I assume you can at least figure out where the Corps of Engineers article and figures came from...

As far as the newspaper article, I dare you to find anything that challenges those figures.  Everything he cites comes from Louisiana and New Orleans budgets.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would like to see some solid proof that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 1.9 billion? How do you know that was enough money? And I would like to see how it was wholley wasted. Both articles are full of guesswork, assumptions, and estimations and have no citations to back up any of their claims.


 Wow, a complete dodge of my questions and statements. Thats pretty good, you should be in politics. You pose a good question, how *do* we know it was enough money? By your own reasoning however, how do you know it was *not* enough money? This is where your bouncing back and forth on speculation and opinions. Facts will set this straight once and for all.....but it seems your hard pressed to find any.

  7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I asked for a logical outline of a claim you made, you answered with "read the newspaper and surf the internet".


All you need to do is pay attention to find some of this stuff. Read what has been written. Take a little more time to analyze what you are seeing. Hell, take a little time to look into the history...



> If you want people to believe you or even give you a voice you need to start backing up what you say.


I did. I made a claim. I've pointed what anyone can plainly see by reading the newspaper or searching the net. Then, I provided historical context for my claim in order to show that this was nothing new. Further, I provided regional context for my claim in order to show that it isn't at all local. Finally, I pulled in the analysis of local experts, phds who live in New Orleans and who study things like this to talk about what they have directly seen. For some reason, this is not enough for you, I don't know why...



> You did list interesting links to opinions, but still no facts.


There were plenty of direct observations given by experts in what I posted. If that is not a fact, I don't know what else is. 



> I demanded evidence that you couldn't give.


You demanded evidence for something known as _hard racism_. You want me to provide specific damning information about specific individuals who made it their sole purpose to discriminate against others. This kind of evidence may exist, but I haven't seen anything.

And, in any event, hard racism is not what I'm talking about. I have made a case for soft racism. This is the racism that people don't really think about. It is the racism of neglect, of low expectations, and no accountability. Its the type of racism that is behind the fact that the lowest lying and poorest neighborhoods through the south are mostly black. It is the type of racism that builds levees around white neighborhoods and leaves black ones wet. It is the type of racism keeps minorities poor and in the most dangerous areas. All of this stuff is documented in the media and it has all been posted before in one thread or another. 



> Once you provide any sort of credible evidence I will post a public appology and express my sincere belief that you are correct. My bar of evidence was not high at all, simply a hard piece of fact. Anyone can answer, I haven't seen one piece of hard fact yet in this racism game people are starting to get into.


I'm not attempting to prove hard racism. I've got a family and two kids and I don't have the time to dig through someones trash and look at people's memos. Soft racism is different and you can readily see it if you bother to look. 



> Your so quick to ignore the suffering of everyone except the poor black of the area. That is true racism in my opinion.


You don't need to make assumptions like this. I'm not ignoring anyone. However, I am focusing in on an issue. I think that Katrina exposed a fair bit of racism in the deep south and I've laid out a pretty good case for it.



> Again, show me some type of hard evidence that an evacuation was planned expecting to leave out all of the poor and sick.


http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2322

Think about this article and correllate it with the historical, regional and local context of racism in the Deep South.

More about the "Hurricane Pam" exercise...

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051



> Craig E. Colten, professor of geography and anthropology at Louisiana State University, says race played a role in the New Orleans' level of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4829446



> Please, and I beg you, show me some type of hard (or soft for that matter) evidence that levees were built to fail.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0902_050902_katrina_levees.html

If you build a levee to withstand a catagory three hurricane, you _know_ they will fail in a catagory four. Therefore, they were built, knowing they would fail...in essence, built to fail during a catagory four.



> Show me one small piece of evidence that money was spent in Louisiana to protect some and not all with levees.


Two books, John McPhee's _The Control of Nature_ and Howard Zinn's _People's History of the United States_ make the claim.

Here is some more interesting reading...

http://hnn.us/articles/15163.html



> Mr. Morris is a historian at the University of Texas at Arlington, and the author of books and articles on the history of the South. He is completing a book on the environmental and social history of the Lower Mississippi Valley, including New Orleans.


 


> Youre making claims that are impossible for you to prove or back up.


I don't think I am. When it comes to soft racism, there is plenty to see and you don't have to try hard...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

In other words "soft racism" is something you cant "prove", you can find it in any situation involving minorities and trot it out to make political hay, you cant show it ever ends, and you can apply it to any situation you care too...

Sounds like

:bs: 

To me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/response/HURPROJ.asp?prj=lkpon1

This is the only official thing to be posted so far and this source specifically states that there wasn't enough money to fund the project that would have protected New Orleans. This article is the standard. It is professional and it is written by experts in the field.

Something that directly refers to a report that one could go and spend time searching out would also be nice...

There has been nothing posted so far that has shown that Louisiana had all of the money it needed for flood control. 

There has been nothing posted so far that shows that Louisiana wasted money specifically allocated for flood control. 

I would hope that if there is this long history of mismanagement and waste, someone would have published something professional about it. 

Here are some peices of evidence that the federal government underfunded New Orleans' levees...

http://lmno4p.org/articles/9.5/levee_funding_cut_by_Bush.pdf

Here is another source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_hurricane_risk_for_New_Orleans#Preparing_the_levees_for_a_category_4.2B_hurricane


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow, a complete dodge of my questions and statements. Thats pretty good, you should be in politics. You pose a good question, how *do* we know it was enough money? By your own reasoning however, how do you know it was *not* enough money? This is where your bouncing back and forth on speculation and opinions. Facts will set this straight once and for all.....but it seems your hard pressed to find any.
> 
> 7sm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_hurricane_risk_for_New_Orleans#Preparing_the_levees_for_a_category_4.2B_hurricane


> When interpreting levee funding issues, it is important to understand that the levees have been considered underfunded for decades [16] Most experts agree that a levee project capable of preventing the recent flooding in New Orleans would have had to have been started during the Clinton Administration in order to be completed by the time Katrina hit. This has not stopped political opponents of the Bush administration from claiming that the failure of the levee system may have been the result of federal funding cuts for hurricane and flood control projects due to the cost of the Iraq war. Others believe this view may not be accurate as there were no plans or proposals in the near term to redesign the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Projects levees to withstand a category 4 or greater hurricane like Katrina.
> 
> In Feb. of 2004 Al Naomi, the Army Corps of Engineers senior project manager in New Orleans stated that "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest [17]." A copy of the most recent comprehensive formal evaluation by the Army Corps of Engineers of the state of the levees has yet to be made public. [18]. However, no evidence has come forward that these previously identified, inadequate levee areas were the source of the breaches.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_hurricane_risk_for_New_Orleans#Preparing_the_levees_for_a_category_4.2B_hurricane





> Most experts agree that a levee project capable of preventing the recent flooding in New Orleans would have had to have been started during the Clinton Administration in order to be completed by the time Katrina hit.


I found this very interesting.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

Hats off to you for that...although even I wouldnt "blame" Clinton. 

This is just an unfortunate example of bureaucracy, politics and human (wont happen to me) nature IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In other words "soft racism" is something you cant "prove"...


Depends on what you mean by _prove_.  What do you need to see for proof?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2005)

Your the scientist, you tell me...more than just "look all the people left are black. Theres your proof." Not very scientific...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 10, 2005)

I agree 100%. "soft Racism" is easily claimed but hard pressed to be proven. I dont think the mindset of someone deadset on proving racism is that of an open mind. Racism in America today is a funny thing, in some instances it only exists because we can't let it die. There were human errors made, no one is denying that, but to try and say they were made in order to exclude or damage a race of people is asinine and just argumentative. You admit there is no proof of any kind to support racism in this disaster....



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This kind of evidence may exist, but I haven't seen anything.


 So why spend precious time and energy searching for racism in this disaster? Now is the time for helping. If you havent seen any evidence of racism, just implied, loosely strung together conjectures, why keep pounding away at your keyboard screaming foul?





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you build a levee to withstand a category three hurricane, you _know_ they will fail in a category four. Therefore, they were built, knowing they would fail...in essence, built to fail during a category four.


 Lets talk a little bit about context here. Your working so hard at spinning here your not opening your mind to see whats before your eyes. We cannot build something that is 100% secure against the biggest imagination out there. Youre putting intention behind things that you had or have no control over. In your reasoning the racism was counting on a cat 4 or 5 storm to do its dirty work then? 



 Im with tgace here, youre trying to stretch and spread your blanket soft racism over a pretty wide area and its starting to get quite thin.

   7sm


----------



## RickRed (Sep 10, 2005)

So, the poorest folks in a southern region are primarily black. Is that really any surprise?

Those folks also don't have the means to escape, or the resources to keep getting packed and moving to multiple false alarms and get caught in a major catastrophe because they choose to ignore a real alarm due to the 'crying wolf' mentallity.....

From watching the news, there were more than a few that were told on camera that they needed to move and refused. Even when the water was up to the second floor of their homes.

Some of those were white too.

I don't recall anyone, white rescuer or black, telling anyone that they wouldn't help them or to get to the back of the rescue helicopter.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 10, 2005)

Take a look at this photo documentary of N.O. before, during and after the storm. No one (white or black) thought that it was a big deal. After the storm they were out buying beer and having a great time thinking it hadn't been too bad of a storm, then came the water. Here is the link, I posted it in the other thread as well. Link



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When interpreting levee funding issues, it is important to understand that the levees have been considered underfunded for decades.


 Its going to be pretty hard to show a connection to racism throughout these decades of various officials, leaders and presidents. 

 7sm


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 10, 2005)

I've read the reports about the Hurricane Pam simulation. What your blatantly biased source does NOT mention is what you have linked to in another source: Shelters are provided for those who don't have transportation and that it is the city's primary job to take care of it in the first place. The article focuses SO MUCH on the fact that the exercise assumed that only 1/3 of the city would be evacuated (in reality, 70% of the city was) and neglects to tell you that the entire plan was focused on ways to help those that were left. But why were these numbers the way they were?



> Though the Pam scenario plans did not address pre-emptive evacuation assistance, New Orleans officials told the _Times-Picayune_ in July of this year that they would dedicate 64 city buses and 10 lift vans, as well as potentially school buses and Amtrak trains, to help people flee the city in the event of a serious hurricane threat. But they also acknowledged that would not meet the potential need.
> 
> According to the Louisiana Transit Resource Guide, a state-government website, New Orleans has 364 city buses in its fleet. Why officials did not plan to dedicate more buses to an evacuation effort was not explained to the _Times-Picayune_.


I don't know why either. Ask Nagin. I'm sure you've seen the photos of all the buses sitting in water by now. Who could have ordered those into use? The City.




This is what you had to say about Professor Colten.


> Craig E. Colten, professor of geography and anthropology at Louisiana State University, says race played a role in the New Orleans' level of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina.


I've listend to him and this is what he said:

1. *Racism is not a factor.* He cited the fact that the majority of the city administration is African-American and that there is no racial bias.

2. He cites "White Flight" of the 50s and 60s. This was the leaving of many white people from New Orleans to other areas. He ties this to a drop in the tax base of the city, leaving less money for flood control projects. 

First of all, that is an economic argument. What responsibility does someone owe to the community they've left behind in terms of the economy? Nothing. However, I have already addressed how they received massive amounts of money for water-management projects yet there was a lack of local political will. City officials always knew the capabilities of their levees.

Secondly, the question is why are these people _still _poor? If the White Flight of 4 and 5 decades ago (!!) is to blame for the shrinking of the tax base back then, what was the system in place by the *city's *primarily black administration (not to mention liberal) doing to lift up the people's economic levels over the past fifty years? The answer is not much. A welfare state doesn't do much to help the people it claims to. If it did, the tax base would have been more than sufficient to cover it on its own. Instead, it created dependency and economically damaging policies which contributed to the high poverty rate in New Orleans.

3. He talks about the lack of transportation available for those who don't have transportation of their own. Public transportation is a city matter and the reason why many of them don't have their own transportation. Therefore it is the city's job to ensure evacuation for these people takes place. Yet, just like the first article you mentioned, "Despite this self-mandate, the city failed to actually provide a way out for those trapped with few resources and limited options." If you want to play the transportation blame-game, go ahead and blame Nagin.

4. It mentions richer people lived in areas of higher elevation (15 feet) while those that did not were poorer. So who are the poor? The people living in government project housing. Who determined that? The city government.

5. Nothing is actually ever mentioned about the difference in poverty as it relates to disaster relief. All it mentions is how poverty shaped the disaster environment. But isn't that obvious? A city laden with poor welfare addicts of course will do worse than one that isn't.

Edit: Hahaa! You're citing wikipedia now!?

I forgot this point:


> http://newstandardnews.net/content/...tem&itemid=2322
> 
> Think about this article and correllate it with the historical, regional and local context of racism in the Deep South.


Correlation and context are the only way you could possibly make the case. But correlation isn't causation (you failed statistics, I see...or at least you fail to apply it to your political arguments here) nor is there anything to connect that context to this case, as the city administration is primarily African American. All you are saying is that the study admitted it would be impossible to evacuate everyone and there is a history of racism in the past. Unfortunately, you can't connect those two and call it "fact" or even anything resembling evidence.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Your the scientist, you tell me...more than just "look all the people left are black. Theres your proof." Not very scientific...


Well, I agree with you there, but in many cases, "proof" is relative, even in science.  Sometimes we set our bars rather arbitrarily.  I'm asking where your "bar" is.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

I've already addressed how you've been misinterpreting that official statement. Furthermore, why is it that newspaper articles and journalists that support your side of the story are always legit (although I find it rather easy to pick them apart...usually because they don't actually say what you claim they say) and whenever I simply post facts about who got what and where, you start to clam up and claim it isn't an official report? You ask how come there isn't an official report for a corrupt local government? Maybe there is...but I've already given you at least one instance where 3 officials have been tried for mismanagement of water control projects. The sources I have stated also talk about how audits and review board personnel have made public statements. The sources I have stated talk about public statements made by those levee boards themselves.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree 100%. "soft Racism" is easily claimed but hard pressed to be proven.


You can show that it exists.  It just takes more time.



> Racism in America today is a funny thing, in some instances it only exists because we can't let it die.


Is this how you feel in this instance?



> There were human errors made, no one is denying that, but to try and say they were made in order to exclude or damage a race of people is asinine and just argumentative.


 
It all depends on the historical, regional, and local context.



> You admit there is no proof of any kind to support racism in this disaster....


That is not what I said.  I have found nothing to support any hard racism.  Soft Racism on the other hand...



> So why spend precious time and energy searching for racism in this disaster? Now is the time for helping. If you havent seen any evidence of racism, just implied, loosely strung together conjectures, why keep pounding away at your keyboard screaming foul?


Evidence of racism exists in this case.  There is a lack of evidence for hard racism.  



> In your reasoning the racism was counting on a cat 4 or 5 storm to do its dirty work then?


No, its just a matter of priorities.   



> Im with tgace here, youre trying to stretch and spread your blanket soft racism over a pretty wide area and its starting to get quite thin.


If that is your opinion, that's fine, but I disagree.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

Another point about the Hurricane Pam study...It's assumption about the number of people unable to leave didn't mean they abandoned or gave up on them. In fact, all that means is that they were over-preparing. They asked themselves "What if only 1/3 of the city evacuated, how would we prepare?" That is a difference between saying "only 1/3 is going to evacuate...who cares?"

Furthermore, all studies are meant to identify weaknesses. Why didn't the city act on them? Lastly, of course any program director is going to say "The simulation went well" or "we learned a lot". A simulation "going well" means they learned a lot and has nothing to do with what happened. I've taken part in some DHS simulations myself...they evaluate half of it on what areas they saw they can work on. So that raises the question again...why didn't the city do more?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> I've read the reports about the Hurricane Pam simulation. What your blatantly biased source does NOT mention is what you have linked to in another source: Shelters are provided for those who don't have transportation and that it is the city's primary job to take care of it in the first place. The article focuses SO MUCH on the fact that the exercise assumed that only 1/3 of the city would be evacuated (in reality, 70% of the city was) and neglects to tell you that the entire plan was focused on ways to help those that were left. But why were these numbers the way they were?


 
300 busses to remove 20,000 people?  Those must have been big busses.



> I don't know why either. Ask Nagin. I'm sure you've seen the photos of all the buses sitting in water by now. Who could have ordered those into use? The City.


When the levees broke, the water rose quickly.  Besides, it wasn't enough to get everyone out.



> 1. *Racism is not a factor.* He cited the fact that the majority of the city administration is African-American and that there is no racial bias.


Actually, no he didn't.  I don't know where you got this and I JUST listened to it again to make sure.



> 2. He cites "White Flight" of the 50s and 60s. This was the leaving of many white people from New Orleans to other areas. He ties this to a drop in the tax base of the city, leaving less money for flood control projects.


White Flight is a form of segregation.  This is how class and race melded together. 



> First of all, that is an economic argument. What responsibility does someone owe to the community they've left behind in terms of the economy? Nothing. However, I have already addressed how they received massive amounts of money for water-management projects yet there was a lack of local political will. City officials always knew the capabilities of their levees.


Yeah, but you were wrong about the political will.  "Will" is the wrong word.  Power is the key.  People want to be safe, but lacked the power to make it happen.  Also, it has been consistantly shown that they have never had enough money in the city for flood control, from local, state, and federal levels.



> Secondly, the question is why are these people _still _poor? If the White Flight of 4 and 5 decades ago (!!) is to blame for the shrinking of the tax base back then, what was the system in place by the *city's *primarily black administration (not to mention liberal) doing to lift up the people's economic levels over the past fifty years? The answer is not much. A welfare state doesn't do much to help the people it claims to. If it did, the tax base would have been more than sufficient to cover it on its own. Instead, it created dependency and economically damaging policies which contributed to the high poverty rate in New Orleans.


You can't create something from nothing.  If the city is filled with poor people, there is no money to invest to make stuff better.  No policy, conservative or liberal can fix that.



> 3. He talks about the lack of transportation available for those who don't have transportation of their own. Public transportation is a city matter and the reason why many of them don't have their own transportation. Therefore it is the city's job to ensure evacuation for these people takes place. Yet, just like the first article you mentioned, "Despite this self-mandate, the city failed to actually provide a way out for those trapped with few resources and limited options." If you want to play the transportation blame-game, go ahead and blame Nagin.


 
So, we have a city that is primarily filled with poor people.  Is it any wonder that they don't have the resources to get everyone out?  FEMA knew this and reported it widely, but the people of New Orleans had no power to get the help they needed.  



> 4. It mentions richer people lived in areas of higher elevation (15 feet) while those that did not were poorer. So who are the poor? The people living in government project housing. Who determined that? The city government.


Government housing projects?  Dr. Colten didn't say this, this is your insertion.  Do you have any evidence for this claim?



> 5. Nothing is actually ever mentioned about the difference in poverty as it relates to disaster relief. All it mentions is how poverty shaped the disaster environment. But isn't that obvious? *A city laden with poor welfare addicts of course will do worse than one that isn't*.


Boy, that is painting with a broad brush...

You need to understand the modern way in which race and class are linked.



> Correlation and context are the only way you could possibly make the case. But correlation isn't causation (you failed statistics, I see...or at least you fail to apply it to your political arguments here) nor is there anything to connect that context to this case, as the city administration is primarily African American.


I'm talking about the greater society.  I'm talking about context.  Correlation isn't causation...until it becomes _significant_.  We've reached that point.



> All you are saying is that the study admitted it would be impossible to evacuate everyone and there is a history of racism in the past. Unfortunately, you can't connect those two and call it "fact" or even anything resembling evidence.


Well, if that is your opinion, fine, but I disagree.  The historical, regional, and local context, combined with the actual facts of what happened are pretty clear.  When you take it all together, you get a story with equal parts class, race, and incompetance.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> I've already addressed how you've been misinterpreting that official statement.


Who is to say that you are "interpretting" it right?  How about we just look at what it says...

*



 

FY 2006 BUDGET/EFFORT. The Presidents budget for fiscal year 2005 is $3.0 million. This will be insufficient to fund new construction contracts.  We could spend $20 million if the funds were provided. These funds are necessary to maintain the project schedule and to meet our contractual and local sponsor commitments.

IMPACTS OF BUDGET SHORTFALL. In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.



Click to expand...

 

*


> Furthermore, why is it that newspaper articles and journalists that support your side of the story are always legit


Because one can clearly see where the information came from and one can go to the agency to retrieve the report.  I spent a bunch of time tonight, doing just that, trying to check some facts...



> (although I find it rather easy to pick them apart...usually because they don't actually say what you claim they say)


Well, actually, you just make stuff up and claim the article or the speaker said that.  Case in point is the above where you blatently put words in Dr. Colten's mouth and where you take the Corps report and try to pin that on local governments.  The report clearly states that PRESIDENT BUSH'S budget was the problem.



> and whenever I simply post facts about who got what and where, you start to clam up and claim it isn't an official report?


Because there are no citations.  There is nothing to actually check facts.  With the articles in question, there were a bunch of estimations and "he said she saids" that were really questionable.



> You ask how come there isn't an official report for a corrupt local government? Maybe there is...but I've already given you at least one instance where 3 officials have been tried for mismanagement of water control projects. The sources I have stated also talk about how audits and review board personnel have made public statements. The sources I have stated talk about public statements made by those levee boards themselves.


So, are you trying to correllate these three officials with the entire levee board, the state of Louisiana and the Corps of Engineers?  You've shown that there is some corruption, but you haven't shown that it was so pervasive that it wasted all of the flood control money.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> Another point about the Hurricane Pam study...It's assumption about the number of people unable to leave didn't mean they abandoned or gave up on them. In fact, all that means is that they were over-preparing. They asked themselves "What if only 1/3 of the city evacuated, how would we prepare?" That is a difference between saying "only 1/3 is going to evacuate...who cares?"
> 
> Furthermore, all studies are meant to identify weaknesses. Why didn't the city act on them? Lastly, of course any program director is going to say "The simulation went well" or "we learned a lot". A simulation "going well" means they learned a lot and has nothing to do with what happened. I've taken part in some DHS simulations myself...they evaluate half of it on what areas they saw they can work on. So that raises the question again...why didn't the city do more?


A city filled with poor people, doesn't have the resources to do more.  A city filled with poor people doesn't have the power needed to get help.  A city filled with poor people usually looks pretty colored because of the way class and race meld together in Modern America.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

> 300 busses to remove 20,000 people? Those must have been big busses.


Actually, 346 buses multiplied by 50 people capacity (very conservative estimate) is 17,300. That is only on a single run and almost everybody. But let's say you can only evacuate 10,000 people per run (I'm really letting you off easy...a carrying capacity of only 28 people??? That's far too low...). That's still only two trips to fit 20,000 people.



> When the levees broke, the water rose quickly. Besides, it wasn't enough to get everyone out.


So...unless every single person with no exceptions was evacuated, you wouldn't be satsified? With the ability to evacuate 15,000 people or so per trip, why weren't they employed before the hurricane hit? Are you suggesting it was poor planning on the city's part? 

Also, now you're talking about after the levees broke. So the city gets "a pass" and doesn't have to worry about anything before, but you have no problem bashing Bush in this specific regard?

Further, why weren't precautions taken to move the buses to higher ground, according to their disaster plan? That's the city's sterling job, I assume. The disaster plan depends on those city resources that the city squandered.

Regarding Colten:
At about 3:16, the reporter asked what was at the heart of the present case. She asked specifically (in breathless tones), is it racist?

He replied that "one could not say there was a racial bias" as most of the city administration was black.





This is what is meant by the media bias. I'll use your term. A "soft" media bias.

The description of the file said this: "Craig E. Colten, professor of geography and anthropology at Louisiana State University, says race played a role in the New Orleans' level of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina."

But you have to listen to figure out the racial factor was fifty or sixty years ago, not in the present situation as is largely implied by the timing and placement of this piece...(Of course, there are also hard instances of media bias...but we're not going to go there)  Not that I really expected much from NPR.



He said there was a bias built into the human mobility...the mobility 50 years ago...His point was that the wealthier people who no longer lived in New Orleans could provide much better for themselves. Well, of course.



> You can't create something from nothing. If the city is filled with poor people, there is no money to invest to make stuff better. No policy, conservative or liberal can fix that.


Well, I guess that's the difference in thinking between the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps conservatism and you-can't-do-anything-on-your-own-welfare-state-dependency.



> Yeah, but you were wrong about the political will. "Will" is the wrong word. Power is the key. People want to be safe, but lacked the power to make it happen. Also, it has been consistantly shown that they have never had enough money in the city for flood control, from local, state, and federal levels


When I say political will, I mean in the hands of the politicians AND the people. Addressing the politicians: I've already shown you how easy it was for them to attain massive amounts of pork-barrel spending. You keep refusing to admit it though. That's okay, time is on the side of those with facts. 

Addressing the people: they kept electing these people into office...that is democracy...furthermore:



> The Orleans Levee Board was also forced to defer $3.7 million in capital improvement projects in its 2001 budget after residents of the area rejected a proposed tax increase to fund its expanding operations. Long term deferments to nearly 60 projects, based on the revenue shortfall, totaled $47 million worth of work, including projects to shore up the floodwalls.




The people didn't deem it important enough. Instead, they thought they should just depend on some other government source (federal), once again proving the danger of a welfare system. If there was political will, they would have petitioned their officials and legislators. That is how democracy works. If there was political will, the politicians would have spent less time worrying about a Corps project that cost $748 million to allow for increased barge traffic despite there being evidence that traffic was decreasing. They could have then used the barest fraction of this to easily fulfill the money the Corps requested for levees (again...the levees which broke were upgraded to concrete and weren't planned on being upgraded further...).


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, I agree with you there, but in many cases, "proof" is relative, even in science. Sometimes we set our bars rather arbitrarily. I'm asking where your "bar" is.


Unless it has to do with global warming eh... 

If the conjucture and assumption shown so far in this thread is a form of your "proof" I would say my bar is much higher.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> White Flight is a form of segregation. This is how class and race melded together.


So...what? We shouldnt allow people to move because its racist and classist? Your "soft science" seems to have some scary undercurrents in its ultimate solution it seems.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Unless it has to do with global warming eh...
> 
> If the conjucture and assumption shown so far in this thread is a form of your "proof" I would say my bar is much higher.


Especially with global warming...

If I just pointed at the events and said that it was racist, there wouldn't be much behind the claim.  However, by providing a historical context that stretched all of the way back to Reconstruction, I was able to show that this type of thing is nothing new.  Then, by providing a regional context, I was able to show that not only is this type of thing nothing new, but it is pervasive.  Lastly, by pulling in the opinions of local experts, I think I've legitimized my claim with a little scholarly might.  

I guess if your bar is higher, that is fine, but I think that this is probably a enough for most people.  I know that if I were writing a paper for one of my professors, this information would probably be enough....or at least I hope it would.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So...what? We shouldnt allow people to move because its racist and classist? Your "soft science" seems to have some scary undercurrents in its ultimate solution it seems.


No, we just need to take this into account when planning for things like this.  People who are physically and economically vulnerable have a hard time leaving everything and it takes lots of money to come up with the structure it would take to evacuate them.  Money is something a city filled with poor people doesn't have.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> Actually, 346 buses multiplied by 50 people capacity (very conservative estimate) is 17,300. That is only on a single run and almost everybody. But let's say you can only evacuate 10,000 people per run (I'm really letting you off easy...a carrying capacity of only 28 people??? That's far too low...). That's still only two trips to fit 20,000 people.


20,000 is probably way to low for an estimation of the people who were left behind or stayed.  I've seen estimate of up to 80,000.  20,000 is still more then enough though.  Think about this...packing old, sick, and poor people on the bus with all of their stuff including clothing, medical equipment, and whatever else...28 people would be a very full bus indeed.  I would expect less.  

Further, there wasn't time for two trips.  The highways were gridlocked.  And I'm wondering if there was anyone around to drive the busses.  People in emergencies tend to take care of their families.



> So...unless every single person with no exceptions was evacuated, you wouldn't be satsified? With the ability to evacuate 15,000 people or so per trip, why weren't they employed before the hurricane hit? Are you suggesting it was poor planning on the city's part?


The city can be faulted for some of this, but the **** spreads thinly.  Cuba somehow gets everyone out when they evacuate and I think its because they have a strong plan and everyone knows what they have to do at all levels.  The national government moves in and coordinates everything and they move even the poor and the old.



> Also, now you're talking about after the levees broke. So the city gets "a pass" and doesn't have to worry about anything before, but you have no problem bashing Bush in this specific regard?


The city doesn't get a pass.  Neither does the state.  Neither does President Bush.  Blame spreads throughout the whole system in my opinion.



> Further, why weren't precautions taken to move the buses to higher ground, according to their disaster plan? That's the city's sterling job, I assume. The disaster plan depends on those city resources that the city squandered.


It would be nice to see some documentation that would show...

a.  the city had all of the resources it needed to get everyone out.
b.  the city wasted this money.

So far, from what I've seen, the city was woefully underfunded and it needed a profound amount of help.



> Regarding Colten:
> At about 3:16, the reporter asked what was at the heart of the present case. She asked specifically (in breathless tones), is it racist?
> 
> He replied that "one could not say there was a racial bias" as most of the city administration was black.


Again, this is incorrect.  The reporter asked, "so, is this an issue of class, poverty, or race, or is this something else?"

That is a pretty fair question and far cry from what you described. 

Dr. Colten's response was, "since most of the city officials were black, there was no bias on their part, however, when it came to mobility out of the city, there was bias..."

Further, right before the segment in question, Dr. Colten talks about how elevation, class, and race has always been an issue with the poorest and the blackest living the lowest and the more affluent whites living the highest.



> This is what is meant by the media bias. I'll use your term. A "soft" media bias.


No, this is what is known as a distorting paraphrase.  You are coloring the conversation to show what you want it to show and then you are ignoring the parts that contradict your line of reasoning.



> The description of the file said this: "Craig E. Colten, professor of geography and anthropology at Louisiana State University, says race played a role in the New Orleans' level of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina."


And this is totally accurate given the context of the conversation.



> But you have to listen to figure out the racial factor was fifty or sixty years ago, not in the present situation as is largely implied by the timing and placement of this piece...(Of course, there are also hard instances of media bias...but we're not going to go there) Not that I really expected much from NPR.


This is also untrue.  Dr. Colten lays out present day examples of bias and inequality.  White flight was part of the problem, but it wasn't the whole problem as you are trying to make it out to be.  Dr. Colten said there was a bias in the way people lived in New Orleans and that there was a bias in the way people could evacuate.



> He said there was a bias built into the human mobility...the mobility 50 years ago...His point was that the wealthier people who no longer lived in New Orleans could provide much better for themselves. Well, of course.


The bias in mobility that Dr. Colten referred to, dealth with mobility during the evacuation.



> Well, I guess that's the difference in thinking between the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps conservatism and you-can't-do-anything-on-your-own-welfare-state-dependency.


Most people who pull-themselves-up-by-the-bootstraps were standing on a mountain of privilege.  This notion is largely a myth.  I won't argue about wellfare dependency, though, I see that everyday at my line of work.



> When I say political will, I mean in the hands of the politicians AND the people. Addressing the politicians: I've already shown you how easy it was for them to attain massive amounts of pork-barrel spending. You keep refusing to admit it though. That's okay, time is on the side of those with facts.


The "pork barrel spending" referred to above dealt with a lot of civil works projects like building locks, dredging canals and other things the Corps does.  These projects weren't requested by city officials, they were part of the Corps agenda.

Here is a general rule, pork barrel spending goes to people who have the most influence.  Poor people have no influence, no power. 



> The people didn't deem it important enough. Instead, they thought they should just depend on some other government source (federal), once again proving the danger of a welfare system. If there was political will, they would have petitioned their officials and legislators. That is how democracy works. If there was political will, the politicians would have spent less time worrying about a Corps project that cost $748 million to allow for increased barge traffic despite there being evidence that traffic was decreasing. They could have then used the barest fraction of this to easily fulfill the money the Corps requested for levees (again...the levees which broke were upgraded to concrete and weren't planned on being upgraded further.


Political will has very little to do with politics anymore.  Politics is all about influence peddling and money.  If you have money, you have power, and you have a voice.  If you don't have it, then, you have no power.  

This isn't a question of will.  Talk to anyone down there and they'll say they want to protect their homes from floods, do they have the power to get it done?  No.  Why?  Because they are poor.

Lets take a look at your example...the $748 million to improve canals and increase barge traffic.  Powerful business lobbyists went to Washington to get this project in the works.  Why?  Because they stand to make a lot of money from its completion.  The congressmen wrote it into the budget.  Why?  Because of all the donations these same interests make in their campaigns.  

Do the poor have this type of influence to advocate for their needs?  No.  Are the needs of their homes and lives more important then the needs of these powerful interests?  I would say yes.  City officials also thought so and they worked hard to lobby for their constintuents...and it all fell on deaf ears.

This isn't a wellfare state argument.  Its about priorities.  Its about who has power and who doesn't.  And it illustrates the sad state of democracy today.  The influence of corporate power trumps the needs of the people.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 11, 2005)

Speaking of your "soft racism" you said this:


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You can show that it exists. It just takes more time.


 But yet your saying now that it exists. Your not saying in a few months or years we will see racism in this disaster, but that its appearent now. You keep tossing these keywords out like "historical context" but yet you haven't really truly shown a connection. Your saying, "Katrina has exposed poverty and racism, only it will take time to prove it"? What will show your "soft racism" exists in more time?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is this how you feel in this instance?


 In your case, yes. You readily admit you have seen no hard facts of racism: 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This kind of evidence may exist, but I haven't seen anything.


 you pick apart the links and "proof" of those apposing your way of thinking by saying: 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A newspaper article and an msn article hardly qualify for the above criteria.


 yet when I asked for proof or evidence you responded:





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> read the newspaper or surf the internet


  You have also stated your historical context shows:





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The pattern is that over and over again, the people _who lose the most_, including their lives, are poor and black.


 yet if we really want ot look at true historical context thats not really true, we allready talked (in the other thread you abandoned) about the native americans. You know how many african americans live in america today? Do you know how many Comanche "Americans" live in the US? I'm not trying to make this a game between black and indian, but lets not color our history to show what we want it to. 

  So, in your case, yes. I think you are trying very hard to hold on to racism in this situation. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It all depends on the historical, regional, and local context.


 Which you have yet to really prove have a conection to this issue. Saying there is a historical, regional, and local context is not proving a connection. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, I agree with you there, but in many cases, "proof" is relative, even in science. Sometimes we set our bars rather arbitrarily. I'm asking where your "bar" is.


 You kept saying this to me as well. Maybe the real question should be, where is *your* bar set?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When the levees broke, the water rose quickly. Besides, it wasn't enough to get everyone out.


 Um...what is your deffinition of "quickly"? The bus scenario you offered with 300 busses, even at your painfully low 28 people per bus (which was way off compared to the busses that actually acrried people out) in 24 hours how many runs do you think they could have made? Lets be painfully low...maybe 4? Thats 40,000 people. At a capacity of 50 that would be almost 70,000 people. Now, you said the waters rose quickly, but according to the photo documentary I offered earlier, we can see actual photographs that show the water did not rise too fast to evacuate 70,000 people the first day it started to flood. But of course the city would have had to do that. There is a picture from day 2 that shows bars opening up "to go" stands to sell off a bit of theri inventory, I see white and black people in line on dry streets. Even during day 3 the water didn't rise above knee level. In fact the pictures show many dry areas including all of the french quarter. Evne if the city had failed it residents soo bad as to only start evacuations on day 3 when they noticed the water, they could have evacuated our 70,000 pretty easily. It wasn't until day 4 (during the day) that the water was reaching beyond knee deep. Then it rose pretty quickly. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This isn't a wellfare state argument. Its about priorities. Its about who has power and who doesn't. And it illustrates the sad state of democracy today. The influence of corporate power trumps the needs of the people.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, it has been consistantly shown that they have never had enough money in the city for flood control, from local, state, and federal levels.


 :idunno:

  The bottom line is when do people stop expecting others to take acre of them and rescue them?

  7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

You are cutting and pasting things together that were not part of the same situation.  They have different contexts.  This is sound byte politics now and I'm not going to play.  

You have not addressed the real argument and you refuse to look at anything that I post.  

You think that I have an opinion and I am unwilling to look at it any other way, but this blatently shows that you too are guilty of this.  

The proof is in the pudding.  I've shown the historical problem.  I've given you an overview the problem in a regional sense.  I've pulled in expert analysis to support my view.  And, I've used reports on current events to support my view.  

There isn't much to discuss until you start attacking this argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The bottom line is when do people stop expecting others to take acre of them and rescue them?


When they are too old or sick or poor to get out on their own.  Otherwise one might as well let them die.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You are cutting and pasting things together that were not part of the same situation. They have different contexts. This is sound byte politics now and I'm not going to play.
> 
> You have not addressed the real argument and you refuse to look at anything that I post.
> 
> ...


 This is too much for me to prove, I'm taking my ball and going home. Or maybe I'll just start another thread to try and loose the pure facts shown to me in these past two.

 7sm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

Nice use of your resources there Mr. Mayor....Blame it on the Feds.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 20,000 is probably way to low for an estimation of the people who were left behind or stayed. I've seen estimate of up to 80,000. 20,000 is still more then enough though. Think about this...packing old, sick, and poor people on the bus with all of their stuff including clothing, medical equipment, and whatever else...28 people would be a very full bus indeed. I would expect less.
> 
> Further, there wasn't time for two trips. The highways were gridlocked. And I'm wondering if there was anyone around to drive the busses. People in emergencies tend to take care of their families.


That's an aspect of city planning that wasn't carried out. It is part of their evacuation plan. These buses were not used even before the levees broke, as they were sitting in the parking lots doing nothing. At any rate, I love how now you say there wasn't enough time. Once the levees broke, there wasn't enough time to realize that "hey, maybe we should leave". You absolve the city officials of their evacuation plan because they didn't have to realize the magnitude of the hurricane until after the levees started to break. On the other hand, you use the same argument against Bush. That he should've known about it even though the city officials apparently didn't deem it necessary.

But just so you know, there are pictures of around 400 buses sitting unused in large pools of water in various places. At least 255 in one (people have counted) and 146 in another (people have counted). Google search can show you them. Use the controls to recenter and rezoom as you like. You can get down to individual bus resolution or better.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Orleans,+LA&ll=29.968598,-90.089189&spn=0.006110,0.009958&t=e&hl=en

This one is on Canal Street, not even a mile away from the Superdome. They are municipally owned buses.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Orleans,+LA&ll=30.000594,-90.033131&spn=0.005190,0.007145&t=k&hl=en

On the lower left side, you'll see the 255 buses. The links take you to a "before" shot. Click on the red Katrina button to see the "after" shot.

There are also isolated lots here and there (13 buses here, 8 buses there, etc.)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Orleans,+LA&ll=30.000594,-90.033131&spn=0.005190,0.007145&t=k&hl=en

(13 buses near the middle of the lower left quadrant...expand the picture to full size to see the resolution). 

There are probably even more buses that we haven't seen...

So these are all buses that weren't even being used. That means either the city used none of their buses as a resource or they had even more that they used.

I think they used at least some, because if you look at Almonaster facility, their parking lot is almost empty. It's in the bottom right of the second link I provided. It is also only a few blocks away from the at least 255 buses in the other lot.



> The city can be faulted for some of this, but the **** spreads thinly. Cuba somehow gets everyone out when they evacuate and I think its because they have a strong plan and everyone knows what they have to do at all levels. The national government moves in and coordinates everything and they move even the poor and the old.


This to me is always such an amusing argument. I've never quite understood the far left's admiration of Cuba. First of all, a country the size of Cuba would have an easier time doing anything. Second of all, Cuba is a communist country so of course they have "a strong plan and everyone knows what they have to do at all levels." Of course "The national government moves in and coordinates everything and they move even the poor and the old." That "admirable" disaster planning comes with the string of them having that same amount of control over everything. Do you want that? I didn't think so...(some liberals I know do, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).




> The city doesn't get a pass. Neither does the state. Neither does President Bush. Blame spreads throughout the whole system in my opinion.


But here's my problem with your assignation of blame. You tend to just gloss over the first two levels witih a nod and reserve the majority of it for Bush when nearly all the factors we are discussing are local politics.




> Again, this is incorrect. The reporter asked, "so, is this an issue of class, poverty, or race, or is this something else?"


I'm not sure what exactly you are thinking...any one who wants to can doublecheck this here:


"So is this at its heart a question about class, is it about poor people, is it racist?"

That are her exact words. It starts at around 3:16. I left out the other questions the first time I quoted it because his first response dealt directly with racism at the present time. I didn't imply that her question was biased, only that she did ask specifically about race (with a dramatic pause before she asked the last segment of her question). 

His response was:

"That the city administration is now largely African American one could not say there is a racial bias there, I think that vigorous efforts to make sure all citizens were protected, but there, there is a bias built-in in human mobility. Many whites moved first to Jefferson Parish, the immediately upstream suburban parish *during the fifties and sixties*. They've been able to develop a fairly secure drainage system themselves and levee protection. So there is, class and, and wealth do play a big part in people's ability to respond and certainly those people with the least means lose everything." 

I didn't leave anything out. I didn't paraphrase. I copied word-for-word. 

In other words, the *only* racial component was decades ago. That is a very thin argument. Yet you wouldn't know this if you only looked at the description of the file. Again, after 4 or 5 decades, if a city government can not provide for the welfare of its city without outside help, that government is corrupt, inept, and has no business being in power. Why were they still in power? Because the people kept electing them. They kept putting them in office because they kept relying on that welfare check, on the policies of socialism. 

As far as richer communities being more able to provide for themselves, that makes sense. The question is, what kind of politics promotes richer communities and the uplifting of the poor? Sadly, for you, it isn't the welfare state and the economically crippling policies of the far left. Sadly for the residents of New Orleans, it wasn't those policies either.



> Dr. Colten's response was, "since most of the city officials were black, there was no bias on their part, however, when it came to mobility out of the city, there was bias..."


Again, this is only a cursory look at what he says and very misleading. You've accused me trying to manipulate the argumen. As I mentioned above where I put down his *whole response* to the question, the human mobility factor he is referring to is decades ago. 



> Further, right before the segment in question, Dr. Colten talks about how elevation, class, and race has always been an issue with the poorest and the blackest living the lowest and the more affluent whites living the highest.


In journalism, this would be criticized for being a vague statement. You see, you can't use the word "always been an issue" in conjunction with several nouns unless each and every one of them has always been an issue (including now). If you said "Dr. Colten talks about how economic disparity affects how people can prepare for flood relief", then I would agree. That just makes sense. Those with more money can prepare more. 

But race isn't the issue now. The fact that most of the poor are black is irrelevant in terms of playing the race card. It is poor logic to simply link those "based on the historical context" as you always seem to be doing, whether that is hard or soft racism. Did Dr. Colten ever say those people are poor because they are black? No. His argument deals more with economic disparity rather than race. And again, the question is why, after 4 or 5 decades could a city not improve its tax base? Welfare system and corrupt politicians are the answer. 




> No, this is what is known as a distorting paraphrase. You are coloring the conversation to show what you want it to show and then you are ignoring the parts that contradict your line of reasoning.


I've addressed, ironically, how it is you who are the one doing this further above.



> This is also untrue. Dr. Colten lays out present day examples of bias and inequality. White flight was part of the problem, but it wasn't the whole problem as you are trying to make it out to be. Dr. Colten said there was a bias in the way people lived in New Orleans and that there was a bias in the way people could evacuate.


Those things were economics, not race. Again, correlation is not causation unless it is significat, as you said. But even if there is a one-to-one correlation, that is not significant. You know that. It is only significant if tested for other variables. Obviously, we can't do that with history. But the variable that plays such a huge role in determining the economic welfare of those people is the local government. They didn't do a good job.



> The bias in mobility that Dr. Colten referred to, dealth with mobility during the evacuation.


See further above where I disproved your point. The only "evacuation bias" was based on wealth, not race.



> Most people who pull-themselves-up-by-the-bootstraps were standing on a mountain of privilege. This notion is largely a myth.


A mountain of privilege? How? I'm talking about people that grew up poor, forced themselves to work, and managed to break free from poverty. The operative word here is "work".



> I won't argue about wellfare dependency, though, I see that everyday at my line of work.


I'm glad we can at least agree on something.



> Political will has very little to do with politics anymore. Politics is all about influence peddling and money. If you have money, you have power, and you have a voice. If you don't have it, then, you have no power.
> 
> This isn't a question of will. Talk to anyone down there and they'll say they want to protect their homes from floods, do they have the power to get it done? No. Why? Because they are poor.


Again that's the sense of dependency on the government and inability to help themselves. How many of them, if they even vote, ever talked to their representatives? How many of them, if they even vote, ever discussed levee funding? Or were they more concerned about their welfare check? If there was political will in the people, they wouldn't tolerate politicians who couldn't get anything done. There is a difference between saying "gee, I wish someone would do something about these canals" and political will.



> Lets take a look at your example...the $748 million to improve canals and increase barge traffic. Powerful business lobbyists went to Washington to get this project in the works. Why? Because they stand to make a lot of money from its completion. The congressmen wrote it into the budget. Why? Because of all the donations these same interests make in their campaigns.


Actually, you're slightly out of order. Inept politicians went to Washington with the idea first to gain as much pork as possible.



> Do the poor have this type of influence to advocate for their needs? No. Are the needs of their homes and lives more important then the needs of these powerful interests? I would say yes. City officials also thought so and they worked hard to lobby for their constintuents...and it all fell on deaf ears.


The poor have the most important influence: their vote. They didn't use their vote (and other democratic means like petition) to get the message to politicians that they won't get elected if they don't get money for flood control they won't get re-elected (rather than all the other massive pork that was at least 34 times the amount the Corps requested total for flood control, and that's only the large industrial lock). Instead, they limited themselves to voting for who would provide them with a check. As for the city officials it doesn't appear they worked hard to lobby for constituents at all. Show me where they did so.



> This isn't a wellfare state argument. Its about priorities. Its about who has power and who doesn't. And it illustrates the sad state of democracy today. The influence of corporate power trumps the needs of the people.


The people have one trump card that will overturn any corporate interest. That card is the vote (not to mention other ways of getting politician's attention). Your statement is the typical liberal "the people have no power" argument. Now, I'm not saying this next thought is your own. You're not a politician. But there is a tendency amongst Democratic politicians to treat the poor and minority votes as guaranteed. (Republicans often do the same for their "core constituency" as well) Therefore they don't have to do as much to "help" them in a very real sense. In this case, Democratic politicians saw little need to spend their political capital on projects that would ingratiate them to their poor constituency as they already had their vote thanks to their welfare policies. The only way the poor and minorities can get the Democratic attention is through the vote and petition. We've noticed a trend where more poor and minorities are voting Republican, nation-wide, as a result of the Democratic Party taking their vote for granted. I'm not sure if the Democratic Party will take serious notice or not...

So why did I go off on that seeming tangent? Again, there is always political influence from the people. It is a matter of having political will that makes the difference. As I said, there was no political will amongst the people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Nice use of your resources there Mr. Mayor....Blame it on the Feds.


Blame spreads thinly because the problem was systemic.  This picture makes it painfully obvious that the city shares some of it.  The key word is _shares_...


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

EDIT: Nevermind.  I want upnorthkyosa to answer the other questions first...no sense letting him slip out of this one.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> EDIT: Nevermind. I want upnorthkyosa to answer the other questions first...no sense letting him slip out of this one.


This will take a while...but as of now, I think that you have written down the most complete quotation of Dr. Colten's comments.  I need to sit down with a pencil and paper to verify it.  Good work.

Meanwhile see this article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9286534/


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Blame spreads thinly because the problem was systemic. This picture makes it painfully obvious that the city shares some of it. The key word is _shares_...


If you had the time and means to get EVERYBODY out without the national guard or the feds having to be called in but didnt, I think you get a larger share....If the city would have evacuated everybody the rest would be a non issue...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

All this **** is 20/20 hindsight. In reality, NOBODY, rich, poor, politicians, feds etc. gave a damn about the levees or flood control. Now that the inevitable has happened, EVERYBODY now cares and everybody is pointing fingers at everyone but themselves...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/26/fema_learned_from_hurricane_andrew_in_1992?mode=PF

It took four days for FEMA to get its first people into South Florida after Andrew. I can't remember any reasonable person berating the President for FEMA's "slow" response after Andrew.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile see this article...
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9286534/


Unsurprisingly, the article does address many of the things I have brought up. Unfortunately, it tends to front and rear-load criticisms of the federal government, both in terms of the entire articles itself as well as the top and bottoms of each page and the headings. The vast majority of these criticisms are actually claims, not facts. In fact, I am almost puzzled that you would cite this article as supporting your claim. You probably fell into the trap of skimming and headline reading. As most the media knows that is what most people do, I'm not surprised that is the impression you got from this article...


I will go through and point out what is wrong and right with this article...that will be my last post in these threads for a while. I don't have time to debate ALL weekend (although I've wasted much of my time already doing so). I urge everyone to read this analysis.



> The practice run for a New Orleans apocalypse had been commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the federal government's designated disaster shop. But the funding ran out and the doomsday scenario became just another prescient -- but buried -- government report. Now, practice was over.
> 
> And Pam's lessons had not been learned.


The practice run was commissioned by FEMA. In other words, a city operation that is the responsibility of the city to take care of. The article makes it sound like it was FEMA's responsibility to bear the sole financial responsibility of funding. But, we've already locked horns over the funding issue. I agree that the city did not learn the lessons.



> And once floodwaters rose, as had been long predicted, the rescue teams, medical personnel and emergency power necessary to fight back were nowhere to be found.


Sadly, the standard of journalism has been reduced to making statements without all the backing or explanation. Nowhere to be found? I've already cited in these posts where they all were and what they were doing.

But just as a tidbit from the timeline I and others (Tgace) have cited:
Aircraft in position to help assess the damage and carry out rescues:

_Aircraft are positioned from Hammond to the Texas border ready to fly behind the storm to check damage after it passes over New Orleans, said Maj. Gen. Bennett C. Landreneau, head of the Louisiana National Guard._

_Search and rescue operations are being coordinated by the Guard with the state Wildlife and Fisheries Department and Coast Guard poised to help search for survivors stranded by the storm. Guardsmen are also deployed at the Jackson Barracks ready to head into the city using high-water vehicles, Landreneau said._

This was Monday morning, before the hurricane hit.



> But it was an infuriating time of challenge when government seemed unable to meet its basic compact with its citizens. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, an entirely new Department of Homeland Security had been created, charged with doing better the next time, whether the crisis was another terrorist attack or not. Its new plan for safeguarding the nation, unveiled just this year, clearly spelled out the need to take charge in assisting state and local governments sure to be "overwhelmed" by a cataclysmic event.


I appreciate the righteous indignation of the authors. But what they don't let you know is that DHS is organized along the federal system. In other words, the DHS that was there was state and local level.



> FEMA was still the lead disaster agency, as it had been since 1979, but was now just a piece of DHS.


Yes and no. FEMA's original purpose was just to help people file aid claims afterwards. I'll address this later.



> That evening, shortly before Max Mayfield made his call to Walter Maestri, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) declared a state of emergency. *However, unlike her Gulf state neighbors, she neglected to tap a nationwide governor's network* known as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is designed to rush supplies to disaster areas.


State-level is at fault.



> When talk turned to New Orleans, Mayfield mentioned the possibility of water overwhelming the levees; his center soon forecast a storm surge as high as 25 feet, far above the 17-foot clearance for most of the city's storm protection. "Clearly on Saturday, we knew it was going to be the Big One," recalled Jack Colley, Texas's veteran disaster man. "We were very convinced this was going to be a very catastrophic event."


In this quote and others, they continually mention how Mayfield, director of the NHC, knew about the danger. Why didn't the city and state make the specific requests?



> Nagin said that by daybreak, he might have to order the first mandatory evacuation in New Orleans history, although his staff was still checking whether that would pose liability problems for the city. Nagin did not tell everyone to leave immediately, because the regional plan called for the suburbs to empty out first, but he did urge residents in particularly low-lying areas to "start moving -- right now, as a matter of fact." He said the Superdome would be open as a shelter of last resort, but essentially he told tourists stranded in the Big Easy that they were out of luck.


If everything was so urgent, why didn't Nagin order the "voluntary evacuation" until 5 pm Saturday and the mandatory evacuation until the next morning? He was worried about the political capital implications for hotels and businesses. In other words, not for the poor, as you said in other articles. Political will?

In addition, he told everyone to bring food for several days...most did not.

Oh, in many cases, it is a relatively short walk (5 miles in some cases) to the airport...not everyone can make that walk, but the vast, vast majority could...



> In fact, while the last regularly scheduled train out of town had left a few hours earlier, Amtrak had decided to run a "dead-head" train that evening to move equipment out of the city. It was headed for high ground in Macomb, Miss., and it had room for several hundred passengers. "We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm's way," said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. *"The city declined."*
> 
> So the ghost train left New Orleans at 8:30 p.m., with no passengers on board.


Once again, the city is at fault.



> That night, Mayfield picked up his phone again, to make sure Govs. Blanco and Barbour understood the potential for disaster. "I wanted to be able to go to sleep that night," he said. He told Barbour that Katrina had the potential to be a "Camille-like storm," referring to the August 1969 hurricane with 200-mph winds, and warned Blanco that this one would be a "big, big deal." Blanco was still unsure that Nagin fully understood, and urged Mayfield to call him personally.
> 
> "I told him, 'This is going to be a defining moment for a lot of people,' " Mayfield recalled.


City at fault again.



> *Aug. 28: We sat here for five days waiting. Nothing!*



A superficial reading of this quote makes it look like nothing was done in the 5 days before evacuation by the federal government...



> Nagin also announced that the city had set up 10 refuges of last resort, and promised that public buses would pick up stragglers in a dozen locations to take them to the Superdome and other shelters. But he never mentioned the numbers that had haunted experts for years, the estimated 100,000 city residents without their own transportation. And he never mentioned that the state's comprehensive disaster plan, written in 2000 and posted on a state Web site, called for buses to take people out of the city once the governor declared a state of emergency.


I've talked about these buses before...



> By late Sunday, as millions of people in the Gulf region sought a safe place to hunker down, hundreds of shelter beds upstate lay empty. "We could have taken a lot more," said Joe Becker, senior vice president for preparedness and response at the Red Cross. "The problem was transportation." The New Orleans plan for public buses that would take people upstate was never implemented, and while many residents did manage to get out of town -- about 80 percent, the mayor said -- tens of thousands did not.
> 
> "Once a mandatory evacuation was ordered, those buses should have been leaving those parishes with those people on them," said Chip Johnson, chief of emergency operations in Avoyelles Parish, who helped put together the plan. In Avoyelles alone, there was room for at least 200 or 300 more on Sunday night before the storm, and more shelters could have opened if necessary. "I don't know why that didn't happen."


Again, the buses not being used...



> At the Superdome, city officials reckoned that 9,000 people had arrived by evening to ride out the storm. FEMA had sent seven trailers full of food and water -- enough, it estimated, to supply two days of food for as many as 22,000 people and three days of water for 30,000. Ebbert said he knew conditions in the Superdome would be "horrible," but Hurricane Pam had predicted a massive federal response within two days, and Ebbert said the city's plan was to "hang in there for 48 hours and wait for the cavalry."


So FEMA was doing what it could...it already provided aid beforehand. Why wasn't more provided? I've already addressed before how state and local officials refused Red Cross aid because they didn't want to encourage people to stay in the shelters...



> Around midnight, at the last of the day's many conference calls, local officials ticked off their final requests for FEMA and the state. Maestri specifically asked for medical units, mortuary units, ice, water, power and National Guard troops. "We laid it all out," he recalled. "And then we sat here for five days waiting. Nothing!"


An understandably emotional statement. His job wasn't an enviable one. But if he is saying no action was taken by the federal government for five days, that is an outright, bald-faced lie. I've already listed before where action was taken. Interestingly enough, Nagin makes a statement the next day where he says he is going to give FEMA a "hell of a list"...as if they didn't give them one before...I'm unsure if the journalists may or may not have messed up their facts.



> Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana around 6 a.m. Central time, and within an hour, New Orleans Mayor Nagin was hearing reports of water breaking through his city's levees. At 8:14 a.m., the National Weather Service reported a levee breach along the Industrial Canal, and warned that the Ninth Ward was likely to experience extremely severe flooding...[skip]...Now the waters were rising. And nobody in charge seemed to know it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 11, 2005)

Thsi is ridiculous. Any point not complimenting upnorth's point is just simply ignored. I'll be leaving now.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Blame spreads thinly because the problem was systemic. This picture makes it painfully obvious that the city shares some of it. The key word is _shares_...


 


			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> All this **** is 20/20 hindsight. In reality, NOBODY, rich, poor, politicians, feds etc. gave a damn about the levees or flood control. Now that the inevitable has happened, EVERYBODY now cares and everybody is pointing fingers at everyone but themselves...


 
    Yup. Lots of blame to go around. Human nature and mother nature are both to blame, I say.

 No one was willing to deal with it because it wasn't a clear and present danger. It was too easy to play politics as usual and hope for the best.

 I'm just not surprised. Are our schools safe for kids? Is all lead paint and asbestos gone? Is no one starving on the streets of NYC? All sorts of serious problems get ignored if no one is advocating strongly enough for them in DC. It's business as usual. Does it suck? Yes. But is it new or different here? No. The hurricane just puts it all in stark relief.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2005)

Things will never be perfect. Take care of all those situations and someone will complain that some other problems are being ignored. How many people here NOW arguing that the levees were neglected ever even thought of them a year ago? If the gvt. spent the billions on them a decade ago someone would have been complaining that that money should have gone to alternate energy research and emissions reduction programs. It was up to the city and the state gvts. to fight for the money and assign that money to their programs. Apparently they didnt fight hard enough (I never heard any hue and cry over it till now) and/or spent what they did get on something else...


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> You get looting like this everywhere. It's nothing special about N.O. or its residents.


I dunno, I mean even the Walmart gets cleaned out... even by COPS... as this video shows. Arrests are made here as well but not many... I couldn't help but notice that 99% of the looters were of the african american race. Is that a social commentary or is that just something of a statistic because a large percentage of the population of N.O. is black? 

There is one phunny in the video, early on it shows a guy trying to bust out some windows and isn't doing a great job at it. I was like, geez guy either aim better or find a bigger window...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 14, 2005)

There are plenty of other threads now to address points made in this thread.  I want to focus on race for this discussion.



			
				Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> "That the city administration is now largely African American one could not say there is a racial bias there, I think that vigorous efforts to make sure all citizens were protected, but there, there is a bias built-in in human mobility. Many whites moved first to Jefferson Parish, the immediately upstream suburban parish *during the fifties and sixties*. They've been able to develop a fairly secure drainage system themselves and levee protection. So there is, class and, and wealth do play a big part in people's ability to respond and certainly those people with the least means lose everything."
> 
> In other words, the *only* racial component was decades ago. That is a very thin argument. Yet you wouldn't know this if you only looked at the description of the file. Again, after 4 or 5 decades, if a city government can not provide for the welfare of its city without outside help, that government is corrupt, inept, and has no business being in power. Why were they still in power? Because the people kept electing them. They kept putting them in office because they kept relying on that welfare check, on the policies of socialism.


White Flight started in the 50s and 60s but it didn't end at that time.  The population NO turned from 70% white to almost the same black.  This would take decades.  You assertion that the only racial component being decades ago isn't supported.  Nor does it explain the disparity in protection between white and black communities that Dr. Colten mentioned.



> As far as richer communities being more able to provide for themselves, that makes sense.


Yes, it does make sense.  The broader question that you refuse to address is why all of those communities happen to be white...



> The question is, what kind of politics promotes richer communities and the uplifting of the poor? Sadly, for you, it isn't the welfare state and the economically crippling policies of the far left. Sadly for the residents of New Orleans, it wasn't those policies either.


This is a whole argument in itself.  Take a look at the shanty towns that people live in around the world and in this country and tell me whether capitalism lifts up the poor. 



> In journalism, this would be criticized for being a vague statement. You see, you can't use the word "always been an issue" in conjunction with several nouns unless each and every one of them has always been an issue (including now).


If you provide a historical context for the statement and show that it always has been an issue, then you can.  The context is implied in the interview.  And the context exists if one wishes to actually research it.  The truth is that for hundreds of years, white communities have always had better flood protections then black communities.  In fact, in the past, levees were dynamited in poor black communities in order to save white communities.  I'm not implying that that is what happened in NO, but I am trying to show that the underlying pattern of racial inequity in flood protection goes back a long way.



> If you said "Dr. Colten talks about how economic disparity affects how people can prepare for flood relief", then I would agree. That just makes sense. Those with more money can prepare more.


Dr. Colten talks about economic disparity and specifically mentions that white communities are better protected then black communities.



> But race isn't the issue now. The fact that most of the poor are black is irrelevant in terms of playing the race card.


It is absolutely NOT irrelevant.  In fact, the entire argument swings on the observation.  There is a positive correllation between poverty and race in the entire country and it is even stronger down south.  This "correllation" is what Katrina exposed.  

There is so much stuff here that you really have to make an effort to ignore it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Race+and+Poverty&btnG=Search

The bottom line is that no one should be more or less protected from natural disasters in this country because of race and poverty.  We need an equitable system that deals with this.  

upnorthkyosa

PS - your website is violating MTs copyright policy.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

And I said I was done...



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are plenty of other threads now to address points made in this thread. I want to focus on race for this discussion.


 It seems all the other threads you started are also about race :idunno:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> White Flight started in the 50s and 60s but it didn't end at that time. The population NO turned from 70% white to almost the same black. This would take decades. You assertion that the only racial component being decades ago isn't supported. Nor does it explain the disparity in protection between white and black communities that Dr. Colten mentioned.


 Ok, here is where racism becomes personal. What exactly is the reason for even caring what percentage a population is according to race? The fact that one population turned from 70% white to 70% black proves no racism. The fact that you are inferring that a population becoming 70% black is in some way bad is racism. 

 I've seen no true facts to support modern day disparity in protection between white and black communities. Would you mind listing some modern day communities that are more protected because they are "white". As well as some hard facts to show that the cause is racism? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, it does make sense. The broader question that you refuse to address is why all of those communities happen to be white...


 Your for one not very colorblind, you know if you free your mind, the rest will follow. Your touching on a point that is for one, not very stable, and two has no connection with flooding or New Orleans. The "fact" that richer communities are white is not a part of this tragedy or really a true statement. It all depends on where your looking. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a whole argument in itself. Take a look at the shanty towns that people live in around the world and in this country and tell me whether capitalism lifts up the poor.


 Capitalism is another thread, but what do you mean by "look at the shanty towns that people live in around the world and in this country"? You need to do some traveling and get some education about "poor" in other areas ouside of America. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you provide a historical context for the statement and show that it always has been an issue, then you can. The context is implied in the interview. And the context exists if one wishes to actually research it. The truth is that for hundreds of years, white communities have always had better flood protections then black communities. In fact, in the past, levees were dynamited in poor black communities in order to save white communities. I'm not implying that that is what happened in NO, but I am trying to show that the underlying pattern of racial inequity in flood protection goes back a long way.


 Who's truth? Again, your reaching far into the past to show some modern day connection to racism which isn't there. I asked earlier, could you outline communities that receive more or less protection against flooding because of the race of its people? Also, you must attach verifiable proof that porr flood protection is in direct result of race of population. Thats a pretty hard statement to prove....oh yeah, I forgot, its "soft proof" you need right? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Dr. Colten talks about economic disparity and specifically mentions that white communities are better protected then black communities.


 Here is what I've been trying to say for a while. Your expert mentions that white communities are better protected, I could go out and find someone who mentions black communities are better protected. What we need are not implied contexts and mentioned opinions, but true facts and verifiable proof of this connection. I dont see what you see, so you must outline it nad show it too me in a way that shows coorelation...so far you refuse to do that by simply saying, "read the newspaper or surf the internet". 

 The truth is that most people will find what they are determined to locate. If you are determined to find that racism is a factor for everything that happens, I do not doubt you will find enough "proof" to satisfy your search. However, I tend to approach the subject from a modern approach and choose to look at everyone equal. If racism is present in a situation it needs to be addressed, but blindly finding racism in everything is just wrong and in my opinion furthering true racism. Instead of look at people as black or white, why not address them as humans all of whom are equal. That being the case, its a little harder to prove your racism remarks. I'm not saying blindly ignore race, but c'mon its 2005 almost 2006 do we still need to notice a persons skin color first and foremost when we meet them? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is absolutely NOT irrelevant. In fact, the entire argument swings on the observation. There is a positive correllation between poverty and race in the entire country and it is even stronger down south. This "correllation" is what Katrina exposed.


 I dont agree. I guess "poverty" need to be defined better. Simply stating a fact however, doesn't proove a coorelation to racism. Everyting that glitters is not gold. You say, "a large population of those in poverty are black, this must mean its because of racism". Just a simply observation doesn't prove that. In fact, most of the people I know or have come in contact with through my volunteering and such that are coming to shelters and homeless and such are actually veterans. By your logic we could say there is a national descrimination against elderly veterans in america today. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that no one should be more or less protected from natural disasters in this country because of race and poverty. We need an equitable system that deals with this.


 You and I are in total agreement here. We only differ in that you have a conspiracy theory about the way it currently is and I'm waiting for facts. I haven't seen any verifiable, stable proof that people are more or less protected from natural disasters in this country because of race. By your logic again, we could also state that since the major population of trailer parks is white, that white populations are far less protected from tornados because they are white. 

  7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 14, 2005)

And I said I wouldn't post at work...

I'll try to be brief.  White communities in New Orleans occupy the highest ground.  Poor black communities occupy the lowest.  White communities in LA have better flood protection systems then black communities.  Historically, this has always been true.  I've cited a bunch of books and articles that show this.

The question is, "is this because of race or economics?"

I say both.  Race and poverty have a substantial correllation.  There is an institute at the U of M that studies this and this alone.  

I would be surprised if, in 2005, one would find someone deliberately undermining the safety of those of a different race.  However, racial disparities in protections do exist.  That is my point and I believe that it needs to be addressed.  

Katrina exposed this disparity for Americans to see.  I hope we come up with a constructive solution.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> However, I tend to approach the subject from a modern approach and choose to look at everyone equal.



Postmodernism trumps modernism.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 16, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287641/



> Sept. 19, 2005 issue - It takes a hurricane. It takes a catastrophe like Katrina to strip away the old evasions, hypocrisies and not-so-benign neglect. It takes the sight of the United States with a big black eyevisible around the worldto help the rest of us begin to see again. For the moment, at least, Americans are ready to fix their restless gaze on enduring problems of poverty, race and class that have escaped their attention. Does this mean a new war on poverty? No, especially with Katrina's gargantuan price tag. But this disaster may offer a chance to start a skirmish, or at least make Washington think harder about why part of the richest country on earth looks like the Third World.





> The poverty rate, 12.7 percent, is a controversial measurement, in part because it doesn't include some supplemental programs. But it's the highest in the developed world and more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries, which all strike a more generous social contract with their weakest citizens. Even if the real number is lower than 37 million, that's a nation of poor people the size of Canada or Morocco living inside the United States.





> Who are the poor? With whites making up 72 percent of the population, the United States contains more poor whites than poor blacks or Hispanics. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the increase in white poverty in nonurban areas accounts for most of the recent uptick in the poverty rate. But only a little more than 8 percent of American whites are poor, compared with 22 percent of Hispanics and nearly a quarter of all African-Americans (in a country that is 12 percent black). This represents a significant advance for blacks in recent decades, thanks to the growth of the black middle class, but it's still a shamefully high number. By contrast, immigration has sent poverty among Hispanics up, though it has not been as intractable for them across generations.





> Isolation is the second big factor that makes poverty even worse. While racial segregation in housing is at its lowest levels since 1920, Sheryll Cashin, author of "The Failures of Integration," has found that only 5 to 10 percent of American families live in stable, integrated communities. More than half a century after _Brown v. Board of Education_, public schools are still almost totally segregatedthe result of where people choose to live, not law. Blacks and whites increasingly go to school with more integrated Hispanics, but not with each other. One big change is that blacks seem only a little more interested in integration than whites.





> Racism was clearly present in the aftermath of Katrina. Readers of Yahoo News noticed it when a pair of waterlogged whites were described in a caption as "carrying" food while another picture (from a different wire service) of blacks holding food described them as "looters." White suburban police closed at least one bridge to keep a group of blacks from fleeing to white areas. Over the course of two days, a white river-taxi operator from hard-hit St. Bernard Parish rescued scores of people from flooded areas and ferried them to safety. All were white. "*A n--ger is a n--ger is a n--ger,"* he told a NEWSWEEK reporter. Then he said it again.





> Obama, the only African-American in the U.S. Senate, says "the ineptitude was colorblind." But he argues that whilecontrary to rapper Kanye West's attack on Bushthere was no "active malice," the federal response to Katrina represented "*a continuation of passive indifference" on the part of the government. It reflected an unthinking assumption that every American "has the capacity to load up their family in an SUV, fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline, stick some bottled water in the trunk and use a credit card to check into a hotel on safe ground*." When they did focus on race in the aftermath, many Louisianans let their fears take over. Lines at gun stores in Baton Rouge, La., snaked out the door. Obama stops short of calling this a sign of racism. For some, he says, it's a product of "sober concern" after the violence in the city; for others, it's closer to "racial stereotyping."





> Harvard's Loury argued in a 2002 book, "The Anatomy of Racial Inequality," that it's this stereotyping and "racial stigma," more than overt racism, that helps hold blacks in poverty. Loury explains a destructive cycle of "self-reinforcing stereotypes" at school and work. A white employer, for instance, may make a judgment based on prior experience that the young black men he hires are likely to be absent or late for work. So he supervises them more closely. Resenting the scrutiny, the African-Americans figure that they're being disrespected for no good reason, so they might as well act out, which in turn reinforces their boss's stereotype. Everybody goes away angry.





> Beyond the thousands of individual efforts necessary to save New Orleans and ease poverty lie some big political choices. Until Katrina intervened, *the top priority for the GOP when Congress reconvened was permanent repeal of the estate tax, which applies to far less than 1 percent of taxpayers. (IRS figures show that only 1,607 wealthy people in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi even pay the tax, out of more than 4 million taxpayersone twenty-fifth of 1 percent.)* Repeal would cost the government $24 billion a year. Meanwhile, *House GOP leaders are set to slash food stamps by billions in order to protect subsidies to wealthy farmers*. But Katrina could change the climate. The aftermath was not a good omen for the Grover Norquists of the world, who want to slash taxes more and shrink government to the size where it can be "strangled in the bathtub."


This is a great article and it pretty much sums up the points I was trying to make.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2005)

Wow, and here I thought a powerful hurricane burst the levee in New Orleans and flooded the city. Turns out it was all and elaborate conspiracy to punish blacks and the poor. 

I have to wonder what motive injecting race in to a natural disaster serves.  There seems to be enough problems going around without turning this in to a race war.  I would have hoped that the race baiters would have left natural disasters alone, but again, color me silly.  

As far as poverty is concerned, I never understood it as a problem to be "eased" by someone else. Perhaps it's the perpetual victimhood mentality that makes people feel they are helpless and must "be rescued" from poverty that creates the endless cycle.

With the exception of the indigent and elderly, large enough but a relatively small total percentage of what we call poor, I find it hard to understand how able bodied people can be "perpetual" victims of poverty. 

I'm sure I will get a list of all the socially accepted excuses as to why, but they'll come from people who don't know the difference between and excuse and a reason. Most likely those same people will congradulate themselves on their "compassion" for excusing the poor, while in the mean time condemning them to continued generations of excuses and poverty.

Oh well. Color me silly. I guess my "priveleged upbringing" doesn't grant me the insight in to poverty enough to excuse it.

I come from generations of working class Americans. Many times in the history of my family, circumstances made it impossible to maintain a successful living at a given location, so members of my family moved hundreds, even thousands of miles to seek employment and opportunity elsewhere. The result is that my family has never been rich, but we've been able to sustained ourselves to the point of self-reliance. Spoiled, I suppose.

I guess the idea of hard work, determination and resilience are outdated concepts. Why go through the effort if you can merely throw up your hands and declare helplessness, and demand the government "ease" your poverty. 

The sad fact is, however, that we create more poverty through institutionalized helplessness than we will ever cure with government programs.

As for New Orleans, sad as the disaster is, the followup creates a prime opportunity for those former residents who desire lucrative employment. I have a cousin who is a local contractor, who took out a loan to buy construction equipment and headed down to New Orleans with a camper and a trailer full of equipment. 

He's going to spend the next several months living out of a camper to work 16 hour days doing construction work in the New Orleans area. He won't have any recreation time, he won't see his family, and the conditions will likely be miserable, but he'll make a decent living for his family.

The rebuilding is likely to be the localized equivalent of the "New Deal" public works projects of the depression. Federal and State monies are being pumped in to the area to aid rebuilding efforts. Any former New Orleans residents who desire to work, will have plenty of it at a decent rate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 19, 2005)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091505_world_stories.shtml#2



> I have come to this floor on many occasions. People around the world have commented on how shocked they are to see such poverty in America. While cities and localities pass anti-panhandling measures that criminalize begging tourists and visitors in downtown areas asking for help, Hurricane Katrina washed away America's veneer of populist opportunity, a country that has overcome its racist, slave-holding past, a country ready for world dominion because it has learned how to uplift the human spirit at home.
> 
> Katrina, in images as stark and undeniable as could be, has laid bare the Republican lie that its policies promote growth and prosperity for all Americans and leave no child behind, while Katrina put into our living rooms and the world's living rooms the cruel hoax that has been played on America and those who love America by the ruthless sybaritic power player elites who are as responsible for the conditions endured by too many Americans as they are for the embarrassing and breathtaking incompetencies we all witnessed just before Labor Day.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 19, 2005)

So those of us who are not poor are favored by the "ruthless sybaritic power player elites"? If but for their good will we would all be poor too?


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 19, 2005)

The articles that keep being posted (in place of actual personal posting) seem to really ring true my point that opinions, conjectures, and ideas are all around, but true fact is yet to be shown.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So those of us who are not poor


 Can I borrow $100?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The articles that keep being posted (in place of actual personal posting) seem to really ring true my point that opinions, conjectures, and ideas are all around, but true fact is yet to be shown.



It could also be that what an individual considers to be a "true fact" is almost always colored by self-confirming biases.

From where I'm standing, a "true fact" is that racism and poverty exist in this country in abundant portions. Another "true fact" is that most people simply don't give a damn about it.

In fact, you'll notice a common trend to dealing with racism in this country --- a sentiment which sgtmac_46 just echoed --- is that those silly blacks need to just start acting more white. And if they don't, well, its obviously they're own damn fault.

Color me surprised.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It could also be that what an individual considers to be a "true fact" is almost always colored by self-confirming biases.


 That is very true, you are 100% right. So let me clarify. Lets just take off the word "true" and leave _Fact_. By standard (websters) deffinition it is: _Something demonstrated to exist 
_or we could go legal and say: _The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence_

   I still would say opinions run rampant while facts are hard to come by in this thread.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> From where I'm standing, a "true fact" is that racism and poverty exist in this country in abundant portions. Another "true fact" is that most people simply don't give a damn about it.


 "True Fact" does not come from where someone is standing, fact stands alone, by itself. Your saying exactly what I've been pointing at. You say fact is that racism and poverty exist. ok that true, we aren't even discussing that. "In abundant portions" would be a fact needing to be proven with evidence....this is yet to be done in the case of Katrina. With that same proof needs to be some proving, "most people dont give a damn about it". Again, opinions are easily posted, but facts are hard to come by.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In fact, you'll notice a common trend to dealing with racism in this country --- a sentiment which sgtmac_46 just echoed --- is that those silly blacks need to just start acting more white. And if they don't, well, its obviously they're own damn fault.


 Again, your viewpoint is valid and accepted, but not proven. I dont recal anyone saying "silly blacks need to act more white" in this thread. You putting words in others mouths doesn't help either.
 As a point of fact, would you mind defining what you mean by "acting more white"? What is "white" as an act? Isn't that what racism truly is? Why is any action colored by race? Those who cry racism the loudest tend to be the least colorblind

   Color me shocked 

   7sm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2005)

Gotta paint over any "conservative" viewpoint with something....hmmm should I use the racism brush, the religious nut job brush or the uneducated redneck brush? Decisions, decisions....


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2005)

And just how do you "deal with poverty"? 

The whole "stupid conservatives say just get a job" argument.....isnt that the "solution"? How do you "fight poverty" without getting the poor employed and earning money (which needs to begin with education, I guess. How do you get a high paying job without it?)? Is the "solution" simply giving the poor money?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 20, 2005)

I'm convinced you didn't even read the articles posted. There are plenty of statistics quoted and you claim that facts are lacking...

Here are a few that you missed

1.  5% of people live in integrated neighborhoods.  Decades after Brown vs the Board of Education.
2.  Nationwide African Americans have 3x greater chance of being poor.
3.  There are demonstratably significant gaps in education between white and black americans.
4.  There are demonstratably significant gaps in access to health care between white and black americans.
5.  There are demonstratable differences in flood control spending between white and black communities.
6.  There are historically proven cases where floods have affected more poor blacks then whites.
7.  There are specific instances in the media of direct racism...ie refugees and the difference between "looting" and "finding stuff."
8.  There are specific reported instances where people involved in rescue operations passed up black people in favor of white.

Before you quote this and ask where, Just READ the articles...

This isn't too terribly difficult to see.  And I'm wondering, why wouldn't any of these statistics apply to New Orleans...or are you so hellbent to support your opinions about racism that you'll ignore any evidence.

And, as to _acting white_, from the background you shared with me, I'm sure you know what an "apple" is...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is the "solution" simply giving the poor money?


Nothing about the solution is simple or cheap.  Getting a job is one part, getting an education is one part, etc...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2005)

I could yell READ THE ARTICLES at some folks too. Its obvious that few people want to read the other sides stuff.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2005)

As to personal experience with racism.. why is it that when I present my experience, say with welfare abuse, its all "anecdotal evidence" and "well you only deal with the same small population..." yadda yadda. But (forgive me upnorth not a personal attack just an example) when some white kids dad works with the poor on an Indian reservation THAT is to be used as solid supporting evidence on that posters opinion regarding poverty, racism etc.? Either we have to agree that each person has valid points or that each persons personal experience is just "anecdotal".


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I could yell READ THE ARTICLES at some folks too. Its obvious that few people want to read the other sides stuff.


I read the articles posted in rebuttle and sometimes I find that I am wrong...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to personal experience with racism.. why is it that when I present my experience, say with welfare abuse, its all "anecdotal evidence" and "well you only deal with the same small population..." yadda yadda. But (forgive me upnorth not a personal attack just an example) when some white kids dad works with the poor on an Indian reservation THAT is to be used as solid supporting evidence on that posters opinion regarding poverty, racism etc.? Either we have to agree that each person has valid points or that each persons personal experience is just "anecdotal".


I see your point and I would say that "anecdotal evidence" is good when it has the numbers behind it.  I think the reality behind the numbers reveals a lot.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2005)

Theres few "numbers" being presented on any of these topics that cant be rebutted by the other sides "numbers". Then we get into "well consider the source" arguments and on and on and on.....


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 20, 2005)

i've refrained from this thread since it's inception, but i just couldn't resist input.  there are no "race relations" involved with the emergency response to the hurrcane relief.  i don't think anyone had RACE in mind when deciding what action was appropriate.  our own selves created a race issue.  it just so happened that a major natural disaster took place in possibly the poorest part of the country...?  i dont think so.  

you can't possibly blame poverty on race, a certain group of people, or a certain demographic of citizens.  i've seen poverty exist in all races of American citizens, mostly in native american and white folks in my parts of the world.

it just so happens that a major natural disaster took place in a prevolent black part of the county, so people claim racist bias.  that's BS!  a majority of American citizens polled (look it up) feel that the local and state gov't is to blame for such atroctities.  keep in mind the mayor of NO is black.  race played no part in this, except, this is possibly the most profound tragedy on the black citizen of America since slavery.  it's not the government's fault, regardless of what you think.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091505_world_stories.shtml#2


 Isn't the city of New Orleans and state of La predominantly Democratic? How have those policies worked out for them?  Must be nice to be directly responsible for the state and local government of an area, and then still be able to turn around and blame those "Darn republicans" when things go wrong.  Sorry, nice try though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Isn't the city of New Orleans and state of La predominantly Democratic? How have those policies worked out for them? Must be nice to be directly responsible for the state and local government of an area, and then still be able to turn around and blame those "Darn republicans" when things go wrong. Sorry, nice try though.


Red state or blue?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i've refrained from this thread since it's inception, but i just couldn't resist input. there are no "race relations" involved with the emergency response to the hurrcane relief. i don't think anyone had RACE in mind when deciding what action was appropriate. our own selves created a race issue. it just so happened that a major natural disaster took place in possibly the poorest part of the country...? i dont think so.
> 
> you can't possibly blame poverty on race, a certain group of people, or a certain demographic of citizens. i've seen poverty exist in all races of American citizens, mostly in native american and white folks in my parts of the world.
> 
> it just so happens that a major natural disaster took place in a prevolent black part of the county, so people claim racist bias. that's BS! a majority of American citizens polled (look it up) feel that the local and state gov't is to blame for such atroctities. keep in mind the mayor of NO is black. race played no part in this, except, this is possibly the most profound tragedy on the black citizen of America since slavery. it's not the government's fault, regardless of what you think.


Here are a few things that you missed...



> 1. 5% of people live in integrated neighborhoods. Decades after Brown vs the Board of Education.
> 2. Nationwide African Americans have 3x greater chance of being poor.
> 3. There are demonstratably significant gaps in education between white and black americans.
> 4. There are demonstratably significant gaps in access to health care between white and black americans.
> ...


If their is no problem with racial inequality, then how do you explain the above?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm convinced you didn't even read the articles posted. There are plenty of statistics quoted and you claim that facts are lacking...
> 
> Here are a few that you missed
> 
> 1. 5% of people live in integrated neighborhoods. Decades after Brown vs the Board of Education.


 By choice. And it is that flawed decision that relegates them to abject poverty, not something done "to" them.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Nationwide African Americans have 3x greater chance of being poor.


Yes, and a far higher percentage of single parent house holds, and a higher crime rate. Also, a far higher violence rate in inner cities, where the violence is black on black, not white on black.

Part of the explaination is stated above, self-imposed integrated neighborhoods and abject poverty. Include with this views on sexuality and cultural views on education and it's importance, and you have a self-imposed continuous multi-generational cycle of poverty. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. There are demonstratably significant gaps in education between white and black americans.


 And asian americans and increasingly, hispanic americans. How many other ethnic groups are going to outperform blacks before folks realize that the problem is cultural, i.e. many blacks views on the value of education. It is the perception of racism, and the helpless mentality of many blacks that leads them to discount that education is a viable way out of poverty.

One need look no further than how the, so called, black community views successful, educated black men and women as "sell-outs", rather than raising them as evidence of what is possible.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. There are demonstratably significant gaps in access to health care between white and black americans.


There certainly are, for the above reasons. Education and hard work lead to financial success, financial success leads to more possibilities, including better health care. The insinuation that lack of health care is racist in origin is a complete fabrication. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 5. There are demonstratable differences in flood control spending between white and black communities.


 Yes, because blacks choose to remain in areas around major cities that were usually built up around major waterways and are, by nature, flood zones. Again, if we forced black folks in to the areas at gun point, then put barbed wire up around them, you might have an argument. 

Moving, however, is a simple matter of hoping on a bus and leaving. A few weeks savings in a flood zone, and you could buy an apartment and find a job anywhere else. If these areas, as you say, are such dungeons of poverty and hopelessness, moving anywhere should be an improvement. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 6. There are historically proven cases where floods have affected more poor blacks then whites.


 See above. Also, many whites buy something called "flood insurance". Again, a benefit of hardwork and education.

Keep in mind, many black neighborhoods border other ethnic neighborhoods. The difference between the two, however, is a cultural view on work and education that are somewhat different. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 7. There are specific instances in the media of direct racism...ie refugees and the difference between "looting" and "finding stuff."


 You mean racism like suggesting that black americans are doomed to be helpless victims, that they are incapable helping themselves. Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of racism out there. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 8. There are specific reported instances where people involved in rescue operations passed up black people in favor of white.


 You mean anecdotal reports? Oh yeah, there are anecdotal reports of space aliens as well. You have to ask yourself, at what point does the overriding belief in racism, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

For example, if a black man is a HUGE believer that white folks are racist, sees a white guy get picked up before him on a rescue operation, is he victim of racism or is it fabricated in his mind. Does he believe it's true? Most definitely. Will he tell everyone who will listen it will true, and distort the event to even more strongly support his claim? Without a doubt. Is he objectively right? Probably not. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Before you quote this and ask where, Just READ the articles...
> 
> This isn't too terribly difficult to see. And I'm wondering, why wouldn't any of these statistics apply to New Orleans...or are you so hellbent to support your opinions about racism that you'll ignore any evidence.
> 
> And, as to _acting white_, from the background you shared with me, I'm sure you know what an "apple" is...


 The problem is, that you are so blinded by ideology, you don't even realize that your "statistics" don't support your assertions.  You should be aware of what the difference between causation and correlation is.  The problem is that what you see is an example of the correlation with poverty.  Further, it would seem clear to me that inner city life is a trap of poverty, yet many, many people choose to remain.  Why?  Not because they are forced to live there.  Just as likely, xenophobic fear of the "white boogie man" keeps many blacks a prisoner of their own preconcieved notions of how the world works.  

It's ironic, those blacks that choose to break the cycle of poverty, and leave those communities to receive and education and improve themselves, are very often successful.

I have to wonder why you continue to embrace this philosophy of victimhood.  I would wonder, at least, if I didn't know.  The idea of class and race warfare are age old strategies in the play book of the left.  The left wants prosperity for every American, but only if they can take credit for it.  Many on the left will sabotague any real attempt to bring prosperty to many of the poor.  

Further, the very suggestion that the poor can bring themselves out of poverty, is looked as heresy by the self-appointed saviors of the poor.  One need look no further than at the treatment of Bill Cosby for dare to suggest that black Americans need to embrace education, and fight teen pregnancy, to help themselves out of poverty, to see how the left treats those who preach true empowerment.  

The message they want you to remember, is that they, and they alone, can help you, so you must follow their party line.  It's a message of pure, 100% USDA choice BS.  Only you can make your life better, and it's not by buying in to the line that you have to vote for their guy, or tow the partyline.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

So, your rebuttle is "it's their own fault!!!"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, your rebuttle is "it's their own fault!!!"


 Don't like that do you? Suggesting that someone might be a little responsible for their plight, when they so obviously are, has always been heresy to the left.

Well, at what point does a person finally throw off the chains that he himself holds the keys too, and begins to make himself a better life. According to you,hopefully never. Those chains are too useful to the party.

Remember, it isn't poor people allegedly voting republican. So what interest would republicans have in maintaining poverty for a class of people that don't vote for them in that condition. No, it's the democrats and the left in general who have a multi-generational captive voting audience. They want to keep the poor beholden to them. God forbid very many of the poor ever decide to throw off the bonds of victimhood. 

Don't you find it the least bit ironic that those who grew up poor, but with a strong work ethic and a stoic belief in there ability to succeed, invariably have? Yet, you seem to dispise those people. Why? Ask yourselves those questions, and get back with me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)




----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

Again, you're clinging to statistics as if they are a mantra, when they don't suggest anything near what you hoped. All ethnic groups are leaving Black Americans behind in those categories, not just whites.  Further, you might want to remember that "Latinos" includes large numbers of aliens, many of whom are still struggling with English, and yet they are struggling to improve their lives in America through hardwork.

If this were racist in nature, it would only be whites getting ahead, but that isn't the case. If only a specific ethnic group is getting behind, you have to start asking yourself why.

Further, if the same old tired race and class warfare victimization mentality has been perpetuated for several decades, and it hasn't profited black america any, at what point are many going to start asking why. 

Basically, to paraphrase "American History X: Has anything you've done, made your life better." If the answer is "No", then you might want to start thinking about something different.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Don't you find it the least bit ironic that those who grew up poor, but with a strong work ethic and a stoic belief in there ability to succeed, invariably have? Yet, you seem to dispise those people. Why? Ask yourselves those questions, and get back with me.


Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

Read this book and get back to me...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
> 
> Read this book and get back to me...


 I've actually read this book. It's assertion is as skewed as yours. Lack of education in America leads to jobs that provided subsistence level income. Ironically, though, even subsistence level incomes in America, are a far better standard of living than any around the world. But, again, this is why education is so important. It's also far from proving your "Racism" assertion. 

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between a reason, and an excuse.  At what point do people take responsibility for their own lot in the world.  The most successful people don't make excuses, where the least successful do.  At what point do we decide to stop making excuses, and start doing what works.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, you're clinging to statistics as if they are a mantra, when they don't suggest anything near what you hoped. All ethnic groups are leaving Black Americans behind in those categories, not just whites. Further, you might want to remember that "Latinos" includes large numbers of aliens, many of whom are still struggling with English, and yet they are struggling to improve their lives in America through hardwork.
> 
> If this were racist in nature, it would only be whites getting ahead, but that isn't the case. If only a specific ethnic group is getting behind, you have to start asking yourself why.
> 
> ...


Since you know what I do IRL, I hope you could see that there is no way that would totally discount one's personal responsability for their own well being.  However, I do think that there are external factors that are very weighty in this matter.  The real question is, "How much control does one really have over their own fate?"  And, like anything in nature, I would say total control is impossible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Since you know what I do IRL, I hope you could see that there is no way that would totally discount one's personal responsability for their own well being. However, I do think that there are external factors that are very weighty in this matter. The real question is, "How much control does one really have over their own fate?" And, like anything in nature, I would say total control is impossible.


 And what answers does your political ideology give to solve this problem? Do you have any answers, or is a caring, excuse, enough? What control do YOU have over anyone else's fate?

Further, at what point do excuses and bailing others out, become counter-productive?  At what point does it lead to generations of passive reliance?  I think we may already know the answers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've actually read this book. It's assertion is as skewed as yours. Lack of education in America leads to jobs that provided subsistence level income. Ironically, though, even subsistence level incomes in America, are a far better standard of living than any around the world. But, again, this is why education is so important. It's also far from proving your "Racism" assertion.
> 
> Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between a reason, and an excuse. At what point do people take responsibility for their own lot in the world. The most successful people don't make excuses, where the least successful do. At what point do we decide to stop making excuses, and start doing what works.


I would like to know why you think Ms. Ehrenreich's work is skewed.  Is it because she took the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" idea to task?  Is it because she showed that attitude can only take you so far?  Is is because she took all of the right wing mantras and attempted to show what could happen with a little elbow grease and was unsuccessful.  Is it because you have no answer for the millions of people who experience this?  She lived the life and discovered firsthand the reality of the situation.  I would like to know why you think this is skewed...

As to education, I agree that it is the key, however, the statement, "black culture is responsible for educational disparity" rings a bit hollow.  For instance, I may have a problem going to school if sewage was running down the hallways...

See Jonathan Kozol's book Savage Inequalities.





excerpts from his book - Savage Inequalities - East St. Louis, IL




excerpts from his book - Savage Inequalities - Chicago, IL




excerpts from his book - Savage Inequalities - Washington, DC




excerpts from his book - Savage Inequalities - New York, NY




excerpts from his book - Savage Inequalities - Camden, NJ

For a better description of the disparity in health care see his other book Amazing Grace.




excerpts from his book - Amazing Grace

If you can look at this stuff and STILL claim that it is all there fault, then there is nothing I can do to change your opinion.  However, that does not change the fact that you are wrong.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would like to know why you think Ms. Ehrenreich's work is skewed. Is it because she took the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" idea to task? Is it because she showed that attitude can only take you so far? Is is because she took all of the right wing mantras and attempted to show what could happen with a little elbow grease and was unsuccessful. Is it because you have no answer for the millions of people who experience this? She lived the life and discovered firsthand the reality of the situation. I would like to know why you think this is skewed...


 It could be that, in her research, she set out to prove those things, not to discover the actual reality. She apparently was quite sure of the reality, so she was only interested in evidence that supported her assertion. Self-fulfilling prophecy anyone? It's kind of hard to take someone seriously who starts out with a chip on their shoulder, and then only looks for evidence to reinforce that belief.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As to education, I agree that it is the key, however, the statement, "black culture is responsible for educational disparity" rings a bit hollow. For instance, I may have a problem going to school if sewage was running down the hallways...


 And if their parents were serious about education, they would move them out of those areas. Many do, some remain. There is no force segregation anymore, it is all self-imposed. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> See Jonathan Kozol's book Savage Inequalities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find the above excerpts humorous, in that the local and state leadership of these cities referred to above, all have the same mindset and political view as you.  They believe that the poor are victims, and that social programs are the only hope.  What has that accomplished in those cities?  They keep voting for the same political ideology, the same mindset and keep getting the same results.  People with your political ideology have power in those cities and states, and they have nothing to show for it but an incredibly high rate of poverty which you then attempt to use as evidence of racism?  Give me break, you can't have leftist leadership screwing things up, and then want to blame evil, republican "whitey".  If you folks broke it, you fix it.  

Nothing but the same old tired answers, with the same old tired results.  Your political philosophy has done nothing for the people that live in those areas.  By your own admission, their plight keeps getting worse, while their leadership keeps spewing the same tired, racial/class warfare propaganda as an excuse why THEY have failed.  Try again.

What's furthermore, all you've made a case for is the disparity of wealth in given areas, i.e. the inner city. The only case you've made is that poverty persists in those areas. It would seem to me that choosing to remain in a poverty stricken area, might be a good recipe for remaining poor. I have to wonder at what point people will start asking what they are doing wrong.

One further point, you tried to make a point earlier it is impossible to have 100% control of your fate. What purpose does that statement even serve. If you throw your hands up and call yourself helpless, what have you accomplished, other than to ensure the power of others over you for the rest of your life. I believe it is this perpetual helplessness is a sickness.

It is impossible to eliminate inequalities between people...at least not without some sort of totalitarian economic system whereby equality is enforced. America has done a good job, however, of producing the most good for the most people. The very idea that economic equality is the goal is a false premise. If we can create an economy where every person can secure the necessities in life if they work for it, that is a successful society. If some choose not to, that is not the fault of the system.

What's more, I have yet to hear a recommendation made by you that will ensure that these folks escape poverty. What do you suggest doing FOR them that will remove them from poverty? Do you suggest simply buying them out of poverty? Providing substantial financial support for every single person considered poor? Haven't we tried that? How's that working out?


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm convinced you didn't even read the articles posted. There are plenty of statistics quoted and you claim that facts are lacking...
> 
> Here are a few that you missed
> 
> ...


 Actually for the record, I did read the articles. Let me clarify my point. Statistics are as biased and skewed as opinions and conjectures. Your using inferential statistics as facts. Problem is, do you know the sample group used in these statistics? Then you could go into the huge debate over wether or not inferential statistics accurately predict outcomes. Aside from those rabbit holes lets just address your use of these few "stats". What does #1 prove? Lets see, if we did accept it as true, what would it show, racism? How so? Racism among whom? 
    Lets go to #2, again a stat that shows no fact or connection to racism. Your listing empty facts as your articles did. You must show a connection. Your other "stats" are simply listings of unproven, infactual arguments with no backbone of proof. And your using them to show racism...with no verifiable connection. Your articles and your posts refrain from laying out an outline (which I have asked for several times) of connection between these empty "stats" and your cry of racism be it "soft" or "hard".
 Your #7 is just ridiculous. Looting is looting, and I've seen it called that way regardless of race. Also your turning on your own side here as most of the media is crying the same thing you are.
    Oh, and 97.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :idunno:



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And, as to _acting white_, from the background you shared with me, I'm sure you know what an "apple" is...


Thats what I mean, continuing the cycle of these "terms" is racism in my eyes. The fact that someones actions are regarded as "white" or as sgtmac said, "selling out" is the direct "hard" racism I'm talking about. Racism is a two way street and to ignore one lane of traffic will only get you in an accident.

 7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2005)

Oh, and it seems the mayor of Galveston and surrounding areas are able to evacuate their people in a timely manner. My parents are having to evacuate today. Also many public buses are being used in the "projects" of Galveston, La Marque, Hitchcock, Santa Fe, etc... Dont try the race card here, I've lived in those areas, I know its population. It just takes someone who can get things done....maybe Katrina just exposed poor elected officials and poor planning and action on the government as a whole. 

 We can talk all we want about race being a factor in this N.O. issue, but how would you connect that to the increase in violent crimes in my city from evacuees of the New Orleans area. I train an FBI agent here and we had lunch...seems our police department is having alot of former New Orleans residents commiting crimes here in East Texas. Should I connect that to a certain race of people? Seems by your rule I should. But, I'll happily not do that and just connect that to a certain *type* of person, not *color* of person.

  7sm


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

Statistics aren't biased. (Bias actually has a technical meaning here, and it's very rare to use a statistic with nontrivial bias--the s.d. is the only commonly used biased statistic.) Most of what people are throwing around are descriptive statistics, but in any event, statistics are numbers, and inferential statistics gives conclusions (at a certain confidence level, with certain simplifying assumptions). It's what people make of those that is where the bias truly enters.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
> 
> Read this book and get back to me...


I read it. Interesting, but highly anecdotal, despite the occasional stat. thrown in.

I do think of it as a local "living wage" law is being debated.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Statistics aren't biased. (Bias actually has a technical meaning here, and it's very rare to use a statistic with nontrivial bias--the s.d. is the only commonly used biased statistic.) Most of what people are throwing around are descriptive statistics, but in any event, statistics are numbers, and inferential statistics gives conclusions (at a certain confidence level, with certain simplifying assumptions). It's what people make of those that is where the bias truly enters.


 Thats not completely true. In statistics a bias is deffined as: _A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others._

 Nontrivial statistical biases are quite rampant. Inferential statistics do give a conclusions or prediction such as: 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Nationwide African Americans have 3x greater chance of being poor.


 That was my point, statistics as a whole and especially inferential statistics are slave to their creators bias. Your talking about proven statistics. To say inferential statistics as a whole give conclusions at a certain confidence level and with a certain simplifying assumption is pretty naive if you ask me. 
 Yes, your correct that peoples interpretation to statistics offer a large margin for bias but even larger so may be the bias of the creator. Either way, there is quite a large margin for error in blindly stating statistics as proof of anything, especially something as furtive as "soft racism".

   7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

I again point out the irony in the fact that the state and local governments of the most imporverished areas are always not only democratic, but far left democratic.  Apparently well-meaning socialist ideas have not only NOT made things better, but have, if anything, made things worse.  The audacity to fail after generations of attempted social engineering and then try and blame "republicans" for their failures is astounding.  Apparently the excuses for failure never end, most especially the social engineers excusing their own failures.  Apprently they failed because I didn't "care" enough.  Is this some kind of sick joke?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats not completely true. In statistics a bias is deffined as: _A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others._
> 
> Nontrivial statistical biases are quite rampant. Inferential statistics do give a conclusions or prediction such as: That was my point, statistics as a whole and especially inferential statistics are slave to their creators bias. Your talking about proven statistics. To say inferential statistics as a whole give conclusions at a certain confidence level and with a certain simplifying assumption is pretty naive if you ask me.
> Yes, your correct that peoples interpretation to statistics offer a large margin for bias but even larger so may be the bias of the creator. Either way, there is quite a large margin for error in blindly stating statistics as proof of anything, especially something as furtive as "soft racism".
> ...


 In addition, those "statistics" give no rational explaination as to why African Americans are 3X's times more likely to live in poverty. There is only the insinuation without support that it is the result of some nebulously ill defined racist conspiracy. The support is only on the number, yet those spouting these numbers attempt to imply that the statistic is evidence of FAR MORE than it is actually evidence of.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It could also be that what an individual considers to be a "true fact" is almost always colored by self-confirming biases.
> 
> From where I'm standing, a "true fact" is that racism and poverty exist in this country in abundant portions. Another "true fact" is that most people simply don't give a damn about it.
> 
> ...


 Ironically, I just read heretic's attack here. I'm not surprised either. Last time I checked, when has hard work and determination been called "acting white". Oh, wait, that's the class label many leftists give to "uppity blacks" who are successful and refuse to make excuses. "Acting white" "Uncle toms" call it what you will. 

Could be that the problem is that the black community, reinforced by self-describedf "centrists" like heretic, have labelled hard work and determination as "acting white" and, hence, undersirable. 

Thanks for illustrating that so well, heretic.  I think we are starting to get to the core what the REAL problem is.  Hard work, determination and success are "acting white", and that's a bad thing.  We preach to the black community "don't 'act white'" because then you're a "sellout".


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Ironically, I just read heretic's attack here. I'm not surprised either. Last time I checked, when has hard work and determination been called "acting white". Oh, wait, that's the class label many leftists give to "uppity blacks" who are successful and refuse to make excuses. "Acting white" "Uncle toms" call it what you will.
> 
> Could be that the problem is that the black community, reinforced by self-describedf "centrists" like heretic, have labelled hard work and determination as "acting white" and, hence, undersirable.
> 
> Thanks for illustrating that so well, heretic.  I think we are starting to get to the core what the REAL problem is.  Hard work, determination and success are "acting white", and that's a bad thing.  We preach to the black community "don't 'act white'" because then you're a "sellout".



Ah, I see.

So, its "the black community's" fault that racism exists. It all makes sense now! Its their own damn fault!!   

As I've said in the past, personal responsibility and social opportunity need to be balanced. All I've heard on this thread is one side or the other claiming for one or the other. Gee, imagine my surprise.   

I can agree with the observation that certain elements within the Black American culture are self-destructive, something which individuals like Bill Cosby have pointed out in the past. Then again, those same tribalistic, xenophobic, 'ethnic' trends exist in White American culture, too --- we just call them 'cowboys' and 'macho men'. Y'know, instead of 'gangstaz' and 'playaz'.

I do find it really weird when people claim that its a minority's fault their persecuted against. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing the thousands of years of female oppression happened because "they wuz askin' fer it!".

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ah, I see.
> 
> So, its "the black community's" fault that racism exists. It all makes sense now! Its their own damn fault!!


 Nice attempt at a fallacious argument. Since their is no evidence that racism continues to perpetuate their current problems, and much evidence exists to suggest otherwise, your insertion of the idea "the black community is at fault of racism" reinforces a false argument. It isn't racism that is keeping the black community down, it's the self-imposed beliefs that have. You inadvertantly outlined one yourself. The idea that hard work and success are "acting white" and that is hence undesirable. You said that yourself, even though i'm sure that's not the point you hoped to make with that statement. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> As I've said in the past, personal responsibility and social opportunity need to be balanced. All I've heard on this thread is one side or the other claiming for one or the other. Gee, imagine my surprise.


 I know your claim is balance, but I fail to see your balance in action. I fail to see how you are balancing your perspective with the allegation that the reason the african american community is not successful is racism. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I can agree with the observation that certain elements within the Black American culture are self-destructive, something which individuals like Bill Cosby have pointed out in the past. Then again, those same tribalistic, xenophobic, 'ethnic' trends exist in White American culture, too --- we just call them 'cowboys' and 'macho men'.


 Yet you don't make excuses for those elements in "White American culture" (and rightly so) but you make them for black culture...Why?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I do find it really weird when people claim that its a minority's fault their persecuted against. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing the thousands of years of female oppression happened because "they wuz askin' fer it!".
> 
> Laterz.


 And how are they persecuted against? Again, this is nothing but false argument to insert the idea that they ARE persecuted against. I've seen no evidence of large scale racism being responsible for current problems in Black America. You've given no evidence that they are. The anecdotal evidence only further shows to what extent the self-fulfilling prophecy effect has damaged black america. If anything, it is clear that the effects are self-imposed.


I would venture an argument that there shouldn't even BE a black america. The very notion is racist. Why align ourselves along racial lines at all. I had been lead to believe that the ideal was a raceless society, drawn along lines of merit. Yet, everyday, far from becoming a raceless society, i'm being told, by the left, that I must be overly concious and overly sensitive to race. WHY?! How is any of that going to make our world better?  How is drawing attention to our differences going to make us all get along?  The very concept ludicrous.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

Heretic's interesting observations of the day:

1) Persecution against Black Americans doesn't exist. Hrmph. Could'a fooled me.

2) Apparently, I don't criticize stupid Liberal ideas like affirmative action enough. Uh, whaah?  :idunno: 

3) "Hard work" = "acting white"?? Ummm...

4) At some point, it was decided I was supposed to outline my answer for every problem that every exists all on a single thread. Sorry, not happening.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Heretic's interesting observations of the day:
> 
> 1) Persecution against Black Americans doesn't exist. Hrmph. Could'a fooled me.


 Evidence please.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) Apparently, I don't criticize stupid Liberal ideas like affirmative action enough. Uh, whaah? :idunno:


 Irrelavent to the topic at hand. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) "Hard work" = "acting white"?? Ummm...


 Your words not mine. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4) At some point, it was decided I was supposed to outline my answer for every problem that every exists all on a single thread. Sorry, not happening.
> 
> Laterz.


 You could just start with this one.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You could just start with this one



My "solution" to racism concerning Black America would essentially be twofold:

1) On the level of the populace at large, there needs to be stricter penalties for racial discimination in the work place (including cases of clear-cut 'racial profiling' among our LEOs). Egalitarian values need to be emphasized more in our public schools, along with programs to foster Kohlbergian moral reasoning. Previously marginalized voices of public discourse need to be opened up in professional academia. A stronger safety net for both economy and medical care needs to be opened up for the impoverished on a case-by-case basis.

2) On the level of the Black community itself, strong leaders need to help solidify the community within itself. The dominant 'hip-hop' culture needs to be challenged for its blatant violence, homophobia, sexism, and racism. Only Black leaders will be able to successfully do this, not condemnations from the outside.

That's what I think _needs_ to happen, although I'm fairly confident it _won't_ happen because its essentially advocating a balanced approach.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> My "solution" to racism concerning Black America would essentially be twofold:
> 
> 1) On the level of the populace at large, there needs to be stricter penalties for racial discimination in the work place (including cases of clear-cut 'racial profiling' among our LEOs). Egalitarian values need to be emphasized more in our public schools, along with programs to foster Kohlbergian moral reasoning. Previously marginalized voices of public discourse need to be opened up in professional academia. A stronger safety net for both economy and medical care needs to be opened up for the impoverished on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> ...


  And what happens if solution 1 is introduced, whole-sale, and solution 2 is not?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And what happens if solution 1 is introduced, whole-sale, and solution 2 is not?



Half-*** results. Just look at the "success" of affirmative action.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Half-*** results. Just look at the "success" of affirmative action.


 You mean much like our current results? I think we may have hit on something here. 

You began by insinuating that my conclusion was racist, but now you have supported what I have been saying the whole time. Without a serious change in the culture that has come to be known as the black community, no amount of programs or social efforts will ever make things better. 30 plus years of programs have yielded "half-***" results at best. Why? Because many in the black community still view what is needed to get ahead as "acting white".

The very hip-hop culture that you have outlined embraces a criminal culture as an ideal, and you believe that racism is responsible for the overrepresentation of Blacks in the criminal justice system?

Teen pregnancy and single parent homes are epidemic in black communities, and you want to blame racism for poverty?

Education is seen as "acting white" and those that embrace it are "selling out" and you want to blame racism for lack of education in the black community?

The black community is failing itself. It's time it abandons the idea of a "black community" that it uses to insulate and segregate itself from the rest of America, and joins in the ideal that is America. Self-perpetuating victimhood has not profited it anything.

Even if, and lets assume for the sake of argument that it's true, racism still exists....what does it profit the black community to find it lurking around every corner? What does this mentality lend to the success of black america?

The segregration along racial lines in America is a poison, and it doesn't matter if it's a well-intentioned poison, the result is the same.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You mean much like our current results? I think we may have hit on something here.
> 
> You began by insinuating that my conclusion was racist, but now you have supported what I have been saying the whole time. Without a serious change in the culture that has come to be known as the black community, no amount of programs or social efforts will ever make things better. 30 plus years of programs have yielded "half-***" results at best. Why? Because many in the black community still view what is needed to get ahead as "acting white".
> 
> ...



Sorry if I hadn't made myself clear before, but my original position has always been that there are two sides to this coin.

There are the interior causes (emphasized by Conservatives) and exterior causes (emphasized by Liberals). They're both half-right. That's probably why pretty much every approach in the last half-century has ended up with the half-*** results I talked about before.

Gee, that's a lotta halves....

Racism _is_ a reality, even if nothing other than sheer indifference to the cultural sensitivies of others (although, there is clearly more to it than that in certain areas of the country --- I'm a Georgia boy, m'self). At the same time, it will take strong leaders from within the Black community to overcome any such adversities. External social programs will only take it so far.

And I still think affirmative action, slavery reparations, and 'hate crimes' are bad ideas.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sorry if I hadn't made myself clear before, but my original position has always been that there are two sides to this coin.
> 
> There are the interior causes (emphasized by Conservatives) and exterior causes (emphasized by Liberals). They're both half-right. That's probably why pretty much every approach in the last half-century has ended up with the half-*** results I talked about before.
> 
> ...


 The problem comes with the fact that we HAVE been instituting solutions to those external causes of poverty over the last quarter-century. The result? Half-*** results would be an improvement. 30 years ago, you would have an argument about racial inequality in America. That institutional racism existed is not debateable, it did. That it continues, however, is a dubious argument. 

If anything, white americans are overly sensitive to the idea of being labelled "racist" and go out of their way to appear "unbiased". I have seen this effect in police departments, where, in light of the allegations of "racial profiling" white officers are reluctant to engage in enforcement activity against blacks for anything but the most blatant violations of the law. That means that officers are avoiding contact with blacks unless they absolutely have to. Don't think that's happening? Think again.  The result?  

Communities that can ill afford the lack of police protection, are seeing less and less proactive police enforcement.  Police officers are afraid of being labelled a racist for doing their jobs, and receiving punitive actions that could result in the loss of their jobs and civil law suits.  Then, the very same people who alleged that cops were racist who were targeting blacks, are now being called racist for avoiding targeting blacks and black communities.  Irony.  

The belief that racism continues in 2005, however, is nothing but baggage, and it's baggage that is weighing the black community down. It's not big surprise that one of the surest ways to success for an individual black american, is to have himself ripped away from what we referr to collectively as the "black community". Black americans raised apart from that culture prosper in white america. 

Why is it hard to believe that it is that black culture itself that has poisoned the opportunities of black americans?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats not completely true. In statistics a bias is deffined as: _A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others._


That's not what the bias of a statistic means; that's a biased sample. We were speaking of the bias of a statistic, I thought. (The field of _statistics is a subject_; a _statistic_ is a random variable.) The bias of a statistic is the difference between its expectation and the population parameter it estimates. The standard deviation is the only quantity commonly estimated by a biased statistic.



> That was my point, statistics as a whole and especially inferential statistics are slave to their creators bias. Your talking about proven statistics. To say inferential statistics as a whole give conclusions at a certain confidence level and with a certain simplifying assumption is pretty naive if you ask me.


I can't imagine how so.

The details of the test are public. There's a confidence level, normality or other such assumptions, a sample, and a calculation. Unless the sample is not collected correctly, what can go wrong? The problems come when people try to interpret the results.



> Yes, your correct that peoples interpretation to statistics offer a large margin for bias but even larger so may be the bias of the creator.


This just isn't so. If I reject the null hypothesis that p=.5 at the .05 level, we all know exactly what that means. Tell me the sample size and power (beta) and we're set. It doesn't matter who created the test, as long as they performed it correctly.

We argue when we interpret that result ("You're cheating me by using an unfair coin!", "No I'm not, the test gave the wrong result!"), or if we don't agree that the .05 level is adequate, or we don't agree about the normal approximation applying, etc.

A statistical test is a mathematical procedure. What it means is a scientific argument. There's a difference. You're conflating a calculation with its intepretation. Whether your car was or was not traveling more than 65 mph is a matter of measurement, which will include a margin of error. Whether that's _too fast_ is another matter.

I can construct a test that's likely to give the results I want. There's a famous case of environmental testing where the companies tested themselves using a stringent alpha but with no power--basically, a test that could never declare a river polluted because it always gave it the benefit of the doubt. But if you see the test, you'd know that that was so. Just saying "I tested it and I'm right and you're wrong" isn't statistics. One reports more than just a Yes or No; at the very least, the alpha and the distribution assumed.

I recommend _Statistics as Principled argument_ by Robert P. Abelson.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2005)

Even Anthropologists cant seem to get around the "race" issue. Interesting article at...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html



> Does discussing human variation in a framework of racial biology promote or reduce racism? This is an important question, but one that does not have a simple answer. Most social scientists over the past decade have convinced themselves that it runs the risk of promoting racism in certain quarters. Anthropologists of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, on the other hand, believed that they were combating racism by openly discussing race and by teaching courses on human races and racism. Which approach has worked best? What do the intellectuals among racial minorities believe? How do students react and respond?
> 
> Three years ago, I served on a NOVA-sponsored panel in New York, in which panelists debated the topic "Is There Such a Thing as Race?" Six of us sat on the panel, three proponents of the race concept and three antagonists. All had authored books or papers on race. Loring Brace and I were the two anthropologists "facing off" in the debate. The ethnic composition of the panel was three white and three black scholars. As our conversations developed, I was struck by how similar many of my concerns regarding racism were to those of my two black teammates. Although recognizing that embracing the race concept can have risks attached, we were (and are) more fearful of the form of racism likely to emerge if race is denied and dialogue about it lessened. *We fear that the social taboo about the subject of race has served to suppress open discussion about a very important subject in need of dispassionate debate.* One of my teammates, an affirmative-action lawyer, is afraid that a denial that races exist also serves to encourage a denial that racism exists. He asks, "How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I recommend _Statistics as Principled argument_ by Robert P. Abelson.


 I have plenty of reading material in the three textbooks (each for at least $90) I had to purchase for my advanced statistics class this semester.
 Your point about stats, which I couldn't disagree more with is interesting, but not for this thread.

 7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

Was someone saying that the 1960's liberal War on Poverty was unsuccessful?



























Apparently that person lacks a friggen clue...or a single damned fact.

Also, did someone happen to criticize liberal policies as being damaging?  Maybe someone can explain to me why these downward trends seem to stabilize or reverse after 2000...I'm sure it has something to do with 9/11... 

Look, the statistics are pretty clear and I'm just going to keep throwing them out.  They show a disparity in access to health care, education, economic opportunities, employment, fair wages, etc...anyone who looks at this and cannot see even a teeny tiny bit of discrimination is seriously disabled by their ideology.  In fact, the very insinuation that ALL of this is somehow the fault of the groups in question is, in fact, racist.  

You can read about the reality behind these statistics.  You can see what people who live these numbers really go though.  Ehrenreich and Kozol lay it out well and the two minutes that one takes to click on the links is not nearly enough time to read, much less think about what was actually posted.

Hurricane Katrina showed this cluster**** to us all and now people are frantically trying to correct the mistakes with Hurricane Rita.  Fine, we'll pull out all of the poor minorities this time.  Evacuate them.  Then what?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2005)

So how did the "unpoor" African Americans get that way? Bet they appreciate the idea that without the goodwill and support of uncle sam they would still be poor.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/99-07-13-03.all.html



> New Haven, Conn. -- In his provocative new book, "Why Americans Hate Welfare," Yale professor Martin Gilens shows that both print publications and television news broadcasters routinely misrepresent poor Americans of all races. But poor blacks, he shows, are portrayed more negatively, and less accurately, than poor whites.
> 
> The media, Gilens argues, offer a portrait of American poverty that exaggerates racial differences and unfairly associates blacks with the least attractive subgroups of the poor. And when stories on poverty do take on a more sympathetic tone (as they tend to do during economic downturns), images of poor blacks are replaced with images of poor whites.
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 21, 2005)

Actually, upnorthkyosa, I specifically criticized affirmative action, slavery reparations, and 'hate crime' legislation. Not 'Liberal policies' in their totality (which I typically agree with as far as civil liberties, social programs, and  healthcare go).

In my opinion, the three aforementioned policies are not only ineffective in regards to their prescribed goals (either invoking minor improvements or reverse improvements), but also foster an attitude of reverse-discrimination (which I consider to be a form of racism).

Have a good 'un.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, upnorthkyosa, I specifically criticized affirmative action, slavery reparations, and 'hate crime' legislation. Not 'Liberal policies' in their totality (which I typically agree with as far as civil liberties, social programs, and healthcare go).
> 
> In my opinion, the three aforementioned policies are not only ineffective in regards to their prescribed goals (either invoking minor improvements or reverse improvements), but also foster an attitude of reverse-discrimination (which I consider to be a form of racism).
> 
> Have a good 'un. :asian:


Then we are in agreement and I have seen good data to back up criticisms of Affirmative Action.  I lobbed my pitch at a few others...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hurricane Katrina showed this cluster**** to us all and now people are frantically trying to correct the mistakes with Hurricane Rita. Fine, we'll pull out all of the poor minorities this time. Evacuate them. Then what?


 Ok, now your changing threads. Your talking about continued poverty action, we are talking about racism in the issue of hurrican Katrina. Let me say though, dont start talking about something you know nothing about. Almost my entire immediate and extended family are evacuating right now for Rita, its amazing, but that what is happening right now is not FEMA or even federal help at all, its ALL local and state action right now.....hmm, thats a huge difference.

  When the local and state government acts in a timely and conscious effort, things turn out differently...colore me confused 

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 21, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> .
> 
> When the local and state government acts in a timely and conscious effort, things turn out differently...colore me confused
> 
> 7sm




Galveston has a history with hurricanes as well, as I'm sure you're aware.  6,000 people died in Galveston in 1900 during a hurricane.  

In addition, I suspect Texas is looking at Louisiana and taking a great little lesson from their experience.  They know now that they sure as Hell can't rely on the Feds to do their job.  What is it now?  "The Department of Homeland Insecurity?"

It'll be interesting to see if blacks attempting to evacuate portions of Texas are turned back by gun toting whites.  I thought that was an interesting story coming out of New Orleans.  


I have to add this observation on TGace's post...29% of the country's poor are black...yet they constitute 12% of the population.  I think poverty rates are something worth looking at...not mere percentages of a population base.

You might want to read Gilens' book, too...rather than just posting a review of it.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, now your changing threads. Your talking about continued poverty action, we are talking about racism in the issue of hurrican Katrina. Let me say though, dont start talking about something you know nothing about. Almost my entire immediate and extended family are evacuating right now for Rita, its amazing, but that what is happening right now is not FEMA or even federal help at all, its ALL local and state action right now.....hmm, thats a huge difference.
> 
> When the local and state government acts in a timely and conscious effort, things turn out differently...colore me confused
> 
> 7sm


All arguments aside, good luck in the coming days.  I hope everyone in your family makes it to safety.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 22, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Galveston has a history with hurricanes as well, as I'm sure you're aware. 6,000 people died in Galveston in 1900 during a hurricane.


 Your kidding right? As much a history as Galveston has, New Orleans has as well. There is only one other year (1915 I believe) that two cat4 hurricans hit the US....guess where....Galveston and New Orleans! I have (they have since passed of course) family that were in the 1900 hurricane (which was a cat4 by the way), so yes I know of it. So history with hurricanes is not an issue here.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In addition, I suspect Texas is looking at Louisiana and taking a great little lesson from their experience. They know now that they sure as Hell can't rely on the Feds to do their job. What is it now? "The Department of Homeland Insecurity?"


 I figured that would be a point brought up. I guess we truly can't know how much of this is in response to Katrina, but New Orleans is no stranger to hurricanes. Local government is doing a tremendous job. Plus, your saying that New Orleans local government waited on the feds...a *huge* mistake any way you cut it....waiting and hurricane aren't great bedfellows.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see if blacks attempting to evacuate portions of Texas are turned back by gun toting whites. I thought that was an interesting story coming out of New Orleans.


 C'mon, shouldn't we see some type of proof of those reports before we start accepting them as fact?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All arguments aside, good luck in the coming days. I hope everyone in your family makes it to safety.


 Thank you. Seriously people, look at this post, this is what MartialTalk is all about. Much respect to you for this, I really appreciate it. Regardless of our arguments or differences you have the heart and compassion to feel this way. That is very respectable. :asian:

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 22, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I figured that would be a point brought up. I guess we truly can't know how much of this is in response to Katrina, but New Orleans is no stranger to hurricanes. Local government is doing a tremendous job. Plus, your saying that New Orleans local government waited on the feds...a *huge* mistake any way you cut it....waiting and hurricane aren't great bedfellows.



No...I'm not saying the New Orleans government "waited on the feds."  I said nothing of the sort.  I've hashed the timeline out on this elsewhere.  FEMA and DHS didn't meet their responsibilities.  They showed gross incompetence. 

Michael Brown, head of FEMA learned that there were people at the Superdome the thursday after the storm hit.  Thursday.  How did he learn of it?  From an interview with Brian Williams.  Williams told him.  Not his staff.

Had he or any other federal official watched the news (they'd been reporting from the Dome since the people went in)...or talked to people within their own command...or talked with people from Louisiana...they'd have known the Convention Center and Dome were staging points for refugees, they would have known their food and water situation, AND they would have known it was in the disaster plan scenario that FEMA was supposed to help draft and implement.  Check FEMA's web site for their responsibilities...its pretty clear cut.

The culpability for this starts at the top down...whatever happened to "the buck stops here?"  Bush said he's going to "take responsibility" for what happened, yet the administration is perfectly content to let others point the finger of blame at state and local officials.  The running joke is that Karl Rove's plan for damage control involves shoring up the damage the adminstration suffered from its ineptitude in dealing with this thing.

In reference to my allegation that blacks were prevented from leaving New Orleans, you wrote:



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> C'mon, shouldn't we see some type of proof of those reports before we start accepting them as fact?



How much proof do you need?  Would the fact that the Gretna city council endorsed the blockade and the people approved of it constitute your fact? Read on:


http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2762/two-americas-one-bridge


_Among the people trapped in the city were Sandra's son and her ex-husband, Otis, 61, a diabetic who has used a wheelchair since his leg was amputated.

Otis had gone without dialysis for five days when their sons, Otis Jr., 35, and Orrin, 34, decided to push his wheelchair down the highway in search of help. They ended up walking miles.

They were near safety that Wednesday after the hurricane -- most of the way across the Crescent City Bridge into Gretna, La. -- when an armed officer told them to turn back because Gretna officials were concerned about looting.

By the time they made it out of New Orleans, hitching a ride on a truck, the younger men's feet were bloody and covered with rashes. Otis Sr. had fallen out of his wheelchair three times while they were walking and had open wounds on his head. He was nearly in a coma._ 

*Residents of Gretna, Louisiana, are pleased with the decision to block the Mississippi River bridge leading out of New Orleans to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina.

The Gretna city council passed a resolution Thursday supporting the police chief's decision to block the bridge.* 



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Sep 22, 2005)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2496



> The worst political stoking so far not by mouth but by action was that of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. Among several showing of incompetence, she politicized National Guard assistance.
> 
> The Democrat governor -- refused to sign over National Guard control to the Republican-led federal government that pursuant to FEMA relief disaster plan would have coordinated and made easier rescue and relief activities in the scene of the calamity and avoided more of those scooped disastrous effects that the media had a field day of reporting.
> 
> Instead, the politicking governor became anti-plan and sensing the opening door of political opportunity to embarrass Bush, decided on her own to turn over control of the National Guard assistance to out-of-the-loop former Democrat FEMA chief James Lee Witt who served under President Bill Clinton, to help run the relief effort. The resulting inefficiency of uncoordinated efforts was tossed into the lap of the federal government. As a result, FEMA was verbally abused of either having no synchronized plan of response to the disaster or without mercy, publicly blamed of bungling that was not necessarily of its own making.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Okay...so let me understand this...

First you blame the locals and state for not doing enough to avoid the disaster as "first responders."  You've been claiming ALL along that it wasn't the job of the Feds to do this.

Now, apparently, you're saying the reason the Feds didn't do it...at least in part...is because Blanco wouldn't federalize the Louisiana National Guard.  Am I reading that right?  Further, by posting this you're suggesting that she placed the lives of her constituents at risk merely to make the President look bad.  Sure.  That must have been the agenda of Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour.  He kept control of his Guard, too...as is the custom in such situations.

The day the hurricane hit she tried to contact the President...she had to leave the message with a low level aid.  It was a request for help.  That was on August 29.

Ultimately she turned the job over to James Lee Witt on September 3rd--and refused to surrender control of the guard--after it became clear that FEMA and Bush hadn't a clue as to what was going on.  She brought Witt in because he knew how to handle the situation--unlike Chertoff, Brown and the President.

Brown was behaving like an idiot, having received no briefs and clearly not having watched the news (see above).  Bush, also not watching the news and relying on others to do his reading for him, clearly didn't have a grasp of the situation until his aides gave him a DVD "highlights" tape of the disaster.

So I guess maybe she didn't trust the President at this point...eh?  So she turns to James Witt.

James Witt was head of Arkansas' Office of Emergency Services and reorganized that state's emergency management process.  Then he headed FEMA. 

"Witt's term of office saw approximately 348 Presidential declared disaster areas in more than 6,500 counties and in all 50 states and territories. Witt supervised the response to the most costly flood disaster in the nation's history, the most costly earthquake, and a dozen serious hurricanes."

Since then he's been managing a crisis and emergency management consultation company.  Hell, if I was Blanco, I'D HIRE HIM TOO.

Or, I could go with Michael Brown...Bush's boy...who headed up the National Arabian Horse Association prior to being appointed to FEMA.  A job, incidentally, that he was fired from.  I guess he's just not a horse person.



Now, then, TGace...this for you.  WHY is the President assuming responsibility and saying he was unsatisfied with the Federal response if you are correct?  Are you contradicting the President?  Surely not!


*The government failed to respond adequately to Hurricane Katrina, Bush said Thursday night from storm-damaged New Orleans as he laid out plans for one of the largest reconstruction projects ever. The federal government's costs could reach US$200 billion (?164 billion) or beyond.*


I bet you're just tickled that Halliburton got a no-bid contract...again...to rebuild new government housing for those folks on the government dole down there.  Isn't it nice knowing your hard earned tax dollars are going into Halliburton's pocket...both in Iraq and at home?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Sep 22, 2005)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/090805I.html



> Having been prodded on Saturday into ordering an evacuation by President Bush and the head of the Hurricane Center and then delaying it for seventeen crucial hours until well into Sunday, Mayor Nagin is directly responsible for the AP picture of over 200 unused New Orleans buses marooned in four feet of water that might have evacuated more than 15,000 in one trip alone. Those were the buses that in the Mayor's own plan were to be used to evacuate 100,000 poor the city has long understood had no other means of transportation.
> 
> Nagin is also responsible for failing to pre-position generators, food and water, a medical presence and portable toilets for the two sites at the Superdome and Convention Center that he had proclaimed "emergency centers" for tens of thousands of the more than 30% of New Orleanians that lived below the poverty line. And then the Mayor failed to police them.





> *Those who dream of the perfectibility of human institutions through increasingly, compulsorily collective government will always attack the highest levels of government when it does fail. Republicans and Democrats alike have created huge institutions like the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and now Homeland Security, built on dreams that can never meet the excessive demands placed upon them.
> 
> If we are to learn anything from the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, we will have to review the more practical expectations of the Framers of our Federal system. Local and state government are the primary responders. To keep their powers and responsibility intact the Federal Government is a resource they must administer wisely and decisively. Focusing on the habitual incoherence of Bush Administration communications is beside the point. There is no excuse for ignoring the key failures of local and state government in facing the challenge of Hurricane Katrina. Doing so will only ensure the next disaster.*





> Of course behind all this is a dirty little secret well-known in New Orleans which is also the reason almost 30% of New Orleans police precinct members deserted during the Hurricane Katrina emergency. The police were afraid to try to enforce any kind of evacuations in the violent ghettos of a city that remains one of the most lawless in America. Anyone driving a school bus down a street in one of New Orleans's "projects" trying to enforce the mayor's evacuation order would be risking his life. Had the Mayor ordered police escorts, the desertion rate of the police would have been far higher than 30%. And that is the reason for the current argument between the Mayor and his own Police Commissioner, who still refuses to enforce his "mandatory evacuation" order.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2005)

Sounds like officials in charge of rebuilding New Orleans would like to build a smaller "racially sanitized" version of the big easy. Operation Rebirth is the name that we are giving to a version of "ethnic clensing" it would seem. 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9469300/site/newsweek/



> Oct. 3, 2005 issue - The Lower Ninth was going under, again. Floodwaters from Hurricane Rita had breached the levee along the Industrial Canal, inundating the poor New Orleans neighborhood that is, or was, home to 40,000 African-Americans. The levee had been patched after it failed in Hurricane Katrina, but not well enough. Cedric Richmond, the president of the Black Caucus in the Louisiana State Legislature, suggested that more than bad luck was at work. "For whatever reason," he told NEWSWEEK, "they didn't put the same effort into fixing the Industrial Canal as they did into the 17th Street Canal." The 17th Street Canal borders a largely white, middle-class area.





> Finis Shelnutt, who owns a number of businesses near the French Quarter (including a bar named after his wife, former Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers), does not hide his feelings about the Lower Ninth. Sitting on his bicycle, draped with Mardi Gras beads, he told NEWSWEEK that he is already talking to Florida investors about building high-rises in the French Quarter that can withstand Category 5 hurricanes. And what about the Lower Ninth? "Give it to us, and we'll turn it into golf courses. *I heard that in Gaelic, 'Katrina' means 'to purify'," said Shelnutt*.





> The city powers have big plans for the restoration of New Orleans, but the Lower Ninth is not in them. Over regular dinners in Baton Rouge restaurants like Gino's, an Italian eatery featuring recently transplanted musicians from the Big Easy, the heads of law firms and tourist businesses and conservation groups have been meeting with big real-estate developers. These men have started to outline a vision of a smaller, more upscale Crescent City.





> One of the most ambitious plans, called Operation Rebirth, is aimed at creating a "vital center" of New Orleans. Pres Kabacoff, a well-known local developer, spoke to NEWSWEEK about re-creating New Orleans as "an Afro-Caribbean Paris." In addition to building a movie studio, new museums and a light-rail line, he wants to tear down the poor and almost entirely black Iberville housing project (situated close to the French Quarter) and replace it with low-rise, mixed-income, racially diverse housing. Such plans are "very sensitive politically," he readily acknowledges, but he had an earlier success story replacing run-down tenements with mixed-income housing in the Lower Garden District.


If the US is not going to rebuild the Ninth Ward, then what will we do with the people who lived there?  These families have no homes.  I could support building a version of the Big Easy that is more racially integrated, but apparently, that is not what locals want.  Much of the population of this city will not be moving back.

I wonder where all of the poor black people that fled the city will end up?  Perhaps in more "permanant" camps...

This new "sanitized" version of the Crescent City typifies the underlying racism that I've been talking about in this entire thread. I'm particularly taken aback by the comment in bold. "Lauterung das Untermench!" How else is one supposed to take that? 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

On a somewhat related note:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans



> The police department said Thursday it is investigating a dozen officers in connection with looting during the lawlessness that engulfed the city after Hurricane Katrina.


----------

