Hurricane relief

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
As others here have pointed out, many did not have the means to evacuate.

Many, many did. Disagree with that or quit wasting time.

And even if some *do* have themselves to blame, that does not argue
against the rescue coordinators *also* being to blame.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I didn't say you said that. I was just adding balance. (I think we've
entered a miscommunication loop.)

this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
sadly, it is universal.

Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves.
I haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid
evidence. But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.

In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence
in New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
authority in other times and places throughout the world,

Did I say that? No. I didn't.

Then perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here too. My point was that
to plausibly attribute the violence in N.O. to welfare assistance, you'd
have to show, at a minimum, that there is more violence in N.O. than in
otherwise-comparable circumstances where welfare assistance is absent.
Nothing in "the reports so far" even *attempts* to make that comparison.
(Nor has anyone shown--though you and others have flatly asserted--that the
perpetrators of the violence or looting were recipients of welfare
assistance. If, as it appears, the most serious violence is coming from gang
members, then it is at least as plausible to speculate that they support
themselves by drug dealing instead. If the Prohibition-era Mafia had been
thriving in New Orleans when the hurricane struck, don't you suppose *their*
gangs would have taken over too when the police department collapsed?)

--Gary

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of the big problems that we
are dealing with is a culture of dependency. It is too easy to extend
our perceptions of that problem to a point where people don't realize
how inter-dependent they are. A culture of dependency is classless. I
see it in rich and poor alike, among all races and people. It basically
says, "I cannot do anything for myself. It is up to the government, or
the rich, or somebody else, to provide for all my wants and needs." It
is basically a refusal to grow up, to remain forever a child who is
taken care of by its parents.

It's possible, of course, to be excessively dependent. But in general, being
able to create institutions that we can depend on for protection (from
violence, from the aftermath of disasters, from unbreathable air...) is one
of the great blessings of civilization. And as the example of pilots relying
in part on SAR illustrates, such dependency is hardly tantamount to an
attitude that "I cannot do anything for myself".

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
The folks in N.O. are not treating the National Guard as an enemy--in part
because of the leadership of Gen. Honore (I'm thinking of the footage of him
running around ordering his combat-stance troops to "Point those goddamn
weapons down" so they wouldn't appear unnecessarily hostile and provoke
violence instead of preventing it).

Smart guy! I don't watch TV, though, so I must have missed that
footage. Keeping the mission peaceful seems like the only way to make
the relief effort work.


It's hard to avoid hearing the Bushisms, though. The Bushism about
shooting-looters-to-kill combined with stories about people being shot
makes it seem like someone at the top ain't though things through.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Police_s...2C _five_dead
- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict58.jpg -- Leonard Thomas, 23, cries after
a SWAT team burst into the flooded home he and his family were living in
on Monday, Sept. 5, 2005. Neighbors had reported that they were
squatting in the house in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but the
authorities left after his family proved they owned the house. Some
rescuers are not taking any more food and water to those who have
decided to stay in an effort to force them out. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

Scary... Let's just hope that when I walk down a street in Virginia
that my belt-clip cell-phone holder doesn't look like a gun-holster,
that I'm not mistaken for a looter, that I'm not mistaken a squatter, or
(as happened to a friend recently when he was staying as his brother's
house) that I'm not on the receiving end of false-alarm for a "robbery
in progress". Let's furthermore hope that no TFR's pop up while I'm in
the air, so that I don't get mistaken for a terrorist.



But, they are making some progress:
http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict57.jpg - A military helicopter drops a
sandbag as work continues to repair the 17th Street canal levee Monday,
Sept. 5, 2005, in New Orleans. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

And, just for balance: http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict39.jpg (the AP
caption is useless)

-Luke

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in a
logical fallacy of "false-alternative".

Tom S.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Happy Dog wrote:
"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

Look in a mirror.


1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.
2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.


It's that piece you just created "Although it may be somewhat of an
improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards me."

Tom

Luke Scharf wrote:

And, just for balance: http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict39.jpg (the AP
caption is useless)

So's the photo without some sort of caption. What's in the bag? Looks like it
might be a lionfish, but it would take a real stupid man to hold the bag like
that if it were.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.

It isn't a right or wrong issue. You are mischaracterizing the position of
people who advocate self-reliance.

2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.

Idiot. You have constructed a caricature of the "culture of self-reliance"
by defining it a hermit lifestyle. That is a textbook strawman argument.

moo

"Gary Drescher" GLDrescher
In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence
in New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
authority in other times and places throughout the world,

Did I say that? No. I didn't.

Then perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here too. My point was that
to plausibly attribute the violence in N.O. to welfare assistance, you'd
have to show, at a minimum, that there is more violence in N.O. than in
otherwise-comparable circumstances where welfare assistance is absent.

No, I wouldn't. That is only making the issue more complex since we'd also
have to take into account a bunch of other variables.

Nothing in "the reports so far" even *attempts* to make that comparison.
(Nor has anyone shown--though you and others have flatly asserted--that
the perpetrators of the violence or looting were recipients of welfare
assistance. If, as it appears, the most serious violence is coming from
gang members, then it is at least as plausible to speculate that they
support themselves by drug dealing instead. If the Prohibition-era Mafia
had been thriving in New Orleans when the hurricane struck, don't you
suppose *their* gangs would have taken over too when the police department
collapsed?)

At this point, you're just grasping at straws to make your point. You seem
to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as anyone here has
against it. And it's resulted in a bunch of irrelevant tangents. We'll see
whether I'm correct or not soon enough.

moo

"Doof" wrote in message
...

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in a
logical fallacy of "false-alternative".

Strawman, actually. His statement is a caricature of self-reliance
advocates. Did you mean "false dilemma", BTW?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
You seem to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as anyone
here has against it.

And this supposed bias of mine is demonstrated by my asking for evidence to
support the connection between welfare and N.O. violence that you and others
have asserted?

Or do you think that *I've* made unsupported factual assertions about
welfare? If so, can you quote one?

--Gary