O'Reilly: "Many, many, many" hurricane victims who failed to evacuate New Orleans are "drug-addicted ... thugs"
On the September 13 broadcast of The Radio Factor, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "many of the poor in New Orleans" did not evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina because "[t]hey were drug-addicted" and "weren't going to get turned off from their source." O'Reilly added, "They were thugs."
From the September 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, what's the real story? The real story is this: Ten percent of Americans, and 10 percent of any society, simply are so chaotic for whatever reason that they're never, ever going to be able to fend for themselves and make a living. They are either substance abusers, they're mentally ill, they're screwed up emotionally beyond -- they can't carry on a conversation, they're catatonic, schizophrenic, whatever it may be. No matter how much money you pour in, they're always going to be in that condition. It's not massive neglect, it's not; it's human nature.
Now, our government has a duty to provide a safety net so these people aren't living under bridges. But some of them are anyway, because all the entitlement money they get they spend on heroin or crack or alcohol. So they can't pay their rent because the money that they're given they spend on drugs and alcohol. So what do you do? Give them more money? They're not going to pay their rent, they're going to spend it on drugs and alcohol. And therefore, they're going to be out on the street with their hand out.
Many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are in that condition. They weren't going to leave no matter what you did. They were drug-addicted. They weren't going to get turned off from their source. They were thugs, whatever.
Now the tragedy is that a lot of times these people have children, and society has to take care of their children. Now, to me, I'm much more punitive than -- I would take the children away from these people. If you tested positive for heroin or crack, I'd take your child away, out of the house. All right, I'd rather have the kid in the system than under your control. It's a tough call, but that's what I would do. But it isn't society's neglect, it's the absence of personal responsibility, which the government can not force you to be responsible, not in a free society.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I wonder how O'Reilly defines "many, many, many"? Would he use that same term for the number of troops in Iraq that have been killed? I would imagine 1800 out of 140,000 is probably a similar ratio to the number of drug addicts in a city of 500,000.
It's all so simple to the all-knowing, all-seeing BO'R! So to what element of society is the cut-off for help? Let a self important blowhard decide. Drug tests before you are pulled off of roofs. Income standards before the boats will come. Rove and BO'R will decide.
Similar to Senator Frist, it seems that BO possesses the amazing ability to remotely detect substance abuse and perform psychological evaluations by watching live feeds and video tape.
To me, most of the frightened, hungry, angry, thirsty people I saw on TV were just, well, you know... frightened, hungry, angry, thirsty people.
If they kept saying "stay here, help is coming" while my baby starved, I'd be angry too.
O'Reilly may be correct, though he offers nothing to back up his figure of 10%. Or any factual evidence that backs up his "assumptions" about the behavior of the citizens of New Orleans...Of course MMFA offers NOTHING to DISPUTE what O'Reilly is saying either...
Any large city will have an ample % of it's population that is addicted, and probably using any financial assistance they receive to feed THAT addiction, drug or alcohol. And I'm sure a certain % of the population of any large city will have citizens with a variety of mental illnesses. And it's NOT that farfetched that MANY didn't leave New Orleans for the very reason O'Reilly suggested. BUT again (without facts) it's JUST conjecture on O'Reilly's part.
So while this is just basically O'Reilly "bloviating", he MIGHT not be that far off the mark. "MIGHT" being the operative word....
Could MMFA offer a rebuttal?
Has anyone read or heard anything that either BACKS O'Reilly up, or PROVES him wrong?
I see your point, but...
Why is the burden on us? Shouldn't O'Reilly back up his own claims?
OReilly is speaking in general terms, of course. The 10% figure is probably accurate, or close to it - can't be directly proven but that's not really the issue. It's more about personal responsibility than anything else.
Oh yes, I too believe in personal responsibility. And rugged individualism. And compassionate conservatism. It’s not all BS catch phrases. The poor have made their lot in life. And the rich and privileged, well we deserve it.
"Why is the burden on us? Shouldn't O'Reilly back up his own claims?"...by Slade
Slade, MMFA often (in fact ALMOST always) offers a "rebuttal" or refutes (with FACTS) the "Conservative Mis-Information" they offer up.
Since they didn't on this thread, I was just curious IF anyone here had heard or read anything either backing O'Reilly up, or proving him wrong.
Yes, I would like to see someone (O'Reilly or MMFA or other) back this up.
This is the kind of statement I might make and my wife will say, "Yeah, prove it". And that shuts me up.
A good co-host would have said that to O'Reilly. But then he or she would be out of job. I think I know why most conservative talk show hosts do not have co-hosts...
jeter2 - Thursday September 15, 2005 02:23:38 PM EST -
It IS a factual rebuttal to show the bloviator extrordinaire has made assertions he can not back up with any evidence. The fact is the rightwing has become so blatant with their misinformation that they often make assertions so far from reality that evidentiary fact can show them to be flat out wrong but usually, a showing that you are making unsubstantiated claims is considered a factual rebuttal. As in you are assuming facts not in evidence. A virtual logical fallacy.
"Of course MMFA offers NOTHING to DISPUTE what O'Reilly is saying either..."
I'm not sure anyone has numbers to prove or disprove what O'Reilly is talking about here. It is on the right-hand side of the page, so it's not really being passed off as misinformation anyway.
My issue with comments like this, and why I think they deserve a place on the page, is that quite often they seem to serve a propaganda purpose. It's not just a random statement, in all likelihood, there's a reason that he wants you to believe what he's saying is true. When I hear something like this I ask "What is the POINT, exactly?". Even if completely true (and a big "if" I think), what are we supposed to gain from this bit of knowledge? Are we supposed to stop trying to figure out what went wrong with the response? Are we supposed to just say "Well, it doesn't really much matter, because many many many of the people weren't worth saving anyway"?
I could be wrong, but he is very often an apologist for the administration and so I'm sure he would like to downplay the deaths as much as possible. This seems to be a means of doing so.
"It is on the right-hand side of the page, so it's not really being passed off as misinformation anyway."...by brabantio
Good point...the "right-hand" side of the page is OFTEN reserved for "outrageous" statements. No explanation needed... I forgot :-/
"I could be wrong, but he is very often an apologist for the administration and so I'm sure he would like to downplay the deaths as much as possible. This seems to be a means of doing so."...by brabantio
Maybe. O'Reilly OFTEN pontificates about "personal responsibility", and this is pretty consistent with his regular dialogue. BUT I wouldn't be surprised if you MIGHT be on to his REAL motive.
Who knows or cares what O'Reilly's motives are? But it most definitely is about personal responsibility - throwing money at every problem does not always solve the problem.......just look at the $2000 debit card given to hurricane victims and how a big chunk of one of them was spent at a Louis Vitton store in Atlanta? An isolated incident and not the norm?, most likely - but it does highlight how just handing out money will not solve the crisis.
"Who knows or cares what O'Reilly's motives are?"
If O'Reilly is trying to support the idea that the number of deaths isn't important because many many many of them are drug-addicted thugs, I certainly care what his motives are. And maybe it is just about personal responsibility, I know that's one of your favorite themes too. Personally I'm all for it, but feel the lack of it in some should not be used as an excuse to punish or discount others.
I have no idea what O'Reilly supports, I would certainly hope he is not saying that just because some people are addicted to drugs, their deaths are not important. But I don't think that is what he is saying - but he is talking in general terms about society and how a certain segment will never be helped or help themselves......that being said, I would never say their death is unimportant or irrelevant.
The point would be that we shouldn't care about the residents that got left behind. It's an attempt to blunt compassion.
O'Lielly viewers appreciate this sort of effort. Seeing suffering makes them feel a little guilty, but it also makes them worried that they might be expected to help relieve that suffering -- and that might cost $$$! The television coverage of the suffering and the ads for 1-800-HELP-NOW make them squirm, until someone relieves them of the expectation that they should care. Comments from Barbara Bush about how it's all working out well, stories about Red Cross shuffling funds from one disaster effort to another, and the idea that a big chunk of those stranded were probably criminals anyway... those excuses relieve the O'Lielly vewer's conscience, all while his beer money stays safely tucked away in his wallet.
So don't let it be said that Bill O'Reilly doesn't look out for his audience! He gives them exactly what they want.
Sagra,
Talk about making accusations you can't back up?? Do you really believe that O'Reilly's viewers are so heartless and greedy that they could care less about the victims and wouldn't contribute if their life depended on it - they are just horrible people who have no compassion or civility for anyone else.
Of, are you just demonizing them to feel superior and justified in your opinions?
Which is it?
Tommy,
If they were completely heartless, they wouldn't need O'Lielly to give them an excuse not to help. Duh. I'm just saying that the excuse makes them feel happier with themselves.
If they were completely heartless, they wouldn't need O'Lielly to give them an excuse not to help. Duh. I'm just saying that the excuse makes them feel happier with themselves.
************************************
Oh, so they are partially heartless just waiting for someone to give them a reason to be totally heartless? Wow, that makes sense, DUH?
99.8% of every so-called conservative that I have come across, are like that. They are so damn tight, that they squeak! So, with that assumption; I would say they hit nail on the head with that comment.
If they aren't, then they are a "closet liberal". Either way, people who have money intend to keep it and at all costs. They don't give a hoot about the average American citizen or whether or not thier kid has any food to eat or clothes to wear.
The worst of the worst is 'ol GW himself and of course, Karl Rove.
The point would be that we shouldn't care about the residents that got left behind. It's an attempt to blunt compassion.
by Sagra - Thursday September 15, 2005 03:20:09 PM EST -
Or, he could be saying that sometimes there's only so much one can do!! Short of the President walking each one out individually, what more can one EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT to do to get people to make good decisions and take some personal responsibility? The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of those that stayed behind KNEW a hurricane was coming their way; they KNOW that flooding and high water are the NUMBER ONE CONCERN in that area in terms of natural disasters and they know that a flood in NO is potentially deadly. Where does THEIR personal responsilility work itself into the equation? It's like standing on a RR track and getting run over by the train and then complaining to the government as if it were completely incompetent for not coming and getting you off the tracks!!! You heard the whistle, you saw the flashing lights, you knew that where there are train tracks there are more often than not eventually going to be trains eventually.
I know that it serves you somehow to prefer to believe that Conservatives JUST DON'T CARE, but there is another possibility. I think people call that cynical??
"Where does THEIR personal responsilility work itself into the equation?"
It doesn't, really. There's a difference between understanding that some people took a chance in sticking around voluntarily and saying that excuses the government for their incompetence. Your analogy is weak for two reasons, by the way, first that the train coming is a certainty and neither the flooding nor the path of the hurricane was such, and second that walking 10 feet away from the tracks is much easier than trying to flee a city during a panic.
You see, the thing is that no matter who was stuck there or why, Chertoff and FEMA still had a responsibility to act quickly and effeciently to save as many people as they could, and they didn't. You deal with the catastrophe you have, not the catastrophe you want. So you can say "they took a gamble and lost", and for some people I'm sure that was the case. But that doesn't excuse the Administration from their responsibilities.
It doesn't, really. There's a difference between understanding that some people took a chance in sticking around voluntarily and saying that excuses the government for their incompetence.
by brabantio - Thursday September 15, 2005 03:50:33 PM
First, nobody KNOWS that the government was incompetent, you're assuming that. We do KNOW that some people made the willful decision to stay. Until there are actual reviews of the activities, you're not SURE of anything. The point is, that there WAS a tremendous amount of money, effort, courage and compassion that has been administered, yet most, like yourself, ONLY emphasize this "imcompetence" that you are praying for, that isn't established yet. No one is saying that the NEXT time a hurricane is coming, LEAVE!!!! It would seem to be an IMPORTANT lesson in all of this.
Tx.,
I'd ask if you are joking--but, I'm confident you are not. Did you watch the news? the live coverage? did you see Americans sitting in 90 plus weather for 4-5 days w/ out food or water??
How could you watch that and NOT think that the govt. was incompetent? If you think that...I suppose you think we should wait to get communications that work or a chain of command that works. Should we sit back and wait for a 'finding' before we act to restructure FEMA?
The President you so blindly support seems to disagree with you. Bush clearly (as best he could manage) said that the govt. had made mistakes.
Tx_paco writes: First, nobody KNOWS that the government was incompetent
How could you watch that and NOT think that the govt. was incompetent? If you think that...I suppose you think we should wait to get communications that work or a chain of command that works. Should we sit back and wait for a 'finding' before we act to restructure FEMA?
by worldasmaya - Thursday September 15, 2005 04:37:08 PM EST
How exactly do you know what to FIX within FEMA without first finding out what went wrong and why?? Is it your expectation that it is the Fed's responsibility to have an emergency contingiency for each and every major city, or is it more efficient and effective for LOCAL governments who know and better understand their specific areas to formulate those plans? It is entirely possible, indeed probable that we will ultimately need to review the basic attitude about Fed involvement and responsibility in local affairs in this post 9-11 time, and I have not ruled out the possibility that Bush failed for not having the clairvoyence to have seen this need. However, AT THIS POINT, we don't know the answers to ANY of these questions conclusively and with many still having immediate needs, it seems inhumane to waste time and effort trying to answer those questions NOW. Now is the time for maximum effort on EVERYONE'S part, right and left. There will be much time later for partisan gain, or at least an attempt at partisan gain. Personally, like so many other issues in the last 4 years, the left is badly overplaying its hand and exposing itself as really not caring much for the disaster by pouncing so callously on the opportunity to gain political advantage.
If DHS isn't going to do it's job, can we have our $40.7 billion back?
Tx_Paco,
I have no idea what you took issue with in what I wrote. You wrote that we (that no one) knows if the govt. was incompetent. That's simply ridiculous on its face. Clearly, they (as an agency or as individuals) were incompetent. You then went on to say the following "How exactly do you know what to FIX within FEMA without first finding out what went wrong and why".
Using your thinking--why investigate FEMA or fix anything if you do not think they were incompetent? Your position makes little sense. Perhaps, you can clarify what you mean.
Secondly, DOH. If we do what you want--and wait and wait wading through buorocracy (see the hypocrisy? you want more buocracy?). It takes a leader to determine that FEMA and other agencies, both state and local, failed. It takes a leader to make swift and decisive changes. It takes a leader to do those things you suggest we hold off on doing.
Without finding blame I am confident ALL of us can agree that the communications systems are not working. I think we can all agree that the 'play book' for FEMA is not working. WE can all agree that FEMA has NO idea how to manage/lead volunteers. So, fix these things TODAY and not wait until some investigation is done as you'd like to do tx_paco.
This should not be a partisan issue as you suggest tx_paco. The hypocrisy of your position is ridiculous. You want to have an investigation? while we sit with OBVIOUS FAILURES within FEMA and the White House? Americans deserve a leader not this buffoon.
First, nobody KNOWS that the government was incompetent, you're assuming that.by tx_paco - Thursday September 15, 2005 04:30:52 PM EST
How exactly do you know what to FIX within FEMA without first finding out what went wrong and why?? tx_paco - Friday September 16, 2005 07:37:32 AM EST -
"Until there are actual reviews of the activities, you're not SURE of anything."
And when, pray tell, will there be "actual reviews"? Didn't every Republican in the Senate just shoot down the proposal for an independant and bipartisan committee to analyze what went wrong on EVERY level of government here? I'm very sure that FEMA was incompetent, because they were clearly the ones supposed to be in charge and from the results it is obvious that something was not done correctly. That's not much of an assumption, unless you believe what happened was the plan in full working order. Now that we know something went wrong, and we know it's the republicans who don't want to look into it, even when it's analyzing local and state actions as well, tell me what other conclusions you can possibly draw. If they really believed that the administration was largely blameless and the state and local governments were at fault, then they would be welcoming that committee with open arms. If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear why.
by Sagra - Thursday September 15, 2005 03:20:09 PM EST -----------------------------
Sagra: The point would be that we shouldn't care about the residents that got left behind. It's an attempt to blunt compassion.
Response: I have a slightly different take on it although I agree with you to a certain extent. For example, when I hear about a horrible murder, I'm always relieved when I find out that the victim was involved in some dangerous drug or prostitution activity, not because I don't have sympathy for that person but because it makes ME feel safer knowing I'm not involved in any of that than if somebody minding their own business in the suburbs gets murdered in a random carjacking.
Now, I think O'Reilly is providing his audience with a disconnect as you say, by classifying the people that were left behind in a way that makes them more responsible for what happened to them. I can see that take on it.
I wasn't exactly saying that, but it's a very close comparison. I was talking about just that to my daughter yesterday. One of her close friends committed suicide recently, and we were talking about the way so many people distance themselves from tragedy and grief by finding fault in those who suffer.
It doesn't always work. Sometimes you try everything and still bad things can happen to the ones you love.
I concur that, as of this writing, MMFA has not provided indisputable data to disprove Mr. O'Reilly's "10%" statement. Neither did they provide clarity regarding the quantitative range "many, many, many" might represent. However, given Mr. O'Reilly's readily demonstrable history of vagueries, distortions and outright lies, is such proof really MMFA's burden? MMFA has simply demonstracted, yet again, that Mr. O'Reilly clearly has no love, much less respect, for the less fortunate citizens of our society. I suggest that it is Mr. O'Reilly's obligation, in the interest of being the "fair and balanced" journalist he claims to be, to back up his rhetoric with some clear and reputable evidence.
Wow, my little jab must have struck a nerve.
It's just one of my observations about human nature. Sorry if it makes you feel inferior.
O'Reilly wants the government to step in and take 10 percent of all children away from their parents. Big government much?
I'm glad someone picked up on this. Hardly a conservative or a libertarian viewpoint, is it? Given the number of friend-of-a-friend horror stories about the Department of Children's Services that I've heard and seen being passed around between some of my conservative friends, I am a little surprised at this statement from O'Reilly, honestly.
Irene
One doesn't need to look too closely to find all manner of hypocracy. Claims of being pro-competition, while riding the coatails of vast multinational near-monopolies. At least 60% of the country is not as neocon as Clear Channel but we nonneocons have less than 1% of talk radio market reflecting our views. There are reasons for this pertaining to special interests and the fusion of Bush & big business. None which fake-capitalists like Limbaugh and Riley want to confront.
You hear cons talk about welfare as if welfare reform didn't happen nine years ago. They still talk about poor people as though they get government check every month forever for doing nothing. It's a con fantasy. I'll bet there is a large number of cons that don't even know that unemployment checks are only issued for just over a year and that's it.
And then they think that welfare laws in New Orleans are somehow significantly different than in other parts of the country like in Texas.
[link to mediamatters.org]
For those that don't believe our government is experiencing a disconnect or is imcompetent. My wife works for a large univeristy health system with a large number of residents trained in emergency medicine, they have offered their services to assist the evacuees. However, FEMA and Homeland Security still has not figured out how to deploy them -- the hurricane was how long ago? Our government is incompetent or does not care about doing its job -- personally I am hope for the former.
And yes O'Reily was trying to provide people with a reason to believe the vitims "got what they deserved". The reason behind it? Someone stated (Tommy), "Oh, so they are partially heartless just waiting for someone to give them a reason to be totally heartless? Wow, that makes sense, DUH?" We all want reasons to see what we believe is true. Sometimes that mean some else must give you a pass -- when this is the case it usually does not matter what piece of feces does so. "So yeah, some people will need permission or forgiveness so they can go back to ignoring those in poverty, of whatever sort." Why do you think the reference to the "white man's cross" was ever conceived. I imagine a lot of U.S. citzens, some for very legit reasons, probably want to forget what they have seen. And we should not.
There was also an offer by a volunteer mortuary group to help with the recovery of the dead... but of course Bushco preferred the for-profit sector solution.
If FEMA was just good at coordinating volunteers, much more help could be sent to those who need it. There really are a lot of people who want to help.
ufleirx
Thank you for the post - what you stated goes back to the predominantly conservative viewpoint of "let's stick our heads in the sand or cover our eyes and it will all go away"
How can problems with society be addressed when people have attitudes such as these? At least that's my perception. Just the fact that you have human beings in dire straits should be the motivating factor to help. It shouldn't matter what their personal situation is.
If I were faced with trying to save someone's life but they had some sort of "personal failing" issue, that would not stop me from trying to help them. I think that's called compassion. This whole bit of people being "worthy" of receiving help is disgusting.. Mind you, there is only so much any one of us can do, but we shouldn't stop trying to help.
To you conservative types, if it sounds like I'm some god awful nasty liberal - i put it to you that those concepts are bigger than any ideology - Those concepts are part of what it is to be HUMAN...
One thing that the Katrina disaster has shown me is that the American PEOPLE are far better than their government when it comes to helping each other out.
Spin:
Very well said, although you're preaching to the choir with me. I hope it registers with the hard hearted Hannahs that frequent this site. I am not optimistic that it will, many of them belong to the cult of the boot strap. Unless a tragedy befalls them personally they seem to not have the ability to empathize.
"empathize: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this"
Addendum
... Or do not have the right to forget.
lets assume that BO is correct and that many of the people still in NO were thugs or worse. Wouldn't it then be a major priority to get help into the city at once to protect those left behind that weren't thugs.
Also consider that many people were given the option of going to the superdome, where the lack of personal responsibiltiy of our leaders left them stranded.
I agree that "self-reliant" is a just a term used to justify a racist policy. Poor and white is not the same as poor and black, if it wasn't then the numbers of poor black would be decreasing not increasing. This administration should be proud that the poverty numbers have increased under their watch.
Leave it to O'Lielly to generalize about the poor and mostly black, does he even know any poor black people?
It is mindboggling how the term self reliance is such an anathema to some of you. That the idea of encouraging one to rely on their intellect and capability for hard work to better themselves, to get an education, to avoid moral mistakes is somehow racist, is so flat out stupid, it defies logic.
Some liberals throw out these racist charges because it is an excuse for their own failures, if they can blame society or anyone on their lot in life then they don't have to confront the real issue. "It's not my fault, I am a victim". Stop with these baseless racist accusations and face reality.
It's not that self-reliance is anathema. It's that Bill O'Reilly can look at a group of people on television who barely survived a catastrophic hurricane and flood with only the clothes on their back, and who are now homeless because their homes are under 20 feet of bacteria-laden water, and who are now jobless because their workplace is under 10 feet of toxic sludge, and he can determine that "many, many many" of them are "drug-addicted thugs."
What criteria do they meet to earn this label? I would hazard a guess that O'Reilly's formula is as follows: black + male + angry = "drug-addicted thug".
Most of those people were self-reliant before, and they'll be be self-reliant again -- after they recover from losing everything they worked for. While you all bloviate, some of us will be helping them do just that.
Sagra,
You may not view self reliance as an anathema, but many here do. As soon as that or the term "personal responsibility" comes up they go ballistic, start throwing out the racist charge, or the "you don't give a damn about anybody" label. It is all so wrong and paranoid.
I am not a racist, or an uncaring person. On the contrary, I believe that encouraging relying on one's self is a noble and very positive influence in anyone's life. There is nothing racist, or sexist, or mean spirited about it, and it gets so annoying to constantly defend it to a certain narrow minded few.
Ah, spoken as if you are from the majority. Just a guess on my part.
I, in turn, believe that reliance on our fellow man when we are down is, in fact, more genuine nobility and a more enlightened positive influence. Said another way, a more 'higher' calling than your basic self-reliance model proffered time and time again, is the capacity to give of ourselves to help others in times of need or in helping those who cannot help themselves.
Tommy, did you know-were you aware that up to 40-50% of our homeless in this country are mentally ill? I suppose they should just self-reliantly help themselves-change their biochemical imbalances via hard work. Are you aware that there are veteran's who have lost limbs, and they have to wait weeks for appointments that were promised them? I suppose they should self-reliantly look elsewhere for healthcare. Are you aware that many large corporations are paying record windfalls and bonuses to executives while they pilfer the blue-collar-mans pension? Maybe the blue collar worker should have studied harder and gotten the white collar job? Are you aware that more U.S. Cititizens live in poverty than at ANY time in our history (barring the great depression)? etceteras.
I say the above to indicate a point. Self-reliance is not the only vehicle to prosperity. There are many instances-as listed above--totally out of ones control--that they are powerless to change in which all the self-reliance in the world will not change their world.
Again, you use the word 'narrow-minded' earlier you said 'stupid' and 'defies logic'. What troubles you so about a discussion that induces you to hurle blanket insult upon blanket insult? Some might be of the opinion that you're the one who is attempting to defend a weaker position. It really does get tiresome to continually listen to you label others as 'stupid' etceteras simply because they do not share your perception of the world.
My guess is that we probably agree on a number of things here-not just elements of self-reliance. Perhaps, your presumptive judgements cloud similiarity and highlight differences based on stereotype.
Finally, you can say you're not racist all you would like here if that makes you feel better. In fact, you may not be racist--I wouldn't presume to know nor suggest that you are. However, exclaiming you are not racist while extolling the virtues of self-reliance in a fashion that inherently benefits those who have majority priviledge seems a bit naive.
Tommy writes: I believe that encouraging relying on one's self is a noble and very positive influence in anyone's life. There is nothing racist, or sexist, or mean spirited about it, and it gets so annoying to constantly defend it to a certain narrow minded few.
Tommy,
I never thought of you as heartless, although in my experience I have met few conservatives’ Black and White that was NOT in my opinion selfish and uncaring of people that THEY DON”T KNOW. Maybe that was just my misfortune and those conservatives I met represent a minority of YOUR peeps. Nevertheless, I believe that your ‘just take responsibility theory’ is too simplistic for this very complex problem. Someone has to teach you to be responsible and family dysfunctions can easily become perpetual. A child born into this situation and isolated from mainstream societal influences will likely repeat the cycle that you speak of. To correct the problem there must be intervention and involvement from a caring community and that involvement has to be so much more than just financial. It's just not as Black and White as you say. All we are advocating is to help a generation learn to help themselves, and if we as a society don’t commit to this we will be having the same argument forever
Define "encouraging relying on one's self".
This phrase is close to being meaningless unless you choose to define it further.
Be concrete. What exactly do you mean? Give examples.
I'm sure you are speaking in a 'general perception' sense regarding what you see Because, I certainly have not criticized self-reliance as a philosophy or what it might mean.
However, it is you who offer a less then intelligent analysis of what self-reliance is. If you think that reliance on ones intellect and hard work will better their life. You're the one who is exercising a failure of logic.
The Fact is-most people of an SES will die in that SES. The fact is that more people of color are in poverty than whites. That fact is a private education is generally better than a public one (there are exceptions-but, they are exceptions). If you think that everyone here has the capacity to (as I've said before) become a master carpenter or a neurosurgeon...you're kidding yourself. If you think that race does not limit ones options--you're mistaken. There are advantages and disadvantages in life that are totally out of our control. Do you think that Paris Hilton has to work as hard as someone with no money? Do you think that someone who comes from a family in a long line of family members who have advanced degrees is more likily than someone from the inner city to attend graduate school?
If you think that hardwork can give you-or bring you anything you'd like your sadly mistaken.
Tommy writes: That the idea of encouraging one to rely on their intellect and capability for hard work to better themselves, to get an education, to avoid moral mistakes is somehow racist, is so flat out stupid, it defies logic.
tommy wrote:
"That the idea of encouraging one to rely on their intellect and capability for hard work to better themselves, to get an education, to avoid moral mistakes is somehow racist, is so flat out stupid, it defies logic."
True enough, but I haven't seen anyone arguing that.
I would summarize my position this way, I think.
1. Self-responsibility is a good thing.
2. Although self-responsibility is a good thing, there will be circumstances in some people's lives when they are unable to handle their problems by themselves. Unless you're a mild-mannered reporter named Clark Kent, a hurricane is probably beyond you, for instance.
3. Although it is not the government's business to keep people wrapped in cotton or prevent all of life's hardships, it is part of its job to help when it can, especially with things a large organization is uniquely suited to do--like arranging mass shipments of fresh water.
4. This government failed to do certain parts of its job very well, and I would like it to do better. If this requires firing some people, so be it. I have, I suspect, as little tolerance of incompetent management as you do.
5. Stupid things have come out of Mr. O'Reilly's mouth before, and likely will again.
Just my opinion, of course, but I have a feeling I'm not alone.
Irene
I have rarely heard the words 'personal responsibility' used except in combination with some attempt to deflect blame levelled at someone else. Sometimes it is appropriate; we all know people who will always find someone else to blame for everything that goes wrong in their life, be it a failed relationship or poor finances.
But when we're dealing with government agencies, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, the term 'personal responsibility' as applied to private citizens doesn't serve any purpose other than muddying the waters. After all, has anyone ever been able to determine EXACTLY any one person's responsibility for ANYTHING?
A government agency in and of itself is a muddy water.....we all have a responsibility to make sure we can care for ourselves and our families - obviously there are exceptions, such as the mentally ill or diabled.
What this disaster has taught us is that the government is a bureaucratic nightmare, with layers of muddy water to wade through during a crisis. To encourage self reliance is to save lives and loved ones. To look for a handout is way too risky, at least immediately after a disaster such as this. Everyone should be looking at their own disaster plan within your own family, and prepare yourself. It makes damn good sense, not to mention it could save your life.
Tommy,
I agree with you up to a point with regard to the importance of self-reliance. I happen to believe that most of us bring at least some of our own unhappiness upon ourselves simply as a result of not thinking clearly and/or not planning ahead. However, I also think it's a little too simplistic to lay all the responsibility for other people's misfortune at their own feet. In my experience, the ability to think logically and to contemplate the potential ramifications of a course of action is not necessarily something which human beings naturally and instinctively acquire as a result of maturation -- it's a skill which must be learned. Anyone who works with children knows that the overwhelming majority of what they learn is the result of observing and copying the behavior of the adults in their family of origin -- and since a lot of this takes place without the adult(s) making an intentional effort to teach the child(ren) this skill or the child(ren) making an intentional effort to study it, it can be described as unconscious. It's precisely for this reason that so many people end up exhibiting the same destructive behaviors that their parents did, even those which they swore to themselves they'd never do -- drinking too much, beating up on the kids, what have you. I've used this analogy before, and I'll use it again.
Encouraging self-reliance is by no means a bad thing -- but like everything else in life, it can create its own share of problems when taken to an extreme. I can't deny the fact that there are some people who truly don't want to be self-reliant -- however, there are also those who are afraid to be self-reliant because few if any people ever encouraged them to have confidence in themselves and faith in their own abilities. I'll also concede that there are those who manage to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps despite the lack of encouragement from other people, and those people certainly deserve to be commended for that -- however, I think it's safe to say that for each one of those people, there's probably at least one other who was not quite so fortunate. It would be terrific if this were a perfect world in which everything was black-and-white and hard work was always rewarded -- life would be a lot easier and simpler if that were the case, but unfortunately this is not so. In my opinion, the "self-reliance" mantra becomes problematic when it's used wholesale as an excuse to avoid helping people without taking into account circumstances that may have contributed to their misfortune, especially in instances when these were not subject to their control.
Following Tommy's logic:
1- Those who didn't evacuate lack "personal responsibility" understood as either personal responsibility skills and or personal responsibility values. 2- The majority (probably 90% or more) of those who didn't evacuate were not mentally ill or disabled. 3- Most of this population was black (probably 90% or more)
THEREFORE: Blacks more than whites lack personal responsibility skills / values.
Extrapolating further: Those on welfare, mainly blacks / hispanics, are foolish to rely on government beauracracies and lack personal responsibility. Whites don't need a handout because they have more personal responsibility.
Institutional racism is not worth mentioning.
laura - Friday September 16, 2005 07:53:31 PM EST
Except more whites than blacks or hispanics are on welfare.
[link to salt.claretianpubs.org]
Myth #1: Welfare benefits go to minority women who never leave the dole.
THE FACT IS, MORE WHITES RECEIVE aid than blacks or Hispanics. Two out of three welfare recipients are children, not adults. And contrary to the stereotype of families forever dependent, nearly three out of four women receiving aid get off welfare within two years.
NATIONWIDE, HALF OF ALL FAMILIES on AFDC leave within a year, and 70 percent leave within two years, according to Deborah Weinstein, director of the family income division of the Children's Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. Roughly two thirds of those families return to welfare within five years.
[link to www.onlineopinion.com.au]
For example, the extent of welfare dependence is almost always overstated – in the US solid empirical research discovered long-term welfare use was minimal, families spawning generations on welfare were rare and the average stay on the rolls was only 18 months.
Welfare dependence is usually confined to small communities with unique needs (eg a town with the main industry destroyed, certain Indigenous communities). Successful solutions need to be community-based rather than across the board. For example, some schemes devised and performed by Indigenous groups have been very successful. Highlight the success stories and promote the ‘small is beautiful’ approach.
Happy to be corrected on that point in terms of raw numbers.
1994 average income for blacks was 10,600 and about 17,500 for white. Proportionally, blacks are more likely to receive welfare assistance.
I still think these deductions flow from Tommy's suggestion that those who didn't flee, if not handicapped or aged, lacked "personal responsibility".
The implication is clear, as I mentioned. He's insinuating that those who did flee have more personal responsibility than those who did not. And as we all know, those who did not were disproportionately black. Ergo, blacks (at least New Orlean blacks) lack what is clearly an all-American, rugged individualism, positive trait of 'personal responsibility'.
laura wrote: "The implication is clear, as I mentioned. He's insinuating that those who did flee have more personal responsibility than those who did not. And as we all know, those who did not were disproportionately black. Ergo, blacks (at least New Orlean blacks) lack what is clearly an all-American, rugged individualism, positive trait of 'personal responsibility'."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Personal well being, security and wealth come from taking personal responsibility and acting in one's best interest. As long as someone believes their place in life is someone else's fault, and therefore someone else's responsibility, their misery will continue.
"As long as someone believes their place in life is someone else's fault, and therefore someone else's responsibility, their misery will continue."
Do you honestly believe that the folks in the USA below the poverty line are totally to blame for their plight?
Were the Jews of Hitler's Germany wrong to think that their plight was "someone else's responsibility"?
Again, there's a pay-off for wingers in such a belief. Calls for no scrutiny of the complexities of human nature, social factors, no real empathy or understanding of the myriad forces that result in the what happenned in New Orleans. This is old stuff, in line with Ayn Rand (author of Atlas Shrugged). Yes, it's a glorious half-truth. The world's not as binary as winger's would like. Saddam didn't cause 9-11. Democrats are not craving a Marxist state.
Wingers worship half-truths. They think they invented "self reliance", but they're the half of the country that wouldn't let go of slavery. Not long ago the KKK terrorists were still raping and lynching blacks. Where was the belief in blacks' self reliance then?
Self reliance is about as obvious as it gets. You have to be a total fool to think you're actually offering something new to the discussion. This speaks to your own make-up. This infatuation with some a one-sided explanation. So keep staring at it - wow, it's all shiny and pretty! But if you ever care to look elsewhere, there's all sorts of scientific data that demonstrates how myopic it is. 99% of what you call libs believe in the same American dream despite your Reich wing claims that deep down we crave a socialist state. This is a core lie that Clear Channel propaganda pushes 24/7. Have you actually swallowed this whole without examining it?
Captain Hit 'n Run - Neocons consistently deconstruct / criticize. Like two year olds they sure know how to say no, and do so with their corporate golden microphones 24/7.
They rarely put their own proposals on the line for debate, beyond generalizations and platitudes. When challenged to here, it doesn't happen.
Newsflash, nonneocons love their country, believe in free markets, like cell phones and big screen tvs, either believe in God or respect those who do not, and are all for 'personal responsibility'. At the same time, we are capable of analyzing reality more deeply than neocons.
The term personal responsibility itself is a shell. Taken to one extreme, why should the state REQUIRE and PAY for education / healthcare of any kind if citizens should be personally responsible and educate / take care of themselves?
Are you Bushies actually for no govt support of public institutions, like universities - are you opposed to every manner of safety net, to Medicaid for example? If so, describe what you're for exactly. Or did we just witness it in New Orleans. This is Captain's suggestion. Those poor folks lack personal responsibility and therefore this is a natural consequence of the shortcoming of their personal character.
It may be hard to be binary and accept that the state has a role in facilitating 'personal responsibility'. And it's far easier for binary brains to just knock things down, criticize inefficiencies. More and more half truths. Sure Medicaid's inefficient. Sure drug prevention are inefficient. On the other hand, most crimes are drug related and the jails are full of folks we spend 30K/year. It'd be great if it didn't have to, and govt could be much smaller and less intrusive. But even neocons like Cheney/Bush/Rove approve trillions of dollars be spent on things like universities and safety nets and drug and AIDS prevention programs, etc. Step up and respond to my last post Captain.
Laura, forgive me I didn't realize that we were required to stay at our computers 24/7 waiting for replies to our posts. Just to let you know ahead of time, I probably won't be sitting here waiting for your reply today. My plans are to watch football, if that's ok with you?
Of course you've misinterpreted my post, what a shock, and used it to bellow that I am somehow a cold, heartless neocon for daring to suggest that we all need to bear some personal responsibility. You're obviously of the mind that Uncle Sam must not only tuck you in each night, but also wipe your runny nose.
Your analogy of the Jews and Hitler was ridiculous, and held no bearing to the current situation in our country, it was just more warped blather coming from a leftist mind.
I stand by what I wrote: "Personal well being, security and wealth come from taking personal responsibility and acting in one's best interest. As long as someone believes their place in life is someone else's fault, and therefore someone else's responsibility, their misery will continue."
This was not directed at just Katrina victims, but at our society as a whole and at our conduct in general.
The blame game for all your personal woes is unproductive. Get up off your butts and try to help yourselves. Is that so unthinkable? This is not to suggest that people be kicked to the side of the road when in need. But need should not extend to a lifetime of care or dependency (the exception being the mentally ill).
LBJ's Great Society was designed to lift the poor out of their situation by government subsidizing all their basic needs. This was a short-sighted fix. It didn't teach them to become self-sufficient, probably just the opposite. This crutch of 40 plus years is coming home to roost. It's time to finally accept that throwing money at a problem only fosters dependency.
Taxes should not be used as "endless income" for those that choose not to fend for themselves.
Of course safety nets are needed, but not lifetime safety nets, unless you are proposing a Marxist solution?
Taxes should be used as short-term help in the case of unemployment, temporary aid due to displacement because of a catastrophe, public schooling, or as a supplement for tuition for higher education.
Taxes should be used for infrastructure (e.g. roads), defense (military), national security, environmental protection, social security insurance, medicare and medicaid.
Tax money should not be used to fund "Victim Funds" such as the one set up for the 9-11 families. That was a huge mistake, private donations should be used for that type of funding.
The victims from Katrina should be helped to get back on their feet but not given Tax Money like they won the lottery.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ex-New Orleans mayor calls for compensation fund for Katrina victims Kate Heneroty at 11:23 AM ET
Former New Orleans mayor and current President and CEO of the National Urban League Marc Morial has called for a Hurricane Katrina victim's compensation fund, similar to the one created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You just knew this was coming
As long as someone believes their place in life is someone else's fault, and therefore someone else's responsibility, their misery will continue."-Captain Jack
***
Captain Jack
Hope you are enjoying the game.
Actually, I agree with this statement in part. Believing isn’t so much the problem as not acting in spite of that belief that is. You can believe your place in life is the direct or indirect result of someone else’s actions…and there may be some truth to that statement, but to throw up your hands in despair and do nothing because of that belief is what makes the misery continue. You have very little ability to control others actions but you have total control of your own. People should use the actions of others to show how much they have had to overcome to get where they are but it should not be just an excuse for why you didn’t get anywhere. It contributes but it is by no means the only or most important factor.
All I can say is that this latest comment from O'Reilly is a quintessential example of why the phrase "compassionate conservative" always strikes me as being at least somewhat oxymoronic...
I can't believe that we can turn such a natural disaster in to a partisan issue. Even people who are addicts have lost everything, including, most probably their dealers. Isn't this the best time to make sure they stay clean? launch a national scheme to combat narcotic abuse (not by locking them up either)? Unfortunately america is so obsessed with corporate profit, you have forgotten about the civil liberties that your nation is founded on.
only half of america has forgotten.
Self reliance is not rhetoric and it is solely based on compassion and enpowering people to raise themselves up and do better. It is totally opposite of this victim and, in my opinion, racist mentality that many push. To say to someone "You are not good enough, or you can't do it" is the untimate insult, not to mention ridiculous.
______________________
If you truly believe this it is reasonible and sensible given a level field. However, in this case the field is gone. Truth everyone has had help of some sort, even those massive and rugged individualist -- i.e. corporate giants and super affluent -- they constantly receive largess at the gov't teat. And their is no way anyone could plan for this. I make a decent living well above average income and I have insurance, etc. and this would wreck me. As, for being prepared sound advice, but again how many have 6 days of water and non-perishable food. Then, you would have had the ability to move it. If you had a car you probably left the city.
Self-reliance is one of the great abilities of our humanity. Compassion for those unable to cope is what defines the quality of our shared humanity.
Yes, because all the dealers stayed in New Orleans, and so naturally all the junkies stayed behind too . . . no, wait.
I am also, as always, disgusted by O'Reilly's assumption that mental illness equates to worthlessness.
Irene
Figures aren’t important at all here. O'Reilly’s comments were meant to smear the people who need help, to discredit them, to encourage his listeners desire to place blame on them for their own circumstances etc…it was a smear. I’m sure since drug addicts are usually poor, many of them couldn’t leave, but it’s irrelevant, even if it were, a very large majority weren’t drug addicts and many were children, disabled or sick who couldn’t make decisions.
Additionally, I live in an area where we get mandatory evacuation orders quite frequently, nearly every summer lately, and only a relatively few people leave. Middle class, families, educated etc, just don’t leave. Some do, like people living on the beach or in trailers and some others but most don’t leave…I know.
Tommy: Covering for O'Reilly is not only foolish but a waste of time. The man is famous for ranting and railing without a thread of proof or adequate documentation. The root of his remarks are racist, nothing else, and to make excuses for them is more of a reflection on you than anyone else here. No one cares about the evidence if there ever was any to justify such a blatantly bigoted comment. It deserves no sympathy or backup. The man is simply a menace. I never can understand what this man's qualifications are in the first place to be spewing his hateful, nasty, bullying crap every weeknight. He is sheer garbage, unworthy of further acknowledgement.
"Katrina's Unsung Victims" [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
This link is for an editorial that appeared in today's Washington Post. Please read this and then think about those "thugs and addicts"... these are regular, everyday, you-and-me, there-but-the-grace-of-God-go-I people. Compassion is about caring and concern for EVERYONE - not just those who meet our "approval"; those who meet some protocol set by a nameless, faceless "us". What ever happened to the Golden Rule? Or am I being naive in thinking that the Right seems to have forgotten that tenet?
In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that NOLA mayor Ray Nagin made this very same claim in a radio interview following the storm.
Transcript: [link to www.cnn.com]
Excerpt: "And one of the things people -- nobody's talked about this. Drugs flowed in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely it was scary to me, and that's why we were having the escalation in murders. People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it.
You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city looking for a fix, and that's the reason why they were breaking in hospitals and drugstores. They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will.
And right now, they don't have anything to take the edge off. And they've probably found guns. So what you're seeing is drug-starving crazy addicts, drug addicts, that are wrecking havoc. And we don't have the manpower to adequately deal with it. We can only target certain sections of the city and form a perimeter around them and hope to God that we're not overrun."
In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that NOLA mayor Ray Nagin made this very same claim in a radio interview following the storm.
Transcript: [link to www.cnn.com]
Excerpt: "And one of the things people -- nobody's talked about this. Drugs flowed in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely it was scary to me, and that's why we were having the escalation in murders. People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it.
You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city looking for a fix, and that's the reason why they were breaking in hospitals and drugstores. They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will."
Actually, no. Nagin was talking about isolated incidents where there were armed conflicts and violence with some people who have lost their source, so to speak, which is understandable. O'Racist slurred just about everyone affected by the hurricane in NO as drug addicted thugs who can't take care of themselves. Please don't try to disingenuously equate the two. Don't make excuses for someone who should be pulled off air for such comments.
No one is suggesting there there wasn't/isn't drug problems and mental illness.
But, Bill O'Reilly, in his typical ignorant fashion, was CLEARLY implying that "these people didn't want to be helped anyway, so what difference does it make if we screwed up." or "Trying to help them would've been a waste of time and money anyway".
There's a difference between acknowledging a genuine issue in the hopes of finding remedies, and using that issue as an excuse to shed any ethical responsibility.
O'Reilly is a sleezeball, IMO.
I will be the first one to admit that it is a travesty Bush has not vetoed one spending bill. The only hope he has right now is that the economy will continue to grow along with tax receipts. Both sides of the fence will promise our tax dollars away to stay in power. My biggest complaint is that both parties have effectively blocked the ability of new parties to enter the playing field. If Repub and Democrats would work as well together on other issues this country would be much better off for it.
by libby - Friday September 16, 2005 02:59:38 PM EST
***
On this we agree...good thing since it looks like the rest of our discussion has disappeared into the land of off topic posts..oh well.)-:
Thanks for the exchange Lost. Now back to the beer.
>>> Not that you are really interested in the answer, but both scenarios are unjustified. <<<
Not that you weren't paying attention, but no one suggested that either of them was justified.
However, when someone is using the "lesser offense" to detract attention away from the most DAMAGING offense, in order to allow the most damaging offense to continue unchallenged ...
That's a genuine point to make.
Get it? Man behind the curtain ....???
tolisag,
What does one have to do with another? - both looting of a flat screen TV and taking advantage of people during a disaster are both wrong - it has nothing to do with distractions? That is silly.
That is like saying, which is worse > Armed robbery or carjacking? Don't distract from the armed robbery by saying carjacking is worse? Makes no sense.
Man! Point out that mayor Nagin and O'Reilly both made comments relating to drug abuse and crime in the wake of Katrina, and get labeled a disingenuous, O'Reilly defender? You guys are cranked to 11!
A search of the comments in this section didn't produce even a mention Nagin's name, in spite of the fact that his and O'Reilly's bore a strong relation to each others. The fact that O'Reilly twists facts to suit his own agenda is a matter of record and well-covered in this discussion. My link and comments were posted for informational purposes.
For the record, nothing would please more more than to see O'Reilly pulled off the air, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath. And there's something boring and incestuous about liberals flaming other liberals for not being liberal enough.
Later.
I wonder if sex deviants who like to have phone sex with their employees fall into Bill's 10% category.
Eversince I stopped idolizing Alex P. Keaton at age 9, I realized how silly the Republican party is, and this is very typical of any right wingers to have O'wryly's attitude about general populace in general - they have nothing but utter contempt for the unfortunate.
"The whole idea of conservative doctrine is that some people are better than others, that some people deserve more. To conservatives, if you're poor it's because you deserve it, you're not disciplined enough to get ahead. Conservative doctrine requires that there be an elite: the people who thrive in the free market have more money, and they should. Progressives say, "No, that's not fair. Maybe some should have more money, but no one should live in poverty. Everybody who works deserves to have a reasonable standard of living for their work." George Lakoff.
Ofcourse, the failure in their thinking is that the wealthy remain wealthy because of what is available to them (opportunities and education.) Yes they would argue that if you are "responsible" then that does not matter. Its a flaw in the "Winners and Loser's" perception of reality.
Racism is alive and well in America, peope such as O'Lielly, and Scarborough prove it everyday.
It is so funny to see a bunch of rich white men, in suits and ties, sitting around these tables on TV say there is no "racism" or those that stayed behind during the evacuation made a choice to do so.
But then again, what would it take for a bunch of white guys in suits and ties in front of cameras admit there is a racism problem, and they have chosen to ignore it, on purpose.
haleywins wrote: "Racism is alive and well in America, peope such as O'Lielly, and Scarborough prove it everyday.
It is so funny to see a bunch of rich white men, in suits and ties, sitting around these tables on TV say there is no "racism" or those that stayed behind during the evacuation made a choice to do so.
But then again, what would it take for a bunch of white guys in suits and ties in front of cameras admit there is a racism problem, and they have chosen to ignore it, on purpose."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If racism "appears" to remain alive and well you can thank those infamous race baiters Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk who use it as an excuse at every opportunity, hoping people such as yourself will buy into it. You obviously have.
Captain, OK OK OK we understand you're positive racism is not a major factor.
Instead of saying what you do NOT believe, which is step 1, move on to step 2. Say what you do believe: What exactly is YOUR EXPLANATION for the differences in average family income between white and blacks?? Again, try not to say what you do NOT believe. I know there's not as many talking points for this one. But take a stab at it. Say what you do believe is the cause for the differences in income / or the fact that proportionately more blacks are on welfare / or the fact that proportionately more blacks didn't evacuate New Orleans - top three factors, for example. How high on your list is 'personal responsibility'?
by laura - Saturday September 17, 2005 11:15:43 AM EST -
I would submit to you that the absolute number one reason for their plight is that almost 7 in 10 of them are born out of wedlock. If one assumes, correctly, that they today fall below the average income level, then 7 in 10 Blacks born today face a world with a single parent, sub level income so even the otherwise responsible parent is facing a tremendous uphill battle. I was talking to someone the other day about children and raising them and he said parents "need to push" their children. I agree completely, but I told him that parents also need to "commit" to their children. Parents should ask if they need help with their studies, make sure they do their homework, provide whatever school supplies and other supplies that are needed, be their psychiatrist on schoolyard matters. They can do none of these things if they're NOT THERE because they're working two jobs and they are alone, in the case of the responsible person who made a terrible mistake, or in the case of the irresponsible brood mare, out looking for the latest father. The answer IS NOT more government help, the answer IS responsible personal behavior.
I agree, at the same time I think you're begging the question by stating what you would NOT recommend. Things get dicier when you have to actually step up and make a recommendation. All day on clear channel there knocking down bowling pins. Everyone with a pulse is for more personal responsibility (along with stronger families, less single parenting, better health, less violence, rape, etc.)
You said you're opposed to a governmental role in mitigating the problem (if I read your post correctly) so please state what you are for, what you do recommend, any specific ideas you think would make a dent in the problems you identify: children born out of wedlock, single parenthood, lack of parent-child involvement, etc.
For ex., I'd be PAYING at-risk adolescent males and females for successful completion of a bootcamp sort of course wherein they experience in simulated forms the rigors of being poor, single and having a child to raise. Who would pay? Ideally pro-choice, Christian and other charities. But if need be, I would be in favor of the government subsidizing this as it would be enormously cost effective as a preventive measure. Just as it would have been in retrospect to have bolstered the levees.
This is just the seed of something I would be for, and there are lots of off-shoots. For ex., adolescents who get into trouble could have reduced sentences by completing certain reality-based courses like this. Longitudinal data could be used to identify and amplify the most effective elements of such interventions.
I'd be curious whether you have any specific suggestions yourself as to how to reduce the problems you astutely identified?
You said you're opposed to a governmental role in mitigating the problem (if I read your post correctly) so please state what you are for, what you do recommend, any specific ideas you think would make a dent in the problems you identify: children born out of wedlock, single parenthood, lack of parent-child involvement, etc.
by laura - Saturday September 17, 2005 02:22:12 PM EST
That's the point Laura, the federal government CANNOT solve this problem that deals with the most intimate part of human behavior. You're part of the problem, all due respect, and I'll tell you why. I noticed in another thread you mentioned the "tirades" of Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby is THE ONLY BLACK LEADER EVEN MENTIONING THIS PROBLEM and you're chastising him instead of applauding his courage. Those black leaders and organizations that care so much for the black community, Jesse Jackson (who has a child out of wedlock HIMSELF, Al Sharpton, the NAACP and so on, don't mention one word about the importance of two parent homes and the destruction and hopelessness to a child born in poverty and in a single parent home that is also black, not ONE WORD. It is up to the black community to solve this problem, period. This one you can't pass off on anyone else and those pointing it out to the black community are their friends, and those accusing those pointing it out as being "racists" are the real enemy and could care less if you solve your problem.
I saw a study once that listed the average education of the various races of people. Starting with the most educated, the list was as follows:
Asian
Caucasion
Hispanics
Blacks
Interestingly, if you take that list and flip it over, you have the list of the highest percentage of illegitimacy starting with the highest:
Blacks
Hispanics
Caucasions
Asians
Interesting!!
Interestingly, if you take that list and flip it over, you have the list of the highest percentage of illegitimacy starting with the highest:
Blacks
Hispanics
Caucasions
Asians
Interesting!!
by tx_paco - Sunday September 18, 2005 09:17:21 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This may not change your point much, but FYI you have the order a little bit off. Hispanics have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate: [link to www.cdc.gov]
by wanderwoman - Sunday September 18, 2005 10:16:31 AM EST
I looked over your link, and I didn't find anything specific to children born out of wedlock, I may have not looked close enough, but here's some additional data that backs up my numbers:
[link to www.parapundit.com]
It states:
Among African Americans, 68.2 percent of births are illegitimate, versus 23.0 percent for non-Hispanic whites. For American Indians, 59.7 percent of births are illegitimate; for Asians and Pacific Islanders, 14.9 percent; and for Hispanics of all races, 43.5 percent.
"I saw a study once that listed the average education of the various races of people. Starting with the most educated, the list was as follows: Asian Caucasion (sic) Hispanics Blacks...Interestingly, if you take that list and flip it over, you have the list of the highest percentage of illegitimacy starting with the highest: Blacks Hispanics Caucasions (sic) Asians"
Both are related to socio-economic status. Are you suggesting one leads to the other? Which way?
Paco, I didn't mention Bill Cosby in any posts.
Captain Jack,
Although I fear your response to this question will make my head explode, I have to ask it. What do you think about the perspective of African Americans on this topic? 70% thought that the slow response to the evacuation was likely due to the fact that most of the evacuees where poor and Black. Now since 75% percent of the African Americans do not live below the poverty line I am sure that the majority of those AAs polled were middle class.
You say racism doesn't exist anymore but the majority of African Americans do. Twenty-first century rasicm is more of the subtle variety; and just because those who racism doesn't effect denying it's existence doesn't make it so. The first time I was called the N-word to my face was thirty five years ago when I was 12 years old. (It was a police office that did it and I was shocked since my only experience with police officers had been the officer friendly types that came to my school) I am happy that that kind of racism is out of fashion now. I encounter racism very rarely now, but there is still the occassion when I go into a certain type of store that I a middle-aged middle class African American woman is followed around the store while teen-age White girls are somewhere in the store stuffing their purses with over-priced costume jewlery. We should all try to root this out since in the instance I describe racism while annoying to me a customer is also a monumental waste of a buisness' resources.
Sorry,
The majority of African Americans still believe that racism still exists, although not in its more virulent form.
"What do you think about the perspective of African Americans on this topic? 70% thought that the slow response to the evacuation was likely due to the fact that most of the evacuees where poor and Black. Now since 75% percent of the African Americans do not live below the poverty line I am sure that the majority of those AAs polled were middle class."...by Lynn
Hi Lynn, I must admit that I didn't feel the "slow response" was due to racism...I felt it was DUE to mismanagement and poor leadership. HOWEVER, I won't discount your opinion as wrong because NONE of us know for sure. I just personally find it difficult to grasp/believe that decisions were deliberately or consciously made to react less than conscientiously because of race or financial means of citizens left behind in New Orleans. Perhaps I'm being naive?
I do agree with your characterization of racism being of the MORE subtle variety now, than years ago. Unfortunately no matter how many LAWS we legislate against racism, those LAWS cannot REACH and WIPE AWAY racism from hearts or minds.
Lynn, I was born and raised in a lily-white community. I live in a mostly lily-white community. HOWEVER, I have several African-American co-workers, and one of my closest friends was Black...I say WAS, because he passed away 6 years ago (at just 40 yrs old--pancreatic cancer) I managed a baseball team in a youth league, he was my coach. He left behind a lovely wife and two awesome sons. My family remains close to them. Kenny&his family were one of only a handful of Black Families that lived here in town. IF Kenny ever encountered racism here in town, he NEVER mentioned it. But then again, he was a laid back easy-going guy...NEVER complained about anything. I may sound like a "pollyanna" here, BUT I've always believed IF we could ALL just concentrate FIRST on getting to know people ONE on ONE, we might find that our differences, whether race, religion or ethnicity would virtually evaporate.
Again, IF you believe the slow response in New Orleans was either OVERT or SUBTLE racism, I will take your opinion seriously. Perhaps, never having to deal with prejudice myself, my perspective may be less on the mark than yours.
Again, IF you believe the slow response in New Orleans was either OVERT or SUBTLE racism, I will take your opinion seriously. Perhaps, never having to deal with prejudice myself, my perspective may be less on the mark than yours. by jeter2
***
This is an important point jeter makes that all of us who have never experienced racism need to take seriously. It is easy for those of us who have never been the recipients of racial prejudice to dismiss its existence and its repercussions. This is not to say we can not express our opinions to the contrary if we believe there were other more direct reasons such as incompetence but we should not dismiss the concerns out of hand. It is absolutely incorrect to say racism does not exist today and that people are not harmed by it. Sure it is not as overt as it once was but it is also not as subtle as some suggest either. I may not have been the recipient but I have definitely witnessed it.
The slow and incompetent early response may not have been the DIRECT result of racism but we can’t avoid the fact that the majority of the people who were left behind and the majority of those people that it appears did not have the means to evacuate were Black. We, as a society, have to ask why the disparity and what INDIRECT role did racism play in the plight of the victims? To say it was just a coincidence seems to dismiss to easily something that makes so many of us uncomfortable to acknowledge.
Lynn, I would like to know exactly what you mean by the slow response was racially motivated. I have heard the accusation by others but when pressed they revert to defending the existence of racism and not how it was the direct result of the slow response. You do not need to defend or prove the existence of racism…any reasonable person knows it exists. Do you believe it was a concerted effort at all levels of government from the mayor on up to the president to not make an effort to help the people because they were black? Do you believe they were all racists who wanted to stick it to the black people? As I said I was of the opinion that it was the direct result of incompetence but am open to hearing someone explain why they believe it was not incompetence but racism.
Logistic,
You have to re-read my post. You will notice that I never said whether I believed that the slow response was racially motivated. I do however confess to the belief that the combination of most of the people being POOR and BLACK contributed to an 'unconscious' feeling that there wasn't an urgency to the matter. That and incompetence. I don't believe that George Bush doesn’t care about Black people, he seems particularly fond of Condi and Colin, but the poor Blacks seem to be held in particular contempt by conservatives. I often hear poor Blacks referred to as the "urban underclass", a term by the way I hate. It brings to mind he "untouchables" of the Indian caste system. I hate airing my community's dirty laundry, but there are those in my community that look down on our poor brothers with loathing as well, and too many of us have turned our backs on them. You can hear this in Bill Cosby's rantings. While I admire that Cosby has generously donated financially to Black causes and to those that are particularly aimed at the poorer AA community; nevertheless he doesn't seem to understand that the biggest problem in those communities is the lack of positive role models. I believe that deficit is due to an un-intended effect of integration. It left many AA communities that were previously economically diversed impoverished especially of role models.
I didn't move to an integrated community until I was about 12. That was in 1970 when legal and defacto segregation was disappearing. As a very young child I grew up in an all Black community. That neighborhood is now severely depressed, but when I lived there it was very different. It was clean, safe, and vital. Our family doctor was Black and his office was in walking distance from our house. They still had beat cops back then and our neighborhood cop was Black. Most of my extended family lived within a few blocks, we have since scattered everywhere. Now I don't for one minute wish for a return of segregation, but I know that when desegregation finally came the families with the economic means to do so moved on up to the east side; including the community Doc. Many of us never looked back except in embarrassment when we saw young Black men being paraded in hand cuffs on the evening news; and even then it was just out of the frustration of knowing that that image would be applied to the Black community as a whole. Sorry for this extremely long reply.
Sorry I left out a whole thought. Dysfunction can be rampant in poor Black communities and yes SOME of the people who live there behave in a completely anti-social manner. While nobody embrases anti-socialism, conservtives loathe these people. They hate anything and anybody that divert from anything they consider normal and proper. This resonates in Billy O's recent musing about the many many many drug addicts, drug dealers, and crazies that were in NO. The implication of this to me was that there was no need to rush and save folks like that.
I also meant to say subconcious and not unconcious, although that would really explain the slow response.
You have to re-read my post. You will notice that I never said whether I believed that the slow response was racially motivated. -lynn
***
Good morning Lynn
You are correct I should have used “if”. Since you were citing the 70% statistic I was actually interested in hearing the rational IF you also believed this. As I said I didn’t think race played ANY direct part in the lousy RESPONSE. I think it was total incompetence. But as you pointed out there is a large % of people who do believe it and I was interested in hearing the justification of that position.
I agree with you completely. When I first went to college I went to school that was probably about 95% White, I was often the only Black in my class. I felt no discrimination from my teachers or even my classmates, but I did end up transferring to a Black university. It was more comfortable, but was very young then of course. Since working in the real world, I have worked in officeswhere I was either the only or one of few Blacks working there and I have learned a very important lesson.... People are just people, some of us are a-holes and some of us aren't. It's as simple as that and I like you because you're not an a-hole. (smile)
Heres how we can start to pay for Katrina.Take back the BILLIONS in welfare payments given to record breaking profit making oil company's for research in of shore drilling. Its like giving Bill Gates Billions to investigate why he is so rich!
Do you honestly believe that the folks in the USA below the poverty line are totally to blame for their plight?
-----------------------------------------
Yes
What the bastard was doing was dehumanizing the enemy. The conservative's idea of "war" on poverty is to destroy those IN poverty. The drug addicts and thugs were likely an insignificant minority holed up waiting for assistance. He is trying to convince the listener that people were stuck there because of their own misdeeds, or deserved somehow to be stuck there, which is probably not true in the majority of cases.
The answer IS NOT more government help, the answer IS responsible personal behavior.
_______________________
So are we to assume that Jeb Bush and by extension the Bush family lacks personal responsibility for the action of his daughter and as of his recent arrest his son. Or is it okay, because they'll get a pass due to their station in life, which is based on the fact their grandfather had something on the ball politically. Or should the Bush family be added to that chastisement? Did a hard working single parent with two jobs miss a PTO meeting here?
Now ufleirx wouldn't it be fun if we all could just party and F-up until we're 40 and then become governor of our state and have all our supporters admire how we transformed our life?
So are we to assume that Jeb Bush and by extension the Bush family lacks personal responsibility for the action of his daughter and as of his recent arrest his son. Or is it okay, because they'll get a pass due to their station in life, which is based on the fact their grandfather had something on the ball politically. Or should the Bush family be added to that chastisement? Did a hard working single parent with two jobs miss a PTO meeting here?
by ufleirx - Saturday September 17, 2005 01:52:56 PM EST
Your reply is silly!! Jeb Bush has had some serious problems with his children, perhaps as a result of bad parenting, unquestionably. I haven't heard him blame the problem itself on the federal government, followed by tirade against the federal government for not having a program that offers the solution. He takes responsibility himself and expects his children to face the consequences of their bad choices.
He takes responsibility himself and expects his children to face the consequences of their bad choices.
by tx_paco - Sunday September 18, 2005 09:05:07 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But the fact remains that the consequences of bad choices are very different for the children of the rich than for the children of the poor. The wealthy can afford lawyers who can cut deals involving treatment, community service, etc. The poor are more likely to just get locked up.
But the fact remains that the consequences of bad choices are very different for the children of the rich than for the children of the poor. The wealthy can afford lawyers who can cut deals involving treatment, community service, etc. The poor are more likely to just get locked up.
by wanderwoman - Sunday September 18, 2005 09:29:33 AM EST
How does this change the personal responsibility part?? We will NEVER have a PERFECT society, NEVER! It would seem to me, your point makes it all the more important for minorities to clean their own house. Everyone gets an attorney and there are government sponsored treatments for too many afflictions, in my view. The point is not the specific instances as they relate to Jeb Bush's children, the point is the likelihood, or unlikelihood of success for a child born poor and out of wedlock versus the same potential for success of a child born of means and in a good stable marraige. I am the product of a single parent home, in poverty, as well as being a "minority," yet through the grace of God, or Darwin depending on one's belief structure, I understood the importance of a good education and staying out of trouble. I was married VERY young because of an impending birth, and consequently I was divorced in my mid 20's. Understanding the difficulty faced by children in single family homes and further understanding that I was in the early stages of my child fathering years and already had two children, I CHOSE to have my ability to father children ended! I have NEVER regretted that decision that was based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!
I have NEVER regretted that decision that was based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am not disagreeing with all of your points, nor am I recommending government as the answer to everything. I just think you are glossing over the real effect of differences in the lives of rich versus poor (and maybe you should do a little research into those federally sponsored treatment options you think are so widely available - I work in a related field and I just don't see a lot of that). There has been a lot of harsh judgment of people who were left behind in New Orleans, a few of whom may have been "drug-addicted thugs" as O'Reilly puts it, but the majority of whom were people with few choices because of their lack of resources, who were left at the mercy of those "thugs" as well as the flooding. You seem to be saying that the people left behind were poor because they made bad choices. If you are making the point that those people should have been left to their meager resources and not helped by the federal government, that would be a main point of disagreement as far as I am concerned. The government still has a legitimate responsiblity for keeping people safe, in my opinion, and that doesn't change just because the enemy is the weather instead of Al Qaeda.
You seem to be saying that the people left behind were poor because they made bad choices. If you are making the point that those people should have been left to their meager resources and not helped by the federal government, that would be a main point of disagreement as far as I am concerned. The government still has a legitimate responsiblity for keeping people safe, in my opinion, and that doesn't change just because the enemy is the weather instead of Al Qaeda.
by wanderwoman - Sunday September 18, 2005 10:14:28 AM EST
While I'm not saying that the government doesn't have a measure of responsibility in instances like this one, I am saying that those that CHOSE to remain behind have a measure of responsibility for making a bad choice. What I would love to hear are statements of thanks to those that risked their lives to save these people, the government that provided the equipment and resources to save these people and the American taxpayer who is footing the bill to save these people. THEN, and only then, should we say, HOW COULD WE HAVE DONE IT BETTER with a genuine interest in solutions and better ideas, instead of looking for political or partisan gain!
Personally I think science and the marketplace have the most to offer. But the premise that government is an anathema to personal responsibility is, while attractive (a la Ayn Rand), ultimately unfounded.
Why are there more millionnaires in the US than anywhere else? Why is commerce so much more vibrant and interesting? It's not because Americans are genetically superior, rather it has a lot to do with beauracracy / law / regulations. Neocons look only at the imperfection & inefficiencies (which is in part important, recall the million dollar ashtrays on fighter jets), not the necessity of having such systems (regulations) in the first place.
Unchecked growth is rampant in third world countries and rampant in parts of the US. The parts no one wants to live in, after a while. But the other parts, where the govt makes you plant trees, have sidewalks, etc, is where the real estate developers end up making a killing & where families have better quality of life. There's a relationship between the hassles and headaches of govt and capitalism. When govt kow tows to big bness, you get some very arbitrary sprawl, malls, next to car lots, next to Adult Video stores, next to schools, next to slums, and soon the whole area goes down in value.
Think of it this way, neocons would have you believe to be capistalist is to be American / patriotic.
Are anti-trust laws anti-capitalist? Duh - of course. But then, is the government of the USA, which has these laws, un-American? Is our government unpatriotic? Are hospital, airline, real estate development regulations all un-American?
If you define capitalism as free / unimpeded markets, then much of the third world is more capitalistic. Regulations dissolve according to the ultimate free market tool: money. The price of a bribe (to encourage beaurocrats to look the other way) is based on its value to the business person. He wants to build a factory that pollutes, buy weapons that are illegal - no problem. Pay the fee/bribe.
As I said, science and the marketplace have the most to offer on this question of the govt's role in boosting citizen's 'personal responsibility'. But that's the paradox. You have to first accept and define the role of govt. Neocons, in my view, just focus on criticizing any govt role and therefore are unconsciously, indirectly advocating the more chaotic, free-wheeling societies you find around the globe, such as Russia. This is an irrational and worthless premise.