Boortz again referred to victims of Hurricane Katrina as "parasite[s]"
On his radio show, Neal Boortz asked: "[W]hy is it that the people who are being affected by the floods in Iowa and the upper Midwest, why is it that they seem to be so much more capable of taking care of themselves and handling this disaster than were the people of Katrina in New Orleans?" Boortz continued, "I think the answer's pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence."
On the June 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz asserted that "the real question" concerning the difference between the current floods in the Midwest and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is as follows: "[W]hy is it that the people who are being affected by the floods in Iowa and the upper Midwest, why is it that they seem to be so much more capable of taking care of themselves and handling this disaster than were the people of Katrina in New Orleans?" Boortz continued, "I think the answer's pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence."
Boortz made the remarks during a discussion with a caller, who responded to Boortz by saying, "Right. And I don't -- and I'm not trying to and I don't want to make it a racial issue, but you don't -- " Boortz interjected, "Well, then don't." Boortz then added: "Look, it's a cultural issue, not a racial issue. In New Orleans, you had a culture of government dependence. In Iowa and the upper Midwest, you have a culture of self-sufficience -- self-sufficiency, self-reliance. It's two different cultures. It's not different races. It's different cultures."
On the January 30 edition of his show, Boortz declared that the "primary blame" for "Katrina and the disaster that followed" falls on the "worthless parasites who lived in New Orleans," as Media Matters for America documented.
From the June 19 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
CALLER: I wanted to know why is it the Iowa floods and stuff like that aren't plastered all over the news like the Katrina thing is? I don't get that. Seems like that's much more massive than Katrina.
BOORTZ: Yeah, just as you said that, I looked up at CNN on the TV, and there were the Iowa floods.
CALLER: Yeah. I don't get that.
BOORTZ: You mean -- well, because the toll of human tragedy is not quite so stark as it was in Katrina. So the question -- I -- the real question here is why isn't it get-- not why isn't it getting the coverage, but why is it that the people who are being affected by the floods in Iowa and the upper Midwest, why is it that they seem to be so much more capable of taking care of themselves --
CALLER: Right.
BOORTZ: -- and handling this disaster than were the people of Katrina in New Orleans? And I think the answer's pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence.
CALLER: Right. And I don't -- and I'm not trying to and I don't want to make it a racial issue, but you don't --
BOORTZ: Well, then don't.
CALLER: But the question I have is --
BOORTZ: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Don't. Because it's not.
CALLER: I know, but --
BOORTZ: Look, it's a cultural issue --
CALLER: OK.
BOORTZ: -- not a racial issue. In New Orleans, you had a culture of government dependence.
CALLER: OK.
BOORTZ: In Iowa and the upper Midwest, you have a culture of self-sufficience -- self-sufficiency, self-reliance. It's two different cultures. It's not different races. It's different cultures.
CALLER: OK.
BOORTZ: And that's why you're seeing a difference in the coverage of these two events.
CALLER: 'Cause I haven't seen anything about, "Where is the government? Nobody cares about us." I haven't seen no one on TV at the same level as that [inaudible].
BOORTZ: Yeah, and you haven't seen George Bush saying, "You're doing a great job, Brownie."
CALLER: Yeah.
BOORTZ: Haven't -- perhaps one of the dumbest statements ever uttered by a politician that I've --
CALLER: Well, nobody scripted that for him, did they?
BOORTZ: No, that was foot-in-mouth disease with that one.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
I don't know Snoop. You call folks "dummies", your buddy Boortz calls folks "parasites"
Maybe you'll get your own radio show ;-)
Yeah Snoop I know, I was just pulling your chain, though you could get a radio show if you really thought that way ;-)
Of course I do sometimes wonder about folks that build, then re-build along flood plains or hills that turn into mudslides.
Boortz is parasite. He feeds off the bitterness (yep that same bitterness that Obama talked about) and fear of his listeners leaving deep wounds of hatred.
How's that for a fricken metaphor?
Are you seriously suggesting that the responses of the people involved aren't influenced by the relative magnitudes of the situations?
We had looting in my town in Indiana, done mostly by white people. There wasn't as much of it as in New Orleans because the situation wasn't as severe. But that element still exists in both situations.
Are you saying that looting is more justified because one may lose their home to a hurricane as opposed to a flood?
If someone loses everything from a flood, or a hurricane, or a tornado, or any natural disaster, are you suggesting that their behaviors should somehow be judged differently?
"Are you saying that looting is more justified because one may lose their home to a hurricane as opposed to a flood?...If someone loses everything from a flood, or a hurricane, or a tornado, or any natural disaster, are you suggesting that their behaviors should somehow be judged differently?"
Of course not. I'm saying that elements of behavior are going to be consistent in any disaster like this, but it's not as noticeable if the scope of the disaster is smaller. It's not going to be as big of an aspect of the story as it was in New Orleans. So for Boortz to try to draw some grand conclusion about different cultures from the floods is utterly inane.
What's being contrasted are the residents' responses, try to keep up.
Please explain, o wise one. But first, let me try -
Could it be that tens of thousands of people were basically being held prisoner in NO, unable to even walk across the bridge in order to get help. You remember that, don't you? And when help was promised, none came.
Please contrast that response with what's going on in Iowa.
I could be wrong, but I thought cultural was a code word for racial. But let's look at the culture. Did you know that New Orleans residents were happier than residents of any other city in this country? Why? Their culture.
But did you also know that New Orleans had become a test case for widespread privatization efforts? That their governmental/social services infrastructure was being gutted? So please take that into account when you look at their culture or their alleged dependency. A lot of opinions are being thrown around here without many facts backing them up.
In New Orleans, you had a culture of government dependence. In Iowa and the upper Midwest, you have a culture of self-sufficience -- self-sufficiency, self-reliance. It's two different cultures. It's not different races. It's different cultures.
Yeah, and you haven't seen George Bush saying, "You're doing a great job, Brownie."....Haven't -- perhaps one of the dumbest statements ever uttered by a politician that I've -- that was foot-in-mouth disease with that one.
So where is the misinformation?
So where is the misinformation?
If you have to ask a question like that, Dems, you're hopelessly ignorant.
Both of the disasters in question are horrible. But New Orleans was just about destroyed. There wasn't any way that people could have worked together. They were stranded on the roofs of their houses. The system broke down, on the local, state and federal levels.
Neal is scum, plain and simple. It's easy for people like him to paint veterans as cowardly and victims as parasites.
Chickenhawk scum!
Katrina - 1,800+ dead, .5 mil displaced, over $80 Bil dmage
Midwest flood - 25 dead, 35k evacuated (many have since returned)
Definitely some apples and oranges mixed in here.
Such as poverty, population density, rural v. urban, etc. Good point, Tommy.
Apparently, Iowans aren't as stupid as Boortz, and understand why we have a federal gov't.
From Iowapolitics.com
"The first request from the Governor asked the Federal government to cover 100% of the costs associated with debris removal and emergency response activities associated with the flooding. Traditionally, these costs are shared between federal, state, and local governments, with 75% covered by the federal government and the remaining costs split 10% state and 15% local."
"In addition, Governor Culver requested a $17 million National Emergency Grant through the U.S. Department of Labor to assist with putting unemployed Iowans back to work rebuilding the state's public facilities, infrastructure and parks."
"Finally, Governor Culver asked the federal government to expand the Federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance program to Iowans in all 83 counties declared disaster areas by the Governor."
and before anybody misinterprets this, I am not calling Iowans parasites.They are our fellow Americans, and this relief effort is a good example of why our federal government needs to be efficient and competent.
Through no fault of their own (Iowans), they are sure getting different news coverage than NO residents did during Katrina. But that's probably just a "cultural" thing with the media.
Cedar Rapids : elevation 951 feet ABOVE sea level
New Orleans : elevation 10 feet BELOW sea level
This is a fun game students, what are some other really huge differences betweeen these two locales?
Different natural disasters. Different structural damage. Different local governments. Different response times from said local government. Different socioeconomic levels. All of these factors and more (including culture) could help to shed some light on to why the Midwest fared better compared to the lazy residents of New Orleans. Boortz chooses to simplify it as simply a matter of culture; a character issue.
Let's ignore the fact that perhaps the vast majority of Katrina victims were in a situation that was largely out of their control, no matter how much they wanted to put on their bootstraps. Idiot.
Boortz needs his own material.
Didn't Rush "Pills McAssboil" Limbaugh already cover this almost verbatim?
Neal, what you really meant to say, was that the people in NO were black, and that's their problem. You just didn't have the balls to come out and actually say it.
Yesiree, the midwest is completely free of scum who would take advantage of a tragedy.
Scam Artists Prowling Iowa in Wake of Flooding
DES MOINES, Iowa – Even before the flood waters subside, one of the first things to float ashore are scam artists pretending to offer help, warns Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (HSEMD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/19958849.html"Be alert for door-to-door solicitors who hand out flyers and promise to speed up insurance or building permits," says FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer Bill Vogel. "Watch out for folks who come to you and ask for your FEMA registration number, your social security number, cash deposits or advance payments in full. You can also avoid charity scams by working only with groups you know."
We can all agree that Neal Boortz is an insensitive and misinformed boor. His choice of words merely demonstrated that lack of historical and cultural knowledge most humane people would use in describing the horror of Katrina and the less fortunate of our citizens. The word "parasite" is and should be offensive to anyone. It is also completely inaccurate. There are many classes of people to which that word could be applied. Individuals who feed off of and take advantage of others are parasitical.
The people to which Mr. Boortz referred, but was quick to back away from its true meaning, are certainly not parasites. They are the inheritors or a systemic and well-constructed agenda formulated over 100 years ago at the end of the Civil War. With the cooperation of legislative bodies, both North and South, regulations and laws were approved whose entire rationale came from the perceived necessity to control and maintain the slavery system that lay at the heart of southern economy. In order to accomplish this. it was necessary to insure that certain classes of people, not just
people of color, be prevented from the advantages presented at the end of the war. A
series of restrictions and regulations had to not only be rapidly put into place, but also be enforced, by law whenever possible, but by brute force, whenever necessary. The grand result was Jim Crow. And what a brilliant success it was, too. Overall, Jim Crow saw to it that a class was created that enjoyed the benefits of a less-than-poor educational system, government sponsored ghettos, total absence of representation in civic affairs, and, best of all, a continuance of a slave-based wage for menial employment. With no possible hope of advancement or even relief from these laws and regulations, no hope was even dreamed of. Coming from the protection of the plantations, the classes in question moved seamlessly into dependence on the largess of their former masters, now in control of government.
This system was so well designed, so dutifully maintained that the desired result was a model for all societies that yearned for the subjugation of someone, anyone to do the dirty work without complaint. So efficient and so far-reaching was this system that a whole other society was created totally dependent on "others" for their survival. We speak of our children as "dependents" who look to us for protection, food, shelter, clothing, education, physical well-being, etc. Our children do not have the means of providing these things for themselves. They are helpless. The classes I described are also dependent. They have no power, no autonomy, no means to survive without assistance. Our lawmakers saw to that. "These people" are NOT parasites. These people are our brothers and sisters who have been trained to depend on the powerful and rich for their very lives.
Good post, DonaldMD. Interesting how that model, centuries in the making, is perverted by the right-wing media as a slam against liberals-- that the social programs in place are used by "The Left" to keep poor and minorities dependent on the government in order to support Big Government.
Sure, it makes no sense, but it makes alot of dittoheads happy, and by "happy" I mean angry at all of the wrong people.
He wouldn't know what to do in a free market where real competition with real lefties is fostered.
He wouldn't know what to do in a free market where real competition with real lefties is fostered.
You really don't know what free markets are, do you?
It's cool, lib talkers are finding ways to skirt the corporate radio market and take the message to the people.
So what happens next January? Most likely when Democrats control both branches of government, I would assume these monopolistic corporations will wisely shift their allegiances from Republican to Democrat pretty fast, after all they are now in power and positions to get their backs scratched, right?
So when that happens we should expect to see quite the influx of left wing radio on the airwaves, where these shifting corporations can suck up to left wing politicians and push their left wing propaganda through their left wing airwaves, right? I mean why would they protect their rightwing hosts anymore, nothing in it for them anymore, not with the turning tide.
If that doesn't happen, and the Rushs and Savages remain far ahead of the liberal pack, then your paranoid theories are all wet. Which is what they are, but we will see.
Too funny. Why would the money elite switch allegiance from, those who toil daily to convince us that policies that benefit the wealthy are the same as policies that benefit the rest of us, to those who offer unyielding criticism of the market fundamentalists?
It won't happen. Corporate radio will continue to prop up their corporate shills.
I'm not worried about it, though. The cultural shifts that are happening will take more than one or two election cycles to ebb and flow. Liberalism will prevail in the long run with or without corporate support.
Corporation are in the business to make money. And despite your incessant demonization, they make money for their stockholders, many of whom are not filthy greedy bastards, but rather those who have invested in said corporations for their retirement. So rail unfairly against them all you want, you just look petty in the process.
Consequently, these corporations are not political entities pushing ideology, they are profit driven and will cozy up to whoever is in power to benefit them and the requirements of their stockholders. If you can't understand how corporations and their shareholders operate, and just think it's a few moneyed elites who only want their rightwing visions realized, you are sadly mistaken.
No Tommy, you're the one who doesn't get it. Corporations make the most money when their bought and paid for buddies are in office letting them steal and collude for even higher profits.
They will battle to their dying breath (that's why there are all the lies in the righty media) in order to hold onto power so they can enjoy more obscene profits through de-regulation, tax breaks, etc.
Anyway, you can stop blurring the lines between Democratic politicians and lib talkers whenever you want. My commennt that you replied to was about the corporate radio lockout of lib talkers, not the power players in Washington.
Furthermore, you are the one who thinks I'm against profit. That's a mischaracterization. I am for corporate responsibility and stewardship of the people and communities that support corporate profits. I think the idea that corporations exist simply to make profit without an enlightened vision of caring for people is unpatriotic.
I never said you were against profits, you must be the one whose nerve was touched.
Corporations should act responsibly for their shareholders and their communities, who says they shouldn't? But you seem to forget that you when you demonize corporations, you are also demonizing the hard working people who work for them, and the hard working people that invest in those companies for their retirement, which you failed to address.
Anyway, I'll play along a little further. You wrote, "Corporations should act responsibly for their shareholders and their communities, who says they shouldn't?"
Well, when you make such a broad declaration as,"Corporation are in the business to make money." It's no stretch to conclude that you believe they have no responsibility to communities beyond the bottom line profit. I mean, I know you more than likely oppose regulation in general and that would say to me that you don't believe in corporate responsibility.
I know you'll argue that consumer demands will naturally force corporate responsibility but if that were true health insurance companies wouldn't be denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. That's irresponsible. Or, for another example, the coal mine industry here in KY, if they were responsible to commmunities, they wouldn't continue to denude mountain tops and pollute community water supplies with heavy metal leftovers.
But if you continue to call the truth the "d" word, then I'm done talking to you because it's obvious you're not being a good faith actor.
You'll forgive me if I leave the merits of my argument for the consideration of others besides you.
Other than one person above, have any of you who are typing away about category five hurricanes versus massive flooding actually LIVED through a hurricane? Start with a nice category one, or if you're really brave, try a category two. It's a lot of fun -- no traffic lights, no electricity, no clean water, no phone service, no roof... Now imagine all that across an area oh, 150 miles long and about twenty miles wide. For about a week. You can't help out your neighbor, unless it's to help him spraypaint his insurance account number on what's left of his house in the vain hope that a news plane will fly overhead and some random State Farm employee might see it.
So, if I read you correctly, you are saying that people like Tommy who want to draw a comparison bewteen hurricane victims and flood victims could not be more wrong.
One thing Tommy might also consider were the millions of gallons of oil and gas and the toxic sludge. Not only was oil released from the destroyed refineries on the coast, but from the underwater pipes that the oil companies chose not to flush, apparently because it would have cost them too much to have to start them up again.
Read the last sentence of my second paragraph.
I agree with Boortz. Iowans are a self-sufficient and self-reliant lot. That's why they reject all those federal subsidies for ethanol....oh, right.
There ought to be a law against letting brain dead idiots like BOORTZ, HANNITY, LEVIN and others on the nation's airwaves.
Boortz and his caller could have applied a little logic to this situation and maybe they would not have had to spew their "cultural" remarks.
The response by Government was the reason in Cedar Rapids that we were not saying, "Where is the government?" City, county, state and federal government all responded quickly to the threat of the flood and to the tragic aftermath. So why would we be looking for the government? They were doing their job! I don't care how "self-sufficient" you are, sometimes you need help.