We all know it’s a bad idea for government to give people money for doing absolutely nothing, right? Speaking of nothing, there’s absolutely nothing shocking about this story.
They ought to give hurricane victims vouchers for food and supplies, I said to myself when I first heard about the $2000 debit cards. But George Bush was hurting for good press, so he allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give evacuees in Texas, in essence, cash.
Didn’t the bureaucrats know people would abuse FEMA’s “generosity?” Of course they knew. They just didn’t care. It made for a good sound bite, and that’s all that counts in a surface level, superficial, thought-police media culture. Even if most didn’t abuse the privilege, vouchers would’ve stopped the errant from buying items like liquor and cigarettes. The last time I checked, one needed food, water, and shelter — not alcohol, nicotine, and naked women — to survive.
Evacuees staying at Camp Edwards in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, smuggle in liquor, and when they aren’t doing that, they’re hanging out at Wal-Mart. Drinking. Good grief.
As a former imbiber myself, I can tell you that these on-the-taxpayers-dime drunks don’t care about rules, authority, responsibility, or personal dignity, so I’m surprised the stories coming out of the camp aren’t worse. Much worse.
Addendum: Before you people start jumping all over me for daring to express an opinion different than your own, read the post carefully before you comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 46 comments }
La Shawn,
More offensive is the guy on the right wearing the “fanny pack.” Didn’t that fashion faux pas die out in the mid-90s? Now that’s some REAL abuse of federal funds!
It doesn’t seem totally fair to say that W “was hurting for good press so he allowed…” Can we not assume the best intentions and call it an error, even a “grievous negligent error” instead of calling into question his heart motive? Maybe it was just a mistake in judgement. In counting others as better than ourselves, we might do well to consider their motives as better than ours might have been in the same situation. I don’t know the whole story, so I could be missing something to which you are privy.
I would say that “W” knew very well what would happen because it is something spoke out against when these same folks were NOT affected by a hurricane. (I mean, did those in the picture just start drinking and hanging out strip clubs SINCE the hurricane, let’s get real). W honestly could not separate the accusations that he was a racist, hated black people (thanks to Kanye West), etc., from making a sound decision. He was reacting.
I think that the more accurate characterization is that the Bush administration is very bad at articulating its message on a given issue (indeed, I suspect that the explosion of conservative blogs has been partly due to the impulse to articulate conservative ideas for him — information abhors a vacuum), and even worse at defending itself from media attacks. Consequently, the Bushies sometimes indulge in the policy equivalent of “panic buying;” i.e., throw money at the problem and hope it makes people happy.
One would think that by now they would have learned that the media will not cut them any slack, no matter what.
Btw, I think that the red, cotton jumpsuit is about the most offensive thing in this story. Why would a grown man with a serious beer gut want to dress like that? Does this get chicks in some lesser known quarters? What am I doing wrong?
You know, I’m blogging from Houston where we had (still have) more Katrina folks than *anywhere* else in the nation. We’re glad to have them. Yes, the crackheads went straight to the nearest project with their money. Tens of thousands of others have bought food, clothing, furniture … food that’s better than you can get in a shelter … paid for apartment space … I know there were abuses, and it’s likely we’ll learn from this and do better next time. All that said, I still think the debit cards were a great way to get the money out quickly. Do we penalize everybody because some people are irresponsible? Is it the government’s job to babysit and to manage peoples’ money? Are we just part of the “gotcha” frenzy? The financial relief was much needed, much appreciated.
i have to agree with you, LaShawn. It’s a miserable example of leadership. I like GWB. However, I too have seen some unusual behavior coming from this administration when his numbers dropped so much.
Even with regards to immigration…I am hopeful because this is the desperate cry of the American people–to be SAFE–that the policy that was unveiled today will mean something. However, though I didn’t say as much on my site, I cannot help but wonder about the timing of this “strategy” relative to the drop in the president’s popularity.
Actually, WeekendFisher, contrary to popular opinion in our welfare-state, government-as-savior society, refusing to give cash is not a penalty. People aren’t entitled to cash payments in the first place, even if government support is necessary. That’s why there are vouchers (for food stamps, “section eight” housing) so people can buy exactly what’s stipulated. But you probably don’t know anyone on welfare; otherwise you’d already know this.
Ironically, by asking me whether it’s the government’s job to baby-sit and manage people’s lives, you’ve proved the point of this post. Government handouts require government to manage the lives of people receiving the handouts. That’s why I speak out against incentive-robbing, dependency-inducing welfare and why people should do whatever they can, just short of stealing or selling their bodies, to support themselves without government subsidies.
Surely a situation like the aftermath of Katrina is rather different from the general run of welfare policy? I mean, even if your approach to social welfare is the correct one (which I’m not conceding, but bear with me) in the circumstances of the cleanup after a hurricane, when many people have lost everything, a ‘leg up’ from the government does not rob people of incentives or condemn them to living forever on handouts. It gives them the ability to start again, and perhaps have some dignity as they get things together. A cash payment does this in a way that vouchers and the like cannot. If some people abuse what they’re given, isn’t the freedom and opportunity that’s given to the majority worth it?
I noted the picture that Lashawn posted on the website and it really struck me. First and foremost I was a big M.C. Hammer fan back in the day, and I always wondered what ever happened to his sidekick, “The 2 Big M.C.”, after seeing the guy in the red sweatsuit, fannypack, and silver sunglasses I am glad to see that he is still living. However, I think photographic evidence of this ought to be dealt with. If the people are bringing the alcohol back on base then they should be in trouble with the Feds…no two ways about it. Additionally, why not restrict their shopping to AAFES? Why the trolleys into town. They could eat in the Mess Hall. I do agree that Bush had his back to the wall with all of the racism accusations. I don’t personally think they were true, but Bush is smart enough to know that perception is reality. I think he has been reactionary for several months now.
OK, now you have wound me up tight.
An Hispanic caller on Neal Boortz yesterday nailed it: He said that what poured out of New Orleans was reported as if we had had a super secret concentration camp hidden away there.
New Orleans was chockablock full of welfare pros in their thirties and older who get young, young teens pregnant and spend their restless time drinking out of brown paper bags. Color them way way you want, they have no ambition other than to game the system.
Since they have been scattered to the four winds, thanks to Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin has been advertising New Orleans as a Valhalla with much reduced crime rates. If he stays true to form, his corrupt administration will keep this riff-raff from returning and the Democrats (Russert, Matthews, Koppel, Couric, etc.) won’t peep up a word.
Besieged GW Bush rode into the White House on the “compassionate conservatism” phrase and he has never learned that the only translation of that phrase is “tough love.”
“Tough love” is never going to sell with Hillary, Schumer, Matthews, Koppel, Couric, Streisand, Juicy Jackson, Sharpton, Osama Obama Oleary, or any of the other Democrat attack artists.
Bush, foolishly enough, authorized the FEMA cash cards in a misguided rush to “prove” his compassionate conservative side.
I will give anyone a little slack while he benefits from the knowledge he learn whiles navigating the learning curve. I doubt there will be any repeat of these stupid cards.
As for the New Orleans pond scum that have floated into other ponds, I hope they have washed up in liberal areas that will support their “individualities.”
On the Christian side, I can not recall that the Christ sought out every lost cause He could find in order to redeem him. Our Lord was dedicated to reforming society so that all of us could join hands in the effort to raise the least among us.
GW Bush or anyone else should know that a FEMA card with $2,000 credit in the hands of an addict is not a cure, it is a free pass.
Would the Dallas Louis Vuitton store issue vouchers? Even with vouchers, people will make questionable choices, or trade them for cash. I can remember my mother kvetching forty years ago about someone ahead of her in the grocery checkout line who used food stamps to purchase a jar of olives.
Dont be so mean LaShawn. Don’t you know that these people have a disease!! You’re acting as if drunkeness and debauchery were a sin or something like that.
(Just kidding)
Concerning the phrase “But George Bush was hurting for good press, so he allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give evacuees in Texas, in essence, cash.” I place some of the responsibility for this action on those folks that were supposed to be his “friends”. For two weeks W was relentlessly (unmercifully) attacked as racist, as one who allowed NO to occur and yet I heard no defense of our Commander in Chief. He just did what any politician does when attacked that way… open up the coffers. W’s fellow Republicans got exactly what they deserve… an explosion of money for those displaced folks in the coast.
I think you made the point, but I’d just like to reiterate, the vast majority of the people no doubt used the debit card correctly. You’re always going to get a certain segment of any populace who will take advantage of a good thing – doesn’t make it right but no one has a monopoly on wrong doing. I’m thinking about the situation just before the hurricane reported in the media regarding the stealing of automobiles from a car dealership. An operation like that required a good deal of organization and no doubt took a certain level of sophistication; something your average Katrina hurricane victim would not be able to pull off. I can picture the operatives sipping champagne from crystal glasses!!!
As one who lives in Houston, I can tell you there are plenty of stories – both good and bad. There were the responsible who took the cards and took care of their families. They have free housing and food stamps already. There are reports of hotels being trashed by hurricane evacuees throwing fast food garbage in hallways. “Gentlemens Clubs” have seen plenty of FEMA cards. So has the Galleria with stores like Louis Vitton and the like. There is a growing fatigue here over the shrillness of some who appear to want to continue to live at the taxpayers expense, with the we owe them attitude. Vacated schools here have been opened for the school age kids. Unfortunately it is the accumulation of the negative stories that is wearing on locals.
LeShawn, thanks for the post and for your blog, and for allowing the discussion to expand. I’m in partial agreement with many, but, to save bandwidth, will only mention two areas of either disagreement or where I don’t think the case is very solid. Others have already discussed the ‘benefit of the doubt’, so I won’t harp on that.
In my Christian tradition (Lutheran) and ethnic culture (German), beer (and to a lesser extent, wine) are considered beverages suitable for mealtime or when doing physical labor. Not to include them as “food” is, well, weird. To be fair, the linked article discussed getting drunk on hard liquor, and also mentioned a draconian government policy of banning any alcoholic beverages from the refugee camps. There should be a rational via media in this.
Second, concerning the federal government giving money in the first place. It is probably accepted by all Christians that they have a responsibility to render aid and to care for those overtaken by disaster. (And the second is like it. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’) Many (not all) would also aver that this is both an individual and a corporate responsibility. it is very arguable (again, some would disagree) that the appropriate corporate locus of responsibility is at least partially in the community (government). That is a very strong moral argument for at least some government involvement in disaster relief, although I would contend for many reasons that the more appropriate source is non-government organizations.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.
What we did this time for disaster relief was good for a massive number of people; it’s a shame to attack that based on “anecdote” level criticism.
Replay in your mind the scenes of people waiting on the overpasses for days with only one change of clothes and a bottle of drinking water to their names, and their homes destroyed. That’s not welfare-dependency, it’s disaster relief. I’m completely on board with giving help, even cash, for disaster relief, and most people have used it responsibly. Giving cash is an awfully fast way to give disaster relief — it empowered people to go get their own replacement clothing right away, rent their own apartments and buy their own furniture, without the government having to micro-manage the relief money (this much for housing, this much for food … are we giving any vouchers for furniture or clothes?, etc.)
LaShawn writes: But you probably don’t know anyone on welfare; otherwise you’d already know this.
*** Where in the world did that come from? It’s a shame that this has pushed your anti-welfare button but our neighbors in New Orleans had just had their city demolished and genuinely needed help — even many of “the responsible ones” needed help. I could return your favor about “I know people who do this, do you know people who do that” whatever but it would be better if we talked civilly.
LaShawn: Government handouts require government to manage the lives of people receiving the handouts.
*** Disaster relief is not about managing the lives of the people receiving help, it’s about getting them back to where they can manage their own lives. It’s one thing to distrust a majority of welfare-recipients because they’re likely to be on welfare because of financial irresponsibility. The Katrina victims were not in need because of financial irresponsibility but because a hurricane demolished their homes with entire cities gone or uninhabitable. Even the responsible, hard-working people needed help. The disaster relief is not your … what did you say … “incentive-robbing, dependency-inducing welfare”. I believe that disaster relief is a legitimate government operation. And the relief such as it was helped tens of thousands of people. It’s a shame to see it torn down and attacked based on a few abusers. I’d be glad to see the system improved, but for the first time on a disaster of this scale it was really a fine start. I’ll say it again: What we did this time for disaster relief was good for a massive number of people; it’s a shame to attack that based on “anecdote” level criticism.
Is the abuse widespread enough that it merits this level of attack and if so where are your statistics because without them you’re just attacking what successully helped massive numbers of needy people based on isolated anecdotes of abuse.
This is why some of the poor will always BE poor. There is no concept of spending money carefully and saving it for not just today, but the near future (and far). If I was one of these people, I would be shopping at the thrift store and buying sale grocery items. No booze, no $800 purses (that was reported, too), none of that silly stuff. Poverty isn’t really a material problem, as Michael Medved suggests, it’s a spiritual problem. I think I agree.
I applaud Weekend Fisher above. Never mind the supposed “deeper” issues of poverty and Government handouts. That’s a never ending debate that has been going on long before Katrina hit land.
The vast majority of the VICTIMS of the HURRICANE were helped by those cards. Period. The reporters that follow some to liquor stores found what they were looking for – a photo opportunity. Why is it surprising that abuse has taken place when over 1 billion dollars has been issued to some several hundred thousand people in the form of two thousand dollar debit cards? The real story should have been the limited number of people who abused the opportunity. But that required too much work. Following a few red sweatsuit wearing black men around is far too easy.
Like it or not, whether there’s an agenda behind the reporting or not, it’s news. I acknowledged that not all abused the cards (something detractors seem to ignore), but the fact that many/some/few did is news- and blog-worthy. As I’ve stated time and again, if people don’t like the way I blog, there are millions of options. – Admin
Have any of you given a dime to the Pakistan relief efforts? Last I heard 70,000 dead and millions homeless. Pictures on tv and stories of the children were absolutely gut wrenching. Yet, I haven’t given. I gave to support Sunami and I gave to support Hurricane victims immediately. The cry went out…I gave as did millions of others. Where is the cry…where is the cry for relief for Pakistani victims? I only bring this up because I’m astonished at my own question as I write this comment. People in Pakistan are suffering as much, probably more due to sheer numbers, than any of the Katrina victims. Have we been influenced by Katrina and what has or has not happened to our donations? What’s going on?
Dianne
Send the bill over to the Marxist, I am sure Tereza Kerry-Heinz, George Soros, Steve Bing, Peter Lewis, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Hillary Clinton, the NOW sisters (to name a few) would be delighted to pick up the tab in order to serve all humanity for the cause of the greater good.
Didn’t we all see this coming with these cards? La Shawn, you are correct that vouchers would have been better.
Why did they get debit cards? It’s part of a larger problem: George Bush is consumed by what people think of him. Once he won re-election last year, knowing he would not be running for public office again, he should have forcefully advanced a true conservative agenda – REAL tax and Social Security reform, true conservatives to the Supreme Court and other courts, etc. Not to mention brutally pursuing the terrorists in Iraq. Put the plans out there, give the people access to the research behind the great ideas that have been stonewalled by liberals, and let the people take it from there. If the liberals continued to stonewall, let the voters “Daschle” them. But since he cares so much what everyone thinks of him, he goes for the lowest common denominator in court appointees, plays nice with terrorists in Iraq and gives free booze $$ to the evacuees.
It’s a shame……..
I have to comment once more on this topic. I, too, am disgusted by my money (taxpayer) being used to buy liquor, etc. However, even the Red Cross vouchers were used to buy expensive hand bags, etc. (and they admitted there were no restrictions on the vouchers) so why blame BUSH for every darn thing under the sun? Yeah he made some mistakes, but good grief people, don’t ya think that no matter who was in charge, mistakes would be made with a tragedy this large? Bush is not everybody’s personal babysitter. I know one thing for sure. I’m not happy at all thinking my tax money is going to be put in the hands of corrupt Louisiana officials for the rebuilding effort, but of course no matter how that is handled, it will be Bush’s fault too.
Dianne
Dianne is correct. It isn’t Bush’s fault that the FEMA director was an incompetent . . . oh wait.
There will always be a few that ruin it for the many. Even specific vouchers could have been misused or sold for cash.
I don’t think everything is Bush’s fault the way the Angry Left does (the existence of hurricanes, etc.). I do think he has a responsibility to make America the best it can be.
How can he do that? By being as brutal with the terrorists today as he was in the days after 9/11/01 and in the initial Iraq invasion without being scared of CAIR, by fighting for real tax reform without being scared of the lobbyists, offering true conservative justices without being scared of Reid, Polosi & Specter, by telling ICE to deport illegal immigrants without being scared of Vincente Fox, by aggressively pursuing drilling our own untapped oil & natural gas in Alaska & the Gulf coast without being scared of the blue-haired FL protesters and the environmental Nazis, and many other ways.
For those who challenge La Shawn for blogging about the abuses of the debit cards issued to those displaced by hurricane Katrina, I have this question. Why are these abuses so widely reported, and in every location that groups of refugees have been housed?
Here in Oklahoma, about 1500 refugees were temporarily housed at Camp Gruber, a National Guard base. Immediately upon their stepping off the buses, the local businesses located near the base began complaining of massive shoplifting.
When they got cards issued to them, there were stories of exactly the same behavior as La Shawn reports, namely using cards to buy liquor and tobacco, using the cards at strip clubs, and the buying of jewelry and electronic items which maxed out the cards with a single purchase.
I would be interested in knowing exactly the ratio of those who abused the “taxpayer gift” they were given versus those who used it responsibly. The abuses and criminal behavior appear to have been pretty widespread.
I would also take to task those who have complained about La Shawn’s statement about “knowing somebody on welfare”. I know plenty, and I can tell you that a lot of government welfare is abused. In Oklahoma, we have done away with food stamps, and now issue a type of credit card called an “Oklahoma Access Card”. Those stores that accept the cards (which is nearly everybody) have their register machines programmed to only allow staple items to be purchased by the cards. Alcohol, tobacco, and non-food items are deducted and must be paid for by other means.How do most recipients of the State’s largess deal with this? They simply trade out their cards for cash (usually at a loss ratio of say $2.00 card purchasing power for $1.50 cash). That way they can get their booze and cigarettes too. They will also trade their cards directly for drugs. If they don’t trade out then they will work an occasional odd job, deal drugs, steal a little, or whatever it takes to support their habits that the Government doesn’t want to pay for.
Most don’t really care that they lose money on trading out for drugs, booze or cigarettes, because THEY GOT THE MONEY FOR FREE ANYWAY. I have run across many a drug dealer during warrant services who had dozens of different people’s access cards with PIN’s attached to each one so they could spend them. They use these for all their food purchases and spend cash on everything else. I also find a huge number of other types of criminals who have access cards of their own, because not having a real job, they apply for and get welfare. When they are short on funds from their criminal enterprises, they can at least still eat.
I also see a lot of abuse working part-time at a local shelter. The shelter counselors work hard to place people in free or subsidized housing, but a large number of clients refuse to take any offers of housing. The reason is that since most get some form of Government assistance (SSI, etc.), taking a fully furnished utilities paid apartment might mean that they would have to fork over part of their checks for rent, hence less to spend on booze, drugs and cigarettes. They would rather stay for free in the shelter, eat for free at the shelter and blow their checks the first week of each month.
The lessons I have taken away from my experiences with people who are on welfare, government assistance, etc. is that when you get something for free, you have no concept of responsibility toward husbanding the resources you have been given.Why work or save if your next handout is guaranteed to be only a few weeks away.
The debit card issue, like the cruise ship lease deal, were reactions to the massive, totally undeserved criticism of FEMA.
This sort of reminds me of the government program in Denmark that actually pays prostitutes to–ahem–spend time with disabled persons.
The operative word for this idiocy seems to be “entitlement,” as in “People are entitled to anything they want.”
Follow the “logic” of these notions to their inevitable conclusions and something like the news article you cite results: chaos, selfishness, and ultimately, bankruptcy for a government no longer able to perform its legitimate functions.
Yikes!
Mark Daniels
Hi La Shawn
I believe that the giving of the cards all goes back to the white guilt thing. GWB’s administration started to feel the attacks by Jackson and K. West and caved in the the pressure. Bush was like, Let’s give them some money to prove that I’m not racist. He knew that those people were broke long before Katrina hit. It seems like that’s how we(blacks) get our way. By complaining to the white man. I was watching a local black T.V discussion show last night when the two black hosts just shot out whine after whine about how whites are not giving us enough money to clean up the black community and that the mayor needs to put more police on the street. But in the next breath, he went on to complain about police brutality. Boy I wish they would have put the call in number on the screen. So, according to them, they want more police on the street to beat us up? How crazy is that? And in regards to cleaning up the streets, at any given time, you will see someone in the black community throwing crash right onto the street. Now why would you ask the mayor to clean up the streets when he’s not the one throwing trash on it. The hosts should have been giving a lashing to the thugs that post up in front of the corner store blocking your way in. Most people are afraid to go get a loaf of bread. Or the hoodlums out there killing each other for stupid reasons. You heard nothing about that on this “discussion” show. I have lots more to say, but so little time. Thank you. By the way. What are some different ways to get our values and thoughts out into the streets. I truly see this as a start of a new revolution. E-mail:J.C.Mcgrew@hotmail.com
You know, I don’t blame President George Bush for giving out help the way he did. I am rather sick of the people who will make his help look like it was such a big mistake in the first place.
Help is help, plain and simple.
Here we have some people that literally had their lives washed away by water. I felt that this was a sign that they should turn a new leaf and start all over again.
However, as we can see the urge to drink and remain stupid hovers over some of them like storm clouds.
They are so selfish in their urge to seek instant gratification that no amount of help will produce positive results and this is the hard fact.
I don’t have a serious problem with the idea of dispersing emergency funds in the form of debit cards. Because the cards seem to work like a major credit card, it is the fastest and most flexible form of emergency financial aid. Ponder a bit about what the worst elements of the aid recipients would otherwise be doing in pursuit of some quick cash for their tobacco/alcohol/drug fix. I’d almost go so far as to give the idea a thumbs-up, because as many have mentioned in the comments, the vast majority of the cards were used in good faith by honest and thankful people.
LaShawn,
As much as I hate assume, I assume some of these fine folks using the money for lap dances and liquor are the same folks who wait at home each month for the welfare check, or the disability check or whatever other government handout they get.
These are the “Handout People” not the “Handup People” who the programs were really designed for.
Lootery tickets…
Like it or not, whether there’s an agenda behind the reporting or not, it’s news. I acknowledged that not all abused the cards (something detractors seem to ignore), but the fact that many/some/few did is news- and blog-worthy. As I’ve stated time and again, if people don’t like the way I blog, there are millions of options. – Admin
Very true. And very sad. If it bleeds, it certainly does read. That definitely seems to be the mantra of the media, and blogs – regardless of political persuation – certainly seem to be following suit.
The fact that not all abused the cards (which was stated) is overshadowed by the fact that those that did actually abuse the debit cards is the focus, the “real news”. The picture in the story wasn’t about those that bought band aids and baby formula. Simply mentioning that there are those that didn’t take advantage was secondary – if that.
The agenda behind the story should not be ignored. It’s the reason why, the fuel that makes the topic compelling. It’s why this particular topic is 30+ comments deep.
By the way, I actually appreciate the way you blog. Reading something written by someone with a viewpoint that differs from my own is always interesting, to say the least. We don’t really know what we believe until we are challenged. That’s what makes your contributions to the subject matter valuable, at least for me.
Reports of “widespread abuse” only represents widespead displacement. People moved (or were moved) to all parts of the US after Katrina. It stands to reason that there will be people all over the place who use money for reasons other than it was intended. It that 1 out of a hundred? 10 out of a thousand? Who knows. Last question: Why is this newsworthy? What’s the “real agenda” behind this story?
Addendum: 1 out of one hundred and 10 out of a thousand are, of course, the same. I meant to say 10 out of ten thousand. (Somehow, I feel confident the audience here would correct my math error for me.)
More important than the numbers, is the concept. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. Pissibly over a million, I don’t know. 1% of any of those numbers is quite a lot of people, but in what proportion to the whole?
Proportion = Relevence. Lack of proportion, lack of relevence. Is it news? Sure. Kinda like the National Inquierer I guess.
I’ll answer my own question: What’s the real agenda? The story is a mechanism used to support conservative beliefs.
It’s not surprising that people abused the cards (as originally stated in the article). It’s not surprising it’s news either. The agenda-at-large is simple one sided. That’s all.
Steve,
Are you saying the liberal side of the MSM isn’t jumping on all the ‘relevant’ data to support ITS agenda?
Sorry, the MSM is MOSTLY Liberal in mindset. And they use their power to push their agenda. Happens all the time. Humans tend to want to get their way, and not do what’s just RIGHT (and I don’t mean right wing, I mean CORRECT).
Doing things correctly requires sacrificing things we don’t want to sacrifice. It requires pain, tears, and no small amount of suffering at times. Most people don’t want to deal with the
trauma it sometimes brings. They’d rather avoid it. I wish they wouldn’t. The world would be a MUCH better place if people would do what’s right and not what is expedient.
Dan
Dan,
I have no idea what side of the political fence MSM falls on, and don’t really care. MSM is concerned with one thing: money. If it doesn’t sell newspapers and get ratings, it’s of no use. Politics be damned.
People died and even more people lost their homes – Dem, Repub, or whatever. This is a human tragedy, not a political one.
My point was/is to question the relevance of the story. Unless or until it can be shown and proven that more than a few (not even the majority, but at least a significant number) of people got a lap dance and drank cognac on the government’s dime after Katrina, then what’s the point of the story? (Other than political gain by the pundits and monetary gain by MSM?)
FEMA should have acknowledged that some abuses of the system are bound to happen, as with any program involving government agencies and money. I don’t know the details of the cards, but it seems like they should have some built in safeguards to make sure that they money is spent legitimately. For example, allow only a portion of each card to be converted to cash at an ATM, so there is a paper trail that can be followed. This information should be made available to the public, so we can see how our tax dollars are being spent. I’m a bit more concerned about how the cards were distributed, and if some people got more than one.
Thank you Steve. Quite often the MSM nitpicks and puts national attention on trivial things. An entire city was evacuated. A portion of those folks are drinkers and receivers of lap dances. Many are movie goers and I’m sure have spent money on movies. Despise their vices or not, but many of these people are basically using this money to resume some sort of semblance of what they deem as normalcy. Did anyone expect daily drinkers to stop drinking? Heck, the tragedy probably created a bunch of brand new drinkers. “Oh, for the sake of ethics, I’m going to sit on my extra money and only spend enough to survive. When I get home after a year or so, I will resume my vices”.
The amazing thing is how the greatest opponents of the liberal mainstream media have embraced it in its repeated attempts to cast the worse light on the people of New Orleans. I have relatives who are evacuees who have had to deal with not only their situation, but their reputations. Two black men leaving a liquor store have become the most recent representatives of New Orleans.
Where is positive reinforcement? Where are the stories on the good people of N.O.? Maybe one day I will get a blog going showing good things that N.O. residents have done.
Ironically, by asking me whether it’s the government’s job to baby-sit and manage people’s lives, you’ve proved the point of this post. Government handouts require government to manage the lives of people receiving the handouts. That’s why I speak out against incentive-robbing, dependency-inducing welfare and why people should do whatever they can, just short of stealing or selling their bodies, to support themselves without government subsidies.
But this was a national emergency. A major city was practically destroyed and its residents evacuated. Many, if not most, lost everything. Many lost their lives and thousands of children were/are missing. This is not the usual welfare and entitlement situation. These are grave circumstances. Is now the time to nitpick and politic?
Hey Shade,
This blog was an interesting visit, but it’s a little too taxing. Everybody is definitely entitled to his/her own opinion, and La Shawn was at least pleasant to me while was here. But the more blogs i read through, the more I realize the depth of the absolute… “misguidedness”. It ain’t worth it.
To politicize one of the worst natural disasters in US History in inhumane.
Why aren’t those newspaper photographers spending time looking for lost children or helping worried parents who have yet to find their missing children? Or investigating those agencies who actually have that responsibility?
Why aren’t those newspaper reporters digging into the actual death toll of this hurricane? Help identify the bodies for their families? Or investigating those agencies who actually have that responsibility?
Why aren’t those newspaper reporters looking into the status and health of the remaining victims – nearly two months later? Or investigating those agencies who actually have that responsibility? If there are any?
This type of reporting would be humane. Checkin’ up on a couple of drinkers bleeds, so it reads.
And the best folks can come up with is: “These poor people should have had their money managed better by the Government.” And nobody (very few, here at least) can see the hypocrisy.
Wow.
Steve,
“those newspaper reporters” you fret about are in Boston, not New Orleans where the disaster occurred. They were reporting on the status of the refugees in the Boston area – but I guess it does not qualify as “looking into the status and health of the remaining victims” because you don’t like what they found.
From the Herald:
On Oct. 5, the Herald observed a virtual parade of evacuees from a bus stop in the Wal-Mart parking lot in Falmouth to nearby liquor stores. Some emerged and openly swilled from brown-bagged containers, while others poured booze into jugs or plastic cups and casually sipped drinks at the Wal-Mart bus stop.
People who squander charity and good will deserve to be mocked.
Model_1066: I could care less about what they found regarding drinking and partying evacuees. Once again, so what? Do they represent the majority of those who were affected by Katrina? Is this a prevalent problem among all / most / at least a significant number of those affected?
By the way, few / almost none of the evacuees are in New Orleans now anyway. Even if the reporters were there, New Orleans isn’t where the people – or the stories – are anymore anyway.
People who squander charity and good will deserve to be mocked.
…Addendum: They deserve to be mocked because it makes great press and represents the unjustified idea that the majority of those who received aid are undeserving.
I am not justifying those folks’ actions. I am questioning the relevance in proportion to the bigger picture.
Addendum:
Actually, model_1066, you are correct. I am bothered by the news story. By placing pictures of drinking Black men in the newspaper:
1) How many believe that the MAJORITY of Katrina victims / New Orleans evacuees (mostly Black folks of course) are drinking and partying on Fema’s dime?
2) For those that criticize the handling of the evacuees by virtue of providing them cash (debit cards), rather than voutures, coupons, and the like, in order to help curb such drinking and partying behavior, do you honestly think that this is the biggest, baddest, and most important problem to come out of this tragedy? (Tragedy being the natural disaster and displacement, NOT the drinking itself.)
If you’ve answered yes to either (or both) of these questions, then mission accomplished. The intent of the story was to plant these seeds – even though neither of these ideas has been verified, and remains untrue until it is verified.
This may be news, but – again – I ask everyone why? Even the article, or rather La Shawn’s reference to the article, suggests that it’s not surprising to see this type of activity take place. This is not surprising as in: ” (All) those poor people can’t help themselves – the government shouldn’t have helped them like that” -to, once again, imply that ALL are doing something wrong and ALL are undeserving.
Or, surprising as in “it’s sad that a few people have wasted Fema money on booze and strippers, while the vast majority of the victims are being responsible and are attempting to recover responsibly.” Or maybe, because this isn’t verified, it’s easier to go with the first idea – they are all undeserving because a couple of brothers are tipsy.
Please look a little deeper people.
There’s so much graft and gaming of the system related to Katrina and other hurricanes, I can’t decide what kind makes me madder. What I know is that rich and poor alike are taking a bite of my hard-earned paycheck to support their habits or lifestyle. I don’t particularly like paying for Katrina evacuee lapdances, but I also don’t like having my insurance premiums raised in the midwest because thousands of fat cats built their condos on the ocean shore either. I also don’t like my taxpayer money being used by FEMA to pay for the burials of Florida hurricane victims who never died or ever lived and I don’t like paying more for somebody to live on a parked cruise ship than if I was sailing in the Carribean. The more I think about it, I wonder why I work at all.
RE Jim Crow Redux:
Truth is absolute and can be determined, despite what moral relativists claim. The point of “debating†is to get to the truth. No one said it was “that easy,†and I certainly didn’t imply it, either. – Admin
“Moral relativism”… a term used, in this particular case, to describe those that oppose or otherwise disagree with a given supposition or stance.
The purpose of debate may be to get to the truth, but we rarely arrive there – particularly when the subject matter is far more about politics and power than is it about morality.
My apologies to the Admin for suggesting or implying that it was easy. That’s obviously not the case.
Whatever this comment means, it’s off-topic (comment policy). I closed the other post for a reason. – Admin
Comments on this entry are closed.