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

HT: La Shawn Barber’s Corner Since Hurricane Katrina, there has been no shortage of criticism for FEMA. In fact, some of the emails that have been uncovered are quite revealing. The thing I want to look at though is how…

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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?)

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

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.

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?