The mainstream media is not prepared to deal with this sort of concept, so they'll focus on vilifying the "looters" and sensationalizing the mass chaos, as borderline racists on the right feign sympathy, while practicing indifference.
Why won't you villify them? Because they are hungry? Because most of the ones that are shown on television are black? Because you can't blame anyone for anything?
Those responsible for looting goods other than food
should be held responsible, I'm not advocating that they aren't. (Even though it seems kinda' low on the list of priorities right now) I have a broader concern though.
In the early hours of a disaster of this scale...the media's response will ultimately frame the debate and coming national dialog. By constantly focusing on the actions of the outrageous few, they unfairly villify an entire group of people for no reason (LA population=4.5 MILLION). It's not going to help anybody, and it isn't going to lead to those real "looters" being held accountable either. I will say that I've noticed the focus of the news coverage has seemed to shift to include the realities of the working poor in America, and the conditions and decisions these folks faced before the storm. It's an issue that *should* be addressed, and I'm glad to see it.
Please Mr. C, please hold some accountable for their own actions, just once.
I just agreed with you, but please see my deeper concern above.
And why should the govt fund people who choose to live in a danger zone? Would you be for the govt funding to rebuild Malibu, CA beach homes because they fell in the ocean? Bet not. 'cause the people who live there are white, or rich? two curses against them you thinks.
I'd say this is a debateable point going forward, and I'm positive it'll be addressed once this whole mess is stabilized. I think a historic city like NO deserved more attention than some beach houses in Malibu might because NO had already existed, before the implications of it's location were really understood, and it would have cost less at that point, to invest in protecting it, as opposed to "moving it" or whatever. Rich people that want beach-front property know what they're getting into. It's also fairly clear that the investment to protect the city would have certainly cost less than the damage control, clean-up, and rebuilding effort our nation is facing now.
Anyhow, it's really disheartening to see this underlying contempt for the poor coming from people here (and in the media). I'm sure they'll send money, but to me, until people work together to come to some understanding about the dynamics of wealth distribution in this country, and the reality of the lower-class struggle, and the effects it has on all of society...it will do nothing to fix the long-term issues. People aren't poor simply because they "don't want to work" or "are too stupid to help themselves." I believe that may be the case for some people, but I feel obligated as a human being to look past those kinds of people and focus on those who really need help.
They are members of our society, and helping them better themselves helps us all in the long-run. As bleeding-heart as it seems, some of my reasons are as selfish as those who decide not to care. Less poor in America, means less crime, less drugs, less disease...more stable economy...all things that directly effect me, my friends and family. Now, and in the future.
If anything, the govt should help the victims, get 'em out, and buy out the damn place. Lease it to farmers. No more buildings.
Ok...well, there is always that option. I'm not a civil engineer, but there is historic precedent for other projects where entire cities were raised to protect against flooding.
After a hurricane struck in 1900, Galveston Texas built their giant seawall and
raised the entire grade of the city.Not sure how practical that is here...just saying that it's been done before.
mrC
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Katrina Thread / New Orleans (Read 76041 times)
