New Orleans
It's hard to go through the holidays and explain to people how New Orleans is. We want the tourists and conventioneers back. So we want to say "great!" And indeed, this infrastructure is sound; the French Quarter, Marigny, Garden District, and Uptown are all thriving. But so much of the city is still a devastatated wasteland and there is a responsibility to say so. There is nothing in some places. It's like block after block after block after block of Ground Zero in New York City. How do these people endure? Where are they?
It makes me so sad to think about. There are so many people without homes or jobs. And it makes me feel so powerless because our governement is doing nothing about it. And then people have the nerve to ask why New Orleans should be rebuilt. It's like asking why your mother should get a pacemaker when her heart fails. Because you love her and you'd do anything to protect her.
It makes me so sad to think about. There are so many people without homes or jobs. And it makes me feel so powerless because our governement is doing nothing about it. And then people have the nerve to ask why New Orleans should be rebuilt. It's like asking why your mother should get a pacemaker when her heart fails. Because you love her and you'd do anything to protect her.
Labels: Endure, Hurricane, Katrina, New Orleans
|| posted by mW @ 2:40 PM
Why Bad Things Matter
I have a strong memory. Although it is nowhere near as powerful as someone who has a "photographic memory," it is visual, and I can replay moments in my head from events past, or sometimes even remember facts not because I remember the fact but the image of seeing the text in the book. This comes in useful. Although, on occasions, it is painful. When the appropriate mental triggers arise, I replay bad moments as much as the good, and with compulsive tendencies to repeat the images once recalled, this can be an unpleasant experience. Nonetheless, it matters to me because those bad decisions and stupid mistakes I've made are those that haunt me and make me want to be a better person. I'd like to thing those bad things are what actually do make me a better person, a better human.
This is why it always baffles me when others try to lie about the past. The recent "summit" in Iran is a horrible, but apt example, where once again people have tried to deny the Holocaust occurred. I don't care that it happened in the Middle East, or that this event was hosted by Muslims. Europeans and Americans were there, as were Christians and even Jews. Nor is it really relevant that the most common depiction of Holocaust victims were of the Jews, because many others suffered as well, including gypsies, communists, gays, and others. The point is not that one or another group was targeted, but that they could be targeted. The point is this: the Holocaust is the absolute low point in human existence; it should strive as that one darkest moment never to be forgotten by any human, lest we revert to the same tendencies that made that moment possible.
World War I was supposed to be "The War to End All Wars." It wasn't. World War II should have been. Instead, it turned out only to be the War to End Overt World Wars. Little, localized wars were still okay. This still means people don't get it. Trying to forget the Holocaust, though, is like saying Hiroshima was pro-Japanese propaganda, and that if India and Pakistan want to have a nuclear war over Kashmir, it won't be that big of a deal. That, of course, is ludicrous. History is important. The truth is important. World War II was that by-gone era when the Holocaust occurred. Those alive at that time, those who saw or lived through the Nazi death camps cannot forget; but they will soon be gone.
With their absence, it becomes incumbent upon all successive generations to outright condemn any attempts to claim this historical fact was anything but true. Freedom of Speech is one thing. Freedom to deny humanity's darkest moment is another. We none of us must forget how quickly evil can spread, how pervasive its reach can be, and how easy it disappears waiting to arise again in a new guise.
||
posted by mW @ 2:52 PM
This is why it always baffles me when others try to lie about the past. The recent "summit" in Iran is a horrible, but apt example, where once again people have tried to deny the Holocaust occurred. I don't care that it happened in the Middle East, or that this event was hosted by Muslims. Europeans and Americans were there, as were Christians and even Jews. Nor is it really relevant that the most common depiction of Holocaust victims were of the Jews, because many others suffered as well, including gypsies, communists, gays, and others. The point is not that one or another group was targeted, but that they could be targeted. The point is this: the Holocaust is the absolute low point in human existence; it should strive as that one darkest moment never to be forgotten by any human, lest we revert to the same tendencies that made that moment possible.
World War I was supposed to be "The War to End All Wars." It wasn't. World War II should have been. Instead, it turned out only to be the War to End Overt World Wars. Little, localized wars were still okay. This still means people don't get it. Trying to forget the Holocaust, though, is like saying Hiroshima was pro-Japanese propaganda, and that if India and Pakistan want to have a nuclear war over Kashmir, it won't be that big of a deal. That, of course, is ludicrous. History is important. The truth is important. World War II was that by-gone era when the Holocaust occurred. Those alive at that time, those who saw or lived through the Nazi death camps cannot forget; but they will soon be gone.
With their absence, it becomes incumbent upon all successive generations to outright condemn any attempts to claim this historical fact was anything but true. Freedom of Speech is one thing. Freedom to deny humanity's darkest moment is another. We none of us must forget how quickly evil can spread, how pervasive its reach can be, and how easy it disappears waiting to arise again in a new guise.
The Reality of New Orleans
To those of you that continue not to understand the situation in New Orleans, I encourage you to read Bob Marshall's editorial in the 12-08-2006 edition of the Times Picayune, viewable at http://www.nola.com/. But even if you don't take the time to read the whole thing, check out this excerpt:
I wish more people knew stories like these. America spends more money rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq than it does to fix one of its own cities. The reason Americans put up with this Administration's excessive privacy and civil rights violations and spendthrift spending is so that they can feel safe. Americans wants to be protected. But when given the opportunity to make things right because of its own failings, it has repeatedly failed to step up to the plate and do the right thing and help the people of New Orleans: inexplicably refusing to spend on this one project.
Consider this, if the U.S. Corps of Engineers were a private company, they would be subject to a 500,000-1,000,000 person class action lawsuit for approximately 100 billion dollars. Yet, they are not a private company. As a governemental entity, they are completely shielded from all liability. And when the people ask if the 10 billion thrown at New Orleans isn't enough, instead of nodding your head, ask if it is fair that the people of New Orleans pick up the slack on the other 90 billion of damage that was caused by the failure of the federal government.
||
posted by mW @ 1:13 PM
Here's an example that is typical. I have a friend who owned a $200,000 home in Lakeview. He had $14,000 left on his mortgage, and only $40,000 of flood insurance because it had never flooded. He might end up with $100,000 from Road Home. So he pays off his old mortgage and spends another $15,000 having his home torn down.
But the builder says it will cost $325,000 to rebuild the same size house. So, at 55, he will have a $250,000, 30-year mortgage. He may never be able to retire.
He's left in this situation after the richest nation in the world admitted it destroyed his home [referring to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, who have admitted the levee failures in New Orleans were not a result of the natural disaster itself, but for their negligence in building the levees] but refuses to pay for the damage. And he's lucky. There are many retired people who can't get the $300,000 mortgage to rebuild their homes destroyed by an agency of the government. They'll spend their remaining days in small FEMA trailers.
I wish more people knew stories like these. America spends more money rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq than it does to fix one of its own cities. The reason Americans put up with this Administration's excessive privacy and civil rights violations and spendthrift spending is so that they can feel safe. Americans wants to be protected. But when given the opportunity to make things right because of its own failings, it has repeatedly failed to step up to the plate and do the right thing and help the people of New Orleans: inexplicably refusing to spend on this one project.
Consider this, if the U.S. Corps of Engineers were a private company, they would be subject to a 500,000-1,000,000 person class action lawsuit for approximately 100 billion dollars. Yet, they are not a private company. As a governemental entity, they are completely shielded from all liability. And when the people ask if the 10 billion thrown at New Orleans isn't enough, instead of nodding your head, ask if it is fair that the people of New Orleans pick up the slack on the other 90 billion of damage that was caused by the failure of the federal government.
Free Speech is Free Speech is Free Speech
Free speech is free speech. Should I say it again? I read an article today about how us "free" Westerners are mad that Iran is censoring the internet to prevent against "Western Immorality." We hear similar goings-on in China, although we usually just label that as "Communist repression." I call bullshit.
Before Americans get too judgmental, let's remember that the general powers of American states are to look after the general welfare and the morals of the people. Indeed, the FCC is looking to fine CBS mega-bucks for its Super Bowl gaffe where Janet Jackson's breast was exposed for a milli-second. Sponsors dropped out and conservative advocates called for an immediate cancelling of The Shield, a show where a cop shot and killed another cop in the pilot. And most major networks on television and radio are legally prevented from using words like "shit," "fuck," or "cock." And even pay channels like Cinemax will only show "soft core" adult films.
Am I advocating that any of the above should be done? No. But neither am I advocating against them. All I'm saying is that our culture draws moral lines and tells others it cannot cross them. So what gives us the right to be indignant for other cultures doing the same thing just because they draw their lines in different places? It smacks of hypocrisy.
To be honest, I think disclosure is the answer. Take movies. They are given an age-appropriate rating and an explanation of why. That said, you can do whatever you want in a movie. Why not do the same with other venues? Restrict speech less and just put advance publication on the content level, so families can take it onto their own to enforce their chosen brand of morality, rather than have the state force one on us.
||
posted by mW @ 9:38 AM
Before Americans get too judgmental, let's remember that the general powers of American states are to look after the general welfare and the morals of the people. Indeed, the FCC is looking to fine CBS mega-bucks for its Super Bowl gaffe where Janet Jackson's breast was exposed for a milli-second. Sponsors dropped out and conservative advocates called for an immediate cancelling of The Shield, a show where a cop shot and killed another cop in the pilot. And most major networks on television and radio are legally prevented from using words like "shit," "fuck," or "cock." And even pay channels like Cinemax will only show "soft core" adult films.
Am I advocating that any of the above should be done? No. But neither am I advocating against them. All I'm saying is that our culture draws moral lines and tells others it cannot cross them. So what gives us the right to be indignant for other cultures doing the same thing just because they draw their lines in different places? It smacks of hypocrisy.
To be honest, I think disclosure is the answer. Take movies. They are given an age-appropriate rating and an explanation of why. That said, you can do whatever you want in a movie. Why not do the same with other venues? Restrict speech less and just put advance publication on the content level, so families can take it onto their own to enforce their chosen brand of morality, rather than have the state force one on us.
Rubric of the Righteous is a Recital of Fear-Spawned Vitriol
The recently trounced before the American electorate Conservatives have hit an all-time low. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is set to become the first Muslim member of Congress next month. He has stated that he intends to be sworn in on the Quran, not the Bible. These same critics, led by the idiots at Townhall.com, took offense, writing that this "undermines American civilization," and that "America, Not Keith Ellison, decide[] what book a congressman takes his oath on." These critics also added that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
What is it about diversity that threatens such Christians? Guess what, most of the world is NOT Christian. It is a fact of life. Therefore, it is just common sense that Christians have to respect other religions and other faiths, or even those that choose no faith. Otherwise, the only other road is that of the Nazis in World War II: isolation, hatred, and ultimately, extermination. Could it be the specific faith in question here? is it the association of Muslims with terrorists in contemporary times that terrifies some people? Those that understand Islam know it is not by nature a violent faith. Nor is Christianity. Yet horrible violence has been done over the millennia in the names of both. Thus, that is not a logical conclusion.
This fear is the same thing that makes some cling to the scientific farce known as "Intelligent Design," or insist that the 10 Commandments have more to do with the legal history of this country than the philosophy and law school educations of our Founding Fathers. And for all those who think those Founding Fathers were all Christian, well most were. But some, notably Jefferson, were outright hostile to organized religion. Nonetheless, they all knew full well of Jews and Muslims, and even the Hindus. And it was with all this in mind that they crafted the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, an integral part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which guarantees the freedom of religion and that the state will be separated from religion, such that it endorses no one faith or even faith over non-faith. This is the basic principle of America's religious roots: freedom to pursue the dictates of each individual person's conscience, not a forced rote recitation of faith dictated from above.
Truth be told, the kind of blind obedience that some in the Religious Right would demand would more resemble the "Papist" mandates of the Catholic Church over which the Protestant Revolution was fought. The Founders of America engaged in an intellectual revolution, as well as a physical one, and were those that believed in an individual's right to choose one's one path in life. To insist otherwise, for example that an incoming congressperson must swear an allegiance to any religion, let alone a specific brand of faith, is just plain unamerican.
||
posted by mW @ 11:09 AM
What is it about diversity that threatens such Christians? Guess what, most of the world is NOT Christian. It is a fact of life. Therefore, it is just common sense that Christians have to respect other religions and other faiths, or even those that choose no faith. Otherwise, the only other road is that of the Nazis in World War II: isolation, hatred, and ultimately, extermination. Could it be the specific faith in question here? is it the association of Muslims with terrorists in contemporary times that terrifies some people? Those that understand Islam know it is not by nature a violent faith. Nor is Christianity. Yet horrible violence has been done over the millennia in the names of both. Thus, that is not a logical conclusion.
This fear is the same thing that makes some cling to the scientific farce known as "Intelligent Design," or insist that the 10 Commandments have more to do with the legal history of this country than the philosophy and law school educations of our Founding Fathers. And for all those who think those Founding Fathers were all Christian, well most were. But some, notably Jefferson, were outright hostile to organized religion. Nonetheless, they all knew full well of Jews and Muslims, and even the Hindus. And it was with all this in mind that they crafted the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, an integral part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which guarantees the freedom of religion and that the state will be separated from religion, such that it endorses no one faith or even faith over non-faith. This is the basic principle of America's religious roots: freedom to pursue the dictates of each individual person's conscience, not a forced rote recitation of faith dictated from above.
Truth be told, the kind of blind obedience that some in the Religious Right would demand would more resemble the "Papist" mandates of the Catholic Church over which the Protestant Revolution was fought. The Founders of America engaged in an intellectual revolution, as well as a physical one, and were those that believed in an individual's right to choose one's one path in life. To insist otherwise, for example that an incoming congressperson must swear an allegiance to any religion, let alone a specific brand of faith, is just plain unamerican.
[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010