Displaced by Katrina and edged out of FEMA trailer parks

Hi BMcWrites, often, I'm not sure of how "Good Stuff" flags are meant. Sometimes it means people agree with the material in the story. When I GS a story, it means that I think the contributor has selected good material for us and presented it well. On the whole, I don't have to agree with something to GS it. Then again, I tend more towards the "objective" side of things--although on NP it does tend to get more subjective and personal, I think. And, sometimes, especially if I'm "late to the party," I'll GS something if I see that the piece has engendered some good, thoughtful discussion, because those discussions are valuable.

New Orleans is a hot button. There's no doubt some people are taking advantage of their "victim" status. I wish the media would be objective and also do some pieces on people who have been through the storm and started over and are doing well. They're out there.

What happened to New Orleans was like having F5 tornadoes rip through an area. The difference is that in New Orleans, an entire region was affected; when the big bands of twisters, often of varying sizes, rampage, the damage is in spots--although entire towns have effectively destroyed. Then there's lack of homes/housing, lack of basic services (like gas, that has to be turned off ASAP when buildings are ripped apart), chaos, death, injuries, filthy water--you'd be amazed at what our region alone has gone through with stuff getting into rivers from bad storms and flooding--and all the same things.

But even though though the damage may be "spotty" still and all--a town that's destroyed is destroyed. Homes that are destroyed and all worldly goods lost-that's not dminished because it "only" affected say, 150 homes.

Ooops, I may actually have an op ed article brewing here. I've noticed that here in our region, natural disasters are seen as a part of life, and people just help each other, pitch in, and get on with it. The devastation from the May 3, 1999 tornadoes in Oklahoma City and for hundreds of miles beyond was enormous, everything from homes to hospitals gone, gone, gone. But you didn't hear never-ending stories about how awful it was for the victims, did you?

There are reasons for that.

I think the reason that these people marked the story as good
stuff while you find that surprising is because you and they see this
story from completely separate angles. But as I am not them - or you
- this is only a guess. My over-generalized guess is that they see
this story as an example of a government that failed its people
through bad planning and dis concern while you see this as an example
of people who have failed themselves and their countrymen through
indolence.

Personally, I see the government as having failed from the
beginning in this mess. It knew well about both the storm and its
fury well before it hit land. The government should have organized an
evacuation that got society's least monied and least mobile out of
there rather than leaving some of them to drown in their homes. It is
a government's duty to see to its people's wellbeing in cases like
this, first because it is the only entity large enough to have been
able to do the job. And second, caring for the least of us is also
the duty of the governmental agents who claim to be both Christians
and proud of that fact.

And while I am at it, it is also the government's duty to hire
qualified people to fill department head jobs. Simply put, people
having been a horse show promoter likely doesn't qualify you to head
up a multi-hundred million dollar agency charged with speedy disaster
response. This is true no matter who you play golf with, worked on an
executive board with or whose daddy you know.

As for your concern with entitlement, it would not surprise me if
many of those portrayed in the story feel entitled. Entitlement has
come to be an American ideal. (E.G. We are entitled to a better life
than our parents had, cheap gas, a nice home we can't really afford.)
It is an idea that is pervasive in our society and is not limited to
the lower socio-economic level. Anyone who remembers the S&L
bailout of the 70's or the more recent Bear Stearns collapse knows
what upper-echelon entitlement looks like. In the first case the
elite were more than happy to champion "free-market"
economics till it looked like they and their retirement were at risk.
Then the government teet looked like a good alternative.

When it came to Bear Stearns (or Enron or World Com), the common
stockholder and not the government was the teet-keeper. For the
benefit of anyone who didn't notice, in the same year that Bear
Sterns stockholders took it up the wazoo as their shares went from
over $150 per share down to under $10 the company dolled an estimated
$2 billion in bonuses. 

And my guess is that the lion's share of that bonus did not find
its way into the clerk typists' pool paychecks, but into the pockets
of the very economic geniuses whose far-sightedness screwed a lot of
us out of 401K dollars. Personally, I find the acts of these CEOs,
CFO, and others to be much more worrisome and egregious than those
who could be seen as panhandling the taxpayer via FEMA.

Sorry to have gone off this much. I know that each of us is
directly responsible for many of our own greatest problems, but when
our own bad or non-existent planning is made worse by natural
disaster and government ineptitude it just makes be crazy (er).

Rereading the story you will find that the people portrayed there are between 46 and 79. Their reemployment picture must not be encouraging. First, if they are from the lower socio-economic level they likely have little specialized employment ability. This usually (but not always) means they make less money. Add their advanced ages to that. While you may not think 46 is old (it is younger than me) it is old enough that an employer will consider a younger, cheaper employee. So if the affected person takes whatever he/she can find the money they earn may not be enough.

This definitely does not mean the person should just give up and live off the taxpayer. However, there may be something we can do for them - money for relocation, education or employment assistance... Something.

Pep, pardon my French, but WTF was the government thinking when it bought these trailers? Whether it houses a soldier or the homeless, a unit should not have formaldehyde issues.

And I do agree with you - the government is often damned if they do and damned if they don't. Critics ultimately have the easier job. They are charged with tearing things down while never having to create a real alternative.

SPAM