SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (3939)9/25/2005 1:30:19 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 543609
 
I don't know that more money even has to be the answer- at least immediately- but we need a very hard look at how we are spending the money currently. When the programs in place are not causing change, they need to be evaluated and replaced if they aren't working.

There are many existing programs that attempt to deal with the problems you listed. Early intervention which sends workers into homes to teach parents how to talk and work with their children, Headstart programs, social services which offers nutrition classes and budgeting. Why do these fail. Is it because they have no strings attached to them? So why bother- The check comes anyway? Are they not intensive enough? Not comprehensive enough?

Part of the paternalism concept (now there's a word with some baggage!) is the enormous resistance you will encounter. Restricting food stamps from junk purchases is a terrific idea, but the screams of the recipients will be far more shrill than those of the lobbyists. Any attempt to interfere with their life choices is considered a form of discrimination, from diet to birth control. Don't you think there would be a huge outcry about this from the liberals (though you are correct about it being a societal problem, not a partisan problem)? You have heard my stories (probably a zillion times) about my clients who said with great righteousness, "it's my RIGHT to have as many babies as I want and you have to pay for them" and "I buy potato chips because my family deserves them".

I would love to tie up benefits with expectation of change and a demand for certain behaviors. Need another word for paternalism, though; that one probably won't hunt, o great master. :)



To: epicure who wrote (3939)9/25/2005 11:11:23 PM
From: average joe  Respond to of 543609
 
A Canadian view on Katrina and Bush. Splendid analysis.

DavidWarren
ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES
FROM THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
September 11, 2005

Blame throwing

There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. (Everybody's asking.) I'm tempted to say, the only difference from Canada, is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.

But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being, that when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live.

And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, it was once again the U.S. military, efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.

We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another, who have cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail.

From Democrats and the American Left -- the U.S. equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass.

This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing, receive food stamps and prescription medicine and government support through many other programmes. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, sans input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses parked in rows to be lost in the flood, that could have driven them out of town.

Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations.

The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas, and that nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the wallets".

The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.

Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States, and you will learn that the U.S. federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero.

Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the stormfall. In the little time since, he has managed to coordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial powers. He has been sufficiently Presidential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.

One thinks of Kipling's "If --" poem, which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and gliberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is good, beautiful, or true:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise...

Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man.

David Warren

© Ottawa Citizen

davidwarrenonline.com