“It’s wrong to blame [Hurricane Katrina] victims for spending irresponsibly” — i.e., for using their government aid money on televisions, porn videos, strip clubs and sex-change operations — declares the Los Angeles Times in a fit of unfathomable idiocy. The Times concludes that “obsessing about the spending habits of refugees comes perilously close to blaming the victim.”
Umm… HELLO!! Just because someone suffers a misfortune, even a gravely serious one, does not immunize that person from all future criticism for irresposible or immoral behavior! Are people “blaming the victim”? Well, yeah — if the particular victim in question deserves the blame! And the folks who went to a strip club instead of buying food most certainly deserve the blame! The taxpayers of this country generously (if rather naively) offered them a blank check to help rebuild their lives, and they spit in our faces!
There are two potentially valid points that the Times could have made (but didn’t). One would be that “it’s wrong to blame all Hurricane Katrina victims for the irresponsible spending of a relatively small minority.” That’s certainly true, but it does not appear to be what the Times is criticizing. Another would be that “it’s wrong to be shocked by Hurricane Katrina victims’ irresponsible spending.” This latter argument is the one that’s actually supported by the Times’s arguments, which revolve around the fact that such waste is “inevitable.” It is, of course, absolutely true that irresponsible, blameworthy behavior is “inevitable,” because human beings are inherently flawed and some of them will always do bad things, and therefore we shouldn’t be shocked by it. But although the Times advances arguments that support this conclusion, it doesn’t draw that conclusion.
Instead, the Times concludes that we shouldn’t blame the blameworthy — which is, of course, an utterly indefensible position. When people wilfully abuse a system that is designed to help them get the essentials that they need, OF COURSE they should be blamed!
(FEMA should also she blamed for devising an obviously flawed system that was inevitably going to be abused. But just because someone makes it easy to abuse a system, that doesn’t morally excuse the abuse! This is the logical mistake that the Times appears to be making, which is pretty unbelievable, considering this is by no means a difficult concept to grasp. If someone leaves their laptop in an empty room, they’ve made it very easy for you to steal it — just like FEMA made it very easy for Katrina victims to spend their relief aid on frivolous things — but that doesn’t make it right! It doesn’t mean we “shouldn’t blame you” for stealing the laptop! This is a basic principle of moral behavior; you should do the right thing even when nobody is watching and there’s no chance of getting caught. Everyone knows that. Well, everyone except the members of the L.A. Times editorial board, apparently.)
|
Categories: Hurricane Katrina
|
June 17th, 2006 at 8:46:58 pm
A very conservative point of view darling!
AMEN
June 17th, 2006 at 8:50:24 pm
It’s not so much “conservative” as “head-smackingly obvious,” if you ask me. :)
I mean, this isn’t even the sort of “personal responsibility” where we’re arguing about the merits of various welfare programs and such. This is simply saying, “people who abuse the system should be blamed.” Not even punished, necessarily — just that they aren’t blameless. How anyone could possibly think they are blameless is beyond me.
June 17th, 2006 at 9:00:54 pm
Hey the LA Times is a liberal Rag if there ever was one. This article will NOT surprise any conservative it will
simply be chalked up to just one of many sad to say. In my opinion FEMA was asking for this by “Liberally”
giving cash to cards to just about any one who stood in line. The people who used the money did what human
nature often does and took advantage of a good situation. I doubt anyone will be prosecuted because that would
look bad to so many liberal voters oh so darn sad!
Oh and PS do not be hard opn me tonight Brendan…. I have a house full of 43 graduating 8th graders and I want to slit my wrists :)
June 17th, 2006 at 9:34:47 pm
LOL… I’m certainly not going to be hard on you, considering I agree with you! :)
You’re right, it’s “human nature” to take advantage of other people’s generosity when doing so is easy… but that doesn’t make it right, as the L.A. Times seems to believe.
June 17th, 2006 at 10:16:14 pm
Holy crimoley, you took a poorly-constructed last sentence out of that op ed and reached the, what is it, ‘endorsement of the death of personal responsibility’?!
The editorial staff of the LA Times must be stunned; they probably thought they were writing a simple piece that FEMA’s debit card program wasn’t all that bad compared to similar Fed programs; little did they know they were advocating the end of deeply cherished American values!
Here’s a question: you *blame* the dude that took his debit card and bought a skin flick. He may be like Agent Mulder, with an addiction to dirty movies, but you’re right to blame him.
Do you also *blame* the guy who bought smokes? Or the guy who bought a six-pack? You should.
What about the other gray areas? What about the guy who did an arguably elective repair to his car, when the mechanic said the thing would still run, albeit loudly, without the repair?
Or the guy who bought his kids Ritz Crackers instead of the Wal-Mart brand, because his kids think the Wal-Mart brand is dry and tasteless?
In America 21st century style, its hard to blame anyone for how they spent their debit card money.
As a displaced New Orleansian, used to a lifetime of the dehumanization of living on the dole, two things you would know damn well:
a) You’ll never get ahead and your life will largely suck
b) Politicians won’t let the money dry up.
So in the aftermath of Katrina, when everyone and their brother was all over the mainstream media and the internet, pointing fingers here, there, and everywhere, and FEMA was taking heat -
- then gave out these “debit cards” -
- no one really believed that was the end of the giveaways.
Why, after Fred got done watching Girls Gone Wild on his new plasma tv, there was President George pledging another $200 billion of someone else’s money at Fred’s problem.
Why wouldn’t Fred so spend?
(BTW - if any Democratic party leader is reading this, here’s a thought: the reason your party is struggling is because most Americans believe you advocate this stupidity.
The Republicans have found an appetite for giveaways too - Prescription Drug Plan - but they don’t wrap themselves in it like a cloak of honor).
June 17th, 2006 at 11:30:12 pm
Toni - if you have enough rope, teach the 8th graders how to tie knots …
The more enterprising ones will immobilise the slower ones, thus cutting down the scale of the problems …
June 17th, 2006 at 11:31:10 pm
Brendan - it’s the LA Times … did you have *ANY* expectation of anything different from the LA Times ?
June 18th, 2006 at 12:50:55 am
[…] money for spending it the way they did in the first place?” UPDATE 2: Irish Trojan agrees with Sis — “L.A. Times endorses the dea […]
June 18th, 2006 at 6:13:59 am
The LA Times article isn’t saying that the people who misspent money –(Yes, the LA Times is acknowledging that the Kartrina refugees “spent irresponsibly.” The language in the LA Times editorial clearly recognizes that money was spent in morally unacceptable ways. Note the language: “tawdry expenses,” “improper and potentially fraudulent.”)– are somehow completely immune from any responsibility or criticism.
That just isn’t what the editorial is about and that isn’t what they are claiming.
Strawmen are easy to construct.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:55:18 am
Holy crimoley, you took a poorly-constructed last sentence out of that op ed and reached the, what is it, ‘endorsement of the death of personal responsibility’?!
It was more the HEADLINE that got me: “It’s wrong to blame victims for spending irresponsibly� That seems like a pretty straightforward statement!
I stand by my post.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:48:46 am
As a Houston resident, I can attest that I have never seen a more instant or overwhelming response by one city over another city’s misfortune. You had furniture stores allowing families to sleep on the showroom models. The already-overcrowded Houston school system took in New Orleans children without a second’s thought. There was so much food and water delivered to the Astrodome that, finally, we were told to stop coming, to give money to the Red Cross instead.
And? Months later–after the misuse of charity, a spike in crime, and one gang fight after another in our schools, followed by the unbelievable re-election of that clown, Ray Nagin–we’re of another mindset.
Every day on my way to work I pass a “Re-elect Ray Nagin–for OUR city” billboard that is still up. I look at it and think, Hey, New Orleans: Next time the phone keeps ringing, that’s us not answering.
Well, not really. Of course we’ll extend a hand again, the same way Dallas was ready to extend a hand to us re Rita. But exuse me if I’m pissed a little.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:30:28 am
Anonymous @ 6:13 - you might have a tad more - well, a tad at least - credibility had you had the intestinal fortitude to reveal at least some pseudonym …
The LA Times, as long as I have known it, has NOT been a paper which supports the principles of individual responsibility … it seldom portrays GOP in a good light, unless they have been acting like Dems … it does its level best not to portray Dems in a bad light, unless some major media has already done so …
Ya know - come to think of it - it is sorta the David K of the MSM, isn’t it ?
(innocent smile)
June 18th, 2006 at 11:31:04 am
Al, look, I know I’m a cool guy, but please, please stop being obsessed with me, its really creepy.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:14:22 pm
Brendan, why the heck do you read the LA Times? I’d understand if you read the NY Times, but the LA version carries very little prestige outside of LA and Sacramento.
It’s not so much “conservative� as “head-smackingly obvious,� if you ask me. :)
Brendan, conservatism essentially is the recognition of the “head-smackingly obvious”. Duh.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:47:13 pm
I don’t read the LA Times on a regular basis, Andrew. I read this article because Drudge linked to it.
(Cue Mad Max, ranting about how I’m a slave to the right-wing media machine, blah blah blah.)
June 18th, 2006 at 6:49:53 pm
Come on give Max a break he can’t help being a slave to the left wing MSM :)
Poor Schmuck :(
June 19th, 2006 at 3:46:04 am
Cue Brendan saying he’s “middle of the road” even though he loves malkin and Drudge.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:40:35 am
Actually, Brendan regularly complains that the MSM pays way too much attention to Drudge. That wouldn’t seem to fall under the idea of “loving” him.
June 19th, 2006 at 11:08:12 am
Anon -
And I bet loving Alterman and Kos makes you a centrist, right?
June 19th, 2006 at 12:42:49 pm
Hmmmm …
So I wonder who this “Al” person is that David seems to feel to be stalking him ?
June 19th, 2006 at 12:45:07 pm
Andrew - while it most likely doesn’t apply to Brendan, some of us still subscribe to the LA Times (ptui!) cuz it is the LA area newspaper with the best comics and the best coupons … were it not for those two factors, I wouldn’t even have it in my house to line birdcages …
June 19th, 2006 at 12:49:17 pm
I wonder who this D-list is that Alasdair keeps referring to, or who Mendacious Mouse is, or who…
June 19th, 2006 at 2:47:25 pm
How could FEMA have designed a system that wasn’t open to this type of abuse? Pre-paid debit cards are blank checks that can be spent on anything. It would’ve taken months if not years to design a debit card that would pay for food, but not booze; shelter but not lavish hotel rooms; medical care, but not sex changes or plastic surgery or Viagra; and needed clothes but not Versace. And then, people would complain that help wasn’t getting to the victims fast enough.
Those who abused the Katrina cards shoudl be ashamed. FEMA, I suspect, is just being used as a whipping boy. Again, I don’t really see FEMA could’ve designed a system in a matter of weeks that would effective sort out “bad” and wasteful things from needed things.
The closest thing I can come up with is if they had given Wal-Mart gift cards instead of debit cards. But then, what if you don’t live near a Wal-Mart?
June 19th, 2006 at 4:46:23 pm
Here’s a case where it’s possible to basicly agree with Brendan, and still think the post is a wild over-reaction. “unfathomable idiocy” doesn’t leave much rhetorical space for things that might be, you know, more idiotic. I’m sure there must be one or two examples ;)
June 19th, 2006 at 9:32:50 pm
{whispering} Shhhhhh, Aaron - or David will think you’re talking about him, again !
June 20th, 2006 at 2:41:02 am
Good lord Alasdair, your obsession with me is frightening…
June 20th, 2006 at 11:33:22 am
Actually, Mr David - it’s more amusement … “obsession” takes way too much effort …
I’m a very Leo Leo … when a mouse runs by, if convenient/amusing, I’ll bat at it with a paw … otherwise, there are better ways to focus my afforts …
(less-than-innocent grin)
June 20th, 2006 at 6:21:23 pm
afforts ?
Next thing, he’s going to try to tell us that it’s yet another cute Scottish variation !
(blush)