9.14.2005

Katrina and the Prez

Maureen Dowd, in the New York Time today, outlined Bush's problem with
isolation thus:

"W. has said he prefers to get his information straight up from aides,
rather than filtered through newspapers or newscasts. But he surrounds
himself with weak sisters who don't have the nerve to break bad news to him,
or ideologues with agendas that require warping reality or chuckleheaded
cronies like Brownie.

The president should stop haunting New Orleans, looking for that bullhorn
moment. It's too late."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html?th&emc=th

Econo-Girl seems to be the only person in America who remembers how the Prez
hesitated after 9-11 attacks as well. He took days to get together a
message for the American people. The Republican snotrags were caught with
their pants down and with no Democrats to blame. Of course that didn't last
long. They focused on Bill Clinton again, like an old whore loitering on
her favorite corner. Never gets away from it too long. One columnist for
Slate.com even pined for Clinton and his ability to empathize. It shows the
groupthink of the media that he felt he had to issue an apology for that
observation later.

The economy has gotten a kick in the pants. Maybe even a kick in the head.
Inflation, and maybe even stagflation, are the fears now.

Another thing to get a kick in the head is America. "Wow, the poor are
people, too." Maybe this sink or swim stuff isn't a good idea after all.
Of course it isn't. As Econo-Girl's mother often said, "One day you think
everything is good, and then they take it all away from you. The only thing
you can keep no matter what is your education." Rather dire, I'll admit,
but she grew up in post-WWII Germany and saw a lot of that.

Any one of us can be poor, under the right circumstances. Especially with
no univeral health care to protect us against medical bills. It is the
folly of the powerful middle class to credit themselves for their own
prosperity. And therefore to blame the poor fot their own circumstance.
Econo-Girl weeps for it.

6 comments:

caliban1 said...

Bush has what one might call the 'certainity of faith'. When you believe/have faith, inherent in that belief is that it cannot be assailed and it cannot be corrected. It is what it is. Bush is PRIDEFUL of his refusal to read the newspapers and other publications. Listen to him: has he spoke a sentence fully, clearly, and articularily in his whiole life? He speaks in simpole sentences with simple words. Why? That is the audience he is appealing to when he speaks. They are he and he is they.

The people Bush hangs with have faced no poverty, no struggle, no economic adversity that would give them a smidgen of feeling for the poor. They think they have succeeded based on what they did rather than who they are. The poor, well:
Rich relations give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don't take too much...
Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
Empty pockets don't ever make the grade
(God Bless the Child)

I cried when Bush won and checked out the ways to move to Ireland, Poland, and Canada... but I decided that leaving others to fight was wrong...

Maybe out of the flood will come some national outrage and national action. Maybe those on the right fringe will understand that some people need (and cannot afford on their own) shelter from the storm.

For those of us who have more, more is expected. Or so their leader Jesus said...

The Lazy Iguana said...

I did not forget about the lack of action on September 11, 2001. He just sat there.

But on that day, the problem resolved itself. By the time all flights were grounded, all the terrorist planes had already crashed. By the time anything was done, it was all over.

New Orleans presented a whole other problem. It was NOT going to resolve itself. Lack of action was only going to make things worse. And it got worse.

rene the rugrat said...

I must respond to your universial health care comment. You are speaking out of ignorance.

I live in the cradle of universal health care in Canada - Saskatchewan. We may have it, but it is worthless - it is financially unsustainable. Those who have the means routinely leave to receive care in either Alberta - (USA north) or actually do enter the United States because they can purchase the care they need.

This is not a word of a lie. It is easier for a horse to get an MRI here than a person; the Western College of Veterinary Medicine has an MRI. To my knowledge the only other one in the province is at University Hospital.

Our waiting lists are ridiculous. I agree that everyone should receive equal care, but we need to find a third solution becuase neither the free market nor universal care are making the grade.

Econo-Girl said...

Let's phrase that another way:

No one should die of a curable cancer.

All children should have access to quality health care.

No one should have to declare bankruptcy because of taking care of necessary health needs.

Econo-Girl said...

Let's phrase that another way:

No one should die of a curable cancer.

All children should have access to quality health care.

No one should have to declare bankruptcy because of taking care of necessary health needs.

rene the rugrat said...

It is still possible to die of curable cancer because of waiting lists - it is that bad. If people have the money they jump queue by leaving the province for care.

Parents are the ones who are responible for the care of their children. All you need to do is visit the Pleasent Hill neighbourhood here and you would see that neglect is rampant and unfortunately there is little social services can do about it. For the most part these are first nations (Indian) children and the social services department is based on "white values"- it can becomes a race thing in an instant. A child literally froze to death either last winter or the winter before because no one knew or really cared to keep track of her. But if you dare ask why an 11 year old was out on the street at 3am on a school night you risk igniting a race war because "white society just does not understand first nations culture". But even poor white children may not fair much better because of their parent's choices.
(Read Gary Becker's Accounting for Tastes, paying specific attention to the economics of addiction or read Morris Altman's Worker Statisfaction and Economic Performance. Both are books on behavioural economics. I have read Becker, he is more readable, I have yet to finish Altman, I studied under him and he taught us the contents of his book)

Unfortunately even your third point is flawed. Medicare was created to prevent just such a situation, but user fees are becoming so common now that it will not belong before someone will have to declare bankruptcy.

I apologise this is just the worst possible forum for discussing a controversial issue with a complete stranger. Please just trust me that instituationalised Socialism in any form is severely flawed. In practice this is an incredibly complicated subject and to provide you with any real understanding would require a minimum two hour discussion.

Imagine trying to briefly explain the idea of one nation under God (which I believe is part of the pledge of allegience) or why your money says "In God We Trust" and also why the ACLU has the right to oppose all references to religion in the public sphere to some one who only has the most rudimentary understanding of democratic principles or American history. That is the best analogy I can give you as why I find this so hard to explain. But trust me universal health care is no more a solution than the free market is.