![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 31st, 2005 07:09 amToday I'm going to give money to the red cross. They're not my favorite charity by a long shot, but they are out there trying to make do with the hurricane situation down south. Originally I was more in the spirit of blaming those caught in the mess as everyone I know saw the reports and chose to leave the area, but now they are finding it is worse than anyone expected - evacuating the shelters they originally asked people to report to (like the superdome).
Edit - heck, even the president cut into one of his vacations because of the situation. Wow, it must really be bad.
It's probably not the time, but it's hard not to view the events in light of some political issues.
1) It might be a bad idea to build on the waterfront in the first place. Much of the area damaged has been damaged before and if rebuilt will be damaged again. By all means people have the freedom to choose those actions, but they shouldn't be supported by federal tax dollars. Since I ran into the view that we shouldn't pay to insure those who build in beachfront, flood plane, or storm prone areas - I came up with what I thought was a reasonable proposition: insure these homes and businesses today, continue their policies today, but today only. The next time they are destroyed > 50% or so, give them the option to take the money and run. Let them collect based on their expectations, but then inform them they will never be insured in those areas again. Once you collect, you can either move to a place that won't be decimated every 10 years, or self-insure and face the chance of being blown out to sea with no financial assistance.
New Orleans though...this raises a more complicated issue. This is a city hundreds of years old - has it sunk below sea level, or is it safe for hundreds of years only to face a rare disaster? It may be economically benficial to keep the city going even with an occasional flood. That's exactly the sort of policy that is best run by the Fed.
2) Global warming: the US is a major if not the worst contributor to global warming, an issue which is predicted to lead to rising water levels, wild temperature fluctuations up and down, and more frequent and severe storms. The record disasters we are facing may well be the result of our own poor environmental policies. By most if not all models, what has happened so far might just be the tip of the melting iceberg?
3) Looters. It's pretty hard to justify the opportunism that is going on, but personally I understand. I've always had the urge to steal, and I certainly have done so in the past. I still feel the urge today, though my earned comfort and learned morality keeps those urges at bay. It's hard not to be repulsed at the video and reports of looting in the midst of this disaster, but it's also hard not to understand. Poverty hurts, even the US version of poverty. The video I've seen has been of stores being robbed, and while it's wrong to do so, I find that it's far easier to think of a store as having no victim than of someone's home. When you're a have-not, it's far easier to think of those people with homes as racist, cruel, and born into the wealth they occupy while you have nothing. My horrible question is this: how much overlap is there between the people who stayed that now require rescue and the looters? I hope the looting is just sensational on video and not as widespread as some indicate.
This...this is the problem with or the benefit of age. Nothing is just black and white - there are two or more sides to every issue, with valid points on both sides. No solution is perfect - all have costs and it's not easy to predict the results. Sometimes I envy the average FOX watching american for their naive belief that the issues are simple, that X is good while Y is bad and that the answer is Z. All I ever seem to see are shades of gray.
EDIT - looting point noted by others:
look at this sneaky racism on yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
versus
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10208301530
white people FIND things. black people LOOT stores.
Edit - heck, even the president cut into one of his vacations because of the situation. Wow, it must really be bad.
It's probably not the time, but it's hard not to view the events in light of some political issues.
1) It might be a bad idea to build on the waterfront in the first place. Much of the area damaged has been damaged before and if rebuilt will be damaged again. By all means people have the freedom to choose those actions, but they shouldn't be supported by federal tax dollars. Since I ran into the view that we shouldn't pay to insure those who build in beachfront, flood plane, or storm prone areas - I came up with what I thought was a reasonable proposition: insure these homes and businesses today, continue their policies today, but today only. The next time they are destroyed > 50% or so, give them the option to take the money and run. Let them collect based on their expectations, but then inform them they will never be insured in those areas again. Once you collect, you can either move to a place that won't be decimated every 10 years, or self-insure and face the chance of being blown out to sea with no financial assistance.
New Orleans though...this raises a more complicated issue. This is a city hundreds of years old - has it sunk below sea level, or is it safe for hundreds of years only to face a rare disaster? It may be economically benficial to keep the city going even with an occasional flood. That's exactly the sort of policy that is best run by the Fed.
2) Global warming: the US is a major if not the worst contributor to global warming, an issue which is predicted to lead to rising water levels, wild temperature fluctuations up and down, and more frequent and severe storms. The record disasters we are facing may well be the result of our own poor environmental policies. By most if not all models, what has happened so far might just be the tip of the melting iceberg?
3) Looters. It's pretty hard to justify the opportunism that is going on, but personally I understand. I've always had the urge to steal, and I certainly have done so in the past. I still feel the urge today, though my earned comfort and learned morality keeps those urges at bay. It's hard not to be repulsed at the video and reports of looting in the midst of this disaster, but it's also hard not to understand. Poverty hurts, even the US version of poverty. The video I've seen has been of stores being robbed, and while it's wrong to do so, I find that it's far easier to think of a store as having no victim than of someone's home. When you're a have-not, it's far easier to think of those people with homes as racist, cruel, and born into the wealth they occupy while you have nothing. My horrible question is this: how much overlap is there between the people who stayed that now require rescue and the looters? I hope the looting is just sensational on video and not as widespread as some indicate.
This...this is the problem with or the benefit of age. Nothing is just black and white - there are two or more sides to every issue, with valid points on both sides. No solution is perfect - all have costs and it's not easy to predict the results. Sometimes I envy the average FOX watching american for their naive belief that the issues are simple, that X is good while Y is bad and that the answer is Z. All I ever seem to see are shades of gray.
EDIT - looting point noted by others:
look at this sneaky racism on yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
versus
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10208301530
white people FIND things. black people LOOT stores.
