Newsgroup: it.cultura.antagonista
Titolo: They had nowhere to go and no means of getting there...

Znet
September 3, 2005
HOW THE FREE MARKET KILLED NEW ORLEANS
By Michael Parenti
The free market played a crucial role in the destruction of New Orleans
and the death of thousands of its residents. Armed with advanced warning
that a momentous (force 5) hurricane was going to hit that city and
surrounding areas, what did officials do? They played the free market.
They announced that everyone should evacuate. Everyone was expected to
devise their own way out of the disaster area by private means, just as
the free market dictates, just like people do when disaster hits
free-market Third World countries.
It is a beautiful thing this free market in which every individual
pursues his or her own personal interests and thereby effects an optimal
outcome for the entire society. This is the way the invisible hand works
its wonders.
There would be none of the collectivistic regimented evacuation as
occurred in Cuba. When an especially powerful hurricane hit that island
last year, the Castro government, abetted by neighborhood citizen
committees and local Communist party cadres, evacuated 1.3 million
people, more than 10 percent of the country's population, with not a
single life lost, a heartening feat that went largely unmentioned in the
U.S. press.
On Day One of the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, it was already
clear that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American lives had been lost
in New Orleans. Many people had "refused" to evacuate, media reporters
explained, because they were just plain "stubborn."
It was not until Day Three that the relatively affluent telecasters
began to realize that tens of thousands of people had failed to flee
because they had nowhere to go and no means of getting there. With
hardly any cash at hand or no motor vehicle to call their own, they had
to sit tight and hope for the best. In the end, the free market did not
work so well for them.
Many of these people were low-income African Americans, along with fewer
numbers of poor whites. It should be remembered that most of them had
jobs before Katrina's lethal visit. That's what most poor people do in
this country: they work, usually quite hard at dismally paying jobs,
sometimes more than one job at a time. They are poor not because they're
lazy but because they have a hard time surviving on poverty wages while
burdened by high prices, high rents, and regressive taxes.
The free market played a role in other ways. Bush's agenda is to cut
government services to the bone and make people rely on the private
sector for the things they might need. So he sliced $71.2 million from
the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent
reduction. Plans to fortify New Orleans levees and upgrade the system of
pumping out water had to be shelved.
Bush took to the airways and said that no one could have foreseen this
disaster. Just another lie tumbling from his lips. All sorts of people
had been predicting disaster for New Orleans, pointing to the need to
strengthen the levees and the pumps, and fortify the coastlands.
In their campaign to starve out the public sector, the Bushite
reactionaries also allowed developers to drain vast areas of wetlands.
Again, that old invisible hand of the free market would take care of
things. The developers, pursuing their own private profit, would devise
outcomes that would benefit us all.
But wetlands served as a natural absorbent and barrier between New
Orleans and the storms riding in from across the sea. And for some years
now, the wetlands have been disappearing at a frightening pace on the
Gulf? coast.
All this was of no concern to the reactionaries in the White House.
As for the rescue operation, the free-marketeers like to say that relief
to the more unfortunate among us should be left to private charity. It
was a favorite preachment of President Ronald Reagan that "private
charity can do the job." And for the first few days that indeed seemed
to be the policy with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The federal government was nowhere in sight but the Red Cross went into
action. Its message: "Don't send food or blankets; send money."
Meanwhile Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network---taking
a moment off from God's work of pushing John Roberts nomination to the
Supreme Court---called for donations and announced "Operation Blessing"
which consisted of a highly-publicized but totally inadequate shipment
of canned goods and bibles.
By Day Three even the myopic media began to realize the immense failure
of the rescue operation. People were dying because relief had not
arrived. The authorities seemed more concerned with the looting than
with rescuing people. It was property before people, just like the free
marketeers always want.
But questions arose that the free market did not seem capable of
answering: Who was in charge of the rescue operation? Why so few
helicopters and just a scattering of Coast Guard rescuers? Why did it
take helicopters five hours to get six people out of one hospital? When
would the rescue operation gather some steam? Where were the feds? The
state troopers? The National Guard? Where were the buses and trucks? the
shelters and portable toilets? The medical supplies and water?
Where was Homeland Security? What has Homeland Security done with the
$33.8 billions allocated to it in fiscal 2005? Even ABC-TV evening news
(September 1, 2005) quoted local officials as saying that "the federal
government's response has been a national disgrace."
In a moment of delicious (and perhaps mischievous) irony, offers of
foreign aid were tendered by France, Germany and several other nations.
Russia offered to send two plane loads of food and other materials for
the victims. Predictably, all these proposals were quickly refused by
the White House.
America the Beautiful and Powerful, America the Supreme Rescuer and
World Leader, America the Purveyor of Global Prosperity could not accept
foreign aid from others. That would be a most deflating and insulting
role reversal. Were the French looking for another punch in the nose?
Besides, to have accepted foreign aid would have been to admit the
truth---that the Bushite reactionaries had neither the desire nor the
decency to provide for ordinary citizens, not even those in the most
extreme straits. Next thing you know, people would start thinking that
George W. Bush was really nothing more than a fulltime agent of
Corporate America.
Saluti.
The Saint
-- 
«The beauty of the human spirit is the will to try our dreams!» - JB

 The free market played a crucial role in the destruction of New Orleans
Inutile che cerchi di sembrare di sinistra... ste cose le sappiamo già
-- 
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
(Janis Joplin)
09/09/2005 17.12.52

 ste cose le sappiamo già
mentre a me quell'articolo sembrava un bel po' forzato e comunque
ampiamente criticabile nella sua moralisticità tondeggiante...
The Saint
-- 
«La mia generazione ha visto migliaia di ragazzi pronti a tutto che
 stavano cercando - magari con un po' di presunzione - di cambiare il
 mondo... Possiamo raccontarlo ai figli senza alcun rimorso,
 ma la mia generazione... ha perso!» - GG

 destra", a me interessa realmente poco.
Il 99.3% di quelli che dicono cosi' è di destra. 
Non so se "sinistra" significhi ancora qualcosa (per me sì, ma ho dei dubbi
sulla transitività del significato), ma certamente esse(esse)re di destra,
pensando a Bush e berlusconi, significa qualcosa. E non è una bella cosa.
-- 
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
(Janis Joplin)
09/09/2005 20.53.59

 pensando a Bush e berlusconi, significa qualcosa. E non è una bella cosa.
Se mi sentissi di destra, sarei di una destra liberale molto diversa da
quella di bush, berlusconi o blair. Non tutto è bianco o nero.
The Saint
ps. non ho capito quel riferimento: "esse(esse)re" ?


Le parole "destra" e "sinistra" sono termini molto generali che vengono
utilizzati per indicare entità molto diverse. Ad esempio diciamo che sono
di "sinistra" (o di "destra") partiti politici, modi di vivere, gergo,
abitudini, canzoni e taglio di capelli. Inoltre queste singole entità al
loro interno sono composte da elementi etereogenei, ad esempio i partiti
politici di sinistra (o di destra) hanno poco in comune tra di loro. 
*Per la loro generalità quindi destra e sinistra hanno un contenuto di
significato molto basso.* 
Dire "io sono di sinistra" non vuol dire niente. Eppure le espressioni
"essere di sinistra" o "essere di destra" vengono utilizzate troppo spesso,
non solo nei bar, ma anche tra gli intellettuali (di destra e di
sinistra). ;P 
Questo fenomeno si può giusificare per "convenienza dialettica", come dice
the Saint. Al posto di proferire il proprio credo religioso lungo 100
pagine, dico semplicemente "sono di sinistra" e risparmio fiato. Ma non è
solo per questo. Spesso è per pigrizia mentale e nel peggiore dei casi per
ignoranza.
Spesso queste parole generali possono essere pure nocive. Questo capita
quando non accettiamo una buona proposta perchè è venuta in mente ad uno di
sinistra (o di destra), oppure non siamo disposti a dialogare con il nostro
interlocutore perchè sta sull'altra riva del fiume. Questo genere di
comportamento porta a subdoli errori logici nelle nostre argomentazioni che
vengono chiamati in gergo _fallaciae ad personam_. 
Assistiamo allo stesso fenomeno anche per altre parole magiche. Oggi vanno
di moda "relativismo" nei cortili delle Chiese e "fondamentalismo" nei
salotti dei letterati.  Relativismo è un termine dal significato molto
generale che si appiccica bene a tutte le scuole di pensiero filosofico
Occidentali, quindi cos'è questa cosa? Solo aria fritta. Fondamentalismo
invece ha un significato ben preciso "seguire alle lettera il testo
religioso di turno", però viene usato a sproposito e spesso confuso con la
parolina "Integralismo". Leggetevi questo articolo di Umberto Eco
sull'argomento
http://www.espressonline.it/eol/free/jsp/detail.jsp?m1s=o&m2s=null&idCategory=4789&idContent=1027475
ciao
Marco
-- 
questo messaggio non contiene nulla di vero

 Leggetevi questo articolo di Umberto Eco sull'argomento ...
Grazie per la segnalazione!
Ciao!


 
ah si? boh :P
ciao
MArco


 significato ha", da cui il proverbio "vuol dire tutto e niente".
Ok, completamente d'accordo (purtroppo). ;-)
Ciao.
The Saint
-- 
«Ubi solitudidem faciunt, pacem appellant.» (Tacito)

 
ah si? boh :P
ciao
MArco



http://www.espressonline.it/eol/free/jsp/detail.jsp?m1s=o&m2s=null&idCateg
ory=4789&idContent=1027475
grazie della segnalazione, leggerò!
--
"L'intolleranza IMHO, in situazioni
come queste, ha come fondo una condizione filiale inevasa.
"
(post di gian da it.discussioni.psicologia, 26/09/2005 Rif."Odio
ideologico")


 da odiare.
A parte il "fare in modo ed evitare", non si può non sottoscrivere.
Il problema, spiccatamente in àmbito politico-ideologico, è che esiste
la possibilità che l'altro da sé stia argomentando in modo fallace
consapevolmente e/o per propri interessi. Di conseguenza, viene a
mancare la fiducia a prescindere dall'argomentazione, e viene accettata,
sempre a prescindere, quella dei propri "fiduciari", i quali quindi
vengono quasi assimilati a detentori di Verità.
Un quotidiano contenente solo citazioni anonime e riflessioni sulle
stesse (citazioni), sarebbe certamente più facilmente oggettivo...
Ciao.
The Saint
-- 
And now I'll tell you what's against us: an art that's lived for
centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all
of History. Against us is the law, with its immensity of strength and
power! Against us is the law! [...] Against us is the power of police!

 ps. non ho capito quel riferimento: "esse(esse)re" ?
ho riletto il thread grazie al post di "Fatina_degli_Elfi" e ci sono
arrivato solo ora... non avevo perso granché...
The Saint
