Topic awaiting preservation: Ask NOT what your country can do for U!

After, earthquakes in the west, floods in the east, hurricanes in the south, and hellish weather throughout the rest of this country, I ask this;

Why is it expected that the US government should HELP all of those affected?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

(Edited by Zynx on 10-12-2005 05:33)

Because our hard earned tax money is taken from us for exactly that purpose, for starters.

If you don't know the answer to that question, you are the biggest asshole in the world.

Do you mean why should the federal government do all the helping as opposed to local governments and/or private citizens?

Or are you somehow suggesting that the victims don't deserve the help?

It is an American value that we help those who are in need, particularly our own. What DL-44 mentioned is one way to manifest that value.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Zynx = Definitely not a seasoned and bitter taxpayer yet You've shown your age.

Wait until the day you are affected by a disaster, then you will know. And if the USA doesn't help you, then you will probably badmouth it for not helping...

Wow!

1) Don't consider that I have NOT been through a disaster.
2) I do consider that my taxes do go towards helping others dealing with a trajedy.
3) I am not suggesting that, "the victims don't deserve the help".

What I am suggesting is that the cry for help to our government is not anything, that anyone should take stock in. While the government has it's obligations, they are not the "front-Line" defense. To expect that response is to be a foolish person. There is a chain of command that does not start with the G's response. Many states have their act together when it comes to, "disaster response". Others do not. But to sit by, and wait for the trajedy to unfold, and then to scream, "Dam G!, where's the help!", is on par with those pitifully asking, "What can my government do for me".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 10-13-2005 02:21)

(Edited by Zynx on 10-13-2005 02:23)

The state is the government.

All emergency response that I know about in the US in government supplied of government funded. Without the government there is no emergency response.

Dan @ Code Town

From the mouths of babes;

President Bush was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy". So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a "tragedy".
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy."
"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident." A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call a great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally at the back of the room a small boy (Lil Johnny) raised his hand.
In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs. Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," says Lil Johnny, "It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."

Ok, young joke writer.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

C Below.

(Edited by Zynx on 10-14-2005 04:36)

Are U splitting hairs?

Sorry WM, I guess I did not specifiy the specific level of government. Yet I did not consider that I had to. I considered that those who complained about the, "governments", involvement with regards to "trajedies", was a complaint about the FEDERAL level of government. Perhaps I mislead you?

In any case, your local "government", should have had plans to deal with an emergency?
In any case, your city "government", should have had plans to deal with an emergency?
In any case, your state "government", should have had plans to deal with an emergency?

Is it so horrible to expect people to FEND for themselves?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Zynx, once again I am left in the position to have to ask:

What PRECISELY is the point you are trying to make here??

And on what do you base it?

quote:

---

Zynx, once again I am left in the position to have to ask:What PRECISELY is the point you are trying to make here?

---

Maybe I should repeat myself;

While the government has it's obligations, they are not the "front-Line" defense. To expect that response is to be a foolish person. There is a chain of command that does not start with the G's response. Many states have their act together when it comes to, "disaster response". Others do not. But to sit by, and wait for the trajedy to unfold, and then to scream, "Dam G!, where's the help!", is on par with those pitifully asking, "What can my government do for me".

Not understandable?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Just substitute "Federal Government" for "government" in your statemnt, and it would make a lot more sense, I think...

**This post is an aside, and a little off-topic**

quote:

---

Because our hard earned tax money is taken from us for exactly that purpose, for starters.

---

The constitution would disagree with you.

Article 1, Section. 8, Clause 1. - Yeah, it's almost the first thing in that stupid piece of parchment.

A1:S8:C1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Not that the constitution means anything anymore. But I don't think thieving disproportionate amounts of money from only the very top income earners to save up a fund of billions, if not trillions of dollars for the purpose of having "just in case" money and forming incompetent organizations like FEMA is what the founders had in mind. Especially since they specifically (and intentionally) used the words "uniform throughout the United States" and clearly outlined what exactly taxes could be collected for.

... I'm sure theres some arguement coming about how the times have changed, and how the constitution doesn't reflect on the people who live in 2005. Save it. Forget about whether or not the government is breaking the law by pocket-picking from the people who created them. They're betraying the public, and they're betraying their country.

Taxes arn't for natural desasters my friend.

quote:

---

Dan said:

and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

---

Sounds to me like that covers it pretty well.

And regardless of the intentions of the people who wrote the constitution, this is how things are done. I am taxed based on the way the government budgets. If the government budgets for emergency response plans, and taxes me accordingly, then my taxes are paying for emergency response to natural disasters, my friend.

^ Yup.

quote:

---

Zynx, What PRECISELY is the point you are trying to make here?

---

Sometimes you remind of a looped soundbite. "What do you mean? What do you mean? What do you mean?"

DL, when man, "fails", during a trajedy, he expects help? Is this "help" an acceptable/justifiable request? If so, based on what criteria? And what about all of those who had "success", during that same trajedy? Where is their acceptable/justifiable request for "help"?

I am simply disgusted by those who demand help, after they have failed themselves. Wah wah wah!

quote:

---

And on what do you base it?

---

The reality that survivors of trajedies, received little if anything from our government(Federal), to "help" them. Unless you can show us the stories of those who succeded a trajedy, that were compensated for their loss?

And I like the off-topic debate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Sometimes you remind of a looped soundbite. "What do you mean? What do you mean? What do you mean?"

---

I cannot be held accountable for your seeming inability to make your point coherently.

I am clearly not alone. I just happen to want to understand what you are trying to say - so I ask.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

And what about all of those who had "success", during that same trajedy? Where is their acceptable/justifiable request for "help"?

---

You'll need to provide some examples here.

Who exactly was it who had "success" and who "failed" here?
Where specifically are we talking about?

Are you suggesting that people in a situation where thousands were vying for the limited resources in New Orleans directly after the hurricane hit, and who were subject to an overloaded system, and were not able to be self-sufficient, somehow "failed" and have no right to expect their government to step in and help out?

I can perfectly understand what you are saying, if it is reference to a great number of people who *are* in fact simply unwilling to help themselves - many such people were unwilling to help themselves before the hurricane leveled half the city....why would they suddenly change?

That is far different from determining if the people have a righth to expect the government to help in such situations.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

After, earthquakes in the west, floods in the east, hurricanes in the south, and hellish weather throughout the rest of this country, I ask this;

Why is it expected that the US government should HELP all of those affected?

---

quote:

---

Then Zynx said:

I am simply disgusted by those who demand help, after they have failed themselves. Wah wah wah!

---

"These people" didn't fail themselves, they had a horrific hurricane come through and devastate their homes!

You really are an idiot!

My 2 cents: trajedy = tragedy



Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Zynx, I'd repeat a few questions asked earlier: Exactly how old are you? What -- in clear, precise terms -- is your point here? Have you ever been in a disaster such as the New Orleans hurricane yourself and, if so, do you consider it to have been more tragic than what took place in New Orleans?

From what I've seen thus far you actually seem to be skirting that point, and trying to avoid the good points that DL has made. If the constitution of the United States (and Australia, for that matter, since that's where I live) states that the Government has the right to ask uniform taxes of the citizenry to pay back national debt and to provide for the general welfare of the people, and the government states in their budget that a certain amount of tax will be going into a disaster relief fund, then does not the populous have the right to expect that -- when a disaster occurs -- the government will open that fund to provide relief? Do they not have the right to expect the help of their elected officials, from all levels of government -- from town, to municipality, to state, to federal -- will help them in their time of need? That's all they're asking for, really, for the government to help thme in the ways they've stated they will and in the ways the people have been taxed to provide for. They're not expecting Mr. Bush to personally come down there and help them dig their house out of the mud-slide, or to spot them a room in the White House until they get back on their feet.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

[edit: Earthquake, hurricane... same dealy. disaster.]

(Edited by Skaarjj on 10-17-2005 15:43)

DL I'm sorry I pegged U wrong. You are not what I have come to expect. You display a quality I have not seen in many others. And that's the patience of other posters.

What I fail to see is that, why is it more normal for people to expect help from the Federal level of government AFTER a disaster hits, than it is to wonder why people did not first, plan & prepare, BEFORE a disaster hits? Is that so controversial?


# 1) "Success",
People who have prepared for a disaster. They still lost all of their property in the disaster, but because of their early prepardedness they are more well-off than the rest. Where is their, Federal government help? Bottom of the barrel!

# 2) "Failure",
People who did not prepare for a disaster. They still lost all of their property in the disaster, but because of their LACK of prepardedness they are less well-off than the rest. Where is their, Federal government help? Top of the list!

So why is it that # 2, overshadows # 1?

quote:

---

"These people" didn't fail themselves, they had a horrific hurricane come through and devastate their homes! You really are an idiot!

---

C above!

But if you like,......................................fight fire with fire.

You are ignorant. The New Orleans people live with historical, devastating, factual hurricane knowledge! It's very stupid for one to live within such an area of tul-mult-chew-us weather, and to cry wolf! They live severly below sea level! Is this a fact unknown to the people of New Orleans? Where is their own mind(s), when it comes to preparing themselves, BEFORE a hurricane, a known potential-natural disaster, hits/occurs?

quote:

---

Exactly how old are you?

---

Y not ask me directly, rather than use that question, in attempt to humiliate me?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 10-17-2005 04:11)

(Edited by Zynx on 10-17-2005 04:14)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

...why is it more normal for people to expect...

---

That's an easy one to answer. People are generally lazy, ignorant and prefer to take the path of least resistance through life. It's human nature.

We have a similar situation where I live. There are hills where wild fires occur semi-annually and people build more and more houses there. I do think there should be a limit on how much the government compensates victims' property losses and such in cases like that. If you want to live in areas that are higher at risk, then that is what insurance is for. People should not expect the government to be an infinite supply of funding for their own irresponsible behavior.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

People are generally lazy, ignorant and prefer to take the path of least resistance through life. It's human nature.

---

R U in advertising? Sorry chum, but I do not follow, I lead!

quote:

---

I do think there should be a limit on how much the government compensates victims' property losses and such in cases like that. If you want to live in areas that are higher at risk, then that is what insurance is for.

---

There U R!
What percentage of New Orleans citizens had flood insurance?
What percentage of New Orleans citiznes DID NOT have flood insurance?

Maybe that will open your eyes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

What percentage of New Orleans citizens had flood insurance?
What percentage of New Orleans citiznes DID NOT have flood insurance?

---

May I ask what that has to do with paying taxes to the Federal Government and expecting help in times of disaster in return?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

quote:

What percentage of New Orleans citizens had flood insurance?What percentage of New Orleans citiznes DID NOT have flood insurance?


May I ask what that has to do with paying taxes to the Federal Government and expecting help in times of disaster in return?

---

Thank you. As I assume you were saying, WebShaman: in these extreme circumstances, I cannot imagine how one could be selfish enough to consider who is paying for taxes or insurance or whatever, and who is not. There is a rather big difference between a home insurance that will cover a washing-machine incident and a massive natural phenomenon.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Maybe that will open your eyes.

---

I am not sure I see your point ...

We pay taxes (although I am sure, some do not, for one reason or another - does that then make them "less human" and not worth expending the effort to rescue them? Aid them? Especially in a time of emergency?).

I see no direct connection between paying taxes to the Federal Government, who then puts a part of it aside to help in times of great emergency (like a natural disaster) and Insurance, of any sort.

The Insurance will cover the rebuilding of the house, protperty, etc. (it will not save lives, it will not bring lives back).

The aid that the tax potientially can bring, can save lives, and prevent people from dying, in the case of emergency (like a natural disaster).

I also see no reason to seperate people who are in need of aid, like those caught in a natural disaster, into groups of "having paid taxes so gets aid and saved" and "did not pay taxes, so does not get aid, does not get saved" - ridiculous.

I think what Zynx is getting at is that people who have prepared and planned and drilled and whatnot, and still lost everything deserve more help than those who sat back and did nothing, and also lost everything.

I still fail to see how this actually matters, though. The disaster happened. Some people have insurance. Good for them, they will be compensated by their insurance company and given their due amount of federal aid. Some people did not have insurance. They will not be compensated by an insurance company and, as such, are due more in the way of federal aid, because they cannot provide a portion of it themselves. You've also got to remember that part of that federal aid money doesn't go into people's accounts. It goes to paying workers and crews and emergency services to rescue people and property and save lives in the area.

If we return to one of your first posts on this matter, where you talked about how "some states have their act together on disaster relief and some don't", well, what are you suggesting here? An individual can only do so much. They cannot organise things for a state. They do not, mostly, have any option but to sit back and hope the officials that they elected will do these things for them. Because that's their job. If you're suggesting that people should 'prepare' for things like this, how do you suggest that they prepare? The most effective thing, of course, is 'don't live there', but that's not going to work. If one was to depopulate all the areas of the US prone to natural disasters, then most of the US would be marked as uninhabitable. Because you have the hurricane coasts, tornado alley, earthquake regions...

In this, I suppose, I am lucky. The worst thing I have to watch out for is a bushfire. And, yes, I live in a region that is prone to them, so they are a fairly big thing, but that is about all my area of Australia sees. We get cyclones up north, in the tropical regions, but that's all.

There seems to be, Zynx, one fundamental thing you are missing: A person's willingness or ability (because, frankly, insurance is very, very expensive) or lack thereof to pay insurance dues to a third party that they are not legally beholden to in no way is a measure of how deserving they are of aid from a third party to whom they have paid money for this purpose.

They pay taxes, they reap the benefits of these taxes. End of story. It is not about 'deserving'. We do not get, in life, what we deserve. We get what we get. Life dishes us good breaks and bad breaks, and we take these and run with them. That's called living.

Oh, and the queries about your age were not there to humiliate you. As DL pointed out the first time he asked, it was to find out if you are of an age where you actually pay taxes.

Now, back to my own questions, before I sign this post off... I know you asked for people to 'not consider that you haven't been through a disaster'. Very well, have you been through a disaster?


Justice 4 Pat Richard

Zynx - *now* we have an actual point with some context to work within.

I see your point, and I actually agree with it. It is most certaily a problem, and one that pervades all aspects of society in one way or another.

I also agree with Bugimus' point, that this is basic human nature to a large extent.

One question that comes to mind for me is this - how many of the people who did nothing to prepare, and have sat since then waiting for government help, are the same people who sat around before the hurricane relying on the government for their existence (Please note this is neither a racist nor a classist issue, as I know there will be people who instanty see it that way)?

I very much agree that every person is responsible for taking care of themselves - including such things as being prepared for emergency situations.
The situation in New Orleans, however, went beyond the "normal" emergency situation. No matter how prepared you were, there was still only so much you could do.
In such situations, I most certainly expect the government to jump in, and quickly at that!

It seems we all agree that the state and local government failed, moreso than the federal government.

To start.

quote:

---

I also see no reason to seperate people who are in need of aid, like those caught in a natural disaster, into groups of "having paid taxes so gets aid and saved" and "did not pay taxes, so does not get aid, does not get saved" - ridiculous.

---

Say both parties lose everything.

Family # 1) Has insurance, owned their home, and left with much of their prized possessions.
Family # 2) Has no insurance, did not own their home, and stayed and lost all of their prized possessions.

Are both familys compensated the same? If yes, then while I have no problem with that, can someone try and convince me that this is a fact. Because I don't believe it is. I believe that family # 2 will receive more compensation than familiy # 1.

Wrong?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

I think it's important to make a distinction between the government coming in and rescuing people from the immediate effects of the disaster and government compensation paid to victims after the initial danger has passed.

I think the first case is absolutely warranted and expected and I have no problem with my tax money going to that kind of disaster relief.

The second case is where I have a big problem with giving more compensation to unprepared people than those who prepared. I think this sort of expectation from some of our citizens can result in a viscious cycle that breeds a sense of unhealthy dependency on others.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Oh, and the queries about your age were not there to humiliate you.

---

I'm sorry, I misread your intent.

quote:

---

I think what Zynx is getting at is that people who have prepared and planned and drilled and whatnot, and still lost everything deserve more help than those who sat back and did nothing, and also lost everything.

---

Actually the opposite is my point.

quote:

---

Some people have insurance. Good for them, they will be compensated by their insurance company and given their due amount of federal aid. Some people did not have insurance. They will not be compensated by an insurance company and, as such, are due more in the way of federal aid, [u]because they cannot provide a portion of it themselves.[u]

---

This is the exact idea that I find wrong. It penalizes people who struggle and succeed in life.

quote:

---

, where you talked about how "some states have their act together on disaster relief and some don't", well, what are you suggesting here? An individual can only do so much. They cannot organise things for a state. They do not, mostly, have any option but to sit back and hope the officials that they elected will do these things for them. Because that's their job.

---

Do nothing, hope your elected officials care about U, and if that fails, demand compensation from them?
Honestly if people live their lives like this, then they deserve the hardships that befall them.

quote:

---

If you're suggesting that people should 'prepare' for things like this, how do you suggest that they prepare?

---

If they can find out how to be compensated AFTER a disaster, then can surely find out how to prepare BEFORE a disaster. Just a few kindergarten ideas here. If you do live in flood BOWL, ya better have flood insurance. If you live in a hurrican prone area, ya better have hurricane insurance. If you live in tornado alley, ya better have tornado insurance. Obvious isn't it?

quote:

---

There seems to be, Zynx, one fundamental thing you are missing: A person's willingness or ability (because, frankly, insurance is very, very expensive) or lack thereof to pay insurance dues to a third party that they are not legally beholden to in no way is a measure of how deserving they are of aid from a third party to whom they have paid money for this purpose.They pay taxes, they reap the benefits of these taxes. End of story. It is not about 'deserving'. We do not get, in life, what we deserve. We get what we get. Life dishes us good breaks and bad breaks, and we take these and run with them. That's called living..

---

Life is unfair. I agree. So if BOTH parties, "pay taxes", then they should BOTH, "reap the benefits". You don't decrease compensation to a family, simply because they have insurance. Like I said, I am not sure how it truly works, but I doubt it's fair.

"E.G."
G comp = $ 200,000.00 per household
Family # 1) Has insurance, and they will receive $ 100,000.00 from their insurance co.
Family # 2) Has no insurance.
Do you give both familys $ 200,000.00?
Do you give family # 2, $ 200,000.00, and family # 1, $ 100,000.00, simply because family # 1 had struggled, and paid for the high priced New Orleans flood insurance, month after month, after month?

quote:

---

Very well, have you been through a disaster?

---

No, not really. Based on this thread that I started, I bring experience of watching my single mom struggle to do the right thing. Including all of the things that life requires money. School, driving, food, home insurance, house repairs, garage repairs, car repairs, and so on, and so on.

Does anyone have a comparable story as this?
"Well if you made $10,000.00 less a year, you would qualify for government assistance"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 10-18-2005 01:23)

quote:

---

One question that comes to mind for me is this - how many of the people who did nothing to prepare, and have sat since then waiting for government help, are the same people who sat around before the hurricane relying on the government for their existence,....

---

Based on stories of people using their "Katrina" debit cards, to buy $ 400.00 hand-bags, and people who worked the system, and had aquired 4-5 of these debit cards, I'd bet it's 4 to 1!

For every one person who fell into category # 1, "people who did nothing to prepare, and have sat since then waiting for government help". There probably exists 4 people, who fall into category # 2, "people who sat around before the hurricane relying on the government for their existence".

quote:

---

I very much agree that every person is responsible for taking care of themselves - including such things as being prepared for emergency situations.

---

Agreed, agreed, agreed!

quote:

---

The situation in New Orleans, however, went beyond the "normal" emergency situation.

---

Went? The levees failing is the only thing that "went". The storms strength was well known days before it hit. And even the levees that failed, was not an "out-of-the-ordinary", possibility in New Orleans. THEY HAD LEVEES! "Failure", was a possibility. Kindergarten knowledge.

quote:

---

No matter how prepared you were, there was still only so much you could do.

---

As if there was NOTHING one could have done, BEFORE it hit? This storm DID NOT come out of no-where? Let alone the people who moved into this area, before KATRINA, should have known what they were moving into!

quote:

---

In such situations, I most certainly expect the government to jump in, and quickly at that!

---

Except for MARTIAL LAW, the Federal government CAN NOT walk into wherever they want, without first asking & receiving permission, from the state government.

quote:

---

It seems we all agree that the state and local government failed, more so than the federal government.

---

Danka!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Federal disaster relief is not necessarily the free ride it sounds like. If you do not carry flood insurance:

quote:

---

Many people wrongly believe that the U.S. government will take care of all their financial needs if they suffer damage due to flooding. The truth is that Federal disaster assistance is only available if the President formally declares a disaster. Even if you do get disaster assistance, it's often a loan you have to repay, with interest, in addition to your mortgage loan that you still owe on the damaged property from The FEMA flood website

---

Flood insurance is only, only available through the federal government. It is additional insurance you purchase on top of your regular home owners insurance. Information on what flood insurance covers is viewable a little further down the page on the link above.

Addtional Disaster Relief information can be found here.

In your scenario, family#2 who has no insurance will not be better off for doing so, because federal aid only will cover so much. There are some who would argue that what aid is given actually kinda sucks. Federal aid is not designed to put you back where you started, it is designed to provide you with some essentials to help you get back on your feet. The rest is up to you. Keep in mind, I am specifically talking about disaster assistance, I am not talking about regular welfare recipients.

If you are curious about disaster risk zones this map is a good place to start.

Those are great points Moon, as I have always insisted I do not know how it works.

If you know you live in a flood prone area, and you don't have insurance, or a back-up plan, or you haven't been saving, then I question what right you have to cry for assistance.

I thought you could get fllod insurance with the city, not only the federal government?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026
For what it's worth.

" What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider normal, behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "