Except what's happening now isn't much like what was happening then. He might as well compare surviving a mudslide to getting his boots dirty in the garden.

Not true.  Tell that to the people who lost their homes they just forgot their boots in a muddy garden.

Look, the guy is still lying here.  The federal government sent people into Iowa to help out.  So all this 'self-sufficiency' talk is utter BS.  Bush just couldn't allow another Katrina to happnen (to his party), so he made sure that resources were mobilized.  This guy's an idiot.  If you're in the middle of a flood, no amount of 'self-sufficiency' is going to keep your house standing.  It's utter nonsense.  EVERYBODY needs help.  (Except millionaire conservative talk-show hosts.  Nothing bad ever happen to them.) *roll eyes*

Kev, Why would you minimize what these folks are going through just because you are angry at Boortz? Geez have some compassion & empathy for your fellow man.

Yeah, we should be saying stuff like why are these dummies living in a perpetual flood plain leaching off of insurance when they should be smart enough to move to better ground, eh Jeter? ;)

I don't know Snoop. You call folks "dummies", your buddy Boortz calls folks "parasites"

Maybe you'll get your own radio show ;-)

I hope you know I was just remindin all these folks that during the Katrina disaster one of the things we heard over and over again was that garbage about people living in flood plains leeching off of the gov't instead of moving to safer places, right?

Yeah Snoop I know, I was just pulling your chain, though you could get a radio show if you really thought that way ;-)

Of course I do sometimes wonder about folks that build, then re-build along flood plains or hills that turn into mudslides.

Boortz is parasite.  He feeds off the bitterness (yep that same bitterness that Obama talked about) and fear of his listeners leaving deep wounds of hatred. 

 How's that for a fricken metaphor?

And listening to Neal Boortz is a terminal disease.  It rots your brain.

Believe it or not, this comparison between Hurricane Katrina victims and Iowa flood victims is a GOP talking point, a subtly racist attack on none other than the biracial Democratic nominee. Limbaugh voiced it on show, too. There were even two callers on this subject in the first half-hour of C-SPAN's Washington Journal yesterday. So this is an orchestrated campaign. But I do think most people can distinguish between a hurricane and a flood, and recognize the very different circumstances of the two disasters. But, hey, give the GOP credit for once again injecting race into a presidential campaign. (Black folks are bad. White folks are good. Got it.)

You seem to be the one injecting race.  Boortz was very clear that in saying this is a cultural issue and I would agree.  Sure, the weather event that precipitated the flooding is different and this is not an identical situation, but you don't see the response in the Midwest that you saw in New Orleans.  Period.  Unless you can point me to some CNN video that shows otherwise, this is a simple reality and difference between the two.  While Boortz's language, as is often the case, is provocative, his point is fairly solid.

The two events aren't comparable. Katrina was the worst natural disaster this country since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. What's happening in the Midwest is nowhere near the same magnitude. It's like comparing the SF quake, where 3000 people were killed, to a quake where 25 people were killed. Using the current events to denigrate the victims of Katrina is outrageous and idiotic.

Of course you missed it again, no surprise. It has nothing to do with comparing the magnitude or the devastation of the two disasters. What's being contrasted are the residents' responses, try to keep up.

Are you seriously suggesting that the responses of the people involved aren't influenced by the relative magnitudes of the situations?

We had looting in my town in Indiana, done mostly by white people.  There wasn't as much of it as in New Orleans because the situation wasn't as severe.  But that element still exists in both situations.

Are you saying that looting is more justified because one may lose their home to a hurricane as opposed to a flood?

If someone loses everything from a flood, or a hurricane, or a tornado, or any natural disaster, are you suggesting that  their behaviors should somehow be judged differently?

You do know that most of the looting was for food and other necessities, dont' you? And if you want to compare reactions, have there been roving bands of black vigilantes gunning down Iowa residents the way there were roving bands of white vigilantes gunning down New Orleans residents?

So you condone looting in New Orleans where people lost everything, but not in Iowa where people lost everything?

Traditionally, the law has allowed theft in times of dire necessity. But no, I was not condoning looting. I was suggesting that it was understandable in certain circumstances, and that the circumstances in New Orleans were different than the ones in Iowa. Try to keep up, Tommy.

You don't get it either.  If you lose your home in a natural disaster beyond your control, don't tell me because I live in Iowa that I should have a different reaction to my circumstances than someone who lived elsewhere.  That is the point, if you can't grasp it, that is your fault.

Obviously Tommy, for what ever reason, you are simply not able to understand the circumstances faced by the residents of New Orleans when they were hit with a historic hurricane.

Nice dodge, you really don't get it, it's ok.

Hey, where is Jeter2? Did you forget, or just get tired?

You think Jeter and I are the same poster?  I am flattered, but you need a rest.

"Are you saying that looting is more justified because one may lose their home to a hurricane as opposed to a flood?...If someone loses everything from a flood, or a hurricane, or a tornado, or any natural disaster, are you suggesting that  their behaviors should somehow be judged differently?"

Of course not.  I'm saying that elements of behavior are going to be consistent in any disaster like this, but it's not as noticeable if the scope of the disaster is smaller.  It's not going to be as big of an aspect of the story as it was in New Orleans.  So for Boortz to try to draw some grand conclusion about different cultures from the floods is utterly inane.

And more relevant to "government dependency", people in my area certainly need government help.  People are helping out each other as much as they can, but it's not like all of those houses are going to get refurbished or rebuilt through community efforts or the amazing amount of money everyone has saved up for such an unpredictable event.

What's being contrasted are the residents' responses, try to keep up.

Please explain, o wise one.  But first, let me try -

Could it be that tens of thousands of people were basically being held prisoner in NO, unable to even walk across the bridge in order to get help.  You remember that, don't you?  And when help was promised, none came.

Please contrast that response with what's going on in Iowa.

Boortz didn't see any parasites in the California forest fires either. All of them got government help. Boortz didn't even say that about people in Mississipi. Odd that New Orleans is the only one full of parasites.

I could be wrong, but I thought cultural was a code word for racial. But let's look at the culture. Did you know that New Orleans residents were happier than residents of any other city in this country? Why? Their culture.

But did you also know that New Orleans had become a test case for widespread privatization efforts? That their governmental/social services infrastructure was being gutted? So please take that into account when you look at their culture or their alleged dependency. A lot of opinions are being thrown around here without many facts backing them up.

In New Orleans, you had a culture of government dependence.  In Iowa and the upper Midwest, you have a culture of self-sufficience -- self-sufficiency, self-reliance. It's two different cultures. It's not different races. It's different cultures.

Yeah, and you haven't seen George Bush saying, "You're doing a great job, Brownie."....Haven't -- perhaps one of the dumbest statements ever uttered by a politician that I've --  that was foot-in-mouth disease with that one.

So where is the misinformation?

Dems, I don't disagree with what you pasted here......but the stickler is the word "parasites" uttered by Boortz.  It is disrespectful, hence its placement here.

OK - I'll agree with you on that!

You agree with that, Tommy? I don't know. Aren't Iowa farmers heavily dependent on farm payments and agricultural subsidies from Uncle Sam? How independent are they, really? (Or do most of those payments go to big agribusineses, instead of family farms?)

that's true.  they just passed another huge farm subsidy bill, over bush's veto.  the question is why do we need to pay subsidies when crop prices are high.  the obvious answer is votes in the farm states.

Yes to call all the victims of Katrina "parasites" shows lack of understanding with a karge dose of prejudice and yes racism..despite the weak defense of a "culture difference"...How does Bortz know how many victims were on welfare,just working poor,blue collar working people,or retirees that can't move elsewhere,etc..etc??..So called poor neighborhoods have quite a cross section of different types  not just people on public assistance.I get tired of hearing people speak as if the whole black community is only people on public assistance.BTW there are some people that do need help thru government programs(disabled people,mentally challenged etc..).Many poor people work and work hard but can't leave areas like the ninth ward of New Orleans..To compare the recent floods with the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is ludicrous..They just don't have the same immediate impact ..urban vs rural..lot  of flooded areas but not a lot of people.Bortz is the parasite feeding on the prejudices and racism that still exists sufficently to keep him employed as one who spouts it daily!!! 

Well fellow posters that was a "drive-by" posting.  I'll have to check back tomorrow to see how many of you are beating up on me for that one.  Good night!

So where is the misinformation?

If you have to ask a question like that, Dems, you're hopelessly ignorant.

Oh, is that what they're calling it, a "cultural" issue?

Both of the disasters in question are horrible. But New Orleans was just about destroyed. There wasn't any way that people could have worked together. They were stranded on the roofs of their houses. The system broke down, on the local, state and federal levels.

Neal is scum, plain and simple. It's easy for people like him to paint veterans as cowardly and victims as parasites.

Chickenhawk scum!

Katrina - 1,800+ dead, .5 mil displaced, over $80 Bil dmage

 

Midwest flood - 25 dead, 35k evacuated (many have since returned)

 

Definitely some apples and oranges mixed in here.

You also can't make that comparison, the population density among many other differences.

Such as poverty, population density, rural v. urban, etc.  Good point, Tommy.

Yeah, that's my point...sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Good point too, BK.  I thought I would add to it.

Apparently, Iowans aren't as stupid as Boortz, and understand why we have a federal gov't.

From Iowapolitics.com

"The first request from the Governor asked the Federal government to cover 100% of the costs associated with debris removal and emergency response activities associated with the flooding. Traditionally, these costs are shared between federal, state, and local governments, with 75% covered by the federal government and the remaining costs split 10% state and 15% local."

"In addition, Governor Culver requested a $17 million National Emergency Grant through the U.S. Department of Labor to assist with putting unemployed Iowans back to work rebuilding the state's public facilities, infrastructure and parks."

"Finally, Governor Culver asked the federal government to expand the Federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance program to Iowans in all 83 counties declared disaster areas by the Governor."

and before anybody misinterprets this, I am not calling Iowans parasites.They are our fellow Americans, and this relief effort is a good example of why our federal government needs to be efficient and competent.

Through no fault of their own (Iowans), they are sure getting different news coverage than NO residents did during Katrina. But that's probably just a "cultural" thing with the media.

Cedar Rapids : elevation 951 feet ABOVE sea level

New Orleans : elevation 10 feet BELOW sea level

This is a fun game students, what are some other really huge differences betweeen these two locales?

uh, majority white vs majority black?

I don't believe there was some topographical dispute, Boortz was referring to a cultural difference.

Yeah, I get it, I'm saying the OTHER differences matter a lot more. What percentage of famers in the US or specifically Iowa  get federal subsidies? The cultrural differences are small is what I'm pointing out.

A more serious response is both were apparently man made disasters. The levees were ignored by man, while in Iowa overdevelopment is attributed as the reason the floods were record setting levels.

That may be true, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the residents' responses or reactions to their particular disasters.

Maybe, but I thought this was an interesting POV as to why the disaster is as bad as it is. Something worth discussing once the mess is cleaned up.

Agree

Different natural disasters. Different structural damage. Different local governments. Different response times from said local government. Different socioeconomic levels. All of these factors and more (including culture) could help to shed some light on to why the Midwest fared better compared to the lazy residents of New Orleans. Boortz chooses to simplify it as simply a matter of culture; a character issue.

Let's ignore the fact that perhaps the vast majority of Katrina victims were in a situation that was largely out of their control, no matter how much they wanted to put on their bootstraps. Idiot.

And I would say what happened to the flood victims here was pretty much out of their control.

To

To

Fore ?

Boortz needs his own material.

Didn't Rush "Pills McAssboil" Limbaugh already cover this almost verbatim?

Boortz is doing his part as a cog in the right-wing slime machine.  Drugbaugh is the flagship, Boortz follows behind like the good frigate he is.

Oh, and thanks to Col's information, another factor can be added: different response time and level of assistance from the federal govt. ;)

Well, if the government learned something from Katrina and acted more efficiently and competently in this situation, that is a good thing in my opinion.

Yeah. In my opinion, too, Tommy. But of course that is beside the point. The post was noting that the different level of response to the two disasters from the federal government was probably a factor in the different responses of the people of New Orleans and the people of Iowa. (But I bet you knew that already,)

Tommy, I absolutely agree. 

Boortz, you're a loon, always will be, and a pathetic attempt to be like Limbaugh. You're just another clone of a clone, of another clone who likes to spout off this nonsense because you have a microphone in front of you.

Neal, what you really meant to say, was that the people in NO were black, and that's their problem. You just didn't have the balls to come out and actually say it.

oh jeez, New Orleans is surrounded by water, there was no where to go, if you were on foot. Also, there is a big difference between running for your life in a thunderstorm, sustained winds of maybe 50mph, and during a hurricane with sustained winds of over 100 mph. Two completely different tragedies, please in no way am I trying imply that that the recent flood victims have it easier than Katrina victims. All have lost out tragically.

Hey, Neil. I am a New Orleanian that sends $1000 a week to a federal government that abandoned my hometown.  New Orleans is rebuilding NO thanks to this administration or so called American citizens like you that spout ignorance and hate.  It has been rebuilt through the blood, sweat and tears of people that love the city and hate what our government has become.  I was a conservative before the storm.  I am no longer.  My party tried to make ME the enemy to cover their own incompetence.  I will gladly vote for Obama this election.  I like him but to tell the truth I would vote for Satan over whoever the republican candidate was.  That party, my party, has to be punished for the evil they have spread in this country.

Yesiree, the midwest is completely free of scum who would take advantage of a tragedy. 

Scam Artists Prowling Iowa in Wake of Flooding

DES MOINES, Iowa – Even before the flood waters subside, one of the first things to float ashore are scam artists pretending to offer help, warns Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (HSEMD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

"Be alert for door-to-door solicitors who hand out flyers and promise to speed up insurance or building permits," says FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer Bill Vogel. "Watch out for folks who come to you and ask for your FEMA registration number, your social security number, cash deposits or advance payments in full. You can also avoid charity scams by working only with groups you know."

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/19958849.html

Before some people get in over their heads, a few observations from someone who LIVES in New Orleans and survived Katrina might be helpful. Even though I had lived for many years in New York and traveled all over the world, I am a native of the state of Louisiana, so I am familiar with the politics and culture, particularly in New Orleans.

We can all agree that Neal Boortz is an insensitive and misinformed boor. His choice of words merely demonstrated that lack of historical and cultural knowledge most humane people would use in describing the horror of Katrina and the less fortunate of our citizens. The word "parasite" is and should be offensive to anyone. It is also completely inaccurate. There are many classes of people to which that word could be applied. Individuals who feed off of and take advantage of others are parasitical.

The people to which Mr. Boortz referred, but was quick to back away from its true meaning, are certainly not parasites. They are the inheritors or a systemic and well-constructed agenda formulated over 100 years ago at the end of the Civil War. With the cooperation of legislative bodies, both North and South, regulations and laws were approved whose entire rationale came from the perceived necessity to control and maintain the slavery system that lay at the heart of southern economy. In order to accomplish this. it was necessary to insure that certain classes of people, not just

people of color, be prevented from the advantages presented at the end of the war. A

series of restrictions and regulations had to not only be rapidly put into place, but also be enforced, by law whenever possible, but by brute force, whenever necessary. The grand result was Jim Crow. And what a brilliant success it was, too. Overall, Jim Crow saw to it that a class was created that enjoyed the benefits of a less-than-poor educational system, government sponsored ghettos, total absence of representation in civic affairs, and, best of all, a continuance of a slave-based wage for menial employment. With no possible hope of advancement or even relief from these laws and regulations, no hope was even dreamed of. Coming from the protection of the plantations, the classes in question moved seamlessly into dependence on the largess of their former masters, now in control of government.

This system was so well designed, so dutifully maintained that the desired result was a model for all societies that yearned for the subjugation of someone, anyone to do the dirty work without complaint. So efficient and so far-reaching was this system that a whole other society was created totally dependent on "others" for their survival. We speak of our children as "dependents" who look to us for protection, food, shelter, clothing, education, physical well-being, etc. Our children do not have the means of providing these things for themselves. They are helpless. The classes I described are also dependent. They have no power, no autonomy, no means to survive without assistance. Our lawmakers saw to that. "These people" are NOT parasites. These people are our brothers and sisters who have been trained to depend on the powerful and rich for their very lives.

Good post, DonaldMD. Interesting how that model, centuries in the making, is perverted by the right-wing media as a slam against liberals-- that the social programs in place are used by "The Left" to keep poor and minorities dependent on the government in order to support Big Government.

Sure, it makes no sense, but it makes alot of dittoheads happy, and by "happy" I mean angry at all of the wrong people.

Fuckin' Boortz. For real man. That degenerate, parasite sucks his money from deep within the bossom of the monopolistic corporate radio teet.

He wouldn't know what to do in a free market where real competition with real lefties is fostered.

Always testing the limits.

Maverick !!

Guess I should run for president?

Flippin' Boortz. For real man. That degenerate, parasite sucks his money from deep within the bossom of the monopolistic corporate radio teet.

He wouldn't know what to do in a free market where real competition with real lefties is fostered.

Just because lefties haven't figured out how to compete effectively by garnering substantial ratings in talk radio, or at least by some measurable success, doesn't mean they aren't free to keep trying to crack the market.

You really don't know what free markets are, do you?

Just keep kidding yourself, Tommy. Keep pretending that access to radio markets aren't restricted by virtual monoplolies.

It's cool, lib talkers are finding ways to skirt the corporate radio market and take the message to the people.

*sigh* If we only had a free market in radio instead of a corporate near-oilgopoly bent on censoring highly successful and entertaining "left-wing" (read: reality based) radio programming and promoting useless right-wing gasbags pushing propagnda daily

No doubt. In head to head markets Hartmann, Rhodes and Schultz consistently wipe the floor with the right wing gas bags.

So what happens next January?  Most likely when Democrats control both branches of government, I would assume these monopolistic corporations will wisely shift their allegiances from Republican to Democrat pretty fast, after all they are now in power and positions to get their backs scratched, right?

So when that happens we should expect to see quite the influx of left wing radio on the airwaves, where these shifting corporations can suck up to left wing politicians and push their left wing propaganda through their left wing airwaves, right?  I mean why would they protect their rightwing hosts anymore, nothing in it for them anymore, not with the turning tide.

If that doesn't happen, and the Rushs and Savages remain far ahead of the liberal pack, then your paranoid theories are all wet.  Which is what they are, but we will see. 

"I mean why would they protect their rightwing hosts anymore, nothing in it for them anymore, not with the turning tide."

Too funny. Why would the money elite switch allegiance from, those who toil daily to convince us that policies that benefit the wealthy are the same as policies that benefit the rest of us, to those who offer unyielding criticism of the market fundamentalists?

It won't happen. Corporate radio will continue to prop up their corporate shills.

I'm not worried about it, though. The cultural shifts that are happening will take more than one or two election cycles to ebb and flow. Liberalism will prevail in the long run with or without corporate support.

Corporation are in the business to make money.  And despite your incessant demonization, they make money for their stockholders, many of whom are not filthy greedy bastards, but rather those who have invested in said corporations for their retirement.  So rail unfairly against them all you want, you just look petty in the process.

Consequently, these corporations are not political entities pushing ideology, they are profit driven and will cozy up to whoever is in power to benefit them and the requirements of their stockholders.  If you can't understand how corporations and their shareholders operate, and just think it's a few moneyed elites who only want their rightwing visions realized, you are sadly mistaken. 

No Tommy, you're the one who doesn't get it.  Corporations make the most money when their bought and paid for buddies are in office letting them steal and collude for even higher profits.

They will battle to their dying breath (that's why there are all the lies in the righty media) in order to hold onto power so they can enjoy more obscene profits through de-regulation, tax breaks, etc.

Ouch! You're taking a pretty negative and condescending tone. Guess I touched on a nerve.

Anyway, you can stop blurring the lines between Democratic politicians and lib talkers whenever you want. My commennt that you replied to was about the corporate radio lockout of lib talkers, not the power players in Washington.

Furthermore, you are the one who thinks I'm against profit. That's a mischaracterization. I am for corporate responsibility and stewardship of the people and communities that support corporate profits. I think the idea that corporations exist simply to make profit without an enlightened vision of caring for people is unpatriotic.

I never said you were against profits, you must be the one whose nerve was touched.

Corporations should act responsibly for their shareholders and their communities, who says they shouldn't?  But you seem to forget that you when you demonize corporations, you are also demonizing the hard working people who work for them, and the hard working people that invest in those companies for their retirement, which you failed to address.  

You're kidding right? You keep using that "d" word as if it means anything in relation to what we're talking about. I was arguing a specific dynamic within the talk radio world and you're trying to make that into some false conflation to the world at large.

Anyway, I'll play along a little further. You wrote, "Corporations should act responsibly for their shareholders and their communities, who says they shouldn't?"

Well, when you make such a broad declaration as,"Corporation are in the business to make money." It's no stretch to conclude that you believe they have no responsibility to communities beyond the bottom line profit. I mean, I know you more than likely oppose regulation in general and that would say to me that you don't believe in corporate responsibility.

I know you'll argue that consumer demands will naturally force corporate responsibility but if that were true health insurance companies wouldn't be denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. That's irresponsible. Or, for another example, the coal mine industry here in KY, if they were responsible to commmunities, they wouldn't continue to denude mountain tops and pollute community water supplies with heavy metal leftovers.

But if you continue to call the truth the "d" word, then I'm done talking to you because it's obvious you're not being a good faith actor.

Just because corporations are in business to make money does not alleviate their responsibility to be good stewards of the environment or their communities, the two are not mutually exclusive.  If they don't make money they will go out of business and the rest of your points are moot.  So yes, their responsibility is to their employees and their shareholders, to make money to expand their business, create jobs, for it they don't people lose jobs. 

OK, Tommy. My points are moot.

You'll forgive me if I leave the merits of my argument for the consideration of others besides you.

I'll bet Tommy thinks there is a free market for oil. And that the recent prices spikes have been due to supply and demand. Because he understands these things better than we do. Forget it, Tommy. We see through you and we see through Rush. He is simply following the old Nixon townhall formula. You know, make sure you take the calls from the extreme nutcases so your own supreme nonsense doesn't sound so bad. 

Other than one person above, have any of you who are typing away about category five hurricanes versus massive flooding actually LIVED through a hurricane?  Start with a nice category one, or if you're really brave, try a category two.  It's a lot of fun -- no traffic lights, no electricity, no clean water, no phone service, no roof...  Now imagine all that across an area oh, 150 miles long and about twenty miles wide.  For about a week.  You can't help out your neighbor, unless it's to help him spraypaint his insurance account number on what's left of his house in the vain hope that a news plane will fly overhead and some random State Farm employee might see it. 

So, if I read you correctly, you are saying that people like Tommy who want to draw a comparison bewteen hurricane victims and flood victims could not be more wrong.

One thing Tommy might also consider were the millions of gallons of oil and gas and the toxic sludge. Not only was oil released from the destroyed refineries on the coast, but from the underwater pipes that the oil companies chose not to flush, apparently because it would have cost them too much to have to start them up again.

TOMMY,

Read the last sentence of my second paragraph.

I agree with Boortz.  Iowans are a self-sufficient and self-reliant lot.  That's why they reject all those federal subsidies for ethanol....oh, right.

There ought to be a law against letting brain dead  idiots like BOORTZ, HANNITY, LEVIN and others on the nation's airwaves.

Boortz and his caller could have applied a little logic to this situation and maybe they would not have had to spew their "cultural" remarks. 

The response by Government was the reason in Cedar Rapids that we were not saying,  "Where is the government?"  City, county, state and federal government all responded quickly to the threat of the flood and to the tragic aftermath. So why would we be looking for the government? They were doing their job!  I don't care how "self-sufficient" you are, sometimes you need help. 

Well, I live in New Orleans and i take offense at those comments, however i have seen my fair share of degenerates.  That does not mean that everyone is like that.