New York Times article about New Orleans
This article is very depressing and sad. I really do love New Orleans, and while the neighborhood around me seems to be returning to normal, the larger city is still very much fucked. An 85 billion dollar tax cut, but they can't pay for a levee system. I really, really miss Clinton.
posted by Old Stallion at 3:27 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Air Wolf said...
Hey! The link got jacked! Sorry suckahs, I can't work miracles. Lets just say this: You know all that shit I talked about how the rebuilding of New Orleans gave us a chance to see what sort of stuff American cultural vibrancy was made of? Well, after three months it looks like our vibrancy and "can do" know how is made of shit.
Yeah. It is that depressing.
I am not talking about the individual New Orleanian, I am talking about the political and cultural will to build and produce a living city, without having that effort fall to corruption and pettiness. 85 billion in TAX CUTS but they (we, congress) can't pay the 32 billion to fix the goddamn levies. This isn't welfare, this is money for actual work and labour. The money would be used to put people to work-it certainly wouldn't disappear. How could this investment be bad? How could this not help the economy? Is it bad because it is an inefficient use of labour and wealth? (as compared to how each of us spent that 300 dollar tax rebate)
Collectively, if we think there is something inefficient or wasteful about rebuilding what was once the greatest city on this continent, and one of the greatest cities in American history, then that is tantamount to thinking there is something tiresome and wasteful about the productivity of modern America. How can we think that investing in one of the cultural foundations of this country is unprofitable? IF it really cannot be profitable to rebuild this city, then that means we are truly culturally defunct. We would be admitting that populating a section of land with Americans workers, with American culture, is not enough produce wealth (or with a little more abstraction: anything of value). If we believe it would be profitable (or valuable) to correctly rebuild the city, but think we lack the political will or the know how to pull it off, then we admit that we are culturally impotent, and that we are unable to accomplish great things.
As the future of New Orleans goes, so goes America. Or to be less polemic--if we can't save this city, we should be embarrassed. We would be admitting that we are no superpower and that we have no beacon of hope. If we can't save our own historical glory than we are in a decline.
I don't think it is yet time to give up on the American will, or to admit defeat for our generation. But the current leadership sucks ass. I am not saying this as an idealist or as some spiteful intellectual. I am perfectly capable of rallying around a flawed vision. The tragedy right now though, is that there is no vision.
11:33 PM
Today the link worked! I don't understand. Anyway, I wrote my last comment while intoxicated so I apologize for the spelling/grammer errors. Also, as much as I liked the New York Times article something about it really pissed me off: There are a shit load of real arguments to be made about how reconstruction is going. I don't understand why one would resort to intentionally misstating the case. the article is correct to state that the worst case scenario in regard to "the war on terror" is the loss of an American city. By "loss" however we are referring to the mass death/murder of the population. We are not talking about successfully evacuating over 90% of the people to safety. The worst case scenario is the instantaneous death of several million people. The writers of this article make it sound as if the loss of landmarks, traditions, city organizations, and culture; which is what faces New Orleans today, is equal to this fear of mass death. This is absurd. Why say bullshit to score rhetorical points? Everyone should doubt that the Iraq war has been cost effective. However, there is no need to mislead in order to make this point.
Post a Comment
<< Home