Radio Host Calls Katrina Victims Worthless Parasites

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

here

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz made disparaging remarks about Hurricane Katrina victims, stating, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

Classy, eh?

[inkrose115]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

here



Classy, eh?

*Speechless* Uh... Uh... Uh...

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Classy, eh?

Does he have a new book out?

I found it.....

I think I am getting the pattern with these conservative hosts. When they have a new book out, they really try to say something off the wall. It must improve sales..... Gets them a lot of free advertising.

[Chloe]

Boortz is a libertarian rather than a conservative (i.e., pro-freedom for those who can afford it). Doesn't make him any less of a moron, though.

[Malruhn]

If you actually listened to him, you would find that he has spotlighted some Katrina folks that picked themselves up (with nothing left to their names), dusted (and dried) themselves off, and made successes of themselves - to include some single mothers of multiple children (allegedly the bane of all Conservatives). It might help to hear the comment in context.

He was talking about those special people that took everything they could from the government, screamed for more, and have done nothing for themselves. New Orleans had what would appear to be more than her share of those people. Sure, it was exacerbated by the wretched calls by state and local government, but doesn't the core responsibility for self preservation reside with the "self"??

(overly snarky remarks removed)

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Sure, it was exacerbated by the wretched calls by state and local government, but doesn't the core responsibility for self preservation reside with the "self"??

If the self has the ability to preserve the self, sure.

Most of the folks that were stuck didn't have that ability.

And, frankly, context doesn't change his comments nor his raving generalizations

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

If you actually listened to him, you would find that he has spotlighted some Katrina folks that picked themselves up (with nothing left to their names), dusted (and dried) themselves off, and made successes of themselves - to include some single mothers of multiple children (allegedly the bane of all Conservatives). It might help to hear the comment in context.

Do you have a link where we might hear it? It's very difficult for me to accept another interpretation of his comments without hearing it myself.

I do think this is interesting: "...a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves..." My thought here is, well which was it? That they could not fend for themselves, or that they had no desire to fend for themselves? Because from this statement alone, it would seem that he is mixing the two groups together, and there is a big difference between the two.

If I could hear it in context, I will reexamine it in my own mind.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

Do you have a link where we might hear it? It's very difficult for me to accept another interpretation of his comments without hearing it myself.

I do think this is interesting: "...a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves..." My thought here is, well which was it? That they could not fend for themselves, or that they had no desire to fend for themselves? Because from this statement alone, it would seem that he is mixing the two groups together, and there is a big difference between the two.

If I could hear it in context, I will reexamine it in my own mind.

I would say that THAT is probably more of the sort of slip of the tongue that comes of doing 4 1/2 hours of live radio per day. His statements were rather broad brush, and he later accepted the qualification that many of the people that stayed behind in the flooded areas were tryign to take care of their property. N.O. was one of the highest welfare-usage cities in the nation. From what i have heard, though, the movement out of New Orleans gave quite a number of them the impetus to break old habits and become productive.

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I would say that THAT is probably more of the sort of slip of the tongue that comes of doing 4 1/2 hours of live radio per day. His statements were rather broad brush, and he later accepted the qualification that many of the people that stayed behind in the flooded areas were tryign to take care of their property. N.O. was one of the highest welfare-usage cities in the nation. From what i have heard, though, the movement out of New Orleans gave quite a number of them the impetus to break old habits and become productive.

Being on welfare != non-productive because of bad habits. Some were elderly, disabled, single parents who could not afford daycare, etc. I don't doubt that some people abuse the system (in all areas, not just NO) but I'd really like to hear the actual statements being made by Boortz, versus actual statistics (how many on welfare, how many have been convicted of fraud, etc.).

ETA: I concede that the "could not" vs. "had no desire to" could have been an honest error - again, I want to hear it. Anyone have a link?

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I would say that THAT is probably more of the sort of slip of the tongue that comes of doing 4 1/2 hours of live radio per day.

Oh, 4 and a HALF hours. Well, then let's forgive every nasty thing he says. I didn't realise the hardship he was going through by having to blather on the air for what amounts to half a workday.

Those people who lost everything, however, no compassion for them. No way! Only for overpaid radio hosts.

Seriously, though, here's an interesting article about the Small Rental Property Program (SRPP). The idea is that the program helps landlords rehab/rebuild their rental properties and in return, the landlords provide badly needed affordable housing for residents returning to New Orleans. Unfortunately, the program isn't actually helping any landlords, nor is it creating any additional rental units.

SRPP administrators started accepting applications from small-scale landlords in January 2007. In a press release sent out by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA), Walter Leger, chair of LRA's Housing Task Force, described the program as 'designed to help the mom and pop landlords preserve their investments and offer safe, comfortable and affordable homes to families trying to come home."

It's hard to imagine landlords more mom and pop than Mattie and Johnny Mack. Unfortunately, SRPP isn't helping them. In fact, since January, SRPP hasn't helped any landlords. As of last week, SRPP had not issued a single check for one of the forgivable loans, despite its $869 million budget and Louisiana's loss of 82,000 rental units as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Why hasn't any of the $869 M been distributed?

Mack had hoped the $869 million rental property program would provide a loan to help her rebuild her rental property. She agreed with the program's stated objective of creating more affordable housing by making forgivable loans to landlords in exchange for lower monthly rents. With assistance from a neighborhood association, Mack filled out a program application. When she received a 'conditional award" letter from SRPP, she thought the process was nearing completion.

The conditional award was for less than the estimated costs of rebuilding, but Mack accepted the offer nevertheless. She returned her acceptance notice with a few additional required documents.

'I was waiting on them to call me and say "Lets get the money,'" Mack says. 'I did all the paperwork."

Unfortunately, Mack was wrong about how the program works. The Road Home's Small Rental Property Program isn't a traditional loan program at all; instead, it's an 'incentive" program. Worse yet, the rules apply in a Catch-22 fashion: Only after construction is completed " at the landlord's sole expense " and a rehabilitated property is thoroughly inspected (and a qualified low-income renter identified) can an applicant receive a forgivable loan. Until construction is finished and all paperwork and inspections are completed, landlord-applicants are on their own. Most difficult of all, they have to get their own financing to rebuild. While a forgivable SRPP loan sounds great, the banks that are financing reconstruction work expect timely repayment of every loan they make to SRPP applicants.

[Malruhn]

The program sucks - and is state run - not federally run.

However, what kind of insurance did the Macks have? Oh, wait! They lived in a flood-plain!! Apparently, she accepted the risk of living below sea-level. My level of compassion is falling precipitously.

And the article says nothing about the money given to her (and her mother) by the federal government... where did that go and what was bought with it.

With my mother working for FEMA in New Orleans, I have heard horror-story after horror-story about people that have no inclination to even attempt to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Even my hardline liberal Democratic mom is finding her compassion meter dipping to the point of wanting to cut all ties with the "worthless parasites."

I am sure Neal Boortz's broadcast can be found on his website at http://boortz.com

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

However, what kind of insurance did the Macks have?

I'm guessing Hurricane insurance. Which the insurance companies are refusing to pay because the damage didn't come from the Hurricane, it came from the post-Katrina flooding.

And the article says nothing about the money given to her (and her mother) by the federal government... where did that go and what was bought with it.

Perhaps it was used to rebuild the home that they were living in. The home they can't afford to rebuild is a property that they rented out. (Hence the reason she was applying to a program to help landlords).

ETA:

and is state run - not federally run

So?

[woodness03]

Originally Posted by Simply Madeline

I'm guessing Hurricane insurance. Which the insurance companies are refusing to pay because the damage didn't come from the Hurricane, it came from the post-Katrina flooding.

Not defending the insurance companies at all, but this is a problem that existed well before Katrina.

Originally Posted by woodness03

Not defending the insurance companies at all, but this is a problem that existed well before Katrina.

That's why they make flood insurance.

[STF]

I had a feeling it was Boortz when I read the subject of the OP.

[Chloe]

And yet Boortz occasionally surprises me by not being a total bigot. He's not afraid of teh gay, for instance.

[STF]

Originally Posted by Chloe

And yet Boortz occasionally surprises me by not being a total bigot. He's not afraid of teh gay, for instance.

I think Boortz is an intelligent, passionate guy with certain viewpoints that many would find close-minded. I find him entertaining, but I don't agree with some of the stuff he says like his rants on "government schools."

He's not as two-dimensional as many of the political talkers out there imho.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Simply Madeline

Oh, 4 and a HALF hours. Well, then let's forgive every nasty thing he says. I didn't realise the hardship he was going through by having to blather on the air for what amounts to half a workday.

Those people who lost everything, however, no compassion for them. No way! Only for overpaid radio hosts.

My comments concerning the many hours he talks (that really is a long time for live performance) were in explanation about the 'could not ' versus 'had no desire to' conflict. He makes a fair number of those gaffes - saying one candidates name where he meant another, etc. One cannot be as grammatically pure when doing extemporaneous performance as when one has a scripted performance. I have no doubt that he meant the vast majority of his rant about Katrina, as he posted the articles objecting to it on his website.

Originally Posted by Simply Madeline

I'm guessing Hurricane insurance. Which the insurance companies are refusing to pay because the damage didn't come from the Hurricane, it came from the post-Katrina flooding.

I don't think there is actually a coverage called 'Hurricane' insurance. Homeowners policies usually provide coverage for storms, defined as damage from wind and falling rain. However, they do not cover 'rising water', which needs to be covered under flood insurance. Unfortunately, the major cause of property damage in hurricanes is not usually the wind, but that the storm pulls a massive swell of water onto shore. As 'rising water' it is not covered by the homeowners' policies. It is a huge problem that even though the federal government subsidizes flood insurance in these areas, the property owners, rich and poor alike, for the most part won't pay the premiums, and rely on luck and, when that doesn't work, handouts.

That is not to say that the property insurers there are simon-pure. Their adjusters - often temp hires jockeying for permanent jobs by proving they can be heartless SOBs - make insanely low appraisals of the damage or attribute far too much of the damage to rising water. Then the companies say 'take it to court if you don't like it' and retain most of the available attorneys in the storm area. I did relief work after one of the hurricanes and saw an appraisal that said one 'square' of shingling was all that was required (that's about 4 feet by 4 feet, IIRC) when the photos showed that half of the roof, including the decking, had been ripped away, leaving the attic open. Almost everyone who owned a home there had similar stories about their appraisals, though I did not see the photos to confirm all of them.

[Sweeney_Todd]

I had a house on the 100 year flood plain and flood insurance was very expensive. If I had lived across the street, away from the flood plain,. my flood insurance rates would have been cut by 75% or more. But, the land/houses on my side of the street were cheaper. You live on a flood plain, you take a risk and, if you get flooded out and could not afford the premiums,. then who's fault is it? You roll the dice, you take a chance.

My flood insurance was less than 1:1000 the cost of my house. I gather that they think they will lose my house once every 1000 years or more to floods.