Redstate

on personal responsibility.  I like it.  I wish more wiould try it.  

If it's every man for himself, that's not civility, that's survival of the fittest, or in other words, social darwinism. I think the pinnacle of civility is the concept of "nobless oblige," wherein, per Wikipedia, "with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities."

That whistling noise you hear is the wisdom of this article flying over your head.

Without personal responsibility, civility cannot exist and anarchy will flourish.

Sorry for the snark, but give us a break.  Please.

the successes you have achieved through AA, but disagree with the implication here that an abdication of personal responsibility--for self, family or loved ones--can be rightly announced as a true culprit in hobbling the recovery efforts following this disaster.

Conceding that many of the victims of this tragedy indeed had the means to evacuate, I'd suggest that among those heads-of-family who did not(I'll speak to that definition because your diary essentially restricts me to it), there is no shortage of incredible guilt felt by those with lives in their charge. They could have prevented this suffering, yet did not. And they know it.

That said, I simply do not see how acknowledging this poor judgement adds much context to the larger unfortunance of this event. A drunk driver pinned in his car after an accident, despite his own culpability, can reasonably expect a prompt rescue can he not?  And these victims share far less responsiblity for their predicaments.

Assigning ultimate blame to individuals, however reckless they may have been, dodges a broader point.  We must have an effective mechanism for helping those in times of disaster who can no longer help themselves.

I have no interest in casting empty blame, and at this time, I haven't much interest in casting blame at all.  But if there was indeed a breakdown in this response, whether systemic or localized, it must be remedied.

Anarchy is "every man for himself," right? I hope this is not what the author is promoting. Civility is defined as courtesy. Courtesy is defined as "consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing." Personal responsibility is a good thing, no question. The weak and powerless should try to be self reliant. But the powerful should care for themselves as being "generous in providing" for those less fortunate. Nobless oblige.

I've put my foot in my mouth.  

I took your post as condemnation of personal responsibility and promotion of that victimhood mentality so prevalent in our current times.  

My apologies to you.

I originally took the diary to mean the victims of the flooding are responsible for their own situation (i.e. they deserved it). But they only followed orders by going to the superdome & convention center. If the author meant that those in power (who we all have paid to help in such cases) should just take responsibility, I agree. But if the author wishes to blame the weak and powerless victims, and let the authorities off the hook, I do not.

I think, however, those who had the means for egress, but refused to do so, do not deserve our sympathy.  

Again, I apologize for [mis]characterizing you.

I tend to feel bad for those who have died, even if they made a mistake here and there. Though of course if they had means for evacuation, were aware it was mandatory, and did not; I agree, they are definitely responsible for that decision.

Do you really not "expect anything from anybody"?  I'm not sure that make sense.

To start where you start, didn't you expect, after your first AA meeting, for others to be there, to listen patiently, to be honest -- and, on an even more basic level, for some people to organize the meetings and make sure they take place?

On a more abstract level: don't you expect others -- in fact, the government -- to tend to the roads so that you can get food and fuel?  Don't you expect others to get the food and fuel to the store where you purchase it?  Don't you expect others (again, the government) to print money so that you can pay for the food and fuel?  Or do you barter?

Don't you expect weather forecasters to telll you when a storm is about to hit?  Don't you expect schools to educate such weather forecasters -- and to educate those who can make the fantastic satellites and other technology that help you predict the weather and then deal with it?

It's hard for me to believe you really don't "expect anything from anybody."  Remember what Hobbes said about people who live solely for themselves and by themselves.  Without relying on others, there would be

no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Maybe a lot of people in NO and in America don't take enough personal responsibility.  But unless we rely on each other, our lives will indeed end up like those of so many of the elderly and too many children in NO: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

While I acknowledge and applaud the concept of your post, I'm not sure if the conclusion you've drawn is ironic or intended.

The brilliance and overall social good of Alchoholics Anonymous is to help those who cannot, on their own, help themselves.

In the case of AA, it is an organization established to help those with a disease (alcoholism) beat the disease. For those who cannot resolve the challenges of alcoholism on their own, AA provides a "service" that is free and unlimited.

True, some who struggle with alcohol (perhaps you, 16 years ago) are reasoned enough to know they have a problem, and seek treatment and learn responsibility on their own. That is a noble achievement to be sure. But a great many Americans who are alcoholics do not willingly seek treatment and enter AA on their own. It is a service that is provided for them initially against their will.

AA helps those who cannot help themselves.

Likewise, we as a society, and the AA organization specifically, do NOT say to those who suffer from alcoholism, "Sad people. They know they shouldn't drink, they've heard all the warnings, they're just too dumb or ignorant to head them."

No, AA provides a service that helps those who cannot help themselves AND, more importantly, are sometimes UNWILLING to help themselves. Those who choose not to take responsibility for themselves.

Thus, the ironic (and seemingly unintentional) parallel you've drawn between the service of teaching responsibility through AA, and the New Orleans disaster.

There is always going to be a segment of society that makes poor decisions. There are a variety of reasons for these poor decisions, some considerably more legitimate than others. In the case of New Orleans, there was a segment of the city that, for a variety of reasons, did not heed the warnings to evacuate.

Some simply couldn't leave for a number of logistical reasons, some didn't take the warnings seriously, some were too ignorant to even hear the warnings, and some are simply bad people who wanted to stay behind. And there are other reasons to boot.

But the bottom line, given your AA analogy, is that we as a society don't simply say to predominantly law abiding, tax paying, God fearing citizens, "Well, too bad. You got your evacuation warning, and you didn't take personal responsibility. So fend for yourself." If we as a society did say this, we would have an awful lot more alcoholics running around in this country.

Rather, sometimes our government, and its various services, are in place to help those who either cannot or chose not to help themselves. And hopefully, they will learn better responsibility in their lives going forward.

So great analogy between AA and the New Orleans disaster, but a curious conclusion drawn.

Firstly,thank you all for reading this post.

Mainly what I am saying here is that I am not a victim.

 I could be,I've certainly had personal tragedies in my life that would make it very easy for me think of myself as one.

I certainly was NOT saying that the people who could not evacuate N.O. only have themselves to blame.

"I am Responsible" is a  life-tool that I learned in AA.

If one accepts responsibility for ones situation past and present it gives an individual the strength and power to face the future.

I fully expect my government to be responsible to do the things that they are in place to do.

Enforce Law.

Fix the Roads.

Collect the trash.

Provide good schools.

Be Accountable.

It is very easy to accept the status of "Victim".

I choose to "Be Responsible" for my own life because I've come to learn that it is better than blaming everything on someone else.

Bottom line: refuse to be a victim,especially if you are one.

sitting there in front of the TV, you can't tell who chose not to leave and who couldn't leave, so you're talking about hypothetical people and this kind of thinking has no place in an emergency situation.

American politics is to blame.Both parties are beholden to special interests.Special interests make the policies.Its time American leaders acually work together for the American people,not special interests.I know...dream on.

I am responsible for me alone. Yes, if by chance my house is smashed to bits by a storm, FEMA will come in at a later date and help me rebuild. Sometimes insurance does not cover the loss. But until help arrives, it is me that must protect and take care of my family. I just might band together with my neighbours and we can help each other out until help arrives. It is not up to the Government to be Jonny on the spot with food and other aid. Take care of yourself and everything else will fall into place.