h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<,I'll do some more digging >>

Don't do it near any levees. You'll set the conspiracy theorists going again.

"Hmm. Suckey jobs and poor benefits? That does sound rather like a depressed market."

Hmm, That sounds like sloppy thinking, in which you conflate to independent issues, number of jobs on the one hand, with quality of jobs on the other.

I never said conditions had improved. Where did you dig that out of?

Well, no you didn't. But I don't think it's at all sloppy thinking to conflate wages and working conditions. Or, at least, if I *am* being sloppy, then at least I share my slopiness with many economists, trade unionists, etc. etc.

So...what I'm wondering is whether refugees have been economically advantaged by their dispersal (or, at least, have ended up in a neutral position), or whether they have ended up in onerous, insecure 'McJobs', but *technically* off the unemployment books.

Incidentally, I'm not actually grinding an axe here. I'm just wondering whether or not there have been genuinely fortuitous outcomes from Katrina. I suggest that to get the answer, one might have to do some digging into whether unemployment figures or wage levels tell the whole story.

"Or, at least, if I *am* being sloppy, then at least I share my slopiness with many economists, trade unionists, etc. etc."

So lowest common denominator rules the day?

As I said, that NY Times article has lots of anecdotes and some statistics - what's available at any rate. Perhaps the information is available elsewhere, or perhaps your local library has access to the archives. Sorry I can't provide more information, that's the source I have.

Watched a documentary on this today on cable. What really came across was the sheer scale of the devastation, especially in the Lower 9th Quarter.

Some key points:

The levees were built on soft clay with shallow foundations and collapsed before the surge peaked. Even with *massive* resources being allocated, the Army Corps of Engineers estimate it will take 20 years to build adequate defences.
Re-directing the Mississippi has led to dramatic changes to the marshlands which would have provided good defences against the storm surge.
The clean-up is estimated to take another year *but*

There is a real debate about whether New Orleans should be rebuilt at all. The entire city is sinking one inch a year further below sea level. Regenerating the marshlands will take at least 30 years. Scientists and town planners want to bulldoze about 40% of the city and plant trees to help with future floods.

So it's not entirely down to apathy that the city is still a mess.

<>

Well, as you expected, someone has obliged, namely me!

Vicky

<<>

Well, as you expected, someone has obliged, namely me!

Vicky>

Of course you did.

You are a self-confessed humourless individual.

It is a shame we can't yikes users themselves you, personally, offend me by your actions of yikesing that.

Of course, Vicky, looking at all the evidence Jesus probably did like a bit of man love.

Spending all his time with 12 disciples and never marrying...hmmmm...very dodgy.

Now...prove me wrong here.

Be honest Alfster, there's nothing you like more than a good fight! (Which is why you chose to be as offensive as you possibly could.) Hating isn't enough, you want to *be* hated, so you can feel persecuted, but sorry, I am not playing your silly game. I refuse to hate you, fight against you, or even to take any more notice...

Oh, and if you have such trouble conceiving of someone being celibate that doesn't mean that other people have problems *being* just that..



Vicky

Hi Della,

What did you yikes? More to the point why did you yikes?

By yikes'ing you did a number of things:
1. You proved that you do not understand the principles underlying freedom of speech.
2. You rose to the bait.
3. You failed as a Christian.

Yikes'ing is the action of a researcher who is unable to engage in rational debate. You undermined your position by showing that you did not think your arguments would have held any weight whatsoever.

Matholwch .

<>

Cobblers!


This is my last word on the subject - but I'd just like to say that I well remember being yikesed every five minutes for 'sexism/racism/homophobia and saying mean things about dolphins...

1. Telling you what I yikesed would be missing the point of yikesing it in the first place.
2. I gave Alfster what he wasnted - he must be thrilled to bits.
3. What would you know about what failing as a Christian means?

It's really all most amusing!


Vicky

No Della,

I like good strong discussion. You still have to assume everyone is wanting persecution. I really can't be bothered 'fighting' the site isn't worth it these days and is no fun.

You do not see the irony in you yikesing that post after what it was relating to in Top Gear. The comment was totally in context with the programme and moade a point about what 'offensive' really is. Of course, I doubt whether you know the full context of the comment.

And if you want to talk about Jesus not wanting a bit of man-love here are a ew things Ihave heard from Christians male and female:

'You need to let Jesus love you.'

'I love Jesus'

'I asked Jesus to show his love to me and I felt him enter me.' (Really!)

If I had a pound for every time I have heard a Christian talk about God or Jesus entering them. All very sexual and homoerotic.



And please change the record you tiresome little individual. You haven't changed one jot Even if SoRB thinks you have.

I made a joke about a joke on a TV programme...that's all. The yikes comment was due to the large amount of yikesing that is going on at the moment not about wanting to be yiksed.

Oh good! I'm not the only one saying mean things about dolphins, then. 'Don't feed the dolphins!...or next time out they'll poke holes in your boat'. (Damn! I'm going to need a new nickname now).
"Dolphins are 'kin intelligent, aren't they? You never see dolphins doing street theatre." (A. Sayle)

Getting back to Katrina...and stepping lightly over the somewhat unnecessary sloppy thinking over sloppy thinking...(benefits and security are economic costs, dude. Macroeconomics 101.)...

It certainly would be interesting to poke a little more at the net costs/benefits of Katrina. My intuition would be that you'd get different answers depending on what you choose to measure.

For example...I've read some stuff (and I'm sorry...I forget the sources) about the mental health costs. Traumatised refugees, dislocated from their social structures, unable to afford anti-depressants. Now, with a non-socialised healthcare system this might not present immediate economic costs. But in the longer term? What do untreated psychiatric disorders do to, say, crime levels (and the costs of law enforcement/ crime prevention/ insurance)? And that's not even counting the economically unquantifiable economic costs.

So it may well be that on some cost/benefit analyses, N'Orlins isn't worth saving. But in that case...wouldn't it be prudent to have a proper economic relocation plan? Or will the market simply fix everything? I'm not just talking about the lower-level job aspects either. Could corporations cope with losing significant assets located in the city? What would be the knock-on effects for the markets?

(I promise you I'm not grinding axes or making pre-suppositions here. I'm just being an economics geek. )

Incidentally...having mentioned US healthcare...I'm increasingly noticing that a US National Health Service is on the agenda. Note that Barack is advocating it, and healthcare reform was Hilary's big project...and The Blue Dress was dragged out largely to derail it.

<>

There were areas of New Orleans largely left untouched. The French Quarter and the Financial District were left pretty much high and reassuringly dry. The damage was done to the lower lying areas which were almost exclusively poor, residential areas. New Orleans will not totally die even in the worst case scenario.

The economic relocation of the residents aspect is an interesting one. The people we are talking about are overwhelmingly at the bottom of the economic ladder and have been dispersed to some degree. Except they are now competing with the massive numbers of illegal immigrants in the US, especially in Houston I suspect. In a country with a culture of self-reliance, it is difficult to see them being treated any more favourably. Especially when the media report instances of aid being abused.

I mean, look at what started this topic off here. Top Gear tried to give away a car in New Orleans and the cameras had barely stopped rolling when a local tried to stiff them for another handout. What was your initial reaction to that? What do you think of the kind of people that act in such a way? Do you feel inspired to go to New Orleans and try to give away a car?

>>What was your initial reaction to that? What do you think of the kind of people that act in such a way? Do you feel inspired to go to New Orleans and try to give away a car?

I don't really have an *initial* reaction, not having seen the programme - so I'm at a disadvantage here in terms of information. Speculating about it, though, I guess my reaction is "Hell - people need to get by!" I mean, *I'd* try and stiff a handout. I hope I'm never in a position of having to do so. Long live the welfare state!

And I suppose from their point of view they'd see the pimps for the hungry crack whore that is television rolling into town and think "Shee-it! I bet their fee for this could buy more than a lousy car!"

It might not be savoury, but that's how humans are. I don't think we can pretend we're any different. "Walk a mile in someone's shoes...at very least you'll be a mile away from them. Plus, you'll have their shoes."

FULL DISCLOSURE:
A few years back, I managed to stiff BB Scotland for filming my wife and me at home. They seemed to think we'd feel privileged for helping them to earn their wages. Any encounter I've had with TV has left me feeling dirty.

So DA (Della Artois??) whose life is a show on God's TV yikesed something which I missed...

Anyone care to tell me what it was, for interest's sake? Without, of course, offending the malicious minority?

Talking of shows on TV, the reality show game really has hit rock bottom...

--

Who would you put on a show?

How about a religiously-based one concentrating on each of the major religions of the world...

--

For Christianity:

A female Black Baptist and a KKK member?

A social worker who accepts 'Satanic ritual abuse' and an African-based evangelist such as featured recently in the child abuse feature about the Christian belief that young children can be kendoki (I think that is how it is actually spelt - it is difficult to tell when it keeps being translated as 'witch') and need exorcising by being abused or even killed?

An anti-abortionist convicted of a bombing campaign in the USA and a Quaker? (actually, that would be really unfair on the Quaker)

--

For Islam:

A (failed) suicide bomber and an ordinary Iman from a multicultural city?

--

For Paganism:

Emma Restall-Orr and Arthur Pendragon?

Silver Ravenwolf and just about anyone?

(I am having problems coming up with people I could not get on with - but we would all have problems doing without reading and writing, which is forbidden in the House.)

--

Jez - fed up and at home.

Hi Jez when I feel fed up I think about stuff that cheers me up like this.

I set up a relay race game with blue, yellow green and red hoops and the children in teams had to one at a time get correspnding balls from a large tub into the hoops. In each teams tub I put one orange ball.

Most of the kids (6 years old) argued and fussed for ages over this, a couple in each team finally got their voices heard and said they dont have to go anywhere.

Hopefully by the time their adults the rest will have learnt to think outside the hoops aswell.

Wouldn't the pagans just keep arguing about whose turn it was to throw the twenty-sided dice?