Okay I am going to say it

[Horse with no Name]

I think it is fucking stupid to spend ANY time arresting looters when there are people dying.
I don't give a fuck what someone steals...the time it takes to arrest someone will probably mean that someone will die.
There aren't enough rescuers as it is...and spending ONE man's time arresting someone is insanity.

[WindRavenX]

1. that and

You know, all the media people could be helping too.

I don't have a TV and I wouldn't watch...I'd want them to HELP people instead of REPORT it.

[timber84]

2. Agree n/t

[Snotcicles]

69. I belong to the Chamber of Commerce and for all the money

I give to Republicans, I demand two police at every door at my business.

[ret5hd]

3. Paging Inspector Javert!!!... Paging Inspector Javert!!!...

There are reports of a certain "Jean Valjean" and associated types running loose in New Orleans! Please report IMMEDIATELY!!!

[Ken Burch]

79. heard this "Valjean" character broke into somebody's house

and stole a brioche.

Next time, he might take some beignets,

After that, no one's red beans and rice or six packs of Jax are safe!

[coffeenap]

4. Hear, hear!

[rodeodance]

7. saw a Col. just now Nat. Guard saying will do resues but also looters

beware--we will be harsh on them..

Yes, they are dividing their priorities!!!

[Mairead]

5. Agreed. But the property of the wealthy has always been sacrosanct

in the 'democratic' USA.

[sui generis]

6. You're right. Practicality needs to prevail.

We need to do both - save lives AND property, in that order.

We also need a little less hysteria.

[Guaranteed]

73. Practicality needs order.

Less hysteria also means we need order.

Laws. Courtesy. Helping, working TOGETHER, instead of stealing.

The second this turns into a free-for-all is the second you can kiss New Orleans goodbye.

[Thtwudbeme]

8. I agree...I don't give a fat flying rats ass what looters get right now

and no, I wouldn't if it were my stuff either.

Lives are more important..."stuff" can wait. I don't care if the "stuff" is great great grandma's silver.

[Jacobin]

9. Fine

You can come replace the stuff in my apartment in the quarter.

Oh, and give them the keys to your house while you are at it.

What about the people who evacuated and will come back to not only water and wind damage, but looters having picked through the rest of their stuff?

Keeping some semblance of order in a city after a disaster is important.

Why do you think its so okay to let them rummage through the belongings of disaster victims?

Anyway, if the fricking national guard wasn't in IraqNam they would be there like they ALWAYS are to keep the looting down to a dull roar and there would be enough rescue personnel to save those whose lives are in danger

[Horse with no Name]

13. The only thing that can't be replaced is life

Let me give you some perspective.

You have ONE law enforcement official.
There is someone trapped in their attic across the street from your apartment and there is someone looting your apartment.
Would you RATHER the ONE law enforcement official protect your precious stuff, or would you rather he turn a blind eye and rescue the person in the attic?

This scene is playing out all over New Orleans.

Rescue the people and forget the fucking stuff.

[coffeenap]

15. Yeah--but they ARE in IraqNam--so people have to come first now!

I am so sorry for the loss you are experiencing--I know we who are not there cannot imagine. It is despicable that we have to choose between protecting life and protecting property--but we do have to choose.

[SmokingJacket]

18. Operative words are "after" a disaster.

It's not over yet. When it's over, that's the time to turn the attention away from saving lives.

[Pacifist Patriot]

66. Life trumps property in my opinion.

[leftofthedial]

10. but the retailers vote repuke and donate money to repukes

the dying people probably don't vote

NOTHING is more important than a repuke's money. That's why people are dying in Iraq.

[RevCheesehead]

11. People first - property last.

Rescue the people, dammit!!!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spurt]

14. Everyone out.

Everyone out now. There is no way to sustain life in that place. As soon as transport can get in, remove everyone - by force if necessary. No more looting then. Nobody can do anything until the water is removed.

[SmokingJacket]

16. But if the rich don't have any more stuff...

they won't be rich!

Society will fall apart!

[AlGore-08.com]

17. The Mayor of NOLA was interviewed last night, and listed his priorities

All of these things are being done, but in these are the priorities:

1.) Save additional lives by rescuing stranded people - - this where the majority of efforts are right now
2.) Keep the folks in the hospitals and shelters (including the superdome) in supplies and electricity.
3.) Find and clean up the dead bodies
4.) Repair the essential city services (pump out the water, clean up, restore electricity)

He did say that looting was a concern, but the city of NOLA is not "wasting time arresting people" at the moment, they are too busy pulling folks out of trees, getting food and medical supplies into the city, and trying to fix the levee.

F.Y.I. It sounds like it's going to be at least a month the city is back on its feet.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Unbrilliant

Just how many people have 30 foot fishing boats? And how does you bragging about yours help the situation? Don't be a tool.
The Professor

[sui generis]

25. although I don't agree with the poster I do agree with the question

why aren't we asking honest questions about this?

This is said without rancor, but if indeed there were people who didn't "get the message", then why is that? Is it really fair to blame it exclusively on poverty? Is it really rational to blame it on "ethnic cleansing"?

If we have known tongue in cheek that "the big one" could hit for decades, and we did nothing to raise the levies or contend with the reality of NO flooding as it is, what are we going to do later this season when the next one hits or next season when "the next big one" hits? And it inevitably will, just as this one did.

I'm not into "blame the victim", nor into "blame the evil overlords"; I just want honest unemotional answers and solutions. All "blame" games aside, looking forward why do we think this won't happen again? And again? And what are we going to do about it?

We can't just shell out tens of billions of dollars putting a bandaid on the problem after it happens. If we are serious about reducing dependably periodic loss of life and property, then we have to do something realistic about the problem.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. It's Not That Hard To Answer

There are several reasons.

First, lots of people don't trust the gov't to tell them the truth. So, the city or state or federal gov't says "It's really going to be bad, you should leave." Do these people have any strong reason to believe it will really be bad enough to warrant that? Some won't.

Secondly, they've been through it before. Weather is an inexact science. They've weathered storms before and figured they'd weather this one. They weren't sure how reliable the storm forecasters were and how it would compare to prior incidents. Who would?

Thirdly, they leave and the storm hits, and it's this bad! Where do they go? No home there to which to return. For some people, running and then having nothing there and no reason to go home is worse than the risk of being in the torrent.

Lastly, while the loss of life is horribly tragic, the cost of rebuilding is the same whether people evacuated or not. So, they aren't costing you and i any more money. And, if you have some suggestions as to how to build a port city that isn't near the ocean, i would be willing to listen. As long as we transport by ship, we're going to need port cities. As long as those ports are there, there will be people living near them. Always been that way. Always will be. It's unfortunate when big storms like this crash through, but i don't see any way to change the fact that people will always live near big ports.
The Professor

[Inland]

29. A lot of people are already on the margin, and they can't pay to leave

for every possible disaster of the century. After all, a hurricane isn't the only way poor people die in America.

And the non-poor are stupid.

[sui generis]

34. methinks

Name calling, not such a great way to argue your case. Every possible "disaster of the century"???

No, people are stupid. Some people. Not poor, not non-poor, just people who don't think that disaster could happen to them.

There are bigger problems than name calling. If people really are SO poor that they can't get out of the way of a freight train, then that's a problem we're not addressing, since this freight train is pretty damn dependable.

Is it education? Is it social services? What is the solution? What if the problem has nothing to do with "poor" and "non-poor" as we seem to be theorizing.

[Inland]

45. No, you missed my point.

People who are living on the margin can't afford to make a wrong call. They don't have the money to pick up, drive away, stay someplace else, and come back in a week. They may also have relatives and others relying on them.

There is risk, therefore, in bugging out for a storm, just as there is always risk in crossing that last line from poverty to utter destitution.

Therefore IT MAY BE RATIONAL FOR POOR PEOPLE TO RISK THE HURRICANE.

For non-poor, there isn't that risk involved. They take the weekend off and go two hundred or more miles in the car. Why would they stay? A horrifically bad assessment of risk, stupid if you will.

[fishwax]

41. exactly

evacuation isn't free, and not everyone has the means ...

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Sort of My Point

If you can't afford to leave, and then if you try and there's nothing to come back to, it's not much of an option.

Thanks for "succincting up" my point.
The Professor

[sui generis]

54. let me repeat my point

since this is all becoming pointless and irrelevant and obtuse.

If poor people didn't get out, is it really truly justifiable to claim that it is only because they were poor.

Is that good science? Is that leading towards a solution to keep it from happening again?

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Then It's A Weak Point

Mostly because i never said any such thing. I just said that some people wouldn't leave because they would take their chances, (we can question the wisdom of that for sure), that some wouldn't believe the people who told them to evacuate (ibid), that there was just no way for them to do it (nowhere to go), and maybe some were fatalistic and thought that if they made it they made it, if they don't they don't.

How the heck does one apply good science to the notion that some JUST WON'T GO? That has nothing to do with anything. And, the only solution to that would be forced evacuation. You ok with that? Not me.
The Professor

[sui generis]

59. slow down bubba

I am not your enemy just because we don't agree on the details.

Please don't lets go there - I usually have greater respect for your opinions and insight.

Speaking of putting words in mouths, when you ask and answer a rhetorical question . . . that is what you are doing.

The honest answer is I'm not sure what I think about forced evacuation. Should my firemen die to save your butt after you refuse to leave your house in the brush fire path? Because you surely will be screaming for help when your asshairs are on fire.

If you want the right to self-determination then are you prepared to live with the consequences of making a bad decision? I won't answer that on your behalf.

[sui generis]

32. ah but there are solutions

There is no reason not to build your infrastructure to weather a Cat 5 storm. There is no reason not to make utterly absolutely certain that your drinking water supply will survive a storm surge.

I understand about people not trusting the government's weather predictions, but when the government says it's a Cat 5 storm, it's going to be bad, whether or not it turns out to be a Cat 5 or a Cat 3.

People have to take some responsibility some of the time too, or else it's useless to blame city officials for not doing enough.

Regarding your comment on port cities, this is a great example for why we need better preparation and better planning. It's not enough to design an infrastructure to get a million people out of a city in a day; you have build your infrastructure to handle the worst-case-scenario, especially if your WCS happens reliably every thirty years.

Everyone is anguished and angry and wants to find a person or agency to blame, but the fact is that everyone who put their heads in the sand on this, from people who didn't listen to the evacuation orders to the city and state officials "hoping" it wouldn't be too bad share some responsibility for the difficulties of the aftermath.

All of that notwithstanding, it could have been much much worse in terms of loss of life, and that's something that the volunteers and city officials and people who really are dealing with this aftermath have to be proud of. It's not a human disaster, it's a natural disaster.

[fleabert]

40. here's a good reason those things weren't done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4507781&mesg_id=4508187

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Plus, It's TONS Of Money To Do What Sui Is Suggesting

One cannot build a city that is "bulletproof" against every contingency. Nobody, no gov't, no business has that kind of money.
The Professor

[sui generis]

52. it is impossible to make it "bulletproof"

but if you have a pot of money you have to spend it effectively on the things that will have the greatest impact.

There are always going to be deaths from natural disasters.

The Ford company knew if they got to cap individual damage rewards on Ford Pinto explosions at a certain dollar level that it would prove to be more cost effective to let a few dozen people a year get their butts blown to smithereens and pay the cap than to recall millions of cars and fix them.

The "TONS" of money argument is not valid. It's going to cost Multiple Hundreds of Tons of Money to clean up the aftermath, plus, the local NO economy is sunk for the time being as people are straight up out of work for the upcoming weeks and months, and as countless small businesses are shut down for good.

Saying "it's too expensive" to fix right now is being in denial that it will be cheaper to fix later. If we're going to give up on fixing it because it's too expensive, then we have to live with consequences and stop thrashing around trying to blame this on one group of people or another.

So the choices become a lot easier - learn from these lessons for the next one. For the city of NO the single biggest factor was the breach of the Ponchartrain levee. Wind damage - not a lot to be done about that except to improve code on new construction and to periodically test old construction. Water damage - do your best to make sure water can still be pumped out EVEN under Cat 5 non-breach conditions.

Assured electricity, shelter and drinking water are absolutely critical to preventing further loss of life after the storm has passed. And at some point the levee system has got to be addressed - this is not the storm of the century. It's just the first storm like it of the century - and it will inevitably happen again.

A Ton of Money of prevention is definitely worth avoiding the costs that come next.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Sorry, But You're Wrong

There is a long standing principle in microeconomics regarding cost v. scale. At the level of a large city, it costs no more to repair the damage than it does to attempt to shield against it. The scales are so huge that simply rebuilding and cleaning up is no more costly than trying to build some protective infrastructure against it. That's true for very big companies, (although your example is grossly flawed), and the bigger the entity the more true is becomes. This is a testable theory and, in fact, has been tested and proven hundreds of times.

Also you, as an example, mentioned electricity. Do you have any ideas as to how one would make an electrical transmission system impervious to a storm of this magnitude? No? Good, because neither does anybody else. There is no such system that could assuredly withstand forces this great. Same with a water system. At some point in every system, there has to be a high point and low point. When EVERYTHING is under water, there is no way to absolutely assure no mixing of storm water, sewage and fresh water systems. You need to think about the basic physics involved here. I'm not talking about advanced fluid dynamics. Just simple physics. What you're suggesting as a preventative measure is impossible. It's one thing to sustain a heavy 5 day rain. It's a completely different one to sustain 140mph winds and 6 inches of rain per hour!

If you would like to address the financial avenues that would allow the levees to be modified, improved, or routinely replaced, when they are already working as designed (not excepting a storm of this intensity), let me know what those are. There is a finite amount of tax revenue. You're being naive if you think otherwise.

You are looking at this situation so you can assess blame to some evil, indeterminate entity who "refused" to prepare. Just what if you're wrong, and there's is no practical solution that anyone could afford? Do we still need to assess blame or just accept that there are natural disasters against which we humans are simply powerless?
The Professor

[sui generis]

57. I can talk to you at length about advanced fluid dynamics

and operations research interior point algorithms and many many many topics that would truly surprise you, and that coming from over twenty years of professional experience with reality, not just theory. No need to talk down to anyone here, perfesser.

You seem to be arguing for the status quo. I am arguing against it. You are also putting words in my mouth, please stop. And your horse appears to be riding a little high at the moment. I'm sure I don't have to tell you about basic physics any more than you have to tell me about basic physics.

As a so-called naive person who knows nothing at all about tax revenue or any other factor or form of finance, I understand there is no global fix. (I am being really really sarcastic). That is what I said. I said we have to target the use of our resources to be more effective than we have been.

And finally, I really hate this conclusion of yours: "You are looking at this situation so you can assess blame to some evil, indeterminate entity who "refused" to prepare". Clearly you must think everyone here but you is a simpleton. That's not ad hominem, just a little something I derived from your language and conclusion.

I went out of my way not to use the word blame, even addressing the use of the word "responsibility" over the concept of blame. You must have missed this in your haste to reply.

I am all for mitigating what we can with the resources we have. I am not for agreeing that we have done everything we CAN do. Sticking our heads in the sand and claiming to be powerless is not what humans are supposed to do. We invent, we find motivators beyond sheer dollar cost, and we come up with solutions. If you don't want to be stuck here defending the noble waterlogged poor the next time a storm strikes, then I'd suggest using your vaunted intelligence to help think of solutions rather than think of why we shouldn't try.

[Mairead]

64. "There is no reason not to build your infrastructure" Who's "you"?

The poor have no way to build anything, and the state is not especially concerned with their wellbeing.

The wealthy are concerned lest they be taxed at the level their wealth allows.

So who's 'you'?

[sui generis]

88. some days

do ya'll travel in packs?

This is sui here. I'm making a real effort not to eat my fellow progressives alive but my resolve is being sorely tested today.

This is not a fucking class war. Get over it. Don't make it one. And unless you are dirt poor do not deign to speak on behalf of the dirt poor.

Do you REALLY believe that the city of New Orleans decided to engage in ethnic cleansing courtesy of this flood?

If you do you are cuckoo bananas, and your progressive voice is NOT MY progressive voice. Tin foil is not my color.

[fleabert]

106. I think that would be the city, state, and federal government...

but I am guessing.

[CitrusLib]

22. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Most judgemental post of the hour.

You have no IDEA what situation some of those people were in prior to the storm. Do you realize there are some people in this world poor enough not to own a TV, radio or GASP a computer. Believe it or not, the possibility exists that some people didn't know about the Superdome. Some of these people are also in areas that didn't have transportation to the Superdome. Get off your high horse for a sec. You have no room to judge everyone en masse unless you've been in their shoes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Exactly--have you seen how poor some of those

neighborhoods in New Orleans are?

There are miniature pockets of the Third World in many American cities, such that people tend not to have cars and are so outside the economic and political mainstream that they don't trust anyone who isn't part of their community.

One thing I discovered when working with street kids--in a city where poverty is less devastating than it is in a larger city--was that they didn't trust anyone outside their own circle, especially not authority figures or rich people, lived for the moment, and literally didn't know that there was another way to live.

[CitrusLib]

50. That's what gets me about these posts

There's this attitude that 'the poor should know better.'

The majority of Americans don't understand what the hell poverty is. Their paradigm stems from a decent education, food on the table, a roof over their heads and luxury items they think of as necessities (i.e. the computers they use to belittle the poor).

I don't know where the hell people get off judging others when they don't know a damn thing about someone else's situation. Most people couldn't even tell you what their freakin' neighbors names are, but they can share an ignorant opinion about someone living miles away?

Give me a break.

OK. Done ranting.

[sui generis]

53. how many broad brushes you gonna use citrus?

"the majority" of Americans don't live in the KIND of poverty you are talking about, including the people of New Orleans.

There's rural poverty and urban poverty too - entirely different "paradigms" (or pair'o'pennies as the case may be).

"The Poor" is not a monolithic concept. You can even make 100K a year, have six or seven kids and live in abject poverty just trying to feed them and get them through school, much less pay for gas or even a random medical event. Income alone is not a means test.

Sharing opinions about people miles away is apparently done by many people on this board.

If you are going to defend "the poor" then please do it better. It's not black or white anyway. Not all poor people are noble. Not all non-poor people are ignorant assholes.

[CitrusLib]

58. I think you know very well which ignorant assholes I'm referring to

And I never said the majority of Americans live in poverty. You misread my post. I said the majority don't understand poverty. Big difference.

I think your description of poor takes us off on a tangent. what does the difference between rural poverty and urban poverty have to do with the average American not having lived with the inability to feed your children or find shelter?

Even though it is on a tangent, I find your definition of 'poor' interesting. I think we're having a semantics issue. One may be 'poor' at 100K/year, but that income puts you well above the 'poverty' line. I, for one, don't include anyone making over 100K/year who owns a car to put gas in within the poverty category.

I guess I don't understand your problem with my post unless you misread it. Both the urban and rural poor were affected by this hurricane to an enormous degree. My issue is with people who don't fit either the 'poor' or the 'poverty' category making assumptions about motivation when they aren't in the middle of the situation or have never been faced with same.

[sui generis]

62. you are right, this is tangential

Save your anger for the other side.

If we aren't allowed to question the assumptions that some people blithely hand to us, about poverty, motivation, rationality, or ability to move your ass if you have a choice, then "we" aren't as progressive as we think.

Let's talk some cooler day. I agree most people make stupid comments about things they know nothing about. But we sometimes defend our side with equally preposterous assertions.

Not everyone trapped in the flooding lives at the level of poverty you describe. Poverty is not the only reason people didn't leave. We need to stop with that line because it's not wholly accurate, especially if we are going to demand equally accurate and critical thinking from the people we style as "assholes".

[CitrusLib]

63. Huh? I'm not angry.

At the moment I'm thoroughly confused by you.

I never said everyone trapped in the flooding is in poverty. What I am saying is that those who think everyone in New Orleans had the means and opportunity to get out haven't a clue. I'm also saying anyone castigating the people who are poor for looting, staying in their homes, etc. is equally clueless. I'm still not sure if I'm not explaining myself correctly or if you are willfully misreading my posts. :shrug:

[sui generis]

70. sorry citrus

it's not you, and I'm not wilfully misreading your posts - that's not sui style.

I re-read - I don't know what gave me the idea that you were growling at me, probably just the general tone of the thread and I brought it with me! And too much coffee, and too many open open windows. Sorry again.

I disagree on looting though - there is not a "right" time to be breaking and entering into a business, regardless of your financial status, to steal anything unless your life is in danger and there are no other options. I think some of these people at least do have options, but looting is what some have stayed to do, and it makes everyone look bad. This is my opinion, I don't think I'm "righter" or "wronger" than anyone else here, and certainly not clueless.

I really DON't care about stealing a bag of chips, what I care about is that if you are going to say it's okay to steal a bag of chips after every flood or storm, you won't have businesses rebuild there and you certainly aren't doing anything about the situation that lead to people stealing chips and ATMs.

What I'm equally confused about is that a few dunderheads said some insensitive things and now it's become a weird kind of class war on behalf of people we really can't say we know anything about. I'm ready to give it a rest.

:hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

77. I don't see anyone saying it's okay to steal a bag of chips

after every flood or storm. I do see people saying:

- now is the time to focus on life not property. If we have to choose between arresting a guy stealing a CD player or rescuing a drowning family on the next block, compassionate humans would let the asshole have the stupid CD player and rescue the family. Let's start the arrests when we know everyone is safe.

- people starving today, whether they were poor or rich four days ago, shouldn't be shot for trying to get food and water any way they can.

- we shouldn't pass judgment at a time when information coming out of the affected areas is so garbled

[sui generis]

87. I am being misread myself, intentionally or otherwise

You have an opinion, that's clear. So do I. That's also clear. We disagree. I don't believe you should think exactly the way I do, or vice-versa. Our life experience and education are completely different. I come here to discuss and learn new things, not to have some pompous self-important poster come pissing in telling me that they have THE ONLY OPINION that should matter.

Please accord me the same respect.

I respect what you are saying, believe it or not. You are passing judgement on anyone who disagrees with you. I don't believe people should be shot either, and for the record, I think we're actually on the same side, before you bring "reading comprehension" into this as you did in your other reply.

Let's add a little nuance too, if that's possible. The best thing you've said so far is

"- we shouldn't pass judgment at a time when information coming out of the affected areas is so garbled"

Thank you for that bit of lucidity.

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. What respect you have shown me?

The respect where you assert that I have less education than you? You have already admitted that you misread CitrusLib and I see where you misread ProfessorGAC as well. Ergo I have a concern about your reading comprehension.

I quote...."if you are going to say it's okay to steal a bag of chips"

Again, I do not see where anyone has said it is okay so the rest of your comments don't make much sense. You and I probably agree more than we disagree, we simply do not communicate with one another very well. That happens on-line sometimes.

This early in the situation life should trump property. No, you do not have to agree with that opinion. I can appreciate you looking at this long term. I don't share your concerns. I think businesses will come back looting or not, but I appreciate your focus.

Friendly advice: (seriously) You probably don't want to get in the habit of slinging degrees around and presume educational superiority in any field. You never know who is on the other end. From my perspective, trying to one up educationally is a sign of insecurity not an indication of authoritative knowledge. I noticed you took a stab at the "perfesser" too. You really don't want to go there or someone will slap you down hard some day.

[sui generis]

98. so is unsolicited advice

Seriously. I'm sorry, I didn't swing first. Your advice is quite timely, especially since the Professor called me out and then you did.

Really, it's been quite condescending in here today, and I'm not very patient with it. You should always at least assume that whoever else has an opinion has it for valid reasons whether or not their pedigree and letters bear any weight. I am not an MSSW. I helped put an MSSW through school and studied right along with him, because my pedigree supported his scholarly work, and I have been very involved my entire life in the community at large. I know about real poverty, up close.

Even your advice sounds like you're talking to someone who is a young ignorant pup with no right to defend against this snideness. It HAS been snide in here today. It's been a real effort.

I really don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong by the way. I hope that's not another sign of "insecurity" or whatever other backhand that was. Okay, time for a smilie :).

I do mind being "slapped down" though, which seems to be the modus around here today. I'm just not the kind to turn the other cheek.

You of all people know how long I've been posting here, and on which topics. You know I am not an eat the poor kind of person. Let's all be nice now. I'm not out to shoot looters. Those were not my words or ideas. And I don't have a wife to beat. ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. Okay, I'm trying to follow this exchange but I'm getting the

distinct impression you and I are not reading the same posts. CitrusLib is making a really good point about not jumping to conclusions and offering one potential explanation out of many that could be out there. She never said it was the only explanation. At any rate, she is completely right. Passing judgment, without any knowledge of what the actual explanations are, is pointless.

As for the concept some families earning $100K a year can live in the type of abject poverty referenced by CitrusLib -- that is just beyond preposterous. Anyone earning that much who can't provide basic necessities is probably making some piss poor decisions.

[sui generis]

71. and to split hairs

I admitted to misreading citrus' post but I know for a fact that a farmers family can earn 100K and more a year and live in abject poverty. It is not "beyond preposterous" and you don't know what you're talking about with that final grandiose assertion. Really don't.

I would have to say, please don't defend the poor if you don't understand the economics and sociology of poverty. It does a disservice in spite of your good intentions.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. Oh dear.

I gather from your ire I touched a nerve. I agree we are done.

Especially since my point about the difference between income and profit is hardly ad hominem attack. Actually, I'm not even sure you know what the term means...given that your attempt was rather lame. I suppose my reversal of your silly accusation is to what you refer. :eyes:

Cheers! I think next time I'll engage with individuals more rational and knowledgeable.

Cheers!

[sui generis]

91. no truce

Now you are off topic on top of everything else. Go run away. Silly wabbit, doesn't even know what she's talking about.

I am not for eating the poor. I am not blaming the poor. I want to see our cities make more of an effort to help get areas that are flood prone safer and to get the people who live there, whether they are poor or not to do the rational thing.

You have somehow made this about how many times I beat my wife. That's wrong. You are not a wholesome person - you've touched "a nerve" the same way you would if you asked me how many times I beat my wife. I hope you understand that.

I wouldn't dare to accuse you of hating the poor - why do you think it's okay to make that assumption about me?

You need to slow down. We ARE on the same side, whether you like it or not.

[Pacifist Patriot]

93. What????

You cast me in the position of defending the poor so I spun that to show you how ridiculous that was. I was defending the poor every bit as much as you were castigating them. That is to say...not at all.

I too would like to see our cities, counties, states and federal government do everything they can to make all areas safer.

What in the world are you talking about beating a wife for? Hyperbole does not become you.

[sui generis]

99. now it's a timing issue

every time I get over it we're back on.

I'm going to just walk away now . . .

[sui generis]

90. AND ANOTHER THING

please explain how I am castigating the poor? Talk to me about reading comprehension some more, oh please do.

PM me if we need a truce.

[Pacifist Patriot]

94. Read my post above.

My apologies for being unclear. Using your ridiculous phrase was supposed to show you how idiotic it was in the first place when you used it on me. I guess this silly wabbit is just not good enough for you.

[sui generis]

101. you and I should not talk at a party

We're both WAY too full of ourselves for it to be a voluntary experience.

Now. This is the truce. Let's try again later on a different topic. I believe you're a good person, not better or worse than I am, whether or not we are able to get along. I'm not going to presume further about you, and not from a position of insecurity or weakness, but merely because it would be inappropriate.

Truce.

[The Magistrate]

103. A Truce Is An Excellent Idea, Comrades

[Pacifist Patriot]

104. Truce

Actually I haven't been feeling full of myself, I'm sorry if I came across that way. I made no assumptions about your educational background one way or the other. And have no inclination to share mine as it isn't germaine.

Yes, unsolicited advice is annoying but I felt you deserved to know why I was responding to you the way I was. It came across as if you were treating us like ignorant young pups and it wasn't appreciated.

I thank you for this post. The "you are not a wholesome person" comment was entirely below the belt and certainly affected my perception of you. I was actually surprised when that came out because it is a personal attack entirely unrelated to the thread. "twit" and "silly wabbit" weren't exactly appreciated either. THAT is why I thought you were inexperienced in on-line discussions. My apologies for making that assumption.

Actually, I think we should talk at a party. I imagine we would probably communicate much much better face to face and the timing of comments would not be an issue. We would probably like one another quite a bit.

But I won't back down about the difference between revenue and income. ;)

Truce.

[Horse with no Name]

23. Maybe if "people like you" volunteered

to take these people out in your fucking luxury boats, then they wouldn't have been stranded.
Some people just couldn't get out.
Are you missing from "somewhere else"?
Surely they miss you by now.
Go back.

[skygazer]

27. There's a brilliant first message

I'm sure all those people have 30 foot fishing boats sitting around. Welcome to DU(?). Sheesh.....

[fleabert]

30. how lucky for you to have a fucking 30 foot boat.

these were poor people dumbass.

no car, no boat, no money for $900 cab fare, limo fare, airfare, or even a way to get across town in the middle of a fucking evacuation.

I have a lot of compassion, in fact I have some to spare, would you like some? I'll give it to you, free of charge.

[northzax]

33. not all poor people

by the way, many were property owners who stayed behind to protect their property. People have been known to make this semi-rational choice, one reason being that looting afterwards is bound to destroy thier property, so they stay.

Or do poor people live in waterfront houses these days?

[melissinha]

35. thats a good reason

Wanting to protect one's property in case it wasn't that bad... I am quite certain that was a case for many who stayed.

Also some of these people are just plain stubborn. What are people going to do when they are evacuated.... pay thousands of non-existent dollars in hotel bills... and maybe they tried to evaluate the risks and determined the Superdome would be a risk.

[fleabert]

37. of course not ALL of the people were poor.

but they are the largest group, in general, that was unable to find adequate shelter.

I don't think looting is anyone's main concern today. Grocery stores losing a few diapers and food that would go bad in a couple days is not important, IMO. I have yet to actually see any proof of looting of retail items that would not have been tossed out instead of sold after this mess is cleaned up.

One is required to have insurance in order to have a business license these days (at least when I owned a business two years ago I had to have it to operate)

If I owned a grocery store, I'd say 'take it all, if you need it to survive.'

[fishwax]

36. isn't that precious?

yeah, why didn't they all take their 30-foot fishing boats and head to texas?

[MissB]

39. 30 ft fishing boat?

:woohoo: I'm sure all the poor in NO had 30 ft fishing boats.

[fishnfla]

43. They stayed to protect their property from looters

take your chance with the storm, I guess

But prevent the looters from taking the rest.

[ima_sinnic]

47. would you like some fuel for that boat? how about a big push

from the dock?

--just trying to be helpful to get you on your way to TexASS ASAP where apparently life is just grand and nobody has to think about anybody but himself.

[wli]

21. the rethugs just want to get a bit more ethnic cleansing in n/t

[progmom]

24. i totallly agree

thank you for saying this.

[jpak]

28. This NO, not Baghdad

and they're stores - not Iraqi nuclear facilities or ordinance depots.

Looters only count in 'Merica...

[Cleita]

31. Yes, they need to get their priorties straight on this

especially since there is a good chance losses will be recovered anyway from any number of sources insurance, government disaster funds and charitable organizations. Arresting people for what appears to be looting is certainly not productive right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. I suspect that the looting that is occurring is the result is a

combination of long-frustrated poor people+the trauma of the hurricane.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that in the population as a whole, there are people on one end of the spectrum who would rather starve to death than steal, people on the other end of the spectrum who steal for the hell of it even though they're well off (Enron types), and in the middle, a large group of people who think they're on the honest end of the spectrum but could be pushed to the other end by circumstances.

[Cleita]

51. Thank you. Finally a sane answer to one of my posts.

Here's a group of people who have been told by the actions of our government that they aren't worth saving. They were too poor to leave and left behind to possibly drown. I would say that brings on a "them against us" mentality, which leads to us surviving maybe at the expense of them. And, I don't blame them for feeling this way. They have been told that they are disposable people.

[Pacifist Patriot]

67. Much more concisely stated than what I tried to bumble through

earlier. I think you are exactly right.

[Pithlet]

95. In all my posts on this subject today

You said what I've been trying to get across, and said it far better.

Too many are missing the point. The point isn't defending looters. It's refraining from judgment without knowing all the facts in light of a disaster thats bound to draw people to do things out of desperation they wouldn't normally do, poor or not.

[Catchawave]

42. Agree !

It looked like they were taking food, which will rot anyhow, baby items and toilet paper. Sounds like salvage work to me.

[H2O Man]

46. In New York State,

if you walk by a car in a parking lot, and purposely scratch it with a key, you face greater legal consequences than if you sneak up from behind, and punch the car owner in the back of the head. This is because "property" is considered to be of more value than "people." Recognizing that this is representative of confused values certainly does not mean one advocates either scratching cars or punching people.

Likewise, focusing on the human needs in the areas destroyed by the hurricane in no way implies sympathy for looting. It merely indicates that you are able to focus on what is of most value in the immediate future: saving human lives.

[Catherine Vincent]

60. I agree.

Let them loot. Save lives first then deal with the looters, if there are any.

[CityZen-X]

61. Living In A Material World

where material is more important than life itself!

[Qibing Zero]

68. About time!

Glad someone was able to say it simply and straightforward. You hit it right on.

To the complainers about the 'hard earned' things being stolen I say this:

What right do most have to call what they have hard earned when those millions starve? You are lucky to even have the chance to earn! Did you ever think that those people starving in africa and other places have nothing in front of them to even steal?

On yet another front, do you think about the many people dead and dying at this hour? Do you think about the families that have not heard from their loved ones - including those here on DU? Would you not rather save the lives in danger than worry about the ones who are stealing watersoaked materials at the moment?

Please, have some compassion and put this into perspective.

[Guaranteed]

72. Let anarchy reign supreme!

I think we need to maintain order there.

[Stewie]

75. Anarchy?

So what you're saying is that allowing the city to break down into civil disorder is the way to go?

Sorry, but if you start telling people it's okay to steal because enforcing the law is incovenient you're going to make the situation even worse as people start turning on each other.

After all, there's not a wide degree of seperation between smashing a window to steal a radio and smashing someone's head to take their watch. Crack down on looting big-time, or you're going to develop an entirely new problem that you don't have the manpower to control.

[Mairead]

81. Read up on what anarchy means (an=without, arch=ruler)

Anarchy is the state of being without a ruler telling us what to do, so that we have to be cooperatively self-organising.

Anarchy is equated to chaos only by the rulers. They naturally don't want to be dumped from power...and possibly even dangled from a lamppost.

[lildreamer316]

76. Nom.for understatement of the month n/t

[nlik]

78. Some people are not fully thinking this through.

No matter what you say, preach, or yell stuff IS important to people. If you don't stop the looting it only reinforces the tendency for many people stay and protect their property rather than evacuate during natural disasters. The more people that don't evacuate the more lives that will be in danger. In other words stopping the looting could save lives in future natural disasters.

[Ken Burch]

80. why should we bother saving people who'd rather die

than give up a few possessions?

Seems to me we'd be better off with people like that being taken
OUT of the gene pool.

(Not that they ever WILL be, dammit...)

[nlik]

82. Even worse....

I am sure you will agree, even worse are those that will risk their lives to take some else's possessions. So by extension of your own point... taking the looters out of the gene pool would be even better.

[Ken Burch]

86. not really worth the trouble. Just get them jobs in investment banking.

They'd be right at home there.

[Mairead]

83. There's another way to do it: replace the possessions

Let people take the irreplaceable with them, and replace anything that gets stolen--the people who are poor enough to risk their lives for their uninsured possessions hardly ever have anything expensive.

[spuddonna]

89. The sad part is that...

If the National Guard had its equipment, the amphib. carriers, etc, they could be saving people while the cops were securing the peace...

But I think at this point, the understaffed police, NG, and CG are trying to save people first, worry about property damage last... which makes sense...

I just heard on WWL that they're asking for volunteers to bring flat-bottom rubber boats to a local Sam's parking lot to help with the rescue effort...

God bless the people out there trying to save those poor people...

[DeepModem Mom]

96. NPR interviewed a woman, who was looting, in tears - she can't get food...

any other way! The stores aren't open, are they? She said she never thought she'd do that. She'd watched such on TV, and said to herself, shame on them. It was heartbreaking. So many of these people interviewed are black people, who did not make it out. This is tragic, tragic.

[SunDrop23]

97. I agree.

[kbm8795]

100. Look...I understand the looting for food. . .

but the city also issued instructions Friday, Saturday and Sunday to stockpile food and water for several days. And here we are, by Monday, with looting starting and escalating on Tuesday.

Food I understand. Jeans and electronics I don't.

[Lars39]

105. If you are flat broke you can't stockpile food!!!!

I don't wish poverty on anyone, but good gawd can't you people put yourself in anybody else's shoes for just one goddamed minute?

[donheld]

102. Agree totally

It's a complete waste of resources.