The comfortably well-off evacuated their pets - animals, not people.

[TahitiNut]

Many of the impoverished jeapordized themselves for the pets and people they loved.

If there's a difference in morality and world-views, that's surely one of them.

While I'd rather see such observations in-line in other threads, it seems we need to have them packaged and delivered like this, if only for "talking points." I apologize if I'm misguided in thinking this.

[KoKo]

1. Tahiti...didn't understand your post... could you give more info?

sorry...I'm in :crazy: mode...here.

[TahitiNut]

12. I think it's a matter of priorities ... and the luxury of choices.

:shrug: FYI - I'm a dog-lover (and animal-lover), but I'd have a very hard time leaving people behind while I took my pet. Yes, I could certainly rationalize it and make-believe that other people should take care of themselves and "it won't be that bad" and a bunch of other things. But I think my conscience would plague me if I were an evacuee who KNOWS someone who stayed behind and lost their life because I didn't try hard enough to help them - and took my dog instead.

If not "Sophie's Choice," it might be called "Lassie's Choice"? :evilgrin:

I just picture an SUV loaded with pet and luggage headed to a comfortable Motel (where pets are welcome) ... and compare it with the people trying to board a bus and being told "no pets." It troubles me - the difference in choices that face the have's vs. the have-not's.

[KoKo]

17. Okay....got what you meant...here's me...

I'd keep my two Siames Cats over comperable two of my fundie, craven, Bush loving relatives.

If it came down to it...I think given what I've seen over the Bush years...I'd float away down the flood with my two Siamese clinging to me and figure my Bush loving relatives have resources that will take care of them.

I go with my Siamese... What's that Biblical Reference? "Whiter though go'est goes thou." Was that Ruth or Esther...I can't remember..(maybe it was neither)but my two kitties have been better companions to me than many of my close "blood relations."

Who would I try to save? There's no question for me. :shrug: Harsh and cruel that might sound...but I know that some of my relations would abandon me in the same circumstance. So, maybe I've given into the "Eye for an Eye...Tooth for a Tooth" Bibilical Crowd...but ...whatever...my hubby, Siamese and me ...floating down that cesspool or dying in that attic if it came to that...

I hope I would find another alternative...but I've thought about the darkest end...so that's my conclusion. :shrug: for what it's worth.

[Pool Hall Ace]

25. Well, there is no shortage of selfish people on Earth, but

in fairness, we don't know how many actually did offer to help the less fortunate evacuate.

While channel surfing today, I came across someone who said that there are *still* people who do not want to leave (even though I think they would change their mind if they were aware of the potential for disease outbreaks).

Should a storm be heading my way, I would certainly offer to help others evacuate, but if they turn me down, there is only so much time I can spend trying to persuade them otherwise.

And my pet is part of my family. There is no way I could leave him behind in order to make room for an extra person.

I certainly hope no one tries to prioritize people. Can you imagine a guardsman saying, "Sorry, you can't bring your sick Grandma. She's going to die soon anyway; just leave her behind." Of course not. Or, "Sorry, no infants. But don't worry, you can shoot out another one in nine months."

My heart breaks for those who did not have the means to evacuate before the storm hit, but I doubt there was much that the earlier evacuees could have done to ease the situation.

[hlthe2b]

2. So, they have in common their love/devotion for their pets....

Are we to be angry because those with the means took their pets?

The issue is that the ability to be evacuated when ones life is at risk should be there, regardless of class, race, financial means. The issue also is that we, as a people have a responsibility for these animals. They must be planned for in mass evacuations as well. It can not be an either/or. I would die for my human and pet family members as well.

[NAO]

3. Point is valid in a sense, but let's not drag pets into the blame game

It is noble that the people who could evacuate also took their pets.

It is also noble that the people who could not evacuate stayed to protect their pets.

It is tragic that the people that could evacuate did not help those who could not and their pets too.

The moral fault is in the greed - me, mine, screw you; there is nothing wrong with saving your pets - you ought to also try to save others and their pets too.

[Milspec]

4. My dumb look here is still free...

What are you talking about? :dunce:

[ellenfl]

5. i THINK the point is that the well-off took their pets but

not other human beings . . . those who could not get out themselves.

ellen fl

[Southsideirish]

10. We can put our pet in a carrier and put that on the luggage -can we do

that with a person? (This is in a "pinch", of course, not the ideal way to transport a pet) In in an emergency I could put my dog in his sherpa bag, put that on my shoulder, and still carry two suitcases.

[LisaL]

27. Pets can not get out by themselves either.

A lot of people consider their pets family. How hard it is to get it trough your head?
They are family, it would be the same as living human children behind.

[Pool Hall Ace]

6. I smell flamebait.

[Southsideirish]

11. Me, too!

[pitohui]

22. me three this is cruel pot-stirring of the worst sort

my pets came in tiny cat carriers, we could not have fit another person in our vehicle, i barely got my husband into my car after we had to leave his vehicle behind for lack of gas

ppl a thousand miles from the situation should just stfu if all they have to do is stir shit

[Carni]

7. Someone needs to invent a device where pets can be safely transported

ON TOP of one's vehicle--I doubt it would be that difficult to do and in these types of situations people could utilize maximum space IN the vehicle.

[DBoon]

8. Keep the pets inside the vehicle

tie the extra humans to the luggage rack on the top.

Accomplishes the same end.

[Carni]

16. You've actually got a valid point

My pets give me way less grief than *these people* I live with most of the time (and kids can probably take on more wind)

Before anyone calls CPS this was just a joke (a bad one but a joke none the less)

[Lorien]

9. Gee, I'm hardly well off, and I evacuated last year

from two hurricanes. I took my three cats and everything I needed to keep my life/business going if my home was destroyed (what I could stuff in my '94 Toyota). I guess that makes me a horrible, selfish person. :eyes:

[FlaGranny]

14. Indeed, you are so selfish -

you could have saved 1/10th of a person in the space your cats took up.

I'm with you - I take my small dog or I don't go myself. It's just that simple. I evacuated twice last year, too.

[Brightmore]

13. So, the well-off should have not taken their pets?

[Jawja]

15. I wouldn've taken my cat, too.

I don't see anything wrong with people taking their pets, as they are part of the family. That's why so many would not leave their pets.

[Coventina]

18. The bottom line is that the GOVERNMENT failed these people

We had all been told that bazillions of dollars were going into Homeland Security, FEMA, etc. in order to handle situations like this.

Were "the Rich" told to take people with them as they evacuated?
I doubt it.

[expatriate]

19. Well, I wonder how many people evacuated

alone in a car, or with only a couple of people - and NO pets to take up room. Lots of empty space.

You can bet it was plenty.

[pitohui]

24. there was no empty space in the cars i passed

on what route did you evacuate?

[expatriate]

28. I hope what you say is true,and I'm sure it is

My point was to make the original poster realize that there is more than one way to not use up the car space available - it isn't just the overprivileged moving pets. It's possible that people didn't completely fill their cars.

I honestly thing this was probably posted to start a flame war. I don't want to add to that. My temper is pretty high right now, as I have someone missing in New Orleans, and there are no leads.

I didn't mean to offend - just trying to point out that pet owners might not be the reason for lack of evacuation and that overprivileged pets probably didn't take up lots of space that could have been filled with people.

[Lorien]

26. Didn't see a single vehicle like that when I evacuated last year

and I sat in traffic with them for 14 hours straight the first day. EVERY car, truck, and van was packed to the windows-most couldn't see out the back. When you believe that your home won't be there when you return it's amazing what you can cram into a very small space (clothing for a few weeks, photo albums, essential papers, medications, a handful of family heirlooms, and yes-your pets). None of it goes to waste.

[expatriate]

29. I understand. That has been my experience when

evacuating places as well.

I was pretty pissed at the OP. I'm tired of the pets vs. people threads, and I'm also frantic about a missing family member in New Orleans. I think it's time for me to get off DU for a while.

My point was that there might have been other ways that potential space for evacuating people than car space taken up with pets. I didn't mean to insinuate that people evacuated from New Orleans in empty cars.

Personally, I would take my pets, and cram in as many people as I could as well. They'd all have to sit together. I evacuated from a blizzard with three large people, and four goats in the cab of a small pickup truck once. Amazing what you can do when you need to.

Now, gonna go look for my son some more.

[pitohui]

20. i'm just curious

am i poor enough to escape yr judgment for having evacuated my pets & my family

just wondering

at what point is a person too rich to be considered a moral being if you evacuate yr own family before others

i'd really like to know cuz on the other thread people were being slammed if they didn't evac their pets

i don't know what you mean by comfortably well-off, there are damned few rich people in new orleans with fleets of automobiles to distribute around the neighborhood every time there's a storm in the gulf

[Redstone]

31. Very, very well said. Much better than I said it below.

I know you've got it rough right now. PM me with an address and a list of what you could use, if there's any way I can mail, UPS, or otherwise send you anything you need.

Redstone

[LisaL]

21. WTF is your point? Are you suggesting these people should

have dumped their pets because they are well-off?
And WTF is your problem? If I was evacuating, I wouldn't leave my pets, and I am not well-off.

[Jawja]

23. Exactly.

My cat IS my family. My cat goes. End of story. No one should be faulted for taking beloved pets.

[Redstone]

30. God damn it. I'm getting sick of this crap here at DU.

There was just a thread the other night wherein a TON of DUers said they'd take their pets with them, no matter what, if they had to evacuate...but if people who have a bit of money do the same thing, they're condemned?

I am just sick and fucking tired of seeing these petty, jealous threads where ANYONE who wasn't dirt-poor, and managed to get out of the city, is slammed because they did what anyone else, including every single DUer would do, given the chance. If you were in New Orleans and you had a car, you'd have gotten out. How the hell do you presume to denigrate anyone else who did so, whether they drove a fucking SUV or not?

It is a national disgrace that the poor people who don't have a car weren't able to get out of the city. I am every bit as outraged about that as anyone else.

But, dammit, that does not mean that the people who DID have cars did NOT deserve to get out. What the fuck do you want? Should they have stayed there and drowned, just because other people were going to drown?

And there was another amazingly bitter and jealous thread the other night that spat venom all over the people who were staying at the Marriott, who were taken out of the city because Marriott hired their own buses, wisely figuring out that the government was not competent to rescue their employees and guests. This poster complained about that, and made it abundantly clear that these "rich people" (like everyone who stays in a Mariott is rich, uh-huh) should have just refused to get on the bus, because they deserved to stay there and die, because they were "rich."

This fucking holier-than-thou, poorer-than-thou attitude by some people around here is disgusting.

And I'm not going to back off on this rant like I did an earlier and incorrect one of mine. This one is justified.

Whoever these "rich people" who drove out of the city "in their SUVs" are, they were just doing what they were advised by the mayor to do.

And EXACTLY what anyone here would have done.

Enough is enough, already.

Redstone

[Moderator]

32. Locking ...

This thread has run it's course.