"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with a
grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential ****ing
the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available. Many
foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame.

As others here have pointed out, many did not have the means to evacuate.
And even if some *do* have themselves to blame, that does not argue against
the rescue coordinators *also* being to blame. Blame is not zero-sum.

In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue
apparatus did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly
unprecedented level of disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was
to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and
protect other rescuers. Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil
authority frequently precipitates violence by some;

The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Uh, yes, despite your eloquent and incisive uppercase refutation. You didn't
see this conduct to this extent in New Orleans *before* civil authority
collapsed, did you? And surely you're aware of how often such conduct occurs
in other situations where civil authority recedes or is overwhelmed, even in
the absence of any other emergency (for example, the extensive looting and
bank robberies that immediately broke out when the Montreal police went on
strike in 1969; the vandalism and riots that frequently accompany sports
events in the US and Europe; the vandalism and rioting just for the fun of
it that have occurred at many New England colleges over the past few years;
the extensive criminal looting and violence--separate from pro- or
anti-occupation combat--in Iraq since our invasion...).

this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
sadly, it is universal.

Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves. I
haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid evidence.
But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.

In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence in
New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
authority in other times and places throughout the world, in the absence of
your favorite unfounded explanations (in the absence of welfare payments
etc.). You have not even *tried* to show that (instead of merely proclaiming
it).

--Gary