Gary Drescher wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter R. wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

Why the hell were they there? Everyone in America knew that New
Orleans --
and everything for 100 miles on each side -- was about to be blasted by
Katrina.

Jay, many didn't have the economic means to escape the storm, nor a place
to which to escape. That area is about the poorest part of the US.

This argument is starting to wear a little thin as more information
becomes available. New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had a plan
for evacuating more than a million people from the city, including
providing transportation for up to 300,000 people who had no means of
getting out themselves. Neither the governor nor the mayor (who has
been very quick to blame everyone but himself) chose to implement this
plan, despite the fact they had plenty of warning and all of the needed
resources.

If that turns out to be the case, then the mayor and governor are certainly
among those at fault. But the above point still stands: whichever officials
may have screwed up, it's still the case that thousands of people were stuck
with no means of evacuation.


Of course, you will get no argument from me there. But you must have
seen the TV pictures of hundreds, maybe even thousands of buses stacked
like cordwood in the flooded areas. Why weren't they used?


The argument that people are unable to leave also weakens as we get
more and more incidents of people refusing to leave when they are
offered transportation, despite the fact that they are being told that
they will get no more food or water or medical services if they stay.

There have certainly been reports of such refusals now that the National
Guard is on the scene. I can't tell yet how widespread it is. Anecdotally,
though, the people staying put seem largely to be home owners who don't want
to abandon their (well-stocked) homes, and thus are largely distinct from
the stranded population that urgently needed prompt rescue. (Whether the
holdouts will need rescue in a few weeks remains to be seen.)

May be moot. The mayor has said that anyone who will not leave
voluntarily will be arrested. It will be interesting to see how he
accomplishes that.

You see what you want to see. It looked to me that it was all kinds of
people who would not leave, not just rich folks with property to
protect. Those who don't want to leave have been giving some
interesting, if not very relevant, reasons:

1) They don't want to leave pets.
2) They are poor and don't know how they would support themselves if
they leave.
3) Fear of the unknown/flying/boats/spiders etc.

Hmm. I wager our Scottie, Badger, could take pretty good care of
herself for a few weeks. Although I am quite attached to the dog, I
really am not willing to give up my life for her. In fact, I would
almost rather she remain on duty in the house while I am not there. She
would probably hold the rats at bay for some time.

As for the poor, they have it so good where they are? What are they
doing to support themselves there? It seems completely irrational to
me.

For the rest, two words: tranquilizer darts. :-)