Hurricane relief

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
I do expect folks to take care of themselves when they're able, and I
expect private charity to take care of those who are not able. ...
It sounds cold, but the federal government should have very
little to do with a relief effort such as the one along the gulf coast.

You think rescue from a widespread natural disaster should be left to
*private charity*? And if the charities are not up to the task, should the
victims just be left to die in the streets?

Do you acknowledge *any* legitimate domestic purpose of government, apart
from subsidizing the recreation of private pilots? (Virtually every
right-wing aviator who posts here is in favor of continued government
intervention to prevent market forces from converting airport real estate to
more profitable uses.)

--Gary

"john smith" wrote in message
.. .
That's called scrounging. Losing everything you already have is a
contingency.
How many times did you see the helicopters going to check out what was
causing smoke? Every time didn't they?
Want to get rescued first? As soon as you see or hear the helicopters
flying, start a fire with thick black smoke, someone will come to see what
it is. What do you think is easier to see, someone waving their arms as a
helicopter goes cruising by, or a column of black smoke a couple miles
away?

You're weaving an astounding fantasy here. There were people atop houses
throughout the flooded city, painting SOS messages on rooftops and waving
large white sheets that were plainly visible, but to no avail, because the
rescuers were not there. Moreover, 20,000 people had followed the
authorities' instructions to take shelter in a stadium (which they were then
forbidden to leave because of the rising flood waters) where they found
themselves trapped for days without food, water, or lights, with
temperatures in the upper 90s, immersed in raw sewage and surrounded by the
decaying corpses of people who had already died of dehydration. And you want
them to *light fires* to call attention to themselves?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
You're weaving an astounding fantasy here. There were people atop houses
throughout the flooded city, painting SOS messages on rooftops and waving
large white sheets that were plainly visible, but to no avail, because the
rescuers were not there. Moreover, 20,000 people had followed the
authorities' instructions to take shelter in a stadium (which they were then
forbidden to leave because of the rising flood waters) where they found
themselves trapped for days without food, water, or lights, with
temperatures in the upper 90s, immersed in raw sewage and surrounded by the
decaying corpses of people who had already died of dehydration. And you want
them to *light fires* to call attention to themselves?

No. This thread has digressed from the failure of individuals and
governments to make the right decisions in the face of impending
disaster to a treatise on survival skills. It has gotten way off topic.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_1sSe.4062$aG.3295@trndny01...
Blanche wrote:

You are insensitive and arrogant.

and probably too stupid to listen to you. Thanks for trying.

Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against
evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be
persuaded.

I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the
public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not
surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and
elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of
the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some
unusually unguarded commentary.

I do hope and expect, though, that as the inhumane victim-blaming cruelty of
the right-wing agenda makes itself more boldly visible, their "let them eat
cake" sentiment toward compatriots in a dire emergency will prove
sufficiently shocking and revolting to most people to create a political
turning point.

--Gary

john smith wrote:
Gary Drescher wrote:

You're weaving an astounding fantasy here. There were people atop
houses throughout the flooded city, painting SOS messages on rooftops
and waving large white sheets that were plainly visible, but to no
avail, because the rescuers were not there. Moreover, 20,000 people
had followed the authorities' instructions to take shelter in a
stadium (which they were then forbidden to leave because of the rising
flood waters) where they found themselves trapped for days without
food, water, or lights, with temperatures in the upper 90s, immersed
in raw sewage and surrounded by the decaying corpses of people who had
already died of dehydration. And you want them to *light fires* to
call attention to themselves?


No. This thread has digressed from the failure of individuals and
governments to make the right decisions in the face of impending
disaster to a treatise on survival skills. It has gotten way off topic.

And failure of individuals and governments was ever ON TOPIC for r.a...
groups? :-)

Matt

Gary Drescher wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_1sSe.4062$aG.3295@trndny01...

Blanche wrote:

You are insensitive and arrogant.

and probably too stupid to listen to you. Thanks for trying.


Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against
evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be
persuaded.

I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the
public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not
surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and
elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of
the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some
unusually unguarded commentary.

Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is
why you mainly see black people on the roofs. It doesn't help the
agenda nearly as much to show a balanced cross section of those in
desparate straits. Just as in Iraq where the mainstream media only
shows you the car bombings and aftermath, but almost never shows you the
kids in schools, the kids in parks built by the military, etc. If you
really believe that what you are seeing on TV from the areas devastated
by Katrina is representative, then I feel very sorry for you as you have
been duped to the highest degree.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is why
you mainly see black people on the roofs. It doesn't help the agenda
nearly as much to show a balanced cross section of those in desparate
straits.

Huh? Are you actually not aware that the vast majority of people stranded in
New Orleans are black? You think the journalists are just hiding the
pictures of the white folks when they pan their cameras down the streets or
around the stadium?

--Gary

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is
why you mainly see black people on the roofs. It doesn't help the
agenda nearly as much to show a balanced cross section of those in
desparate straits.

Hee-hee!

That must be why Fox News was showing so many pictures of stranded black
people in New Orleans. They've turned liberal!

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is why
you mainly see black people on the roofs. It doesn't help the agenda
nearly as much to show a balanced cross section of those in desparate
straits.


Huh? Are you actually not aware that the vast majority of people stranded in
New Orleans are black? You think the journalists are just hiding the
pictures of the white folks when they pan their cameras down the streets or
around the stadium?

Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet
shown on a roof waiting. Are you actually not aware that the media
shows what is controversial rather than what actually is?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is
why you mainly see black people on the roofs. It doesn't help the agenda
nearly as much to show a balanced cross section of those in desparate
straits.


Huh? Are you actually not aware that the vast majority of people stranded
in New Orleans are black? You think the journalists are just hiding the
pictures of the white folks when they pan their cameras down the streets
or around the stadium?

Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet
shown on a roof waiting. Are you actually not aware that the media shows
what is controversial rather than what actually is?

The news media craves dramatic imagery. Every available photograph of people
stranded on the roofs of nearly submerged houses is dramatic enough to get
wide circulation. Do you really suppose the media is suppressing the photos
of white people on rooftops?

More importantly, do you have a shred of *evidence* to support such a
supposition? (For example, have you found such suppressed photos in the
right-wing news outlets or blogs?) And can you explain why the images of the
hurricane victims more generally (apart from the handful of available
rooftop photos) do *not* exclude the minority of white victims, if there's a
liberal conspiracy to show only the black ones?

It's not enough that the victims of this natural disaster are being blamed
by some. You've even figured out a way to blame the news media for *showing*
the victims if the victims are disproportionately black.

--Gary