Hurricane Katrina; Is the U.S. responding fast enough?

[Danoff]

What is being shown on tv are those few people walking out of stores with plasma tv's, who do not represent the majority of the people stuck in that situation, but are giving everyone taking things from stores a bad image because of what is being broadcast on tv.

Those are looters. They're criminals and should be jailed.

The people who are taking taking food or water from nearby stores are scavengers. They're essentially looking through trash to get sustinence. It's trash because, as you pointed out, it will be thrown away in the end anyway. They might as well use those things to keep themselves alive in the meantime.

 

[smellysocks12]

Those are looters. They're criminals and should be jailed.

The people who are taking taking food or water from nearby stores are scavengers. They're essentially looking through trash to get sustinence. It's trash because, as you pointed out, it will be thrown away in the end anyway. They might as well use those things to keep themselves alive in the meantime.

I agree, the ones who take things they don't need are criminals. The ones going around shooting people are criminals. The ones who are going around raping women are criminals. But those aren't the majority of people.



Hiphop artist and public activist Immortal Technique hits the nail on the head in "The Hand of God, Katrina's Ghost", although I don't agree with everything he said in his article:

But the public will not care, they will be split. Blacks and Latinos and poor/conscious whites shaking their heads at the way the people were treated and racist rich white people and house ****** shaking their heads at the blacks & broke people they see on TV.

http://www.viperrecords.com/

 

[Solid Fro]

They should be shot on sight.

Excuse me from taking information from CNN. I don't have a magic carpet or a Transporter to get to Louisiana personally.

 

[smellysocks12]

They should be shot on sight.

Excuse me from taking information from CNN. I don't have a magic carpet or a Transporter to get to Louisiana personally.

Then don't draw conclusions or judge people if you do not know how the situation is.



About shooting people on sight, when there is no threat to the law enforcers, there is not reason to shoot them. The justice system is there to punish people for their illegal acts when those are committed. I'm glad you are not in charge of the USA, although G.W. Bush's view unfortunately doesn't differ much from your twisted view on reality.

 

[Solid Fro]

Then don't draw conclusions or judge people if you do not know how the situation is.

Then you cannot draw conclusions on how President Bush is handling the Federal Government, because you do not know the situation in the White House.

Get a ****ing clue.

 

[smellysocks12]

Then you cannot draw conclusions on how President Bush is handling the Federal Government, because you do not know the situation in the White House.

Alright, that's true, I should have said it's the idea I'm getting while seeing how the entire government is reacting to things.


By the way, there is no reason to get rude.

 

[Danoff]

I agree, the ones who take things they don't need are criminals. The ones going around shooting people are criminals. The ones who are going around raping women are criminals. But those aren't the majority of people.

It's not about need, it's about whether it is forfeit or not. It's about whether the items are trash or they are unguarded inventory.

But the public will not care, they will be split. Blacks and Latinos and poor/conscious whites shaking their heads at the way the people were treated and racist rich white people and house ****** shaking their heads at the blacks & broke people they see on TV.

This is a very racist and overall bigoted, ignorant statement.

 

[smellysocks12]

It's not about need, it's about whether it is forfeit or not. It's about whether the items are trash or they are unguarded inventory.

In my opinion it is about need, a need that was caused by something that can't be blamed on the needy. Now if the need was caused by not having money by sitting on your ass all day smoking weed, then I can see it is a crime to take what you need. Now it isn't. If you would be hungry and desperate you wouldn't sit next to a stack of food and wait for permission to take some.

 

[Danoff]

In my opinion it is about need, a need that was caused by something that can't be blamed on the needy. Now if the need was caused by not having money by sitting on your ass all day smoking weed, then I can see it is a crime to take what you need. Now it isn't. If you would be hungry and desperate you wouldn't sit next to a stack of food and wait for permission to take some.

Are you saying that those people are justified in taking what they need from stores in Houston then?

Are you saying that if someone who was evacuated to Houston but still had nothing to keep themselves fed, would be justified in breaking into a store in the area? Need does not justify the action - the fact that it is essentially refuse forefeit by its owners justifies it.

If I were hungry and desperate it would not change my stand on this issue.

 

[smellysocks12]

Are you saying that those people are justified in taking what they need from stores in Houston then?

Are you saying that if someone who was evacuated to Houston but still had nothing to keep themselves fed, would be justified in breaking into a store in the area? Need does not justify the action - the fact that it is essentially refuse forefeit by its owners justifies it.

If I were hungry and desperate it would not change my stand on this issue.

If there is no other way to get fed, then yes, then it would be ok to take food there as well... but that is not the case, because they are being supplied with food there.


The fact that they ended up with these problems was the fault of the government not spending money on the levees. Although they weren't to be blamed for the hurricane which would have caused damage anyway, the flooding of everything isn't only caused by nature. So now it's the government's task to provide food and shelter for the victims until they have found ways to fulfill their own needs again.

 

[Famine]

Just to anticipate danoff's next post, you're saying that every citizen of the United States should be paying for people who chose to live below sea level on a hurricane track?

 

[smellysocks12]

Someone who has access to more food than he'll need himself and doesn't share it with people who would starve to death otherwise, because of having no way to get food for themselves, is the one being immoral and wrong. Personal enrichment isn't worth someone else's life, if someone thinks otherwise he is not civilized.

 

[smellysocks12]

Just to anticipate danoff's next post, you're saying that every citizen of the United States should be paying for people who chose to live below sea level on a hurricane track?

Exactly, just like every citizen in N.O. pays for the repairs after an earthquake hit San Francisco. That is what a government is for, gather funds and the distribute to parts of the nation where they're most needed. Each for his own is a very primitive way of thinking and not the concept on which the fundations of civilized societies are built.

 

[Famine]

And is the person who comes in and forces that person to share being any more moral? Come to think of it, on whose judgement can we say what food the person "needs"?

I wasn't judging moral implications - I was asking if that's what you said. And you are saying that every citizen of the US must pay for the choices of a half million people... So New Yorkers MUST pay for people who choose to live on a massive fault line.


At what point do you draw the line when giving to people who've made the wrong choices? It seems fine when there's millions on geological instabilities, or living next to the sea but under it. When does it become "Tough luck - you picked where to live"? When it's one crazy person setting up home in the caldera of an active volcano?


I'm just asking out of curiousity.

 

[smellysocks12]

And is the person who comes in and forces that person to share being any more moral? Come to think of it, on whose judgement can we say what food the person "needs"?

I wasn't judging moral implications - I was asking if that's what you said. Are you saying that every citizen of the US must pay for the choices of a half million people?

Someone in need who forces someone to share his wealth to keep him alive is more moral than someone denying someone the right to live, when having the ability to keep him alive. All I know is that if I have no other way to survive other than to be immoral, it is time for me to get immoral.

Since the USA is a democracy and the majority is for the way the tax system works, this means that every citizen should pay for the decission of those people to live there. Yes. I know you were waiting for me to say that so you can fire off an entire assault of counter arguments and bombard me with facts that would support your own opinion, but that is how I think, yes.

Why shouldn't people live there? When the structures which keep the land dry are being maintained properly this piece of land can be utilized for valuable means. It offers more value than it costs, otherwise I am sure that they wouldn't have built the levees to begin with.


90% of the Netherlands is below sea level, yet we can manage and offer a lot of value to the European Union, so why wouldn't this be possible in the USA?



... and since you edited your post I'll edit mine...


Of course a line has to be drawn, risk / cost assessment has to be made before deciding whether to build a town there. But in N.O. when properly maintained the benefits would outweigh the costs to keep the risk at a minimum. That's where the problem comes in. In the USA structures are being built to withstand events that happen once every 1,000 years. In the Netherlands the structures are built to withstand 10,000 years or more. Obviously this costs more, but when looking at the state N.O. is in right now, it is obvious that these costs do pay off. I don't hope we'll ever get to see a hurricane like that here, but with exception of a couple of villages I doubt many houses will get flooded.

 

[Zardoz]

Meanwhile, The Onion drifts over the line of tastefulness, as usual:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40305

 

[Danoff]

Someone who has access to more food than he'll need himself and doesn't share it with people who would starve to death otherwise, because of having no way to get food for themselves, is the one being immoral and wrong. Personal enrichment isn't worth someone else's life, if someone thinks otherwise he is not civilized.

The is a difference between a jerk and someone who is being immoral. I do not think that it is immoral to refuse to allow someone else's need to lay claim over your possesions. I DO, however, think that it is immoral to FORCE someone else to do something for you. Like work for you, or give you the products of their work.

Charity is by definition voluntary. If it is not voluntary it is slavery.

 

[Danoff]

Someone in need who forces someone to share his wealth to keep him alive is more moral than someone denying someone the right to live, when having the ability to keep him alive.

You have no right to be kept alive. You have a right not to be killed. There is a difference. The former invovles infringing the rights of others.

 

[smellysocks12]

The is a difference between a jerk and someone who is being immoral. I do not think that it is immoral to refuse to allow someone else's need to lay claim over your possesions. I DO, however, think that it is immoral to FORCE someone else to do something for you. Like work for you, or give you the products of their work.

Charity is by definition voluntary. If it is not voluntary it is slavery.

I already know that is what you think. What can I say, other than that I don't agree with you?

You have no right to be kept alive. You have a right not to be killed. There is a difference. The former invovles infringing the rights of others.

All I know is that when I'm starving and you're standing in between of myself and a snickers bar, which you don't need and is the only way for me to survive, is that I'll go through you if I have to.

By the way I never ever stole something in my entire life, but if it is a matter of life or death, I will take the risk of getting shot trying to get to that snickers bar, since you are probably carrying a gun (being the American that you are), because getting my head blown off is probably a more comfortable death than starving to death.



So give me that god damn snickers bar!!!

 

[Zardoz]

And is the person who comes in and forces that person to share being any more moral? Come to think of it, on whose judgement can we say what food the person "needs"?

I wasn't judging moral implications - I was asking if that's what you said. And you are saying that every citizen of the US must pay for the choices of a half million people... So New Yorkers MUST pay for people who choose to live on a massive fault line.


At what point do you draw the line when giving to people who've made the wrong choices? It seems fine when there's millions on geological instabilities, or living next to the sea but under it. When does it become "Tough luck - you picked where to live"? When it's one crazy person setting up home in the caldera of an active volcano?


I'm just asking out of curiousity.

That's like saying "So Californians must pay for people who choose to live in a prime terrorist target?"

There are very few regions in the U.S. that are not subject to some sort of natural disaster:

Northwest: Volcanic region
West Coast: Active seismic region
Western forest and plains: Wildfires
Texas: Tornados and hurricanes
Southern Midwest: Tornados and river flooding
Northern Midwest: Severe winter storms
Gulf Coast: Hurricanes
Southern East Coast: Hurricanes
Northeast: Severe winter storms
Alaska: Active seismic region

So everybody who lives in those areas has made "wrong choices"? The Oklahoma town that is demolished by a tornado is full of people who simply chose the wrong place to live, so screw 'em?

 

[ledhed]

Someone who has access to more food than he'll need himself and doesn't share it with people who would starve to death otherwise, because of having no way to get food for themselves, is the one being immoral and wrong. Personal enrichment isn't worth someone else's life, if someone thinks otherwise he is not civilized.

No they are communist .

Ahhh Zardoz...the onion cracks me up...I needed that..

 

[Zardoz]

More relief effort horror stories:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9260412/

Who's in charge here? Anybody? This is really sad.

 

[ledhed]

Ummm why ask ? The aswer is in the artcle you linked to .

The decision was just one of many questionable calls, at all levels of government, which delayed or deprived victims of desperately needed help.

She was in charge she made a decision subject to second guessing. Fleeing to high ground must have seemed like the thing to do at the time .

 

[Zardoz]

Another take on FEMA, Homeland Security, obsession with terror, etc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9260412/

(By the way, led, did you read the whole article? What about the rest of it? That's what I was talking about. Is she responsible for the medical teams and the trailers?)


EDIT: Wrong link. Sorry...

 

[a6m5]

That's like saying "So Californians must pay for people who choose to live in a prime terrorist target?"

There are very few regions in the U.S. that are not subject to some sort of natural disaster:

Northwest: Volcanic region
West Coast: Active seismic region
Western forest and plains: Wildfires
Texas: Tornados and hurricanes
Southern Midwest: Tornados and river flooding
Northern Midwest: Severe winter storms
Gulf Coast: Hurricanes
Southern East Coast: Hurricanes
Northeast: Severe winter storms
Alaska: Active seismic region

So everybody who lives in those areas has made "wrong choices"? The Oklahoma town that is demolished by a tornado is full of people who simply chose the wrong place to live, so screw 'em?

Good point. I just want to add that Northwest is expected to get hit by a catastrophic earthquake. Problem is, it was discovered that Northwest region gets hit every few hundred years, so we are not sure if it's coming tomorrow or next the century. I hope it's the next century.

 

[Zardoz]

Take a look at this disgusting eyewitness account:

http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_18427.shtml

 

[smellysocks12]

That story is seriously disgusting, that is not even a decent way to treat animals, let alone your fellow Americans. That police commander should be captured and his head should be speared and put on display in front of the police station to show every cop not to **** around and lie to people in a situation like this. Even in a situation like this the police is robbing good people of their basic needs. Right now, after reading this I'm so angry that I'm going to put on some loud NWA 187 on a muh****in cop music on.... and I'm not even American, if I would have been I would have been even more pissed off.



Real criminals! Stealing cars to get their asses out of hell... to jail with them! Yeah ****ing right, boo ****ing immoral hoo.






...and yes this is very immature and all but I just had to get it off my chest.

 

[James2097]

What can I say, as a moral person who doesn't live in America (and hence isn't subjected daily with the outdated civil-war era attitude of "My stuff is worth more than your life, and I'll shoot you if you are dying and try and take even a tiny part of my huge amount of stuff!"), I'd have to agree with Smellysocks quite firmly. Basically, whatever someone pinches in really desperate circumstances, it ain't right to shoot them or stop them, assuming you're in good shape yourself.

Life should always take precendence over materialism. Thats really how stupid it is. Materialism gone insane! Sounds real dumb when put like that doesn't it? If you don't agree with the way democracy works in America, or what people deem worth spending tax payers $$ on, too bad for you. They can't ask you every time they want to fund anything. If you don't agree with something in a really strong way, go live in a different country. My answer to the question regarding what is the best place to live where you are pretty much immune from natural disasters and backwards thinking gun toting idiots?

Thats an easy one. Australia. Don't believe Steve Irwin or Crocodile dundee. We hate them.

 

[Zardoz]

On-the-job training, indeed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261552/

When experienced leadership is needed most, it just isn't there. FEMA is basically being run by trainees.

 

[Swift]

That story was very sick and shows the incredible racisim and stupidity of the governments involved. If the Mayor and Govenor would've done there job, much of this wouldn't have happened.

It's twisted to take food from people when you KNOW they just lost everything they could've possibly had. Even more twisted is to lie about helping them then turn around and say "you're on your own" How is that even remotely cool? There is no evacuation, no food, water, shelter, vehicles NOTHING! They won't let them walk out of the city but won't provide vehicles either. The utter lunacy of this entire event makes me see red.

There need to be some major revisions to state and federal policy after this fiasco is over.