How Much of an Obligation should we have to the Stupid?

from JoeUser Forums

I have a memory that lasts longer than the past week.

And I can recall that Hurricane Katrina had scarcely passed the tip of Florida and made her turn to the north before the New Orleans mayor ORDERED everyone out of New Orleans.

Now, I admit to being a little less than thrilled with the concept of "mandatory evacuations", but that's the point for another article, not this one. The fact is, the residents of New Orleans had ample warning to get their heinies out of the city.

Some may have been unable to make the move. The city set up shelter at the Superdome for many of those individuals, yet many STILL chose to stay in their homes.

And yet, every night, I see helicopters flying from rooftop to rooftop of homes in which residents have been trapped in the attic or have climbed out on the rooftop and thus imperiled themselves further as they are fully at the mercy of the elements. The resources of helicopters, which could well be used to distribute aid to shelters desperately in need of supplies, are being appropriated for single person rescues because of the value we as a society place on human life. While such value is noble, it seems it would be in our best interests to consider the needs of the many over the needs of the few (damn, I hate quoting Spock in an article!).

The fact is, far too many of these people that we are spending valuable time anbd resources in saving are there because of their own stupidity. Maybe it's my naivete, but I'd figure anyone able bodied enough to climb up into their attic and onto their rooftop is able bodied enough to get their butt down to emergency shelter or, better yet, out of town. The TRUE tragic losses, those of the handicapped and elderly, won't even begin to be discovered until the flooding is brought under control.

I can't say what the answer is, but I have a lot of disgust for those selfish individuals who thought only of themselves and are consuming a disproportionate share of our time and/or resources because of their own foolishness. They should be eternally grateful that our government doesn't base its decisions on who to help on the intelligence of one's actions.

3,709 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact that some did not evacuate the city does not change the fact they lost their homes. We lost a major port and the area needs to be rebuilt. If 100% of the people had gotten out, we would still be faced with a similar rebuilding effort. What would have been saved is many lives.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col and his "we" bs again. Col what exactly did you lose in this disaster?
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I lost nothing but I want our country to help thoes that did lose most, if not, everything they had. I also want us to rebuild the ports that are essential to the economy of this country. That will take money that simply does not exist given the current tax rates and the budget deficit. We can not affort the Bush tax cuts!!!!! There was never any surplus that was the reason Bush gave for passing the cuts in the first place. His $5.7 Trillion Projected surplus NEVER existed!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I lost nothing but I want our country to help thoes that did lose most, if not, everything they had. I also want us to rebuild the ports that are essential to the economy of this country. That will take money that simply does not exist given the current tax rates and the budget deficit. We can not affort the Bush tax cuts!!!!! There was never any surplus that was the reason Bush gave for passing the cuts in the first place. His $5.7 Trillion Projected surplus NEVER existed!


Then col will you send at least 80% of your income to the government?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then col will you send at least 80% of your income to the government?

Do you really not see these people as a part of your community? if you do what obligation do you have to each other? What does community mean?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
From what I'm hearing there were certainly some stupid and arrogant people who refused to leave their homes. But, there were a host of reasons, some quite legitimate, in my opinion. First of all, many of those people endured Hurricane Camille, and thought well, we endured that one, so we can endure this one. It was a wrong decision, in hindsight, and they are well aware of that, if they survived. Others were warned that if they left, they'd lose jobs and/or housing. These are dirt poor people who were more afraid of the reality of losing jobs and homes, rather than the posibility of losing lives. Finally, there were those who were basically infirm, shut-ins. Calling them stupid is rather harsh. In a city like NYC, I'd bet there are thousands of shut-ins who would not make it out.

It's easy to sit back and pass judgment when we really don't know the circumstances. And generalizing them all as stupid is really not very smart.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't say what the answer is, but I have a lot of disgust for those selfish individuals who thought only of themselves and are consuming a disproportionate share of our time and/or resources because of their own foolishness.


although i know you didn't intend it as such, that statement is equally accurate and appropriate if applied to the executive and legislators who provided only 1/3 to 1/5 of the hurricane protection funding for new orleans requested by the us army corps of engineers from 2001 thru 2005.

for that matter, your title could as easily apply to anyone who voted for those who cut the requested funding.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Increasing the funding for New Orleans would not have stopped what happened. The Army Corp of Engineers has already stated that.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree. And as far as claiming that all these 'poor' people simply couldn't get out--why do I see thousands of cars lining some of these streets?


i dunno how much time you've spent there, but i'm inclined to believe the new orleans times-picayune has a better feel for its city. three years ago, the paper envisioned the consequences of just such a catastrophic flood (for which they were criticized for being alarmists). here's how they saw it then:

"Once it's certain a major storm is about to hit, evacuation offers the best chance for survival. But for those who wait, getting out will become nearly impossible as the few routes out of town grow hopelessly clogged. And 100,000 people without transportation will be especially threatened."

25% of the households in the lower 9th have annual incomes of $10k or less. a used kia sells for about that don't it?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top


And 100,000 people without transportation will be especially threatened."
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which Nagin failed to do, of course, letting all those buses just sit there. Seems to me he was thinking Pres Bush and the FEMA folks were being "alarmists."


And yet they still continue to blame Bush.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Idiot people elect idiot mayors."


And then make Jesse Jacksons out of them when they later, long after their negligence, rant at a press conference for people to help.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Increasing the funding for New Orleans would not have stopped what happened. The Army Corp of Engineers has already stated that.


Your naivete and blind allegiance are astounding. Any military person would lie to save his Commander-in-Chief's ass.

Grammar correction.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your naivete and blind allegiance is astounding. Any military person would lie to save his Commander-in-Chief's ass.


So you are saying this person is lying? Do you have proof to back that up?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you are saying this person is lying? Do you have proof to back that up?


Can you prove he isn't?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Any military person would lie to save his Commander-in-Chief's ass... Can you prove he isn't?"


Someone accuses someone of lying, and then claims the burden of proof is on the person accused? LOL. That's insipid, even for you.

I don't want to hear any of our closet radicals say anything about the press and Natalie Holloway ever again. They've certainly turned a few square miles into the Natalie Holloway of this disaster. Worse, they've done it not because they give a damn, but because it lends to their politics.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am to busy spending 30,000 to remodle my 4year old home to give anything to the stupid, I gace at the office,. I do not want to have to be coerced to give, we give because we want to.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Increasing the funding for New Orleans would not have stopped what happened. The Army Corp of Engineers has already stated that.


oh really?

not according to this article in editor & publisher Link

it's not at all that simple as you'll learn when you find your way there to see:

When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

does the name al naomi ring any bells, dog?

n early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for.

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you have proof to back that up?


read above pls.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Someone accuses someone of lying, and then claims the burden of proof is on the person accused? LOL. That's insipid, even for you.


Why shouldn't ID have to provide proof that the ACE isn't lying?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

But, there were a host of reasons, some quite legitimate, in my opinion.

Your life is not legitimate?  Pulease!

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Someone accuses someone of lying, and then claims the burden of proof is on the person accused? . That's insipid, even for you.

It is the mantra of the left.  You are guilty until proven innocent, unless you are Bill clinton.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

oh really?

not according to this article in editor & publisher Link

Now try a non biased source.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the mantra of the left. You are guilty until proven innocent


You mean, for instance, when the police detain someone with only the suspicion that they've done something wrong while they check out the person? Then the person checks out clean and the police let him go?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now try a non biased source.


whether you approve of the source doesn't change the facts. remember doc?

this is a perfectly objective source. wanna dispute the facts, go for it.