 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / September 2005The 10,000
About 10,000 people remain in New Orleasns even though it is a dangerous sewer. They absolutely refuse to leave. Why? 1. Some of them who refuse to leave have pets that they won't abandon no matter what. I can't blame them, I would not abandon my cats. 2. Some of them have homes in the New Orleans area. Yeah it may be under water right now, badlby damaged, and uninhabitable, but, you know what? It is home and they are scared for what the future brings. Some are in their 80s, now retired/in ill health/disabled and will never be able to buy a new house anywhere else. So they stay in this sewer known as New Orleans. 3. Thousands of dogs/cats/snakes/birds/etc. are abonded and are now homeless. Their owners were not allowed to bring them into shelters, onto evacuation buses, etc. 4. Some are afraid that if they leave this sewer they will wind up homeless in the middle of winter in some cold city and will freeze to death. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com > About 10,000 people remain in New Orleasns even though it is a > dangerous sewer. They absolutely refuse to leave. Why? Another reason is that they fear (for good reason) that their homes will be looted if they left. >> About 10,000 people remain in New Orleasns even though it is a >> dangerous sewer. They absolutely refuse to leave. Why? > > Another reason is that they fear (for good reason) that > their homes will be looted if they left. All good reasons, I'm sure, for those who have decided not to leave. OTOH, if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, no job, no immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and never look back. Life, as New Orleans residents knew it will never again exist, whether they stay or leave.  SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four, unless there are three other people. > All good reasons, I'm sure, for those who have decided not to leave. OTOH, > if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, no job, no > immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and never look back. And you'd abandon your main asset-your home? >> All good reasons, I'm sure, for those who have decided not to leave. >> OTOH, if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, >> no job, no immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and >> never look back. > > And you'd abandon your main asset-your home? Most likely it wouldn't be habitable. I would not have a job nor prospects for one any time soon, and wouldn't be able to pay for it. What would be the point of staying? One way or the other, I wouldn't have a home. SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four, unless there are three other people. >Most likely it wouldn't be habitable. I would not have a job nor prospects >for one any time soon, and wouldn't be able to pay for it. What would be the >point of staying? One way or the other, I wouldn't have a home. Lets see dead in New Orleans from hunger, thirst, toxix waste, etc. Or dead in Minnesota frozen to death in the middle of winter. Which would you choose? ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com >>Most likely it wouldn't be habitable. I would not have a job nor >>prospects for one any time soon, and wouldn't be able to pay for it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which would you choose? None of the above. You seem to be stuck in Minnesota. What makes you think that everyone is being shipped to Minnesota. There are numerous warmer states where people could get a fresh start. Some are alead in Arizona, more could be. So, assuming you have a home in New Orleans that you own and is even paid for, but it has either been totally destroyed or made totally uninhabitable by toxic waste, where would you stay if you stayed in New Orleans? There is also no prospect of a job, no power, no shopping, etc. How would you exist? You can deal with your insurance from a distance, while you try to put what's left of your back together. OTOH, if you had little or nothing before the flood, chances are you have absolutely nothing afterwards. Again, where ya gonna stay and what are ya gonna do? SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day. Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974 >You seem to be stuck in Minnesota. What makes you think that everyone is >being shipped to Minnesota. There are numerous warmer states where people >could get a fresh start. Some are alead in Arizona, more could be. You do realize that if you go to a city outside of New Orleans (pick a city, any city) there is lots of homelessness, lots of poor, etc.? >So, assuming you have a home in New Orleans that you own and is even paid >for, but it has either been totally destroyed or made totally uninhabitable >by toxic waste, where would you stay if you stayed in New Orleans? There >is also no prospect of a job, no power, no shopping, etc. How would you >exist? Lets see unemployed in Lousianna, California, Florida, or any of the other states. You do realize there are 50 states, all have lots of unemployment? Homeless? >You can deal with your insurance from a distance, while you try to put >what's left of your back together. You're living under the dilusion these people have insurance. Alot of the victims in the region are very poor, they can't afford luxiuries like insurance. >OTOH, if you had little or nothing before the flood, chances are you have >absolutely nothing afterwards. Again, where ya gonna stay and what are ya >gonna do? Yeah you may have had little before hte flood. But al least you had a roof over your head. Now they don't even have that. You do realize not everyone in the US is rich? ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com >>You seem to be stuck in Minnesota. What makes you think that everyone >>is being shipped to Minnesota. There are numerous warmer states where >>people could get a fresh start. Some are alead in Arizona, more could >>be. > You do realize that if you go to a city outside of New Orleans (pick a > city, any city) there is lots of homelessness, lots of poor, etc.? Of course I do, but those cities have working infrastructures, communications, etc., everything that New Orleans presently does not. >>So, assuming you have a home in New Orleans that you own and is even >>paid for, but it has either been totally destroyed or made totally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other states. You do realize there are 50 states, all have lots > of unemployment? Homeless? You and I both know that every city has unemployment and the homeless. New Orleans, however, is completely incapable of supporting life at the present time. >>You can deal with your insurance from a distance, while you try to put >>what's left of your back together. > You're living under the dilusion these people have insurance. > Alot of the victims in the region are very poor, they can't afford > luxiuries like insurance. I'm under no delusions. Some people have insurance, but probably most do not. However, if you also have lost your home, what the hell difference does it make where you go? You couldn't possibly be any worse off anywhere else. >>OTOH, if you had little or nothing before the flood, chances are you >>have absolutely nothing afterwards. Again, where ya gonna stay and what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You do realize not everyone in the US is rich? I know that I'm not, and I suspect that most people are not. I simply don't know where you're coming from. I don't know how you could possibly believe that anyone would actually be better off staying within the city of New Orleans. There is nothing there for the present. Or, possibly you didn't know there was a hurricane and flood. SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ Okay, okay, I take it back! UnScrew you! >> You do realize that if you go to a city outside of New Orleans (pick a >> city, any city) there is lots of homelessness, lots of poor, etc.? > >Of course I do, but those cities have working infrastructures, >communications, etc., everything that New Orleans presently does not. Tell that to the people in cities that have high unemployment rates, have deteriorating infrastructures, etc. You go into a poor city like Lawrence MASS., Lowell MASS. Brockton MASS. you'll find a very poor city, very high unemployment, high crime, deteriorating infrastructructures, etc. >You and I both know that every city has unemployment and the homeless. New >Orleans, however, is completely incapable of supporting life at the present >time. Well if you're homeless in New York, Detroit, Los Angeles or other cities you could well argue that city is also completely incapable of supporting life at the present time. I would note that the Bush administration tomorror will celebrate New York City (anniversary of 9/11) but on the other 364 days every city in the US can slide into the ocean for all they care. Of course it doesn't help that these cities voted for Kerry in the last election. >I'm under no delusions. Some people have insurance, but probably most do >not. However, if you also have lost your home, what the hell difference >does it make where you go? You couldn't possibly be any worse off anywhere >else. Many in the ravaged sections of Mississippi are getting the bad news, the damage is not covered by their insurance. Most have no insurace or inadequate insurance. Many are committed to staying, this is their home. They are also committed to not leaving their pets behind. >I simply don't know where you're coming from. I don't know how you could >possibly believe that anyone would actually be better off staying within >the city of New Orleans. There is nothing there for the present. > >Or, possibly you didn't know there was a hurricane and flood. I live in a large northern city in the US with lots of homelessness, lots of unemployed, and an infrastructure that is falling apart. In short one of those cities that Bush feels could just slide into the ocean for all he cares. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com >>> You do realize that if you go to a city outside of New Orleans (pick a >>> city, any city) there is lots of homelessness, lots of poor, etc.? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > In short one of those cities that Bush feels could just slide into the > ocean for all he cares. There's no point in continuing this discussion. You're like a dog with an old bone. You only cite "for instances" that you think will allow you to prove a point. Judging from this and many of your other posts, you are living in a very warped state of reality. Not all cities suffer under the conditions you describe. It's obvious that any city visited with a large influx of people will have a challenge and a certain degree of hardship, but that is not to say that it's unworkable or not feasible. The idea of any number of people staying in New Orleans at the present time is totally without merit. For many reasons it is not presently a city that is capable of supporting life, much less promoting it. You point is moot. At some point in the future when New Orleans is once again habitable, a return to the city by former residents will be not only possible, but highly desirable. Many, if not most, will return. I want to see the city rebuilt, in whatever form it is possible, as well as repopulated. Until then, the general populace does not belong there. My participation in this thread is now over. SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ Okay, okay, I take it back! UnScrew you! >There's no point in continuing this discussion. You're like a dog with an >old bone. You only cite "for instances" that you think will allow you to >prove a point. Judging from this and many of your other posts, you are >living in a very warped state of reality. Let me put it this way. I'm older than dirt. I've lived in lots of cities/towns/states/ over the years. As bad as New Orleans is now there are many cities around this coutnry that are detroirating and very serious prolbems. George Bush today will celebrate New York City while the other 364 days of the year New York can slide into the ocean for all he cares. I'm glad you live in a perfect world where nobody is poor/hungry/ homeless/unable to afford medications/etc. >Not all cities suffer under the conditions you describe. Yeah cities iwth lllie white surburbs don't. The inner city looks like a ghost town with lots of problems. Have you ever been to a real city? You've probably never been outside of your town of 500 people in the state of Idaho. >The idea of any number of people staying in New Orleans at the present time >is totally without merit. For many reasons it is not presently a city that >is capable of supporting life, much less promoting it. You point is moot. After 9/11 some said they would never leave New York. They vowed to rebuild. Why is it OK to say that for New York but not for New Orleans? Why is it OK to rebuild New York, Calfornia, Florida, Tornado Alley but not New Orleans? One word: black: 67% of the population for New Orleans is black. I would add they could have built 10 levvys around New Orleans for what they spent on pork elsewhere. IMHO if you goto the gulf coast 10 years from now New Orleans will be rebuilt about 100+ miles to the north, what is currnetly New Orleans will be one huge Oil Refinery city. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com >>There's no point in continuing this discussion. You're like a dog with >>an old bone. You only cite "for instances" that you think will allow [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > will be rebuilt about 100+ miles to the north, what is currnetly > New Orleans will be one huge Oil Refinery city. PLONK! SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ Okay, okay, I take it back! UnScrew you! >What makes you think that everyone is >being shipped to Minnesota. They are going to 25 different states. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com >>What makes you think that everyone is being shipped to Minnesota. > They are going to 25 different states. You're the one that was focusing on Minnesota, not me. SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ Okay, okay, I take it back! UnScrew you! >And you'd abandon your main asset-your home? Many in the New Orleans area are reluctant to leave. They own the house. If they leave they may never own another house, may well be homeless in Minnesota with 6 feet of snow, 60 degree below zero temparatures. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com > All good reasons, I'm sure, for those who have decided not to leave. OTOH, > if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, no job, no > immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and never look back. And you'd abandon your main asset-your home? >> All good reasons, I'm sure, for those who have decided not to leave. >> OTOH, if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, >> no job, no immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and >> never look back. > > And you'd abandon your main asset-your home? I think I already answered that. :-) However, many people who stayed don't have the asset of a home either. They are renters. SignatureWayne Boatwright *¿* ____________________________________________ My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four, unless there are three other people. >if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, no job, no >immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and never look back. >Life, as New Orleans residents knew it will never again exist, whether they >stay or leave. If I were 85 years old, retired, already overwhelmed with expenses, too ill to work i'd want to leave my home (no matter how bad it is) to go to Minnesota or some other state where I will be summarily be dumped out on the street in February when the snow is six feet high, the temperatures struggle to get above 50 below zero, and heating oil is the most expensive it has ever been. Many people are at the Houston Astro dome. They want to empty the Houston Asto dome by the next couple of weeks so they can have a football game there. As of now these people have no home to go back to, no job to go back to, and in many cases no family left to go back to. They rush to rebuild California, Florida, tonado alley after a disaster, but all of a sudden because these people are poor, minorities, they aree ballking at paying for it. If it was Haliburton that was destroyed, the Bush administration would trip over themselves to rebuild for them, give them huge tax breaks, and give them rebuilding grants. Poeple in this country are hypocrites, they balk at giving poor a few measly thousands while they give huge corporations $60 million for planes that don't fly, guns that don't shoot, etc. They won't do squat with the coporation but by golly they'll throiw the poor in jail. ------------------------------------------ http://www.barnabascollins.blogspot.com > >if I were faced with a potentially deadly environment, no money, no job, no > >immediate prospects, etc., I'd want to get the hell out and never look back. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > etc. They won't do squat with the coporation but by golly > they'll throiw the poor in jail. In Australia we have a federal assisted state by state department (government) called The Housing Commission. These government bodies provide housing for those genuinely unable to provide their own. These may take the form of houses or in city areas, large apartment complexes. Some of these do have their problems with law and order. All of our Aboriginies live in these, with the exception of a small percentage who prefer to live on reserves in a more traditional way of life. I think in the US these housing developments are called "projects"? Surely an answer for these souls along with their pets, can be found,..firstly perhaps as housing stock is procured, in a tent city where billeting has failed to provide enough? A reasonable rent is charged out here consistant with the dweller's ability to pay. We have a social security system which provides for the unemployed and disabled around $250week for singles and $200 for the partnered (total $400 week for a couple). This type of system does take a chunk out of our annual budget to the tune of 1/3 of all expenses,..and includes pharmacuetical subsidies, safety-nets and free health care for all. A lot of critisism is lodged against this system,..but after 60+ yrs of existence, its a political hot potato which no party wants to change. In recent years there has been a massive tightening of our SS system as it was blowing-out. People are not allowed to bludge on the system etc. This has cleaned out a lot of people who were just living off the 'system while capable of going it alone. The housing part of this system tho, should be retained for all who can't provide their own shelter. Rent subsidies has also been popular where housing stock for the various Housing Commisions fall short. Jason |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.