25% of New Orleanians Would Have Stayed Regardless

[Nate C.]

I've already posted on about four different threads on this topic.

People who aren't from the South East/West don't have a clue about Hurricane preperations or evacuations. We compared everything in MS and LA to Camille. And this was worse than Camille. So many people on the MS Gulf coast just brushed off the warnings and stayed. Same in NO.

So here's what I heard from the Mayor of New Orleans today on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. They did a poll right after the last major hurricane evacuation and found out that even in a forced evacuation, 25% of the citizens of N.O. would not leave. No matter what.

So there's that.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Is Bush to blame? Yes. Are the people who willfully and freely stayed behind, even though they had options to leave and were told to leave? Yes.

Tragedy.

(Still praying and supporting. My church rawks hard. I don't have the time and space to tell everybody how great Mississippi Churches have been in this time of need, not just for MS but NO as well.)

[Donald M.]

Well of course, if someone has the means and ability to leave an area everyone is telling them will be absolutely destroyed and don't because they think it won't be that bad, they have no one to blame for the mess they're in but themselves. One only hopes those that weren't killed have learned a valuable lesson.

[SMKSPY]

But 20% of those people DON"T have the means to get out. I wish you people would just shut your mouths and stop judging these people. Come down here volunteer, see these people for yours before you say another "its your own fault comment".

[Donald M.]

But 20% of those people DON"T have the means to get out. I wish you people would just shut your mouths and stop judging these people. Come down here volunteer, see these people for yours before you say another "its your own fault comment".

Nobody said anything about anyone without the means and ability to leave. Who's judging people stuck in a devestated area they couldn't leave? No one in this thread.

If you could leave and you didn't, it is your fault.

If you couldn't, it's not.

Either way, you deserve aid and you deserve to have lived though it, though if you didn't, well, that'll learn ya!

[Tom]

Nobody said anything about anyone without the means and ability to leave. Who's judging people stuck in a devestated area they couldn't leave? No one in this thread.

If you could leave and you didn't, it is your fault.

If you couldn't, it's not.

Either way, you deserve aid and you deserve to have lived though it, though if you didn't, well, that'll learn ya!
I've never been witness to a natural disaster where the public was so quick to blame the victims.

Yes, previous studies illustrated that it's human nature for a percentage of people to stick it out. This was known and has been known for years. Because of that, there should have been increased attention paid to efforts in forcing these people to leave. The evacuation of New Orleans was the largest evacuation effort in the history of the U.S. The local government of NO (indeed, of any city) simply does not have the resources to evacuate 100,000 people. Getting these people out should have been the primary focus of the federal government for the 2 days prior to landfall in which they were in charge.

[west3man]

Nobody said anything about anyone without the means and ability to leave. Who's judging people stuck in a devestated area they couldn't leave? No one in this thread.

If you could leave and you didn't, it is your fault.

If you couldn't, it's not.

Either way, you deserve aid and you deserve to have lived though it, though if you didn't, well, that'll learn ya!
I think what SMKSPY is coming from is (assuming everybody's numbers are accurate) that saying 25% of the populace would choose to stay during a forced evacuation is misleading if 20% of the population don't have the means to do so.

There's a big difference between 20% and 25%.

[Shellhead]

I've never been witness to a natural disaster where the public was so quick to blame the victims.

Yes, previous studies illustrated that it's human nature for a percentage of people to stick it out. This was known and has been known for years. Because of that, there should have been increased attention paid to efforts in forcing these people to leave. The evacuation of New Orleans was the largest evacuation effort in the history of the U.S. The local government of NO (indeed, of any city) simply does not have the resources to evacuate 100,000 people. Getting these people out should have been the primary focus of the federal government for the 2 days prior to landfall in which they were in charge.

It's true that there is a lot of blame being directed at these victims. I've done it, too. Now, I have a better understanding of the challenges faced by these victims, making it easier to grasp why they lived and there and why they didn't or couldn't leave. There may be some racial or poverty-oriented reasons why there has been so much blame directed at these witnesses. For my part, I am disgusted that within 48 hours of the disaster, some of these victims were shooting at rescue workers or raping and killing each other. I've never been witness to a natural disaster where some victims were such violent thugs.

[west3man]

It's true that there is a lot of blame being directed at these victims. I've done it, too. Now, I have a better understanding of the challenges faced by these victims, making it easier to grasp why they lived and there and why they didn't or couldn't leave. There may be some racial or poverty-oriented reasons why there has been so much blame directed at these witnesses. For my part, I am disgusted that within 48 hours of the disaster, some of these victims were shooting at rescue workers or raping and killing each other. I've never been witness to a natural disaster where some victims were such violent thugs.
The larger the disaster, the more people affected, the more TYPES of people affected.

But, really, how many instances were there of residents shooting at rescues workers?

[Tom]

It's true that there is a lot of blame being directed at these victims. I've done it, too. Now, I have a better understanding of the challenges faced by these victims, making it easier to grasp why they lived and there and why they didn't or couldn't leave. There may be some racial or poverty-oriented reasons why there has been so much blame directed at these witnesses. For my part, I am disgusted that within 48 hours of the disaster, some of these victims were shooting at rescue workers or raping and killing each other. I've never been witness to a natural disaster where some victims were such violent thugs.
I can't find the link right now but I read an article over the weekend by a disaster expert who said that lawlessness is a byproduct of all natural disasters and was nothing new in this case. Also, the lawlessness increased precisely because there was no one on the ground to prevent it from happening.

And to date, we still have no idea what the levels of violence were. Almost all reports of rapes and shootings were anecdotal, with no eyewitnesses. That isn't to say that it didn't happen (or that it didn't happen in great numbers), but at this point we simply don't know.

[west3man]

I can't find the link right now but I read an article over the weekend by a disaster expert who said that lawlessness is a byproduct of all natural disasters and was nothing new in this case. Also, the lawlessness increased precisely because there was no one on the ground to prevent it from happening.

And to date, we still have no idea what the levels of violence were. Almost all reports of rapes and shootings were anecdotal, with no eyewitnesses. That isn't to say that it didn't happen (or that it didn't happen in great numbers), but at this point we simply don't know.
The impression, I think, is that it existence and frequency are proportional to the frequency with which we've heard people mention it.

I think that's a natural, intuitive reaction, but not necessarily an accurate one.

[Gordon Smith]

For my part, I am disgusted that within 48 hours of the disaster, some of these victims were shooting at rescue workers or raping and killing each other. I've never been witness to a natural disaster where some victims were such violent thugs.

I think it bears repeating to note that the criminal population (especially street gangs) views the absence of law enforcement as an invitation to run amok. These criminal elements will use the ongoing chaos of any disaster to engage in systematic lawlessness. Although we can't begin to accurately estimate the actual number of violent felonies that have taken place in New Orleans during the disaster, I'm betting the vast majority were committed by hardcore felons, career offenders. These felons should never be confused with the population as a whole.

[Michael P]

"The wind does not respect a fool."

Of course, in this case, that applies equally to the populace and to their President.

[fly on the wall]

But 20% of those people DON"T have the means to get out. I wish you people would just shut your mouths and stop judging these people. Come down here volunteer, see these people for yours before you say another "its your own fault comment".

I know it's wrong to play 'blame the victim' but it's even worse to candy-coat simple fact.

I'll give you that the old and the sick couldn't have walked to the Superdome but the majority of 20% could have at least walked to the Superdome.

This doesn't excuse the government for not having buses for people that didn't have cars to drive away, but just because the governent lets you down doesn't mean you just lie down and die.

Stop making excuses for the complacency and stupidity of those that didn't get the hell out while the gettin' was good. In the end we are all most responsible for our safety. It is foolish to collapse in helplessness because the government didn't come through. You are sending the wrong message to future disaster would-be victims.

I bet the next time people are told to evacuate anywhere in this country, much more people will do just that. I bet next time people are told to evacuate the government will send buses to where people don't have cars.

[Nate C.]

I think what SMKSPY is coming from is (assuming everybody's numbers are accurate) that saying 25% of the populace would choose to stay during a forced evacuation is misleading if 20% of the population don't have the means to do so.

There's a big difference between 20% and 25%.

No, in fact, the numbers have nothing to do with one another.

These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town.

[Nate C.]

I've never been witness to a natural disaster where the public was so quick to blame the victims.



Sometimes victims are to blame for their own tragedy, Tom.

If I die of obesity related illnesses at a young age leaving a wife and three children behind, it'll be a tragedy, and I'll also be to blame.

Things aren't as stark as you make them. Is the leaderships to blame for not doing more? Most certainly, but that doesn't naturally make these victims blameless.

[fly on the wall]

No, in fact, the numbers have nothing to do with one another.

These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town.

There are people that still won't leave their homes when the helicopters and boats come for them. Any way you look at it these people are as much a part of the problem as Bush, the governor, the Mayor, etc.

But expect much more of an evacuation the next hurricane that hits the US.

[fly on the wall]

I've never been witness to a natural disaster where the public was so quick to blame the victims.

Yes, previous studies illustrated that it's human nature for a percentage of people to stick it out. This was known and has been known for years. Because of that, there should have been increased attention paid to efforts in forcing these people to leave. The evacuation of New Orleans was the largest evacuation effort in the history of the U.S. The local government of NO (indeed, of any city) simply does not have the resources to evacuate 100,000 people. Getting these people out should have been the primary focus of the federal government for the 2 days prior to landfall in which they were in charge.

How political of you. You've figured out that it's all Bush's fault and not the Governor of Louisiana or the Mayor of N.O. or the people that refused to leave or refused to make an effort to leave. Henceforth you will be known as Sir Tom the Cherrypicker.

[Nate C.]

And to date, we still have no idea what the levels of violence were. Almost all reports of rapes and shootings were anecdotal, with no eyewitnesses. That isn't to say that it didn't happen (or that it didn't happen in great numbers), but at this point we simply don't know.

Yes, but as I've said before, in speaking to the law enforcement oficers that I have, it's worse, not better than what we're seeing on t.v.

And for the record, this thread wasn't about blaming the victims. This thread was about explaining human nature in connection with natural disasters.

The black mayor of a majority black U.S. city stated that he couldn't get 25% of his black constituents to leave NO MATTER WHAT in the next event of a major disaster.

And again, the whites on the Gulf Coast made the same exact mistake (only it's not getting the press, because it's less sensationalistic).

That is one of the two tradgedies of Katrina. (the other being the innept response from the Federal Government.)

[west3man]

Sometimes victims are to blame for their own tragedy, Tom.

If I die of obesity related illnesses at a young age leaving a wife and three children behind, it'll be a tragedy, and I'll also be to blame. Unless a back injury lead to the inability to exercise, maybe?

[west3man]

No, in fact, the numbers have nothing to do with one another.

These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town.
I didn't have any luck finding a reference to this. I know you said you saw it on tv, but have you any links?

[fly on the wall]

Here's a question, what would you do if it happened to you?

What if you were stuck in a low-lying area without a car and the Hurricane warning goes out to evacuate. What would you do?

[Tom]

Sometimes victims are to blame for their own tragedy, Tom.

If I die of obesity related illnesses at a young age leaving a wife and three children behind, it'll be a tragedy, and I'll also be to blame.

Things aren't as stark as you make them. Is the leaderships to blame for not doing more? Most certainly, but that doesn't naturally make these victims blameless.
I don't recall much blame being laid at the feet of the people who stayed in the towers after the planes hit.

[Tom]

How political of you. You've figured out that it's all Bush's fault and not the Governor of Louisiana or the Mayor of N.O. or the people that refused to leave or refused to make an effort to leave. Henceforth you will be known as Sir Tom the Cherrypicker.
Your ability to find things in posts that aren't there is still operating at top capacity, Boss.

[SMKSPY]

I know it's wrong to play 'blame the victim' but it's even worse to candy-coat simple fact.

I'll give you that the old and the sick couldn't have walked to the Superdome but the majority of 20% could have at least walked to the Superdome.

This doesn't excuse the government for not having buses for people that didn't have cars to drive away, but just because the governent lets you down doesn't mean you just lie down and die.

Stop making excuses for the complacency and stupidity of those that didn't get the hell out while the gettin' was good. In the end we are all most responsible for our safety. It is foolish to collapse in helplessness because the government didn't come through. You are sending the wrong message to future disaster would-be victims.

I bet the next time people are told to evacuate anywhere in this country, much more people will do just that. I bet next time people are told to evacuate the government will send buses to where people don't have cars.


You make like it sound like the Superdome is right around the block from every slum in New Orleans. It's not, very few were lucky enough to get there. I'm telling you first hand that the majority of the those people who stayed did so because they had no way of getting out of New Orleans.

I more than anyone on this board dislike those people to a certain degree because of the negative effect that they have had on New Orleans in the last 30 years, but I'll be goddamned if I'm going to blame them for a situation that they couldn't help. I will repeat for the majority of them THIS IS NOT THEIR FAULT!!!

Frankly, I am disgusted by the media's portrayed of New Orleans now as just these cess pool of violence. It's not, I've been down there, and there are alot of people helping other people. I'm also sick by how many on this board have reacted to this event. I thank you Tom and West for your understanding.

[heretic]

I know it's wrong to play 'blame the victim' but it's even worse to candy-coat simple fact.

I'll give you that the old and the sick couldn't have walked to the Superdome but the majority of 20% could have at least walked to the Superdome.You do realize how many of these people you just attributed divinity to?

Four. Fifths. Of. The. City. Was. Flooded.

IOW, you are ignoring/dismissing the numbers cut off by high waters it was nearly impossible to safely navigate without a vessel.

This doesn't excuse the government for not having buses for people that didn't have cars to drive away, but just because the governent lets you down doesn't mean you just lie down and die.No, sometimes you break into a store and steal what food seems safe.

Stop making excuses for the complacency and stupidity of those that didn't get the hell out while the gettin' was good. In the end we are all most responsible for our safety. It is foolish to collapse in helplessness because the government didn't come through. You are sending the wrong message to future disaster would-be victims.As mentioned elsewhere, I propose that you evacuate a major city without a car while towing four kids.

I bet the next time people are told to evacuate anywhere in this country, much more people will do just that. If thy can I am certain they will. My main point is a disagreement on who actually could. I bet next time people are told to evacuate the government will send buses to where people don't have cars.But will that not require tax money to impliment?

HTG

[fly on the wall]

You do realize how many of these people you just attributed divinity to?

Four. Fifths. Of. The. City. Was. Flooded.

I'm talking about before the storm when the evacuation was announced. In my opinion the able bodied people that chose to stay in their homes are jerks and they have caused a great deal of the problem since we have had to evacuate them by extremely slow and expensive.


IOW, you are ignoring/dismissing the numbers cut off by high waters it was nearly impossible to safely navigate without a vessel.

Again, I'm talking about before the storm when evacuation was relatively easy. Also, the waters in N.O. have been calm as a puddle since the day after the storm.



No, sometimes you break into a store and steal what food seems safe.As mentioned elsewhere, I propose that you evacuate a major city without a car while towing four kids.If thy can I am certain they will. My main point is a disagreement on who actually could.But will that not require tax money to impliment?

You don't need to break into a store and steal what food you need if you had evacuated before the storm hit. Well, you might need some food... But still it's better than digging through your roof and staying on your roof for 5 days.

In closing, Bush will be blamed for the slow response and he deserves it since he got all that postive press about 9-11. What exactly did he do on 9-11?

As awful as 9-11 was, they didn't have to spend a lot of time on rescuing people, the people were all dead. And 9-11 wasn't flooded afterwards or spread over 3 states.

Everywhere else Bush gets his just deserts for missing a step in Katrina, only here can we call those who refused to evacuate the ass***es that they are.

[BlairH]

Here's a question, what would you do if it happened to you?

What if you were stuck in a low-lying area without a car and the Hurricane warning goes out to evacuate. What would you do?

Simple. You grab your pre prepared bail out bag, your friends and relatives, and head for the high ground on foot.

[K'Nort]

I don't recall much blame being laid at the feet of the people who stayed in the towers after the planes hit.

There were a lot of officials telling people to stay put in the towers, though. Whereas they were telling people in New Orleans to get out.

I think another problem so many people had with being unable to leave is that it's a metropolitan area and these days, in large cities, fewer and fewer people are close to (or even know) their neighbors or have family in the area and thus many couldn't even call someone else with a car. It would even occur to them less there than in a smaller community.

One downside to the people who had every means to leave not doing so is that they are now increasing the drain on rescue resources. But it's not like they're not going through more hell than they deserve by any means, so....

[Nate C.]

I didn't have any luck finding a reference to this. I know you said you saw it on tv, but have you any links?

nope, but you can call NBC for a transcript or look for a repeat on MSNBC.

[Nate C.]

I don't recall much blame being laid at the feet of the people who stayed in the towers after the planes hit.

As well there shouldn't have been.

[west3man]

nope, but you can call NBC for a transcript or look for a repeat on MSNBC.
Thanks for the MSNBC tip.

Below is a link to the transcript from the show, I think. I've bolded the only "25" or "twenty-five" (none) text in the entire transcript and underlined some notable portions. Here are my concerns:

1) That poll was from 1998.
2) That mayor was not the mayor. He was the former mayor.
3) The references to 25% did not say they would've stayed "no matter what" and they gave reasons why people would've stayed.

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/

"MR. RUSSERT: There was a poll taken before the hurricane, and about 60 percent of the residents of New Orleans said they probably wouldn't leave if they were asked to evacuate. Many of them said they couldn't leave. They live check to check. They don't have an automobile. Should the mayor, should the governor, should the president, should everyone have been more insistent and provided the resources-- trains, planes, buses, automobiles, boats--to evacuate the city before the hurricane?

MR. MORIAL: When I was mayor in '98, we orchestrated the first evacuation of the city during Hurricane Georges. After the evacuation, we did a public opinion poll, or a poll of the citizens of the city, which demonstrated that 50 percent, approximately, evacuated. About 20 to 25 percent found themselves in shelters of last resort, which were the dome, the Convention Center, and then another 25 percent refused to go. It was always foreseeable that there would be those that would not leave. There was a marker here, Hurricane Georges going forward, that led, I must admit to, for example, changes in the city's hurricane evacuation plan which contraflowed the interstate, which, if that had not occurred, the tragedy may have even been greater.

So under these circumstances, faced with what we're faced, it was foreseeable that people would not be able to evacuate. Many of the people you saw at the Convention Center or the dome didn't have cars, didn't have means, didn't have money. And also, let's not forget, there were many who have now evacuated to hotels whose money is short, their jobs are gone. This requires a massive undertaking by our government on behalf of our own citizens. These are not, Tim, refugees. Let's not refer to them as refugees. They're citizens. They're survivors. "

[Loren]

Yes, previous studies illustrated that it's human nature for a percentage of people to stick it out. This was known and has been known for years. Because of that, there should have been increased attention paid to efforts in forcing these people to leave.

I gotta admit, I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion of the gov't, particularly the federal gov't, showing up and forcing people to leave their homes. Sticking around may be inordinately stupid, but it doesn't sit well with me when we empower the feds to prevent people from making stupid decisions. I can't help but imagine the scene of federal agents with guns going door-to-door, and innocent citizens being hauled away from their homes (in handcuffs, if necessary) because 'it's for their own good.'

I have less of a problem with the forcible removal of minors, though. The children aren't the ones making the decision to stay or go, and since we've long since decided that the state has a role in protecting the interests of minors, then I could understand the state intervening on behalf of the children.

The evacuation of New Orleans was the largest evacuation effort in the history of the U.S. The local government of NO (indeed, of any city) simply does not have the resources to evacuate 100,000 people. Getting these people out should have been the primary focus of the federal government for the 2 days prior to landfall in which they were in charge.

You say that the New Orleans city government couldn't handle the evacuation, so the feds should have. What happened to the state of Louisiana? It certainly has the resources and manpower, and I daresay that it owes a more direct duty to the well-being of its citizens than the federal government does. If I'm not mistaken, the hurricane contingency plans were supposed to be drawn up by New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.

In other words, while the federal gov't has a lot to answer for with regard to its slow response after the levees broke, I think the blame for the failure to evacuate more people falls more squarely on the shoulders of the state of Lousiana than the feds.

[Nate C.]

Thanks for the MSNBC tip.

Below is a link to the transcript from the show, I think. I've bolded the only "25" or "twenty-five" (none) text in the entire transcript and underlined some notable portions. Here are my concerns:

1) That poll was from 1998.


Thanks for finding it and posting it, West. I consider the fact that it was a 1998 poll irrelevant.


2) That mayor was not the mayor. He was the former mayor.

This is my fault. I should have been more clear. I knew that it was a former mayor but can't spell Morialis. (He was a very well respected mayor at the time; I think the current mayor is a female.)



3) The references to 25% did not say they would've stayed "no matter what" and they gave reasons why people would've stayed.

"no matter what" is not a quote, but the heart of the matter. Here's the quote that you found for me. (Thanks again.) "25% refused to go."

Surely you agree that the two statements are synonymous.

EDIT- oh, and West, that last part of your quote that you refer to applies to the 20-25% that COULD NOT, (not, WOULD NOT) leave.

My thesis, then, is that there are a large portion of N.O. citizens that could not leave, and a large portion that would not leave "no matter what". (Which is the only stated purpose of this thread. This thread is to remark and comment on those who chose not to leave and had options. And again, this applies to the Gulf Coast, mostly white, too. Many, many lives were lost on the Gulf Coast because people simply would not leave.)

[west3man]

Here's what you said:

QUOTE=Nathan Carroll
"So here's what I heard from the Mayor of New Orleans today on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. They did a poll right after the last major hurricane evacuation and found out that even in a forced evacuation, 25% of the citizens of N.O. would not leave. No matter what.

QUOTE=Nathan Carroll:
No, in fact, the numbers have nothing to do with one another.

These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town.

Thanks for finding it and posting it, West. I consider the fact that it was a 1998 poll irrelevant. Your thread title is "25% of New Oreleanians Would Have Stayed Regardless," which gave me the impression that you were saying that's what would've happened in THIS hurricane,... even if free transportation were provided.

As far as I know, that 1998 hurricane was not a Category 5, so we don't know what the residents from seven years later would've done.

This is my fault. I should have been more clear. I knew that it was a former mayor but can't spell Morialis. (He was a very well respected mayor at the time; I think the current mayor is a female.) This was another reason I thought you were talking about the current situation, not the past.

"no matter what" is not a quote, but the heart of the matter. Here's the quote that you found for me. (Thanks again.) "25% refused to go."

Surely you agree that the two statements are synonymous. First of all, we don't know WHY they refused to go. You said that it wasn't just that they COULDN'T go, but that they wouldn't have gone... NO MATTER WHAT... even with free transportation.

You qualified the statements as if they were made explicitly in the broadcast. It now appears that they weren't.

EDIT- oh, and West, that last part of your quote that you refer to applies to the 20-25% that COULD NOT, (not, WOULD NOT) leave. But none of it refers to what you explained.

My thesis, then, is that there are a large portion of N.O. citizens that could not leave, and a large portion that would not leave "no matter what". (Which is the only stated purpose of this thread. This thread is to remark and comment on those who chose not to leave and had options. And again, this applies to the Gulf Coast, mostly white, too. Many, many lives were lost on the Gulf Coast because people simply would not leave.)

You didn't present this as a thesis, Nate. You said, "These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town." If the broadcast didn't provide that qualifier, then the way you presented it was misleading.

I'm not saying any of this to insult you. I'm not saying you did this on purpose or not. I'm saying that you misrepresented the information.

[Nate C.]

You didn't present this as a thesis, Nate. You said, "These are people who would stay "no matter what" including free transportation out of town." If the broadcast didn't provide that qualifier, then the way you presented it was misleading.

I'm not saying any of this to insult you. I'm not saying you did this on purpose or not. I'm saying that you misrepresented the information.

1. I'm not insulted.
2. I'm not backpedaling. I believe that a poll taken less than 7 years ago and used by the then mayor of New Orleans is fully viable enough to describe the current circumstances. In other words, when Morialis says they wouldn't go then, I have no reason to think otherwise now. None whatsoever.

If you see that as dishonest, I'm sorry. If you see that as bad reporting or bad faith on my part, I'm sorry. To me, it makes perfect sense. You had a politician using polling data (modern, applicable scientific methods for understanding human behavior) that said what I said. Morialis knew they weren't leaving before it happened. That was his point. That was what caught my ear as I watched the broadcast.

3. If you say that I misrepresented the information, I see your point, and respectfully disagree.

EDIT-

West, I still think you and I are unclear on some things.

1. Morialis WAS talking about the current hurricane and did the same thing I did (heck, I got it from him-he inferred that they wouldn't leave.)

2. I am using the quote by Morialis as my thesis, I'm not making up one as I go along. I heard him say what I said and you quoted, and I posted on that. The man knew (intuitively if that's what you want to argue) that 25% wouldn't leave even this hurricane.

3. NO ONE knew how bad this thing was truly gonna be. I'm not suggesting that Morialis, me or those poor people down there did. I'm suggesting that irregardless of category 3, 4, or 5, some (25%) still would not have left. (I get this from his poll.) So, no, this was blind guessing all the way. What? You think they polled the night before the storm hit to determine the figure I gave? Life don't work that way, friend.

Anyway, I'm not upset, and we can still disagree, but maybe this is more clear.

[K'Nort]

Nate,

According to today's paper, Louisiana State University asked folks in New Orleans the same question in 2003 and this time the number was up to 31%. Specifically, 31% would not evacuate in the event of a category 4 or worse hurricane. Including those who said it was because they felt they had no choice in the matter.

[Nate C.]

Thanks, K.

Again, I'm not looking to place blame on victims or slander or use hyperbole; I heard the Mayor talk about that poll and knowing the South and it's firm intentions when it comes to natural disasters, it made sense to me that this was "Part" of the problem.

1998-25%, 2003-31%. That's a demographic trend.

[K'Nort]

1998-25%, 2003-31%. That's a demographic trend.

My first thought was that the local economy deteriorated during that time. Haven't confirmed, however.

[Nate C.]

My first thought was that the local economy deteriorated during that time. Haven't confirmed, however.

Well I won't be the one making a big deal out of the increase, especially since you stated that your number included those who wouldn't and couldn't, right?

[K'Nort]

Well I won't be the one making a big deal out of the increase, especially since you stated that your number included those who wouldn't and couldn't, right?

Correct. That's why I'm thinking it's a sign that the economy has gotten worse. Higher of number of people who feel they can't.

[Nate C.]

Correct. That's why I'm thinking it's a sign that the economy has gotten worse. Higher of number of people who feel they can't.

Right, so I don't wanna bang the ideological drum or anything, but the fact that a newer poll stated something very similar reflects well on what the mayor was saying.

[K'Nort]

Right, so I don't wanna bang the ideological drum or anything, but the fact that a newer poll stated something very similar reflects well on what the mayor was saying.

Oh absolutely. I was posting it as corroboration. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[Nate C.]

Oh absolutely. I was posting it as corroboration. Sorry that wasn't clear.

and if I wasn't clear, thank you for doing it. (I was just saying, in an attempt at fair mindedness- that I wouldn't misuse the data to further my point.)

[west3man]

EDIT-

West, I still think you and I are unclear on some things.

1. Morialis WAS talking about the current hurricane and did the same thing I did (heck, I got it from him-he inferred that they wouldn't leave.) You concluded that 25% of the N.O. population wouldn't leave, even with free transportation (and apparently anything else they needed).

He may have concluded some of the same things, but the messages were not the same in my estimation.

2. I am using the quote by Morialis as my thesis, I'm not making up one as I go along. I heard him say what I said and you quoted, and I posted on that. The man knew (intuitively if that's what you want to argue) that 25% wouldn't leave even this hurricane. "...regardless" or "No matter what..."

That was key and it was not reflected in the former mayor's text, from what I saw.

3. NO ONE knew how bad this thing was truly gonna be. I'm not suggesting that Morialis, me or those poor people down there did. I'm suggesting that irregardless of category 3, 4, or 5, some (25%) still would not have left. (I get this from his poll.) So, no, this was blind guessing all the way. What? You think they polled the night before the storm hit to determine the figure I gave? Life don't work that way, friend. You said after the hurricane, if I'm not mistaken. So, no, I didn't think they polled people when a hurricane was on the way.

The circumstances under which these people did, did not, or would have left are what much of the debate has been about.

[heretic]

What if you were stuck in a low-lying area without a car and the Hurricane warning goes out to evacuate. What would you do?Simple. You grab your pre prepared bail out bag, your friends and relatives, and head for the high ground on foot.
Very well genius, not explain how you handle same with Small kids
Insufficent disposable income for assembling survival kits
Sick relatives you must care for.
No real prospect of shelter... or that much food for that matter... due to lack of cash or contacts.
All. Of. The. Above.
You are single, healthy, and have resources.

So do I.

Do not take that as given before passing judgement.

HTG

[Cyke]

Sad as it is to say: me, being a college student, at my last part time job, made more yearly income than a significant chunk of the households that were caught in the storm.

Just a matter of perspective. Damn me for ever being spoiled, really.

[Tom]

Simple. You grab your pre prepared bail out bag, your friends and relatives, and head for the high ground on foot.
Can't outwalk a hurricane.

[Grant]

This doesn't excuse the government for not having buses for people that didn't have cars to drive away, but just because the governent lets you down doesn't mean you just lie down and die.

I recall seeing some buses on the news the weekend before taking people to the Superdome. THis was Sunday and everyone thought the Hurricane was going to hit Monday morning. So they probably get as many as they wanted too.

[Hoss]

Can't outwalk a hurricane.


Exactly. I'm not sure what Fly's point is - that these people should have walked out of New Orleans. Where would they go?

However, Naggin could and should have sent every bus available to the Superdome and gotten as many people as possible to leave. Now, where would they have gone? It would have been nice to have had a POTUS or a FEMA director on the phone making arrangements with other states while Nagin and Blanco got the state ready.

[Grant]

Exactly. I'm not sure what Fly's point is - that these people should have walked out of New Orleans. Where would they go?

However, Naggin could and should have sent every bus available to the Superdome and gotten as many people as possible to leave. Now, where would they have gone? It would have been nice to have had a POTUS or a FEMA director on the phone making arrangements with other states while Nagin and Blanco got the state ready.

There was also a gas shortage. Many of the people who were fleeing New Orleans by car couldn't get gas in the area. A couple cars were stuck on the freeway. So that kind of adds to the difficulty to transporting thousands of people.

[Hoss]

There was also a gas shortage. Many of the people who were fleeing New Orleans by car couldn't get gas in the area. A couple cars were stuck on the freeway. So that kind of adds to the difficulty to transporting thousands of people.


The government doesn't go to BP to fill up school buses and public buses though.

[Adam Crocker]

The government doesn't go to BP to fill up school buses and public buses though.

BP? :confused:

[west3man]

The government doesn't go to BP to fill up school buses and public buses though.
I'd think a local gas shortage would affect all local sources.

Just speculation, though. This has come up multiple times. I look forward to the day the Mayor gets a chance (/takes the time) to address the issue.

As you said, though, it's one thing to get buses and fill them with willing evacuees. It's another to have a place to take them.

[Michael P]

BP? :confused:
Gas station.

[west3man]

BP? :confused:
It's a gas station.

They took over a bunch of Shell stations about 20 years, ago. (Hopefully, "Shell's" familiar.)

[Hoss]

BP? :confused:

British Petroleum. And they actually have a fairly decent reputation for a baby killing oil conglomerate.

[Ray R.]

British Petroleum. And they actually have a fairly decent reputation for a baby killing oil conglomerate.

Well, that depends on who you're talking to. I assume we can take for granted that BP didn't price gouge gasoline prices up to as much as $6-$8 a gallon like other oil companies and independent service station owners around the country? I hear ExxonMobil and Shell each kicked in a couple of million dollars for hurricane relief -- nice to see after the billions they got in government largesse in the latest energy bill, the record profits they're showing quarter by quarter, and the latest round of gouging based on "distribution issues caused by the hurricane." The President got exposed as a complete failure, yet again, but the oil companies are falsely hand-wringing all the way to the bank, BP included. Screw BP and the rest of the bloodsucking oil companies - they should be paying for the reconstruction.

Back to the events at hand. Since I was in Moscow, Russia, for the previous ten days, I could only hear what the BBC, Economist, Financial Times and International Herald had to say, and boy, did it look bad from Europe, for America in general.

A couple of points.

1.) My understanding is that the 20% of people who did not own a car in New Orleans (or "New Bangladesh" as some of the overseas publications are calling in) were making on the average of $8,000 a year. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they DID have a car, or that they could walk the hundred miles or so, like BlairH suggested, or could dropped off by a bus somewhere. They had to drive somewhere out of harm's way, let's say Georgia. Now unless they had family to drive to in Georgia or some other state, they had to stay in a motel or hotel at least until shelter could be had, provided by state or private interests (remember, the hurricane hadn't even hit ground yet). Assuming, that motel and hotel owners wouldn't take the opportunity to jack up the rates from people streaming in at the last moment, and assuming those people driving out of New Orleans could get gas, and then they get to the front desk, and.....uh, oh. No credit card, no room, even if you can pay cash later (oh, and we don't take food stamps or personal checks). No, poor person, we don't work that way.

Now, unless credit card companies are now making a habit of giving people under the poverty line credit ("here's an $8,000 credit line to match your total yearly income"), not sure what people's options really were. Walk? Wait for the buses that weren't running to run? Take your family, pets and invalid relatives on respirators or dialysis and hang around the Superdome waiting for food drops? Sounds like staying put and hoping for the best was the best option available. That's why you need the federal government and the National Guard to get their shit together and provide a better option, like lining up Greyhound buses at every street corner, particularly when they had a very good idea that those levees had a good chance of breaking (they've done the scenario for years.....)

2.) Lawlessness. While it's true that natural and other disasters provide an opportunity for the bad elements of society to take advantage and steal, rape, etc., that's what the National Guard is for. They get in and they restore order, through martial law if necessary. But the high-water vehicles, and a huge number of Louisiana National Guardsmen are in Iraq, substituting for a regular army because instituting a draft is bad politically for the neocons. Looting is bad. Not preparing for looting with the National Guard is worse. When Bagdad's museums were looted and ransacked after we took control in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said "shit happens" and blamed it on the Iraqi people, saying we weren't responsible for security. Guess it applies here in the United States as well. Word is, that there were more reporters on the ground in the worst spots, than National Guardsmen. How can the press act as "first responders." It's ridiculous.

This clusterf--k of a situation just showcases how we've decided to just blow off the infrastructure of this country because it "costs too much." They can make highway bills where Congressmen get $50 million dollars to build a bridge in Alaska for 50 people, but not devote enough resources to fund FEMA, protect nuclear and chemical plants from terrorists, protect our subways and train stations, check containers and cargo holds, and basically provide security for this country against disasters, whether it be terrorists or hurricanes. Home security, my ass.

And the Bush administration? How do we solve all our problems? Tax cuts. $200 billion plus in costs for the Iraq war? Tax cuts. Potentially $100 billion in costs for Hurrican Katrina? Tax cuts, and extra tax cuts for the oil companies. Umm....but that creates a deficit. Well, cut FEMA's budget even more then. Underfund homeland security. Cut domestic programs in education and social welfare. And appoint one of my cronies to head the agency who wouldn't know disaster planning if he read a "Disasters for Dummies" guide.

The bloom's off the rose. If people can't look at this situation and see the intrinsic problems in this country, starting with the CEO President at the top, and get pissed, then they're ostriches with their head in their sand.

[west3man]

Awesome post.

[Hoss]

The bloom's off the rose. If people can't look at this situation and see the intrinsic problems in this country, starting with the CEO President at the top, and get pissed, then they're ostriches with their head in their sand.

I'm wondering how the heck they are going to manage to railroad the Paris Hilton Inheritance Tax relief act through now.