One of the FML members wrote a post in the heat of the moment, and
apparently not thinking, and perhaps getting a skewed picture from poor
coverage.
 
When the evacuation was first ordered and it came out that the buses and
taxis were pretty much already filled and gone Steve and I turned to each
other with the same thought -- that if there were an evacuation I would
not be able to get out unless I could bum a lift with a neighbor because
the neuro-damage I have to my limbs makes it illegal and pretty well
impossible for me to drive.
 
The tourists who had flown in there in good measure were in the same
situation: no cars.  Tourists, poor, handicapped, elderly, or those who
simply never bothered to drive because they had no reason to do so in a
city just don't qualify as "low lifes".  Neither do those who simply were
overly protective of belongings or temporarily foolish.  There's not a
one of us here who has not made some serious mistakes but at those times
gotten lucky.  Nor do those who stayed behind because a loved one was
simply too ill to be moved, or those who stayed to help the sick or to
save lives qualify as "low lifes".
 
There should have been National Guard and military in there helping
evacuate, same as is traditionally done in the path of major wild fires
(though there have been some problems on that score, too, these days
given so many being in Iraq.  The plan to evacuate with school buses
should have been far better organized and observed, too.
 
Yes, there are some "low lifes".
 
I don't hold it against anyone to take things needed to survive and keep
family alive (though I am pissed at the newspaper which in one section
showed a white woman taking things and referred to her as entering the
grocery store to "find" food, whereas on another page a block woman also
taking a similar amount of food was referred to as "looting" that store).
Those people are NOT "low lifes".  They were faced with a very hard
reality.
 
Are there hardened criminals who are irredeemable?  Yes, there are some,
and that would be true in any U.S.  metropolitan area (and more suburban
and rural ones than would want to admit it).  To think everyone fits in
that category, though, just doesn't add up.  A few "low lifes" can do a
lot of horrible things which are repeated over and over again in the
news -- from rapes, to murders, to stealing hospital generators which
had kept the ill alive, to much lesser crimes like theft, but they are
not everyone there.
 
So, if you want to put a face on the sorts of people who could be left
behind in such a disaster, think of me.  Now, maybe some here would
consider that a good thing, but there are others here I have helped and
certainly some dear friends here.  I notice that my mail program knows
your address; that usually means that I have looked up needed medical
info for someone more than once.
 
RW, I think that you probably are kicking yourself today when you reread
what you wrote, and that's as it should be.  Better that you kick
yourself than that anyone else here does it.  Take a deep breath and
reread next time you are tempted to use name-calling, though, please.
 
It doesn't hurt to care about both the people and the animals left
behind, and it can only help to provide aid for either or both.  It's
best to not blame the victims.  There are already too many butt-covering
politicians doing exactly that, and joining them would not constitute
hanging out with a good crowd.  In fact, a person might even be tempted
to use a term with the initials "L.L.".
[Posted in FML issue 4994]