New Orleans newspaper takes offensive tone toward those who stayed with pets during Katrina
Yesterday's lead story in the Times-Picayune was about the people who chose to stay behind during Hurricane Katrina--those who ignored pleas for them to be rescued. Though many of these people were simply stubborn, a large number of them stayed because the government refused to rescue their pets, yet the Times-Picayune writer lumps them all in together as people who made a choice not to go to safety.
Labelling these people as citizens who "chose" to stay and die reflects the same immoral, offensive attitude taken by the government in its refusal to rescue companion animals.
Labelling these people as citizens who "chose" to stay and die reflects the same immoral, offensive attitude taken by the government in its refusal to rescue companion animals.
posted by Diane at 2:05 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I'm living and blogging in New Orleans right now, and anyone here can tell you the only reason to subscribe to the local paper is so you have something to spread on the table when you eat boiled crawfish and crabs. I evacuated with four cats and a hedgehog and I had no trouble finding a hotel that would take us in. Why? Because it was an emergency! I think almost all the hotels were allowing pets during this tragedy. They knew it would be cruel to deny service to people who wanted to save their pets. Too bad the government can't figure that one out, too.
Peace,
Tim
By
Tim, at
4:46 PM
I like the Times-Picayune quite a bit, and usually don't feel offended by its content.
People who went to hotels could generally take pets, but many people could not go to hotels. They had to go to community and church shelters, and their pets were not allowed.
By
Anonymous, at
6:43 PM
It makes me so sad I can't stand it. If in my right senses and not actually drowning or starving at the moment, I would NOT have left my dog, Phoebe. No how, no way. However, I feel so bad for those people who probably did so under some duress and stress I will never understand (if I'm lucky). I can't imagine what strength choosing your pet over starving or drowning or other atrocities would have taken. It's just all so horrid. Oh hell, I honestly can't say what I would have done. To me, it's just the worst choice I would ever have to make.
By
Unknown, at
9:47 PM
I think families had to choose to save their children. That's what it amounted to. The government wouldn't take the pets, and if they stayed, their children could have died. No one is going to put her children at risk, so the pets got thrown into the street.
By
Anonymous, at
10:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home