.
Further Thoughts

I tried to post the above last night and thought it failed. Low and behold I find it did post and now there is a duplicate. I am removing the second posting of the article, but leaving my commentary below because it is a slightly different perspective than the one I published just a while ago. Please consider both opinions. Please note that directly below was originally written at roughly 12:30am:


I read the article from a Louisiana newspaper and have posted it below. I am at a loss for a focused opinion. I can sure see how many could presume racism is at work in Gretna and its decision, yet at the same time it seems to me there could be non-racist, legitimate reasons for a small town to fear being "bullied" by a demanding large city flooding across its borders. What are your opinions? Was Gretna acting in a racist manner? Or was Gretna simply trying to protect itself and its own chance at survival?

After posting the article, I then wrote:

If 100 desperate, starving people.... whose tempers and demeanors were growing more frustrated and angry each passing moment suddenly knocked on the door to your house and wanted to move in... would you say "Sure! My home is your home... eat all the remaining food in my cupboard and let my family go hungry!" Or would you say "I am sorry, you cannot come in. We too are experincing difficult times... no electricity, no food, etc."

I do not know. If the bridge were closed and it prevented people from escaping death (such as drowning) then I would tend to think it was very wrong. If, however, the bridge was closed and simply kept the homeless victims from overloading the very limited resources of that damaged small town... then it may have been appropriate.

Your comments and discussion would be appreciated.

PipeTobacco