It sorta felt like (some) people were saying, "well it's your own damn fault" and from (fewer people) "good riddance to bad rubbish."

Yes indeedy. People here still feel that way (I can only empathize, not having lived here through the storm.)

After the St. Patrick's Day parade, we were having dinner at the neighborhood bistro at the bar next to a couple from NYC having cocktails before dinner at Commander's Palace. So, the conversation turns to the storm, as it often does, asking about recovery and whatnot. I was talking about some of the neighborhoods that were still struggling and got that Faaaaabulous question "but why would people want to return here knowing the risks?" I basically said, well, people want to return to their homes and communities. I mean, why do people want to live in the Ring of Fire with the geologic unease there? Also, the fact that the flooding wasn't just a natural disaster, but a man made one.

It's just like... ugh. People don't see poor or black or marginalized people having any stake in anything and that's how they are treated.

ANYWAY.

If people didn't live in places where there might be a natural disaster, there'd be a damn sight fewer places to live. Where should we all live? Where is there a place with a near-zero chance of having homes destroyed or lives lost by tornado, hurricane, flooding, blizzard, wildfire, drought, earthquake, volcano, or tsunami?

People moved to the area that became NOLA for the same reason people always move into coastal areas: abundant natural resources and shipping ports. They stayed because that's where their homes and communities are now. If people shouldn't live in NOLA because there might be another disaster, then we better clear out of California and Florida and the Plains too, because there are certainly going to be more big earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis.

"but why would people want to return here knowing the risks?"

I believe Ashley Morris had an answer for people who would ask this question.

Town Hall over. Not much new. sigh.

I believe Ashley Morris had an answer for people who would ask this question.

Was it, "Fuck you, you fucking fucks!!"?

That was it.

"but why would people want to return here knowing the risks?"

So you immediately told them about the three faults that run under Foley Square, making the possibility of an earthquake quite high (although probability remains low) so they could pack up and move, right?

Are they even aware of what their own risks are?

Kat, hope the surgery (and everything else) goes easily.

And hoping for Hayden's brother's safe and quick return home.

...

Fuck you, you fucking fuck

Is the punchline to one of the only jokes I can ever remember.

So, you wouldn't have bothered? Since he was just a dog?

I don't know. I might lean towards not. Not because he's a dog but because I'm more likely to cause damage since I don't know what I'm doing. I'm not even a fan of contemplating doing CPR on people that don't belong to me.

eta Actually, on edit and in thinking about this, no. I wouldn't do CPR on a dog and I'm not going to be all willy-nilly about it lest I offend someone. I wouldn't do it partially for the reasons above and partially because I work so damn hard to keep my sick-kid alive that I barely have mental energy for that let alone trying to use life-saving techniques on a pet. When I posted funny I didn't mean ha-ha; I meant oh, that pings me as a piece of this whole article.

I didn't have time before I had to go to the recovery room before I could clarify.

I'm missing something...

The article in the NYT examines the, according to a study, three different ways people perceive pets:

He found that, as a rule, people fall into one of three broad categories of beliefs concerning pets. Members of one group, which he labels “dominionists,” see pets as an appendage to the family, a useful helper ranking below humans that is beloved but, ultimately, replaceable. Many people from rural areas — like the immigrants Dr. Terrien interviewed — qualified.

Another group of owners, labeled by Dr. Blouin as “humanists,” are the type who cherish their dog as a favored child or primary companion, to be pampered, allowed into bed, and mourned like a dying child at the end. These include the people who cook special meals for a pet, take it to exercise classes, to therapy — or leave it stock options in their will.

The third, called “protectionists,” strive to be the animal’s advocate. These owners have strong views about animal welfare, but their views on how a pet should be treated — whether it sleeps inside or outside, when it should be put down — vary depending on what they think is “best” for the animal. Its members include people who will “save” a dog tied to tree outside a store, usually delivering it home with a lecture about how to care for an animal.

I think, ita, given conversations we've had about pets, you probably fall into the dominionists category, and I probably do to at this point in my life. I am definitely NOT in the humanist camp.

That was the connection.

CPR on a dog -> how people perceive dogs -> how this article quantifies people -> one category reminds me of ita. That was my thinking.

lisah, surgery went okay. We have to come back and repeat it on May 10. I got punched in the head and kicked in the mouth as Grace came out of anesthesia. I'd like to thank the PACU nurses who just stood there and watched and asked if I needed anything. YES. Two more doses of fentanyl.