You should probably go out and buy everything: Time to panic buy!

[norml]

Not gas, you should've bought that the day of the storm, though you might want to tank up before it goes to $4 per gallon.

No, I'm talking about bars of soap, rolls of toilet paper, and food.

Every bulky consumer item that has to be transported is going to go rapidly up in price.

If the price of a bar of soap doubling is no big deal to you, never mind.

But if you want to save on such things you should probably go out and stock up on what you can.

[progmom]

1. i thought you were kidding

you're not kidding?

[norml]

2. I plan on buying a few bars of Kirk's Castile Soap.

It had been going up as it was.



Yes I'm serious.

We're going to see hyperinflation.

Buy now.

Save later.

[BigMcLargehuge]

4. I'll just cut back on my washing

and cultivate that "new goat shed" smell.

[MercutioATC]

3. No thanks, I'll just loot it later...

...apparently, that's allowed now.

[Texasgal]

5. *pfft*

:rofl:

[progmom]

6. stop.

you're intentionally misinterpreting peoples' position on this.

this is getting ridiculous.

[MercutioATC]

7. No, I'm not.

I've been very vocal about my belief that people in emergency situations may at times need to appropriate items needed for survival (food, water, etc.).

My issue is with those who attempt to invalidate the stories by either denying it's happening in NOLA or making it a race issue.

I don't care whether you're black or white, breaking into a store and stealing jewelry is NOT o.k....not even if you've just been through a hurricane.

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

8. I agree

It's one thing if you need food and drink. It's quite another to seize this opportunity to make off with a 40" TV and patio furniture.

[Sydnie]

14. I am not convinced that it is a case of denying that it is happening but

rather a case of putting it farther down the priority list in general. I can understand the looting as far as food and water and some medical essentials ... even in some cases firearms (because if you have anything left you will need to protect it if at all possible) as things there could fall into the feeling of "Night of the Living Dead" where you feel like you could be attacked from all sides at any moment because you escaped with "anything" in tact. What I can't understand and don't feel is within MY realm of possible actions even in an event such as this is the looting of property that can't be used right now, this minute, to survive. Jewelry, tv's, computers ... why bother? Unless that bling and swag can put a roof over your head and food in your families bellys, save your strength for carrying something that could do that or someone that needs help.

I saw a story on the news about a large family (I think they said 9 people) that lived in a trailer. They returned to find their trailer heavily damaged by the storm. As heart breaking and as violating as that was in itself, they had to also deal with the fact that someone had come in and taken their tv and their computer too. What was the point in that? Where could they have taken those things to get any value from them when everything around them is being destroyed?

As Joan says in her song - "Take what you need and leave the rest".

I can only imagine what my limits would be since I have, at least as yet, NOT found myself in that situtation. I would like to think I wouldn't opt for the big screen tv even if all the bread was already gone. I would like to think that I would consider a blanket to cover my children before I would consider a computer in a place that is not likely to have power for weeks and weeks. Should I ever find myself in that position, I would hope that I could maintain that level of civility when all else is going to hell in a hand basket all around me.

If that makes me an apologist, then so be it.

edited to add - I would also like to think that I would keep a list of the cost of the things that I took and pay it back, even if was years later ... as soon as possible.

[MercutioATC]

19. You don't sound apologist to me.

I agree with you...and I'd also like to think that I'd later pay for what I needed to take.

I also agree that saving people should take precedence. Dealing with looters is a secondary concern.

I don't know how many of the looting posts you've seen here over the past 24-36 hours, but there is definitely a segment of the DU population that is excusing looting (of whatever type) and getting pretty nasty with anybody who dares to take issue with looting.

Those are the people who inspired my original post.

[northzax]

21. that sounds perfectly rational to me

be careful though, the pro-looters will point out that you can't judge people in that situation.

and of course, I'm engaged in my Quixotic quest to remind people that looting, by definition, involves taking something for personal profit. NO ONE says taking needed food or water in an emergency situation is looting, it may be justifiable stealing, but it isn't looting, by very definition.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Thank you progmom. I became the target of such ire last night after

pointing out that there were other things possibly more important than looting...like saving people. That got me labeled an apologist. People have really gone around the bend on this thanks to the MSM that we're not supposed to trust anyway.

[northzax]

10. and funny, when I pointed out

that looting is interfering with the rescue effort and probably costing lives, I was told to 'fuck off, you don't understand'

face it, there is a contingent on this board that enjoys the looting, who wants people to steal from 'the rich' and 'corporations' because it serves them right.

not one single person, that I have seen, has said that hungry or thirsty people taking food and water, when there is nothing else avaliable in an emergency situation isn't understandable, but take a look at the images of downtown NoLa, every single store is EMPTY. The cash registers are destroyed, the ATMS are shattered, the shelves are empty, not just food stores, but jewelry, cash, clothing (I don't know, maybe everyone needed 6 pairs of jeans to live?) guns and the like. Hell, I'd even understand transistor radios to get emergency information (I have seen nothing credible about electronics at all)

There may wel be people taking food they absolutely need now to survive. But there are a lot of criminals taking things just because they can. and, somewhat disgustingly, that makes some people on this board happy.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Yaaay. Let's fight about it here, kay?

:eyes: I'm not going to change your mind...and you're not going to change mine..so give. it. a. rest.

Thanks

[Fleshdancer]

12. we need some kitten pics in the lounge NOW

kittens tend to keep people calm in here.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Or panda babies even.

:hi: :hug:

[Pithlet]

15. I've just started laughing at it

I gave up long ago. Let them thing I'm a looter apologist. Let them warp my position. Let them paint me as uncaring about the victims of Katrina (ironic though that may be). I've decided not to give a crap. Let them rave on about the looting as if it actually mattered right now. We can't stop them. We certainly can't convince them that looting is the least of any of those poor people's problems. So, we might as well laugh at them. Because the debate has grown to the point where it's just too ludicrous to be taken seriously.

[Pithlet]

16. It's going beyond ridiculous

It's even crossed the ludicrous bounds. It can't even be taken seriously any more. Let them beat up on those of us who share the opinion that looting is not even an issue, let alone one to judge those poor people about. Whatever gets them through this horrible ordeal. I certainly can't take it seriously any more. So, I'm beyond caring if they warp my position.

[northzax]

20. that's because, with all due respect

the pro-looting forces are ignoring reality. You don't want to be called an apologist? fine, but I am tired of being called a fascist thug for wanting to stop violence. I assume you have, in fact, been in a place where looting is occuring? if you're not involved and armed, it is a scary, scary thing.

but fine, I think we can agree that you are willing to abandon New Orleans to some sort of Hobbsian paradise, it's very Mad Max, but if that's what floats your boat. I notice anyone with experience in such a situation wants to make sure the innocent, at least, get a chance to escape first. that's fine. The reason it is important, as anyone with experience is a natural disaster or place where civil order is destroyed, is that some semblance of order is the only way you can begin to return to normalcy. I've been in war zones, I've been in looting situations, I've been in places of nautral disaster, it's not real pleasant in the first place, and mobs of criminals roaming the streets don't help the majority of people who just want to survive and return to normal.

so I guess we agree to disagree.

[Pithlet]

23. But (and I'll get serious again for a moment)

You are completely missing the point. No one is pro-looting. No one. Every single "pro-looting" post I've seen, and I've probably seen most of them, is calling for reason. That is all. I think VERY FEW of us, even those of us who've been through natural disasters (I have, myself)know what those people are going through down there. And that maybe none of us, no matter what side we fall on, should be quick to judge what is happening there.

Yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of criminals that were already criminals before Katrina hit, and are looting simply because they are criminals. But to focus on that; to criminalize what a large percentage of those people are doing to survive is awfully sanctimonious coming from people who aren't even there. THAT is what we're saying. NOT condoning looting.

[northzax]

29. this is what is ridiculous, actually

the fact that we are all arguing about minutia and the definition of minor words. I really think that the great majority of us would, when we think about it rationally, choose to ignore someone who took food or water to survive. The problem is that some people approach it from "we can't understand what's going on, and so we should assume that everyone is taking only what they need." (I'm not saying that is your position, just an example of one position) These people are tending to react, with anger, to anyone who questions mob mentality, or points out the unpleasant reality that much, if not most, of the looting is not for survival but for profit (and again I refer to the very definition of looting) Faced with evidence of other acts of looting, there is then a complaint that 'the companies' or 'the insurance companies' or 'the oil companies' or 'george bush' are the ones doing the looting, you can't compare the two. To your point that 'there are plenty of criminals' sure, but the whole problem with looting is that it drags people who were otherwise not criminals into engaging in crime, simply because others are. It's the mob mentality that is refered to in the article you cited.

Now the anti-looters (not going to spare my team either) this group has tended to focus not on the people looking for food, but on the ways looting starter (rarely does it start with someone starving, that's the second wave, you need a certain amount of pent up violence to break that first window, the second person in may be getting formula and diapers, but it's unlikely an altruist who broke the first window, three hours after the storm passed) Take yourself, for example. you might have been in New Orleans and hungry on monday afternoon, but it would likely take you a bit of time to come to the conclusion that the 7-11 has food, and that you can break in. It's not something that people think of, immediately (again, citing your article) but once someone else breaks in, and there are no repercussions, you might say, 'well, I do need milk' and go in. Civil order doens't break down that quickly without a vanguard leading the way. And then others follow. Frankly, I don't really care about property, I care about the violence that desperate people may engage in, once the taboos of property have been broken. The people in an area that has looting have just as much right to get out as everyone else. And I think the New orleans police handled it well, actually, they knew they couldnt stop the looting, so they let it go, watching to make sure there wasn't any interpersonal violence. my major complaint about the anti-looting forces is that we/they have focused too much on the property aspect, and the crime aspect, and not enough on the inevitable human consequences of open season on property.

So there, we all agree about the basics, I think, but have a different interpretation of the influences and end results of the behaviour. So since most people have proven unable or unwilling to rationally discuss the issue, we end up calling each other stupid names and resorting to tired, inflammatory one liners. that's something I'm trying to avoid.

[Pithlet]

30. Actually

"The problem is that some people approach it from "we can't understand what's going on, and so we should assume that everyone is taking only what they need." (I'm not saying that is your position, just an example of one position) These people are tending to react, with anger, to anyone who questions mob mentality, or points out the unpleasant reality that much..."

I think they're approaching it from a do not judge mentality. I'll tell you what got me into the fray is not one day after this happened, we had people at DU outraged at the looting. THAT is what has infuriated me and got me pulled into this whole ridiculous flame war.

And I'll have you know that you anti-looters aren't the only ones getting it. Someone here recently told me that things are so bad in NO right now because too many people have my kind of mentality. Isn't that nice? Yesterday it was "Have some sympathy for those who might have been driven to looting". Today it is "beat up on the 'pro-looters'".

I promised myself I wouldn't take this seriously any more, but I do feel like I have to defend my opinion and others who share similar ones from the demonization of it that is occurring today. We aren't pro-crime, immoral, ignorant, or naive. We are calling for a little compassion and empathy, and that's all we were ever doing. Not swallowing the MSM's looter hype hook, line, and sinker, and raging about what really amounts to a bunch of miserable people who've lost everything and don't see any hope in the near future. DU should have focused entirely on the plight of these people from the very beginning, and not immediately started criminalizing a bunch of them, and moralizing their behavior from our comfortable homes.

[northzax]

31. but...

part of living in a society is having rules to follow. anyway, I was trying to be careful to point out that there are ridiculous and insulting one-liners on BOTH sides of the debate, often coming from people who take a position in the heat of passion and then find themseles unable to support it. It's the Cheney "go fuck yourself" idea, if you got nothing to say, insult the other person.

basically, I think we'd all have been better off if we'd put a 20 line minimum rule on posting in these threads, make people think things out instead of posting one-liners. we might have actually been able to discuss it. Alas, too many people threw out too many insults, and now the battle lines are drawn beyond redemption, I fear.

[Pithlet]

32. Yes.

Part of living in a society is having rules to follow. I agree. But, it is much, much easier to follow those rules, and be rational enough to follow those rules, when society around you hasn't just been obliterated to bits and you're up to your neck in rising water, and your kids are sick and hungry, and you don't know what is going to happen to you. I think it is asking too much of them to behave like good little citizens in society at that point.

Besides, I do think that the looting angle is being WAY overhyped. All it is doing is distracting people from what really matters. There are hundreds of thousands of wet, hungry, homeless, desperate people who need our help. When seriously discussing this tragedy, that is what we should be focusing on. Not demanding that they be rational little law abiding citizens just like we are in our comfortable lives.

[miss_kitty]

18. It would be nice if people commenting on looting

and bizarre post disaster behaviour would try to understand it instead of talking out of their bums about it, wouldn't it?
:hi:

http://www.colorado.edu/IBS/hazards/qr/qr117.html

I keep posting this link in looting threads. Maybe people who don't 'get it' will stop and read up on it.

How's it goin' progmom? :D

[norml]

25. I intended this to be a smart shopping thread.

If it is a smart looting thread I might say that if you wait to loot you might not find the brand you like.



Also looting will probably not be allowed everywhere.

[MercutioATC]

27. Damn! Rain on my parade, why don't ya...

:hi:

[uppityperson]

17. We call it earthquake preparedness here

costco shopping trip coming up again.

[Deep13]

22. stock up before the hoarders get here!

[progmom]

24. ...

:spray:

[IChing]

26. I just bought a MacMansion, a Hummer II, and stocks in Exxon

The MacMansion is way out in the suburbs far away from shopping and gas stations so I don't have to look at "those" people.
The exxon stock was a great buy. I'm also stocking up on 150 watt incandescent light bulbs to shed more light on my stupidity
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[norml]

28. Maybe at a later time I'll trade some of my soap for the house.

It's good soap.