Now I’m not one to typically post political or anti-organization blogs but today I heard something that disturbed me today and I really want to hear what others think.
Only a few days after the Boston Marathon explosions a fertilizer plant in West, Texas (actual town) exploded. 15 were killed and somewhere from 160-200 injured. Additionally 150 buildings were destroyed or damaged including at least one school. Just to put the numbers out there, 2 died in the Boston marathon and 264 were injured. I am by no means saying one was worse than the other. That’s impossible to say with emotional and property damage to account for. In the beginning FEMA was helping as in any other disaster and the President even visited Baylor for a memorial service and issued a statement saying, “My Administration, through FEMA and other agencies, is in close contact with our state and local partners on the ground to make sure there are no unmet needs.â€? However, FEMA has now decided that the explosion “is not of the severity and magnitude that warrants a major disaster declaration,â€? and has denied additional public and individual aid. Boston, being such a famous and iconic city has already raised millions upon millions to aid individual and public efforts. I’m not saying that’s compensation for what happened; just that it is at least a start to getting people’s lives put back together.West, however is a small Texas town with no way to raise the $57 million they would need to repair the damage. It is 18 miles north of Waco, home to Baylor University, home to some of the best years of my life. To us, West was the Czech republic of Texas with some of the best (real) klatches in the state. It was a popular destination for those who enjoyed early morning drives and or mini vacations from the university.Now I don’t know the exact reasons behind the denial of assistance whether it be political, state bias, or economic, but whatever it is, it doesn’t seem ‘right.’ I just wanted a place to discuss this where no-one is constrained by any particular political or location bias. We have people from all over the place here, so what do you think? I want your honest opinion.Please forgive me if I broke any unstated rules with this blog.
What eagly said, mostly because I watch either BBC or Sky. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most American news broadcasters seem to be more sensationalist than sympathetic. Basically, a case of them choosing to cover the Boston story over the West story for the reason that one was a terrorist attack, and the other was just an accident, regardless of the damage done to West.
Essentially yes. American news (televised and other) is entertainment and nothing more, and has been so for quite some time.
Well all my family in Indiana knew about it. I guess it just depends which news station you watch.
This is why I don't watch the news (or even seek it out online). They only cover what they think is going to get them the most views, and terrorism is a bigger topic than an accident. I'm not sure how media is in other countries, but here it's pretty sickening.
It really does depend on the station/source, because I heard about the incident the day it happened. Though what Desertfox and Kilin are right. It's all about those views and dat cash.
I'm not positive, but I am pretty sure that the cause of the explosion has a lot to do with the denial of funds. As in, it was a private company that was responsible for the destruction and, as such, the burden of payment is on them. Well… their insurance company, I mean.
It does not impact emergency funds FEMA has provided to individual residents. Last month, FEMA estimated the agency and the U.S. Small Business Administration had approved more than $5.6 million in aid and low-interest loans to West residents affected by the blast.Not that this makes it any better, but there is some kind of (admittedly warped) logic behind it. CAPITALISM! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!"Say what you want about Americans, but we understand capitalism. You buy a product and you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR."
~ Max PayneWell no matter what happens the company is pretty much toast. They still don't know what the cause of the explosion was. For all we know it could have been a disgruntled employee. It sounds crazy but people are crazy. I'm not saying that many think that was the case, but when the only fact you have about the situation is 'a fire' then It could have been anything. What was a fire doing near ammonia?
Regardless of whose fault the explosion was there were innocent people involved who are not going to get compensation because the government won't help and the company won't be able to. 5.6 million is a start but divide that up between all the victims or compare it to the total damage estimation and its not much.