Friday, November 14, 2008

Why Is This "News?"

The Headline says, "Wildfire Ravages Ritzy California Town" (By THOMAS WATKINS, AP, filed under: National News, Wildfire News.) and begins with the following:

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (Nov. 14) - Firefighters were racing early Friday to pushback a wind-whipped wildfire that destroyed at least 100 homes and a college dormitory, injured 13 people and forced thousands to flee the longtime celebrity hideaway of Montecito.
Other than on the most basic human level, sorrow at another's loss, why is it a headline story that a “ritzy” town, where the likes of Oprah and other such celebrities have one or more of their homes, a headline story? I would rather know who the 100 other homes belonged to, how badly the college was damaged, and how the residents are being taken care of.

Instead, we learn almost immediately that Oprah’s pets are “OK!” She had them taken to the Four Seasons, a posh, ritzy hotel for high-flyers to be cared for. Her dogs for goodness’ sake!

Is this an example of someone who really cares about the “little people,” the “main street folks” as supposedly represented by her wholehearted, tingly support of Mr. Obama?

I would ask, why are the celebrities not offering such accommodations as a stay at the Four Seasons to the people whose homes were also damaged but who do not own million-dollar homes? Or, am I too "out of touch" to realize that the entire area is exclusive to those types of abodes only?

I have not much pity for Oprah, Pitt, and the others of the ‘glitzy’ set. They have the funds and wherewithal with which to rebuild immediately, especially since they could more than likely well afford the homeowner insurance rates these homes would command.

The fact that their mansions were damaged in a natural disaster should not be the story. A better story would be to wonder what they are going to do about others less fortunate?

Are they going to provide assistance in any way at all to those whose dormitories were damaged or destroyed? By assistance, I do not mean providing their presence in a "visit" to show “solidarity and support” with those less fortunate.

I mean will they go into their own pockets and give money to those who are unable to rebuild or repair their damaged homes themselves . . . or will they want the government to do that with our tax money?

If it is the latter … whatever happened to the “spread the wealth around” mentality? Did it come and go that quickly? Did we miss it? Or, as I suspected all along, is it a selective “spreading” with the choice of whose wealth for what reason to be determined by …?

Shouldn’t be hard to guess, folks!

Copyright MCzwz, November 14, 2008. All rights reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment