Well, most of the Houston and Galveston area evacuees are returning home as we speak. But as I watched the news stories from Amarillo on the evacuees, I noticed a decided difference between the evacuees from each area.

From New Orleans, while most of the evacuees were fine, upstanding people, there seemed to be a general perception of being owed; of being deserving of the charity of the people of Amarillo by right.

From Houston, however, it was a tone of overwhelming gratitude. Of thanks to a community that opened its doors when these citizens were in need.

It wasn't a race issue; the families I saw profiled in both stories were predominantly black. That being said, I'm not sure what it was. Was it the subjects the media selected for the interview? Was it the difference between the two storms and the outcomes for the families (although when the Houston story was done, it was while there was still a great deal of uncertainty about how the areas would be affected)? What were the intangibles here?

I also notice a great deal of less clamoring for free money on the part of residents whose homes were destroyed in this hurricane. Again, maybe the media's misinforming us, but it doesn't seem to be as predominant a theme.

All in all, the Houston evacuees acted more as survivors, the New Orleans evacuees acted more as victims, from the stories I saw at least.

Care to guess which group I'd be more inclined to assist?