Following Hurricane Katrina a slough of investors began purchasing real estate in the moldy, soggy, broken and economically depressed New Orleans. I suppose the most famous of these attempts to revitalize the town with Hollywood dollars and loads of sperm, ovum, and probably a zygote or possibly two at the time: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Numerous celebrities followed suit and quickly, New Orleans regained its vitality and functionality as a retail center with nearly the same economic prowess as it had prior to the hurricane.

So...when a city falls apart due to natural disaster, injecting it with outside money from areas not affected by said disaster is a good thing. Yes. Yes?

Yes. I think so anyway.

Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has been, well not quite criticized, but strongly and pointedly questioned about continuing to drop off their cruise patrons at their leased resort called Labadee on the northern portion of the island.

Click here for the article in the Miami Herald.

I began to debate with with my brain whether or not this was an appropriate and moral thing to do. I suppose the need to debate it is even debatable, but I did wonder, as did many:

1. Was the area affected?

2. Do people there need food and water rather than visitors to tend to?

3. Would the locals be offended at the idea that American tourists are conducting "business as usual" while their country is torn to fucking shreds?

As is typical when a news outlet is attempting to incite controversy, some logic and information were conveniently left out.

Labadee was not in an earthquake affected area. It was virtually untouched by seismic nastiness.

Check out the USGS "ShakeMap" (nice name guys, sounds like something AT&T and Verizon are about to do in order to permanently silence one another).

As the case is such that Labadee is unaffected, there is no reason to assume that individuals employed at the resort would be unable to work. Rather, if your friends' and their families', and their friends houses had just all burnt to the ground in a world where homeowners insurance is a fucking pipe dream, you might be pretty god damned excited to have a place of employment.

Feasibly, you'd be able to then provide your loved ones with some sustenance, a place to live, some semblance of normalcy if their lives in Port-au-Prince had been literally shattered.

So why the dichotomy? Why the judgment of Royal Caribbean's attempt to help Haiti and not Brangelina's attempt to help New Orleans?

I think it's because they're all corporationy.

I don't like corporations. Neither do most people in our ironically capitalistic society. The idea that Royal Caribbean actually attempted to perform business as usual and act as a financial savior by doing so seems impossible. The idea that two individuals could act as saviors seems normal, despite the fact that it is actually more rare.

Let's also not forget that Royal Caribbean donated one million dollars to the relief efforts, as Haiti has provided them with such financial gain over the years. Have they made more than one million dollars off of Haiti? Absolutely. But is it not a positive thing that the cruise line has continued to pump dollars into Haiti by way of employing its people?

I don't see how it's not. It's just their face, it's just that they're a corporation.

Sometimes economies float. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are worth approximately $220 million together. They are an economy and a business in and of themselves. They move themselves and they move people, just like Royal Caribbean. As opposed to generating business in one geographic area, why not move it around to where it is needed most?