|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Literally hundreds of prograns have been reduced or cut altogether due to the so called "war on terrorism"....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Marc, I think we all understand the basic physics.
You wrote:
"Does it take a rocket scientist to know that one does not intellegently place ones primary life investment below the mean water level?
Does it take a politically active left-winger to realize that if that same person agrees to build below the mean water level with the knowledge that a levy (sp) is there to protect the area, that the measure is ONLY SO STRONG and with enough rain has the very real possibility of collapse?
No.... no sympathy here.... just bewilderment at the fact that they will do it all over again."
I don't know what proportion of the population of East Anglia, or of Holland, or of any of the other populated areas below sea level would claim to be rocket scientists, but they are human beings subject, whether they like it or not, to economic pressure.
You also wrote:
"When one is warned that the correct amount of rainfall is imminent then what is one to do?
Think slowly...... we don't want any rash choices now do we?
There are but two choices......
Choice 1: Go
Choice 2: Do not go.
there are sub categories for each princilap choice as well.....
Sub 1a: Well I lied.... there is no sub category for choice #1.
Choice 2a: Don't go because they are too stupid to heed a warning that the bowl has the possibility of filling.
Choice 2b: Don't go because there is the possibility of taking advantage of the situation and somehow profit illicitly from the ordeal.
Choice 2c: The I can't go because I am too poor to get anywhere.
To these I say bullshit!
If a person is too stupid to remove his hand from a fire I have the same sympathy! If persons think more of the crimes they can commit rather than saving themselves then so be it. If people don;t have the sense to ask for transport when there is time to get it then I guess they have to default to sub category 2a."
I accept your categories 1, 2a and 2b are reasonable, but are you really so naive as to believe that everyone in the New Orleans basin had the option to leave? Where was the transport you speak of? If our press reports are reasonably accurate, little - if any - attempt was made to provide adequate transport for mass evacuation. Where would it have come from? It seems to have taken several days for transport to be provoided even after the disaster.
Sammy asks everyone to stop attacking you, but so far as I can see no-one else is doing so. Sorry, Sammy; this argument is in no way your fault, and I'm sorry that it arose on your thread - but I'd feel obliged to take up the issue on any thread and on any board. I am not attacking Marc, but I am raising the strongest possible objection to what he says - and what he says, in unequivocal terms, is that he has no sympathy for those caught up in the disaster because it was their own fault for being there. I DO find that unforgivable; it seems to me to be a gobsmacking example of self-righteousness on a scale which makes your average Southern Baptist firebreather seem positively shy and retiring. And above all, it is deeply offensive at a time when the massive scale of the disaster is still unfolding.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
I grant that New Orleans as a city is untenable currently, and that the decomposing everything there makes it a major risk to life if one remains.
A mandatory evacuation is obviously sensible.
But take the position a resident who has managed to save his family's possessions, had thus fare proected the majority of all they own, be that lkarge or small, and has even managed to protect and save the family pets.
Along comes the evacuation team:
"Time to go. One bag per person and the dog and cat have to stay."
I truly understand intellectually that this is necessary. I am sure the resident does as well. But tell me please just HOW is he going to feel at this point? HE did everything right, he was also lucky. And now his apparent luck is being ripped away from him.
So what happens now? And how would you enforce this evacuation with him yourself? And what would you do in his place?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid that I'm going to sound stereotypically British here!
>
> "Time to go. One bag per person and the dog and cat have to stay."
>
That's a non-starter. One bag - yes, or even just the clothes I stand up in. Or less - it's only "things". But both cats have to come - can the catbasket be my "one bag"?. That is part of the obligation I voluntarily assumed when I got them 16 years ago, and my self-respect does not allow me to abandon them in their old age. Being me, non-violent resistance would probably be all that I could do - chaining myself to the railings or whatever.
And if I were responsible for evacuating others? Persuasion, but ultimately if someone feels that they have to stay, for whatever reason, I wouldn't think it moral to use force on them. Mind you, I can be pretty damn persuasive. This is, in some ways, not an abstract moral dilemma for me: I have had to evacuate public buildings for fire alarms and bomb threats/scares (including in London during the IRA bombing campaign) on many occasions - fortunately, I have only once been faced with someone who refused to evacuate.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to the question of personal responsibility?
We don't need to evacuate people from the beaches in case they drown, or from tall buildings in case they fall off; if they are silly enough to hurt themselves, that's their own problem.
Just get them to sign a waiver, stating "I hereby relinquish all of my rights to be kept alive by the state. Just leave me alone."
Or does the government believe that people are too stupid to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
The evacuation is stated to be mandatory. No waivers. No "ok you can stay". mandated with force if all else fails.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that it is mandatory.
What I wanted to know is why it is mandatory. If people want to stay, they should be allowed to, even if it is tantamount to suicide.
For example, there's a blog, http://mgno.com/, belonging to a network administrator who has been continuing to live and work in a network data center in New Orleans, entirely by choice. Why shouldn't he be allowed to stay if he wants to?
Actually, I have just thought of a possible "reason" that people couldn't be trusted to stay: potential looting and destruction of other people's property. Though this is only a problem if you assume that everyone is dishonest.
Hmm. Well, it's not my problem. I guess the US government has everyone's best interests at heart. (cough)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Seeing that total evacuation is the word of the day....
Would it not be practical to voluntarily leave by whatever means at hand with the pets in tow..... rather than being dragged out by ones heals without them?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This from the Associated Press:
".....As of midday, there were no reports of anyone being removed by force. And it was not clear how the order would be carried out.
Active-military troops said they had no plans to use force. National Guard officers said they do not take orders from the mayor. And even the police said they were not ready to use force just yet. It appeared that the mere threat of force would be the first option.
"We have thousands of people who want to voluntarily evacuate at this time," Police Chief Eddie Compass said. "Once they are all out, then we'll concentrate our forces on mandatory evacuation......"
The Army has also said that they would not keep food and water from being delivered to the holdouts, so manditory isn't MANDITORY yet.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
UK press has quoted a New Orleans official as saying "We will use cuffs if necessary"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
