Re: Hurricane relief

[Gary Drescher]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our missionaries use water filters, or they buy sealed bottled water
> from a known source. It is very inconvenient. The water filters cost
> P15,000 apiece (about $275). They are finicky and require frequent
> maintenance and changing filters. They would, however, render your
> water sample potable -- something even boiling would not do. Solar
> stills would also work, but they produce distilled water which is not
> as readily absorbed by the body as water that has some mineral content.
>
> One problem that we see a lot is that water that has been purified is
> very easily re-contaminated. Any dirty water that gets splashed into
> the clean water, people who touch the water with unclean hands, cooking
> utensils, or who just inadvertantly kick dirt into it, stray animals
> that come over to investigate it, playing children who knock it over,
> covering it with a dirty lid, whatever -- you end up having to do it
> all over again. Standing water, even with the depth of only the
> thickness of a quarter, is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and a
> source of dengue fever, yellow fever, and malaria. Some 90% of the
> health problems we see in our missionaries are from drinking
> contaminated water, or from not drinking enough water. We get a lot of
> dehydration, heat related disease, and gastroenteritis. More rarely
> they get typhoid or dengue fever. We get these problems with just under
> 100 missionaries who are subject to far greater supervision than anyone
> in New Orleans would get.
>
> I guess everyone has an opinion, but the problems of purifying water
> for 20,000 people seem to me to be a logistical nightmare. The only
> solution is to get them out of there.

Yup. The survivalist skills and supplies that've been discussed here are
unfamiliar to most Americans of *all* levels of education--and for good
reason, I think. In a wealthy civilization, it is likely just not
cost-effective for everyone to invest individually in the training and
equipment to deal with extremely unlikely events, rather than relying on the
centralized rescue efforts that will need to occur anyway in the wake of a
major disaster.

Sure, it makes sense to stock up on a few days' food and water (which many
of those stranded in the hurricane presumably did, though they may not have
been able to carry much of it as they swam from their flooded homes). But it
would be an unwise use of scarce (or non-existent) resources for
impoverished city residents--who have much more pressing daily survival
needs--to invest in the esoteric and expensive training and equipment
discussed here, just to prepare for the remote possibility of a
once-in-a-century storm followed by a long delay in relief efforts despite
what was supposed to be an unprecedented level of government preparedness to
respond to a major disaster.

Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.
Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
whole, exceptionally self-reliant. Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers,
when exhibited by the hurricane victims, is extolled by some here as
evidence of the "gimme mentality" of the "welfare class" (without a shred of
evidence that most of the victims in question actually lacked employment).
People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what they
expect to see. (These remarks aren't directed at your comments, CJ; I'm just
using your post as a hook.)

--Gary

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> Yup. The survivalist skills and supplies that've been discussed here are
> unfamiliar to most Americans of *all* levels of education--and for good
> reason, I think. In a wealthy civilization, it is likely just not
> cost-effective for everyone to invest individually in the training and
> equipment to deal with extremely unlikely events, rather than relying on
> the centralized rescue efforts that will need to occur anyway in the wake
> of a major disaster.

It sure is "cost-effective" if you're at risk. Like these people were. And
the cost is minimal. Really minimal. In a "wealthy civilization", this
kind of preparation is a leisure activity. Show it isn't? < chirp >

> Sure, it makes sense to stock up on a few days' food and water (which many
> of those stranded in the hurricane presumably did, though they may not
> have been able to carry much of it as they swam from their flooded homes).
> But it would be an unwise use of scarce (or non-existent) resources for
> impoverished city residents--who have much more pressing daily survival
> needs--to invest in the esoteric and expensive training and equipment
> discussed here, just to prepare for the remote possibility of a
> once-in-a-century storm followed by a long delay in relief efforts despite
> what was supposed to be an unprecedented level of government preparedness
> to respond to a major disaster.

Yeah, better to a) do nothing then b) complain that you're not properly
being cared for. It doesn't seem to occur to you that the level of
self-education and preparation needed by most people to survive a natural
disaster is, for most people, doable. And, they've managed to get lots of
armed troops into affected areas, no? Could *you* survive?
>
> Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
> expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
> file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.

At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate to
the area their flying in. How many pilots die for a lack of it?

> Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
> whole, exceptionally self-reliant.

Trained to be, mostly. In any case, your analogy is banal and stupid. Do
you fly toward thunderstorms or fly away from them? What area of GA flying
do you think needs more government intervention?

> Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers, when exhibited by the hurricane
> victims, is extolled by some here as evidence of the "gimme mentality" of
> the "welfare class" (without a shred of evidence that most of the victims
> in question actually lacked employment).

OK. Let's wait and see.

> People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what
> they expect to see.

Pot, kettle, etc.

I expect you think you're original.

moo

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
>> expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
>> file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.
>
> At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate
> to the area their flying in.

I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is why
I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my experience".
That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when they make
cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical supplies, or other
equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival kit. (I myself carry
just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope, and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

--Gary

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>>> Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely
>>> carry expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at
>>> best, they file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a
>>> crash.
>>
>> At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate
>> to the area their flying in.
>
> I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
> why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
> experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
> they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
> supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
> kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
> and aluminum blankets.)
>
> Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
> only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
> of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
> couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
> expense to be much better prepared.

So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

moo

[john smith]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
> only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
> of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
> couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
> expense to be much better prepared.

There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
Three days is the average.

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
>> why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
>> experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
>> they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
>> supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
>> kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
>> and aluminum blankets.)
>>
>> Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
>> only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
>> couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
>> If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
>> more expense to be much better prepared.
>
> So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
> topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
> their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
> prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately for
my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But that
adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation that the
SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That same
expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by some as
a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals wouldn't
exhibit.

In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue apparatus
did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly unprecedented level of
disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was to deploy the National
Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and protect other rescuers.
Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil authority frequently
precipitates violence by some; this has happened throughout the world and
throughout human history, so it should take no one by surprise. Nor should
it be misrepresented as unusually characteristic of impoverished people or
welfare recipients; sadly, it is universal.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
>> only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
>> couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
>> If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
>> more expense to be much better prepared.
>
> There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
> A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
> by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
> Three days is the average.

I suspect that average may be jacked up by more challenging terrain than I
usually overfly here in the Northeast. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic.

--Gary

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the
>> current topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to
>> blame for their current situation just as you would be if you failed to
>> properly prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?
>
> Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately
> for my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But
> that adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation that
> the SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That same
> expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by some
> as a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals wouldn't
> exhibit.

People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with a
grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential ****ing
the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available. Many
foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame. Don't fly near
thunderstorms. Your analogy sucks. Get it?

> In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue
> apparatus did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly
> unprecedented level of disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was
> to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and
> protect other rescuers. Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil
> authority frequently precipitates violence by some;

The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

> this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so it
> should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
> unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
> sadly, it is universal.

Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves. I
haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid evidence.
But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.

moo

[AES]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival kit. (I myself carry
> just a compass, rescue whistle, >>> signal mirror <<< , rope, and . . .


Reading this led me to think back to the discussion some months ago of
laser dazzling incidents involving pilots.

My impression is that even a cheapo ballpoint-pen-sized 5 mW red laser
pointer ($20 variety), while absolutely no threat at any range, could
function as a very effective emergency signal light for a downed pilot
(or lost hiker or skier or . . . ) if they could point it at or close to
a search aircraft, at slant ranges up to ???several miles???, surely at
night, probably even in the daytime.

And one of the more expensive green versions ($100-$200 price range)
would be immensely more effective in the same situation, since the human
eye is much, much more sensitive at its wavelength.

In other words, either one might be essentially as effective as the
search mirror even with the sun out, and immensely more effective on
cloudy days or at night, at about the same weight and not a lot more
cost.

Of course if you really wanted to exploit this technology you'd have
pilots, hikers, etc, carry either type of laser pointer and observers in
the search planes wear special sunglasses that were close to opaque
across the visible, except for a notch-filter passband at the laser
wavelength. Assuming that the individual being searched for was able to
point the pointer at the search plane, or scan its beam across the
search plane, that signal would be near impossible to miss visually.

Anyone know if anything like this is in regular use?

[SR20GOER]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>>> So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the
>>> current topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to
>>> blame for their current situation just as you would be if you failed to
>>> properly prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?
>>
>> Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately
>> for my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But
>> that adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation
>> that the SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That
>> same expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by
>> some as a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals
>> wouldn't exhibit.
>
> People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with a
> grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential ****ing
> the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available. Many
> foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame. Don't fly near
> thunderstorms. Your analogy sucks. Get it?
>
>> In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue
>> apparatus did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly
>> unprecedented level of disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was
>> to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and
>> protect other rescuers. Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil
>> authority frequently precipitates violence by some;
>
> The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
> were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!
>
>> this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
>> it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
>> unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
>> sadly, it is universal.
>
> Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves. I
> haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid evidence.
> But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.
>
> moo
After Ash Wednesday, when many people lost their homes to the fire or their
possessions to theft, the authorities agreed that evacuation would become
optional rather than enforced.
I personally saw homes lost because no-one was there to save them.
I'd be wanting to stay with the house - admittedly with preparations but
that is because I'm financial, educated, mil trained and pilot trained.
Others might want to stay because it's all they have and they know nothing
else.
The fact that they "were told to evacuate" should not be cited as some
overriding measure of blame.
Same with piloting - you make the decision not some bureaucrat or ATC miles
away.
Brian

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with a
> grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential ****ing
> the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available. Many
> foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame.

As others here have pointed out, many did not have the means to evacuate.
And even if some *do* have themselves to blame, that does not argue against
the rescue coordinators *also* being to blame. Blame is not zero-sum.

>> In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue
>> apparatus did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly
>> unprecedented level of disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was
>> to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and
>> protect other rescuers. Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil
>> authority frequently precipitates violence by some;
>
> The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
> were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!

Uh, yes, despite your eloquent and incisive uppercase refutation. You didn't
see this conduct to this extent in New Orleans *before* civil authority
collapsed, did you? And surely you're aware of how often such conduct occurs
in other situations where civil authority recedes or is overwhelmed, even in
the absence of any other emergency (for example, the extensive looting and
bank robberies that immediately broke out when the Montreal police went on
strike in 1969; the vandalism and riots that frequently accompany sports
events in the US and Europe; the vandalism and rioting just for the fun of
it that have occurred at many New England colleges over the past few years;
the extensive criminal looting and violence--separate from pro- or
anti-occupation combat--in Iraq since our invasion...).

>> this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
>> it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
>> unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
>> sadly, it is universal.
>
> Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves. I
> haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid evidence.
> But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.

In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence in
New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
authority in other times and places throughout the world, in the absence of
your favorite unfounded explanations (in the absence of welfare payments
etc.). You have not even *tried* to show that (instead of merely proclaiming
it).

--Gary

[Luke Scharf]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>>The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
>>were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Uh, yes, despite your eloquent and incisive uppercase refutation. You didn't
> see this conduct to this extent in New Orleans *before* civil authority
> collapsed, did you? And surely you're aware of how often such conduct occurs
> in other situations where civil authority recedes or is overwhelmed, even in
> the absence of any other emergency (for example, the extensive looting and
> bank robberies that immediately broke out when the Montreal police went on
> strike in 1969; the vandalism and riots that frequently accompany sports
> events in the US and Europe; the vandalism and rioting just for the fun of
> it that have occurred at many New England colleges over the past few years;
> the extensive criminal looting and violence--separate from pro- or
> anti-occupation combat--in Iraq since our invasion...).

But sending in a military with orders that say "shoot to kill" seems to
only give a disorganized rabble a common enemey and a cause to organize
-- doesn't it?

After all, armed occupation seems to have solved so many problems
quickly and easily in the past -- and with no nasty side-effects,
either! </sarcasm>


-Luke

[cjcampbell]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>
> Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
> expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
> file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.
> Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
> whole, exceptionally self-reliant. Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers,
> when exhibited by the hurricane victims, is extolled by some here as
> evidence of the "gimme mentality" of the "welfare class" (without a shred of
> evidence that most of the victims in question actually lacked employment).
> People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what they
> expect to see. (These remarks aren't directed at your comments, CJ; I'm just
> using your post as a hook.)
>
> --Gary

I understand what you are saying, Gary. One of the big problems that we
are dealing with is a culture of dependency. It is too easy to extend
our perceptions of that problem to a point where people don't realize
how inter-dependent they are. A culture of dependency is classless. I
see it in rich and poor alike, among all races and people. It basically
says, "I cannot do anything for myself. It is up to the government, or
the rich, or somebody else, to provide for all my wants and needs." It
is basically a refusal to grow up, to remain forever a child who is
taken care of by its parents. The liberal mind, quite rightly,
perceives this belief as the tool of oppression.

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me." Such a culture isolates people from one another. It is the culture
of the hermit. It does not recognize that your actions have an effect
on others, whether you wish it or not.

Both of these cultures are cultures of comparison. They dwell on the
concept of haves and have-nots, that what you are defined by how other
people perceive you, by your looks, your intelligence, your wealth,
etc. The culture of dependency views most people as children who are
taken care of by their wealthy and powerful mommies and daddies. The
culture of self reliance views people as competitors in a Darwinian
race where only the quick and powerful deserve to survive.

Many people pay lip service to a culture of inter-dependence, but in my
experience very few people really believe in it. No political
philosophy 'owns' the concept to a culture of inter-dependence. Both
modern liberalism and modern conservatism actually fight against it.
Politicians and governments for the most part are far more interested
in control than they are in helping people become better. So, like
lobsters in a pot, we keep pulling one another back into the boiling
water, and in the end we are all cooked. Far better to blame the
rescuers for being too slow, or not doing enough, than to help them out
or take what charge we can of our own lives. Far better to blame the
hurricane victims for being victims than to waste time and resources on
rescuing them. The actors come and go across the stage, but the script
is always the same.

[Gary Drescher]

"Luke Scharf" > wrote in message
...
> But sending in a military with orders that say "shoot to kill" seems to
> only give a disorganized rabble a common enemey and a cause to organize --
> doesn't it?
>
> After all, armed occupation seems to have solved so many problems quickly
> and easily in the past -- and with no nasty side-effects, either!
> </sarcasm>

Armed invasion and occupation by a foreign power is vastly different from
the lawful introduction of domestic forces to re-establish civil protection.
The folks in N.O. are not treating the National Guard as an enemy--in part
because of the leadership of Gen. Honore (I'm thinking of the footage of him
running around ordering his combat-stance troops to "Point those goddamn
weapons down" so they wouldn't appear unnecessarily hostile and provoke
violence instead of preventing it).

--Gary

[Happy Dog]

"SR20GOER" >
> After Ash Wednesday, when many people lost their homes to the fire or
> their possessions to theft, the authorities agreed that evacuation would
> become optional rather than enforced.
> I personally saw homes lost because no-one was there to save them.
> I'd be wanting to stay with the house - admittedly with preparations but
> that is because I'm financial, educated, mil trained and pilot trained.
> Others might want to stay because it's all they have and they know nothing
> else.
> The fact that they "were told to evacuate" should not be cited as some
> overriding measure of blame.
> Same with piloting - you make the decision not some bureaucrat or ATC
> miles away.

I agree. "VFR not recommended" seems to happen about 250 days a year days a
year where I'm from. It's near-pointless listening to it without looking at
all the available wx info. But I qualified that point with the fact that
there was widely available information that it was very possible that
massive flooding could happen. A decision to remain in many areas was a
preventable mistake.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"cjcampbell" >

> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
> me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" >
>> People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with
>> a grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential
>> ****ing the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available.
>> Many foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame.
>
> As others here have pointed out, many did not have the means to evacuate.

Many, many did. Disagree with that or quit wasting time.

> And even if some *do* have themselves to blame, that does not argue
> against the rescue coordinators *also* being to blame.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Did anyone? Nope. Straw men don't survive
rough weather.

>>> Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil authority frequently
>>> precipitates violence by some;
>>
>> The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
>> were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Uh, yes, despite your eloquent and incisive uppercase refutation. You
> didn't see this conduct to this extent in New Orleans *before* civil
> authority collapsed, did you? And surely you're aware of how often such
> conduct occurs

And how often it doesn't. But, to be fair, you didn't say that it was "due
to".

>>> this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
>>> it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
>>> unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
>>> sadly, it is universal.
>>
>> Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves.
>> I haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid
>> evidence. But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.
>
> In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
> quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence
> in New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
> authority in other times and places throughout the world,

Did I say that? No. I didn't.

moo

[cjcampbell]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "cjcampbell" >
>
> > Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
> > of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
> > culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
> > obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
> > me."
>
> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>
> moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.
2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>> As others here have pointed out, many did not have the means to evacuate.
>
> Many, many did. Disagree with that or quit wasting time.
>
>> And even if some *do* have themselves to blame, that does not argue
>> against the rescue coordinators *also* being to blame.
>
> Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I didn't say you said that. I was just adding balance. (I think we've
entered a miscommunication loop.)

>>>> this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so
>>>> it should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
>>>> unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
>>>> sadly, it is universal.
>>>
>>> Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves.
>>> I haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid
>>> evidence. But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.
>>
>> In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
>> quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence
>> in New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
>> authority in other times and places throughout the world,
>
> Did I say that? No. I didn't.

Then perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here too. My point was that
to plausibly attribute the violence in N.O. to welfare assistance, you'd
have to show, at a minimum, that there is more violence in N.O. than in
otherwise-comparable circumstances where welfare assistance is absent.
Nothing in "the reports so far" even *attempts* to make that comparison.
(Nor has anyone shown--though you and others have flatly asserted--that the
perpetrators of the violence or looting were recipients of welfare
assistance. If, as it appears, the most serious violence is coming from gang
members, then it is at least as plausible to speculate that they support
themselves by drug dealing instead. If the Prohibition-era Mafia had been
thriving in New Orleans when the hurricane struck, don't you suppose *their*
gangs would have taken over too when the police department collapsed?)

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One of the big problems that we
> are dealing with is a culture of dependency. It is too easy to extend
> our perceptions of that problem to a point where people don't realize
> how inter-dependent they are. A culture of dependency is classless. I
> see it in rich and poor alike, among all races and people. It basically
> says, "I cannot do anything for myself. It is up to the government, or
> the rich, or somebody else, to provide for all my wants and needs." It
> is basically a refusal to grow up, to remain forever a child who is
> taken care of by its parents.

It's possible, of course, to be excessively dependent. But in general, being
able to create institutions that we can depend on for protection (from
violence, from the aftermath of disasters, from unbreathable air...) is one
of the great blessings of civilization. And as the example of pilots relying
in part on SAR illustrates, such dependency is hardly tantamount to an
attitude that "I cannot do anything for myself".

--Gary

[Luke Scharf]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> The folks in N.O. are not treating the National Guard as an enemy--in part
> because of the leadership of Gen. Honore (I'm thinking of the footage of him
> running around ordering his combat-stance troops to "Point those goddamn
> weapons down" so they wouldn't appear unnecessarily hostile and provoke
> violence instead of preventing it).

Smart guy! I don't watch TV, though, so I must have missed that
footage. Keeping the mission peaceful seems like the only way to make
the relief effort work.


It's hard to avoid hearing the Bushisms, though. The Bushism about
shooting-looters-to-kill combined with stories about people being shot
makes it seem like someone at the top ain't though things through.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Police_shoot_eight_gunmen_on_New_Orleans_bridge%2C _five_dead
- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict58.jpg -- Leonard Thomas, 23, cries after
a SWAT team burst into the flooded home he and his family were living in
on Monday, Sept. 5, 2005. Neighbors had reported that they were
squatting in the house in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but the
authorities left after his family proved they owned the house. Some
rescuers are not taking any more food and water to those who have
decided to stay in an effort to force them out. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

Scary... Let's just hope that when I walk down a street in Virginia
that my belt-clip cell-phone holder doesn't look like a gun-holster,
that I'm not mistaken for a looter, that I'm not mistaken a squatter, or
(as happened to a friend recently when he was staying as his brother's
house) that I'm not on the receiving end of false-alarm for a "robbery
in progress". Let's furthermore hope that no TFR's pop up while I'm in
the air, so that I don't get mistaken for a terrorist.



But, they are making some progress:
http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict57.jpg - A military helicopter drops a
sandbag as work continues to repair the 17th Street canal levee Monday,
Sept. 5, 2005, in New Orleans. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

And, just for balance: http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict39.jpg (the AP
caption is useless)

-Luke

[Doof]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "cjcampbell" >
>
>> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
>> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
>> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
>> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
>> me."
>
> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>
Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in a
logical fallacy of "false-alternative".

Tom S.

[Doof]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> "cjcampbell" >
>>
>> > Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
>> > of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
>> > culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
>> > obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
>> > me."
>>
>> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
>> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>>
>> moo
>
> You are ignorant of a couple of things:

Look in a mirror.

>
> 1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
> wrong.
> 2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.
>

It's that piece you just created "Although it may be somewhat of an
improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards me."

Tom

[George Patterson]

Luke Scharf wrote:
>
> And, just for balance: http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict39.jpg (the AP
> caption is useless)

So's the photo without some sort of caption. What's in the bag? Looks like it
might be a lionfish, but it would take a real stupid man to hold the bag like
that if it were.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message

>> > Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
>> > of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
>> > culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
>> > obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
>> > me."
>>
>> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
>> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>>
>> moo
>
> You are ignorant of a couple of things:
>
> 1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
> wrong.

It isn't a right or wrong issue. You are mischaracterizing the position of
people who advocate self-reliance.

> 2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.

Idiot. You have constructed a caricature of the "culture of self-reliance"
by defining it a hermit lifestyle. That is a textbook strawman argument.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" <GLDrescher
>>> In what way? For me to be "losing" so far, you'd have to be able to show
>>> quantitatively, from the reports so far, that the extent of the violence
>>> in New Orleans is greater than has broken out during collapses of civil
>>> authority in other times and places throughout the world,
>>
>> Did I say that? No. I didn't.
>
> Then perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here too. My point was that
> to plausibly attribute the violence in N.O. to welfare assistance, you'd
> have to show, at a minimum, that there is more violence in N.O. than in
> otherwise-comparable circumstances where welfare assistance is absent.

No, I wouldn't. That is only making the issue more complex since we'd also
have to take into account a bunch of other variables.

> Nothing in "the reports so far" even *attempts* to make that comparison.
> (Nor has anyone shown--though you and others have flatly asserted--that
> the perpetrators of the violence or looting were recipients of welfare
> assistance. If, as it appears, the most serious violence is coming from
> gang members, then it is at least as plausible to speculate that they
> support themselves by drug dealing instead. If the Prohibition-era Mafia
> had been thriving in New Orleans when the hurricane struck, don't you
> suppose *their* gangs would have taken over too when the police department
> collapsed?)

At this point, you're just grasping at straws to make your point. You seem
to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as anyone here has
against it. And it's resulted in a bunch of irrelevant tangents. We'll see
whether I'm correct or not soon enough.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "cjcampbell" >
>>
>>> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
>>> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
>>> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
>>> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
>>> me."
>>
>> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
>> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>>
> Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in a
> logical fallacy of "false-alternative".

Strawman, actually. His statement is a caricature of self-reliance
advocates. Did you mean "false dilemma", BTW?

moo

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> You seem to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as anyone
> here has against it.

And this supposed bias of mine is demonstrated by my asking for evidence to
support the connection between welfare and N.O. violence that you and others
have asserted?

Or do you think that *I've* made unsupported factual assertions about
welfare? If so, can you quote one?

--Gary

[J Smith]

Gary,
How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
Many are not poor, they are home owners.
Some are not old, some have young children.
Are they not endangering their children by refusing to leave when
offered transportation?
How are they going to provide for their families now that the
authorities are cutting off food, water and medical services?
One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.

[W P Dixon]

The Gov of LA said in a phone interview(on National TV) this morning that
the Mayor of NO had told her the buses were running , with police in front
of them riding through the city telling everyone to get on the bus to leave
town on their loudspeakers. Makes one wonder doesn't it?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"J Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Gary,
> How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
> Many are not poor, they are home owners.
> Some are not old, some have young children.
> Are they not endangering their children by refusing to leave when
> offered transportation?
> How are they going to provide for their families now that the
> authorities are cutting off food, water and medical services?
> One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
> neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
> Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
> Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.

[Rick]

Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
>Gary Drescher wrote:
[snip]

>It's hard to avoid hearing the Bushisms, though. The Bushism about
>shooting-looters-to-kill combined with stories about people being shot
>makes it seem like someone at the top ain't though things through.
>
>http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Police_shoot_eight_gunmen_on_New_Orleans_bridge
%2C_five_dead
> - Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
>arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
>the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.

>http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict58.jpg -- Leonard Thomas, 23, cries after
>a SWAT team burst into the flooded home he and his family were living in
>on Monday, Sept. 5, 2005. Neighbors had reported that they were
>squatting in the house in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but the
>authorities left after his family proved they owned the house. Some
>rescuers are not taking any more food and water to those who have
>decided to stay in an effort to force them out. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
>
>Scary... Let's just hope that when I walk down a street in Virginia
>that my belt-clip cell-phone holder doesn't look like a gun-holster,

Let's just hope you don't take your cell-phone out of the holster and aim it
at someone. Do you honestly think authorities are just going around killing
anyone who has something that might possibly look like a gun?

>that I'm not mistaken for a looter,

C'mon...do you actually think that they're going around automatically
shooting at anyone who looks like they might be looting?

>that I'm not mistaken a squatter, or
>(as happened to a friend recently when he was staying as his brother's
>house) that I'm not on the receiving end of false-alarm for a "robbery
>in progress". Let's furthermore hope that no TFR's pop up while I'm in
>the air, so that I don't get mistaken for a terrorist.

I kinda thought pre-flight briefings would take care of that. Do they
actually put up TFRs with no warnings?

Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement of
any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.

- Rick

[Gary Drescher]

"J Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Gary,
> How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
> Many are not poor, they are home owners.

I haven't asserted that well-to-do homeowners are justified to remain in
N.O.

> One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
> neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
> Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
> Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.

That particular argument still applies to anyone who wanted to leave but
couldn't. It doesn't apply to someone who is offered transportation and
refuge but declines.

--Gary

[Icebound]

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> Luke Scharf wrote in message ...

>> - Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
>>arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
>>the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?
>
> You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
> levee?
> My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
> he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
> shooters first.
>


That story took on wings of its own.

A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while talking
about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
versions of this particular story.

His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank range.
Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did not
shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.

Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it to
print.

This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
They report other people's rumours.

[Rick]

Icebound wrote in message ...
>
>"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>> Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
>
>>> - Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
>>>arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
>>>the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?
>>
>> You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
>> levee?
>> My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
>> he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
>> shooters first.
>>
>
>
>That story took on wings of its own.

There's likely to be a lot of that in a situation like that.

>A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while
talking
>about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
>versions of this particular story.
>
>His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
>approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank range.
>Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
>hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did
not
>shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.
>
>Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
>event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it to
>print.
>
>This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
>They report other people's rumours.

The stories I saw claimed to be sourced from both Corps and Police. In this
kind of situation it must be extremely hard to get direct access to the
people involved. It will be interesting to see what the final version is.

- Rick

[Rick]

Gary Drescher wrote in message ...
>"J Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Gary,
>> How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
>> Many are not poor, they are home owners.
>
>I haven't asserted that well-to-do homeowners are justified to remain in
>N.O.
>
>> One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
>> neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
>> Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
>> Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.
>
>That particular argument still applies to anyone who wanted to leave but
>couldn't. It doesn't apply to someone who is offered transportation and
>refuge but declines.

Here's one approach to dealing with that problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/opinion/06tierney.html
"Instead of relying on a "Good Samaritan" policy - the fantasy in New
Orleans that everyone would take care of the neighbors - the Virginia rescue
workers go door to door. If people resist the plea to leave, Mr. Judkins
told The Daily Press in Newport News, rescue workers give them Magic Markers
and ask them to write their Social Security numbers on their body parts so
they can be identified."

I think they should give folks bar-coded wrist-bands from the County
Coroner, photograph them for identification by relatives, and give them a
body bag and tell them to crawl inside and zip it up when the water rises.
And maybe someone could invent a portable dental x-ray unit.

- Rick

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You seem to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as
>> anyone here has against it.
>
> And this supposed bias of mine is demonstrated by my asking for evidence
> to support the connection between welfare and N.O. violence that you and
> others have asserted?

No. By your insistent use of misrepresentation to make your point.

moo

[Luke Scharf]

Rick wrote:
> You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the levee?
> My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
> he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
> shooters first.

Shooting back in self-defense is one thing.

Following the request from the Louisiana Governor[0][1] and "shooting to
kill" is another. What the hell happened to due process? Without due
process, there is no "rule of law".

> Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement of
> any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.

No, the constitution must followed. Looters should be arrested as per
established procedure, read their rights, and tried for the crime that
they are alleged to have committed.

The rule of law cannot exist if the government gives up on due process
and starts "shooting to kill"[0]. The National Guard doesn't have any
authority to go around the constitution -- especially since every member
is sworn to defend the constitution. If the government doesn't hold up
it's end of the constitutional bargain, then this country stands for
nothing.

-Luke


[0]
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-02T030459Z_01_N01575002_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-KATRINA-KILL.XML
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/weather_katrina_kill_dc;_ylt=AlUDm.ZdVotXZctMgMu86 XKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Governor_gives_authorization_to_shoot_kill_hurrica ne_survivor_ho_0901.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1451906.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1763266,00.html
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/09/02/0209katrina-violence.html


[1] Sorry I mis-attributed the quote. Sounds like a Bushism, but Google
says that it isn't.

[Rick]

Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
>Rick wrote:
>> You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
levee?
>> My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
>> he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
>> shooters first.
>
>Shooting back in self-defense is one thing.

That's what happened in this case.

>Following the request from the Louisiana Governor[0][1] and "shooting to
>kill" is another. What the hell happened to due process? Without due
>process, there is no "rule of law".
>
>> Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement
of
>> any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.
>
>No, the constitution must followed. Looters should be arrested as per
>established procedure, read their rights, and tried for the crime that
>they are alleged to have committed.

Please document for me that that is not being done.

>The rule of law cannot exist if the government gives up on due process
>and starts "shooting to kill"[0].

I think that phrase does not mean what you think it means.

>The National Guard doesn't have any
>authority to go around the constitution

Please document for me that that is being done.

>-- especially since every member
>is sworn to defend the constitution. If the government doesn't hold up
>it's end of the constitutional bargain, then this country stands for
>nothing.
>
>-Luke
>
>
>[0]
>http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&story
ID=2005-09-02T030459Z_01_N01575002_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-KATRINA-KILL.XML
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/weather_katrina_kill_dc;_ylt=AlUDm.ZdVotXZctMgMu
86XKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
>http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Governor_gives_authorization_to_shoot_kill_hu
rricane_survivor_ho_0901.html
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1451906.htm
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1763266,00.html
>http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/09/02/0209katrina-violence.html
>
>
>[1] Sorry I mis-attributed the quote. Sounds like a Bushism, but Google
>says that it isn't.

No, it doesn't sound like a Bushism, it sounds like a soundbite fragment
that is resounding throughout the echo chamber, unimpeded by context and
background. Do you honestly think that the Guard troops have had no training
in the legalities of the rules of engagement? Do you honestly think that
those rules and the orders issued were designed with no regard for the law
and the constitution? Do you honestly think...actually that's the problem. I
don't believe that you are thinking this through, honestly or not. Maybe you
could do some research on the full statements by the Governor, the orders
issued, and the training that the Guard receives.

I'm glad you're not in charge.

- Rick

[Rick]

Rick wrote in message ...
>Icebound wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>>> Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
>>
>>>> - Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
>>>>arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
>>>>the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?
>>>
>>> You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
>>> levee?
>>> My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
>>> he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
>>> shooters first.
>>>
>>
>>
>>That story took on wings of its own.
>
>There's likely to be a lot of that in a situation like that.
>
>>A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while
>talking
>>about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
>>versions of this particular story.
>>
>>His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
>>approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank
range.
>>Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
>>hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did
>not
>>shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.
>>
>>Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
>>event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it
to
>>print.
>>
>>This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
>>They report other people's rumours.
>
>The stories I saw claimed to be sourced from both Corps and Police. In this
>kind of situation it must be extremely hard to get direct access to the
>people involved. It will be interesting to see what the final version is.

Some more commentary along those lines:
http://www.reason.com/links/links090605.shtml

- Rick

[Luke Scharf]

Rick wrote:
>
> No, it doesn't sound like a Bushism, it sounds like a soundbite fragment
> that is resounding throughout the echo chamber, unimpeded by context and
> background.

It sounds an awful lot like things Bush says from time-to-time --
especially since just shooting lots of people seems to be strategy that
we need to "stay the course" with in Iraq.

Do you honestly think that the Guard troops have had no training
> in the legalities of the rules of engagement? Do you honestly think that
> those rules and the orders issued were designed with no regard for the law
> and the constitution? Do you honestly think...actually that's the problem. I
> don't believe that you are thinking this through, honestly or not. Maybe you
> could do some research on the full statements by the Governor, the orders
> issued, and the training that the Guard receives.

Look, after reading the USA-PATRIOT act and seeing the reports of the
bizarre things that our government has done after 9/11 (Guitanamo Bay,
Abu-Garabe, TSA systematically ignoring my personal 4th amendment rights
on multiple occasions, bizarre popup TFR's enforced by a lot of
anti-aircraft weaponry, the occasional swarm of police officers pulling
guns on my friend and shooting my friend's brother's dog in Hollywood
Florida for no good reason, and, just for the hell of it, some of new
IT-related rules that have come down the pipe lately), I can no longer
trust the government as-a-whole to respect it's citizens. Politicians
giving orders to ignore one more bit of the Bill of Rights is very
believable, and very frightening.

The individual military and police folks that I talk to seem OK, but
with the changes in search & seizure law that I've been observing, their
character is the only thing that keeps them from being dangerous. With
the constitution being ignored a little more each day, idiotic
leadership at the top, "shoot to kill" stupidity in the middle, and a
few normal folks who have to follow orders at the bottom -- what's left
of the restraint and freedom that made this country great?

All I can do is bitch on the Internet and hope to jolt a few other
people out of their complacency so that they will vote more responsibly
the next time around.

-Luke

[Doof]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You seem to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as
>>> anyone here has against it.
>>
>> And this supposed bias of mine is demonstrated by my asking for evidence
>> to support the connection between welfare and N.O. violence that you and
>> others have asserted?
>
> No. By your insistent use of misrepresentation to make your point.

He's good for that; jumping off on tangents when his points get crushed. You
could lay it out so a kid could under stand it and he'll just ask for more
substantiation and then ignore it. His capacity for abstraction and concepts
is ZILCH!

You're wasting your time trying to reason with him.

[Doof]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Doof" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "cjcampbell" >
>>>
>>>> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
>>>> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
>>>> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
>>>> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
>>>> me."
>>>
>>> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
>>> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
>>>
>> Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in
>> a logical fallacy of "false-alternative".
>
> Strawman, actually.

Both actually.

> His statement is a caricature of self-reliance advocates.

He also alludes that one is either dependant or narcistic (?).

> Did you mean "false dilemma", BTW?

Yup (most people don't know what FD means, but do understand a false
alternative.)

[Rick]

Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> No, it doesn't sound like a Bushism, it sounds like a soundbite fragment
>> that is resounding throughout the echo chamber, unimpeded by context and
>> background.
>
>It sounds an awful lot like things Bush says from time-to-time --
>especially since just shooting lots of people seems to be strategy that
>we need to "stay the course" with in Iraq.

More unsupported allegations. It sounds like you spend too much time
listening to the leftward spin on everything.

>Do you honestly think that the Guard troops have had no training
>> in the legalities of the rules of engagement? Do you honestly think that
>> those rules and the orders issued were designed with no regard for the
law
>> and the constitution? Do you honestly think...actually that's the
problem. I
>> don't believe that you are thinking this through, honestly or not. Maybe
you
>> could do some research on the full statements by the Governor, the orders
>> issued, and the training that the Guard receives.
>
>Look, after reading the USA-PATRIOT act and seeing the reports of the
>bizarre things that our government has done after 9/11 (Guitanamo Bay,
>Abu-Garabe, TSA systematically ignoring my personal 4th amendment rights
>on multiple occasions, bizarre popup TFR's enforced by a lot of
>anti-aircraft weaponry, the occasional swarm of police officers pulling
>guns on my friend and shooting my friend's brother's dog in Hollywood
>Florida for no good reason, and, just for the hell of it, some of new
>IT-related rules that have come down the pipe lately), I can no longer
>trust the government as-a-whole to respect it's citizens. Politicians
>giving orders to ignore one more bit of the Bill of Rights is very
>believable, and very frightening.
>
>The individual military and police folks that I talk to seem OK, but
>with the changes in search & seizure law that I've been observing, their
>character is the only thing that keeps them from being dangerous. With
>the constitution being ignored a little more each day, idiotic
>leadership at the top, "shoot to kill" stupidity

Excuse me for being insulting, but the stupidity here is from people who are
a little too gullible, and from the media who don't bother to do enough
homework and research to explain things carefully.

>in the middle, and a
>few normal folks who have to follow orders at the bottom -- what's left
>of the restraint and freedom that made this country great?
>
>All I can do is bitch on the Internet and hope to jolt a few other
>people out of their complacency so that they will vote more responsibly
>the next time around.

In other words you are not going to take the time to educate yourself. You
sound like a lefty dittohead.

I think you've brought up an important issue. So many are blaming Bush for
not acting. If laws were in place to give some federal agency the authority
to do absolutely everything that was needed here, folks like you would be
screaming about Ashcroft's theocracy or some such nonsense involving
Brownshirts and Jackboots.

- Rick

[cjcampbell]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
:
> >
> > 1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
> > wrong.
>
> It isn't a right or wrong issue. You are mischaracterizing the position of
> people who advocate self-reliance.
>
> > 2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.
>
> Idiot. You have constructed a caricature of the "culture of self-reliance"
> by defining it a hermit lifestyle. That is a textbook strawman argument.

I am not your enemy, you know. I am sorry if you think I created a
caricature of self-reliance. If it will make you feel better, let me
offer "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

--------

I love this poem. Ella Wheeler Wilcox put it this way:

There is no chance, no destiny, no fate,
Can circumvent or hinder or control
The firm resolve of a determined soul.

--------

Will you accept these as anthems, if not definitions, of the self
sufficient soul?

[cjcampbell]

Doof wrote:
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Doof" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> "cjcampbell" >
> >>>
> >>>> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
> >>>> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
> >>>> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
> >>>> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
> >>>> me."
> >>>
> >>> Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
> >>> That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
> >>>
> >> Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in
> >> a logical fallacy of "false-alternative".
> >
> > Strawman, actually.
>
> Both actually.
>
> > His statement is a caricature of self-reliance advocates.
>
> He also alludes that one is either dependant or narcistic (?).
>
> > Did you mean "false dilemma", BTW?
>
> Yup (most people don't know what FD means, but do understand a false
> alternative.)

I also understand what misrepresentation is. I neither said nor alluded
that one is either dependent or nacissistic. I did, in fact, offer at
least a third alternative: interdependent.

[cjcampbell]

Doof wrote:
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "cjcampbell" >
> >
> >> Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
> >> of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
> >> culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
> >> obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
> >> me."
> >
> > Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
> > That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.
> >
> Neither would psychologists or other "self-help" types. He's engaging in a
> logical fallacy of "false-alternative".
>
> Tom S.

If I have mistated my case, show me the rugged individualists posting
here who have suggested lifting even one finger to help out the
hurricane victims. To the contrary, they began by complaining the
misuse of "their" money and resources for this task, and have suggested
it would just be better to let them die.

[cjcampbell]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > One of the big problems that we
> > are dealing with is a culture of dependency. It is too easy to extend
> > our perceptions of that problem to a point where people don't realize
> > how inter-dependent they are. A culture of dependency is classless. I
> > see it in rich and poor alike, among all races and people. It basically
> > says, "I cannot do anything for myself. It is up to the government, or
> > the rich, or somebody else, to provide for all my wants and needs." It
> > is basically a refusal to grow up, to remain forever a child who is
> > taken care of by its parents.
>
> It's possible, of course, to be excessively dependent. But in general, being
> able to create institutions that we can depend on for protection (from
> violence, from the aftermath of disasters, from unbreathable air...) is one
> of the great blessings of civilization. And as the example of pilots relying
> in part on SAR illustrates, such dependency is hardly tantamount to an
> attitude that "I cannot do anything for myself".

Yes, but there are way too many people in New Orleans (and everywhere
else, for that matter) who are excessively dependent by any reasonable
standard. Besides, haven't you heard? I am too tough on people who are
independent.

[W P Dixon]

OK CJ,
I believe in my first post was....
Guys and Gals,
Take a moment tonight for thoughts and prayers for the folks on the Gulf
coast. Winds are now 160 knots. To our newsgroupers in the Mobile area I
sure hope yall have gotten out of Dodge. Let's all hope that things won't be
as bad as everyone is saying. Please do what you can to help the victims, I
am sure lots of our help will be needed and greatly appreciated.

--
Patrick Dixon
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


I do not see one word about letting people die in there, looks to me like I
am asking for everyone to help however they can. I also do not see anything
in there about people's skin color , nationality, nor financial situation. I
do not feel I need the Federal Gov, robbing me of my paycheck on useless
crap programs that do not work. I do believe that a man with any kind of
feeling towards humanity does not need big brother to say he has to help
someone. I try to help anyone I can. And I do not only do it when a disaster
strikes. I do feel if the gov laid off everyones income, more money would be
used to help others than what can be done through the tax and give programs.
Being a free nation does not mean and never has meant a free ride,...if
it does then we all need to stop working because alot of folks are being
cheated out of freedom ;) I think you need to make exceptions for your
theory.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> If I have mistated my case, show me the rugged individualists posting
> here who have suggested lifting even one finger to help out the
> hurricane victims. To the contrary, they began by complaining the
> misuse of "their" money and resources for this task, and have suggested
> it would just be better to let them die.
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

Luke Scharf wrote:

> Shooting back in self-defense is one thing.
>
> Following the request from the Louisiana Governor[0][1] and "shooting to
> kill" is another. What the hell happened to due process? Without due
> process, there is no "rule of law".

Guilty... Guilty as charged...

[Happy Dog]

"cjcampbell" > wrote

>> Idiot. You have constructed a caricature of the "culture of
>> self-reliance"
>> by defining it a hermit lifestyle. That is a textbook strawman argument.
>
> I am not your enemy, you know. I am sorry if you think I created a
> caricature of self-reliance. If it will make you feel better, let me
> offer "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley:

Well, at my age, poetry is one of the few things that can unfailingly seduce
me. BUT:
>
This:

> I thank whatever gods may be
> For my unconquerable soul.

And this:

> I am the master of my fate:
> I am the captain of my soul.

seem logically inconsistant, no?

> I love this poem. Ella Wheeler Wilcox put it this way:
>
> There is no chance, no destiny, no fate,
> Can circumvent or hinder or control
> The firm resolve of a determined soul.

Good. But she forgot "money".
>
> --------
>
> Will you accept these as anthems, if not definitions, of the self
> sufficient soul?

No. Close but.

Ran into this guy at dinner a couple weeks ago he sang it this way:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will.

(But the drummist wrote it.)

moo

[Happy Dog]

"cjcampbell" >

> If I have mistated my case, show me the rugged individualists posting
> here who have suggested lifting even one finger to help out the
> hurricane victims. To the contrary, they began by complaining the
> misuse of "their" money and resources for this task, and have suggested
> it would just be better to let them die.

I have acted alone and privately. At least I'll know where the money's
going. Others might quite correctly feel they've been screwed enough and
find it distasteful that, having created millions, in many cases, for the
government to use, now are being asked to give more.

moo

[cjcampbell]

Happy Dog wrote:
rote it.)
>
> moo

How about this reply to "Invictus" by Orson F. Whitney?

The Soul's Captain

Art thou in truth? Then what of Him
Who bought thee with His blood?
Who plunged into devouring seas
And snatched thee from the flood,

Who bore for all our fallen race
What none but Him could bear--
That God who died that man might live
And endless glory share.

Of what avail thy vaunted strength
Apart from His vast might?
Pray that His light may pierce the gloom
That thou mayest see aright.

Men are as bubbles on the wave,
As leaves upon the tree.
Thou, captain of thy soul! Forsooth,
Who gave that place to thee?

Free will is thine -- free agency,
To wield for right or wrong:
But thou must answerunto Him
To whom all souls belong.

Bend to the dust that "head unbowed,"
Small part of life's great whole,
And see in Him and Him alone,
The captain of thy soul.

------

Now, perhaps you are irreligious, and do not believe in free will. I
would grant you the right to believe and do as you see best. The poem
still makes its point, even if speaking of God in a figurative sense.
By what right has anyone to claim that they are the captain of their
soul? Or perhaps you believe in no god, but believe in free will. On
what basis then do you believe in free will? If, in the end, we are all
space dust, what does it matter what any of us do, or think, or say? We
then are but passing mites upon a vast and infinite stage. No one then
cares what you or I think, or whether we were the captains of our
souls. You may as well ask the rocks their opinion of race, or the
stars what they think of cabbages.

And, in any event, O captain of your soul, what of parents or teachers
or all others who have helped you along throughout your life? Are you
truly independent? Were you born without parents? Fed without farmers?
Clothed without textile workers? Housed without lumberjacks?

[cjcampbell]

W P Dixon wrote:
> OK CJ,
> I believe in my first post was....
> Guys and Gals,
> Take a moment tonight for thoughts and prayers for the folks on the Gulf
> coast. Winds are now 160 knots. To our newsgroupers in the Mobile area I
> sure hope yall have gotten out of Dodge. Let's all hope that things won't be
> as bad as everyone is saying. Please do what you can to help the victims, I
> am sure lots of our help will be needed and greatly appreciated.
>
> --
> Patrick Dixon
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
> I do not see one word about letting people die in there, looks to me like I
> am asking for everyone to help however they can. I also do not see anything
> in there about people's skin color , nationality, nor financial situation.

Neither did I say anything about that. What makes you think I attacked
you on those grounds?

I
> do not feel I need the Federal Gov, robbing me of my paycheck on useless
> crap programs that do not work. I do believe that a man with any kind of
> feeling towards humanity does not need big brother to say he has to help
> someone. I try to help anyone I can. And I do not only do it when a disaster
> strikes. I do feel if the gov laid off everyones income, more money would be
> used to help others than what can be done through the tax and give programs.

Where have I disagreed with you on any of this?


> Being a free nation does not mean and never has meant a free ride,...if
> it does then we all need to stop working because alot of folks are being
> cheated out of freedom ;) I think you need to make exceptions for your
> theory.
>

Where I did say that being a free nation means a free ride?

Please do not misrepresent what I say. I say that there are too few
people who recognize their interdependence on one another, that there
are too many dependent types waiting for their mommies and daddies to
take care of them and too many independent types who don't think they
have a responsibility to anyone else. Can you really disagree with that?

[Happy Dog]

"cjcampbell"

<< crap >>

The gods of organized religions couldn't sit down with a small committee of
the people they claim to rule and decide what to eat for breakfast. It's a
crock.

> Now, perhaps you are irreligious, and do not believe in free will. I
> would grant you the right to believe and do as you see best. The poem
> still makes its point, even if speaking of God in a figurative sense.
> By what right has anyone to claim that they are the captain of their
> soul? Or perhaps you believe in no god, but believe in free will. On
> what basis then do you believe in free will? If, in the end, we are all
> space dust, what does it matter what any of us do, or think, or say?

It matters to ourselves and to each other. Clearly. No god is required to
validate the existence of anything.

> then are but passing mites upon a vast and infinite stage. No one then
> cares what you or I think, or whether we were the captains of our
> souls. You may as well ask the rocks their opinion of race, or the
> stars what they think of cabbages.

You really do love this obtuse crap when trying to make a point. In this
case, it's that life's worthless without the fighting hairy thunderer show.
That's clearly untrue as evidenced by the millions who do not believe in a
personal god that meddles in daily affairs or explains why girraffes have
long necks.
>
> And, in any event, O captain of your soul, what of parents or teachers
> or all others who have helped you along throughout your life? Are you
> truly independent? Were you born without parents? Fed without farmers?
> Clothed without textile workers? Housed without lumberjacks?

No. I chose to avail myself of their knowledge and aid and they were
compensated for it. Or, they did it for their own reasons. I wasn't a
parasite. And I see nothing inconsistent with living a mostly independent
life and happiness for oneself and friends.

Some people are lost without a personal god. And they're not all bad. But
most that argue that others should be drive me nuts when they use their
faith to **** on those who don't believe in the same cosmic muffin or one at
all.

moo

[cjcampbell]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "cjcampbell"
>
> << crap >>
>
> The gods of organized religions couldn't sit down with a small committee of
> the people they claim to rule and decide what to eat for breakfast. It's a
> crock.
>

Gosh, makes you wonder how I manage to tie my own shoes in the morning.

>
> It matters to ourselves and to each other. Clearly. No god is required to
> validate the existence of anything.

Did I say that? Look, either you are the creation of a god or you are
the product of the laws of an immutable universe. Either way, you get
no credit (or blame) for who or what you are. You had nothing to do
with it. Or did you have a rational alternative? (I can think of at
least one, but I want to hear yours.)

..
>
> You really do love this obtuse crap when trying to make a point.

I do love it so.

> >
> > And, in any event, O captain of your soul, what of parents or teachers
> > or all others who have helped you along throughout your life? Are you
> > truly independent? Were you born without parents? Fed without farmers?
> > Clothed without textile workers? Housed without lumberjacks?
>
> No. I chose to avail myself of their knowledge and aid and they were
> compensated for it. Or, they did it for their own reasons. I wasn't a
> parasite. And I see nothing inconsistent with living a mostly independent
> life and happiness for oneself and friends.
>
> Some people are lost without a personal god. And they're not all bad. But
> most that argue that others should be drive me nuts when they use their
> faith to **** on those who don't believe in the same cosmic muffin or one at
> all.

I often feel much the same way. In fact, everyone who disagrees with me
should be destroyed. :-)

Of course, I drive every day in Philippine traffic. If that doesn't
make a believer out of you, nothing will.

In fact, you ought to come to the Philippines. You might like it here.
The government is too incompetent to collect its taxes effectively. No
one enforces any laws. Heck, the mayor in this town shot his vice mayor
last year, and no one has even said "boo." Driving at night can be a
bit spooky, what with about half the vehicles having no lights at all
and a majority of the rest either having no tail lights or long ago
they switched them with the brake lights or the backup lights or maybe
just hung some Christmas lights across the back. Some of those vehicles
will be oxcarts or horse buggies, some will be "tricycles," little
scooters with sidecars supposedly licensed by the city but without any
safety features whatsoever. The rest will be trucks, buses, and cars
driven by people who are suffering from terminal road rage. And
jeepneys. It is illegal for any vehicle to be unpainted or chrome in
color, so of course that is the predominant color of jeepneys,
tricycles and trucks. They might have bald tires. They might not have
brakes. They probably don't have lights. But they will have chrome
paint jobs, a gazillion antennae, and about three times as many
passengers as you could imagine cramming in there.

The only stop light in town is sponsored by a brewery. All the traffic
signs are paid for and sponsored by local businesses. There is no
standardization on signs, but no one pays any attention to them anyway.
The lane markings are there for decoration only. If I stop at the stop
light (and they have three cops there to make sure the stop light is
obeyed) and I am the first in line, by the time the stop light turns
green I will be seventh in line at least. Everyone just sneaks around
you on both sides to get in front of you until the whole intersection
is filled up with stoplight snudgers. The road in front of your house,
if you have both a road and a house, is paved only if you paid for it.
Advertising regulations? How about this: "Colt .45 Malt Liquor -- Cool
sa driving!" A malt liquor that actually advertises that it improves
your driving! It might, too. I really wonder how I work up the nerve to
drive on these roads while stone sober.

One thing I don't understand. If the country is so desperately poor,
with a per capita income of $600/year, why is it that traffic jams make
it practically impossible to drive across town, and why are there no
parking spaces?

Want a gun? Technically illegal, but everyone carries them anyway. I
can get you a nice .50 cal. machine gun if you want. Or hand grenades.
Maybe even your own private tank. And with no cops, you can just blow
anybody away if you don't like their looks. Happens all the time here.
In fact, if you are driving and hit a pedestrian, you better be
carrying a gun. Otherwise the bystanders will drag you from the car and
beat you to death with rocks.

If you get hit by a bus, you better try to get away. Bus drivers who
run over pedestrians have to pay their medical expenses, But if the
driver kills a pedestrian, he only has to pay for the funeral. So if he
only injures someone, he has huge financial incentive to run over him
again! And they do, too. A couple of our missionaries saw a bus hit a
small child. The driver got out, saw the kid was still alive, so he got
into his bus and backed over him.

If someone is so stupid as to lend you money, you don't have to pay it
back! Just have your hired thugs threaten to kill him and his whole
family if he demands payment. Hired thugs are cheap, too. The going
rate for a murder for hire is about P10,000, or $150.

Getting clear title for your house is a problem. Since no one wants to
pay taxes, no one ever bothers to record real estate transactions. The
landlord collecting your rent may or not own your home, how would you
know? No matter, if someone else comes along and starts asking for back
rent, there are always the hired thugs. Of course, he has hired thugs,
too.

On the upside, you can live a like a king for almost nothing here. You
can have a nice house, a car, the best food, and good servants for less
than $2,000/month. The scenery is fantastic and the people are very
friendly, as long as you don't offend someone and he sends his thugs
after you. :-) If you need medication for anything, drug stores rarely
bother with asking for your prescription and sometimes they actually
have what you need on hand. No FDA here, either. You can buy potions or
devices that will increase your height, bust size, whatever -- they
advertise them on TV. You want Crest toothpaste? Well, they have tubes
that say Crest on them. Maybe some of them have Crest toothpaste in
them, maybe not.

McDonald's serves spaghetti, with tomato sauce made of catsup. Well
maybe that isn't a plus. But you can get even their largest meal for
less than $2. But why bother? For that kind of money some restaurants
will serve a 7 course meal and have a waiter that stands behind your
chair the whole time, waiting to do your slightest bidding. Even
Shakey's has waiters like that.

Because you are an American, everyone will call you "Sir." People will
ask you your opinion and they will believe it! You learn real quick not
to say much, because everyone wants to be an American. So they imitate
you constantly. Of course, most of what people around here know about
America is what they get from watching the news or American sitcoms on
TV, which is kind of scary when you think about it. It is a good thing
there aren't any 1920's gangster shows any more, or the whole country
would look like an episode of "The Untouchables."

Come on up to Laoag and I'll show you around.

[Jay Honeck]

<Long, scary stuff snipped>

> Come on up to Laoag and I'll show you around.

Tell me, why are you there again, CJ? The place sounds pretty hopeless.

Well, except for the servants and stuff....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doof]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "cjcampbell" >
>
>> If I have mistated my case, show me the rugged individualists posting
>> here who have suggested lifting even one finger to help out the
>> hurricane victims. To the contrary, they began by complaining the
>> misuse of "their" money and resources for this task, and have suggested
>> it would just be better to let them die.
>
> I have acted alone and privately. At least I'll know where the money's
> going. Others might quite correctly feel they've been screwed enough and
> find it distasteful that, having created millions, in many cases, for the
> government to use, now are being asked to give more.
>
Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe

Tom Six

[john smith]

> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe

That is not my experience, having read his postings over the last
several years.
I have never heard him preach on this usegroup.
I would not even categorize any of his posting on the recent topics as
being predominantly religious or zealous.

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
> That is not my experience, having read his postings over the last
> several years.
> I have never heard him preach on this usegroup.
> I would not even categorize any of his posting on the recent topics as
> being predominantly religious or zealous.


He was behind that Utah State Tri-Motor Fly-In ...or was it the Tri-Wife
Fly-In? <hehehe...that just never gets old >


>> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe

CJ went to the Philippines to assassinate President Arroyo? Wow.


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("john smith" wrote)
> > That is not my experience, having read his postings over the last
> > several years.
> > I have never heard him preach on this usegroup.
> > I would not even categorize any of his posting on the recent topics as
> > being predominantly religious or zealous.
>
>
> He was behind that Utah State Tri-Motor Fly-In ...or was it the Tri-Wife
> Fly-In? <hehehe...that just never gets old >
>
>
> >> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe
>
> CJ went to the Philippines to assassinate President Arroyo? Wow.

You forgot ol' Pat's hysterics over the past 25 years.

[cjcampbell]

Doof wrote:
> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe

Odd. I can't stand Mr. Robertson. Or fascism. Or you.

I invoke Godwin's law.

[Tom S.]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Doof wrote:
>> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe
>
> Odd. I can't stand Mr. Robertson.

Funny, you're his philosophic twin.

> Or fascism.

Funny, you don't invoke fascism directly (by name) but so much you've
written stems right out of Mussolini and Rocco (conrol over peoples personal
lives, mixed economy...).

> Or you.

From a slug like you, that's certainly something I can live _very well_
with.

>
> I invoke Godwin's law.

Fine, but the description fits.

[cjcampbell]

Tom S. wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Doof wrote:
> >> Forget CJ; he's a fascist Pat Robertson wannabe
> >
> > Odd. I can't stand Mr. Robertson.
>
> Funny, you're his philosophic twin.
>

I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that.

> > Or fascism.
>
> Funny, you don't invoke fascism directly (by name) but so much you've
> written stems right out of Mussolini and Rocco (conrol over peoples personal
> lives, mixed economy...).
>

I think you would be unable to demonstrate that, either. I have no
interest in control over people's personal lives. If believing in a
mixed economy is proof of fascism, then nearly everyone is a fascist,
for nearly everyone believes in some sort of government regulation.
Even the Libertarians.


> > Or you.
>
> From a slug like you, that's certainly something I can live _very well_
> with.
>
> >
> > I invoke Godwin's law.
>
> Fine, but the description fits.


And you still lose the argument. Godwin's law has been invoked. The
thread ends.

[Flyingmonk]

OK I'm naive. What is Godwin's law?

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[George Patterson]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> OK I'm naive. What is Godwin's law?

Godwin's Law: prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is
a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and
whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in
progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper
bound on thread length in those groups.

-- from jargon.net

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[W P Dixon]

Well you learn something everyday!!!!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech
(hey George do ya like the SP better? Land is pretty much a gimme ? )

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:RBsVe.19720$Zv6.7712@trndny03...
> Flyingmonk wrote:
>> OK I'm naive. What is Godwin's law?
>
> Godwin's Law: prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
> over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
> argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
> existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
>
> -- from jargon.net
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[cjcampbell]

Godwin's Law states that the longer a thread on Usenet grows the
probablility of someone calling a Nazi approaches one. There is a
general rule that calling somebody a Nazi, fascist, communist, or some
similar term for those terminates the discussion, with the person who
used the term automatically losing the argument.

There are exceptions. You don't get to terminate a thread just by using
the expedient of calling someone a Nazi. That is cheating. Also, if the
thread is specifically about Nazis in, say, some group devoted to
Holocaust deniers, then Godwin's Law cannot terminate the thread or all
of the threads would be pretty short (not necessarily a bad thing, in
my view).

There have been people who have used sock puppets to call themselves
Nazis simply to terminate a thread and to make it look like they were
the winner, but that is really beyond the pale.