If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hurricane relief | Dave Stadt | Piloting | 94 | September 8th 05 07:02 PM |
Hurricane relief | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 51 | September 8th 05 03:33 AM |
Hurricane relief | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | September 5th 05 05:20 PM |
Hurricane relief | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | September 5th 05 01:03 AM |
Hurricane relief | Gary Drescher | Piloting | 0 | September 4th 05 02:27 AM |