Hurricane relief

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

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

"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.

"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.)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.