Hurricane relief

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?

"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

"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

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

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

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.