No Sympathy For The Devil

September 13, 2008 02:42 by Fidel

This is a rant!  I watched with complete disbelief last night and this morning the news that over one hundred thousand people disobeyed mandatory evacuation orders from Hurricaine Ike and chose to hunker down in their homes instead of filling up their gas tanks with $5 a gallon petrol and empty their wallets out with expensive hotel and motel costs safely inland.  And then these coastal scofflaws actually expect the rest of us to then rescue them from "certain death" by drowning?  They made their poor decision!  Let them go under three times and then die with it!  By what right, say, do workers at McDonald's and dish-washers and Social Security retirees not put a little aside each month as a fund to help them evacuate when killer hurricaines come knocking (as they do sometimes every year)?  Yet these Texas moochers actually expect me (& other good people like me in, say, Colorado) to pay out of our own pockets for their rescue when they chose--mind-you: CHOSE!--to stay behind?  Just like the good Christian Lieutenant Governor of Texas said a few minutes ago on the Weather Channel: we live in a Free Country, which means workers at McDonald's, dish-washers and Social Security retirees, et al, are completely free to die if they can't afford to live!

And this is as it should be in this Great Land of Ours, doncha think? Smile


Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Related posts

Comments

September 13. 2008 04:47

Tertium Quid

Look deeper and it's worse than you think, Fidel. Every time one of these highly predictable hurricanes come along, FEMA rushes in writing checks left and right to the poor businesses and homeowners whose assets were destroyed by the storm. What a shock! What a surprise! Who ever would have thought that this might happen to those poor people!

By underwriting the risk of living in stupid costal areas, the fedgov skews the risk management costs of living and doing business there to unacceptably low levels. Why even bother with flood insurance, for if anything happens the nation will be wracked with pity and regret that your American dream got swept out into the gulf, and your FEMA agent will write you a check that will let you build your McMansion even better than before, maybe with something left over to hire a gardner and au pair.

By reducing the risk of living and working in such stupid areas, the government encourages the migration of assets to those areas. Poor people without the same safety net of course will follow along looking for opportunities.

They should relocate New Orleans to Omaha. Then the poor people only need fear death by boredom.

(Oh, and why does it matter the religion of Texas' Lieutenant Governor? Your bias is showing.)

Tertium Quid

September 13. 2008 05:18

John Galt

"Oh, and why does it matter the religion of Texas' Lieutenant Governor? Your bias is showing"

Tertium,

You're right, of course. Sometimes my bias gives me a wedgie and other times I can't kept its hem up and out of sight because its elastic waistband has lost all its former righteousness. Moreover, you're also right: there's nothing like a catastrophic hurricane to rejuvenate a coastal economy. Can't wait to see what an atomic bomb might do for Denver...

God, I love you Americans! You're the most generous and kind people on Earth.

No, really!

John Galt

September 13. 2008 06:07

Lisey

Fidel,

How did you know EXACTLY what I was thinking? Honestly, I've actually been watching people who CHOSE not to evacuate. Guess what? They could have, but chose not to. Most of them simply figured it would be better to stay put and deep down they knew the kindness of American people would save them in the end. BAH!

Did you not know that the government had buses and free locations available to ALL who couldn't afford it? Perhaps your assumption that the only option for poor folks was to pay $5 / gallon gas and stay in the Hilton is wrong. Anyway, These same people can afford to drive to work, drive to Walmart, hell... drive where they want. I'm quite sure they could have driven away from the storm.

I'm so sick of us bailing out people who are lazy and indifferent. They know we will bail them out so they never change. Frankly, if you live there, you damn well better have a stash of cash for emergencies and if you'd rather choose to buy your kid some expensive Nikes instead... well... good luck with swimming, I"m not helping those who don't help themselves!

P.S. Mr. Galt, if there was a nuclear bomb, you can rest assured that I would either be happily dead with my family, or surviving in my basement hidden room with the uranium pills I have bought just for such a catastrophe. I certainly wouldn't demand that another more prepared than I hand theirs over or force them to share their supply. STEALING IS WRONG from those who have prepared, no matter what! And most of these 'social' programs are simply government sponsored stealing. Remember the parabel of the ten virgins...

Lisey

September 13. 2008 09:53

Harrison Bergeron

I'm especially astounded by the apparent attitude of entitlement portrayed by many in these circumstances. I can't escape the images in the wake of our last major hurricane disaster, played over and over in the media, where a little girl in pig-tails railed about the government not furnishing her with supplies. She was livid about the situation the government was responsible for, and was taking it's sweet time to solve for her.

This was a tragic situation (as is the current disaster), but many of the populace in the cross-section we're discussing are not victims of the natural disaster nearly as much as they are victims of the manner in which the system keeps them dependent, engendering in them these attitudes of entitlement.

The welfare system for the church is designed to "get people back on their feet." It is designed with motivation to return to self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Sure, there are methods to abuse this system, but in contrast, the system run in our society (read: government) seems designed with no motivation to ever escape from dependency. Conversely, it seems more beneficial to increase the amount of dependency (i.e. the more children in a family, the greater the benefits).

I believe that we have a responsibility to "care for the poor," but our responsibility is not to give them what they want, rather give them what they need. They may want to be sustained by the system, but they need empowerment to sustain themselves. "Give a [person] a fish..."

I haven't seen a perfect design for this ideal yet, but at any rate, our society seems to be moving in the opposite direction anyway.

Harry B.

Harrison Bergeron

September 13. 2008 12:10

Lisey

Here's some typical people who stuck it out that we now have to go save... sigh. They aren't anything like Fidel is painting them as.

"It's going to be fun," Jerry Norton said as he snapped a cell phone image of the flooded road. He said he was sending the picture to his children and grandchildren who fled inland to Austin. Norton said he had filled his bathtubs with water — for drinking, but also for flushing toilets in case the sewer system breaks down. He bought groceries and secured doors and windows.
"If my stuff is going to get washed away, I'm going to watch it get washed away," Norton said

In Surfside Beach, retired carpenter and former Marine Ray Wilkinson became something of a celebrity for a day: He was the lone resident in the town of 805 to defy the order to leave. Authorities found him Saturday morning, drunk. "I consider myself to be stupid," Wilkinson, 67, said through a thick, tobacco-stained beard. "I'm just tired of running from these things. If it's going to get you, it's going to get you." He added: "I didn't say I had all my marbles, OK?"


Yup... why are we painting these people as victims again?

Lisey

September 13. 2008 13:13

Kurt Vonnegut

You amaze me! None of you have ever lived through a real crisis, let alone a repeated catastrophic crisis, yet you backseat drive like the worst mother-in-law in the world. Harrison Bergeron is actually my bastard child and I am thoroughly ashamed of him here (as I was when he was first published and then put by mistake in short story anthologies). Lisey is especially clueless, just like in her picture. Apparently she thinks that "theft" (even of a loaf of bread as in Les Miserables) is the worst possible crime there is and that not being charitable or loving or sympathetic is the supreme virtue. (Like her miner's helmet she's spelunking the deepest pits of human insensitivity.) What a complete Rogue's Gallery you all are!

Kurt Vonnegut

September 15. 2008 02:28

Cyn

Fidel, Kurt and John....

The essence of being loving and charitable is FREE AGENCY....without that, it's force and coercion (or to put it in simpler terms, Satan's Plan, which is to force us all into heaven). Well, it wasn't right in the pre-existence, and it isn't right now. Yes, loving compassion is the highest of ideals, but you remember that the Lord was oftentimes NOT compassionate (for those who willfully stuck to their age-old Pharisee-isms). He called them "whited sepulchres" if you remember, full of dead mens bones. He threw people out of the temple because they were desecrating it. He wasn't some wimp, whining about the right of the High priests to stop others from entering paradise. He called them on the carpet; and rightly so. Equally, we must not "enable" those who are lazy, stupid in their belligerent refusal to take proper cautions to protect themselves, or those who want a handout without working for it. Remember Paul's statement that those who do not contribute should get no bread.

Cyn

September 15. 2008 04:01

Lisey

I was just going to point out the Scripture from D&C which says "The Idle shall NOT take bread from the Laborer."

Lisey

Add comment


(Will show your Gravatar icon)  

  Country flag

[b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/quote]



Live preview

January 5. 2009 16:18