Slashdot Mirror
Radio Hams Fired Upon In Haiti
Bruce Perens writes "A team of radio ham volunteers from the Dominican Republic visited Port-au-Prince to install VHF repeaters, only to be fired upon as they left the Dominican embassy. Two non-ham members of the party were hit, one severely. ARRL is sending equipment, and there is confusion as unfamiliar operators in government agencies join in on ham frequencies."
The amateur radio operators are absolutely essential in a place where most of the communications structure has failed, and they didn't have much to begin with.
The fact that these guys are being fired upon just shows how much trouble Hatti is in right now. If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?
If they knew who these people were... why are they trying to scare away people who are rebuilding communication structures?
If they didn't know who these people were... are they attacking anybody in a moving vehicle hoping they've got supplies they an steal for themselves without waiting in line like everybody else?
And this is why we send in the army.
Yeah, where do those Haitians think they are, anyway? New Orleans?
There's a big difference in the Red Cross these days...
Previously, the Red Cross operated in the black by collecting after a disaster not to benefit the current disaster, but to replenish their funds in reserve so they'd have money to deal with the next disaster, whatever it may be.
Then 9/11 happened. And worse yet, pinheads like Bill O'Reilly dared to attack this strategy by demanding that the Red Cross go all out to help 9/11 victims and spend all of the money it was raising. In effect, this disaster got double-funded... both from the collections after the previous disaster and the collections immediately after.
Now here's the problem: More recent disasters like Katrina and Haiti have been underfunded because the money isn't available immediately after the disaster but until news spreads and people pay for the relief. It just hasn't been the same.
I want our old Red Cross back...
The unsung heroes of any disaster are typically the amateur radio operators. These guys, most of the time using their own equipment, time & money will set up a repeater or HF station so communications can get in and out of a disaster area. These guys always deserve a pat on the back as another of the "first responders". 73's! KB0GNK
It has nothing to do with ham radio operators being targetted... I doubt they even knew (or cared) that the vehicles were filled with communication equipment.
If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?
The "right hands"? That's rather arrogant of you. If your city was just washed away or blown to bits, and there's tens of thousands of people roaming the streets looking for food, medical supplies, or anything useful and there's not a uniform in sight, what do you think happens after a few days and people start to get hungry and desperate basic essentials like clean water? In the middle of that, you've got a vehicle (maybe the first you've seen in days or weeks) with well-dressed people and boxes upon boxes of equipment -- you know what the first thought you're going to have is? Fuck! That's dinner. Get the gun.
Morality is a luxury that not everybody can afford. It's like when you've got a person who's gone overboard and they're struggling to stay afloat -- the one thing you never ever ever do is jump in after them. That's a nice hollywood touch, but in the real world that person is desperate and will octopus-death-grip anything that's floating that comes near it -- which includes you. Then you'll both drown. Better to throw them the rope and let them save themselves. Maybe that's callous, but again -- your morality could get you (and others) killed. As such, it's a luxury in a crisis (at best).
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum. you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
But sometimes you have to feed your own family first before you worry about the rest of the world.
And why, exactly would a Haitian care about the fate of some foreigner with food in HIS country when his family is starving? Maybe he's just thinking of feeding his family first...
Now, I'll admit you have the form of a classic troll. But, unfortunately, there are people out there who really believe that justice is best served by blinding the whole world (i.e. an eye for an eye), rather than showing compassion and mercy to those less fortunate. And worse, they often fail to realize the actions of a few people do not characterize the whole. I'm not comfortable with the notion of denying food to children because their father had the temerity to steal on their behalf, nor would I punish the majority of the docile suffering for the transgressions of a few belligerents. But even as I write this, I'm struck with the irony that I'm writing it for a person who lacks the capacity even to understand the problem of suffering in the first place.
I've heard it from missionaries that because Americans are so far removed from personal suffering, they often cannot grasp the true gravity of the situation overseas, or the necessity of their help. So they instead change the channel and waste a few hours before bed watching reruns.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
While I don't share your cynicism about our Haitian brothers, I do agree with the general premise of acting locally first. Many of our fellow citizens are dying of hunger and disease yet receive no support. When our children receive a good education and are not straddled with billions in debt then we can look to help others. That being said all good actions are just, and I'm proud to see that the power of giving is still embeded in our nation, despite so many divisions. If only the focus was not on one off disasters but sustained giving.
I want our old Red Cross back...
You can't have it because O'Reilly and a bunch of others played the morality card, which always trumps common sense. The morality card states that all money collected must be diverted to [insert cause], and not stockpiled. The common sense card says disaster preparation requires a plan ahead of time -- you can't fuck around waiting to allocate resources when it hits. Which is exactly what has happened with Katrina, 9/11, Haiti, and many disasters yet to come. We've reduced our position from being proactive (being able to execute a rescue plan immediately because resources are already available) to reactive (waiting until resources are collected and organized before formulating and executing a plan).
But that's okay -- because we can feel good about contributing a dollar here and a dollar there towards those poor Haitians... you know... we'll get there and help them out... eventually...if there's any that are still alive by the time we're good and ready. The new American Way is to cut our noses off in spite of our face, and pressure on the short-term solution, the quick buy, the easy fix, and the fast profit.
And do you know why? Because the boomers need to milk the economy of every penny they can to pay for their exorbinant retirement package. They were raised believing that America would always be in a state of progress and growth, that we were the best, and competition with other countries was a joke. We grew complacent, and while they built out their infrastructure, we drove around in fat SUVs and bought big screen TVs, eschewing long term growth for the here-and-now creature comforts. And now... well now we are mighty fucked. And when people inevitably call me age-ist and that it's a generalization and blah blah blah -- I'll tell them this: you're right, it is discriminatory. It's also not wrong.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I don't even know where to begin with this... When you say "they", do you mean that everybody in the country has the same mindset, that they all want to shoot you and steal your things? Out there are people needing help. The fact that they are surrounded by thugs makes it more urgent. And yet you want to run at the first sign of adversity. Also, the homeless you've always had with you, even in times of no disaster. If you haven't lifted a finger to help them then, chances are, you're not going to do a thing now.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
I don't. Net yet. I want idiots like Bill O'Reilly to have to live in the world that they created. In fact, I want to get all the Bill O'Reillys and Pat Robertsons of the world in one location in the middle of nowhere so that it only takes one act of God to put them in their place. When they are rescued five days later, starving from under the collapsed ruins of their hotel or whatever, only to be forced to wander the streets for days without food, water, or shelter because there's no money or help coming any time soon and no way off the island, maybe then they'll start to act like reasonable and decent human beings.
You know, sort of an "A Christmas Carol" meets "Deep Impact" kind of thing.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yeah, and the ironic thing is that people complain about our "unsightly" antennas--right up until they need what we can do.
With the severe storms we've been having here in souther California this past week, I've been on standby with San Diego ARES in the event communications go down. No major problem so far but I have all my 2 meter gear ready to go if necessary.
KJ6BSO
This ain't rocket surgery.
Morality is a luxury that not everybody can afford.
Well, in this respect Haiti must be rather affluent. 96 percent of Haitians are Christian, which makes them more religious than the United States.
The poor can embrace morality, if for no other reason, as a matter of pragmatism. The rich are generally well insulated from the consequences of their actions and can do as they please.
If a society won't abide by a common morality under all conditions, why have morality at all? In such a case, it becomes what we in the Western world call politeness. The common morality in Haiti allows people to share, so that instead of one person hoarding and everyone else starving, you have everyone surviving, even if not as well fed as they would like.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Mod parent up, he's absolutely right. We'd all be better off if we just let them die, they're of no use to anybody and they'll just loot us if we try to send aid. Instead, we should send AIDS.
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum. you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst
When the cat's away the mice will play. I can't predict with much accuracy what any one person is going to do; but I can tell you what a group of people is going to do with a high degree of accuracy. The individual human can be compassionate, intelligent, and moral -- but human beings are dumb, irrational, and self-centered creatures and you and I both know it.
As to heroes; We manufacture the occasional hero because we need them, not because what they did was heroic (though incidentally, it often is). We lie all the time about heroics -- but we do it with the bestest of intentions. We need hope, and that need outweighs our desire for objectivity. Sometimes, a person with uncommon qualities becomes self-aware of this fact and acts selflessly for the good of the whole, even to his/her own detriment. It is not a coincidence that these people almost exclusively come from small towns or communities -- but I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to answer why that is.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
By "right people" he means people that need the supplies rather than jackshits that will horde everything and try to sell it to starving people for everything they have left.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I can see where you're coming from a bit, but the flaw in that though is that they're not mutually exclusive actions. Of all the money the government spends, aid to disaster victims ranks among the worthwhile expenditures. Don't complain about this taking money from natives who need it; complain about the billions pissed away on much stupider things (bailouts, wars, drug prohibition, ect.) sucking up all the money.
Remember Somalia? Warlords there grabbed airdropped supplies and then SOLD them at ridiculous prices. According to the news, the prisons are as broken as everything else, and criminals are running rampant. The Haitian police are nowhere to be found. This is exactly why the US sent in soldiers first, this time.
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum. you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst.
You say that from your well-heated basement with Mom's fridge stocked full of frozen pizza upstairs.
If your kid hasn't eaten for four days, your wife's legs are crushed and need to be amputated, but there's no antiseptic or surgeons for miles, and you're all sleeping under a tree, then being "scum" is not what you're worried about.
unless your an expert on every society and culture in the world you can't tell shit about what a given group of people are going to do. there are cultural influences in how a group of people react that greatly influence how they will react to a situation. haiti for example has a long history of violence and unrest, so it's no suprise there's lots of bottom feeders there willing to shoot at people helping them.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I want idiots like Bill O'Reilly to have to live in the world that they created.
But I have to live in that world, too.
...only to be forced to wander the streets for days without food, water, or shelter because there's no money or help coming any time soon and no way off the island, maybe then they'll start to act like reasonable and decent human beings.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that a single tragedy, or even a long list of tragedies, would alter the trajectory of these people's lives. That, upon reflection, they would realize the error of their ways and return to the path of righteousness. The idea that better understanding of the world will lead to justice is one of mankind's oldest illusions.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Who amongst us hasn't wanted to take a few potshots at radio hams. Them and their damned yagis.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
You mean Americans don't like listening to pre-packaged, heartrending stories of grief in Third-world countries, specifically tailored by marketroids to get you to CALL NOW and soothe your conscience for only $19.95 per month. How much of that twenty bucks actually goes to the poor, anyway? Those TV commercials cost money, a lot of it. NGO directors need salaries and drivers, and they don't fly in coach! No sir, first class all the way. In fact, what were you doing talking to *spit* missionaries? You mean people who actually SPREAD Christianity? Talk about evil!
FYI: Americans, particularly the working class (vilified everywhere as "mouthbreathers" and "breeders"), are the largest givers to charity in the world, by a large margin.
Perhaps it isn't so much about shooting aid volunteers as it is about shooting Dominicans. I imagine you can easily find some Hatinas that feel strong aversion towards them (easily manifested especially in such times?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsley_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihaitianismo
One that hath name thou can not otter
unless your an expert on every society and culture in the world you can't tell shit about what a given group of people are going to do.
Well, I know the difference between "your" and "you're", use proper punctuation and grammar, and try to avoid using offensive language except ironically or for emphasis. I believe I would pass better for an expert than you would, if our posting styles are representative.
there are cultural influences in how a group of people react that greatly influence how they will react to a situation.
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much? Or perhaps you are just reluctant to entertain the prospect that morality is a social construct, nothing more than a set of coping mechanisms that we interpose between ourselves and our environment to ensure our survival? It is likely that you are taking the position you are out of a need to preserve your worldview rather than because you have made a critical study of human behavior.
haiti for example has a long history of violence and unrest, so it's no suprise there's lots of bottom feeders there willing to shoot at people helping them.
As opposed to in this country where our median incomes are far, far higher -- and so there were no incidences of looting in the aftermath of Katrina because of our moral superiority? In fact, one of the common threads you will find in any widespread disaster where the survival of large numbers of people is precarious, the first thing to go is any sense of order, civility, or morality.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Yeah, let them sink. Who cares about a bunch of bootlipped, nappy-headed spook savages. Let's get onto more pressing issues, like who is going to host the Tonight Show this week.
--Anonymous Coward, providing Slashdot with valuable racism since 199X
If they'd just use BPL in Haiti, then HAM wouldn't work and there would not be problems like this.
rewriting history since 2109
I take it you consider yourself one of the nobility. But tell me, how long have you ever gone without a decent meal? If it's less than a week, don't be so sure of your own non-scuminess, and don't be too quick to apply the label to others.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Also, Elvis isn't dead, he just went home.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
I didn't know Pat Robertson posted on /.
Uhm, this might be not simple targeting of random aid workers (or aid workers coming from your country, with which you seem to have biggest potential problem...), but specifically those coming from Dominican Republic. Some Haitians might feel antipathy towards them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsley_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihaitianismo
One that hath name thou can not otter
Without knowing it it sounds like you are endorsing non-intervention in crisis like this. If people will be people and mob and steal what incetive is there to help? I for one think that human dignity is often shown most brightly in times like these. Those who participate in acts like this urge others not to act next time, especially since there is no obgliation except moral- which is quickly washed away by a few injured aid workers. You let them off to easy friend.
"The right hands" refers to the people that have the means to properly, and fairly distribute those supplies so that they provide the greatest possible benefit.
Not exactly a hard concept, but what the hell, sometimes it's fun to play controversial and try to twist words and meanings of others to make yourself look more "progressive".
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Um.. The fact that they are surrounded by thugs makes it more urgent. And yet you want to run at the first sign of adversity.
If you think people shouldn't run at the first sign of adversity, perhaps you should go there.
Feel free to go there, try to help, and not flee when you realize that someone is shooting at you..
You'll make darwin proud.
But until you do so personally, you have no right to criticize anyone who wants to run after facing adversity like that.
Money doesn't travel to Haiti and fix problems on its own.
If you haven't lifted a finger to help them then, chances are, you're not going to do a thing now.
We're not talking about the homeless, it's silly to compare homeless in America to the situation in Haiti. There are only superficial similarities, and the people in Haiti are in a temporary situation 10000x worse and 10000x as deserving of aid as any homeless in the US.
People in a disaster like this one are in a much worse situation than homeless people.
The homeless here live in a relatively wealthy country where they can probably find water in a public place, find _something_ edible without extroardinary difficulty, ask someone to help them, or get some odd job to collect enough money to get something to eat.
In other words: food is readily available to homeless people. All they need to do is find (as in collecting coins on the ground), earn (as in do a one-off job for payment), or ask for cash, and they can find it.
Without having to compete with a massive number of people for food/water which has run out.
In a disaster area -- if there's any readily available source of food, such as a fresh dumpster, it's already been sacked a thousand times over.
Frankly: A homeless person in the US can get food by stealing, or sneaking access to dumpster outside of some restaurant. Yes, that sort of thing is illegal, but it's feasible.
In a disaster area like Haiti, survival by such method is not feasible. There's intense competition for whatever food would be left. People trying to steal get shot (if there's anything to steal in the first place).
Comparing the afflicted in a disaster, almost complete anarchy situation, to a homeless person in a stable wealthy country where government services, etc, are intact, with no issues: is ridiculous.
There is ample historical record of people behaving admirably under extremely difficult conditions. Why? Culture and morality. This is a toxic modern idea, that in a crisis it is appropriate for people to devolve to barbarians. Hundreds of hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast before Katrina, and yet nobody shot at the rescuers. Usually, there weren't any rescuers at all, the local people just pulled themselves up and got to work, helping whoever needed it. I frequently see that modern, educated people find such an attitude shattering to their worldview and react to it with vicious hostility whenever it appears in print.
you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst.
Yep. People aren't even noble in Nethack when starving.
The "right hands"? That's rather arrogant of you.
And it's rather ignorant of you. In situations like this in developing nations, warlords (or gangs or whatever they are in the current country) often hijack the emergency supplies and try to sell them, give them to their friends, or even dump them. If you are bringing aid to an under-developed country, this is definitely something you want to think about. Furthermore when people go hungry, they don't get violent, they get lethargic. Try skipping food for a few days yourself, and see how many faces you want to bash in. No, these people doing the shooting have been stealing enough food all along, and are well fed.
It's like when you've got a person who's gone overboard and they're struggling to stay afloat -- the one thing you never ever ever do is jump in after them. That's a nice hollywood touch, but in the real world that person is desperate and will octopus-death-grip anything that's floating that comes near it -- which includes you.
And it looks like you learned your life-saving skills from Hollywood or some other unreliable source. If you can't throw a rope or something to the person, then you swim up behind them, hold them against your body with your arm around their neck, and sidestroke back to shore. If they grab onto you with the octopus-death-grip, duck under the water and they will let go quickly. If my kid, or friend, or even random stranger is out there drowning and I have nothing to throw, you can believe I will go in after him.
Qxe4
Wow, so you are right and he is wrong, because...?
You brought no arguments to the table. Only insults and “religious” phrase canting.
First of all, you do not define morality at all. So it is physically impossible to agree with you.
Then, common “political correct” “morality”, is so detached from reality, that it can only be described as seriously fucked up and very dangerous. So if you meant that one, your “noble” is my “idiot”. (I’ll explain why this description is justified, below.)
The base mechanism here, on a physical level, is that we humans help others, because we know that this helps us too.
And GP meant, that in reality, in cases where you know that you are going to get a kick in the balls, normal humans don’t help. The concept of just giving and giving and giving, without getting anything back, is a concept, created by those who always just take. The joke is, that if you try to fight it, to protect them, they will fight you, to protect it.
Or in one simple sentence: If not jumping in the water under the delusion that that could save him, and therefore not drowning with him octopus-grabbing you, means I”m “scum“ to you, then I’m proud to be “scum”. Because by throwing a him rope, I will save two people, that with your “noble” method, would both have drowned.
I bet you define morality, as expecting others to give their life for you.
My morality is, that one does never ever expect anything from anyone. One can give something. But if nothing comes back, one will also stop giving something. (As described above.) Because else one has a greedy leech on one’s neck.
I bet that this exact behavior of being used by a leech, is what you see as “noble”, and the behavior of denying to always and forever give away your life for people who are the opposite of thankful, is what you define as “scum”.
And, can I make a wild guess, why that is so?
Because you are the leech. You expect others to give. You just take. And you call that a noble moral. Because it is useful for you.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What are you basing all this on? (A recent batman movie perhaps?) The vast majority of hungry people in Haiti right now are NOT acting as you believe to be inevitable. Moreover, from the reporting I've read, the hungry people are not the most likely to be violent. The problem that's really worrying people is the gangs - the people that were already criminals vying for power before the disaster, and who (for that reason) are armed, and a number of whom escaped from prison when it crumbled in the quake. They're not hoarding to fill their bellies, they're hoarding because when food is scarce, food is power. You might say they vindicate your theories, but again, they were already at it before the quake, and they are not most of the people in Haiti.
What looks more ignorant? A compound sentence or a common (but annoying) typographical error?
Are you sure about that? Wasn't the outrage over the "Liberty Fund", which was created specifically for 9/11 relief, and then the Red Cross wanted to use that money for other purposes? Documented here (http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2001/10/2001102601.htm) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/nyregion/nation-challenged-red-cross-red-cross-pledges-entire-terror-fund-sept-11-victims.html?pagewanted=2). And perhaps some outrage over the handling of funds by local chapters, documented here (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/charity.asp). It would appear, with a little research, the Red Cross made a promise and failed to keep that promise and was rightly criticized for it. It also appears that the Disaster Relief fund still exists, when it is depleted, loans are taken out and then re-payed with contributions.
I'd like you to explain what the hell is going on in Haiti right now. Are the people in haiti somehow different?
Uuum, just a question:
How exactly does Bill O’Reilly have the power to decide the behavior of the Red Cross?
I hope it’s not the Red Cross buying into some talking retard’s bullshit. Because... well, a whole global organization, succumbing to the views of a single irrelevant idiot with zero competence, would be... just completely silly.
It would be like me now stating “Médecins sans frontières are a couple of fags” and this resulting in a global investigation on their sexual preferences. Just... WTF??
You know that whenever someone in the media states something, your need to buy into it, is exactly zero.
Carry on, do what you think is right. And when interviewed, say exactly that: “Bill O’Reilly is a completely incompetent asshole who spins bullshit for a living. You should be ashamed for listening to such an obvious money-making, made-up shit. Laugh at him. He’s a complete joke, and he knows it.”
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions, for somebody who whinges about an argument lacking substance.
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much?
Yes, although probably not as much as personality and upbringing.
If I'm the one with the gun, I'll offer to help you protect your resources as well as contributing my skills and labor in other ways. I find that a fair exchange is far preferable to mindless violence. Whereas, if the situation were reversed, you would apparently rather shoot me and take what I have. So, as I said, while cultural influence certainly has a role there are obviously other factors at play, also.
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much?
Do you realize you come across as a person who is trying to justify her own lack of morals, justify why she can be mean to people? Some people are weak cowards, but others are great heros. Since people around here seem to have forgotten wisdom of the past, I'll defer to Victor Frankl, who was a Jew under the Nazis. He said:
We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
See how it is? You choose who you are. If you are a hero or villain, it is because that is who you chose to be, even if you never end up in a situation that one might call heroic, or vile.
Qxe4
What in the world does religion have to do with morality?
There are people starving on our streets. There are kids without shoes in our communities.
Wow, what community do you live in? I've lived in some pooor places, and I've never seen anywhere that the kids go without shoes (except by choice). They may have some ugly, cheap, beat-up shoes, but not shoeless. And man, where are they starving in the streets? If you see them, tell them to come to San Mateo, because here we take care of people like that.
I'm guessing your BSing
Qxe4
If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?
The "right hands"? That's rather arrogant of you.
No, it's not. The emergency supplies should be distributed as evenly as possible, with bias in favour of those who need it most. If you're in the sort of situation that people in Haiti are in, and you see a van full of everything you need to survive, you're quite possibly going to do whatever you need to do to get at it (as you yourself mention). Allowing this to happen is _not_ in the best interest of the population as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the slightest blaming, judging or harbouring negative thoughts against these people---quite the opposite. But what I am saying is that to help them requires proper organisation, and not recklessly sparking a riot, during which supplies will be wasted, and distributed to only a fraction of the number of people which could be allowed to benefit from them.
Notice that just because I am writing this in the comfort of my armchair does not make it any less true. If I were in their position, I would probably do the same. If you read this as anything even resembling an attack on the people in question, then you read this wrong (or I explained it wrong, or whatever).
Well, off course. But if in a situation like that we are going to act just like Animals, trying to survive at any expense, then we are not human beings, we do not have human rights, and we don't deserve to get saved or helped.
If your primitive instincts will overwhelm you, that's ok. But if you will act like an animal and just try to survive at any cost, I'll act as an animal too and do the same. Leave you behind to die, like any animal would do (Animals have a very instinctive understanding of evolution, and they know damn well that they have to let the week die).
Now, if we are going to act like evolved Human Beings, then it's a whole different story. And don't come to me with terrible social stories. I live in Argentina. I've seen things. And I've seen people in shitty economic situations kill to get money for drugs, and I've seen people in even worse situations working honestly all their lives to get their families out of the hole. I've seen people that have got nothing in life and are living on the streets stop at a car accident to help people out of an expensive automobile, without taking anything, or asking for anything in return. And I've seen middle class people still to buy a new TV.
You are either an Ethical human being, or you are not, no matter where or how you are.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Perhaps the first thing we should have done was carpet bomb them with water and food. If they are uncivilized because they are mortally hungry and thirsty, taking care of the need may prepare them for other aid.
Haiti has had, and will continue to have problems. Keep in mind, the US government has given on average $300 million in aid to Haiti per year for the last 5 years. During the early Bush administration, they tried to give money for clean drinking water, but Baby Doc Duvalier took 88% (more than 25 million US) and the Tonton Macoute took more than 4.6 million U$. No clean drinking water. Later the Swiss government had their banks seize the money, and have tried to return the money back to Haiti (but to a non-corrupt government). My next door neighbours' went with their church 5 years ago to Haiti to set up a hospital and (with a dentist who attends the church) perform free dental work. When they returned they said that there is nothing there. Few people are working, they had to pay bribes to both the government officials and local gangs for their 'safety', and still they managed to build a clinic with clean running water, and perform 300 dental surgeries. Not bad for a week. But there is so much corruption. The gangs are so bad. The local population has no work but the population still managed to swell from 6 million to 8 million in 10 years (and still the life expectancy for anyone who makes it past 5 years old is 50). Poverty, disease, corruption, natural disasters, illiteracy, crime, few natural resources, a local population that manages to squander what little foreign aid manages to reach them -- Haiti has it all! On the other side of the island, the Dominican Republic is doing quite well. Tourism, foreign investment. The truth is, since independence, Haiti has had a new fresh coup-de-tat government every 6.25 years (32 coups in its 200 year history). Necklacing is not uncommon in Haiti, as is corrupt government. The fact that a group of radio amateurs got shot at in Haiti is unremarkable. Its a sad tale, but not unexpected.
This would be one of the reasons why we're sending our military.
Love,
The USA
Does anyone have this from any REAL news source and not the ham radio operator political lobbying group? No? Nobody? I didn't think so.
This never happened.
There is nothing ham radio operators can do that trained professional radio operators with professional equipment cannot do better, faster, and more reliably.
They know it and will stop at nothing to save their fantasy world from reality.
We go over there to give them aid, and they get mad because we weren't there sooner. When we actually are there, they shoot at us and steal our things.
Obviously you're grossly over-generalising, etc, etc. But more to the point, this is predictable, and it's not their faults. If you dine in front of a starving person, expect them to get angry. If you go on a spending spree in front of a homeless person, expect them to get pissed.
I don't know enough about the incident in question to respond directly to it, but I'm responding to your comment in general. They ("they" referring to the people in Haiti who have been affected by the disaster) do not have perfect information (they don't know whether the rest of the world is helping, or whether we're too busy with our trivial lives (which, incidentally, for the most part, we are)). If they see some folk who look like tourists, surrounded by life's luxuries, cruise by in a van, they're going to get angry. Sure, it'd be nice if they approached the situation more logically---maybe querying the tourists as to their purpose there---but in their situation, I'm betting emotions are going to come first.
Despite the fact that I strongly disagreed with her previous post, girlintraining made a good point about helping a drowning person. They're likely to cling to you, probably endangering you both. But that _doesn't_ mean you shouldn't help them, and that _doesn't_ make them a bad person. It's an understandable and predictable response. It means you should factor it in when trying to help them. If you want to help a lion with a thorn in its paw, don't be surprised if it tries to eat you first.
I'm guessing you've never been in East LA.
In the class of ungovernable hell holes Haiti is right up there with Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a bad idea to go there.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This is unequivocally false. I work for the [American] Red Cross and can assure you that ARC does not charge for disaster assistance. If you google: red cross charge assistance ... you will see several hits (snopes, etc) confirming this is a bullshit FUD tactic.
And man, where are they starving in the streets? If you see them, tell them to come to San Mateo, because here we take care of people like that.
Indeed. Here in Canada, truly starving to death, with no food for weeks, is quite a feat to accomplish for a person without other medical issues involved. Give it a try. Before long, nice people in jumpsuits will show up and haul you off to the hospital and force-feed you. The kind of poverty in a country like Haiti simply does not exist in a developed country. It is wholly incomparable.
I'm guessing you're talking out of your ass. You're worse than the GGP.
A few days ago I read this interesting account of another way that people can and do sometimes react:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/man-at-his-best/#
Haiti doesn't have the sort of resources that Northern California does or then did -- and I suspect that there was plenty of looting / similar in the wake of the 1906 quake, too. Just saying, it doesn't take Pollyanna to believe that people sometimes treat others like they'd prefer to be treated.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Gee that's odd. I seem to remember O'Reilly doing a show back then about the 9/11 relief efforts and warning people about scams. As part of this he had several reputable organizations on, the highlight of which was the Red Cross. The Red Cross guys explained that unlike the scam organizations the Red Cross had the money in advance, had already spent a lot of it on 9/11 relief and that the donations go to replenish their fund for the next disaster.
I also remember in the aftermath of hurricane Isabel the Red Cross was there the next morning offering essentials like water. FEMA didn't show up until 4 or 5 days later when some lard-ass government employee ticked off little boxes on a crappy tablet PC so the government would have an idea of the amount of damage done.
Then a year or two later Katrina happens and all of a sudden it's a big media story and oh my god where is FEMA? You know what though, the Red Cross was there early. That is until they started getting shot at. That was perfect though for political vultures like yourself just waiting with baited breath for the next big tragedy to happen so they could use it to beat up their perceived enemies. Of course there have been all kinds of disasters in the world between 9/11 and Haiti so it's quite telling that the one you think of is Katrina. Were there problems with relief in Katrina? Yes. Worse than normal for other disasters of that magnitude? No. Reported on more than others? You bet! I mean right on time to kick off the 2006 election season, it doesn't get any better than that.
Hopefully the rest of slashdot can see through your and your ilk's self-righteous bullshit. Clearly you don't give a crap about the people in Haiti or the Red Cross providing relief or these Hams who risked their lives in an attempt to set up a basic communications network. No, for you it's all about badmouthing other people. Why let a perfectly good disaster go to waste right?
Agreed. Sadly governments seem more interested in the PR of looking like caring as opposed to actually tackling the issue. I suppose that goes without saying though.
> Do you realize you come across as a person who is trying to justify her own lack of morals, justify why she can be mean to people?
That's because she is such a person. Look at her past Slashdot comments, sadly. From her own words, you can see that she will proudly tell strangers things that she's too ashamed to tell her mom.
Her strategy isn't even rational. Some people hear about the Prisoner's Dilemma and think that being a bad guy is the only way to get ahead, even though it's the worst and most cowardly strategy of them all. The real way to get ahead is to cooperate by default, but to punish the cheaters. Culture describes, among other things, how people expect others to behave. So of course it affects whether one chooses to cooperate or defect.
And no matter how bad things are, some choose to cooperate, like those in your quote.
Not putting anyone down but it does seem that in an era of satellite phones like Iridium the HF ham radio op are not so relevant. What the folks on the ground need is safety, food & water and sanitation. Haiti was dirt poor to start with and many were lacking these essentials. Unless the USA wants its own Little Somalia on its door step, the Haitians will start Hijacking shipping in the caribbean, the USA just gotta send the troops in. At least the Haitian will have more respect for the GI's than Iraq and Afgan peoples.
That's the problem though isn't it - the right wing shouties aren't just "individuals", they command the actions of all those repubs (including the rich ones with lots of disposable income) and can affect where the donation money goes. If they deem the Red Cross to be "unamerican", whoops, there goes all your donation from right wing, middle class white people.
They might be twisted, hopeless and incompetent individual, but don't underestimate the power placed in them by a large portion of America. They can be very dangerous and destructive.
The individual human can be compassionate, intelligent, and moral -- but human beings are dumb, irrational, and self-centered creatures and you and I both know it.
And despite all this dumb, irrational, self-centered nature we have thousands of years of civilized society. Go figure.
Yes - people can behave badly. And given a large enough sample, you're more likely to find at least one bad actor in the midst. But it is not a given that people in general will degenerate to chaotic lawlessness.
As to heroes; We manufacture the occasional hero because we need them, not because what they did was heroic (though incidentally, it often is). We lie all the time about heroics -- but we do it with the bestest of intentions. We need hope, and that need outweighs our desire for objectivity. Sometimes, a person with uncommon qualities becomes self-aware of this fact and acts selflessly for the good of the whole, even to his/her own detriment. It is not a coincidence that these people almost exclusively come from small towns or communities -- but I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to answer why that is.
We don't always manufacture heroes. There are those who act heroic. And sometimes we recognize them. Granted - that may be as much for ourselves as the hero. But that does not negate the fact that people act heroicly. And it isn't simply because they become self-aware. It is because that is the way the person acts. In fact, it's not uncommon for heroic behavior to explained as simply "doing the right thing" or "doing my job."
"The amateur radio operators are absolutely essential in a place where most of the communications structure has failed"
I dont know, maybe in the 70's they where. Ericsson pretty quickly sent a team (Ericsson Response) to restore the GSM network and distributed 5000 GSM phones among help works.
http://www.ericsson.com/article/100121_haiti_20100121111142
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Can't someone just take Haiti? Surely conquerors showing up with promises of food and infrastructure building would be preferred to their current government.
A government which lacks the power to govern also lacks the right to do the same.
define productive -
facebook over 2 meter?
I heard that on mainland USA criminals carry guns and shoot innocent people *even when there's no earthquakes* - should the army be sent in to patrol streets there?
Not sure what country you're from pal but I'd suggest it would be better to support the local infrastructure (e.g. support and fund local police forces) than send in your own army. Colonial attitudes like this are best left in the 19th century ("these poor savages, they can't look after themselves or behave like civilised people, we need to send our army in to keep order because they won't know how to do it themselves").
That's rather arrogant of you.
Even *I* can't troll like this.
In their excuse, there is apparently a food shortage.
Sorry, but actual experience and history shows that you have it exactly backwards. It's people in really awful situations that tend to think long and hard about the morality of what they do -- who do the most to help each other out, do the least to exploit and brutalize each other.
The concept of dispensing with morality and taking a Look Out For Number One attitude is the luxury -- because you can only take that attitude if your life is so sheltered that you don't realize how much you really do depend on others. If you're the kind of person who assumes that just because you have a lot of pieces of green paper in your pocket, you can do anything you want, and you don't need another soul, then yes you could have this kind of amoral every man for himself attitude.
But when civilization breaks down, and you realize that all the money and social status in the world won't get you a drink of water from the rainbarrel your dirt-poor neighbor happens to have, well, then you start to realize rather well how interdependent people are. And when you start to realize that the only thing you have to gain trusted access to group resources is your word, your honor, your reliability -- well, then, you gain a new appreciation for the very practical value of social ethics.
How do you expect this strategy to pan out if the bad outcome of the first round is death? (Like being foodless and waterless in a disaster area)
FRA: STFU GTFO
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your/you're is not a typographical error, it's an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the words being used. Your/you're and they're/their are far more basic errors of understanding than the use of a compound sentence, which is a more technical issue that involves understanding 'rules' of grammar in more detail; your/you're simply involves understanding what the words mean. As I was typing the above, I accidentally typed "your're", which was a typographical error and not an error of understanding, although if I hadn't noticed it I'm sure I would have been jumped on ;).
It's not necessarily an error in understanding. It's more likely an error in spelling. The writer probably knows that there are two different meanings for the homonyms "your" and "you're" but simply failed to select the proper version when translating from spoken English to written English. This failure may have impeded your understanding as a reader, but it does not necessarily suggest that the writer is unaware of the different usages and the related meanings of the words sounded as "your".
When the Titanic was sinking, the call was for "Women and Children to the lifeboats" and the band continued to play. It might come as no surprise that the same ethnic group controlled one third of the world at the time.
As for Haiti . . . it's no surprise.
There are some fine individuals from Haiti, but as a group? No surprise.
You think Haiti is bad? Check this out - the Vice Guide to travel - Liberia:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
That's some truly ugly shit.
>> wiith well-dressed people and boxes upon boxes of equipment -- you know what the first thought you're going to have is? Fuck! That's dinner. Get the gun.
Damn those radio antennas sure are tasty too! Better wrap them in cables to add a little spice, yummy!
How does shooting people coming to help you solve the food shortage?
The problem is here that aid has become a way of life in parts of the world. Even this disaster relieve might only make the situation worse. Sure, we can rebuild their schools and hospitals while they sit back and make us feel good by helping them, but it makes a mess of the economy and makes people dependent on aid. Where is the money going to come from to maintain that very nice hospital? Where is the skill?
Think as a parent, do you let your kid mess up his homework and get an F or do you put the kid on the couch while you do the job perfect and the kid gets an A?
There is no easy answer. You can't just stand back while people die, but by taking over the entire country like this, you are creating a dependent society.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Don't count on it.
And would the US want to pay the bill? With what exactly?
And it the US and other western nations that have bled Haiti dry with loans they want repaid. The west is a loanshark. Stop that practice and poor countries would be helped far more as they could actually spend any earned money on developing their country rather then paying of endless debts. haiti was going backrupt just paying the intrest on its loans alone, not even able to actually pay them off. A perputual money machine for the west.
Oh and since the US has homeless people, can it be overtaken as well for not being able to provide? Wonder who would want that job.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ok. I'll bite regarding this media circus on Haiti. The country even down to the culture is an irreparable mess.
Just compare it to the Dominican Republic. If the US really wants to help, they'll send in the Air Force. However, I suspect that there may not be adequate amounts of napalm on hand to take care of the problem in a relatively human manner. When I see current Haiti news, I ask myself two things: How is that different then every day Haiti in months past? What 'liberal' issues on TV are being displaced by this drivel?
Answer to the first question: It's not.
Answer to the second question: I don't know. There are recent events that give strong indication that the election in Massachusetts could warrant some investigation in regards to media influence and especially in regards to electronic voting machines. The latter are the most problematic, because the same company is behind those as is behind the ongoing attacks against the Massachusetts government. Getting obedient politicians in office would make the latter easier.
No, when you're posts are misusing those terms so egregiously, your clearly an idiot.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
14.265 & 14,300 both on the upperside SSB i been listening to them since the quake hit.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Although the "your" / "you're" substitution is a common error, it is comically accommodating of you to call it a typographical one unless it resulted from a misapplied spell-check correction. Rather, this error it is a consequence of a deficiency in the poster's command of written English. Typographical errors result from mistakes or flaws in the mechanical process of setting or keying type. It highly improbable that the ignoramus poster (and countless thousands of others) committed a mere typographical error by missing exactly those two key presses to form another valid but grammatically incorrect English word. The word chosen by the poster has a more direct sound-symbol correspondence than the grammatically correct word, indicating an inability to distinguish syntactic nuances between homophonic lexical tokens with respect to their verbal counterpart.
The "typographical" error looks more ignorant than the compound sentence error. For one thing, a compound sentence is not grammatically invalid. While a high school student might be expected to avoid overloading a compound sentence, even a 4th grade child should have mastered fundamental vocabulary terms like "you're" versus "your."
tl;dr: "Your" defending an idiot.
I thought I was the only one that loves chillied coax with my barbecued BNCs!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
And yet I prefer them to anonymous bigots. People that hide behind the title "anonymous" while they try to degrade an entire people based on what a few idiots have done are despicable. The depths of my contempt for such filth as you is incalculable. Stay anonymous.....coward.
Frankly, the Haitians should be left alone to sort themselves out. External aid seems to be unwanted, and the infrastructure there is so screwed that it's practically impossible to help them out anyway. Just consider it a natural cull. They breed like rabbits, so a cull will be the best thing that can happen to them.
Because... well, a whole global organization, succumbing to the views of a single irrelevant idiot with zero competence, would be... just completely silly.
You must have never heard of George W. Bush, then.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Isn't it time to do something about it?
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum.
Wow. The responses to this comment are about the most depressing set of comments I've yet read on /. It seems like these people have thoroughly internalized a sociopathic, "I'm better than everyone else" morality. I can't believe so many people think it takes just a few days without food to make people abandon their sense of right and wrong. Even wolves won't turn on each other in starvation.
When the REAL professionals stop inviting us to come participate in drills and actual disasters, I'll give your point of view some consideration. In the mean time, you just sound like someone that wanted a license but was too dumb to pass the test. Don't they miss you on 4chan?
-W1BMW
(name withheld by request)
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are much safer than you might imagine. The Kurdistan region of Iraq, basically a separate country with its own visa regime, attracts quite a few tourists. In Afghanistan, plenty of people visit; some get around in special convoys or fly, but the Eastern European hitchhiking community has maintained a heavy presence there with only good stories about their interactions with the local people. Yes, there are parts of both countries that are dangerous, but both have small tourist industries.
Poster (who I do not think is actually female, but that's just a hunch) set up a scenario which posits rope-tossing and jumping in as alternatives, with tossing the rope as the preferable course of action. But instead of challenging her apparently technical argument of "rope vs. jump" head on, you instead answered her as if her argument was "no rope vs. jump." No, you twat, she never said what she would do if there *wasn't* a rope available. Nonetheless you seized upon the opportunity recast her message in a way that let you denigrate her as a vile, selfish person who would sooner let someone drown than risk her own neck. Without missing a beat you then set up a segue to talk about how wonderful you are with a self-congratulating filigree about your imagined heroics if faced with the scenario *you* made up. The worst part of this is that although I think I generally agree with the slant of your position (which is, I believe, something to the effect that one should be prepared to do what it takes to help others in dire need regardless of threats to your well-being), I am disgusted by the slimy texture you gave it with such flippant disregard for intellectual honesty and your re-framing of the argument to spotlight your own perceived merits. I don't know if you consider yourself a "Liberal" but this is exactly the sort of smug, self-serving sophistry in the name of "compassion" that they love to smother themselves in.
What looks more ignorant? A compound sentence or a common (but annoying) typographical error?
Your second sentence most ignorant. It no verb.
I'm always happy when someone makes a point faster and better than I had ever hoped to. Even in the face of a systematic and willful effort to rob people of their hope, humanity, and lives people found ways to illustrate the beauty of the human spirit when it refuses to be defined by its circumstances. Desperation is a powerful force. It certainly makes extreme acts more understandable, but it doesn't make them right. There are a lot of hungry people in Haiti right now and most of them are just struggling to pick up the pieces, they're not shooting at aid workers and I bet they're not too happy with anyone who is.
This was posted on the the ARRL website http://www.arrl.org/ on the 18th, 5 days ago.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Well, this is a good opportunity to invite your neighbors into your radio shack to listen to the ham traffic out of Haiti. Explain how you use that ugly antenna to help people around the world, and how it could might save the lives of their family if something like a terrorist attack or natural disaster disrupted normal communication systems in your neighborhood.
Then maybe they'd feel differently about whether it is "unsightly" or not.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ever since, natural disasters are treated as terrorist attacks: "security" is more important than helping victims. Remember Katerina/NOLA.
Security Red Zones in Haiti Preventing Large Aid Groups from Effectively Distributing Aid
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/security_red_zones_in_haiti_preventing
Oh, I saw this movie. It was called "Dark Knight." Didn't the Joker lose and Batman win?
And still people criticize us for sending in troops to impose order and stability, in a place that never had it to begin with. I got news for you bleeding hearts. If you want to help those people, re-establish law and order first. Once that is done, the business of distributing food and water, rebuilding infrastructure, re-establishing basic public services like sanitation etc, becomes infinitely easier.
Zooperman
What in the world does religion have to do with morality?
It means, generally, that there is a prevailing wind in the direction of moral behavior being valued. Often lauded as gaining favor with some higher power who does not change what is moral on a whim. The cultural norm is therefore, to act in a moral manner and the morals are fixed and rarely change.
As opposed to a culture where the majority do not believe in a higher power and believe that all morals are relative and can be redefined at will. In which case morality becomes "what is convenient to me and which benefits me". Since there is no higher power (other then obeying those who can punish you), the cultural norm becomes "whatever I can get away with is okay".
Basically, it's the difference between morals that are considered to be absolute and unchanging because they were handed down by $diety - and cultural mores which can shift in the slightest breeze.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
You make it sound like Bill O'Reilly is some kind of controlling figure in what the Red Cross does with its money. If what you said is true, it's not as if the Red Cross has to listen to the media pundits.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Go kill yourself. Seriously.
No, you racist scum, it's time to do something about it.
It was an interesting debate until the spelling trolls came out...
blockquote FAIL
I think the Coward's point is that people will opt for convenience whenever possible. If they decide it's more convenient to shoot up a truck and loot it for food than to wait in line then some will screw ethic and do it. In short: Humans are capable of evil everywhere and a catastrophe will bring it out.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
If you are a strong swimmer, it isn't that big a deal to help a frantic victim, all you have to do is submerge and swim away (they will freak the hell out and let go when you sink under them). Then you just wait for the boat and knock them out with a paddle.
Just because someone else has something and you don't, it doesn't follow that the former caused the latter. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Seems like you're just trying to justify envy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It means, generally, that there is a prevailing wind in the direction of moral behavior being valued.
Pffft. Ha! That's a good one. Apparently you've never heard of human sacrifices, religious wars/crusades/jihad, oppressive theocratic states, genocide, or rewards in the afterlife being promised in exchange for acts of violence in this life. I don't see anything particularly moral about god telling the Jews to commit genocide and, oh, by the way, make sure they keep all the virgin girls alive to use for themselves.
But never mind all that - let's pretend it never happened: your claim is is still ludicrous since morality is inherently internal. Morality is what we do when nobody is looking. If you believe that an all knowing sky-daddy is watching your every move, then you cannot exercise your morality. You do not choose to be moral - you are no more than a slave following instructions in order to avoid punishment. The content of those instructions is irrelevant to you - if your magic-man came down and told you to murder your neighbor and rape his 6 year old daughter, you would do that, too, since Daddy Knows Best.
On the other hand, Christianity is interesting because it doesn't specifically require any particular behavior. Christianity tells you that you are an evil, dirty, immoral sinner ... but that's ok! God still loves you and as long as you accept Jeebus, you can go to heaven. If you buy into Christs teachings, you can go out and rape, murder, and pillage to your hearts content, and still get into heaven - or you can give all your goods to charity, spend every waking moment helping others, care for abandoned puppies and help little old ladies cross the road ... and burn for all eternity in hell because you thought jeebus was full of shit. Christianity doesn't require a particular type of behavior - it requires mindless acceptance of it's dogma, and nothing else.
In which case morality becomes "what is convenient to me and which benefits me".
That's right - self interest motivates moral behavior. What is "convenient" ends up being "not going to jail", and "which benefits me" ends up being "cooperating with others to our mutual benefit". Study some games theory and you'll get the idea.
Basically, it's the difference between morals that are considered to be absolute and unchanging because they were handed down by $diety - and cultural mores which can shift in the slightest breeze.
Nonsense - since morals are inherently internal, they're unlikely to change without some serious changes in the individual. Whereas what you call morality - in essence, nothing more than obeying an authority figure - can easily be twisted to encourage immoral behavior. There's no person in this world who could convince me that killing someone who means me no harm is justified, whereas convincing millions of Christians of the same thing is as easy as getting the pope to proclaim it. History is replete with tyrants committing all sorts of atrocities with the assistance of the masses who are too stupid or too brainwashed to question authority figures.
Except that in Haiti, there's something like 8 or 9 licensed hams (licensed by Haiti), and the cellular infrastructure wasn't damaged all that much by the earthquake; the cell providers having a) learned from experience and b)not depending on the local (sucky) infrastructure for power and interconnect. Most of the early reports coming out were by cellphone, *text messages*, and sat phone.
In order for ham radio to make a contribution, not only do you need the comm link, but people on both ends have to know that the link exists and is available. Sure, if you're bringing in 2 m mobile rigs and a deployable repeater, the folks you're with will know you're there. But, in today's world that team is going in with Iridium and Globalstar satphones and field deployable cell sites. The idea of the ham radio "shadow" with a 2m HT following the emergency responder around is dying. And given the paucity of existing licensees in Haiti, HF long haul links are not going to be useful (because the ops in the site are unusual, nobody is going to know a) that they're even there and b)that they can get a message to anyone useful)
Where hams do excel is in improvising on the spot. Not necessarily by using ham radio frequencies, but by realizing that a wire in a tree is better than nothing, and that baling wire and duct tape makes a fine antenna mounting method to put the fallen VHF antenna at the police station back up. OTOH, people in less developed countries, who improvise out of necessity every day, are also pretty good. Hams shine when a fairly civilized area has problems (e.g. in the US, where *most* people don't have that duct tape and baling wire skill, because they can hire someone to do it for them normally).
73
W6RMK
LOL, yeah I know about the antenna thing...we've had a couple of ice storms the last few years that wiped out the electrical grid and the cell phone batteries didn't hold up until the AC was restored. The vhf/uft repeaters came through with flying colors once again, as did the HF rigs set up to get communications in and out of the area. Kind of like the police...everyone bad mouths them, UNTIL they need one. 73's KB0GNK
How the fuck did this get a +5 insightful?! This whole article and disucssion sucks. It's like someone's trying to stir up the pot - how is a story about a shooting in a disaster-struck area 'News for Nerds'?!
Well until you have citation where needed that leaves you with:
I guess if you have a story with absolutely no evidence to back any of your claims against the Red Cross - neither they nor anyone else shoud accept to help YOU OR YOUR FUCKTARDED FAMILY. Next time when you and your fucktarded family have a real fire, the fire department should go to watch and let it burn down with all of you in the fucking structure. Speaking of fire, GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY!!
So how about the 15% payroll tax the Boomers have been paying for the past 40 years? Why shouldn't we expect the next generation to do the same in turn?
You can rant all you want but the demographics and size of the voting population in the Boomer cohort sort of makes it pretty unlikely that you are going to be able to duck this bill.
Your family will find that comforting when they're deciding which dead and diseased body to eat first, because you couldn't bring yourself to provide for them. Your nobility will save their sanity as they either starve or freeze to death.
Sorry to use the emotive argument - but in crisis situations you won't find objectiveness very filling or warm either.
I do take your point, if your a single person with no dependents then I certainly would find your nobility admirable (if you actually retained it in a real emergency ofc) - but if you were the sole provider for a group of vulnerable people/children I wouldn't be the one calling you scum for breaking the rules to survive and provide. And unless I thought you were more use to me or others alive - I wouldn't have any qualms about screwing you over to save my pack. Sorry but morality, all-too-often like happiness, is a luxury for the well-off to ponder over - survival is essential to even reach that point.
Damn Spanish-speaking foreigners!!! Why can't they just learn to speak French like us!
Actually, since the Dominicans have opened up their hospitals and other support facilities to anyone that can get across the border and reach them, I would think the average Haitian would feel some gratitude right about now.
America has been constantly invading and interfering with Haiti for a century. It wasn't six years ago that we kidnapped their democratically elected president and exiled him to Africa. Chavez lies about a lot of things, but he isn't pulling this one out of his ass. We may be there for purely humanitarian reasons this time, but this is an exception rather than a rule.
Chavez and Morales are democratically elected leaders who have never invaded another nation, who are pointing out the bleedingly obvious about the colonialist tendencies of the American Empire, but somehow they are the dangerous dictators? Ignorance truly is bliss, I guess.
These men are dangerous dictators in a region with a long history of them.
I'll bet you couldn't name a single other former dictator in the region. When you look them up on Wikipedia, see who put them in power. There's a very good chance it was the good old stars and stripes.
The Amateur Radio Operators are providing a tested network of volunteers to send "health and welfare" messages to friends and family outside of the disaster network.
they do this reliably and at a significantly lower cost.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You, and the rest of your bigotted, anonymous coward peers will be in my prayers, right after I finish praying for the people of Haiti. Your plight is even sadder, and undeserving of salvation as you may be, I will hope that the veil of hatred and ignorance is lifted from your eyes.
Compound sentences are perfectly fine. You are thinking of run-on sentences, which this is not.
You, people like you make me sick! Posting anonymously is his right. In current political climate it is dangerous to speak your mind about some things. Such as race. It is obvious that AC has a point since the common denominator in both Katrina and Haiti tragedies is the race of victims. What CNN and other news outlets show is utter inability of those people to face the problem. They simply sit there and wait for the help to come from somewhere. And when help arrives they attack!
I do remember Somalia, and the dozens of places around the world where the very same thing goes on. And each time I see it anew, as we have over the last few days in Haiti, I am struck by how close any of us are to that same chaos. Pick any urban center in the U.S. It's food supplies lie in warehouses and supermarkets. Now apply an event (natural disaster, man-made disaster, war, whatever) of sufficient magnitude to cut off the steady supply that keeps those warehouses and stores stocked. They will last days, at most. The result will be as predictable as it has been every where else we've seen it.
Let me guess. Business Was Good until Chavez came along, and decided that a nation with a very rich elite and a huge population of people in extreme poverty wasn't a good thing.
He decided that the resources of Venezuela belonged to the Venezuelans, not foreigners and the house slaves that provide them legitimacy, so he nationalized those resources, and took away your income that you didn't work for?
The United States has been funding guerilla wars in Central America and murdering innocent people for decades to ensure that it's interests are attended to by dictators they have put in power. To believe otherwise is to simply be a fool.
meant to say "...outside of the disaster area."
need more coffee...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
False dichotomy. I'm agnostic, but still believe that there's an absolute moral code that humans should live by, and don't need a magic man in the sky to give it to me.
I dont know, maybe in the 70's they where. Ericsson pretty quickly sent a team (Ericsson Response) to restore the GSM network
You know I really am glad I read this thread.
1 I want everyone that thinks ham radio opps are not needed to NEVER EVER ask for or accept help from a ham. Since your big companies are going to be coming along. You can wait for them to tell people that you have an injured family member or that you are out of food or water. Anyone care to guess what group is sending out who needs what where first almost every time?
Hint it aint your big companies.
Why would you wander the streets at all?
You would either leave. Or start fixing things yourself. Digging a well. Finding someone in the community with solar and a water pump.
These kinds of disasters are only made worse when the populace have been mentally castrated to depend on the government and aid organisations.
What would *you* do if an earthquake destroyed your home and any survival equipment/supplies you put in it?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Wow! You sound like a real scumbag!
Shooting random people just because they might have food is not ok.
Not even if you're starving.
You always have a choice. Go fishing. Eat a dog. Eat a dead body. Whatever it takes.
And yes there are right and wrong hands for these supplies. That you don't understand this implies you are a very ignorant person.
Try reading a little bit about Somolia.
The whole "You Americans are so fortunate you have no right to judge" thing is a pile of crap.
There is right and there is wrong.
When the first settlers landed here, the situation they were faced with was much worse than what we are talking about today. They had to fend for themselves or die. Sure, they could have turned on themselves and killed each other for their food stores and then finally starved to death when they ran out, but instead they built and they cooperated. The fact that this country even exists, is largely because people stood up and did the right thing at the right time, even though they might have died trying.
I live in a house built by someone else, on land cleared by someone else, with water and food provided by other people. This is all possible precisely because everyone is not running around killing each other for what they may or may not have. We as a society have a shared understanding, that killing me is not ok and me killing someone else is not ok. If we were to abandon this concept, America would quickly degenerate into something worse than any third-world hellhole you can possibly imagine.
Life is too short to proofread.
people complain about our "unsightly" antennas
I think they look cool :)
You can't take the sky from me...
Right - communications off island provided by Ericsson? I don't think so. That and hams aren't trying to provide emergency communications forever- fundamentally they really are just there because they have radios and they hear people asking for help- if you had one and you heard someone asking for help would you respond? That's how it goes and that's basically how amateur radio helps out in disasters. Ham radios are everywhere - when disaster strikes the closest working radio is fired up and whoever hears the call from that radio on the other side does whatever they can do to help the person making the call. It's that simple.
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
How does it feel to know, after you openly embarrassed yourself with this debacle of a thread, that I was right, and you should have killed yourself?
Then 9/11 happened. And worse yet, pinheads like Bill O'Reilly dared to attack this strategy by demanding that the Red Cross go all out to help 9/11 victims and spend all of the money it was raising. In effect, this disaster got double-funded... both from the collections after the previous disaster and the collections immediately after.
Right. Red Cross does something stupid because a talking head blowhard allegedly tells them to. I don't believe it. Frankly, the 9/11 thing shouldn't have tapped the Red Cross much at all. There weren't many injuries and the refugee problem was mostly getting a million people or so off of Manhattan Island. Government managed most of that. Katrina would have been far more demanding of Red Cross resources because a) more people were effected, b) a serious, long term refugee problem existed, and c) government was less effective in that disaster than in 9/11.
Finally, in case you haven't noticed, the Red Cross has had plenty of time to recover from 9/11 and Katrina. If they're still operating this way, it's because they chose to.
You can't have it because O'Reilly and a bunch of others played the morality card, which always trumps common sense. The morality card states that all money collected must be diverted to [insert cause], and not stockpiled. The common sense card says disaster preparation requires a plan ahead of time -- you can't fuck around waiting to allocate resources when it hits. Which is exactly what has happened with Katrina, 9/11, Haiti, and many disasters yet to come. We've reduced our position from being proactive (being able to execute a rescue plan immediately because resources are already available) to reactive (waiting until resources are collected and organized before formulating and executing a plan).
Learn a bit about NIMS and ICS before you make assumptions. There is a *significant* amount of pre-planning that goes on (Katrina f-up's aside, a lot of learning came from that). Part of that plan includes responding, but you have to collect, stage, and organize your already-available resources within a standard chain of command or it quickly turns into a major mess. A lot of responses where people just rush in and "do stuff" end up considerably less effective because nobody has any common grasp of what they're supposed to do. Resource allocation/realization happens well ahead of time, but it still takes time to get it where you need it and get it all working towards a common goal.
So this is an argument that because most of the people on the Titanic were White, they behaved one way, and because most of the people in Haiti are Black, they behaved another? Just an observation...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Probably would be the best thing would be to let them fend for themselves. Sending them money and aid isn't going to do anything for them. Violence and corruption have become a way of life for them. They don't see anything wrong with having to accept bribes are shooting at people that have something you want. That is just the way they do things there. It has been done that way so long they just think its the way it is.
Sending and relief supplies is nothing but short term relief. Sure, we'll feed them today but what about tomorrow. None of this addresses the real problem in Haiti. There is only two ways to address it. First is isolation. Total isolation, nothing/nobody comes in or out. That is the cheapest way. They'll will ether fix their problems or kill each other off. Ether way, it's not longer our problem.
The other way is total military and cultural invastion. Military occupie the island like we did in Japan at the end of WWII. Strip the inhabatants of all their weapons. Remove all the goverment officials from the Prince/president/whatever to the local dog catcher. Put them on trial and imprision or execute them depending on thier crimes. Isolate the youth from the adults and totatlly re-educate them. Destroy the voodoo spirit culture of the island.
I'm pretty sure most of you will have problems with ether of these "solutions" but if you have better ideals, lets hear them.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
You got that one exactly right!
And do you know why? Because the boomers need to milk the economy of every penny they can to pay for their exorbinant retirement package. They were raised believing that America would always be in a state of progress and growth, that we were the best, and competition with other countries was a joke. We grew complacent, and while they built out their infrastructure, we drove around in fat SUVs and bought big screen TVs, eschewing long term growth for the here-and-now creature comforts. And now... well now we are mighty fucked. And when people inevitably call me age-ist and that it's a generalization and blah blah blah -- I'll tell them this: you're right, it is discriminatory. It's also not wrong.
A classic example of confirmation bias and idiotic stereotyping.
Thank you.
Sincerely: The internet.
I've heard that there are many different ways of getting internet and/or e-mail access through HAM. one example would be packet radio but that is slow I think and there are newer ways with faster speeds. has this been deployed during disasters at all?
Religion at its lowest, human level have everything to do with morality. Whether it's a fixed set of morals passed down to you from previous generations or the interaction of you with your fellow human beings which makes you learn that being a social being has its benefits for you as much as for anyone else, or preferably both. It gives you a reference of judgment you can build upon even if you later reject that religion for whatever circumstance. In that sense, being brought up with a certain religion is indistinguishable from being brought up with a less (or non-) religious but similar system of beliefs and morals like Buddhism, Socialism or Humanitarianism. Your parents/teachers give you this system of morals and eventually you base your own system of morals on what you have been thought mixed with your own experiences. If you're a 'good' human being (sorry for my use of the word 'good' here ... for lack of a better word) that means when you're grown up you have been able to evolve your own personal system of morals because you have been given the chance to do so, working from that base that was passed down to you, to something you can live comfortably with both yourself and with all human beings you interact with.
Religion at its lowest, human level, I think is an extremely good thing (now I do mean good as GOOD!) whether some of its believes are rather fantastical and unscientific or not.
It's only when things get institutionalized and people who are supposed to be shepherds turn out to be wolfs that things go horribly wrong. But I honestly think that's something that can happen with any social system of beliefs and morals.
Disclaimer: I've been brought up in a non-strict roman catholic belief system. My parents left me lots of room for individual choices, which does include I haven't been seeing a church inside for years, 'though I was a very active member (as in helping find texts for the masses as part of a liturgy group) and still think of those years fondly. I turned away at a time the conservative forces began squashing laymen influences as I got the impression human interaction and constructive dialog about hot moral topics was becoming less and less a priority. I do still value the christian moral core though, so I'm probably quite biased.
-- Epicurius
Oh, and next time you talk to Santa Claus, could you tell them that Haiti needs more milk and cookies?
Thanks, bro.
You always have a choice. Go fishing. Eat a dog. Eat a dead body. Whatever it takes.
You forgot to include a common "choice": Die.
When the first settlers landed here, the situation they were faced with was much worse than what we are talking about today.
The first settlers found plenty of land area with opportunities for hunting and fishing, as well as water. Haiti is short of food and water, and hunting and fishing won't fix that in the short term.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
sit there and watch while the REAL professionals take care of things.
The REAL professionals who's entire knowledge of radios consists of knowing how to use the push-to-talk button on the side of their walkie talkie, you mean? You guys wouldn't even know how to use the majority of the amateur radio frequencies. Go ahead, you show us all how to tune up an HF rig to use the 20 meter band. Right-- no clue.
That's why you "professionals" need to have a dedicated radio tech working for you. And that tech, more likely than not, is a ham.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Perhaps it was a con posing as the Red Cross.
They? Who is they? The thugs that roam the streets preying on the helpless? The gangs? Yeh...there I would agree with you. But that's not what AC was saying...he was spewing racial crap. And yeah it's his right to post AC...and it's my right to dog him out for his cowardness and bigotry. I've been watching CNN and Fox coverage and they both show the same things. Hopelessness and despair and courage and bravery. It runs the gamut. You never know how you'll respond until you've been there. It's sad that you lock onto the actions of the thugs and ignore the rest of what is going on there.
Chavez also claimed that the earthquake was caused by a secret weapon launched by the US Navy, that Haiti was being used as a drill, and that our ultimate goal is to deploy this tectonic weapon before an invasion of his best buddies in the whole wide world, Iran.
Google news links about the matter here.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
No, you racist scum, it's time to do something about it.
The SPLC? Haven't you Jews fucked up the country enough already?
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much? Yes, although probably not as much as personality and upbringing. If I'm the one with the gun, I'll offer to help you protect your resources as well as contributing my skills and labor in other ways.
This kind of thing is easy to say while sitting in front of a computer, presumably well-fed. But if there's a limited amount of food and you're starving, how can you say that's what you'll do? What if you had a child to protect as well?
I'm not saying you wouldn't do the right thing, I'm just saying that extremely decent, moral people who survive this kind of disaster routinely talk about the terrible things they did to survive, and how guilty they feel about them. Many of those people are better than I'll ever be, and probably better than either of us. Your morals are important, but so is humility.
Looting is unfortunate because it contributes to the breakdown of order but in regards to actual morality, it's a far sight from highway robbery. Looters don't need to shoot at anybody to get their stuff, they just walk up and take it -- and most that shit would've been claimed as a loss by the store it was in anyway. You can't sell food that's been through a flood. It's not safe. If you need it, and it is literally going to be tossed into the trash as soon as the rightful owners return, and monetarily makes no difference to the current owner whether they throw it out or you take it.. well it's damn hard to argue against looting in that scenario.
And then you've got highway robbery, where you at the very least have intentions of killing others to take what you need from them. That's actual loss, actual violence. Very different.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Well, this is a good opportunity to invite your neighbors into your radio shack to listen to the ham traffic out of Haiti.
I've done that, in fact. Not so much with Haiti since my QTH isn't all that good for working that area but when my amateur radio club was hosting a VHF simplex net with simulated emergency traffic as an drill, I had a couple from across the street in my shack for a while. It turned out to be a good thing--they found it interesting and I offered to mentor them towards getting their Technician class tickets.
In reality, no one has ever complained about my antennas, which are mostly wire dipoles and not really noticeable unless you're looking for them. Other local hams with towers and beams haven't been so lucky, though.
KJ6BSO
This ain't rocket surgery.
...that nowhere in this article does it say who fired on these people. It could just as easily have been Haitian police, private security, or UN troops. I doubt even they know; generally when being fired upon the proper response doesn't involve stopping to ask origin or intent.
First of all, you do not define morality at all.
Nah, he didn't define it perfectly, but there aren't very many moral codes that include "shooting people who come to help you." I think you can see at least that as reasonable.
The base mechanism here, on a physical level, is that we humans help others, because we know that this helps us too.
For some people this is true, others of us help people even though we know we'll never get anything in return. If you ever get the chance to do something for someone for no other reason than "it will make them happy", then you will know what love is. Once you get your life figured out, and you can take care of yourself and know how to be happy, to be honest there isn't a whole lot other people can do for you in return.
that one does never ever expect anything from anyone. One can give something. But if nothing comes back, one will also stop giving something.
The first part is good. "I will live for no one, and ask no one to live for me" is sound advice. But if you give something, you should do it with no expectation of return. You do it because you want them to be happy, not because you want something back, and thus you won't stop giving merely because they didn't give something back. This is hard, so true charity is not something the weak can handle.
If you are weak, you may be dragged down by the person you are trying to help, as in the swimming example. If you are a strong enough swimmer, you CAN save a person by jumping in after them: swim behind them, and hold them to your body with one arm around their neck, then swim back to shore using a sidestroke. If you are knowledgeable you will know that if they do grab onto you with the octopus-grab, merely duck under water and they will let go quickly.
Can you see how it works? If you want to help people, you have to be strong enough and knowledgeable enough to do something. You have to be able to help them without letting them drain you.
To apply this to the example of giving a friend money, if you want to help out your friend, you have to be strong enough to earn the money in the first place, otherwise you won't be able to give him anything. You have to be knowledgeable enough to know how much to give him to really help him, and to not hurt yourself (don't go into foreclosure because your buddy wants a hamburger).
More importantly, you have to be knowledgeable enough to realize that if you can teach your friend to "live for no one, and ask no one to live for him" he will be far, far better off than if you just keep giving him money. Otherwise he will be like Joey from Friends, who leached off his friend for 10 stinkin' years and never learned anything. It's kind of like the "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime" idea.
Qxe4
I'm sure average Haitian feels gratitude, it's just that you need a very small number of people for acts mentioned in TFS. And "we're starving, Dominicans are fairer game" is enough.
One that hath name thou can not otter
You want survival of the fittest? OK. Run, fat boy. Better hope that your coddled suburban upbringing made you tough enough and strong enough to handle it out there with the animals.
Oh, you meant survival of the fittest for other people? Gotcha.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Anecdotes: only useful fer showing existence and counterexamples...
I don't think choice figures in as strongly as one might hope - at least not in a rational or emotional way. Presumably where people are merely being observed externally one can call the differences in their behaviour 'choices', but typically people mean more by 'choice' than merely acting differently from someone else in a similar context.
Once I was in a nasty situation and I was able to help, while I watched others freeze - emotionally and physically unable to act. Another time, I haplessly found myself facing a different hell, and it was I who could not act to help; sadly in, this case, there was no-one who stepped forward.
While I feel the first situation was an ugly one - it doesn't eat at me, and with the second (also ugly) it does eat at me, as if I feel guilty for making the wrong call.
The problem is that I don't feel that any actual choice was made. I didn't get a subjective option to behave one way or the other. An outsider can see choices to make, and I can too - but only in retrospect. At these times, unlike the rest of my life where I usually see sets of options to weigh and choose from, I was only able to see one way to act.
So, I don't know how much choice folks have in the crazy stories of heroism and villainy. I have certainly observed certain people to tend towards one type of behaviour, but people who behave differently from event to event are not all that rare.
Sorry, Hams - this is what you get when you try to offer brutal, savage niggers a helping hand. They aren't human, they're niggers - why even bother with them?
You sure got that right.
Morality is a luxury that not everybody can afford. It's like when you've got a person who's gone overboard and they're struggling to stay afloat -- the one thing you never ever ever do is jump in after them. That's a nice hollywood touch, but in the real world that person is desperate and will octopus-death-grip anything that's floating that comes near it -- which includes you. Then you'll both drown. Better to throw them the rope and let them save themselves. Maybe that's callous, but again -- your morality could get you (and others) killed. As such, it's a luxury in a crisis (at best).
Wrong: You grab them from behind. Then they can't pull you down with them, but you can still save their lives in spite of themselves.
And there was just an item in the news today about a firefighter who suffered severe bites to his arms and hands saving a dog from out of a river. (They tried throwing it a rope, but it wouldn't take it.) A mere dog, without tags or a verifiable (so far) owner.
Where does that leave your messed-up, projection-filled worldview, girlintraining?
Gotta love this planet, no food and water but we sure have weapons.
I wonder, do you guys have a trade group of sorts? Is there some sort of International HAM Radio operator organization?
Part of the reason you guys might be "unsung" is because no one is speaking up for you. If that's the case, then you need to band (pardon the pun) together and speak for yourselves.
As an aside, where would be a good place to get started on lurnin 2 HAM?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Oh shit, not the problem of evil! Damn, it's a good thing you brought this up man, religion is doomed now!
I believe the usual answer is to burn down the neighbor's house so they are equal. And then to proceed making as many other people "equal" as possible.
It is best if this is not captured by TV News, but the armed response attempting to stop the destruction is as evidence of the imperialist oppression being suffered by the population.
*uses dogmatic definition of Christianity*
*accuses Christians of being dogmatic*
Didn't they kill all the natives?
Your photo of necklacing hardly does justice. The part you are missing is the pouring of gasoline on the tire and setting it alight. The result is rather dramatic, especially for the victim.
It is one way of recycling old tires, but hardly an environmentally sound one.
Probably would be the best thing would be to let them fend for themselves. Sending them money and aid isn't going to do anything for them. Violence and corruption have become a way of life for them. They don't see anything wrong with having to accept bribes are shooting at people that have something you want. That is just the way they do things there. It has been done that way so long they just think its the way it is.
This is America right?
It's rather obvious from your post that giving money is useless and worse than useless. Only giving the time and effort of actual people works. The Swiss are sitting on $1.5 billion US government dollars because they have no one in Haiti to give it to. There is a widespread belief in the first world that money is valuable. It's not. Money is completely and utterly worthless. The only time money has value is as a means to convince people to do useful things. In order to establish ready availability of clean drinking water in Haiti, a large number of skilled people have to move around a great deal of concrete and steel and assemble it into particular patterns. Money can't do that. Money sits in piles and takes up space. Only people can do that.
Here is where Haiti is currently unsalvageable. The expertise to install a drinking water system does not exist in Haiti. Anywhere. There's 8 million people there who literally do not know how to help themselves.
What would happen if somebody figured out a way to utilize those hundreds of millions of free dollars? What if the whole country had ready access to clean water? The population would burgeon to 12 million, not one of whom would know how to build or maintain that clean water system.
Money that is not used to mobilize expertise is worthless. In this case, money that is not used to create expertise is even more worthless. The ultra-rich of the first world often have trouble grasping this. So do the middle class. They think money is valuable.
Fools.
STOP GIVING! You are only multiplying the misery! Educate!
I wonder, do you guys have a trade group of sorts? Is there some sort of International HAM Radio operator organization?
Not so much international but each country generally has it's own group. Here in the U.S. the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) is the general amateur radio advocacy/lobbying group.
As an aside, where would be a good place to get started on lurnin 2 HAM?
Well, the aforementioned ARRL has an entire section on their Web site for new hams, that might be one place to look. The best way to start learning, though, is to find your local amateur radio club (the ARRL site will help you do that) and attend a meeting. Tell them you're interested in getting your ticket and they'll point you to local classes and other resources that are generally free or very low cost. Pretty much any ham will go out of his/her way to help someone else get started in amateur radio.
BTW, the entry-level (technician) class license is very easy to get--no more Morse code required.
73, and hope to hear you on the bands some day
KJ6BSO
This ain't rocket surgery.
Huh? America was founded on the principle of killing other people and taking their stuff.
It didn't take long for the first settlers to start killing the people that were there first. Though it did help them cooperate.
And your house that was built by someone else on land that was cleared by someone else was acquired by stealing, cheating and killing. At that the policy of America was genocide for quite a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The same thing happened after Katrina. Relief workers and trucks loaded with much needed supplies were fired upon, and forced to flee for their lives. And speaking of Katrina, many Amateur Radio operators were there and saved many lives. They weren't paid to be there, nor were they there to get a pat on the back later (Though some recognition is the LEAST that they deserve!). Google NF5B. Amongst the articles about aircraft etc, you will find a few accounts of two of the true heroes of the Katrina disaster and fiasco. A blind musician and his wheelchair bound lady were there when they were needed most to help a hospital communicate with the outside world when all other means of communication had failed. And they were not the only ones.
Even before being called upon, there were many more Amateur Radio operators than were needed who volunteered to go in after Katrina hit These people were willing to put their skills, their equipment, and in some cases their lives on the line when needed. And yet most often when the average person thinks of Amateur Radio operators, they are thought of as "that guy that messes up my cable TV" or "that guy with the ugly antennas that lower my property value".
I've been following the situation in Haiti via Democracy now and they have covered this topic extensively on their daily newscast. They even flew some reporters there for a few days. I highly recommend to subscribe to their tv/radio podcast (is free). I also recommend to read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for a good background on disaster relief operations.
My conclusion is that the whole violence situation has been fabricated. For example, the prison escape that you mention, they had an interview with a local civil rights activist who said that about 80% of the prisoners where in prison without charges. Political prisoners of the coup regime are being held for years without trial. According to him the case could be made that the mass escape had actually been a good thing.
Everybody interviewed during the first days were saying that there was no insecurity problem. There was no need for massive deployment of soldiers. The guy in charge of the main hospital n Port-au-Prince was even complaining that the arrival of troops had interfered with the functioning of the hospital.
Tons of help has been shipped there but almost none has arrived to the people. Lots of volunteer nurses and doctors have arrived but they don't have access to any electricity or medical supplies. They are doing tabletotop amputations with tools acquired at the local hardware store and without anesthesia. Most of which unnecessary as they would have been avoided if they had had antibiotics on the first place.
The USA controls the airport and are preventing some of the planes with aid to land. Tons of aid has arrived but is just staying at the airport, or being delivered to ... the USA embassy. The little aid that is being delivered is being handed out by armed personnel who have been told the people out there are dangerous and they throw them food from a distance. People are getting really pissed of at being treated like dogs and/or very frustrated of not receiving any help.
It's the perfect recipe for violence and has been perfectly executed according to a plan. And it is starting to work: there are the first reports of insecurity at night, women being raped. Communities are just asking for proper lightening at night in their camps site to prevent this from happening. Nobody wants guns.
Local communities had all the experience required to get organized, and all the means except petrol. If they had just been handed some gas they would have used their own trucks to get water for the victims and relocate the people to less hit areas.
As usual when there is a natural disaster the disaster capitalists have stepped in to size the opportunity to steal as much as possible from the local people (they call it privatization). It is crucial that local communities are prevented from self organizing. There is also the issue of preventing any good PR from "hostile" regimes: cuba had already 400 doctors in the ground when the earthquake struck, and they sent more help immediately, Venezuela also sent aid, so did China while the USA was still "planning". In their military effort to prevent good PR for other governments they missed a golden opportunity to create good PR for the USA: the Guantanamo base is just around the corner and they could have sent emergency aid from there during the first hours. They didn't.
There is also the issue of racism. With Haiti being the first and only independent state created by a slave revolution, it is even more pressing to keep them poor, otherwise they would set a bad precedent. God forbid people from realizing that a bunch of negroes are capable of running a country. The USA has recently done two cups against a democratically elected government in Haiti (both times led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide) and it has had very good reasons to do so.
Here is a sample of democracy now reporting:
Security “Red Zones” in Ha
Massive Thread Drift Fosters Occasionally Insightful Morality/Spelling Debate Amongst 14-year-old Slashdotters.
Surprisingly, Haiti Remains in Need of Assistance; Radio Operators Still Shot.
Godwin's Law Invoked at 11.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It's sad ... but nothing will change. It's great what the US is doing. But was the situation in Haiti so much better before the earthquake ? The honest answer is no.
Haiti, for whatever reasons (no racist crap) is not a good place, and is very unlikely indeed to become a good place. The natural resources are all but used up (1% trees left, freshwater is used up). The population is so far over the carrying capacity of the land that it's very unlikely even medium size animals will be able to survive the next few years.
And the worst news : all the aid in the world is not going to change that. Only relocating nearly all of Haitians will delay the problem. Delay, not solve. I won't kid anyone using the word "solve" here.
Why are we doing this ? Forestalling the inevitable for a year, if that ?
A little explanation :
I would personally fall into your malevolent (or evil) category ... that doesn't seem fair at all. Of course, I'm not God. But still, not fair ...
How does not being willing to solve problems make someone malevolent ? There are loads of problems I'm not willing to solve. Leading the list are problems that the people brought upon themselves. Second are hopeless problems. And yes, some preacher does convince me from time to time to give money to essentially hopeless causes, hoping against hope that this time will be different (though I prefer non-hopeless causes). I've even been known to have been surprised at times. But loads of problems will never see my help, knowing full well people are dying as a result of them (Palestina, or Bangladesh, and dozens of others)
Am I malevolent too, then ? Because that's where your classification would place me. I could provide a certain, nonzero, amount of aid, and I willingly withold it.
There are few countries in the world that are as responsible for their own problems as Haiti is. In addition to that it's a hopeless problem too.
yes....amiga3D. you are not anonymous. in fact your name is amiga3D in real life. wow. idiot nigger.- care to post your full name and your home
address ? i'll help punch your monkey face in.
What exactly is a "dogmatic definition of Christianity"?
People like you are why there has been no grand meeting of the minds in the political middle.
"they command the actions of all those repubs (including the rich ones with lots of disposable income)"
Like hell they do. Most rich Republicans, including myself, who watch Fox aren't stupid. I don't believe 99% of the stuff on Fox anyways. Hell, I believe Fox's commercials have more news content than the actual news segments.
And it's no different than what MSNBC and NBC and their networks *chose* to become. Some Rachel Maddow anti-energy industry FUD while she pretends she has a brain (she is the near epitome of "smart, but not intelligent"). Or MoveOn. Or USA networks pushing political commentary on their "character" channel ads. Or CNN putting up amateur video of an anti-Obama rally, not showing what the video shooter is wearing or doing to incite the crowd.
It's the way of the world, and it took off when you went anti-Bush--these are the rules YOUR PARTY developed and put into practice. Guess you don't like it when the same is used instead against you.
"They might be twisted, hopeless and incompetent individual, but don't underestimate the power placed in them by a large portion of America. They can be very dangerous and destructive."
Damn, I'm surprised we haven't imploded, given nearly half of America and most farmers fit your ideal of the stupid followers of these pinhead right wing anchors.
In any case, so is misinformation and FUD, such as your post. I've seen Dem stuff on MSNBC, and off the wall crap that's pretty "dangerous" and "destructive" too, like advocating removing coal energy plants wholesale. Someone doesn't understand base load power.
There are a lot of people who watch Fox, including myself, who do so to see the difference in opinion. I'm a Republican, my parents both are, and while we watch Fox, we don't respect most of the talk or their news slant. MSNBC went to shit. CNN has been moving left for quite some time, but that's expected given the changes behind the scenes is like what happened with MSNBC a couple of years ago--you have a person with a leftist agenda who is pretending to be fair while all the while directing resources and anchors to their political opinion.
Then again, you are one of the types who think Rush Limbaugh has "power" with Republicans. Didn't we see that for a few months, the great white hope (and whale) of the Republicans bounce around stage while you pointed to it as representative of all Reps? Thought you would crush us; you seemed, in earnest, to jump and insult the party when it was down, and didn't quite understand that you were showing your HATE to the nation, which has already begun turn on you.
So, go ahead, watch Chris Matthews, or Keith. Great stuff, but it's not like the left is rallying around with pen and paper to their noble calls. Strangely, nor does the right to O'Reilly and most of their ilk.
btw, if the money doesn't go to the Red Cross, it'll still "go" to a well known charity that is reputable and decent. People aren't going to stop donating, their just redirect the funds. People still give anyways, just to a different org that may not be of your choosing, but that is their right, not yours. (And isn't this a similar argument with Title IX and football programs?)
A small point I should make - I'm not a Dem.
I'm not even American, these are my observations as a Brit who has lived in the US extensively, as well as here in the UK.
And if you think Rush has no "power" over the Repubs, where are loud denouncements by the party when he says particularly off-message (so you say) things, other than to quietly claim now and again that he doesn't speak for the party.
I'm well aware that not all Republicans watch Fox new, or follow Rush's words or beliefs, or believe that the 4 elements that make up all things are Earth, Water, Fire and Air (I know several actual real life Repubs, so I have real world experience), but Rush does represent a very large swathe of the US.
Let's get rid of them. No benefits for retiring boomers. None. They fucked it up, they deal with the consequences. Let them rot - they gave us Reagan, they gave us two Bushes. Fuck them when they want any social security. Fuck them when they want medicare.
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving...
If you have food and I have a gun I'd shoot the nearest four legged critter and ask if I could borrow your knife and stove for a share of the meat.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If God is omnipotent, how can there be hopeless problems to him?
Dilbert RSS feed
"If they grab onto you with the octopus-death-grip, duck under the water and they will let go quickly."
Now I know that if the lifeguard trying to save me starts to drown/sink... they're just faking. Better to hang on tight, knowing they will soon surface for air.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Actually, I would be kinda pissed if a lifeguard did that to me. Messing with my emotions. At that point, all bets are off.
Since they are "playing dead" they will not suspect that you would hold their nose and then suck out all their air. This will buy you some time until the next lifeguard jumps in.
And despite all this dumb, irrational, self-centered nature we have thousands of years of civilized society.
All civilized societies (save a couple of communes like Amish) enforce law and order; in medieval times it was military (guards) patrolling towns; now it is police. A society hopes, of course, that its members will behave, but hope isn't enough.
There were times when police wasn't around - during wars, or in remote lands. Then the law of the jungle takes over.
Make a thought experiment. Take a large city, like New York, and remove all LEO from it. The control of the city will be up for grabs. What will happen, who (if anyone) will reach for that control?
Sure, let's see you do that.
Qxe4
Hundreds of hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast before Katrina, and yet nobody shot at the rescuers. Usually, there weren't any rescuers at all
So you answer your own question. Nobody shot at rescuers because the damage was minor and the society survived.
But consider the disaster like in Haiti. The society is in ruins, just like the buildings. Consider this scenario, for example:
A man with a bag full of food encounters a starving family. Children will die without food. The man refuses to share or sell his food. The father of the children is armed. There is nobody else around. What is the ethical solution of this situation, and what is the *likely* solution?
A definition where Christianity is a dogmatic religion, of course.
I did not talk about hopeless problems. I talked about :
problems caused by the "victims" of that problem (like Haiti before the earthquake, or, say Zimbabwe).
More or less contained within the above would be problems caused by laziness (like, say, our political system)
Problems that are only problems because we perceive them as such, where someone else might know better. All statistical and scientific problems could fall under this, like, say global warming, or animal migrations, or diseases.
One might defend the point that if evolution is true, then Haitians should be left alone, or totally conquered and oppressed. Either they can deal with nature's calamities, and they deserve their place on the world, or they can't deal with the calamity. If we help only one of two options will be the result : (a) we destroy the Haitians (b) we destroy ourselves. So whether even a disaster as heartbreaking as Haiti's earthquake might not get classified as a problem in an omniscient mind.
(you'd think that this sort of thing would make people think twice about defending evolution's application to humans, but apparently nobody cares what the second part of "adapt or die" is, and that that second part is the default option most individuals will be confronted with)
Or there are many other options. Problems can be hopeless, even to an omnipotent being, if said being himself adhered to rules (even self-designed rules), or otherwise chose to limit his actions. The bible would certainly seem to indicate this to be the case.
Furthermore it is not, at all, clear what "omnipotent" means, scientifically or mathematically. After all there still is that nasty mathematical proof that there is no such thing as a "universe", and it is not clear how certain forms of infinite collections would fit within it (if they can fit at all). Loads of problems to be solved before the meaning of a concept like omnipotence can be ascertained, even on a purely theoretical level.
You could range omnipotence all the way from the (relatively "weak") ability to create infinite forces right up to the ability to move freely in time and totally change the state of any point in space, including full control over any consequences. You could include the ability to fully predict the consequences of doing so, or you could leave it out. Lots of flexibility here, lots of consequences for the question you're asking.
Any of these forms of omnipotence would certainly enable one to create any miracle described in the bible, even the "weaker" principles, and would certainly enable one to create the human race, and earth, and everything.
Things like omnipotence are also very dependant on what the universe actually is. If the universe is relativistic and describes the environment in which God lives, changing the past would be a big no-no, even for God, no matter how absolute his power. If quantum mechanicists' ideas about 9 or 10-dimensional (or was it 27 ?) unified spacetime (including FTL particles, and their counterparts, particles whose future lies in the past) is true, omnipotence would include much more than "merely" changing the past, but would include the ability to locally affect the strength of any force at will without disturbing any other phenomenon.
And of course, we don't even know which is true. "Quantum mechanics", may be proven, but only 2 very limited 3-dimensional theories are proven, nearly all of the other stuff (ie. String theory, extra dimensions, even spacetime as 4-dimensional) is conjecture. Sure, widely accepted by scientists, but NOT validated by experiment (unlike general relativity).
General relativity would seem to mean that changing the past would be impossible, even for an omnipotent being, as past, present and future would be as absolute divisions to him as they are to us. Such a being could of course kill us and start over, but it would not be able to change what has happened.
Furthermore there are lots of unsolved questions. Such an omnipotent being that could change the
A definition where Christianity is a dogmatic religion, of course.
Dogma:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.
Christianity is dogmatic by definition. If you reject the core beliefs, you are not a Christian - you simply share some of the same beliefs and chose to self-identify with them for the name recognition. I have no problem with that, although I would prefer that people who hold vastly different views NOT self-identify as having the same beliefs. Regardless of your views, though, you don't get to pretend that Christianity itself isn't dogmatic.
Law enforcement does not spring from the ground like mushrooms. It is not a divine force delivered on to the face of the world from the Heavens. It comes from the very men that write the laws. And in many cases, the same community that is governed by those laws also write the same laws as well as provide the men that make up the law enforcement force.
The notion that humanity is fundamentally inclined to self destructive anarchy is in direct conflict with the existence of law enforcement and organized, civilized societies. If we were driven by this behavior, law and law enforcement would never exist.
Granted - there are those who display the aforementioned behavior. They exist in almost any sufficiently large enough group. And given the right set of circumstances, they are likely to do bad things. But these individuals speak to human condition. They are examples of the worse of us. They make up part of what humanity is but they do not define it.
Well, this is a good opportunity to invite your neighbors into your radio shack to listen to the ham traffic out of Haiti.
Some would not come in because they're afraid the dangerous electromagnetic radiation will cause them to spawn three-headed babies. Meanwhile, they park their butts 3' from what's essentially a 25,000 volt x-ray machine (CRT in a TV) so they can watch their shows, while hams are out in the cold and dark practicing for when we're needed.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
And in many cases, the same community that is governed by those laws also write the same laws as well as provide the men that make up the law enforcement force.
That statement is a bit idealistic. Gang members are not welcome in police forces; at the same time police officers spent a lot of time working gang-related cases. Looking at the community at large is not productive, just as if you are looking at both sides in a war. The distinction between a felon and a non-felon is quite obvious, especially in legal and rights areas.
If we were driven by this behavior, law and law enforcement would never exist.
On the other hand, if we were NOT driven by this behavior, law and law enforcement would never exist either. The truth is in between: most of the society wants peace, but a small (and dangerous!) part of the society wants war. In most modern social groups criminals, if left unchecked, overrun the peaceful citizens. In ancient times villagers were known to brutally kill thieves, that kept the balance. Nowadays it's not legal any more, so criminals have an advantage.
They make up part of what humanity is but they do not define it.
There aren't that many criminals in an average society, actually. But their influence is far exceeding the actual harm they do. For example, one sexual predator or a serial killer can terrorize millions of people and change their ways of life forever. If you add actual and potential harm together you will see that criminals define *a lot* of what's going on in the society. As an example, look at 9/11 terrorists. They killed 3,000 people, but look at the changes they unleashed onto the society!
There are also secondary effects of crime. Peaceful citizens arm and train themselves and eventually become more violent. Movies and books are made about crime, making it into a glorious adventure. And so on. Violence is an integral part of a human society, and it defines a lot of what humans are. History of humanity is history of wars, that ought to mean something.
Finally:
The notion that humanity is fundamentally inclined to self destructive anarchy is in direct conflict [...]
It is not in conflict with human history. We can go back as far as records exist, and we see violence, war and crime all over them. Crime is a permanent fixture of a human society. The only known alternative to king's guards is brutality of small prehistoric tribes. Remove the force of law and witness Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia.
And morality in the face of danger is what makes us something other than a common animal. If we don't have that, then what do we have?
That statement is a bit idealistic. Gang members are not welcome in police forces; at the same time police officers spent a lot of time working gang-related cases. Looking at the community at large is not productive, just as if you are looking at both sides in a war.
If your community is nothing but gang members, then I'm sure you'll find the law enforcement to be a very different organization. Corruption aside, gangs tend to be a subset of a community. Law enforcement represents that larger community. And those forces come in to existence in various forms due to the general desire of humanity for law and order.
On the other hand, if we were NOT driven by this behavior, law and law enforcement would never exist either. The truth is in between: most of the society wants peace, but a small (and dangerous!) part of the society wants war. In most modern social groups criminals, if left unchecked, overrun the peaceful citizens. In ancient times villagers were known to brutally kill thieves, that kept the balance. Nowadays it's not legal any more, so criminals have an advantage.
This isn't some sort of chicken-or-egg situation. If humanity was so bad off, there would never be an attempt to form civilizations. We would simply continue in the perpetual cycle of conflict. But we don't.
There aren't that many criminals in an average society, actually. But their influence is far exceeding the actual harm they do.
I completely agree. We have a relatively small number of bad actors and people start to state, as a given fact, that "human beings are dumb, irrational, and self-centered creatures."
"If they grab onto you with the octopus-death-grip, duck under the water and they will let go quickly."
Now I know that if the lifeguard trying to save me starts to drown/sink... they're just faking. Better to hang on tight, knowing they will soon surface for air.
If you're thinking clearly enough to remember that, you're not panicking.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
If not jumping in the water under the delusion that that could save him, and therefore not drowning with him octopus-grabbing you, means I”m “scum“ to you,
Hmmmm, so Hurricane78 is actually the same person as girlintraining, and using multiple accounts. Interesting.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If you remember, the US send soldiers to Somalia as well. It didn't help much, and the soldiers were pulled out.
Much appreciated. Thanks a bunch.
As a final aside, got any good HAM related puns? :3
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
For counter arguments, perhaps you could also consider China, India, Canada, Australia, South Africa...
I think the problem is that our military trains for the wrong kind of thing now. We have tanks and planes, which are great for WW3, but we don't seem to be training our guys for these kind of police actions. Vietnam proved that the US military doesn't make good cops, and Somalia, Bosnia, and Iraq aren't exactly changing that perception.
Regardless - it's apparent from interviews on NPR that it is a small group of people causing violence in Haiti, not the general population. This is how it's always been, though. Most humans are content to live peaceful lives, but a select few have no respect for the rights of others.
I don't think this is a case of the disaster turning good people bad. I think it's a case of the disaster giving bad people an excuse to act on their impulses with little likelihood of reprisal or punishment. Look at the looters in LA after the Rodney King riots. People were actually surprised when they were caught, tried, and convicted.
Then it's a good chance for you to use that joke second head you picked up for halloween a few years back.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, well, there are reasons why the more recent Canadian aid shipments have gone in through Léogâne and Jacmel rather than through Port-au-Prince. Avoiding the logjam of bureaucrats has been the main one. (The fact that our Governor-General was born in that area doesn't hurt.)
The earthquake in Haiti is horrible. The human cost, unimaginable. Decades of corruption, slavery, and exploitation by the larger Caribean powers (which includes the U.S.) has left this nation in ruins. This article is hardly surprising, given the level of anarchy. The efforts of the Amerture Radio community are admirable and quite brave. The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc are doing amazing things in dangerous conditions. I fully support all legitimate efforts to assist this nation's rebuilding efforts except for one area.
Some call for cancelling Haiti's debt:
Cancel Haiti's debt
Rich Nations Call for Haiti Debt Relief
You cannot cancel Haiti's debt without reforming this badly broken nation's government, police force, military, beaurocracy, and schools.
This should be the 21st Century's first rebuilding effort by Western World. Think of it as the continuation and modernization of the Monore Doctrine. Accept help from the rest of the world, but start treating these failed/failing states in the New World as part of a larger neighborhood.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato