Re: OT: Katrina -- Whom To Blame

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:41:09 -0500, Mickey <mickeys@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>James <gentryIII@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:28:48 -0400, "WooferBearATL"
>><teggers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"James" <gentryIII@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:dit5j15hj66611lu02qpjtiu34j2qns2g3@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:25:07 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A comprehensive list of whom to blame for Katrina, compiled for easy
>>>>>use by anybody with an axe to grind:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.thresholdstate.com/threshold/3966/who-to-blame
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't decide on a personal favourite. So far, it's either the fault
>>>>>of the homosexuals, or an act of revenge by an aborted foetus.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I like to blame my state, Alaska. We are directly
>>>> responsible and should not only give up the highway bill money we
>>>> recently were awarded, we should also spend the entire revenue of the
>>>> permanent fund dividen to help rebuild a city below sea level, right
>>>> on the coast, just so it can be destroyed again. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I am hoping hurricane Rita abruptly turns north and wipes
>>>> out the remainder of New Orleans. Think about it... very little loss
>>>> of life. Most people are already evacuated. And it would be a real
>>>> lesson to the dumbasses who ignore factual science, roll the dice to
>>>> live in the "big easy", then come crying to everyone else in our
>>>> country when the inevitable happens.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't tell, my opinion of rebuilding New Orleans is that it is
>>>> an assinine proposition, at best. That being said, I do feel for the
>>>> loss of life of those who were unable to evacuate, and for those who
>>>> survived and are facing hardships because they, too, could not get
>>>> out.
>>>> --
>>>> -James
>>>
>>>You're right. And really since most of the seaboard is subject to
>>>hurricanes I don't think there should be any rebuilding of any of those
>>>areas. Sorry Galviston. On top of it, since there are those earthquakes in
>>>California we should not rebuild there. The midwest has those pesky
>>>tornado's. No rebuilding there. And what about the volcano's. We need to
>>>say good bye to all them areas too.
>>>
>>>Ahhhh, so there will be what place to live?
>>>
>>
>>Alaska, of course. Unless you have ever heard of "The Ring of Fire"?
>
> ;-x

The difference is, I did not build my home on top of a fucking
volcano, which IMO, is exactly like building a home right on the
coast, below sea level. :-)

And while I pay good money to have my home insured, I do not expect
the federal gov't to come riding in on a white horse to save my sorry
ass, should a volcano explode, we get hit by a large quake, and my
house falls over.

Instead, I'd dig around in the snow, find my tools, build a temporary
shelter out of the wood & insulation scraps, drag my wood stove into
it, and fire up the backup generator so the well would pump out water.
The well water is rusty and has 2 ppm too much arsenic in it for the
EPA but it is drinkable and the dogs haven't died from it yet.

And if we started getting hungry, cause all our food was
consumed/destroyed, I'd grab the shotgun, the rifle, the hunting
knife, and go get us some food.

And if some dumbass who lived right on the volcano survived and came
crying to me for aid, I'd try to help him. Especially if he learned
the error of his ways. But if he started taking my food and water,
then asking me to come help build some structure to supposedly hold
back the volcanic forces of mother nature, just so he could build
another home on the same volcano, I'd kindly send him on his way. And
if he set foot on my property again, trying to force me into it, I'd
shoot him. Plain and simple.

Guess we all have different perspectives, no? :-)
.