I don't know how it ever happened but I find myself agreeing with GW Bush. It feels rather slimy...but I can't deny it. Bush, Chertoff and Paulison are miffed that people who were in Ike's course and told to evacuate but did not, now are crying for the government help to save them.
I have no illusions that this diary will gain me any friends---probably quite the opposite, but still I think it needs to be said--people who knowingly put themselves in harms way and then expect others to bail them out (after the fact) do not deserve to be rescued. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, after all we are dealing with human life, but the cost for saving them should be theirs not ours.
President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Federal Emergency Management Administration Director David Paulison all pointed in frustration to the decision by a number of Texans to ride out Hurricane Ike in their homes only to appeal for help after the storm swept inland, leaving them stranded in high water or debris. LINK
Our public agencies should always do everything to make it possible for people to evacuate in a safe and timely manner whenever we are aware of an approaching natural disaster. Of course some natural occurrences, like an earthquake or explosion, cannot be anticipated. But others, like hurricanes and volcanic eruptions and many floods, can be. When people are told of the impending threat and given the means to leave, some people refuse to act to secure their own safety. Many just want to experience the thrill of danger, others refuse to believe that they will be harmed--they have some false sense of their own omnipotence.
In my opinion people have the right to act as foolishly as they want as long as they don't endanger the lives of others. If they choose to turn face-forward into 110 mph winds and wade shoulder deep into raging flood waters, I say "go for it." But don't expect me to pay for rescuing you when you have had enough.
Where I live, in Tucson, we have a law we call the "stupid peoples law." During the summer we have some pretty hefty Monsoon storms...lightning, thunder, heavy downpours, and flash flooding. We do not have much of a storm drain system, it just would not work here. So when the monsoon comes there are warnings on the TV and Radio that alert us to the prospect of flash floods and where they will probably be. Also, there are are street signs at specific places with warnings not to drive your car into the deep water pockets that accumulate when the rain runoff surges down the natural washes and across the streets. You have every right to drive into a flooded area and get stuck there, even get washed away. But that's when "stupid peoples law" kicks in. If someone chooses to ignore all the warnings and gets stuck in the flood...the rescue teams will come and save them, but the person who chose to be "stupid" pays for the cost of the rescue. Seems fair to me. I used to be a "bleeding heart liberal" but lately my income has gone down while my cost of living and taxes have continued to go up. Now I am just a "liberal." There is a point when no one should expect there government to bail them out.
In the coming years, with increasing global warming, we are likely to see more and greater climatic disasters. As we have seen recently, it takes much greater effort and increasing amounts of tax-payers money that goes into the prevention of personal harm and for cleaning up and rebuilding afterwards. Can we really continue to "subsidize" stupidity in these instances? Personally I no longer feel good about doing that.
One last point, the most dangerous places are often the most beautiful places to live---for example, the gulf coast and the Florida keys where there are hurricanes and the California coastline where there are devastating fires. Horrendous calamities occur in these places. But people insist on continuing to live there. Even after their lives are torn apart, they return and expect the taxpayers to underwrite their rebuilding. We taxpayers help them to continue to make the same foolishly dangerous choices over and over again. Why should we pay for an individual's risk taking. They know the what the risks are when they take them.
Okay....rant over. I will probably be seen as some type of uncaring "compassionate conservative" or worse. But I just gotta say it.