Hurricane Dorian Is Barely Moving at All. Here's Why That Makes it Especially Dangerous (time.com) 141
Hurricane Dorian, which slammed the Bahamas early Monday as a catastrophic Category 5 storm, is packing remarkably strong winds -- but the storm itself is crawling along, moving at a mere 1 mile per hour early Monday before slowing to "stationary" as of Monday afternoon. The storm's glacial pace will result in even more devastation, meteorologists say. From a report: With sustained winds of 185 mph and gusts up to 220 mph at the time of landfall in the Bahamas, Dorian made its mark as one of the most powerful Atlantic hurricanes on record. While it was recategorized as a Category 4 storm late Monday morning, with winds of 155 mph, it remains an extremely dangerous storm, forecasters say. In part, that's because it's moving so slowly. Adam Douty, a meteorologist with AccuWeather, says Dorian will move as slowly as 1 or 2 mph "for the next 12 hours or so." For those in Hurricane Dorian's path, that's a big cause for concern. A slow-moving storm "makes the flooding worse, you have continued battering with the wind so it has time to weaken structures, and once they're weakened it could damage them further," Douty says. In addition, Dorian will likely cause significant coastal erosion along the coast with "hours and hours of waves" in the Bahamas.
Non-working site (Score:4, Insightful)
When I want to see the article, I get a message:
By clicking continue below and using our sites or applications, you agree that we and our third party advertisers can:
Is there a non-evil alternative?
Re:Non-working site (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a non-evil alternative?
Run something like uBlock Origin.
Re:Non-working site (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to plug Reddit here, but the r/tropicalweather subreddit is pretty awesome with many many sources.
Here's why that's dangerous (Score:3)
I would have thought that would be pretty obvious. Imagine an F2 tornado, which sometimes becomes an F3, 35 miles wide, and just sitting over top of an area for hours and hours.
Re: Here's why that's dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They still got flooded though, thus proving the point being made.
People don't want to live in concrete bunkers with watertight airtight doors and no windows. While hurricane-proof abodes are indeed possible they're just not practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as sheltering-in-place becomes less tenable people are forced out into the wind and worse, the flood. It's floods that kill most people in hurricanes.
The Saffir-Simpson scale only takes sustained wind intensity into account; really that's one of four factors that describes the destructive potential of a storm: wind, flooding potential, geographic extent, and speed. Super-storm Sandy wasn't even a hurricane by the time it made landfall, but it was the second geographically largest Atlantic hurricane
Re:Here's why that's dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. A bad storm staying in the same place for longer causes more damage. Not exactly rocket surgery...
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of. Having danced in a few myself I can say hurricanes like this aren't usually quite the same as a Tornado because their force isn't so focused as that but they carry a ton of rain and there is a lot of risk from flying debris which they will helpfully break off the trees if there isn't any laying around. That rain is a big deal because it brings flooding with it which many don't realize is blended with sewage. At some point these things are definitely going to cripple power infrastructure and it is c
Update (Score:5, Informative)
Dorian is down [noaa.gov] to 115 mph (185 km/h) maximum sustained winds, with gusts to 140 mph (225 km/h), as of the 1000 AM EDT Tue Sep 03 2019 update. Still a Category 3 storm, and still moving at only 1 mph (2 km/h). The direction has changed to 320 degrees true, though, so the forecast curve northward may have begun.
Great sympathy for the poor people on Great Abaco and Grand Bahama Islands.
Re: (Score:2)
As I was saying before some pathetic incel snowflake got triggered and tried to mod me down...
Which is what they do... when they need their safe space...
You better mention that Alabama will be hit (much) harder than anticipated.
Or Dumpy will send sad incel trolls after you.
I'm just kidding. He can't spell dtmos.
Title should say it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Pre-21st century title: "Hurricane parks over Bahamas, subjecting islands to winds up to 220 mph for 12 hours."
21st Century title: "Hurricane Dorian Is Barely Moving at All. Here's Why That Makes it Especially Dangerous"
If I have a gripe about modern day media, it's this. If you want to hook me and make me read an article, tell me what I need to know so I can decide if I want to read it. Don't try to trick me or hide the information. I miss the days where you could figure out most of the news simply by reading headlines, and just read the articles for details if you want to. And what makes me sad is even traditionally reputable publications like Time is pulling this headline shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were 220mph sustained winds then every building would be flattened and everyone would be dead. The hyperbolic exaggeration only leads people with sense to distrust the media even more. 80-90mph winds are bad enough, why lie so brazenly? Wind speeds at altitude do not translate to the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is perfectly possible to construct a building that can withstand sustained wind speeds of 220mph. That Americans typically build houses out of match sticks and consequently blow over if you look at them (is the three little pigs not a thing in the USA) is not relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trailer parks aren't built in flood plains for "some reason"
They are built there because the land is cheap (because of flood plain), and the landowner can get a decent return on his space rent.
More desirable land is too expensive for trailer parks.
Homes being built in flood plains have to do more expensive foundation work, to get the home above the flood plain, but same rules don't apply to temporary structures, ie trailer homes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, having also lived in Florida. They have tried nearly everything , even the houses that are on stilts still have the problem of the waves undercutting the foundations and washing away the whole house. If you can't trust that the ground a house is built on will be there , you really have to just give up. That is why people evacuate. Most of the description isn't about wind, it is water and sand and even that is mostly also the most expensive beach properties. Other damages usually include things hi
Re: (Score:2)
There's a VERY good reason why people with beachfront houses capable of surviving a direct hit by a cat 5 hurricane might decide to evacuate anyway: any car parked below is likely to be destroyed, if not literally washed away. Aside from the financial hit of losing your car (which might, or might not, be covered by your car insurance... flooding is a literal legal minefield when it comes to insurance), there's the fact that after the storm, you'll no longer have that car available to use for some period of
Re: (Score:2)
This is NOT insightful, none of it.
Yes, it is "perfectly possible". Even "Americans" know that. That it is possible is not the question.
And what's with this suggestion that Americans don't know how to build houses? If caribbean island builders wanted to build to withstand high winds, odds are exceptionally high they would consult American architectural standards and maybe even use American-supplied solutions. You're an idiot.
Re: Title should say it all (Score:2)
In much of the Caribbean, steel pan-deck reinforced-concrete flat roofs are common. The main constraints are keeping the max span under 15-20 feet, and the fact that a poorly-built flat roof leaks unless it's kept meticulously sealed.
In the US, concrete roofs are rare (though they've lately become less uncommon in new homes, partly because they also enable roof decks to compensate for a tiny yard). 10-20 years ago, they were nearly unheard of in single-family residential construction.
Ultimately, it comes do
Re: (Score:2)
If there were 220mph sustained winds
Wait, where did the person you replied to say sustained @220? Or am I TOTALLY misunderstanding you?
Re: (Score:3)
If there were 220mph sustained winds then every building would be flattened and everyone would be dead.
Says someone who clearly doesn't live in a hurricane zone.
First off, they never said 220 mph sustained. They said 185 sustained with gusts up to 220. And contrary to your implication, those speeds are entirely typical of what you'd measure at ground-based stations during a cat 5 storm. You seem to be unaware that buildings in hurricane zones (at least in first world nations) are designed to handle winds like those. Not only that, they routinely do so every few years.
I lived in south Florida for about a deca
Re: (Score:3)
I went through both Andrew and Katrina. 180mph winds is an F3 tornado, approaching an F4. The media is wildly exaggerating the "sustained" winds of Dorian. 90mph is bad enough, they don't need to lie for sensationalism.
Re: (Score:3)
I went through both Andrew and Katrina.
As did I with both, as well as a few other notable ones, but, fair enough, I stand corrected in my allegation that you hadn't lived in a hurricane zone.
180mph winds is an F3 tornado, approaching an F4.
Yes and no. Yes, the speeds are comparable, but no, it's not at all like an F3 tornado. Hurricane winds are straight line winds that come from a single direction. Tornado winds are not straight line winds, and as such, they're significantly more dangerous. Tornados also have significantly more updrafts, making them more dangerous yet again.
The media is wildly exaggerating the "sustained" winds of Dorian.
You've said this a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's even worst than this is that on some websites, you're trying to read an article and a non-related video starts playing on the right column... what the fuck? They're trying to prevent me from reading their own freakin' articles? Who's running these fucking websites?
Re:Title should say it all (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to forget the quaint old-fashioned notion that the articles matter at all to anyone, or that they care whether you read them.
It's all about getting you to click on a link, or visit a page. Once the visit is counted, you can drop dead for all they care.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to forget the quaint old-fashioned notion that the articles matter at all to anyone, or that they care whether you read them.
It's all about getting you to click on a link, or visit a page. Once the visit is counted, you can drop dead for all they care.
Do you think this is any different than it ever was? In the past all they cared about it you buying the paper (which, BTW, is why the practice of bold, prominent headlines was invented). As soon as you handed over your nickel, you could drop dead for all they care.
Except that that isn't actually true... then or now. In order to get paid by advertisers, then and now, they had to attract readers again and again, not just one time. If anything, this effect is even more pronounced today because advertiser
Re: (Score:2)
The article is just bait to get you to watch the ads. The advertisers are their customers. Of course the article content is secondary.
There should be an exception for paid subscribers... but I'm not subscribed, so I can't speak to that.
Re: (Score:2)
What's even worst than this is that on some websites, you're trying to read an article and a non-related video starts playing on the right column... what the fuck? They're trying to prevent me from reading their own freakin' articles? Who's running these fucking websites?
It's annoying, but about 5 years ago web sites got to the point where they don't care if you read the article or even if you *can* read the article - they just want to get you to the page so they can collect ad revenue. That's why headlines are click-baity. In the last week I saw a web site with two separate full-page popovers that had to be closed to even get to the article, which itself was full of ads that popped up and auto-played as I scrolled. It would have taken me 10 minutes to read the three par
Re: (Score:2)
they don't care if you read the article as long as you watched the video
Why even bother hiring people to write articles then...
Re: (Score:2)
Why even bother hiring people to write articles then...
Kind of like the captions and stories in the old Hustler magazines. They could've put lorem ipsum between the pictures, nobody would have noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Reading the latest rant about what an asshole Rick Santorum was, was always a nice treat. Larry Flynt was very fond of including them.
Re: (Score:2)
To get you to the page with the video
The articles are just a loss leader to get your eyeballs on the advertising where they become revenue.
Re:Title should say it all (Score:5, Insightful)
They really don't even care about that. They want you to pause or mute it using the tiny controls in the tiny window, and accidentally go to the product web site.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why I have to use ublock origin and privacy badger. That and set Firefox to block any auto playing media. Makes most of these sites are least bearable.
Even better, they want your attention (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's running these fucking websites?
Large profit seeking corporations are.
Also small profit seeking corporations, and even profit seeking individuals.
Re: (Score:3)
Pre-21st century title: "Hurricane parks over Bahamas, subjecting islands to winds up to 220 mph for 12 hours."
21st Century title: "Hurricane Dorian Is Barely Moving at All. Here's Why That Makes it Especially Dangerous"
If I have a gripe about modern day media, it's this. If you want to hook me and make me read an article, tell me what I need to know so I can decide if I want to read it. Don't try to trick me or hide the information. I miss the days where you could figure out most of the news simply by reading headlines, and just read the articles for details if you want to. And what makes me sad is even traditionally reputable publications like Time is pulling this headline shit.
Sure, PT Barnum had a different method for capturing someone's attention with "headline shit", but the effect and end result was the same, proving just how old this tactic really is.
When journalism revenue went from sell-advertising to just-get-clicks-no-matter-what, quality and accuracy went out the damn window. The end result, is sadly predictable. The National Enquirer looks downright reputable when compared to the bullshit the MSM is spewing daily.
Blah, blah...this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Title should say it all (Score:5, Insightful)
YES! Headlines are supposed to be abbreviations of pertinent details, not introductions to 4th grader book reports.
NO: "We need to Talk About Racism Because It's Not Getting Better Fast Enough"
YES: "Racism Still Exists"
NO: "Which World Leader Committing This Atrocity and Why It Should Matter to You"
YES: "World Leader Does Something"
NO: "Our Economy is Crashing and Here's Why"
YES: "DOW Falls 3% On News of Trade War Escalation"
Bring back boring news! Don't try to hook me. Don't tell me how to feel. Just give me the information and accept that I will digest it as is appropriate.
Wet ground == bad (Score:3)
About 15 years ago, a hurricane hit Virginia near Lake Anna. A friend's dad lived on the lake, and had a number of leaning trees (but the property was owned by the power plant, who had tagged the trees but not removed them).
They made it through the hurricane, but it stayed wet for a few days, and then we had some strong winds within the next week or so ... and the trees went down, taking other trees with them.
I don't know if 12 hours is enough time for the water to soak in far enough to do this sort of damage, but I suspect that just loosening the top foot or so of soil with continued hurricane force winds could be enough for a lot of problems
Re:Wet ground == bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on what kind of trees, etc.
For example, water oaks are notorious for having shallow root systems while being incredibly tall, as well as having a tendency to rot in the middle and end up hollow in the main trunk as well as large branches.
I've lost 3 of them over the years, but not during any of the windy blows we've had or even strong TS/cat1 'canes. The typical thing is ... we get a lot of rain over a few days or weeks, the ground is extremely soaked, the tree is already leaning a little, and there is a ton of extra water weight up in the crown/leaves. And then the ground gives way, roots rip, and the tree falls over. Usually leaves the root system perpendicular (almost) to the ground and has a nice large "wall" of the shallow roots and dirt, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In Florida, can you cut down the trees on your property without government interference? Where I live, you can't chop down a tree without a local government permit, and you might be required to replace the tree with a similar tree. And good luck getting the permit to chop down the tree, if an endangered-species bird has a nest in the tree.
I hope you don't have government rules like that in Florida. Those rules would make it harder to make your property hurricane-safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you avoid it because a once-in-a-hundred-year event might destroy your house?
No, I build a robust house. Resists everything but large meteorites. Disaster comes from building cheap crap.
Blame Florida (Score:2)
Blame Florida for Dorian stalling over the Bahamas. All the kids in Florida are chanting "rain, rain, go away, come again another day". Dorian is respectfully listening to their chant and waiting for another day.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you been to Florida? If you were, you could understand why Dorian is hesitant to move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been to Florida? If you were, you could understand why Dorian is hesitant to move on.
https://www.esquire.com/news-p... [esquire.com]
The hurricane saw that and decided to move on.
Re: (Score:2)
You will, Oscar, you will.
comparison (Score:3)
Fight the hurricane... and win! (Score:2)
One of the most powerful on record (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate when people refer to something as "one of the most powerful" or "one of the best" or "one of..." anything. It's hyperbole, and it's meaningless. Give me a ranking, or at least some kind of comparison.
Technically, I'm "one of" the most-handsome men in the world. I'm the 7-billionth most handsome.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that 7 billion includes the women , if you are the 7 billionth handsomest man you must be a really pretty drag queen. Ever considered competing in Miss Universe?
Different levels of problem (Score:2)
The wind is generally only an issue for those caught in the eye-wall as that's the only area that is going to see the extreme wind speeds. If you're not in the path of the eye, wind generally isn't the main concern with the exception of the tornadoes that are likely to spawn from the main storm.
The rain, however, is quite a different story. Especially when coupled with storm surge.
I live at ground zero for Hurricane Harvey. It exhibited the same traits in that it stalled out and / or was moving at an i
Someday (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No we won't, they will always run out of energy in days.
for the same reason Jupiter's spot is also running out of energy after 340+ years. (bigger planet, longer time)
Re: (Score:2)
"estimates"; this alone gives away this alternative fact. Dick Chaney gave this estimate?
Add reference.
Re: Tied for first (Score:2)
Re:Tied for first (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually is calmer at the centre or eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was mostly before TV networks needed "killer storms" to inflate their views.
Re:Tied for first (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I bet your can can feel comfortable in your assertion that there isn't a problem, because you can just shove it off as some complex political power move to create an emergency. Vs actual science, and being threatened by increased dangerous weather.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what do you think happened with the most recent tax cuts? Wealth was redistributed to the 1%. The same with "trickle down". Nothing trickles down to the people, only wicks its way upward to those already at the top.
racial justice,
Oh how horrible! Treating people equally regardless of the color of their skin. The downfall of mankind is at hand.
free healthcare,
If my tax dollars are being used to pay for s
Re: (Score:2)
Look, just because Trump lies and seems to get away with it, doesn't mean you can. Present sources or shut up. By the by, the Laffer curve that conservatives pretend to love, actually predicts maximal federal income with a 60-70% top marginal tax rate. Don't pretend that you can keep reducing the tax rate and having federal revenues go up. That hasn't worked since we lowered the top rate from the 90% peak it had during the fifties and sixties, which is the time most conservatives like to think of as "the go
Re: (Score:2)
Spin it all you want, you still appear to lack a basic understanding of what the "marginal" part of marginal tax rate means. Let's just say that it is the taxes paid after all the deductions that matters. Actual taxes paid during the time period you set were approximately the same as now.
And since you appear to be incapable of typing "tax revenue up under trump" in any available search engine:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tax+... [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the world are you getting the ridiculous idea that climate change is being tied to other issues? You are the only one who believes that just because the imaginary liberal boogieman in your head wants both a solution to the problems of climate change, and some of those other issues you list, that climate change is somehow tied to those other issues.
Present some evidence for you hair brained assertions, or shut up.
Re: Tied for first (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my God, can you imagine the horrors of equitable wealth distribution like we had in the 50s and 60s? How could the rich afford underage call girls while paying 90% top marginal tax like they did back then?
Dude, are you actually advocating for racial injustice? Who does that? I mean, seriously, what kind of person just straight up lists "racial justice" as a bad thing? You're trolling. You have to be trolling.
Free healthcare? No one is asking for anything free, we are saying, single payer is the only way we can negotiate fair prices with an industry that literally holds our lives at stake. You can't negotiate with "How much is a pain free life worth to you?" It's worth everything you make in your life, minus a penny, according to main stream economic thought. We would pay, in taxes, for our health care. We'd just pay much less, with all the parasites removed from the industry.
Your debt argument is the only one that rises to any level of cogency. But it's still wrong. Higher education is what economists call a "positive externality." Meaning, a free market can not fairly adjudicate resources to it because of value that is external to any particular transaction. Everyone benefits with a more educated populace, but that benefit is not incorporated into the price of education. Others get to "free ride" and reap the benefits of having more, say, doctors and engineers in society without having to pay.
So, it makes sense to incentive public education. And it makes even more sense to forgive education debt. That puts more money into the hands of people who will spend it, boosting the economy.
Finally, global warming is of course not any sort of Trojan horse for any of that. If anything, it is something doubters and "skeptics" dislike talking about because "the other side" says it is important. You are basing your opinions about an existential threat on the fact that you dislike the people talking about it. I honestly can't think of anything more self destructive, short sighted, and petty. It's like burning down your own city because you don't like some of the people living there.
Re: (Score:2)
>global warming is of course not any sort of Trojan horse for any of that
In and of itself no.
>it is something doubters and "skeptics" dislike talking about because "the other side" says it is important.
Saying those things are important is one thing. Pushing them in policy that is supposed to address global warming is another.
>existential threat
Debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in your fevered imaginings do you see anyone attempting to tie climate change policies to social justice, wealth redistribution, free healthcare, and debt forgiveness?!? The only possible link is to social justice, because (oddly enough) many environmental problems hit communities of color, and other poor communities, more than they hit wealthier communities. Wealthy NIMBYs keep most toxic crap isolated to areas that don't have the wealth and political connections needed to keep themselves safe.
This
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my God, can you imagine the horrors of equitable wealth distribution like we had in the 50s and 60s? How could the rich afford underage call girls while paying 90% top marginal tax like they did back then?
No one paid 90% tax rates then. NO. . . ONE. There were enough tax breaks, that everyone paid approximately what they do now.
Dude, are you actually advocating for racial injustice? Who does that? I mean, seriously, what kind of person just straight up lists "racial justice" as a bad thing? You're trolling. You have to be trolling.
Not trolling. Just a realization that the left's "racial justice" equates to calling everyone to the right of them a racist, and idiots like those at the NYTimes claiming that "America was built on slavery."
Free healthcare? No one is asking for anything free,
That is absolutely, and demonstrably false.
we are saying, single payer is the only way we can negotiate fair prices with an industry that literally holds our lives at stake.
Singapore would like to have a word with your misguided world view. Turns out that there combination of price transparency and deduct
Re: (Score:2)
Singapore is about 1/2 the physical size of LA so saying what works great there would work for a much larger physical area and much larger population isn't likely to pan out.
Many of the issues I have with the system now are out-of-network costs where even doctors working in the same hospital may be in and out of network and if you have an emergency where you can't direct your own care (and sometimes if you explicitly try to get everyone in-network) you end up with ridiculous charges because the on-call do
Re: (Score:2)
Even there, the medical billing systems will find a way to make things hell for patients.
Add in, all bills are the direct responsibility of the insurance company. Any non-payments or disagreements are between the insurance and the provider. No more hitting the patient up for more money.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is - single payer would force a single billing system - big win for everyone on the provider side of the equation. Also just one payer and since the policies are standard it means every doctor only has to keep track of three possible standards for care based on what policy level each patient has. It's a big win for the provider side as well. Throw in tort reform - cap pain and suffering payouts - make sure everyone is covered so everyone can go to a GP instead of the emergency room - and something
Re: (Score:2)
Universal healthcare would also help with torts. Often medical mis-adventures mean a long term expense for continuing care and rehabilitation that the plaintiff will have to come up with one way or another. If that aspect is covered as a given, damages are considerably reduced (though we'd need further reforms to deal with loss of income).
Definitely agreed, a single payer system would drastically reduce the overhead of dealing with a multitude of requirements to submit a bill to multiple providers, not to m
Re: (Score:2)
Where's your proof no one paid those higher taxes? I see this trope spread by economic conservatives frequently, but oddly, no one has any sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, are you actually advocating for racial injustice?
No, he definitely didn't say that. Ask yourself why you thought it.
That's not even considering the very Orwellian way a lot of words are being used these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did he list racial justice in that context at all? What was his purpose, do you suppose?
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no equitable way for one person to steal from another, then how did the wealthy increase their share of the worlds wealth, while the rest of us saw our wealth decline?
Hypothesis one: it was not equitable, and therefore, we are within our rights to take BACK their ill-gotten gains.
Hypothesis two: it was equitable, and therefore, we can do the same without fear of being immoral.
Checkmate, bud.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you oppose ALL federal and state programs that do not benefit you directly? I mean, most of them don't. So why would you oppose this program? It will benefit you indirectly, by injecting more money into the economy, literally the only sort of "rising tide" tide that will lift all ships. Trickle up, if you will.
Re:Tied for first (Score:5, Informative)
the 1935 Labor Day hurricane
It was also before a bunch of wealthy, entitled bastards built mansions on the beach. And then got the government to subsidize insurance for them. So they could keep rebuilding.
One more thing: I've seen a few videos of people screwing plywood over their windows for store preparation. In some cases, they are screwing them on right over the top of phony (architectural detail) storm shutters. People actually used to build stuff that would stand up to storms. Like with shutters that actually closed and latched.
Re: (Score:2)
People actually used to build stuff that would stand up to storms. Like with shutters that actually closed and latched.
Yeah, back before the government would simply pay for their property. Why bother now?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a better government.
Re:Reminder-Government Won't Save You From Hurrica (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have naively misplaced trust in government.
Re:Reminder-Government Won't Save You From Hurrica (Score:4, Insightful)
This right here.
Government is only after the fact and a lot of people forget this. If you have a government big enough and powerful enough to save you from things like this... you probably no longer have a government. You likely have a Master.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I trust governments run by people who trust gov't (Score:2, Offtopic)
The trouble we have, at least in America, is we keep putting people in charge of government who don't believe government can do anything right. When Obama was in charge of FEMA it did just fine. It was a disaster (if you'll pardon the pun) when Bush Jr was in charge because his administration didn't believe in government.
Re: (Score:3)
When Obama was in charge of FEMA it did just fine. It was a disaster (if you'll pardon the pun) when Bush Jr was in charge because his administration didn't believe in government.
People drowned in Houston. The media fawned over Obama, and did not dare to ever print a negative word about him. His handling of natural disasters was little different than Bush's or Trump's. It was the same people at FEMA doing the work after all.
Re: (Score:2)
At no point did Obama (or Bush II, to be fair) ask why they couldn't just nuke the hurricane, or warn people to watch out in places the disaster isn't heading anywhere near. Trump's handling of the situation is not like the other two. The handling of Puerto Rico makes the "heckuva job Brownie" days look appealing.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You conflate a off the cuff statement with "handling" the situation? Your TDS is out of control.
Again, if the the media had made a big deal out of every off the cuff "the police acted stupidly" comment that came out of Obama's mouth in private instead of covering for their anointed one, it would look no more appealing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need a better government.
Better? OR do you mean bigger?
A government that is powerful enough to save you from yourself and your own bad choices is big enough to enslave everybody too. Why do we insist on blaming government for not taking care of everything? What happened to personal responsibility and making good choices so you are not dependent on the government?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did people get the idea that they all live completely on their own, without any government help? Just posting on this websites indicates that you've used the services of many, many different government services.
Re: (Score:3)
There are too many people and not enough resources for libertarianism to work any longer. There aren't enough commons left as it is, we don't need another Gilded Age rush to denude them for the benefit of a few. (Never mind that this is exactly what we're getting.)
I like libertarianism as a guiding principle, but it has become increasingly obvious that it's not sustainable to let a small number of people forcibly harm others to enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
NO, our government will not save you BEFORE whichever natural disaster smacks you in the face. Instead, they will ride to the rescue AFTER the storm has passed
Unless you live in New orleans, in which case they will wait a week then drive by and shoot you as you struggle to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a fucking idiot.
He was replying to someone that was advocating for damages to someones property. And made a statement in the same context. But bitches like you are too fucking stupid to comprehend that because you can't follow more then one post. Here is a thought bitch, go play on the coast where ever this Hurricane is at. Nobody will miss a fucking pussy like you .
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really consider hating politicians deranged?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Because anything hitting Mar a Lago, shit for brains, is going to hit a bunch of much less wealthy people who can't take the hit. A hurricane, shit for brains, is a giant fucking storm, not a lightning bolt. Thus, shit for brains, only psychotic assholes would wish for Dorian to destroy Mar a Lago.