Blame It On The Rain

(Blogger isn't letting me upload pictures. We might as well blame it on Hurricane Irene, as everything else is getting blamed on that.)




Aaaannndddd the hype has begun. We've got Hurricane Irene hitting land yesterday and it's looking to shape up to be a Category 2 at the most. But since the egocentric media is centered on the east coast, they're going to try and make this storm out to be some sort of a massive killer or something. And expect other news media outlets to follow along. But let me be probably the first to tell you that it's not really like that. For instance, right now, the LA Times is reporting that eight people have already died as a result of this disaster. Really? Eight? Let's check that out for ourselves, shall we?





Let's see..."On Friday, a man installing plywood on the window of his home in Onslow County died of a heart attack". OK, that doesn't count. That's not because of the hurricane. That's because of clogged arteries and a lifetime of unhealthy foods. How is that a hurricane related death? Because he was installing plywood? I'm pretty sure that he would have had that heart attack if he wasn't installing plywood. That doesn't count. Why would it? Next!

Next, "...man died in Pitt County when he lost control of his vehicle and hit a tree, officials said. Two others in the state died in car accidents." All right, this is either really crappy reporting (and it really is) or this storm is so weak that someone is really trying to embellish things to the point where people don't look like complete fools for overreacting. Is the hurricane responsible for the loss of control and all of the tree hitting? If so, I'd like to know how. Otherwise, this is known as an accident. It is NOT known as a deadly hurricane. The same goes with the other two. What is wrong with people?

The article continues with "In Newport News, Va., an 11-year-old boy was killed when a tree crashed into his apartment building...And in Brunswick County, a man died when a tree fell on his car." OK, I'll concede to these two probably being hurricane related. Trees don't usually crash and fall unless there's something going on. These two deaths are legitimately hurricane related. I'm sure that makes the deceased feel much better about their recent demise.





Then we have "And off New Smyrna Beach, Fla., authorities said, a 55-year-old surfer died in 7-foot waves." That doesn't count either. One doesn't simply just die in the middle of some waves. Man, the media really does suck, doesn't it? They are just dying for people to be dropping dead because of this hurricane, aren't they? I suppose that their desire is fine (albeit twisted), but I'm not a fan of them creating their own reality.



And they're trying really hard to get the body count up to nine because "...authorities in New Hanover County, N.C., were searching for a man who either fell or jumped into the Cape Fear River on Friday as the first, outer bands of the storm began to ravage the area." OK, listen! Please! If the guy JUMPED, how in the hell is that because of the storm?! I'm seriously ready to pull my hair out! Jumping isn't storm related! High winds and lots of rain do not make one JUMP recklessly with wild abandon into the sea! What is WRONG with people?!

moreless

Can They Do That?

Today's post poses more of a question. A question about whether or not we're being sheep herded into situation under the guise of something being for our own good. And who wants anything for their own good really?



Here's the situation: As you are probably aware (and if you're not aware, how do you do that?!), the east coast is all panicky because of Hurricane Irene that may or may not be coming to town. Yes, I realize that there's a hurricane out there and that it will make contact with land. What kind of contact it makes is yet to be seen. And please remember that we're relying on government employees who seem to specialize in the weather in order for us to make an informed decision. Regular weather forecasters who are not in the government seem to be highly inaccurate when preparing me for whether or not I need a coat. Now you're going to throw the government into that mix? Am I supposed to believe that will make it more effective because everything that government gets into gets more effective? Yeah, no, that doesn't ever happen. But that aside, I'm talking about the mandatory evacuations that are being ordered in various parts of the country that may or may not experience some greater than normal rainfall.



The government is telling you that people that they have to leave their homes. I'm unaware of anything Constitution-wise that allows for that practice. The government can't tell me to leave me home. Yet when things like this are about to potentially happen, that's what they do. (And before you go off on me about how it's all for safety, allow me to remind you that I have a rather libertarian bent within me. The less government for me, the better. And I'm perfectly OK with things that I might not get because of that.)



I mean, let's say that you don't want to leave your home because a hurricane might be coming and because the government might not have any idea how bad it is going to be and decided to overreact as usual. Not that I need a reason (because it's my house and I don't think I need to justify my rationale), but what if I am worried about looters in an area with no people in their homes and I want to stick around and protect my belongings? (Please note that in this scenario, I also think that I'm not going to be in grave danger if I do. Any danger that may arise, I am willing to deal with on my own. Just because I decide to stay behind, I can't expect to be rescued if need be. If I say I'm on my own and I'm not leaving my house, I mean it. And if I end up being screwed, well, at least that was my choice and the government didn't have anything to do with it.) Is the government really able to tell me that I have to leave? I don't think that they can, even though they do it all of the time. It's a practice that I'm not fond of.



And if you're over there screaming at your monitor "What about children?!", just calm down. I'm getting to that. While part of me really would prefer that even if the adult is going to stay, that the children have to go somewhere safer, part of me doesn't like that at all. Isn't that the government saying that they know what is better for your children that you do? On top of that, we make a lot of rules and a lot of laws and a lot of decision in the name of the "best interest for the children". I'm not so sure that's the best way to run things. Again, I don't want the government making decisions for me and my hypothetical and non-existent children.



Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am, but I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints. (I'm not as interested in them as concurring viewpoints, but I always listen.) I just don't think that a government can legally, under the Constitution, tell you to leave your home. Sure, they can ask. But I should be able to decline their request without being under fear of arrest. (I have no idea if the government can ask you to leave your home if you live in government housing, though. That might be a gray area.) I'd really be interested to hear this discussed or reported upon somewhere. But since the media sucks (and is currently practically soiling itself over the minute possibility of imagined impending doom), I highly doubt that will ever happen.

moreless