Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Radio Hams Fired Upon In Haiti

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the damn-shame dept.

Communications 265

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."

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Try to give them help and this is what they get? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867480)

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?

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867488)

Yeah, where do those Haitians think they are, anyway? New Orleans?

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867540)

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? During Katrina, mankind benefited a little from all those niggers drowning. This can only be a good thing.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867660)

I fucking agree.
If I saw a pregnant nigger bitch asking for help, I'd kick it in the stomach.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868000)

You think Haiti is bad? Check this out - the Vice Guide to travel - Liberia:
Part 1 [www.vbs.tv]
Part 2 [www.vbs.tv]
Part 3 [www.vbs.tv]
Part 4 [www.vbs.tv]

Niggers. The same all over the world.

Amateur gets through when everything else is down. (4, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867506)

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

Re:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (4, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867574)

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

Re:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867918)

Right, because echolink and CB squared are going to save the world when the fire comes. Please just shut up.
Ham radio is a worthless throwback to a bygone era, like eugenics or electroshock therapy. It sounded legit at the time but now everyone knows it's worthless bullshit.
You and your overgrown CB and your blue lights on your SUV aren't going to do ANYTHING in an emergency but sit there and watch while the REAL professionals take care of things.
The sooner you and your fellow "hobbyists" are off OUR airwaves, the faster we can put them to PRODUCTIVE use.

Re:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868258)

define productive -
facebook over 2 meter?

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867518)

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).

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867536)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867598)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867620)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867676)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (3, Funny)

Andrew916 (1108769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867776)

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

What looks more ignorant? A compound sentence or a common (but annoying) typographical error?

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868456)

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 ;).

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868496)

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".

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (5, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867804)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867808)

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.

Game Theory (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868054)

> 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.

Re:Game Theory (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868158)

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.

I doubt that. Since she's trangendered, it it pretty likely that her mom knows all kinds of details about her that most moms don't know about their biological daughters. Either that, or her mom has disowned her, which is entirely on her mother.

More Game Theory (1)

The Creator (4611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868414)

The real way to get ahead is to cooperate by default, but to punish the cheaters.

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)

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Funny)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867692)

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Also, Elvis isn't dead, he just went home.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867700)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867832)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868036)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Interesting)

timothy (36799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867996)

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/# [thefreemanonline.org]

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

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868152)

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."

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867616)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867624)

Why does it matter anyway, they're just a bunch of shitskinned jungle turds anyway. Let them and their families starve for all I care. Survival of the fittest and all that.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867724)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867790)

I'd like you to explain what the hell is going on in Haiti right now. Are the people in haiti somehow different?

Yes. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868328)

They're niggers.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867952)

In the class of ungovernable hell holes Haiti is right up there with Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a bad idea to go there.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867820)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867688)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867748)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867758)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867798)

You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions, for somebody who whinges about an argument lacking substance.

agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868522)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

gillbates (106458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867588)

Morality is a luxury that not everybody can afford.

Well, in this respect Haiti must be rather affluent. 96 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867812)

What in the world does religion have to do with morality?

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (3, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867604)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (5, Insightful)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867612)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867704)

"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".

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867750)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867764)

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, [google.com] 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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

cdfh (1323079) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867818)

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).

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868292)

That's rather arrogant of you.

Even *I* can't troll like this.

Clueless nonsense (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868382)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868426)

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.

How strange. My first tought was: "These people are bringing me dinner. Help them so they can bring more.".

Morality is a luxury that not everybody can afford.

That keeps repeated often, yet it's absolute rubbish. "Morality" in humans is an evolved trait, which means that it helps, rather than hinders, survival. For example, by shooting at ham operators or looting supply colons, the perpetrators of these acts make it harder to get help to the area, therefore increasing the chances that they themselves starve to death (or are shot by guards).

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.

Thank you for refuting your own point: panicking in a tough spot gets you killed. Extra points for choosing an example where simply staying still for a few seconds is sufficient to avoid death (human bodies float).

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).

No, it's not callous, it's common sense, just like it's common sense to not shoot at people who are trying to bring food and water to you. The areas where people can fight off their reptile brain and stay calm and orderly usually fair fine after a disaster, and start recovering immediately as help floods in with no need to waste resources to enforce order; the ones where people resort to looting continue deteroriating until either order is restored through force or there's insufficient population left to continue fighting.

Morality is not a luxury, it's a case of prisoner's dilemma: not looting supply colonies increases your chances of survival as long as others leave them alone as well. That's why empathy evolved, and that's why this idiotic believe that "everything goes in a crisis" is so dangerous and self-defeating.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867530)

Bullshit! This is nothing more than typical negro behavior. Same thing happens in africa and in New Orleans. When aid workers come to help negros they alway chimpout and start shooting at aid workers. When was the last time Asian or White people in need started shooting at the people trying to help them? TNB is what we have here.

Yeah, call me racist but that doesn't mean I'm not right. Fuck'em. Let them die.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867594)

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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867668)

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 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihaitianismo [wikipedia.org]

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867842)

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 [bbc.co.uk] 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.

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (2, Insightful)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868174)

"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 [ericsson.com]

Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868318)

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?

Niggers.

Yes... (3, Insightful)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867482)

And this is why we send in the army.

Should you send the army into mainland USA? (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868288)

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").

They don't make disaster recoveries like before. (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867494)

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...

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867550)

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.

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (0)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867564)

I want our old Red Cross back...

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.

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867630)

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.

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867786)

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.

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867794)

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.”

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868076)

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.

Donate to anything but the RED CROSS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867884)

Yes I am posting anonymously because the story I relate deals with people who have a right to privacy.

Family members had a fire break out in another unit of their apartment building.

Their apartment had a hole cut in the roof by the fire fighters. Normal operating procedure.

The Red Cross swooped in with blankets, food, a place to stay, all kinds of stuff.

A few days later they also swooped in with A BILL. Funny, they had not mentioned that the aid they were giving was going to be BILLED FOR. You know - "Hi I am from the RED CROSS - I have a bottle for your baby, a warm blanket and a sandwich for you, oh here's a hotel room you can stay in and some spare clothes. Too bad your house burned down. Expect a bill in a few days."

I guess it goes to show that if you can work it out for yourself - do not accept help from the RED CROSS.

MOD PARENT: BULLSHIT (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867968)

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.

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (5, Insightful)

Jimithing DMB (29796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868030)

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?

Re:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868168)

Your argument would go a lot further if you links that backed the crucial points of your story.
As it is now, all you've done is play "he said, she said" - and since you came to the game late, you gotta more credible than the guy you are accusing of lying - not just equal.

Let 'em sink... (-1, Troll)

GhostGuy (708750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867500)

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. Yes, they had a natural disaster. It sucks. But why don't we divert some of this money we're sending to other nations into OUR home? There are people starving on our streets. There are kids without shoes in our communities. There are homeless people desperately scraping by. If we focused our efforts on OUR country, we'd be able to make sure everyone was well cared for. We have enough money and resources for ourselves, but when we try to play babysitter to the rest of the world, we get shafted. Selfish? Maybe. But sometimes you have to feed your own family first before you worry about the rest of the world.

Re:Let 'em sink... (2, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867538)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867666)

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.

Right idea, poorly phrased. (1, Interesting)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867544)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (5, Insightful)

initialE (758110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867554)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867708)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867608)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867680)

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

Re:Let 'em sink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867694)

I didn't know Pat Robertson posted on /.

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867696)

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 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihaitianismo [wikipedia.org]

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867816)

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

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867950)

I'm guessing you've never been in East LA.

Re:Let 'em sink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867990)

I'm guessing you're talking out of your ass. You're worse than the GGP.

Re:Let 'em sink... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867972)

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.

Re:Let 'em sink... (1)

cdfh (1323079) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867868)

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.

Warning: Tor is a Honeypot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867614)

even penis bird wouldn't be stupid enough to use Tor!

But Alice was stupid and ate/drank.

Are you as stupid as Alice?

Is it so bad? (0)

martinX (672498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867646)

Who amongst us hasn't wanted to take a few potshots at radio hams. Them and their damned yagis.

They should (2, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867686)

If they'd just use BPL in Haiti, then HAM wouldn't work and there would not be problems like this.

Re:They should (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867888)

Seeing the issues with HAM, I'm guessing SPAM is moot over there...

Dear Hugo Chavez (3, Interesting)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30867846)

This would be one of the reasons why we're sending our military.

Love,

The USA

Re:Dear Hugo Chavez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868048)

Dear Jeian,

This would be one of the reasons why we think you are more like the people who fired than the ones that were fired on. We usually just don't have the balls to say it.

Love,

The Dominican Republic.

Re:Dear Hugo Chavez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868176)

Wtf Hugo Chavez has to do here?

Re:Dear Hugo Chavez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868360)

Just too bad that all other reasons are wrong.

Not buying it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867858)

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.

Re:Not buying it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30867976)

That's basically nonsense. "Professional" radio operators aren't able to accomplish nearly what volunteers can.

They can't reach the same amount of contacts, professional operators have to use dedicated frequency ranges licensed for their specific use.

And the 'professionals' who take pay for operating a radio can't use the HAM frequency ranges, due to rules in the respective countries.

The ARRL is not a lobbying group anymore than Slashdot, the IETF, or the Internet Society is.

And they certainly have no reason to lie about this.

Other than military or a volunteer (such as a HAM), there's no such thing as a "professional" you can hire to go into a situation like haiti.

tor honeypot - don't use - alice says "goodness!" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868056)

is tor really compromised? i don't believe the official news, i believe it's all a honeypot

alice said, "goodness!"

Iridium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30868058)

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.

Lose sovereignty, gain humanity? (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868230)

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.

Re:Lose sovereignty, gain humanity? (5, Interesting)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868240)

Before down modding, hear me out. Haiti has no feasible way out of their current situation. But the one thing that would truly pull them out of this mire as quickly as possible is probably forbidden by a jillion UN rules. But it would work. They could NOT be in a worse situation than they are with their current government.

In their excuse (1)

iGN97 (83927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30868306)

In their excuse, there is apparently a food shortage.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?