"I'm reminded of the recent news from France, that they're going to make their nitwit citizenry who go to hostile territory pay for their own rescue."

Ah. yes. Still advocating there is no duty for your government to serve you.

Right now, you, a renter, are asking these people to abandon their homes, and are apparently careless of what that means.

When the earthquake comes to California, I expect you to pay me to come get you out of there. You've been warned!

Leave your dog. There's no room for nonessentials on the rescue helicopter. No dogs.

Different now, isn't it?

Radwaste is right - I find their position understandable. They wanted to stay and try to save their homes. They believed they could make a difference.

On a related note: the real solution is really very simple: If there is enough to burn, set fire to it. Smoky the Bear was wrong, at least for this landscape.

Fires are a part of nature in the area - in fact, they are essential to the lifecycle of various plants. The best way to keep them from being so severe is to have smaller, more frequent fires.

Radwaste what is the difference between a wild fire and earthquake? The earthquake comes without notice. The wild fire can be seen or know about minutes to days before.

These people where told - get out before the fire comes. Heck they probably had enough time to probably grab those family photos, family cat and some insurance documents. They decided to stay for some reason or another. With that decision they made another choice "my house is more important than my life".

That is the same for the French or any other government. Most people will be warned if you go to someplace like Nepal or Tibet to climb Mount Everest, the government expects your to have enough sense to think - "I might just break my leg and it will be my responsibility to prevent that (best way do not climb the frigging mountain)" SO in the end if you climb that mountain and you break your spine why should the French government chopter your ass out FOR FREE. Or why should the government fly you out of a country that is having sporadic violence that they warned you about. I could go on. Once again people read your advisories - travel, emergency, health, law, etc. Ignorance should not means the government has to pay.

Also have you looked at LUCY she is not a dog she so small she's a key chain accessory. All Amy would have to do is throw her into her purse. Heck I bet if Amy got rid of her Visa card she could Lucy in her wallet.

Isn't this Obama's fault, just as Katrina was Bush's fault?

Bill 'em.

Unrelated: Hey, you quoted me in you Dun Juan column - cool! At first I read "quotes from all the gold diggers" then read my name and panicked ("What have I said to indicate I'm a gold digger?!?!"). Then I realized the label was purely sarcastic.

Glad we could all help you on your column, it was fun to bash that turd :-}

I equate this in some aspects like welfare.
You are warned what you need to do and you refuse to do it. And now the tax payer ends up paying for your poor choices.

There was also a guy that they had to rescue twice. I beleive on mount hood because he went up there and the weather conditions changed and the guy was wearing flip flops!
I think the search and rescue cost about $ 125,000 each time. When asked the guy dismissed it and said that's why we pay taxes.

Let them burn. Much like the idiots who refused to take the government-paid evacuation busses out of New Orleans should have been let to drown. It's not the government's job to protect you from your own stupidity-something our country seems to have forgotten willfully.

Why wasn't Obama blamed for the midwest ice storms? More people died and more damage was done than Katrina, but you didn't see those people on the news demanding government help and sitting on their asses waiting for it. I think we all know why. Can we say democratic culture of dependence?

I gotta say that I'm for personal responsibility on this one. Do I want anyone to die? No. But they had warning and they refused to leave. Now they want to be bailed out (gee, I'm seeing some larger parallels here). If they send anyone in after those idiots, those idiots should be billed out the yin/yang for it.

I have to say, the French make sense this time. You should have to pay for your own stupidity.

If people want to stay and try to save their property, that's their business -- but it's a no-turning-back decision. It may not be totally unreasonable for people to try to stay and fight the fire themselves, depending on how they are equippped for firefighting and how much defensible space they have around the property. However, it needs to be clear to everyone who stays that once the evac is done, they are on their own until the fire passes.

Actually, what gets me is why on earth California home owners persist in using wood shakes for roofing. If they would just roof their houses with a non-flammable material, there would be a lot fewer homes burned.

If people want to stay and try to save their property, that's their business -- but it's a no-turning-back decision.

Exactly. If you live in a fire zone, you need to get insurance that will cover your losses and not put others in danger to save your property or life.

If there's news of a tsunami coming (I'm about a mile from the ocean), I have plans to put my laptop on my back and Lucy on my front and get the hell inland on my bike.

Gregg also tells me to keep my car gassed up for emergencies, not that it uses much gas (hybrid Honda Insight), but when you get 40 mpg in the absolute worst traffic, and way better usually, you can let it get a little low before you get to the gas station.

In 1969 I walked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I was told by the ranger that if I did I had to get out on my own or to pay $500 for a rescue. That is $3,500 in today's money.

It is easy going down, seven miles of trail and a 5,260 foot drop. But then you have to climb all that way UP and you are exhausted.

California should just pass a law: if you are ordered to evacuate in an "emergency situation" and you do not, then *no* rescue, or only *after* you pay $10,000.

I have a little more sympathy for them than most people, probably for odd reasons. I grew up in hurricane country. Like wildfire or a tsunami (these days), you can see a hurricane coming from way out, and get out of the way. The trouble is, amateur socialists (thieves) do not. And they'll break in and rob you blind whether the storm comes or not. And after the storm, should it hit, the law won't let you back to your home, while the looters run rampant.

So I can understand why it would be hard to evacuate, even looking down the maw of wildfire.

Not one ounce of sympathy here. Yeah, I own my house, too... and it's insured. If the government rescues these idiots, they absolutely need to charge.
(Here, we have flash floods. If the local emergency officials have to rescue your dumb ass in a low water crossing- happens all the time- they charge you something like $1,200, as they should.)

"Radwaste is right - I find their position understandable. They wanted to stay and try to save their homes. They believed they could make a difference."

Radwaste is wrong. These people knew very well they were building their houses in fire-prone areas, even though there is plenty of room on the flat for houses - but that wasn't good enough for them. Now they want the rest of us to subsidize their self-indulgence. Bottom line - no houses should have been built on those sites in the forest place, and everybody knew it. That's not my opinion, it's Nature's. And now Nature is enforcing it.

"I think we all know why. Can we say democratic culture of dependence?"

Actually, I would call it a legacy of slavery and the dependence of a slave on the master. I agree with all the rest of your comment word for word, momof4.

"Actually, what gets me is why on earth California home owners persist in using wood shakes for roofing. "

It is against code now in a lot of places in California. In Elk Grove for instance the only roofing materials that meet code are concrete or ceramic tiles.

They actually still use wood? That's illegal here in Texas, and we don't have fire issues. Idiots.

If you're caught by surprise, you need to be helped. If you're told the rules and choose to break them, you suffer at your own choice.

I recall stories about hikers being given GPS locators on mountains, only for some to refuse them because it makes the hike less thrilling or something knowing there's a safety net. OK, hope your will is in order.

"Assuming the risk" used to be a legal standard. Now most people don't even grasp what it means, and those who do will argue it doesn't apply in XYZ case because of yadda yadda yadda.

On a related note: the real solution is really very simple: If there is enough to burn, set fire to it. - bradley13

Ive got a better solution, stop pretending southern califona isnt a desert and cut off all water to golf courses, water displayes and to the populace who is apparently too stupid to realize that watering their fucking lawns is the primary reason the southern half of the state burns every year

"They actually still use wood? That's illegal here in Texas, and we don't have fire issues. Idiots. "

The majority of the houses are between 50 and 00 years old, so "still" doesn't quite apply. and remember, wood is a whole cheaper in California as a building and roofing material, because we actually grow it here. In any case, rest assured that the composition roofs in Texas will burn just as well as shingle and shake roofs would if a brush fire ever could get started.

Also Amy given your elevation at a mile from the beach and the speed at which the wave is approching the shore and the projected wave height, and wether or not you live in a second or third story appartment are all factors to consider before trying to make a run for it.

If its a massive continental shelf draing wave there is no ponit in trying to go anywhere, if the figur it will push two miles inland at no more than 5' deep youd be better off in a second story appartment then in a car.

THe real danger though is tsumanis caused by continetal shelf mudslides, even a small tremo has the potentail to cause such a slide which would send a small compact tsunami directy into the shore with far less warning then you get with regular tsunamis, not that you get a whole lot of warning with those either

Not one ounce of sympathy here. Yeah, I own my house, too... and it's insured. If the government rescues these idiots, they absolutely need to charge.
(Here, we have flash floods. If the local emergency officials have to rescue your dumb ass in a low water crossing- happens all the time- they charge you something like $1,200, as they should.)

Posted by: ahw

I live in the south eastern corner of the Phoenix valley, about 5 years ago a saw a little truck that had been washed off the road, right next to a culvert, after the ater receeded the front wheels were sitting at grond level, but the back of the truck was so far burried that the bottom of the cabs back window was right at ground level. Took them a week to get that truck out of the ground

My worry is not the costs though I'm not excusing it. My worry is the rescue personnel and the danger posed to them having to go in and save people refusing to leave. I don't understand it because I'd be grabbing my kids and getting out, but many people don't. I visited New Orleans and was surprised at how strongly many of them felt about staying put and fighting the storm. Again, I don't understand it and I'd respect their position if they weren't putting the rescue workers in danger.

When Hurricane Ike hit last year, the residents of Galveston were told to get out, and if they didn't make it, no one would come back to help them until after the storm. The city was true to its word, and not only did more people die in the US than in any of the other countries hit, much of Galveston burned because fires ran through the night.

Many people were caught by surprise with this storm because it made a turn at the last minute. One guy I know woke up late and was already flooded in by a storm surge. We all thought Ike was going to hit Corpus. He sat in his house that night, and when the fires started he called 911. They told him 'fuck you' and hung up.

-Julie

Life is full of choices, just be prepared to take responsibility for the choices that may place you in danger, no whining post-tragedy.

no whining post-tragedy.

A friend of mine and I were talking about evacuating for hurricanes. She said that there are two types of people who evacuate: Those who've never been through one yet and those who didn't get out for the last big one.

-Julie

I should note, lujlp, that the crossings are clearly marked, so there's no excuse for driving through a flooded one. I grew up in a little town on the Guadalupe River, and when I was a senior in highschool, we had a huge flood. I think 7 or 8 people drowned... when they tried to go though those crossings. It's amazing what a couple of feet of water can do.

And Julie's right, too. The people on Galveston Island were told to get out, that if they stayed behind, they were "on their own." The smart ones left. Officials in Texas didn't want a repeat of the situation that occured after Katrina.

You ever driven doen Chapparel Rd between Scottsdale and Tatum Rds?

North of the road is a park behind a hotel, south of the road is a 15ft drop and the road has 7ft flash flood measurement poles.

Quite frankly I dont think we should charge the idiots who ignore the signs for help, I think we shouldnt help them to begin with

Right now, my heart goes to the Firefighter Chief who need to decide if he send help or not. Of course, he doesn't want to let the people of Gold Canyon to die but if he make a move to help them, he's putting his men's lives on the line. If he do nothing, he's good for grief and lawsuits.

I will give the right to anyone to play for "Team Darwin" as long as it's on their own money and their own risks.

This is just amazing.

I'm right.

1) The county and state and Federal governments ALL permitted homebuilding. It's regulated. The victims complied with the law in buying their house.

2) Houses contain investments that cannot be recovered from insurance companies.

3) "No dogs" is a rule one sees everywhere, because the next person in line wants to bring the Rottweiler. Sorry, your pooch is wonderful, yadda yadda yadda. Two dogs on the helicopter means a child gets left behind. You want to stay with your dog or cat, there's the ground, get out on your own. The point? You get told what to do by agents when they are given the power to do that.

You. Get. Told. Sometimes at gunpoint. Yes, you.

4) The only difference between the earthquake and the fire is the amount of warning. Both are inevitable. If you told homeowners two months ago to leave, because the fire would consume their home, some would still stay. Your house will be totally destroyed by a: 1) Fire 2) Earthquake 3) Meteor 4) A car bomb. Don't believe it, or think you can survive it? OK. To be consistent here, we'll make sure that since you've been warned, you're on your own. Completely.

Just why did you vote for ANYbody?

In all cases, you must consider what you government is and why it exists. If you think you pay taxes to be abandoned in time of need - need that "they" determine - then I assure you, you'll reap what you sow. Already it is difficult just to count the people "working" for the US Government. Do you think that government spending is well controlled today? Do you see where government agencies could keep even more of your tax money to buy perks for government employees and benefit people who don't pay taxes?

Does government exist to abandon you?

It is my view that citizenship means that in return for doing your civic duties and meeting the responsibilities commensurate with the exercise of rights, government owes you that simple, basic effort of providing for the general welfare. This is not the assignment of "unperson" status to anyone after a warning and then ignoring them.

If you grant your government the ability to abandon you on any pretext, you help justify your total abandonment. No, your tax money will not be spent as you wish. No, the law will not protect you from the city council's exercise of eminent domain. No, you are just another body, no different before the law than any thug. Veteran? Big deal. Crippled, paralyzed veteran? Sorry, pal. We told you the risk and you went anyway.

You might as well beg for shackles. Letting government slack off is simply never a good idea, and if you express surprise at the next story of malfeasance of office, I will be sure to point out your personal, schizoid, policy of double standards. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. You endorse a politician breaking promises. What? You don't? Well, just what is it when "government" can't deliver law and order? A mystery, inadequate personnel, or just a savvy pol playing people against each other?

Citizenship is a package deal. Government is supposed to be the collective will of the people. It sickens me to think that that will's first impulse is to shout, "SCREW 'EM!"

Well Radwaste you made some good points

Radwaste commented
If you grant your government the ability to abandon you on any pretext, you help justify your total abandonment.

Hey let me fix that up for you a little

If you grant your government the ability to help you on any pretext, you help justify your total subjugation.

Radwaste pointed out
2) Houses contain investments that cannot be recovered from insurance companies.

So does my wallet. If a mugger wants to take it and I want to keep it, if I make that choice I should understand the possibility of getting my ass hurt or killed increases. The choice I make is my responsibility. Is that picture of my girlfriend worth my life - maybe yes, maybe not.

In clarification. I do not abdicate that the government can do what ever it wants (thru it usually does) when it comes to an emergency. When the disaster is big enough and/or comes without warning I would expect the government to help out. I expect many people here would expect government to help out after an earthquake, tornado, ice storm, hurricane or even war. Yet time and time again we see people who espouse commonsense and advice and then expect to be bailed out.

Also right now the government is helping with the wildfire, they are fighting it, trying to stop it. But these people want a specific help, almost selfish. Even more I think about it the government did help they told them - hey a fire is coming you might want to get away. Government warning us is helping us. It's better to be told hey a tiger is out there in those bushes buddy then having to try fight a tiger paw to hand.

A slight similar maybe not completely relevant analogy is thus. American goes to another country lets say Thailand, they do drugs, the decide to smuggle a little to their next stop for some personal use later. They get caught and are facing a long prison sentence and possible execution! In the process of being arrested they call the embassy to get help. And they do get it..... just not the help the arrested person wanted. Governments help - a couple questions to make sure your not being railroaded or tortured and if negatory on those, a list of phone numbers of lawyers and maybe a check up later. The help the tourist wants - he wants the Marines sent in guns ablazing, to be choppered out, then later patted on the back and to be told in a soothing voice there there .... there there - its not your fault, its those horrible Thais.

Again another point, if the government helps one person then another person looses out. Above somebody commented on a guy hiking in some mountains even once in flipflops. He had to be rescued twice! That was shown in a John Stossel special. Another example from that show was a bunch of guys got caught on ice flow ice fishing trapped unable to get to shore. Some of them where warned that they might get trapped. Yet the government had to send in some boats and helicopters to rescue them. In both cases tens of thousand and hundreds of thousand of dollars was spent. Money that could go to helping those who really need it. Veterans, school students, the poor, social programs that help. Sorry Jimmy no lunch, we had to cancel that lunch program because some drunk middle class hippy decided that climbing up a cliff with out proper equipment was fun. Not enough money this year.

Good Link Radwaste I am keeping that one and doing some of the stuff recommended.

True about the dog. In the end Amy might have to leave Lucy behind.

Yup I'm with Rad.

What if it's your son or daughter? Would you say fuck 'em too?

Dont have kids, but if they ignored the warning and refused the government and personal evacuation options and then wanted to be 'rescued' at zero hour then yes tough shit for them.

When the fuck did stupidity become a virtue?

How nmany homes will now burn which might have been saved as the government now has to scrabmle and redeploy there personel and materials to rescue people whos death would benifit the gene pool?

Oh GOD! OH HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO WRONG! FORGIVE ME. PPEN is SOOOOOOO right what if it is my child! YES YES YES! I WOULD WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO ......

Man, I so love those responses. The emotional
rejoinder. That what if it was your fill in the blank... son, daughter, mother, wife, gay lover, neighbor, house plant, house, car, ass. This try and using emotion to guilt you into changing your opinion. Me I try to use logic and sense.

God that kind of emotional response so reminds me of that movie "Thank You For Smoking". The main protagonist/antagonist of the movie who is a lobbiest for the tobacco industry goes before a senate or congress committee to talk about smoking and advertising or something to that effect. Anyways, finally some senator asks the question what if your son wanted to smoke. His response (do not hundred percent remember if correct) but it was to this effect he would talk to his son tell him about smoking and its consequences, but in the end if his son wanted to smoke he would not stop him.

So Ppen if it was my son or daughter in the above situation with the fires it would go as such. (Note: I have no children)

"Hi Son" / Hi "Dad"
"Son, I have been watching the news it looks like that there are some wild fires in your neck of the woods"
"Yea Dad, they are awfully close. We where told to evacuate just today."
"Damn, I am so sorry to hear that!.... So when are you leaving?"
"Can't leave dad, the house needs protecting"
"Well son, a house you can rebuild, your life you can not"
"But I have spent thousand of dollars in fixing up this place, Dad"
"Well, I have spent thousands of dollars raising you, kiddo. So pack up the kids, grab Spot, please get those family albums,too. Get on down to our place. It will be difficult and things maybe tough staying at my place but I want you to be safe."
"Sorry Dad. I am staying."
"Well looks like I am going to have go on down and kick some sense into your ass son and help you move. If by the time I get their and your not ready I will....

You get the idea. I will not sit on my ass and stick a finger up my nose going duh I wonder if da gobernment will help my son out. I will be a fucking parent and do something. Also hope that my son or daughter was taught well enough by me and his mother to think for themselves.

The day a kid pops out and I say it's a boy/girl is the day I take responsibility for him/her and until the day I die I will talk, yell, beat in what I need him/her to learn to survive in this world. And if he/she can not do something for himself I will do my utmost to do it MYSELF. I will accept help from other family and friends, even the government. Still government will always be far down that list right underneath selling kidney. That LIST starts with ME.

As a parent my job is to educate and teach my children. I am the one that should teach my daughter that if you have sex you may get pregnant or hell a STD. So honey keep you legs shut unless you want a kid or a mysterious rash. IT is not the responsibility of a teacher to teach about sex. Or Son if you are going to go on a travel to the Thailand, you should understand if you are going to deal with drugs you might get thrown in prison or executed. "Hey that high or money might be great but if you get in trouble it's not going to be with out a warning from me". It is not the responsibility of the government or the airline but dang they are down right nice they tell us what to expect.

Also as a parent YOU are supposed to watch out for you children. You are the number one person who has to watch out for them. Not the government! Not his teacher! Not his friends! YOU. Till the day that kid leaves or refuses to listen to you. Scratch that YOU never stop protecting your children.

OVERALL my main point is responsibility. If I have a child or a wife they enter my realm of responsibility. It's my responsibility to make sure I and for anybody under my responsibilty to get enough to eat, put a roof over my head, save money for emergency, read the news for danger and information, listen to advice given to me even from the government, to find and know where I can get help (even from the government), so and so on and most of all TO THINK!.

One more point, people should not forget that once you give the government permission to do something for you that is the day the government can take it from you or tell you what to do. Can't watch you kid, maybe child services can do it better. Can't pay for your house, let us handle it for you - whoops looks like you have to move out". You want it in RED, sorry its only available in pink.

Wow this post is long. So PPen what if its your children! Have you done your job as a parent. Did you teach your children and are you protecting them the best you can. Or are you giving up and letting some one else do it for you.

I think charging is a very realistic compromise. The government isn't bailing on them, the government is rescuing them. At a cost.

As long as the government is very clear ahead of time, as in, when they make the evacuation announcement they state clearly, "Citizens of Firetown must evacuate, those remaining behind will be charged in case of rescue". Then the citizens can make the choice. It is possible they may not have to be rescued at all, it is a risk that they decide to take.

As long as we are charging people for stuff, I think illegal immigrants should be treated in ERs, and the bill sent to their country. If the country is one who gets aid from us, the cost of treating their citizens can be subtracted from the aid they get.

Oh, and in regards to the endangering firemen issue... make the rescues voluntary, and let the firemen collect the extra big bucks.

"What if it's your son or daughter? Would you say fuck 'em too?"

I don't treat my children on anequal basis with strnagers. i care about my children; I culdn't care less about strangers. maybe i feel charitable now and then, feel some sympathy, but it's nothing compared to the duty I feel towards family members. That's just a piece of my pagan nature that my Christianity hasn't manged to get rid of.

"1) The county and state and Federal governments ALL permitted homebuilding. It's regulated. The victims complied with the law in buying their house."

So Rad are you saying that giving permission makes the government at whatever level completely responsible to avert or amelioriate these acts of nature? It's not as thouygh the government diorected that these people mve to these areas.

I agre with NicoleK suggestions completley.