Literally and unprecedented.
Literally
1. in the literal or strict sense.
2.in a literal manner; word for word.
3.actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.
4.in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
2.in a literal manner; word for word.
3.actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.
4.in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
Unprecedented
1.without previous instance; never before known or experienced;unexampled or unparalleled.
Yet, what we see going on in Texas right now is, in the strictest definition of the words, "literally unprecedented". It is in the most exact and precise sense of the English language correct to say that.
Yet, I continue to see people on social media who post "news" stories about how Trump should have been able to foresee, and by inference, have done something to stop the suffering.
My first problem is that this kind of thing shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government works, it's not the role of the Feds to elbow the state and local authorities out of the way and just take over.
My second problem is that these folks, (the same people who have been hysterically predicting "the worst hurricane season in history") are trying to suggest that a rain event over twice as severe as any in recorded history is somehow predictable. Hint, if something is "unprecedented", then it's pretty much unpredictable.
Now, to be fair, the people posting this kind of stuff are also the ones posting as many negative and divisive stories as possible. The "Joel Osteen is a monster for barricading his church behind barbed wire and guard towers", and that sort of thing. The calls to strip the tax exemption from churches is particularly galling. Let's ignore the folks like Church Unlimited (who while still in the impact zone have become a collection point/clearing house/shipping center) for supplies as well as sending teams into more damaged areas. As well as the hundreds/thousands of churches, businesses, and individuals working to help the storm victims.
It seems like we're watching a picture of what makes America great played out all over East Texas, yet a small group of folks feel compelled to take this amazing effort and try to steer the focus away from the reality of people of all different backgrounds and races working together to save their fellow Texans.
I think it says something about the people involved that we aren't seeing the lawlessness and anarchy that engulfed New Orleans after Katrina. We're not seeing people forced into squalid conditions in a powerless/plumbingless stadium.
I have to admit that having a child who lives in the affected area has made me a little more interested and made this a bit more personal that it might have otherwise. But I'm also proud of the fact that he and his fellow citizens/church members have just gone ahead and jumped right in to help their fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, if you pay attention to the wrong people, you'd think that banding together and working to help your neighbors was what is "literally unprecedented"
4 comments:
Minor quibble: Unprecedented.
And a question:
"I continue to see people on social media who post "news" stories about how Trump should have been able to foresee, and by inference, have done something to stop the suffering."
Really? There are some people who are saying that Trump should have, what, stopped the hurricane? Air-lifted 6 million people out?
I've heard a lot about this story, but nothing like that.
On the one hand.
On the other hand: We're over populated and over-paved. I would guess that most of our cities can't handle 100 year flood type events. We CAN foresee that. We CAN know that with any large hurricane/flood type disasters, especially in low-lying flood plains in large super-sized cities, that disaster will happen. We have chosen to build in ways that we know won't withstand large scale disasters.
Also, we've heard a good deal of testimony from scientists that, because of climate change and pollution and human contributions to both, that these types of disasters can be reasonably expected to increase in number. Indeed, this is the third "500 year flood" to hit Texas in three years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/houston-is-experiencing-its-third-500-year-flood-in-3-years-how-is-that-possible/?utm_term=.66b290a75a28
Which is why we should pay attention to the best science that we have and make policy according to our best data. If we fail to do this, then we CAN "know" disasters will come and we'll be to blame because we've decided to go down that road.
This is what conservatism should be about: Acting in a prudent manner, based on the best data we have available.
~Dan
Dan,
First of all, you have no idea what conservatism even is, so you're not in any position to suggest what it should be. Indeed, what you believe it should be...despite your statement above...is really a leftist position. That is, to you, conservatism should be more "progressive".
Secondly, there is the question as to what constitutes the "best data we have available". I would hazard a guess that to you that means, that which most closely aligns with the typical leftist climate change fanatics.
Even your link provides nothing but the most ambiguous and non-committal example of reporting one could imagine. While making sure to make mention of "climate change" and "warming", it nonetheless is clear in the conclusion that it equally possible that more such floods can occur in the near future or that we could go several decades with none whatsoever. So why mention climate change at all if it can't be stated that it has anything to do with the severity of this particular event? Climate change will continue to fluctuate in the future just as it has in the past.
As to where people choose to live, these events don't seem to have much impact on such decisions. I live near an area where heavy rains cause a particular river to swell every 5-10 years or so, flooding the surrounding towns, and most of the people insist they won't move. Charleston SC has a history of flooding. The Mississippi overflows now and then. California has earthquakes, the Midwest has tornadoes (Plainfield, IL has them pretty much annually), Hawaii has volcanoes. Other places get hit with tsunamis. People will live where they want to live despite the potential for natural disaster. Only so many want to live in Louisville.
Yes, I keep seeing people posting a headline that says Trump should have been able to foresee this and deal with it before hand.
I agree that we should always look at the best science. Of course, I'd suggest that repeated predictions and projections that turn out to be wrong aren't "the best" or even particularly good science.
I do agree that increasing amounts of impermeable ground cover exacerbates things like this, but, this is more that twice as much rain as we've ever seen from any tropical storm in history, so it's a matter of degree.
As far as the "best science", are you suggesting that you always allow the "best science" to guide or establish your political positions?
Hint, that is a yes or no question. No other comments or digressions will be allowed until that question is answered with a simple yes or no.
One follow up, to be answered in the same way.
Isn't the "best science"; "testable, repeatable, and falsifiable"?
Post a Comment