Radio Hams Fired Upon In Haiti 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."
Try to give them help and this is what they get? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, where do those Haitians think they are, anyway? New Orleans?
Amateur gets through when everything else is down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let 'em sink... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Let 'em sink... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:4, Insightful)
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:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Game Theory (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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:They don't make disaster recoveries like before (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Game Theory (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Lose sovereignty, gain humanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Dear Hugo Chavez (Score:3, Insightful)
Hugo Chavez claimed the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti was evidence of the U.S. using the earthquake as an excuse for American invasion of Haiti [nationalpost.com]. The president of Bolivia said much the same thing. These men are dangerous dictators in a region with a long history of them.
Re:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (Score:3, Insightful)
When the REAL professionals stop inviting us to come participate in drills and actual disasters, I'll give your point of view some consideration. In the mean time, you just sound like someone that wanted a license but was too dumb to pass the test. Don't they miss you on 4chan?
-W1BMW
Re:Not buying it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't usually feed Trolls, but here's a ration for you...
1. Hams are much more capable in an emergency than "Professional" operators. Outside your control room or situation vehicle, you barely know how to find your dick to take a piss. Hams are used to operation in field environments and practice at it frequently.
2. Hams own their own equipment and can take it at a moment's notice to the affected area. You gonna uproot your public safety tower at the police station and take it with you? I don't think so.
3. Many Hams like myself own almost exclusively "Professional" grade gear - I own almost all Motorola radios, the same digital units the federal government uses currently.
4. Speaking of authenticity, I'd rather believe from the ARRL this happened than take the word of an anonymous Troll idiot on slashdot that it didn't.
5. Our "fantasy" world becomes "reality" every disaster, time and again. Maybe next time we'll even save YOUR dumb ass, too.
Re:Amateur gets through when everything else is do (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this is a good opportunity to invite your neighbors into your radio shack to listen to the ham traffic out of Haiti. Explain how you use that ugly antenna to help people around the world, and how it could might save the lives of their family if something like a terrorist attack or natural disaster disrupted normal communication systems in your neighborhood.
Then maybe they'd feel differently about whether it is "unsightly" or not.
Monday morning quarterbacks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:1, Insightful)
"How does shooting people coming to help you solve the food shortage? "
You can eat the people you shoot. And because they are not your neighbors, you don't feel that bad about it.
Re:Lose sovereignty, gain humanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell yes, they could be in a worse situation than they are with their current government. I'd recommend reading a bit about the history of Haiti before you try to answer that question. Or if you want another idea about how much worse it can get, look at Somalia.
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion at its lowest, human level have everything to do with morality. Whether it's a fixed set of morals passed down to you from previous generations or the interaction of you with your fellow human beings which makes you learn that being a social being has its benefits for you as much as for anyone else, or preferably both. It gives you a reference of judgment you can build upon even if you later reject that religion for whatever circumstance. In that sense, being brought up with a certain religion is indistinguishable from being brought up with a less (or non-) religious but similar system of beliefs and morals like Buddhism, Socialism or Humanitarianism. Your parents/teachers give you this system of morals and eventually you base your own system of morals on what you have been thought mixed with your own experiences. If you're a 'good' human being (sorry for my use of the word 'good' here ... for lack of a better word) that means when you're grown up you have been able to evolve your own personal system of morals because you have been given the chance to do so, working from that base that was passed down to you, to something you can live comfortably with both yourself and with all human beings you interact with.
Religion at its lowest, human level, I think is an extremely good thing (now I do mean good as GOOD!) whether some of its believes are rather fantastical and unscientific or not.
It's only when things get institutionalized and people who are supposed to be shepherds turn out to be wolfs that things go horribly wrong. But I honestly think that's something that can happen with any social system of beliefs and morals.
Disclaimer: I've been brought up in a non-strict roman catholic belief system. My parents left me lots of room for individual choices, which does include I haven't been seeing a church inside for years, 'though I was a very active member (as in helping find texts for the masses as part of a liturgy group) and still think of those years fondly. I turned away at a time the conservative forces began squashing laymen influences as I got the impression human interaction and constructive dialog about hot moral topics was becoming less and less a priority. I do still value the christian moral core though, so I'm probably quite biased.
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This kind of thing is easy to say while sitting in front of a computer, presumably well-fed. But if there's a limited amount of food and you're starving, how can you say that's what you'll do? What if you had a child to protect as well?
I'm not saying you wouldn't do the right thing, I'm just saying that extremely decent, moral people who survive this kind of disaster routinely talk about the terrible things they did to survive, and how guilty they feel about them. Many of those people are better than I'll ever be, and probably better than either of us. Your morals are important, but so is humility.
Re:Try to give them help and this is what they get (Score:3, Insightful)
You want survival of the fittest? OK. Run, fat boy. Better hope that your coddled suburban upbringing made you tough enough and strong enough to handle it out there with the animals.
Oh, you meant survival of the fittest for other people? Gotcha.