We've been hearing on News for the Eucalypt Dwellers about Hurricane Ike and the mandatory evacuation of parts of Texas. No doubt we are not hearing as much about it as our American blogging friends - I'm sure we get the most dramatic pictures - which are pretty horrific - and the headline stories - likewise. It looks to me like half the state of Texas has been blasted away.
I think that had I been asked to evacuate, I would have done so instantly. I'm chicken. I also have kids. A house is a house, a eucalypt is a eucalypt, but it's nothing compared to their lives. I see that most of the people asked to evacuate did so. But some didn't. They chose to stay, despite multiple warnings that fatalities and injuries would result. The post-hurricane photos seem to make it pretty clear that the warnings were not exaggerated. Now rescuers are going in to try and rescue some of the people who chose not to evacuate.
Does that seem right? Yes, in that people are in pain and difficult situations, and they need rescue. There is no reason why their needs should be neglected. Some may have had good reason for staying - for example, perhaps illness meant that some people couldn't leave and family chose to stay with them etc.. But some of these people at least chose not to leave a danger zone. They're on the news here - declaring confidently pre-hurricane 'well a hurricane hasn't carried me away yet, so why should this one'.
So now, there's a little streak in me that is muttering 'well, I hope they rescued all the people that didn't deliberately choose not to evacuate first; the people that either had no choice or weren't expecting the hurricane to veer their way'; I hope no rescuer is putting their life in danger for somebody who made a deliberate decision to stay without good reason'. Is that wrong? Am I bitter, twisted and hateful?!