If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.
What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.
Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.
Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.
Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.
The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:
The part I'm having a problem with is the little folks who won't get a second chance. What's reversible for the country may not be for them. Health care is that sort of issue.
so far hasn't done anything irreversible.
I think the first victims have been farmers who can't bring in their crops. Just the people who voted for him in California's central valley and wherever else we depend on guest workers. I don't see citizens lining up to pick those crops. The small family farmers, what's left of them, will feel this worse, the large corporate ones have the lawyers necessary to help them break the rules and truck people in from South of the border.
The second group of victims will be the ones who need health care that doesn't come from a big company. It's a lot more difficult to start a small business when there is no affordable way to get health care. And that is the case for my own small business - I'd be in bad shape if my wife left the University. I think that's the real goal - to keep people from leaving employment in larger companies and going off on their own.
Donald Trump, unfortunately, satisfies a common desire among the populance to right things by means that won't actually right them. It's a desire to rid Washington of inaction by cleaning it out of the current folks who don't seem to get anything done: and then you find that the things they were working on are harder than you understood. It's the feeling that you can get things going right by having a manager who lights a fire under the responsible people: just the way that bank managers pressured employees to increase revenue or be fired until those employees started opening accounts fraudulently for customers who hadn't asked for them.
What I am having a hard time with is how our country gets back out of this. I fear Humpty has had such a great fall that there is no peaceful recovery.
And you type your comment on a what? And stop lights are controlled by what? And your bank account is controlled by what? Need more examples?
We just haven't gotten to the apocalypse part
I didn't say we weren't heading for a computer controlled apocalypse. I just said that I was sick of being told my future was fucked when I was a kid in the 70s. If you want to know how much I agree with you, read my dystopian teen romance, Girl in a Fishbowl.
> "2001" was about a computer killing people.
Worst. Oversimplification. Ever!
2001 is probably my all time favorite movie, but if you strip out Clarke's star baby space mysticism, the crux of the movie is that a computer decided that the best way to finish it's mission is to kill the people around it. "Logic dictates we must kill the humans to satisfy our programming." Same premise as "The 100". Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Clarke was named after Clarke. Anyway, Clarke is great, and "Rendezvous with Rama" is one of the best science fiction books of all time, but his space mysticism is a bit too new agey and unscientific for me.
There is no 'continuity' in a Science Fiction audience that leads to Star Wars. Star Wars was what George Lucas came up with after he was denied the right to produce Flash Gordon remakes.
Star Wars was a continuation of the Flash Gordon styled pulp given a flashy modern look. People still remembered that kind of "science fiction", or more accurately, "science fantasy" adventure. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of real science fiction, and I prefer Star Trek to Star Wars, but in the late seventies science fiction was super heavy and we were ready for some light entertainment. And when I said 'we', I'm talking about us pre-teens at the time who were getting bummed out by all the stories that told us we were going live in a computer controlled or ape controlled apocalyptic waste land eating soylent green, which is people, by the way.
> The Martian is a remake of this: Robinson Crusoe on Mars
You're kidding, right?
Apart from the premise of a man being stranded on Mars, they have literally nothing in common.
I'm not entirely serious, but they do have some things in common. They both have astronauts who have to figure out how to get oxygen and water and food on Mars. I do think that "The Martian" would have been significantly improved if it had a monkey. Of course, most things are improved with a monkey.
Star Wars had such an impact because of the world building - that element was good science fiction. The actual story was pretty shallow fantasy, but so many more stories were told in the world that movie created.
I was 12 when Star Wars came out. I'll tell you why it was popular. All of the big science fiction of the late 60's and most of the 70's was heavy with political and social messages. There was no real pulp science fiction. According to "Logan's Run" and "Soylent Green" we were doomed because of overpopulation. "2001" was about a computer killing people. In "The Omega Man" humanity is wiped out by a disease that turns people into zombie vampires. The only real movie science fiction franchise of the time, "Planet of the Apes", was about civilization being wiped out by a nuclear war. Star Trek of course had its social messages. By the late 70's we were more than ready for some good mindless fun.
Remember: use logout to logout.