From the beginning of time, there have been men (and women) who have felt an impending sense of doom. There have been men who kept these things to themselves, only shared them privately, or opted to take their thoughts and predictions public, despite the public scorn and ridicule that is almost always certain to occur.
Many times, they (who are in a position to react to such information) are apt to disregard such things unless there is irrefutable evidence. There must be acceptable proof or it will usually get ignored. But what happens, when the people who have the authority shut down the voice of the ones who warn others?
An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L'Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people, but was reported to authorities for spreading panic among the population.
The first tremors in the region were felt in mid-January and continued at regular intervals, creating mounting alarm in the medieval city, about 100 km (60 miles) east of Rome.
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani predicted a large quake was on the way, prompting the mayor's anger.
Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for "spreading alarm" and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.
It's one thing to ignore the warnings, and in many ways it is certainly understandable to want to reserve some judgment on anyone claiming the sky is falling. But if you ask me, it's quite another thing to actively and willfully seek a way to silence people who have what they believe to be pertinent information, which could affect people's health and well-being.
How hard is it to allow the man to tell his story, and then add a caveat? How hard is it to let people hear both sides of any issue, and allow them to decide for themselves if they want to heed advice?
The reason for my argument is not necessarily a call for castigation. I do not doubt the experts, when they say there is no 100% foolproof method of predicting quakes. But there are times when it can be said that conditions are right. One thing I have always been told is, watch the behavior of wildlife. Birds do not sing and other animals act scared.
Apparently this man had a belief that the radon levels were consistent with seismic activity. Apparently, the intelligentsia believed him to be wrong and wanted show him a thing or two.
Today, we know who was right.
Today, there are others speaking of their impending sense of doom. There are those who are convinced the nation is going down the wrong path because of many of the decisions currently being made by the "so-called" American intelligentsia. These are they, who think they know more than we do. But what will they say when they are shown to be as wrong as those people in Italy, those arrogant elitists who stifled a man's freedom to warn his fellow countrymen of an imminent danger?
5 comments:
They will say nothing. The way Bill Clinton denied any responsibility for 9-11, the way Madeline Albrecht escaped prosecution for culpable negligence in the death of 3,000 innocent people, the way Jamie Gorelick continues to reap substantial rewards for being a complete idiot.
As a prophet has no honor, a politician has no responsibility. I'm glad I could help you understand this.
//As a prophet has no honor, a politician has no responsibility. //
Maybe, just maybe, this will change in 2010. There's always that longshot chance that the American people will rise up out of lethargy and see what is before them, rise to the occasion, and hold the bums accountable.
Then again, maybe not.
Yes, you just might say we bloggers are RADON SENSORS, huh? WE know something's coming to America that's not at all pleasant......
Mustang..perfect line about Gorelick.
LA......2010 is an awfully long way away. But, I hope you're right.
Does this man have a technical background and a record of successful predictions? If so, then what was done was irresponsible and possibly criminal.
If not, do you want to let anyone making a prediction of natural disaster spread panic?
Was this a serious analysis or a lucky guess?
//Was this a serious analysis or a lucky guess?//
This is why in the post I posed these questions:
How hard is it to allow the man to tell his story, and then add a caveat? How hard is it to let people hear both sides of any issue, and allow them to decide for themselves if they want to heed advice?
The purpose of the post is more about free speech, than whether the guy got it right and the methods he used to draw his conclusion.
Post a Comment