When does a refugee become a voting member of the household?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

In visiting with Stan Faryna I thought of issues pertaining to survival in a bug out situation. I've seen discussions of the fate of refugees should they happen to land with various posters. Some people have mentioned making slaves or indentured servants out of refugees, if they take them in at all. That isn't my bag. I wonder, though, at what point my extra people will demand more say in the daily routine, or more living space, or more of whatever? Am I in charge just because I own the space, and if so, for how long? If things get so bad that property ownership is a matter of brute force, and my refugees become my small army, doesn't their stake in the place becomes the same as mine? How do we do this? Can this be done? How long can we all be stuck in this situation before we may assume it may be permanent?

If these are stupid questions, don't flame me. Just pat me on the head and send me to my room. :)

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 02, 1999

Answers

I think a key point to be kept in mind about all of these answers and hypothetical scenarios is that none of them are mutually exclusive -- especially if there is a chaotic period in which the "old rules" (however one wants to interpret that phrase) no longer apply, and "new rules" have not yet come into common usage.

Also, a lot of it is going to depend on how widespread, pervasive, severe, and sudden the Y2K aftermath turns out to be. Most of us, for example, feel very sympathetic towards the Kosovo refugees because their condition is so miserable, and ours is not; indeed, for most of us, the sympathy is abstract and intellectual, because our only interaction with them is watching pictures on TV, and perhaps being moved to sending a check to some relief agency.

But if refugees are everywhere, if the refugees are literally starving to death, and if we ourselves are hovering on the brink of refugeedom, then it's a different story. Hopefully we won't have to go through that.

Indeed, I think there is some possibility that we may have only isolated incidents in the U.S. where residents of a local area become refugees by virtue of a collapse of the infrastructure in their town or county. In that case, perhaps they'll be evacuated to some other place (don't know if that has been done with hurricane or blizzard or flood situations), or perhaps we'll send in volunteers and help them re- build, which is a very familiar U.S. reaction.

Meanwhile, though, I think we're going to see MUCH worse Y2K-related disruptions in third-world countries, which could conceivably lead to massive refugee situations, many of whom may decide to give up on their homeland and march across the nearest border. I see that as a distinct possibility in parts of Eastern Europe, the former USSR, Africa, and perhaps even portions of Latin America and South America.

Imagine, for example, the political consequences of a severe Y2K infrastructure collapse in Mexico. Suppose 10-20 million Mexican citizens become homeless and desperate and decide to march north until they find food and water? If you happen to be living somewhere near the Canadian border, you might think of this as an abstract question; but if you live in Texas, NM, AZ, or southern CA, it would become very real very quickly.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 03, 1999.


Helen,

I think this is a difficult subject. Probably, that's why there aren't many threads about it. I have a feeling that women in general may be better able to provide insight into the elements of relationship that will be important in bugging out and taking people into your home. That's not to say that men in general won't have valuable insights to offer as well. Anyway, we have a housemate that is a refugee expert, I'm going to talk to her about this kind of stuff in the near future.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.


Helen

Obviously once the situation is in place, we will act on the circumstances as they are.

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. I have made personal sacrifices this year to devote time and money. I have put myself in a situation where I may be able to offer some of the shelter/warmth/food/security to friends or even strangers. But the bottom line is this. This is my private home. Anyone who is not a family member is some form of guest who should understand that private rule structures are in place. Not a democracy.

2. There should be some type of concept on a threshold. For example, in the interest in keeping an intact neighborhood, or giving myself time to learn to know a stranger (who just happens to be a surgeon with his family), or maybe a victim of an accident who needs help, I could say that if I let someone in the door to sleep the night, that as long as they are a "polite" guest and help with the chores, I will give them free room and board for 1 week. After this, they have to decide how they will pay me for continued shelter (work, goods, indenture or debt of some kind). For example, I may let a neighbor's family live in our living room for 2 months with the agreement that when the spring arrives (and their house is warm enough to survive) they will each work 60 hours in my garden - 10 hours per week. The children can work their 60 hours when they reach the age of 16 if I am still gardening then. Fair enough for saving their lives. And I'll need the help.

3. It is obviously a valuable process to give (permanent) members of a community a say in things. Multiple opinons are valuable. People do not get a vote until they are understood to be permanent. This may be defined as someone who will plan to spend the winter of 2001 with us. The idea is that most of the "work" in 2000 is geared towards surviving the coming winter. To become permanent, a member must be able to offer a very valuable contribution to the group (money to help buy needed goods, a tool set like a pick-up, and chain saw, a skill like intimate knowledge of organic gardening, etc.) Other permanent members must approve a new member.

4. In terms of stakes and resource sharing. I as property owner will retain 100% ownership of any improvements made (a bigger garden, a greenhouse which the community built, an outhouse which was dug) But stake holders may be given a stake in output (money earned together, pounds of vegetables produced together, firewood harvested together, goods bartered in with goods produced). I could also consider some type of situation where neighbors who are working in our garden (because they have no room for a garden) would also be allowed to develop a patch of our land as their private garden for some period of time (say 5 years). Five neighbors might each get 10 beds in a large 50 bed garden. This would encourge some amount of working together but keep clear lines about what belongs to whom. Rent on the land could be paid by some amount of work in my garden.

5. A good guideline is to consider that under normal times, we all seem to pay out close to half of our incomes as taxes (federal and state income, sales tax, property tax, etc.) If y2k causes a complete stop to taxation for a year or two, then by giving half of my resources and production over to keep my neighbors alive, I am simply paying a form of local tax. In the end, these people will be greatful and good character witnesses if I ever come under hardship in the later future.

Food for thought, Thom

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), September 03, 1999.


I'm assuming that we are talking about bugging out in anticipation of a 10 and it doesn't get THAT bad or that certain areas have become unlivable (temporarily or permanently) but it is still a 9 or less for where you are bugging out to (and, therefore, a need for someone or a family to stay on where they have bugged out to).

Thom makes some interesting suggestions-- if you are going to take in refugees. But if you are bugging out, some of Thom's ideas might not seem sympathetic to someone who has lost their home and whatever else. It's a touchy subject to say the least; it's certainly a subject in which I find the discussion ever problematic.

Thom's suggestions seem practical and fair, yet there is something bothersome here and there... and I find it bothersome that I am having a difficult time identifying and articulating what is bothersome and what seems right. Obviously, I take it very personally because me and mine might find that we have become refugees.

I do get the feeling that some people just haven't lived with other non-family much or haven't had non-family guests in their home for extended periods of time. Perhaps, I'm offended by a certain American self-centeredness and lack of a certain inhospitableness that often gets expressed in these kind of conversations.

Yes, the guest should know what is right to do and show some certain appreciation for his benefactor, but so also the host should have a graciousness and openness to the personhood, dignity, and talents of the guest. I think Confucius (Master K'ung) would have a good answer to this and put it more pithily than I.

This is a conversation that demands as much heart as it demands a clear head.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.


correction: "inhospitableness" should be "hospitableness"

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.


By definition, a refugee has the ability to move on to another location, whereas a homeowner (in this example) does not. If I, as a refugee, come into your home for shelter with my family or by myself, I am profoundly changing the boundaries of that family, and changing the comfort level of that family. (Remember the old adage that fish and houseguests both stink after three days?!) The refugee is going to be at a disadvantage, but that is just the nature of being a refugee. If I have not prepared for an event, and the event happens, then I am going to have to be grateful for whatever comes along to ameliorate my suffering. I am also going to have to be flexible enough to deal with whatever form that takes. It sounds awful and mean, but a disaster is no time for people to be fussing about TV channels, or the wrong type of milk, or whatever. If I am a property owner, it is in my best interests not to be a despot, but I know that if people are extremely uncomfortable with my house rules, they have the choice to move on. In this situation, we need to remember that the homeowner is not running a hotel, or even a homeless shelter. In both of these, the guest is really not expected to use a significant amount of energy to help in the process of providing food and shelter to those who are operating it or living in it. The homeowner must retain the rights of home ownership; he can't leave like the refugee can, he has spent the time and money to prepare for the disaster, and has those rights of ownership. I'm concerned by what appears to be an attitude of "Gee, that's not fair!" already appearing on this thread. Life as a refugee is not fair by its own nature. Just having life is good, and a refugee has to deal with what comes along, period. The people in Turkey right now are grateful for whatever they can get, and for getting it one day at a time. Anyone who comes to my home will probably be welcomed to its carrying capacity, but I'm still the homeowner, I can't take care of fifty people by myself, and if someone will not work, they will not eat. (unless they can't work).

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

Thom's points make a great deal of sense -- on paper. I feel a great sense of uneasiness about how people will FEEL about the arrangements.

We were refugees of a sort when I was a kid. Right here in this very house. The house was crammed with people who were there for different reasons, but the main reason was that we didn't have anywhere else to go. We lived a form of communism brought on by necessity. The experience was paradise for a kid. The adults, on the other hand, would periodically have screamfests. The arguments would start over something trivial and escalate into hurtful and dangerous-sounding fights. (Then they would forget to feed us, too. That was a bitch.)

We couldn't leave. We had no where to go. We brought much needed labor and income to the group, so they really couldn't ask us to leave either. Nothing had been agreed upon in advance. Nothing had been put on paper. The situation just evolved. We flew by the seat of our pants on this, and eventually we made a mutually agreeable way to live without too much strife.

I know what it's like to live in someone's living room. I've slept in every room in this house, including the bathroom. The only private space -- mine and no one else's -- was contained in a little box with a little lock. That's all I had, and it was enough for a kid. It wouldn't be enough for an adult. That's why I asked the questions. What is enough for an adult, and for how long? How do you balance the needs for control -- that's it, control -- among a diverse group of adults in a stressful situation? When the chips are down, even the best of us get angry and hard to live with. Someone's baby crying a minute too long is enough to cause a terrible fight, for example. It wouldn't really be anyone's fault, but it would be the trivial thing that sets us off.

Thom is an honorable person. I can tell this from his post. He would stand by any agreements he made, because he obviously expects others to do the same. I can't help but think the people he sheltered all winter might not really put in their time in the garden. They might not leave the house when they're expected to. I wonder if he would end up with enemies within?

"'Gratitude' is a euphemism for resentment. ...The Japanese have five ways to say 'thank you' -- and every one translates as resentment, in various degrees." -- Jubal Harshaw in _Stranger in a Strange Land_ by Robert Heinlein.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 03, 1999.


helen -

a question of related interest: what are the criteria for turning away refugees? If you decide to turn away refugees, can you enforce that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~ general thoughts

is the refugee one person or a family?

is it a larger group of people wanting refuge?

what is the emotional tone of the one or the group?

are there weapons?

are there any who are obviously ill?

are they bringing resources?

do any have skills?

what are my resource levels versus the particular timeframe?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that the homeowners/landowners rights in respect to the rights of refugees will be dependant upon the homeowner. The situation will be complicated by the area's density of houses, available water, road accessability, whether or not the homeowner can actually take in refugees in light of the homeowner's actual space, on level of prep, and gardening facilities. The climate and time of year will be factors, as will available drinking water.

If one still has neighbors, even if they are a quarter or half mile away, and those neighbors are still around, one would assume that your house has been in contact with their houses, if nothing else than for mutual emergency help and protection - what will the neighbors feel if suddenly you have several people living at your house, none of whom you knew prior to their knocking on your front door? Taking in refugees could become an action quite detrimental to your local political stability and local support network - or it might not.

If you are in an area where there are refugee streams, you can almost count on with certainty that there will be contagious diseases and severe psychological problems. Either of these could very easily overwhelm all of your own prep and you & your homebase. Food and water and shelter will be at a premium.

If you live in a more remote area, a refugee just might be a neighbor you warned months or years ago to prepare.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Each one of us must face the reality that if there are refugees that means that major infrastructure(s) have collapsed. How do the surrounding communities, farms, ect. absorb the potential MILLIONS from each of the major cities. Even smaller cities have hundreds of thousands of people.

It is my estimation that the first refugee pulse wouldn't last very long. In part the length depends upon geography and season of year. However if any major or even medium urban area collapses, those millions of people will immediately experience severe psychological shock compounded by lack of water and food. These conditions will prove ripe media for Plague. Once the people begin dying, Plague moves into a condition of positive feedback. . . So one could estimate that the initial refugee pulse would last at most perhaps 2 months, perhaps considerably less. Once again the time frames must take into consideration the seasonal conditions when the refugee pulse takes place.

There will be survivors from the initial pulse. These will be the people who were lucky(?), or came from a less populated clot of humanity. In addition there will be those who are rural, whose 3 weeks or 6 months, whatever, of prep is now used up and they must hit the road. Disease will still be somewhat of a problem, but within this second pulse of refugee I would expect some organization into survival groups, some of which will be quite armed, some of which will not. I figure that the 2nd pulse will be the more dangerous overall, barring Plague in the 1st group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How to set up house so you can take in refugees? What are their rights? How long will you let them stay? Can you and yours enforce your will? How vulnerable is your infrastructure - can your beans and rice easily be stolen, can the garden be trashed in retaliation, can your jars of home canned food be easily broken, can they steal your livestock, or worse just kill it, how vulnerable are your tractors, caterpillars, rototillers, is your stored fuel safe from stealing or just plain old vandalism, do you have a hospital room or building for the Plague victims, if people or animals die can you take care of their bodies, is your water well and storage tank open to vandalism, what about your windmill and solar panels?

Lots of questions and each of us possibly may have to assess our own situation.

Many of us may become refugees even though we have prep'd for a 10 lasting 20 years. (or less ;-) )

In my evaluation severe psychological stress brought on by unavailable services and by withdrawl from normal, technologically enhanced, day to day routines, will be exeraserbated by lack of clean water, adequate sewage disposal, and finally lack of, at first failure of JIT food, then failure of the Food Chain, will scrape off the veneer of WestCiv for a while, and will open the population to extreme die-off due to disease, violence running a very poor second.

If this two pulse refugee scenario developes I do not plan on accepting, in house, refugees from the first pulse. If any come by during the second pulse they will be evaluated according to skills levels, whether or not I know them, their health, their physical ability, whether or not they seem ready to settle down, whether or not they are beligerant, what their history was during the 1st refugee pulse, their psychological state, are they leaders or followers, etc.

That screening process _may help, but who knows?

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), September 03, 1999.


your house,your rules,search and disarm anyone comeing into your house

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 03, 1999.

If a refugee fufills the basic requirment of contributing to the survival of the group that may end up at my home they can stay. This means maintaining and/or expanding our ability to support people. Issues that do not threaten the systems that support the group may be voted on. Only the people who run the systems we depend on have a say in what happens to those systems. This is because they provide expertise.

If we have a complete breakdown and the refugees become long term residents we will have passed the reliance on preps and move in to the self supporting community stage. At this point refugees turned citizens in eyes_openville will have availaled thmeselves to my extensive library and start a new trade. I abdicate my throne after they all move out to surronding structures and we form some sort of government. Let the voting begin. (Note to Chinese: These votes won't be for sale.)

Good Luck and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), September 03, 1999.



As an older single woman, my refugee issues could be slightly different. I can see at least one former "friend," and possibly a former spouse showing up unannounced. Gender hierarchy and roles would come into immediate play.

One of the issues here is how a woman can say "no" to larger refugee men with whom she has had prior relationships or share parentage with her children. The other more subtle issue is whether permission for housing implies (1) surrender of control over the household; and (2) acceptance of refugee as a mate. Another, god forbid, is the problem of having more than one male seek refuge.

OOO, yucky, don't want to think about this one - lol.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 03, 1999.


Ed brings up several different definitions of a refugee. And his various definitions will make interesting topics for other threads. But, right now, I'd like to focus on the "guest" situation that Helen wanted to talk about with us. Ann, for one, seems to be annoyed by my complaints. And, Thom, good mannered (absolutely), as he is... has chosen to quietly suffer my awkwardly worded, first response to his thoughtful suggestions. Thom, I have no beef with you-- not yet, at least. [grin]

There is some cultural baggage to get into. Most Americans today don't live in a mutliple-family house occupied by an extended family. Some have never had to live in that kind of situation. Others have probably not shared their living quarters with non-family for any extended period of time. Fewer, I assume, have ever had to be the unwelcome guest. In fact, this may be a conversation that may give us insight into the possibility or impossibility of reconstituting an extended family.

Not to pick on Thom, but he writes, "Anyone who is not a family member is some form of guest who should understand that private rule structures are in place. Not a democracy." This is a very reasonable statement, but if we get into the details, we *might* have to come up with some work arounds to the private rule structures-- perhaps, work arounds for those those rules that are extensions of personal neuroses and other personal problems not worked through. Hey, you never know!

Of course, your immediate family (spouse and/or child(ren) may patiently suffer your indignities. They love you. But if you are going to take responsibility for other human beings (and you do become responsible for them when you invite them to stay with you), you may need to re-evaluate what's going on in your home, right now. The home, we might all admit to some degree, is often under the rule of a tyrant. That would be you or me-- depending on whose house we are talking about. [grin]

If your spouse or child(ren) are second-class citizens today, spare some stranger, friend, or relative a lot of grief. Just tell them you are a SOB and that they will be second-class citizens in your castle. In other words, don't try to be something that you are not. If you are one of those intolerable human beings incapable of recognizing the dignity and personhood of others, are you trying to improve yourself? Become a better Christian or whatever? Change doesn't happen easily.

Something to think about until I can continue.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

P.S. My apologies to Thom if the above reads to him or others as a personal attack. It is not meant to be.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 03, 1999.


Moving on to Thom's next example: "I may let a neighbor's family live in our living room for 3 months..." Let's take this further. Ralph lets his neighbor's family (George's family) live in his living room for 2 months. George has a wife and two children (ages 7 and 16). Ralph has a wife and three children (ages 5, 9, and 15); there is a master bedroom, a bedroom for each of Ralph's kids, Ralph's library, a living room, a dining room, and a utility room.

Ralph is not going to rearrange things. George and his wife don't get any privacy nor does George's teenage daughter. It seems like there are going to be a lot more problems at Ralph's house than there might have been-- if Ralph had put his 5 and 9 year olds in one bedroom, put George and his wife in one bedroom, put his 15 year old son in the library (I'm assuming there is a fold out couch there), and put George's daughter in his son's former room.

So Ralph is Lord of the manor and he, his wife, and his privileged children can intrude on George and his family in the living room at any time and later retreat to their rooms. While George and his family may be appreciative for some shelter, the disparities are obvious and Ralph almost seems to be rubbing George's nose in it. But, hey, if George and his family don't like this ungracious arrangement, they can go elsewhere, right?!

After all, George didn't prepare for Y2K; he deserves what he gets, right?!

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 04, 1999.


Ann,

Is your heart two sizes too small? [grin] Had a tough life? I know. Now, it is time to scrub the callous that is tight around your heart.

As for people in Turkey, you got it all wrong. Ponder this paragraph:

"'When are they going to come and help us? When we are all dead?' cried Zeyfettin Kus, who stood in front of a collapsed apartment in Izmit, Turkey where three neighbors had been buried."

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 04, 1999.


Stan, My heart isn/t two sizes too small, and I've spent the last 9 months preparing to feed and house as many people as my house will hold. Our finances are gone in preparing for this, but I have a vast amount of food and a big house, and we are prepared to welcome anyone. On the other hand, while we are certainly going to welcome input from others--and trust me, I am VERY teachable on these things--somebody has to make the final decisions on what happens in our home. We have six children. Four of them were adopted within a sixteen-month period of time. While we knew these kids well--and loved them--long before the adoption, it was incredibly stressful to assimilate the kids into our family. All of a sudden, we had two first-born sons who both felt that they had the rights as first-borns, and two "babies of the family" with the rights which came with that rank in the family. While I believe in my heart in all of the noble things you are saying, there can really be only one captain of the ship. I would certainly divvy up the rooms fairly so that various families had their own areas, (and we have even made arrangements for THAT in our home!). There has to be an acknowledged "final decision-maker. As it stands right now, we have three handicapped kids, and are expecting my elderly mother-in-law ((the best mom in the world!), who happens to be oxygen-dependent, and my wheelchair-dependent elderly bachelor uncle with narcolepsy and cardiac problems. The other issue here is that people in refugee situations look for a leader to help them feel secure. Children and even adults don't do as well when there are multiple authority figures all claiming to be in charge of a situation. If you have a cardiac arrest in the emergency room, it is a crisis, and you definitely want somebody to lead the "code" to save your life. The fallout from Y2K could be a crisis as well, and somebody needs to guide. We intend our guidance to be Godly, gentle, and with the attitudes of being servants, not tyrants. I hope that this helps!

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), September 04, 1999.


Why not do a 24 hour volunteer hitch at a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen. See for real how it is done and managed. After all, you seem to discussing exactly what they do today...

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), September 04, 1999.

BH has a very good idea. There are differences between people chronically in that situation and people who have never 'been there, done that'. Someone who has worked with suddenly displaced groups of people might have a different take on the psychology involved. It sounds like a hybrid situation.

We will ALL be dealing with anger. I think that how we manage anger will govern our survival.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 04, 1999.


Marsh -- have you ever heard of a 'three-dog night'? :)

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 04, 1999.

I know that I'm from the bardou school,but,if you try to feed the starving masses,you will become the starving masses.I am not my brothers keeper.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 04, 1999.

I don't think I would have as much problem dividing the house for family as for outsiders. I could hold my own in the head of household gender equity issue there. We would just have territories and three heads of household (my parents and my sister and family.)

It is interesting, but because the tie between families is based on the strong intra-family relationship among females, I think we would have a better chance at success. (We have already done our joisting for hierarchy over the years and have ended up as equals. The only problem might be my daughter or one of the son's wives asserting for a new family in the future.) The actual hierarchy of decision making in each separate sub-unit of family would not come into play except in ruling that family's private territory.

The main problem there would be three cooks in the kitchen and dietary differeneces. I believe this is why Mormon houses had more than one chimney - lol.

As for a "three dog night," or "Paint Your Wagon" scenario, although it may sound titilating to you in concept, it ignores the testosterone in play. This has more to do with dominance over territory than anything else. In this particular situation, I do not think that with two males involved, my equality in participating in a contest over ruling the territory would even be acknowledged. It would probably take an equalizer like a firearm to assert that level of dominance.

I would prefer to remain head of household over my own territory until I chose to voluntarily relinquish it to another. (This is what would generally be expected in a traditional male/female family type relationship.)

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 04, 1999.


There are some similarities to working at a homeless shelter, but unfortunately, there is one huge difference-- the volunteer gets to go home at the end of the day, instead of living there all the time. I've spent many hours working at a homeless shelter, a clinic for street people (including many alcoholics, people with AIDS and other STD's, rapists, hookers, etc.), and also as an outreach nurse for migrant farm workers. It's terribly tough being homeless, and we all have a lot to be thankful for. In a strange way, the situation we're talking about here is not homelessness, but a step above it. If I open my home to refugees, they now HAVE a home, albeit one where they may not feel entirely at home. If a open my home to people, I want them to feel that they have choices in how they live, what they eat, etc. However, because it is the home of my family, we have to reserve the final decisions on serious issues for ourselves. For example, we are evangelical Christians (similar to Mennonites.) I would welcome Muslims, Mormons, motorcycle gangs, or other groups to my home as long as they understand that we worship Jesus. I would even allow them time and space to worship as they like, just so that what they do does not infringe on the character of our family. (No cursing, no drugs, no requirement that we worship Allah, etc.) If a family is extremely uncomfortable with that, they can stay, or they can leave. As long as a person has choices, they are not completely destitute. As Susan Conniry has said, we need food, water, shelter, and fire. Everything else is just extras, and if I'm a long-term guest in the home of another, receiving what I need, I need to be grateful for that, as well as willing to alleviate some of the stress on my host.

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

No, I am not making Mormons, Muslims, and motorcycle gangs equivalent in my thinking, nor am I singling out any of the above three groups. I'm just giving out three examples which are quite different spiritually from where we are. (sigh) ;)

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Ann,

Your follow ups are outstanding and thoughtful replies. I had a gut feeling you were holding back from speaking from the heart. Thanks.

Zoobie,

You write: "I am not my brothers keeper."

No one is talking about feeding the starving masses. We are talking about taking in a family or similar. But I seem to remember (perhaps, not well) that when you got to this forum and were worried about what would happen to you, several people offered to help you out as best they could. I'm sorry that such kindnesses did not inspire the same in you.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 04, 1999.


This is not aimed at Ann. It's just a little insight into my position.

I once let the recommendations of a nurse seriously weigh in on my decisions about a non-family guest (staying in my home) that had some very serious problems. The nurse had years and years of experience at homeless shelters, mental health clinics, etcetera. I regret having acted more on her professional insights than my heart. And when she heard how it had turned out badly, this church-going nurse said with a little smile, "It's not your problem, Stan! You need to worry about you."

Wrong. Wrong. A thousand times, wrong!

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 04, 1999.


Stan, I think you would benefit from an alanon meeting or two.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), September 04, 1999.

One might get the impression that I don't recognize a "role for" and "importance of" authority. On the contrary, I am a fan of the book, A General Theory of Authority, by Yves Ren-E Marie Simon. I recommend it highly. I also recognize the role and importance of leadership, but I would emphasize that the organizational structure of a high performace team will be in part non-heirarchical. I contend that a good team of talented individuals that is well led will outperform a group with the same talent that runs from the top down. What this has to do with actual property ownership (in terms of anything less than a 10 or for a relatively short period of time), I don't have the foggiest. I don't quite understand why some would assume that I think property should be divided up and contracts signed everytime someone comes to spend the night or stays for longer. If I really liked the idea of a commune or kibbutz, I'd be living in one. [laughing] However, if you are going to invite people into your home for whatever reason, please do so with love and responsibility.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 05, 1999.


I'm trying to sort all of this into a plan. We're remote enough to avoid the 'first pulse' of refugees from cities. Unfortunately, we're not immune to attack from unprepared locals. Most of the people we expect to land here -- and in spite of many conversations, not one person who expresses an interest in coming here has actually made plans to do so -- most of them are either relatives or friends. The other 'extra' people may be relatives and friends of the invitees.

We know most of our neighbors in this rural area. Most of them are self-reliant in normal times and may need only minimal help to remain in their homes. Most of them will be overwhelmed with their own families showing up unprepared.

There is a tribal concept pf society called 'moiety'. I don't have my sources with me to be specific, but moiety is a set of rules governing who may enter what space and use which resources based on which clan you belong to and what position you hold within your clan. The Plains tribe I studied used these types of rules to keep the peace with several families living under the same roof. There is also a concept that a dangerous society breeds polite manners.

I dunno. I'm afraid we're going to wing it. Hope everything turns out ok.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 05, 1999.


Stan: Family brings family, brings family. It's like winning a big lottery, you have relatives and friends you never knew you had. Relatives and friends who you thought were your friends could and will become your enemy. Refugees should be sent on their way. I enjoyed Ted Kucinski (spelling?) essay called "Ship of Fools." It's a good analogy whereas if you took in people on your ship (home), how your guests would all start complaining and demanding more of the captain (you), and the iceburg would be the total collapse of your ship (your home). The minute you invite people into your home, you are asking for trouble. Are you prepared to tell them to hit the road and are you prepared to handle them if they seek revenge? And zoobie is right, I am not my brother's keeper.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 06, 1999.

Bardou,

So you are not your brother's keeper: just another heart two sizes too small. Whatever. Take care of your self. I wish you well, anyway. So you really don't care about what's right and what's wrong. So you're going to take care of yourself. But do you really want to get into it with me? I still remember very clearly the fine (not!) advice you were giving out when I got to this forum. It was unkind, mean, and wrong.

I'd rather take my stand, shoulder to shoulder, with Mr. Decker and lose my life in in trying to preserve this republic than bugging out to the country side where I would suffer the likes of a couple little crabs that scuttle about here, mean little claws snapping at terrible imaginations. The snapping sounds like this: Me. Me. Me. It is no different than many other sounds that are made across this republic.

Sure, I have come to admire many men and women on this forum. But I tire of the hateful creatures that come and go, snapping their little claws with smart snapping sounds. If I remember correctly, you once told someone that it was too late to prepare and that they were going to die... that they might as well face that fact and give up. That was February. Some said you needed a rest. Though you rested, you're still mean.

We're not talking about a 10. We're talking about a 3, 5, and 6 or a 7, 8, and 9. We're not talking about opening up a homeless shelter or even a soup kitchen. We're not talking about being stupid or foolish. We are talking about understanding what it means to make and accept an invitation to family or a family. We are talking about how to do some small and gentle good in the face of someone else's misfortunes and loss.

Am I wrong?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

P.S. As for your questions, my answer is that I will trust in God to bid me do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.


There will be life after all this over, a chance to rebuild and feel a sense of victory that we were able to face this unique challenge and survive. But when it's all over, I also want to be able to feel good about everything that I did to survive. Was I still a good person, did I do things the way that my Lord would've wanted me to? I realize that I may have to do some things that won't feel right such as taking a life to defend my family. But I would never want to deal with the guilt of turning away my family or closest friends.

-- Kimberly Hott (ckhott@urec.net), September 06, 1999.

Stan--I don't care to get into it with you either, but I have the same opportunity as you for a rebuttal. Who are you to say what is right or what is wrong? If it is YOUR CHOICE to take care of refugees, squatters, whomever, that is your business, but don't lay this "right and wrong" guilt trip crap on everyone else. You see Stan, we have government agencies who take our money against our will to care for people in both nondisasterous (welfare), and disasterous situations. There are a zillion nonprofit agencies where they use donations to care for people in the same situation. It is my responsibility to take care of myself and my family. I don't want the government nor any nonprofit agency stepping into my life and having control over me. You see Stan, I saw first hand of what it's like to "take care" of people. I volunteered (can you believe that!?) in a shelter during the floods a couple years back. It's was terrible! Fights broke out, screaming kids, complaints about the food, sh*t smeared on the bathroom stalls, toilets backed up, garbage on the floor, flu epidemic, lice, and drug and alcohol abuse. If you think you can control people and have people act and react the way you think they should then go for it. But your touchy-feely will get you killed for sure. Your not defending the Republic, what Republic? When martial law comes into effect your freedom of movement will be nil.

I feel the same way as you do Stan, when the touchy-feely, bleeding heart liberals get on this forum whining and whimpering that everyone else aren't like them, they go flipping their lips and wringing their hands because someone has a different view.

That's right Stan, you remembered correctly. I did say that it was too late for someone to prepare and you know what, it's still too late! I started a very long time ago and I'm as prepared as I will ever be, and it took me 18 months and a whole sh*t load of money. But here's one thing I want you to REALLY remember what I am going to say here: "Piss poor planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on my part." So good luck Stan in taking care of the world, I don't care to partake. Only the strong survive. Bardou

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 06, 1999.


Bardou,

Do you have a crystal ball or a direct line to God? Myself, I will continue to assume that no one knows exactly what's going to happen. Whatever risks are posed by the Y2K problem, it is very important to make the distinction between risks and certainties (unless you really have a crystal ball or line to God). It may be a temptation to mistake a committment to serious preparation for the certainty that the end of the world is coming. So if your 18 months of preparations came at considerable expense, sacrifice, and emotional stress, I can imagine that you feel like the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket. Whether you are talking about inviting family (or a family) or anything else for that matter, you seem to insist it must be all bad.

What is right and what is wrong? There are many opinions on right and wrong. I contend that there is Truth and that right and wrong has not only a relationship to Truth but also an ontological relationship that involves us as agents responsible for our actions. Who are we? Who am I? What is our destiny? I also contend that right and wrong is intimately involved in our self-discovery and fulfillment as persons. Right and wrong refers to our actions, intellective and concrete. Unfortunately, our educations frequently lack a proper exploration and treatment into ethics and morality. Do you really want to get into what is right and wrong and why with me? Do we have the sincerity and patience to get into it? Why don't you start off with what you think.

We all flee from guilt, shame, and conscience with haste, the better foot before: liberal, conservative, and liberarian. To feel guilt is to have shame, but to be shameless is to lack a conscience. You feel a victim of the state because it demands money from you to take care of those who you failed to care for yourself. Look at it another way: you pay the state to take care of something you don't have the heart to do. But still, this does not loose you from the shame that you have failed to do good, yourself. Nor are you loosed from your resentiment that the Government takes away more and more of your hard earned cash. It's ironic that this touch-feely liberal (me?) is, in fact, a card- carrying conservative and my book made the conservative book of the month a few years ago.

You complain about the touchy-feely liberals (myself to be included, I assume) and how much noise we make about the heartlessness here. Early on, I met the racists on this forum, head on. Then, I proceeded to take on the heartless in general and deal with those trying to deaden their sense of right and wrong (as a preparation for any possible losses and horrors). You might agree with me that there is a scarity of character and personality... in the White House, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court... and, in all the other offices of government and business. The scarcity is not just there, Bardou, it is here as well. If all you can do is see just past your own nose, that's exactly the kind of people and bad attitutde that brought ruin upon the republic.

If my preparations are inadequate, it is not only not an emergency for you (did I ask you for help?!), but it isn't even reason for you to make a prayer for me (that's how mean you are!). That much is clear. So in your desire for change in your own personal life, you can go ahead and hope for the worst. But even if the worst comes, you would find that you aren't any better than when things were good. Because the real change that you so desparately hope that Y2K will bring to you cannot come from outside of you, it must come from within you. Your past will not be a slate that is wiped clean. Your baggage will still be there. All the people that you failed will still require an apology. All the people who failed you will still need to be forgiven.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.


FYI: Cro-magnum Man is extinct.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.

Stan, you are indeed a loving person. Please do not take offense at what I am about to say.

I have seen many such as you in alanon. They take everyone elses troubles on their back and try to fix everyone's problems. Some are self-sacrificing and forgiving to the point of martyrdom. Their illness revolves around control issues. Control over other people's behaviors. Common manipulative tools are guilt and shame. After a while, they finaly come to recognize this to be unhealthy and not the way that God intended us to live.

I do not plan to judge myself by your version of morality, Stan. Nor do I expect you to be judged by mine. You are a nice person. I am also a nice person, but I am not you and do not live by your rules. Get over it.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), September 06, 1999.


Bardou is right about how people behave when they don't have a stake in things, or expect to be cared for without work on their part, or if they object to being where they are, or if they're mentally ill.

We're minimizing our 'presence' where we are to avoid having to turn down strangers. We expect to be overrun by our relatives, friends, and neighbors...and THEIR relatives, friends, and neighbors.

I didn't mean for this to be a debate over whether it's right or wrong to take in extra people. I wanted to find a way to balance the needs of the extras with their responsibilities. I guess their responsibility to us is to work as hard as they can to keep themselves in line. The only way I see that happening is if they get a say in their daily life. I see the need for ONE leader, but I also see the need for some democratic control for the others. My questions are: How much control should they have and when should they view the situation as relatively permanent?

All of the answers all of you provided are right. I just need to find the right one for us. And quickly too.

I hope all of us make it.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 06, 1999.


Anon,

I'm glad I'm not one of those control freaks that you meet in your alanon meetings. [smile]

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that you know how God wants us to live. If you do know, that makes two of us. [grin]

I'm ok, you're ok. maybe. maybe not. I'm no saint, that is for sure. But just because I'm not a saint, that doesn't mean I don't have some understanding about what is right and what is wrong. If I understand something, however, it doesn't mean that the rules are mine. Nor does it mean that the rules don't apply to you. Not necessarily, that is.

Of course, you might be nice.

Being nice, however, is very different than exercising hope, love, or faith. Or courage, or prudence-- if you don't care for supernatural virtues. Maybe, my Christian ethic bothers you, so I am willing to contend that whatever meaningful ethic that you apply to yourself... buddhist, hindu, islamic, agnostic, atheist, etc. will bear striking similarities to how I understand right or wrong in human action.

Unless... it is not really a meaningful ethic. Then, you're back to square one. Michael Foucault, unfortunately, went down the road to death's door. He wasn't too happy, then. It's a hard lesson for some.

What, then, should I get over? What needs to be overcome? Morality?! That is not going to happen, anon. Not here. Not in me. And just as much as you have a right to saddle up on your deconstructed morality, I also have my right... and wrong. [grin]

This may be a bummer for you... but this is my village too. [smile]

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.


Helen,

The best advice I can offer is to pray on it. Good luck. God bless you.

Nudi nudum Christum Sequi! D

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.


Stan my friend: Do I have a crystal ball or a direct line to God?

Funny that you should ask a question like this, because all Christians have a direct line to God.

What is a risk and what is a certainity?

Everything is a risk and nothing is for certain except death and taxes. However, that doesn't stop me from planning for the future. Do you read the Bible? Read up on how they stored food for several years because the Lord told them there would be a famine and to prepare accordingly. I am not certain how things will turn out nor do you know either. However, how much and in what way I prepare is for me to decide. If me and a zillion other people are wrong, so what, I am a far better person for the experience. What makes you think the world is going to hell in hand basket? By the looks of the leadership and the moral values in this country I think you may be on to something there.

What is right and what is wrong? That's simple, what's right for me may not be right for you. Are you the judge and jury? But I like what you said, "we are responsible for our own actions." Now that's a profound statement, but very few believe it because they are too busy blaming other people for their actions. Here's an example: "I was abused, so therefore I abuse." "I should have more right's than you because I am purple." You ramble on about how our education lacks a proper exploration of ethics and morality. Nothing is absolute, so why even go down that road? We can look at all the religions in the world, and they all have a different set of values and morals. Some rules are so rigid that blind adherence to convention is something else entirely, something, in fact, which may be far more destructive to an individual than violation of the rules.

You said to have guilt is to have shame. I don't buy into that theory. I believe that guilt is learned at a very early stage in life and remains into adulthood. "God won't love you if you do that again." "You should feel ashamed of yourself." Guilt is an effective method for manipulating someone to behave in a certain way, to get their way. Religion is another guilt producer. Usually, it's God that you have let down and one big clencher to producing action is the planted thought that you will be kept out of heaven because you have behaved badly. For example, "You won't go to heaven unless you say your sorry for being a sinner," or "You've disobeyed one of God's rules and you should feel ashamed of yourself." So you see Stan, I can see right through all of your do good, guilt trip tactics that you so freely lay on people here. Frankly, I don't have to do anything for anyone, I have fulfilled what I think is my moral obligation to society. And that is, work harder because people on welfare are depending on me.

Your such a pompous judge of people, you don't even know me. From what very little you have heard me post, you have set yourself up as the superior judge of people. You'll never hear me going around beating my chest and saying "look Lord, I'm such a wonderful person, I'm glad I'm not like the rest of those people." Get a grip Stan, the more you talk about how good you are, the worse you are beginning to look.

I pity anyone who you would take under your wing in their time of need. You would find a way to clone them and mold them into little mindless Stans, and I feel sorry for anyone of them that would beg to differ with you for surely you would send them to hell. Bardou

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 07, 1999.


It is clear that many of us are struggling with a sincere desire to help our families and close friends, while at the same time ensure that our 6- or 12- or x- month stockpiles actually last as long as we need them to.

It's a simple fact of arithmetic that if you built your stockpile to feed 25 family members/friends for 12 months, it will only last six months if you end up feeding 50. Where I live, in the middle of the Canadian prairies, this would be a very serious problem. Winters are harsh (-35 for week-long stretches is common), snow is on the ground until the end of April, and frost is likely until the first week of June. What this means is our stockpile of food MUST last until July or August, which is our first opportunity to harvest a new crop.

Understanding this, I still cannot imagine turning anyone away from my door when it's -35. My husband and I struggle with this constantly. We have been preparing for Y2K for over a year, but few if any of our family members have done the same. We fully expect to have as many as 25 people in our home (mother, brothers & sisters & their spouse, nephews, nieces, sons & daughters-in-law) in addition to 15 cats and 4 dogs. Living will be "close" to say the least. But if even a couiple of our sisters-in-law or daughters-in-law arrive with THEIR families, our numbers could soar to 40 or more very easily.

How do we find a balance between the responsibility we have to care for the 25 people we planned for, and the equally important responsibility we have to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us"?

I suspect there is no balance ... that there is no way to survive a 9 and come out of it feeling good about all of the choices you made. I suspect that in order to survive you would have to make choices that would shame you and cause you to feel guilt for the rest of your life. ... I also suspect my husband and I won't survive.

-- Mary (mmcfarlane@galileocanada.ca), September 07, 1999.


You won't survive if you have already resolved in your mind that that is where you would like to be, dead.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 07, 1999.

Bardou,

If I were 90% sure of an Infomagic, I'd probably hole up with my kids and let everyone else starve -- I'm not a saint. "No one knows what will happen" has to be THE most frustrating phrase repeated daily. If there is hope of something less than an Infomagic, I really, really want to help rebuild. That would require helping others survive so we COULD rebuild. My grandparents survived two world wars and the Depression. They were a strange mix of harsh utilitarianism and open-handed generosity. My husband says if we're lucky, we'll find out why.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 07, 1999.


Helen--When I speak about what we are in for, on a scale of 1-10 I am a 9 and that's what I am prepared for. Anyone's guess is as good as mine. I live in the country and I am a better off here than in the city or burbs. How could my neighbors possible help me? This is the question my husband and I talk about often. When I first learned about Y2K and read everything I could get my hands on, I went around to my neighbors and talked with them. I handed out information, I was quite the crusader. I was met with all kinds of excuses and reasons why nothing was going to happen. One neighbor became a GI, but has now said that nothing is going to happen and have abandoned preparing. If we survive, we have to rebuild. But what can my neighbors offer in the rebuilding? Over 75% of my neighbors are over the age of 65, and one is 90 years old and he doesn't care, he has lived his life. I guess it all depends on the neighborhood and the type of people that live near you that have the skills to rebuild society. It's going to be a tough go and I'm going to do whatever it takes to survive. If my neighbors don't understand the seriousness of what could happen, and if they choose to bury their heads, then there's nothing more I can do for them because they refused to listen. Some people will die and that's just the way life is. The wars and the depression were something that people could not prepare for, they didn't have a 2-year warning like we have. I don't have the answers, I'm only doing what is best for me and my family.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 07, 1999.

Bardou,

Sound and Fury

Your cup of anger overflows. It's been tough going for you, I imagine. But you are a survivor. But what have you lost in order to survive? Is it a life that is an attempt at paradox? You say that there is no Truth, that there are no absolutes, that right and wrong are different for you and me. You tell people to look after themselves and that they are fools for doing otherwise (you proscribe an ethic of self; yes, you also moralize!), but you use a heavy hand to make light of my view of things; you demonize me, you deride my ethic of love, and you characterize my expression of opinions as a sinister and evil device.

What is Freedom?

I expected as much. As much as you hate liberals, the irony is that your arguments are completely identical to the arguments of liberals. Your mind is the same. Your conclusions may sometimes be different. While many assume that Freedom somehow means that you can do anything you like so long as you harm no one, I contend that freedom from love, responsibility, and relationship is not Freedom. No man (or woman) is an island unto hisself (or herself); his or her place is in relationship with others. We learn from each other (right and wrong), we act upon each other (well or badly), and in the most profound way, we create ourselves through our actions on ourselves and upon others.

More on Freedom

I propose (and I'm not the first to say this) that truly our freedom is not separate from the nature and fulfillment of the human person; it is integral to our very fulfillment. Freedom is the common good; it is an expression of the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. Nor does true freedom flourish without the wisdom, traditions, institutions, laws, mediating structures, and virtues that makes Freedom possible for all. Of course, a student of modern liberal thought might argue that freedom is prevented by the very structures and principles that I think makes freedom flourish.

Truth

If you have known the light that shines down from the cross, then, you have known that it is Truth. In that Truth, the command is to love God and your neighbor above all (to do so is the right thing to do and to fail it, wrong-- assuming that you are a Christian), but the command does not hesitate at that, but demands even more. So if you have fled from the Truth, if you have fled the sweetness of the commands of the Divine Law and the Natural Law in which the Divine Law is embodied, then... I can assume you got the wrong number. But I could be wrong.

Judgement

Myself, I do not set myself up as a Judge as you accuse. But I am able to make judgements. To make judgements is an act of the human mind that is basic to knowledge. I judge the existence of the green grassy lawn that I see from the window. The green grass is there; that is my judgement. I see it. I can go out and walk in it, barefoot. And I also make judgements about other things. Now, it is true to say that it is difficult to judge the actions of others with the kind of accuracy that you can come to certainty about their motives. However, it is easier to make judgements about the concrete actions of a man or woman according to principles of human action. Some things are always right. Some things are always wrong. Often, actions are wrong in principle. Divine mercy, however, is an entirely different thing. And *that* is out of my court entirely. I will make no judgements in that regard.

Right and Wrong

Yes, knowing what is right and what is wrong in a particular situation is difficult. It requires of us human prudence and/or divine wisdom (prudence is unnecessary of divine wisdom is abundant). So, yes, what will be right and what will be wrong in a particular situation may be different from one situation to another. However, the principles ever remain the same from one situation to another. Since you're apparently a fan of Bertrand Russell, you might read up on Aristotle's discussion of virtue in his "History of Philosophy" (or do you just quote people that you've never read? I'm assuming you don't do this). I continue to insist, however, that Frederick Copleston's history is the better.

An Example

For the present, I'll provide a brief example of what I mean. Courage is a virtue and never a vice. Courage is a principle that is the same for you and I. The attempt (or lack of attempt) to be courageous will be appropriate or not as the situation demands. One can be foolhardy and without fear which is a vice in that it exceeds the rationality of an act of courage. Or one can be a coward and overly fearful and this too is a vice in that it is lacking in the act of courage that is demanded in that situation. Therefore, we do have an ability to make a judgement about whether or not someone has done something right (shown courage) or wrong (shown foolhardiness or cowardice) in principle. Sometimes, we can also make a judgement about whether or not someone has been courageous or lacked courage in a particular situation.

Make sense?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 07, 1999.


Helen, one approach to your question might be to examine what is at stake for a particular household. Here in the frozen north, the needs of certain household members to stay warm, stress-free and contagion-free could be very limiting, in which case, very inflexible rules could be required to accommodate anyone else.

I have been struggling for the last year to resolve how to successfully take in one particular set of neighbors if our community were to lose electricity (and therefore heat). I have not found an acceptable (affordable) solution that would not jeopardize my elderly parents well-being.

I have taken significant steps to accommodate my immediate family. The whole point of my level of preparations was to keep my parents from going to a shelter. If I can help neighbors too, then great. But I will not expend considerably more resources and money to do so. And I will not expose my parents to the shelter type of stress and contagion that I am desperately trying to avoid.

The method I have chosen (wood stove) to heat my house will preclude the quiet and privacy that my parents would need with others living with us since the bedroom doors will have to remain open. (BTW, Im not looking for suggestions for heating the bedrooms - just trying to explain a scenario.) If I were to try to accommodate my neighbors anyway, it will be because they came knocking at the last moment. No time for them to gradually come to terms with what my familys limitations are. I also anticipate my parents will put themselves in danger by trying to be charitable. In my situation, I believe that protecting my parents requires me to play dictator and set the rules.

On the other hand, if my first priority were to people with far less stringent physical and emotion demands than my parents condition, then I think I could take in quite a few people. In that case, I think their need for dignity and respect would deserve a great deal of flexibility on my part as to what the house rules are.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.


Bardou -- around here we have mostly elderly neighbors in a rural setting. What they can offer beyond companionship is knowledge of a way of life that can't be learned as well from books. Our elderly neighbors have told us ways to do things that we hadn't heard of. They will help you, if you let them. They may need your help too. We told some of them about y2k and were met with a calm response that may look like they don't care. They have seen nearly everything that has happened in this country since the turn of the century, and they aren't afraid of y2k. I'm not urging you to take them in. I'm just pointing out that people are wonderful resources, and the elderly are foremost in that area.

Brooks -- We're in your boat with grandparents. The best we can do is keep the noisier kids and adults in another area. We have an extra wood stove for that reason. Most of the people we expect will be able-bodied enough to help with the work. None of them view us as leaders, unfortunately, or they would have listened to us when we urged them to prepare. :)

On good days, I look forward to the challenge. Today is a good day.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), September 07, 1999.


interesting thread, lots of views expressed.

reminds me though of "everything is fine in this box".

imo, this thread is no different than others in which some try to get others to understand the interconnectedness of our world life support systems. Some people see it, some people don't.

in this thread the concept of y2k refugee is so abstract that people are able to talk about it as if none of the calamaties attending refugees exists. it is as if, well i have my prep done and a little extra space, now how can i help others -- fine in and of itself -- totally blindered from consideration of the psychological and psysiological states in refugee.

this isn't a game for getting points on being a nice person, altho it is always nice to be thought of as a nice person i suppose. in talking about refugees, especially those generated by y2k systems collapse, i suggest that perhaps the focus become a little more broad than has been exhibited so far in this thread.

a collapse in life support systems, and that is what we are talking about if we are talking about refugees, is way different than talking about taking in a relative because of xxxx reason. if it is for xxxx reason more than likely it is a 3 or 4 as Stan mentions. in my book that isn't refugee, more like an extended family, extras taken in somewhat temporarily due to physical circumstances.

y2k refugees is another story. in that case, a 3 or 4 is wishful thinking. y2k refugees would likely entail people in the millions streaming out of cities. it would likely entail lack of petroleum, food, communication, transportation, electricity, water, sanitation, health care, shelter, probable knee jerk violent govt intervention. y2k refugees will likely be suffering from severe psychological problems due to the fact they can't flip a switch and turn on a light bulb, their fave game show is gone, their JIT food is gone, they don't have a good understanding of what is going on & they feel the world is out of their control, they will be doing silly things like not boiling water, lighting hibatchies in their 50 floor apartment. they will leave their home talking absurd items such as a laptop computer rather than water and food. in other words they won't be acting rationally.

let's get real here if we are talking y2k refugees.

if we are talking a few people here and there needing help from neighbors or relatives, up to and including several months shelter, i just don't characterize those people as refugee.

refugee has connotations of large regional complete population displacement due to lack of life support or threatening situations within that region. & if anything has been proven over the past few decades, refugees completely overwhelm the region they move into. not only does shelter become in short supply, but so does water, food, sanitation, and good health. critical shortages.

this is a good thread, but lets make it a little more usable.

this is about personal survival.

how does one survive a wave of refugees, scared, diseased, dieing, violent, apathetic, cold, hungry, in want of normality? a wave of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions. the joint canadian & usa march water report estimated as high a number as 30M without water, and that was if the iron triangle stayed up. the Navy report, prior to cleansing indicated similar implications. Big cities, big problems for the surrounding regions. the reports and testimonies are legion pointing to the direction of major large city failures.

maybe that is why the thread is really only serious about examining a 3 or 4 scenario hit. it is much easier to talk about morality and ethics and religious beliefs and personal householder rights, than it is to talk about dealing with the potential of all of us, except those who are very remote & lucky, being completely overwhelmed and the necessity of our making contingency plans,,, just in case, of course, :-O ,of _us becoming part of the refugee stream.

isn't it all in the final analysis an attempt for each of us to create at least the illusion of control over our environment and personal life in the face of what is a very considerable unknown?

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), September 07, 1999.


Mitchell,

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between extended house guests and refugees. A different set of questions and answers presents itself for each. If refugees are stampeding, will everything under foot will be trampled: towns, homes, crops, etc.? Will survivors of the stampedes join these herds as they move city to city, bringing towns and cities down under the new load, leaving nothing in the wake?

If a city like New York City goes down for the count, wave after wave of refugees will pour out, going north, south, and west. As what is left in the city (food, water, etc.) dwindles, a new wave would pour out of the city. And it is possible that this could happen in a number of cities even if Y2K hits the U.S. in the 6-7-8 on average. Of course, if it happened in enough towns, the results would be the same.

Batten down the hatches, run, hide, or put up your sign for a soup kitchen? I think the answer is not the latter. But this may mean a 10 is impending-- it just being a matter of time. And so we would find ourselves trying hard to survive until there is a significant die off in order that we can find others to work together for a common good and a common defense against misfits who have no need for society.

Will the mind click into survival mode: the ends justifies the means? For most, yes. Will those who do what good they can and avoid as much evil as possible, die? Not necessarily. Some might think goodness and foolishness are the same thing. Goodness, however, is a measure of our prudence. Prudence is an intellectual perfection characterized by one making good decisions about how one should act in a situation.

Goodness, therefore, will continue to serve you well come hell or high water. Or Y2K.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 07, 1999.


Along the same lines of this question, I'm wondering how to properly treat refugees (or displaced family members, friends or neighbors). We have a 30 x 80 foot block barn with 7 horse stalls. We currently have chickens and goats in the barn, but have been fixing up a portion of it to possibly house people. We've seperated off the back section where there is a wood burning cook stove and it's about 30 x 20. Which is almost as big as my house! We have a family of 8 in a 1600 square foot home and there won't be much room at all for anyone here. We also have a 12 x 12 wood shed with a loft that could be converted into a space for someone. Although, it will at least give someone a degree of privacy, I guess I'm struggling with how humane it is to have someone actually living in a barn especially while it will also be housing some livestock.

-- Kimberly Hott (ckhott@urec.net), September 07, 1999.

marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net)said:

One of the issues here is how a woman can say "no" to larger refugee men with whom she has had prior relationships or share parentage with her children. Marsh: If your children are old enough, and if they live with you, the issue of whether you owe shelter to their father should be discussed with them. If they have their own homes, one of them can assume the responsibility. Although I'm generally a peacenik, the issue of how to say "no" is simple. Politely at first, at the end of a large-caliber gun with which you have trained in defensive shooting if he refuses the polite answer. The other more subtle issue is whether permission for housing implies (1) surrender of control over the household; Not a chance! If there's the possiblity of this, don't let him in at all. (2) acceptance of refugee as a mate. Ditto! If these guys are "exes" by virtue of ghaving tried to control your life in the past, then sure as the world they'll try to control you again. Learn to defend yourself!! (Can't tell I've worked with domestic-violence survivors, can you? )

Another, god forbid, is the problem of having more than one male seek refuge. Unfortunately, there may not be much you can do about this one.except lay low and make your place look uninhabited. Marsh: They're "former" friends for a reason.

-- Lisa K. Deeds (ldeeds@kumc.edu), September 08, 1999.


Kimberly,

If there's no room at the inn, a barn has been acceptable in the past.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 08, 1999.


Thanks Lisa ! That was a great answer!!!!!

Both kids are tweenies still. Quasi-adults, but not yet established in their own households.

I did take a heavy-duty 4 day self-defense course once from a female blackbelt in judo. I have been trying to decide whether to get a revolver and take that course. [I am qualified with a rifle, but not a shotgun or revolver.] Too bad the forum chats were so early - was always commuting when they were in progress and missed the second one on guns.

I think you have helped me decide. When I have saved enough, I will purchase a gun. [Just have to figure out what kind.] It is not the ever having to use it that is so much the issue. It is having the psychological benefit of confidence in having one and knowing you know how to use it responsibly. I would prefer my actions to be motivated from reason and by choice and not from buckling under to fear, intimidation or guilt.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 08, 1999.


Owning ones own property with house i akin to being the owner-captain of one own boat, whether big or small. The ultimante responsibility of the safty of self, boat, and crew falls to the captain. A good captain can do this without being a tyrant, but he must be willing to make the hard decisions, however unpopular if he knows that is in the best interest of the above. A good leader never really needs to order, but is able to motivate others into doing what is best by allowing them to think of the idea. But when the ship is in threat of sinking, orders do some times need to be shouted loud and clear and the hell with popularity, "Man those pumps and pump like you life depends on it, for it does!!"

So to answer the orginial question, yes everyone has a voting right in my household, but my wife and I hold veto power over all votes. The more responsiblity others take, the less I need to worry about.

-- chicken farmer (chicken-farmer@ y2k.farm), November 04, 1999.


This may be tangental to the refugee/family thread, but if anyone has any coments I'd appreciate them. What about the ocean of "divorced" people with one or the other ex- spouse having custody of the children. There are clear scenarios where the custodial spouse may not take Y2K or any of this seriously. The other spouse may have formed new relations, or not want to "assist" the ex-spouse nor "live" with them in the same shelter during a crisis. Anyone else facing issues like this? direct or thread. Thanks Lance

-- Lance (lhagood@mail.utexas.edu), November 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ