Recently, and with good reason, there has been a lot of news surrounding the topic of Hurricane Ike. A storm so viscous, that it left upwards of 50 people dead, millions without power, and damages far beyond repair. "The specific arguments that are currently circulating about a particular issue play an important role in creating kairos" (Crowley, p. 53). Kairos, as I discussed in a previous blog, are moments of opportunity that invite rhetorical responses. In this case, Hurricane Ike is a perfect example of a kairo because its surfacing opened the floor for numerous arguments to take place. A common topic of rhetoric in the news recently has been arguments presented for staying behind or evacuating areas such as Galveston, TX despite persistent warnings.
Many people ignore evacuation orders, based on a variety of reasons. Some may not have anywhere to go, some may not have heard the warnings, if they are hearing impaired for example, and others may have decided to wait out the storm http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/culture/2008/09/15/why-people-ignore-hurricane-evacuation-warnings.html.
On the other hand, many people evacuated upon the orders because it was explicitly stated that those in the path of Ike would face"certain death" if they did not leave http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/hurricane.ike.texas/index.html.
It is possible for arguments to be made for either side, both leaving or staying, but I believe that it would not have been smart to ignore orders such as these. Of course, it is a little different if someone does not have the money or transportation to leave than if they are just choosing to stay and tough out the storm. Clearly Ike was not something that would just blow over. People were warned of the power of Ike and ordered to evacuate, so choosing to stay in harms way does not seem logical to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment