


Ask Marilyn: Ignoring Evacuation Orders

Don Benson of Chicago writes:

Marilyn: With modern weather-prediction technology, we can give endangered residents plenty of warning ahead of a hurricane. Yet many people choose to ignore evacuation orders, and rescuers often risk their own lives to save them. Should those who didn’t evacuate have to pay for their rescues?

Marilyn responds:

No, and for many reasons. Here are just a few. First, we don’t require people to pay for other rescues caused by their risky behavior, such as entering a burning building to retrieve a treasured possession and then finding themselves trapped, or swimming when a beach has been closed and getting caught in a riptide. Second, the threat of paying for their rescue won’t stop people from staying home. They’re sure they’re safe! If they don’t believe the storm itself is a threat, they won’t believe a rescue could possibly be in their future. Third, people don’t need to suffer even more financial loss to learn from the experience of being saved—the fright will be more than enough.


tinselitis (noun)
a condition of excess holiday decor

nevergreen (noun)
a faux Christmas tree


The dealer for a game of bridge is interrupted by the teapot whistling. After everyone is served tea, no one can remember where she stopped. She suggests reshuffling and starting over. One player is a pain. He wants everyone to receive exactly the same cards that he or she would have received if the deal had been completed. The other players refuse to take the time to count their cards. Can the dealer accommodate him? (Bridge is a four-player game; all 52 cards are dealt.)

Answer: Yes. Say that the dealing had begun clockwise with the player to the dealer’s left. She should now take the bottom card from the remainder of the deck and give it to herself, then continue dealing to her right (counter-clockwise) from the bottom of the deck.



I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web