OT New Orleans
09-10-2005, 02:05 PM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:39:06 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:05 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:39:06 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:05 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:39:06 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>So what's the crack on New Orleans ? Is it an administration screwup in not
>rescuing the people more efficiently or just an inevitable catastrophe as a
>result of building below the water table ?
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
The 'big picture' is that New Orleans should not exist in its present
location at all. In hurricane country, surrounded by water and
partially below sea level all suggest that New Orleans is a very
dangerous place to live.
In the US, the Federal government has no say in where people may or
may not live. If populations settle in poor locations, it is up to
that population, in concert with their local and state governments, to
provide the infrastructure necessary to protect and preserve public
health and safety.
New Orleans and Louisiana have failed miserably in that regard. They
have not built the levees and sea walls sufficient to prevent
catastrophic flooding despite billions of dollars of federal
assistance and they cannot protect against hurricane winds and
flooding produced by hurricanes.
With one and half million people living in an inherently dangerous
location with inadequate protection from storm surges and no
protection from high winds and massive rains, New Orleans should at
the very least have had the contingency planning to provide food,
water and transportation sufficient to evacuate the area should the
inevitable hurricane wreak its destruction.
The above protective construction, and contingency plans, supplies and
transportation are the responsibility of New Orleans, Louisiana and
their citizens.
Yes, it is expensive, but that is a choice they made when they chose
to develop and build in the area. They have failed themselves when
they, through creeping development, did not prohibit that development
in at least the low lying areas.
Should the burden of those poor choices be ------ across the US
population as a whole? Should those folks in Iowa and Nebraska pay to
develop the sea walls and Levees that only partially protect New
Orleans? That is not our form of government, but if it were, the
folks in Iowa and Nebraska would have a say in development strategies
if only to avoid exposure to unlimited damages.
It is obvious to one and all that if a man chose to build his home on
stilts in the Gulf of Mexico (or Key West Florida, for that matter)
because he liked the view and fishing from his balcony, would not be
protected from his folly at the expense of those who make more
reasonable accommodations with Mother Nature. New Orleans is that man
writ large, as is much of eastern and southern US costal areas,
especially Florida. Los Angeles and San Francisco also fall into this
category as they thumb their noses at earthquakes.
The Federal government has no say, and should have no say, in where
people decide to build and live. With freedom, however, comes
responsibility. Do we want the Feds to prohibit mountain climbing,
deep sea diving, parachute jumping and other high risk activities? I
think not. Instead, the risk is borne by those who choose to
participate in such activities.
What exactly is it that the Federal government should have done in
preparation for this hurricane? Should they have prepositioned troops
and supplies? Where? Nobody knew where the hurricane was going to hit
or what damage it would cause. It would be the height of folly to
send troops and supplies in early only to have them become additional
victims of the storm.
Additionally, had the Federal government prepositioned near New
Orleans, the major population center under threat, it is quite likely
that those men and supplies would not have available to the citizens
of Mississippi and Alabama where the worst of the hurricane actually
struck. Flooding, downed bridges, loss of power, water shortages and
the like would have greatly hampered any rescue attempt even if the
prepositioned troops and supplies avoided a direct hit themselves.
It is impossible to react to a disaster before it has happened. What
is needed, where is it needed and how can it be brought there all must
be known before anything can be done.
Aside from shutting the doors on New Orleans years ago, the orderly
evacuation prior to the hurricane was the only reasonable alternative.
President Bush was reduced to begging Governor Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation on the eve of the hurricane, something the
governor should have done entirely on her own days earlier. The
evacuation, as we've seen was a failure because it was not ordered
soon enough and the city and state failed to provide transportation to
the large number of citizens who the local government knew had no
transportation.
Can the Federal government commandeer local resources and wrest
control away from local government? Of course not, doing so is against
the law. The Federal government can act only at the request of the
local government.
Should the Federal government surrender control of national resources
and troops to local government? Of course not, that is also against
the law. Imagine some loony governor given charge of the 82 Airborne
Division.
What usually happens is the governor of the state requests federal
assistance and then relinquishes control of local resources to the
Federal government. This is the only legal way to accomplish the
desired ends of both parties.
The above did not happen in Louisiana and New Orleans. Governor Blanco
was playing CYA with the lives of her citizens. This limited the
ability of the Federal government to act in this case, to the
detriment of all concerned.
What did the Federal government do despite these handicaps? They
shipped seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome on Monday,
the day the hurricane struck New Orleans. Another seven trailers
arrived on Tuesday. The Coast Guard reacted quickly, rescuing over
1200 people in the first two days. The Navy also supplied doctors and
medicine to the area to help the ill and injured.
The need for the evacuation wasn't known until the levee failure was
discovered later Monday. Prior to this time, the whole world was
breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst
of the storm. Rather than shipping 2.5 million pounds of food, water,
medicine and clothing each day to New Orleans, the relief effort now
had to be changed to the evacuation of the victims. A massive change
under dire circumstances. So much for the best laid plans of mice and
men...
Still, even at this late point, Governor Blanco had not declared a
state of emergency and had not yet authorized Federal assistance. The
Federal government, rather than acting without legal authority,
provided assistance through auspices of the Louisiana National Guard.
It wasn't until Wednesday that the Federal Government received the
authorization to act from Governor Blanco, though she stubbornly
continued to maintain control of the situation until as late as the
following Saturday, further hampering the Federal efforts.
By Thursday, the evacuation began in earnest, by Friday at least
60,000 people had been evacuated and by Saturday, the Superdome and
the convention center were emptied of the stragglers. Two and one half
days to gather the transportation, organize the destinations, supply
the food, drink and medicine for that number of people was a
remarkable achievement given the circumstances and lack of
preparedness and cooperation of the local authorities.
What seems to be taken as a given in this disaster is the authority of
the Federal government to fail to anticipate the path of the
hurricane, the location of its hit and the damage it would cause. We
could always say that the Feds should have anticipated the worst case
scenario and acted accordingly.
What was the worst case scenario? Had the hurricane veered west into
Galveston, Texas, what then? What if it had veered further east and
hit Mobile Alabama? What if it had continued straight into New
Orleans?
Planning and prepostioning for any of these alternatives would have
acted to the detriment of the others. As it was, supplying food and
water to a relatively intact New Orleans had to be switched to a full
eviction after the storm had passed and the levees had failed.
It was the massive failure, over the past decades, of Louisiana and
New Orleans to restrict the development and growth of their coastal
areas that is to blame for this tragedy.
Were mistakes made? Of course. Football, baseball, wars and
civilizations have always made mistakes, it is the human condition.
Was there any gross negligence or even just plain negligence in this
case? On the part of Louisiana and New Orleans, not just gross
negligence, but criminal negligence in my opinion.
How about the Federal government? They made mistakes, yes, but were
they negligent? No. They made a remarkable effort to clean up the mess
in short order.
What should we do now? We should remove the levees from Lake
Pontchartrain and restore the low lying areas to natural wetlands. We
should allow the Mississippi a natural way to flood deposit its silt
in the delta to keep it from sinking beneath the waters of the gulf.
Will this make New Orleans less populated? Of course, it should be
less populated. There is little we can do to protect New Orleans from
a direct hit of a category 5 hurricane. The levees won't help then.
Due to the extreme negligence of the local government, Louisiana ought
to be assessed the costs of the relief effort if only to discourage a
repetition of this disaster.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:27 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:21:45 -0400, "Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com>
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:27 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:21:45 -0400, "Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com>
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:27 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:21:45 -0400, "Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com>
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:27 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:21:45 -0400, "Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com>
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
wrote:
>Far be it from me to point fingers, afterall, I have as much experience in
>handling disaster management as Michael Brown. I will say however this
>disaster appears to be;
>
>1. lack of funding to prevent flooding (federal)
This is local, not federal. The responsibility for damage falls to
those who assume the risk. State and local planning must account for
these risks or foolish development will, and in this case did, occur.
The federal government's responsibility is management of the
transportation infrastructure necessary for national purposes. This
would include navigation of the Mississippi river, but not Lake
Pontchartrain.
>2. mis-management of insufficient funding (state)
To which I would add the massive failure to plan development in a
sensible manner.
>3. wait and see management style (fed,state,city)
You are correct when it comes to the city and state. The Feds acted
correctly, however. Why send troops, equipment and supplies where
they will fall victim to the hurricane or be unavailable had the
hurricane veered west only to hit Galveston?
>4. bureaucracy (everywhere)
>5. FEMA bungling
What bungling? This assumes that a disaster has no cost or at least
is avoidable. This simply isn't a reasonable assumption given that we
are but mere mortals.
>It seems to me the heroes in this affair have been Supt. Compass, Gen. Honre
>and their charges. Local, National and International volunteers. Countries
>around the world offering support including of all places Sri Lanka - still
>struggling from the tsunami. I have the mental image of someone in Sri Lanka
>watching the news and thinking 'why would they have a city below
>sea-level?'.
>
>It also pains me to admit this but the media has done a great job with
>coverage and foremost, reuniting evacuees. They still have their painfully
>obvious political agendas however.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:35 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:09:15 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:35 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:09:15 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
09-10-2005, 02:35 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT New Orleans
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:09:15 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>The failures of government in this disaster aren't recent, they are a
>culmination of the last 30 years or so, inasmuch as recognizing the need for
>building a levee to withstand a Cat 5 storm, competent evacuation planning,
>and the lack of motivation for federal response.
Building the levees to protect against a cat 5 hurricane are a state
responsibility. I believe the Federal government has been more than
generous in providing assistance in this regard. New Orleans is not,
and should not be, a federal responsibility. In any case, the levees
will not protect against the damage caused by a cat5 hurricane. The
city would have flooded from the rain, even had the levees held.
The Feds delivered seven trailers of food and water to the Superdome
the day the hurricane hit and seven more trailers the very next day.
The Coast Guard rescued 1200 people within the first 48 hours. In the
same time frame, the Navy provided doctors and medicine to treat the
ill and injured. Within two more days, the feeding and evacuation of
over 60,000 people had been accomplished.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com